Sitting of 6 March 2002

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (BY ORDER)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on 13 March 2002.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Micro-credit Agencies
    Paddy Tipping: What support her Department gives to micro-credit agencies in south-east Asia. [37315]
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development Hilary Benn): Micro-finance services play an important role in enabling families to earn a living and reduce their vulnerability to poverty. In south-east Asia, working through the Women's World Banking programme and the Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest, we are supporting micro-credit programmes in the Philippines, Cambodia. Laos, Indonesia and Thailand. We are also directly funding a project in Vietnam working with a number of non-governmental organisations.
    Paddy Tipping: I am grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend confirm the importance of micro-credit agencies in helping to create sustainable infrastructure, especially when resources are focused on women and the poorest members of the community?
    Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Micro-finance is all about spreading the risk and helping people to earn income from a variety of activities. The average loan is very small—the smallest is about $30, the largest about $300—and between 70 and 80 per cent. of users of micro-finance are women, so it plays an additional role in improving their position in society.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I agree with the Minister that micro-credit agencies are an excellent way in which to spur economic development in poor countries. There is no doubt that Afghanistan is one Asian country in dire need of economic development. Given that that country is faced with starvation, does he share my
    272
    exasperation at reports of poppy growing increasing again and our apparent impotence in the face of that problem? What ideas other than micro-credit to get farmers to diversify production has the Department come up with to tackle that pernicious trade?
    Hilary Benn: The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the problem of the recurrence of poppy growing in Afghanistan. The whole House knows that the ultimate solution to that problem is to enable farmers for whom that is a source of income—for some, the only source—to find an alternative livelihood. Micro-finance and other methods of support offer ways in the long term to enable farmers to depart that trade and earn a living, as the whole House wants.

    Cameroon
    Mr. David Chaytor: What plans she has to assist poverty reduction programmes in Cameroon. [37316]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): In Cameroon our development efforts are focused on the forestry sector, which is crucial to Cameroon's overall economy and the livelihoods of a majority of poor people. We have worked in this sector for a considerable period and hope to provide support for a long-term forestry and environmental programme that is part of a strong poverty reduction strategy. That will require a greater effort by the Government to combat corruption.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. but is it not the case that 40 per cent. of Cameroon's population live below the poverty line and 29 per cent. are malnourished; and only 1 per cent. of gross domestic product is spent on health care, whereas 6 per cent. of GDP is spent on debt repayment? Will she argue the case for greater help from the international community for debt relief for Cameroon at the Monterrey conference later this month?
    Clare Short: Cameroon has been grossly misgoverned. Although there has been a lot of improvement recently, there was terrible corruption and misuse of own resources resulting in extremely poor health and education programmes for poor people. Such is the history of the country. Recent improvements include a better election, better management of the economy and better economic growth.
    Cameroon has qualified for considerable debt relief. I do not understand why those who lead the campaign for debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries do not celebrate the fact that 25 countries have now qualified and more than $50 billion of debt has been written off. That is a considerable achievement which in all the countries involved has leveraged much better economic management and social expenditure. That is what is happening in Cameroon. Things are improving, but there is a long way to go.
    Mr. John Baron (Billericay): Given that Poland receives twice as much aid from the European Union overseas aid package as Latin America and Asia combined, and that the top 10 beneficiaries are all countries that border the EU. I put it to the Secretary of

    273
    State that the Government could do far more to support the poor people of Cameroon by stopping the EU playing petty politics with the poor of the world, and by redirecting the £800 million a year we send to the EU to those countries that really need it such as Cameroon.
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. European Community total aid spending keeps turning further and further away from prioritising the poor: 70 per cent. went to the poorest countries a few years ago; that fell to 50 per cent., and it will be 38 per cent. this year. That is a disgrace and an outrage. That failure was not attended to in the past, before 1997. I have made it an absolute priority to expose how bad the position is and to secure a commitment to a reform agenda that is rolling through the EC, but we need stronger support from Foreign Ministers who like to use aid money for immediate political priorities, which is not the best use of the money. It should be invested in creating systems of government that improve countries' economies and provide services to their people. The hon. Gentleman is right: we still have a considerable problem.
    Ms Julia Drown: May I say that I think that there is agreement between my right hon. Friend and people campaigning for more debt relief? There is a celebration of everything that this and other Governments have achieved but, like her, those people believe that more has to be done.

    On Cameroon, does my right hon. Friend agree that in the time between decision point and completion point for heavily indebted poor countries there are particular problems which even the International Monetary Fund and World Bank have recognised? Changes in commodity prices mean that the help that Cameroon was to get has been reduced. At Monterrey will she push for flexibility to be built in for HIPC so that countries such as Cameroon benefit more and real poverty can be addressed?
    Clare Short: I certainly agree that the continuing fall in commodity prices is a serious problem for many heavily indebted poor countries, as was the rise in oil prices, although they are now going down. Long before Monterrey, we agreed at previous World Bank and IMF meetings that when countries complete their reform process and get their debts written off, we need to re-examine the formula for debt sustainability. If they have had a problem with falling commodity prices, they will need extra help to exit from their debt burden.
    Many people are saying that debt relief has failed, but it has not. The next tranche of countries that need assistance are largely in conflict—Sudan, Burma and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The capacity to deliver that relief might help to incentivise the making of peace. We must drive on with that, not start calling for debt relief for middle-income countries that do not need it.

    Tanzania
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If she will make a statement on the steps her Department is taking to help reduce poverty in Tanzania. [37317]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The UK is one of the major development partners of Tanzania, which has made significant advances in recent years. For example, the Tanzanian economy is growing at 5 per cent. annually and primary school enrolment is set to double this year.
    Mr. O'Brien: I join the Secretary of State in celebrating the qualification of a number of countries to the HIPC community. I think that the right hon. Lady would agree with me that Tanzania is one of the best examples of good governance and a commitment to democratic institutions, thus justifying our aid and trade incentives and debt relief to help health and education programmes. If we look nearby in Africa at the appalling example of Zimbabwe, how can we justify continuing to give aid to countries ruled by tyrants and dictators? The aid does not get to the people through their health and education programmes and is given at the cost of being able to continue to support countries such as Tanzania which have done what is required to justify that aid.
    Clare Short: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not been concentrating; Tanzania is making considerable progress but has had problems of governance and democracy in Zanzibar. As well as its serious corruption problems, its public financial management systems need strengthening, and we are trying to help in that regard. It is moving forward, but I do not agree that it is an example of perfect governance—it is an example of progress where more needs to be done.
    Zimbabwe is, of course, a total tragedy for all its people, with negative economic growth and terrible brutality in attempts to distort the election outcome. We have modified the way in which we provide aid to make sure that nothing is provided to the Government—we give help to the people of Zimbabwe. There is hunger in that agriculturally rich country and through the World Food Programme and other organisations we are helping to provide food aid to stop people going hungry.
    Zimbabwe also has a terribly high HIV/AIDS infection rate, affecting one in three adults. Zimbabwe's Government have not taken action, but we have a fairly big HIV/AIDS programme operating there. I do not think that the people of Zimbabwe should be sentenced to infection by HIV/AIDS because of their Government's neglect, or that the international community should do nothing.
    Mr. Andy Reed: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that in Uganda, for example, the programmes referred to by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) are in place and there is a direct link between debt relief and improving primary education. In meeting those millennium goals, is it possible to tie together more closely future debt relief programmes so that they link directly to the appalling state of public services such as health and education? We are leading by example, so will my right hon. Friend play a key role in ensuring that world partners meet the fantastic goals that we have managed to achieve? What steps can she take to encourage them to match our targets and bring their targets up to the same speed?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. Uganda set up a fund for its debt relief to make sure that it was spent on

    275
    the poor. We have done better than that in the enhanced HIPC initiative. In order to qualify for debt relief, it is now an absolute requirement on every country that it puts in place a poverty reduction strategy on which it consults all its people. That will combine the management of the macro-economy to make the economy grow and reduce poverty, and all the country's aid revenues and debt relief spent on bringing proper public services to the poor. The debt relief is thus leveraging massively better economic management and public sector programmes to help the poor, and doing that extremely well.
    It is true that the UK's programme is focused on helping countries to meet the international development goals. The Scandinavian countries are with us in that. We could increase by 50 per cent. the value of the $50 billion of aid that there is in the international system if everyone would focus it on the poor and back reformers. There is a lot to do.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State feel vindicated by the World Bank report on the air traffic control project in Tanzania, as that report suggests that she was right and her Cabinet colleagues were wrong, and suggests that the project was poor value for money and bad for Tanzania's development? Will she now try to re-open that issue in order to get the contract cancelled?
    Clare Short: The UK Government decided not to refuse a licence for the British Aerospace air traffic control system on the grounds that buying it would affect the sustainable development of Tanzania. There was a difference of view within the Government about that, but that is not the end of the matter. Before that, the Tanzanian Government had given a written undertaking to the World Bank board to review the contract in the light of an International Civil Aviation Organisation report which stated that the technology was extremely expensive and old, and that Tanzania does not have any military aircraft and could get a much cheaper modern civilian air traffic control system. The Government of Tanzania are still committed to that review, so the fact that the UK has issued a licence does not mean that Tanzania will necessarily buy the system. The contract is at present frozen and Tanzania must honour its commitment to the World Bank board. That was a condition of it completing its debt relief programme.
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what contact she has had with EU member states in order to tackle world poverty?
    Clare Short: I have frequent contact with EU member states about how we might better tackle world poverty. We have discussed how we might combine to improve the use of EC aid resources. Of course, the EU took a leading position at Doha on improving trading rights for developing countries. All of that is important. The money that we put through the Commission and the member states in development aid is 60 per cent. of worldwide overseas development aid, and the EU is the biggest market destination for the exports of developing countries.
    276
    By doing better, the EU could transform the prospects of developing countries. We are making progress but there is a lot left to do.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: It was brave of the Secretary of State to say publicly that if it were up to her, she would not have issued a licence for the sale of the air defence system to Tanzania. Does she agree that such a dispute at the heart of Government will discourage further private investment in places such as Africa? Does she also agree that it has undermined the credibility of the Government's policy of relieving debt in order to refocus those resources on health and education?
    Clare Short: One person's bravery is another person's recklessness, but I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comments. Disputes at the heart of Government are entirely healthy. Ministers holding different views and arguing them out is what Cabinet Government is all about, and long may it continue.
    I took a certain view on whether the licence should have been issued, but the hon. Lady might want to note that the power to refuse a licence because an arms contract might affect the sustainable development of a poor country was not in place under the Government whom she supported. It is a new provision introduced by our Government. I took the view that I did; Tanzania will make its decision in its own interests, but I do not believe that that argument in our Government undermines the prospects of investment in Africa.

    CDC Capital Partners
    Mr. Peter Duncan: What proportion of the investment of CDC Capital Partners last year was in poor countries. [37318]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): All of CDC's investment last year was in developing countries and 73 per cent. in poorer developing countries. CDC also met the investment policy targets in 2001. I remain strongly convinced that the conversion of CDC to a partnership dedicated to mobilising more private sector investment in developing countries is the right way forward and I strongly support the work of Alan Gillespie and his leadership team. This policy was of course fully endorsed by Parliament when the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 was passed with all-party support, although The Times journalist did not appear to know that the matter had been endorsed by Parliament and therefore put it on his front page.
    Mr. Duncan: The Secretary of State will recall that the Opposition said that investment in the poorest countries would decline and it gives us no pleasure to point out that, sadly, that has borne fruit. What will she say to the poor and vulnerable farmers in sub-Saharan Africa who see investment programmes in agriculture cancelled and replaced by investment in shopping malls and mobile telephone companies?
    Clare Short: I visit Africa frequently and I have many discussions with poor communities and villages as well as elected Ministers, and they are all anxious to attract inward investment that will bring about the transfer of technology in telecommunications, electricity, sanitation,

    277
    water and transport that is needed for improved economic performance. The purpose of CDC's restructuring was to encourage more private sector investment of that kind and to show that there can be returns on responsible and beneficial investment in Africa which will attract the private sector. Some agricultural investments with low rates of returns have been sold on to their African managers, and that is the right policy and we intend to continue with it. [Interruption.]
    It is incredibly noisy, Mr. Speaker and difficult to hear the questions from the Opposition.
    Mr. Speaker: I agree with the right hon. Lady. It is only fair to the Minister and to those asking questions that hon. Members should be silent.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Despite the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), does she not recognise that there is great concern in many countries in southern Africa that the result of the Government's policy, ignoring the warnings of Opposition Members, has been significantly to reduce investment in countries such as Malawi? What has been the specific effect on countries such as Malawi and others in southern Africa?
    While we are on the subject of southern Africa, have the right hon. Lady's Department and other parts of the Government any contingency plans in case there has to be a mass evacuation following the Zimbabwean election?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed, but my Department is not responsible for any such evacuation. Obviously, the Government have plans for such matters. The hon. Gentleman can take that as read. On this question, as on so many others since his new appointment, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Africa desperately needs increased investment in electricity and sanitation. Half of humanity has no sanitation, and the lack of clean water causes constant illness, ill health and the death of children. Electricity and telecommunications are needed so that the people can be part of the internet and the knowledge economy. The restructuring of CDC to encourage more of such investment is welcomed by all who take a serious interest in improving investment in Africa.

    Botswana
    Ms Candy Atherton: What recent representations she has made to the Government of Botswana regarding access to water by the San bushmen of the central Kalahari. [37319]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): The policy of the Government of Botswana is that the San bushmen should move from their traditional settlements in the Central Kalahari game reserve to locations where the Government feel that they will have better economic opportunities and access to services. We have made representations about the need to maintain water supplies
    278
    for those San remaining in the reserve, but our high commissioner in Botswana has today reported that water supplies have now been withdrawn.
    Ms Atherton: What action will the Government take now that the Government of Botswana have dismantled the water pumps and drained the water tanks of the San bushmen in order to force them out of the central Kalahari? Is not that a form of ethnic cleansing?
    Hilary Benn: I understand my hon. Friend's concern because I know that she has taken a close interest in the welfare of the San bushmen for a number of years. Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, the House is far too noisy.
    Hilary Benn: It is precisely for that reason that we have made representations about the decision to stop funding water supplies. Those San remaining—the estimates vary from between 20 to 100 people—now have to obtain water supplies either from those that they have conserved, or from those that have been brought into the reserve, or from the mine site at Gope. A legal case against the Government, arguing that the withdrawal of water supplies is unlawful, is scheduled to be heard next Wednesday and we should await the outcome.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Minister will be aware that elections will take place in Botswana's neighbour, Zimbabwe, next weekend. Whatever the result, refugees may try to cross the border into Botswana, thus affecting the welfare of the bushmen of the central Kalahari. What discussion has he had with Botswana and other countries that may be affected to ensure that the borders stay open and that adequate financial help is given for food, water and shelter for the refugees?
    Hilary Benn: I have not had such discussions with the Government of Botswana. If those problems were to arise, they would have to be dealt with at the time. The one thing on which the whole House would agree is our wish that the elections in Zimbabwe should be free and fair so that the people of that country can choose the Government for their future.

    Universal Primary Education
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What steps she is taking in pursuit of the goal of free universal primary education in developing countries by 2015. [37320]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working hard to mobilise the international development system to focus more sharply on the delivery of the commitment to universal primary education by 2015. We have made clear in all forums our view that this goal can be achieved only if primary education is free. We are also working in 29 countries to support delivery of this policy and, since 1997, we have committed £650 million to that work. We will do more.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Poorer countries are supposed to have developed education-for-all plans by September, and richer countries

    279
    have pledged that those plans will not fail through lack of financial support. What is the international position in relation to the deadline and the pledge, which are very important if we are to overcome the problem of charging for basic education in developing countries?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. Through UNESCO and the high-level group co-ordinating implementation, we are trying to drive a country-by-country review across the world to make sure that reformers are helped and backed up. Tanzania has double the number of children entering primary school this year because charging has been dropped. Despite moves forward across the world, some countries are not making progress, and more pressure must be put on them. Money alone cannot achieve our aim—Governments must be committed to the objective and willing to put in place the reforms and then the international financial support will follow. We have made some progress but more is needed. We are trying to focus the international effort so that countries that are failing to make progress feel that they are under more pressure to do so.
    Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that money alone will not do the job. She will be aware of huge corruption in some of the countries in the third world and in developing nations. What steps are she and her colleagues taking to try to stamp out such corruption and ensure that money directed at education goes to the very people that she and her Government are trying to help?
    Clare Short: I have said to the hon. Gentleman before that something comes over him when he puts on his red tie—he starts talking sense. He is right that aid is useful and powerful in driving reform and advance where there are a lot of poor people and where there are reformers. It can speed up economic development and health and education provision, which in turn moves countries forward. Corruption, which wastes those resources and blocks progress, has been neglected in the past as an embarrassing question, but no more. We now focus with others on cleaning up financial management systems, on making sure that public finances are run transparently, on proper procurement and on strong anti-corruption authorities. That is the only way to ensure economic development. We are driving that policy as hard as we can.

    Disease Prevention
    Chris Grayling: What actions she is taking to combat (a) HIV/AIDS, (b) TB and (c) malaria in the developing world. [37321]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Approximately half of infectious disease deaths in developing countries can be attributed to three diseases: HIV, TB and malaria, which cause more than 5 million deaths per year. My Department is working to strengthen developing countries' health systems and we have committed more than £1 billion to that purpose since 1997. The UK has also taken an active role in establishing the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, which is
    280
    designed to improve provision of drugs and commodities to treat those diseases. I have pledged $200 million from my budget over five years for the fund.
    Chris Grayling: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does she share the view held by those on the Conservative Benches that the United Nations global health fund should be using some of its resources to ensure that AIDS and HIV sufferers in Africa have access to the drugs that they need?
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fund's purpose is to make drugs and commodities available. That includes, for example, HIV testing; most people with HIV do not even know that they have it and do not take action to protect themselves and to ensure that they do not infect others. Many people with HIV get TB, become unable to work and then become impoverished, and so on. The fund is meant to supply drugs and commodities, get the prices down by making big orders, ensure reliability of supply and exert leverage in developing countries to ensure that they have better systems to deliver. HIV/AIDS prevention is better than the use of anti-retrovirals to keep people alive, so that is our major focus, but lower priced anti-retrovirals are now available from pharmaceutical companies where delivery systems are in place.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Michael Jack: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I returned from the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. I shall make a statement on it later today, in addition to having further meetings.
    Mr. Jack: The Labour-controlled Lancashire county council is proposing to close 37 of its elderly persons care homes and the associated day care centres. May I ask the Prime Minister on behalf of the vulnerable elderly in Lancashire if he can persuade the Department of Health to discuss this matter with Lancashire county council, with a view to withdrawing the proposal? All Lancashire's Conservative and Labour MPs oppose the proposal, which will do nothing for the quality of life of elderly people in the county and presents a threat to their homes.
    The Prime Minister: I understand that Ministers in the Department have asked to be kept fully informed of the situation, and they will no doubt discuss it with the county council. However, I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as he will know, under this Government, spending on social services has increased by about 20 per cent. Of course, throughout the country, councils are considering how best to care for elderly people. As a result of the extra investment that we will be putting in in the next three years, we will have an additional

    281
    £1.4 billion going into care for the elderly. However, as I said, in respect of these particular plans, the Department will be in touch with the county council.
    Mr. David Stewart: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the key economic role that is played by the British film industry. For example, my constituency has been the location for blockbusting films such as "Braveheart", "Rob Roy" and, more recently, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". Does he share my view that the planned multi-million pound highland film studio will be vital in ensuring that the film industry in Britain can compete on the world stage?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Scottish film industry on the strength of Scottish film production. As he said, it is renowned throughout the world. It is true, of course, that as a result of measures introduced by the Chancellor, the British film industry as a whole has enjoyed considerable success in the past few years. I wish the proposal well. Obviously, it is an important matter for the Scottish Executive as well, but I understand that about £20 million of private sector money could also come in. I hope very much that his constituency will see the benefits.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Given the wholly unacceptable decision of the United States to impose steel tariffs, will the Prime Minister stand by his statement of a few weeks ago, when he said of Mr. Mittal's firm, LNM:
    "I am delighted that a British-based company has succeeded"?—[Official Report, 13 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 199.]
    The Prime Minister: Of course, the British Government stand by the policy that we have outlined, which is to oppose the tariffs introduced by the United States. They are unacceptable and wrong, and they affect not only Britain but the European Community and other countries throughout the world. In our view, the problems of the American steel industry are best solved by restructuring that industry, not by imposing arbitrary and unjustified tariffs.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Well, of course they are, but we have a problem here, because the company that the Prime Minister celebrated as a British company spent $600,000 on lobbying the United States Government to impose tariffs on steel imports. Those tariffs will, of course, affect the United Kingdom steel industry. As one chief executive put it this morning:
    "The only measure we have had out of 10 Downing Street on steel is their support for a non-UK steel manufacturer."
    It took the Prime Minister 30 seconds to write a letter supporting a non-British company producing anti-British policies, yet it takes him months to write a letter to the US President to stand up for British interests. Will the Prime Minister now apologise to the British steel workers who may lose their jobs?
    The Prime Minister: First, in relation to the British steel industry, let us take no lessons from a Conservative party that destroyed 100,000 British steel jobs while in government. Secondly, in relation to the American Administration, this matter was first raised by my right
    282
    hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last July, and it has been raised with the American Administration at every level of this Government. It is important that, together with other European countries, we now pursue the right remedies through the World Trade Organisation.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: In case the Prime Minister has not noticed, he has been in power for almost five years, during which time nearly 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. Ten thousand of those were steel jobs, so we do not need any lectures from him, either. When will he understand that his Government's misconduct affects people outside Westminster? What he arrogantly dismissed as "Garbagegate" some weeks ago will affect the lives and work of thousands of people who look to him for protection. It seems that the only mistake that the steelworkers and the steel industry made was not to give more money to the Labour party, because we now know that the Prime Minister always puts the interests of his friends before the interests of the British people.
    The Prime Minister: First, let me repeat that this is a decision by the American Administration in respect not only of Britain but of imports into the United States from all countries. It is, therefore, absurd to suggest that it is somehow directed only against Britain. In respect of the decision, we have made representations at every level of Government and will continue to do so through the European Union. In respect of manufacturing and steel jobs, however, some people remember the two recessions under the last Conservative Government, and the millions of jobs that were lost when manufacturing output declined by somewhere in the region of 10 per cent. It is under the Labour Government that economic stability has been achieved, delivering—instead of 3 million unemployed—more than 1 million extra jobs in this country.
    Mr. Mike Wood: I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will share the horror felt throughout the House at the sectarian violence in Gujerat, which has so far claimed the lives of at least 500 people, including my constituent Mohammed Aswat in an incident that also led to the disappearance of two more of my constituents—of whom nothing has been heard for five days—and the leaving for dead of another. Will my right hon. Friend agree to see a delegation of hon. Members, such as myself, who have constituents in Gujerat, where the violence persists, to discuss how those British nationals can safely and quickly be repatriated? Secondly, will he make every effort to have my two missing constituents, Sakim and Saeed Dawood, found, and to have those responsible for the attack on them, and for the death of Mr. Aswat, brought quickly to justice?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the Foreign Secretary is to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues involved, and if they wish to meet me after that, I shall be happy to meet them. Secondly, we express our deep sympathy and condolences from all parts of the House to those who lost their lives in Gujerat. We are in close touch with the Indian authorities and will do everything that we can to assist them to bring this distressing violence to an end.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: This time last week, the Prime Minister told me

    283
    that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions should be judged on his record. Since then, the Strategic Rail Authority has discovered a £8 billion hole in the Transport Secretary's proposed budget. Today City fund managers have signed a round-robin letter to the Chancellor in which they say that the way in which the Railtrack administration was handled will severely dent future investor confidence. What does that say about the Transport Secretary's record in the past week?
    The Prime Minister: On the first point, something over £60 billion of public and private money will go into the railways. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that. As for the decision to put the company into administration, I thought we had explained on many occasions—indeed, I thought this had some support from the Liberal Democrats—that the reason for its being put into administration was the huge losses that it had suffered. We simply could not continue with those losses.
    As for the letter from the fund managers, these are fund managers who are also investors and shareholders in Railtrack. Therefore they are, as it were, in dispute with the Government in their role as shareholders. The best answer I can give them is that some £6 billion has already been committed as part of the private-sector investment in the railways, and we have no doubt that there will be more.
    Mr. Kennedy: It is not just a question of the loss of confidence among City fund managers; it is a question of the loss of confidence among the travelling public, the loss of confidence in the Department, and—remember—the loss of confidence in the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
    Let me return to the question that I asked this time last week. Just what does it take for the Prime Minister to lose confidence in his Transport Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely support the decision to put Railtrack into administration. As I said, I thought the Liberal Democrats understood the reasons for that very well. I suspect that we are witnessing something of a piece of opportunism in their turning round afterwards and saying that it was not right—[Interruption.] I agree, of course, that that would be highly unusual in the case of the Liberal Democrats.
    The plain fact is that, as I pointed out, the fund managers who wrote today are the fund managers who are investors and shareholders in Railtrack. They are therefore currently negotiating with the Government over the amount of compensation. The best answer I can give is that the private-sector investment is coming in. As I said, £6 billion has already been allocated. Between July last year and March this year, some 44 different private finance initiative and public-private partnership contracts had been agreed. There is no shortage of private-sector involvement in these projects.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: My right hon. Friend will be aware that today is the 15th anniversary of the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, in which 193 crew and passengers perished. He will also know that this morning
    284
    we held our annual memorial service at the port of Dover. Will he join me in extending sympathy to the friends and families of those who were lost, and in paying tribute to the bravery of those who gave their lives that others might live? Will he also ensure that the United Kingdom Government continue to take the lead in promoting higher international standards of safety at sea, so that the effects of an appalling 140 losses of ships at sea every year do not continue?
    The Prime Minister: On the anniversary of a tragic event that I think all Members will remember, let me express our sympathy to the family and friends of those concerned, and also pay tribute to their bravery and to the selfless courage exercised by many of the victims in helping those in distress at the time of the accident. As for improving the safety standards of ro-ro ferries, my hon. Friend may know that we are pursuing that in the International Maritime Organisation, and also urging the European Union to take it up. I agree that the level of accidents is currently unacceptable, but we are working in every possible forum to bring it down.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to look at the report of the Royal College of Radiologists, which explains why many of our constituents who have been diagnosed with cancer are now having to wait at least two to three months for radiotherapy? As the national health service is the Prime Minister's top priority, and as cancer is the top priority within that top priority, can he explain why the Government have been so slow to address the issue of retention and recruitment of key staff, and why the situation is still deteriorating?
    The Prime Minister: We are, of course, training more staff. One reason why there have been longer waits for radiotherapy is precisely because of the additional consultants, additional investment in machines and other investment in the health service and cancer services. More and more people are being referred for radiotherapy, but the numbers in radiotherapy are increasing. The hon. Gentleman will know that the audit was carried out some time ago, and I think that he will find that we are managing to improve the situation for radiotherapy services across the country.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is costing the taxpayer £400 million a year to clear up the millions of tons of litter dropped on our streets and in our open spaces? Although we have litter laws, only a few hundred prosecutions are made a year. As my private Member's Bill seems unlikely to find parliamentary time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Aah!"]—will he introduce legislation to allow councils to keep the money raised through fixed penalty fines, so that they can employ people to enforce the litter laws? That way, we can clear up this country and make the polluter pay.
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of my hon. Friend's ten-minute Bill. The Government in principle support the proposal to allow local authorities to spend the money that they get from fines on improving the litter situation in their area. As one part of that, we have recently increased—indeed, doubled—the penalties for litter, and

    285
    it is important that we continue to make every effort that we can to deal with a problem that may seem trivial, but which is very important for people in their local communities.
    Mr. David Trimble: Does the Prime Minister remember assuring the public during the campaign for a "yes" vote, following the Belfast agreement, that the early release scheme would not be an amnesty? In particular does he recall the following statement, issued by the Northern Ireland Information Service:
    "There will be no amnesty."?
    Indeed, the word "amnesty" was underlined. That was part of the basis on which people voted for the agreement. Does the Prime Minister realise that for a lot of good people who have stuck with the agreement through thick and thin, and who have had to put up with quite a lot recently, the Government's going back on their word and breaking faith with them will be the last straw?
    The Prime Minister: First, it is of course right that people released under the early release scheme as prisoners be released on licence. Should they breach the terms of that licence, they can be readmitted to prison. Secondly, we made it clear at Weston Park that this was an issue to be dealt with. We will deal with it, but how we do so is open to discussion.
    Valerie Davey: Fair trade fortnight encourages all of us to support producers of tea, coffee and cocoa, yet the processors of those products in the developed world are still getting the greatest profit. What can the Government further do to develop fair trade and to open the common European Union markets to processed goods from developing countries?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very important and serious issue. It is being raised in the context of the World Trade Organisation negotiations, which began at Doha last year. Of course, she is absolutely right to say that, for many of the poorest countries in the world, what is more important even than aid is access to western markets. I very much hope that—as part of the partnership agreement with Africa, which we hope to conclude at this year's G8 summit, in Canada—the developed world will give a clear steer and sense of direction that we are prepared to ensure that our markets are indeed open, not just to goods that are raw materials, but to processed goods.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I do not want to frighten the Prime Minister, but I agree with him on one thing: although the Liberal Democrats supported his programme to take over Railtrack, they did not support the minority report of the Committee. They are probably the only people in history to try to jump on a bandwagon, only to roll under it. Perhaps he can answer the real question: will raising private investment in public services prove more or less expensive as a result of the actions of his Secretary of State?
    The Prime Minister: As regards the investment that we can get into the railways, the only decision that we could possibly have taken was to secure additional private
    286
    investment by putting Railtrack into administration, then bringing it out in a restructured form. There was no way in which we as a Government could have carried on pouring billions of pounds into a failed company. That would have affected our ability to raise the money.
    Therefore the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is no, I do not believe that it is more expensive. We will only ever get proper investment into our railways by halting privatisation, which did so much damage, restructuring the company and relaunching it on a proper footing.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is wrong. It is now well known that under the 10-year plan he expects to raise £35 billion, but the Government's credit rating has been so downgraded that it is calculated that it will cost at least £1 billion extra to raise that money. The group of investors who wrote today in The Times,
    "This will increase the cost to the taxpayer",
    were absolutely spot on. Must not the Prime Minister now make a clear choice between getting private sector investment into his railway programme or getting rid of his Transport Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out a moment ago, we have already committed £6 billion. Indeed, there was a recent commitment for extra private sector investment in the Chiltern line.
    The difference between us and the right hon. Gentleman is that he would have carried on with Railtrack as it was—a privatised company siphoning off billions of pounds from the Treasury. We believe that it should have been put into administration; he would want us to pay £1 billion in compensation to the shareholders, including the 20 fund managers who wrote to The Times. That money should be going into our railways, but the right hon. Gentleman would give it to the shareholders. That is the difference between us.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The one thing that is absolutely certain about us is that we would not have such a Transport Secretary, who, according to the letter and to every single commentator, has lost the trust of business and of the civil service, and is now going to make the public pay through more delays and extra costs in raising the money for public services. The real price of the Prime Minister's weak—I repeat, weak—refusal to sack the Transport Secretary is that the public will have to pay more tax for less service.
    The Prime Minister: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government had a Transport Secretary who privatised Railtrack in the first place and left us in this situation. Not only was that botched privatisation allowed to take place, but—according to the Public Administration Committee when it was headed by the right hon. Member who is now chairman of the Conservative party—the way in which it was sold meant that the public lost billions of pounds on the sale. The Conservatives were responsible not only for that botched privatisation, but for losing public money on it.
    The plain fact of the matter is that we have set aside public money for extra investment in the railways. That will result in billions of pounds going in over the next few years, along with money from the private sector.

    287
    We support that investment and the right hon. Gentleman opposes it. That is the true test of commitment to Britain's railways.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing concern in the country that we may be moving by degrees towards war with Iraq? Does he accept that in the event that British troops are sent into action, there should be a debate and a vote on the Floor of the House?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, were we ever to take action in respect of Iraq there should be an opportunity for the House to express its view, as indeed it has in respect of Afghanistan. However, I have to say to my hon. Friend that no decisions have yet been taken about any possible action in respect of Iraq.
    I remind my hon. Friend that two days after 11 September I made a statement in the House in which I said that the issue of weapons of mass destruction was an important issue that we would have to tackle; and we do have to tackle it. Iraq is plainly in breach of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on the accumulation of weapons, and we must deal with that. How we do so is a matter for discussion and consultation.
    Mr. David Heath: When the Prime Minister next returns from overseas, will he forget the official car and instead take the train into Paddington? As he does so, will he reflect that we still do not know whether 41 recommendations from Lord Cullen on safety after the Paddington rail crash have yet been implemented, despite the deadline being three months ago? The Prime Minister says that his priority is rail safety. Can he guarantee that those safety improvements are now finished? If not, why on earth does he have confidence in his Transport Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: We are taking forward the proposals on safety recommended by Cullen, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at the safety record of the British rail industry overall, he will see that it is not declining, but improving. I would have thought that he recognised that. He will know that, according to the recent figures, the degree to which there have been incidents involving a lack of safety has declined and not increased. I agree that much more needs to be done, but Lord Cullen made many proposals. We are taking them forward in consultation with the industry, which is the best way to do it.
    Margaret Moran: Is the Prime Minister aware that, over the last few years, 15 children have been murdered as a result of courts granting contact to violent parents? Is he also aware that courts are continuing to grant unsupervised contact to schedule 1 offenders, resulting in violence and sometimes death to children? Will he ensure that we hold inquiries into such circumstances where there are domestic violence murders? Will he do everything he can to ensure that there is an amendment to the Children Act 1989 to protect our children from this kind of violence in future?
    The Prime Minister: First, on the specific point about the amendment to the legislation, we will give serious consideration to the point that my hon. Friend makes. Secondly, I should say that there is an interdepartmental
    288
    ministerial group specifically to look at how we co-ordinate work in this area and she will be aware that the Government have tightened legislation in recent years.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: The Government's solution to the desperate overcrowding in east Kent hospitals is a £200 million investment programme. Does the Prime Minister understand that 15,000 people have marched against the proposed plan, that consultants are saying that it is medically unsafe and that the Royal College of Nursing has come out against it? Will he give us some extra beds for patients now, or will he engage in this ridiculous and extravagant exercise in empire-building; the kind of empire on which the sun never shines?
    The Prime Minister: The decisions on the reconfiguration of the service in east Kent, which were taken by the health authority board, will be referred to Ministers after proper consultation. The points that the hon. Gentleman makes will be taken in account. In relation to the service as a whole, we recognise that there have been real and specific problems in east Kent but, as he has just implied, we are putting millions of additional investment into the services. It will take some time for that investment to go through, but in terms of accident and emergency, the numbers of beds and cancer services in east Kent, we are making additional investment available. As for the reconfiguration of those services, that is a decision by the health authority board and Ministers will consider it after due consultation.
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: When the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) asked his question, he forgot to remind my right hon. Friend of the tens of millions of pounds already spent on modernising east Kent hospitals, the £2 million accident and emergency modernisation programme at Margate that is just completed and the £180 million that is about to be spent? Does my right hon. Friend agree that still much more needs to be done in the NHS? Does he share my concerns about waiting times for heart patients? What does he intend to do about that?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right that there is a great deal more to do, but the answer to the problems of waiting times or the additional numbers of consultants and nurses needed in the health service cannot be to cut the investment going to the health service, which is the position of the Conservative party.
    On cardiac services, as a result of the additional funding that the Secretary of State for Health has announced today, we will be able to cut substantially cardiac waiting times. That is in addition to increasing by 45 or 50 per cent. the number of cardiologists within the NHS. These are important changes and investments, and the Government will carry on making necessary investments in the NHS. The single biggest dividing line in the House lies between Labour, which wants investment in public service, and the Conservatives, who are against it.
    Mr. John Randall: The Prime Minister will doubtless recall the promise made in the 1997 Labour party manifesto to end waiting for cancer treatment. When will he fulfil that promise?
    The Prime Minister: The latest figures indicate that referrals for cancer treatment within two weeks have risen from just over 60 per cent. when we came to power to more than 90 per cent. now. As a result of additional
    290
    investment, not only in increasing the number of cancer specialists but in extra cancer equipment throughout the NHS, there is no doubt that cancer services have been enabled to improve.
    The hon. Gentleman's question brings us back to what I have already said. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not accept that, they do not accept the reality of their position. After years of cuts in beds, cuts in training places and cuts in the number of nurses, the Government are investing in the national health service.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting that took place in Coolum, in Queensland, Australia, from 1 to 4 March. I pay warm tribute to Prime Minister John Howard and the Australian Government for the excellent arrangements for the meeting, and to John Howard personally for his patient and skilful chairmanship.
I also want to record how much the presence of Her Majesty the Queen meant to all the Heads of Government in this, her jubilee year. It provided an opportunity for us all to reflect on her remarkable contribution to the Commonwealth over the past 50 years. I shall be pleased to join Her Majesty for the observance service to celebrate Commonwealth day on Monday 11 March.
The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was due to take place last autumn. It was postponed because of the atrocious terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September. It was therefore entirely fitting that one of the major items of business at this week's meeting was the adoption of a Commonwealth plan of action on terrorism. That focuses on how to help member states, particularly smaller states, to fulfil their international obligations in fighting terrorism, including those provided for by United Nations Security Council resolution 1373.
The Commonwealth Heads of Government also adopted the report of the high-level review group established at the previous Heads of Government meeting in Durban in 1999. That report broadens the remit of the Commonwealth's ministerial-level watchdog, the Commonwealth ministerial action group, beyond the overthrow of democratically elected governments so that it will in future be able to examine crises other than those provoked by a coup d'état. It strengthens the good offices role of the Commonwealth Secretary-General, and streamlines the secretariat's structure.
The Heads of Government also established a high-level expert group to report on globalisation to the 2003 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nigeria. The high-level group report and the plan on terrorism are covered in the Coolum declaration, which was agreed by Heads of Government at the conference. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.
Those useful developments strengthen the Common-wealth as an organisation committed to promoting democracy and good governance, economic development, and tolerance and racial harmony among its members. It is all the more deplorable therefore that one of those members, Zimbabwe, should have a President and a Government who are so clearly violating those core Commonwealth values.
The current crisis in Zimbabwe was extensively discussed. The violence and intimidation unleashed by President Mugabe in his desperation to prevent an Opposition victory in next weekend's presidential elections is totally unacceptable. So is the way in which he made it impossible for European Union observers to
292
monitor next weekend's elections, obliging them to withdraw from Zimbabwe so that they could not document the abuses of the election campaign. There is no doubt about those abuses: those who are witnessing the campaign and who are still in Zimbabwe, detail horrific acts of violence and intimidation.
President Mugabe pretends that the current crisis has been prompted by the issue of land reform rather than by his determination to stay in power no matter what the verdict of the electorate. That is nothing more than a pretext. Successive British Governments have made clear their commitment to supporting land reform in Zimbabwe. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary repeated that commitment at the Abuja meeting in Nigeria last September. Indeed, since independence Britain has provided over £40 million specifically for land reform, and over £0.5 billion in development assistance.
However, our efforts, and those of the wider international community—including the United Nations Development Programme—have been thwarted by the political intransigence, and indeed corruption, of President Mugabe and his Government. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker: if President Mugabe had wanted an orderly and just land reform programme at any stage in the past few years, we would have been keen to work with him. He did not. Instead he has used the land reform issue as an excuse for undermining Zimbabwean democracy; and more than this, the actions have now provoked a grave economic crisis in a country that has the potential to be rich and successful. This is a tragedy for all Zimbabwe's people. The victims of Mr. Mugabe are not primarily white; they are the ordinary black citizens fed up with years of decline and corruption.
President Mugabe's behaviour was denounced by a very large number of Commonwealth countries at Coolum. Again we should make it clear that this included outspoken and courageous condemnation by African leaders who understand very well that the damage that President Mugabe is doing harms not only Zimbabwe but Africa as a whole. Despite President Mugabe's mob propaganda, this is not an issue that divides the Commonwealth on racial lines—not one that divides Africa from the other Commonwealth members.
Although there was a strong current of criticism running at Coolum, decisions need to be unanimous at the Heads of Government meeting, and in a body representing more than 50 separate nations there was no realistic prospect of a consensus for suspending Zimbabwe from Commonwealth membership in advance of the elections this coming weekend. But we did agree a statement on Zimbabwe that expressed deep concern about the violence surrounding the current election campaign, and called for free and fair elections. That statement makes provision for Zimbabwe's suspension, if the report of the Commonwealth observers currently in Zimbabwe is adverse.
If the observers' report does indeed find widespread evidence of intimidation and violence, the fudging will have to stop. The credibility of the Commonwealth itself is at stake. The procedures laid down in the Harare Commonwealth declaration and the Millbrook Commonwealth action programme are clear, and action must follow, up to and including suspension. Let me add that it is a remarkable tribute to the strength of democracy in Zimbabwe that the Opposition retain even a chance of

293
winning those elections at all. Again, let us be clear: if they do win, President Mugabe must accept the result and hand over power.
The Coolum meeting provided an opportunity for me to meet a number of African leaders to discuss the New Partnership for African Development. We need to work with Africa, through the G8 and through a wide range of international organisations, to grasp this opportunity for a new start, and new hope for Africa. On aid, trade and conflict I believe that we have a real chance for progress, with commitment and leadership on both sides. We will continue to make that a major priority of British policy.
Coolum also allowed me to meet the Heads of Government of Commonwealth Caribbean countries. We discussed ways of developing the United Kingdom's relations with them, and ways of helping them to confront the challenges that they face, particularly in countering drugs and terrorism, and in the economic and trade fields. There will be a further opportunity to develop that dialogue at the meeting of the UK/Caribbean Forum in Georgetown, Guyana, next month.
Finally, I co-hosted with John Howard the Commonwealth sports lunch, where we looked forward to the Commonwealth games in Manchester this summer and then in Melbourne in 2006.
I wish to conclude with thanks to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for the work that he did in preparing for the Coolum meeting, particularly in the Commonwealth ministerial action group. It was a great sadness that, for personal reasons, he was unable to attend the meeting itself, but I wish also to record my thanks to my noble Friend Baroness Amos for the valuable role that she played at Coolum.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I join the Prime Minister at the outset in recording my pleasure at the presence of Her Majesty at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting during her jubilee year? As the Prime Minister so rightly said, the leadership and service that she has given to the Commonwealth over the last 50 years is admired and respected by very many people around the globe, and I, like him, look forward to the observance service on 11 March. I also welcome the adoption of the action plan on terrorism, and that part of the Coolum communiqué reaffirms the principles of working to reduce poverty through the Commonwealth institutions.
However, no hon. Member can be satisfied with the outcome of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting regarding Zimbabwe. What the Prime Minister said in condemning Mr. Mugabe is quite right, and I associate myself with all those statements criticising him and accusing him of all the things that he has done. This is not about black versus white in Zimbabwe, and it never has been; it is about everyone in Zimbabwe suffering under a tyrant who has thrown out the rule of law and democracy. However, the suggestion that the Commonwealth might in due course merely voice "collective disapproval" at the actions of the Zimbabwe Government is only the latest in a litany of laughable and inadequate responses that have too often let Mr. Mugabe off the hook.
294
Last October, the Prime Minister publicly told his party that there must be "no tolerance" of
"the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe".
Those were rightly tough words, yet, sadly, the Government have in their actions too often appeared to tolerate his activities. The Abuja agreement did nothing to stop the violence and intimidation practised by Mr. Mugabe's regime, yet it was greeted by the Foreign Secretary as "a positive step forward" and, despite evidence that Mr. Mugabe was ignoring it throughout, no action was taken.
We were not alone in voicing our concerns. In September last year, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, Morgan Tsvangirai—a very brave man—called for Zimbabwe to be suspended from the Commonwealth if Mugabe breached the law on land reform. The British Government never publicly set any such benchmark. In fact, it was a further three months before the Commonwealth declared that the situation in Zimbabwe was a "serious and persistent violation" of its fundamental principles.
Why did it then take the Foreign Secretary and the Government another three weeks after that long delay finally to recommend that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth? In the four months taken to get to that point, Mr. Mugabe's regime of terror continued unabated and very well reported, yet my concern was that the Government dithered: they seemed to hide behind the claim to be working within the European Union, yet Europe, too, was dragging its feet.
It was not until 28 January—only five weeks ago—that the Foreign Secretary was able to say that the EU's position on sanctions was "clear, unambiguous and unanimous". Even then, it took another three weeks and the expulsion of the head of the EU observer mission for sanctions to be imposed. People such as Mr. Mugabe clearly feed off that kind of indecisiveness. It is no wonder that—despite the Prime Minister's best efforts, which we support, in Brisbane—he could not persuade his Commonwealth colleagues to take action against Zimbabwe. As far as they were concerned, the British Government only decided to support suspension just under two months ago.
It could all have been very different. If there had been real leadership throughout, from whatever source, the Commonwealth would have sent a much stronger message, and one that we would have done well to learn.
The lesson is that we must not repeat that failure, and the Prime Minister therefore needs to answer some important, key questions about the future action that the Commonwealth may or may not take.
First, will the Prime Minister guarantee Morgan Tsvangirai the full support of the British Government—whether he wins or loses—not just now, but in the difficult months ahead? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House that the transparency of Sunday's election will be judged on the criteria laid down by the Southern African Development Community in March last year? Thirdly, does he agree that, if those forces opposed to democracy continue their terrible destruction of Zimbabwe, an international coalition composed of the United Kingdom, the United States, Europe and the Commonwealth should take all necessary steps to secure a safe future for Zimbabwe?

295
The Commonwealth's statements on Zimbabwe and Mugabe this past weekend have been weak and ineffectual, and we must ensure that a much stronger and clearer message goes out to Zimbabwe. I served in Zimbabwe when we brought about the transition to the current Government back in 1979–80—so I need no sedentary lectures from Labour Members, who have done nothing but mouth off—and the high hopes of those days are now being destroyed. The Government's policy and those of the Commonwealth now read like a text book on how not to deal with a tyrant. The Government talk a lot about leading in Europe and leading in the Commonwealth. They have not yet done so—perhaps now is the time for them to pull this situation back before it is too late.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has the ability to exploit any situation to make absurd points. The idea that the problem in Zimbabwe is a result either of the Government's failure to condemn Mr. Mugabe, whom we have condemned right from the very beginning, or, even more absurdly, of the European Union, which I fear marks a return to the Conservative party's obsession with the European Union, is ridiculous. The truth is that we have made it clear throughout that we wholly condemn Mr. Mugabe. However, decisions have to be unanimous in order to get action through the Commonwealth at the Heads of Government meeting. In other words, every country has to agree. There was never a realistic prospect of getting some of them to agree to sanctions now. The Government's position, however, has been utterly clear throughout.
In respect of the three points the right hon. Gentleman demands we answer, we have already done so many, many times. Yes, of course it is the case that if the observers' report indicates that the election has been rife with violence and intimidation—as I am sure it will, given the emerging evidence—suspension should follow under the criteria agreed by the Commonwealth. There is no question in those circumstances of collective disapproval alone being satisfactory. However, that is again something that Britain alone cannot decide. With the greatest of respect, when we analyse what the right hon. Gentleman asks us to do, we have already done it. The idea that, by some miraculous power, he would have managed to persuade all the Heads of the Commonwealth to go along with something heavier stretches his credibility a little beyond what it will bear.
In respect of the other points that the right hon. Gentleman raises, it is important that we ensure that firm action follows. The one part of the Commonwealth statement that I can say I am happy with is the notion that a mechanism should exist that depends not on all 50 members of the Commonwealth, but on the past, present and future Chairmen of the Commonwealth Heads of Government who will take a decision on the basis of the recommendation of the Secretary-General. That gives us a far more streamlined way in which to reach a quick decision. I very much hope that they come to the right decision. It is at least a small step forward, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge it.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: In thanking the Prime Minister for his statement, hon. Members should acknowledge that it is an unusually
296
strong statement for any Prime Minister who has returned from such an international summit meeting to make to the House of Commons, and deservedly so given the circumstances and the primary topic of international concern and discussion. In recognising that fact, I think the Prime Minister would concur that the one thing the House of Commons, as much as the Government, can do at this juncture is to speak with a united voice on Zimbabwe and the international implications. Given that the Conservative party lacks the self-confidence to believe that it could persuade a dozen and a few more members of the European Union, is it not bizarre that it should think that it could have flown to Australia to dictate the passage of actions to dozens of members of the Commonwealth?
If the bad news from Zimbabwe worsens over the next few days as we witness the conduct of the elections and their outcome, will the Prime Minister confirm that our country will take a lead on a Commonwealth basis to ensure that suspension or expulsion from the Commonwealth, which we would all have preferred to happen at this stage, proceeds as fast as is politically possible? I hope that he can reassure us on that. If the situation continues to deteriorate and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has to deal with the migration of refugees across borders into neighbouring countries, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will give its full support to whatever endeavours may have to be anticipated and dealt with, although of course we hope that they will not arise?
Finally, does the Prime Minister agree that in the court of public opinion, where Robert Mugabe is concerned, it is one thing for politicians to disagree, but when any head of state has moved to the extent that broadcasters and journalists, including those from the BBC—some of the most impartial and authoritative journalists in the world—are excluded or thrown out of a country, that in itself is an admission of guilt?
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, one of the most eccentric happenings at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was the sight of the Information Minister of Zimbabwe coming to Australia to talk to the BBC, which had of course been thrown out of Zimbabwe during its coverage of the election.
Of course we will do our very best to secure the right outcome in light of the Commonwealth observers' report. I should just add to what I said a moment ago that all three members of the group that will take the decision, on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Secretary-General, have made it clear that if the observers do detail violence and intimidation, they will take the appropriate action. Giving that assurance is different from delivering on it, but we will do our best to hold people to that position.
What the right hon. Gentleman said about refugees is true. There are already hundreds of thousands, if not more, Zimbabwean refugees flooding into neighbouring countries. One of the tragedies of what Mugabe has done to Zimbabwe is that the income of its people has literally halved in the past few years, but it is a potentially wealthy country. It could have been a leader in southern Africa, instead of which Mugabe has turned it into a country

297
where industry feels uncomfortable, where people are in a state of oppression and where the economy is unable to function properly.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In view of what the Prime Minister is reported to have said about Iraq to the Australian media, and following his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) at Question Time, could he, at his convenience, glance at the report of this morning's Westminster Hall debate on military action against Iraq and reflect on whether he ought not to come and make a very full speech—as Prime Ministers used to do—on the Iraq situation before it is contemplated committing British troops? Is it not right that in a situation where there is, so to speak, an optional war, the House of Commons should have a formal endorsement by vote?
The Prime Minister: As I pointed out at Prime Minister's Question Time, we have not agreed any action in respect of Iraq at the moment, so it is important that before anyone takes a position condemning it or supporting it, we see what the Government propose we should do. On the point about coming to the House, most people would have to acknowledge that after 11 September, not only did I make several statements to the House, but so did other Ministers, and we have had no fewer than five different debates on the subject, so I really do not think that it can be said that we have been committing British forces without proper consultation with the House. When decisions do have to be taken on Iraq, of course we will come and consult the House properly as we should.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Prime Minister take the earliest possible opportunity to impress on the Commonwealth Heads of Government that the partial attitude towards Mugabe shown by far too many of them undermines the respect and support, in this country and elsewhere, for the Commonwealth as an institution?
The Prime Minister: It is correct that I found some of the contributions at the meeting hard to understand in light of what is happening. I believe that, especially when the whole world is trying to put together a partnership for Africa based on us providing more aid, better access to our markets and help with good governance, it is all the more right and appropriate that strong and good governance in Africa is upheld.
The one qualification that I would make to that, however, is that there were reports that Africa en bloc was against strong action on Zimbabwe; that is not correct, and it is not fair to African countries. Many African leaders, including some from that region, spoke very strongly against what Mr. Mugabe is doing. There are those who feel that we should wait until the election until we make the decision to suspend. I can understand that, even though I do not agree with it. I think that it means that if the Commonwealth observers' report is adverse, there is an obligation on the Commonwealth to retain its credibility by acting against Mugabe.
David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us on the Labour Benches—
298
I emphasise, the Labour Benches—who urged the strongest economic sanctions against the illegal regime in what was then Rhodesia need no lectures from anybody, certainly not Mugabe and his thugs, about racism? I speak as one who is perhaps not considered to be the biggest admirer of the EU, but is it not the case that if any EU member country had come anywhere near what Mugabe has done, that country would have been suspended very quickly? Perhaps the Commonwealth should learn from that.
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely. In those circumstances, the EU would of course suspend a country. That is why it is all the more important that we ensure that the Commonwealth, if it is to retain its credibility, acts. However, to answer those shouting out from the Opposition Benches, that has to be done at 50 at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. The advantage of the mechanism that we have agreed is that because three countries will take the decision, we have a better chance of getting the right result.
Mr. Francis Maude: It is hard to disagree with a single word that the Prime Minister has said about Zimbabwe. He spoke out robustly. However, the train of events in Zimbabwe is not new: it is not a feature of the past few months, but has been going on for two years, since Mugabe lost his referendum in February 2000. Yes, it has become worse over that time, but there has been a consistent pattern of intimidation, brutality and subversion of the rule of law. In that time, some of us have called for targeted action against individuals—members of the gang of hoodlums who support Mugabe in office and in power and Mugabe himself—and for targeted sanctions, but we have been pushed away by the Government, the current Foreign Secretary and his predecessor. The only Minister who consistently spoke up robustly along those lines is the current Minister for Europe, who, as soon he did so, was slapped down and moved out of his job. Does the Prime Minister agree that the lesson of all that is that when a dictator starts to behave in a tyrannical manner, robust action taken early on makes the difference? We should by now have learned that appeasing tyrants does not work.
The Prime Minister: I simply disagree totally. The Government made their position on Mugabe plain right from the outset. Whether we act in the EU or in the Commonwealth, we have to get other countries to join us. The right hon. Gentleman knows that when the issue was first raised a couple of years ago, close consultations took place with the opposition movement in Zimbabwe, the Movement for Democratic Change, about the right response. The idea that we have not sought firm action against Mugabe is absurd, but we have to get that action agreed at European level and at Commonwealth level, and that is best done by working with other countries.
Mr. Michael Ancram: You dithered!
The Prime Minister: In response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, may I say that the notion that the Conservative party, with its attitude towards Europe and the Commonwealth, could have got further is more than a little absurd?
Mr. Tom Clarke: I welcome my right hon. Friend's report that there was a

299
discussion about Angola. Given the recent events affecting UNITA, can he assure us that that discussion was positive and that Angola's prospects are better than they have been in recent years?
The Prime Minister: I think that that is true—there is a greater prospect of stability in Angola. That emphasises, as my right hon. Friend correctly identifies, the importance of ensuring that we establish proper systems of conflict resolution in Africa. The single biggest problem for countries in many parts of Africa is conflicts lasting for years that have made it absolutely impossible for those countries to develop properly. That is what we want to achieve as part of the deal for Africa at the G8 summit. Whether in Congo, Angola, Sudan or Somalia, there is a real prospect of getting the right conflict resolution systems in place so that stability can be restored. I believe that the situation in Angola today is more hopeful than it has been for some time.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon, particularly the large section of it that referred to Zimbabwe. Does he agree that poverty in many central African countries is exacerbated by the chaos in Zimbabwe? Unfortunately, the Commonwealth monitors are not generating confidence among the opponents of Mr. Mugabe, particularly the Movement for Democratic Change. I receive e-mails by the day from Zimbabwe highlighting the monitors' inadequacy.
I know that the Prime Minister must be careful in saying so, but does he agree that the Commonwealth has not enhanced its credibility by not taking a decision at least to suspend Zimbabwe? Is he not worried that after the election on Sunday, the votes will be counted by those who are in hock to Mr. Mugabe?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise concerns about the way in which the poll will be conducted. I should have preferred the Commonwealth to go further. The real test of its credibility will come after the weekend's election. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that as a result of the instability in Zimbabwe, problems are being exported to other African countries in the region. That is, in my view, why it is all the more important that they speak out and speak up.
Mr. Peter Pike: I fully endorse everything that the Prime Minister has said this afternoon with regard to Zimbabwe and President Mugabe. Did the Commonwealth Heads of Government look at the situation in Pakistan, whose membership of the Commonwealth is suspended, giving due regard to what President Musharraf has boldly and courageously done about terrorism over the past few months and recognising that he is working towards achieving democracy later this year? Should not the Commonwealth be addressing what it can do to help Pakistan return to democracy and return to the Commonwealth, I hope later this year?
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I hope very much that Pakistan keeps to the road map to democracy that was set out by President Musharraf last year. That is important, and I pay tribute to his leadership of his country over the past few months; the strong position that he has taken in respect of international
300
terrorism; and his recent speech that takes on the extremists who would abuse the religion of Islam for the purposes of political extremism. I know that the Commonwealth will want to work with Pakistan to make sure that that road map to democracy is fulfilled and that Pakistan can come back as a full member of the Commonwealth.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Prime Minister's persuasive powers have obviously not been enjoying success with the Commonwealth or, for that matter, with President Bush on steel. If President Mugabe rigs the elections or refuses to accept the result and executive action follows, as the Prime Minister indicates, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that action will be sustained by a consensus of Commonwealth heads of state?
European Union sanctions have attempted to target leading figures in ZANU-PF so that they do not impact on ordinary people in Zimbabwe. Does the Prime Minister envisage any way of toughening up European Union action that will not impact on the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, whose conditions are fairly desperate already?
The Prime Minister: We will certainly look at what further European action can follow, although, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is important that that does not impact on the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. However, the benefit of the mechanism that we have outlined is that it restricts the decision making to the three countries, not the 50. If they make that recommendation, we will be able to sustain it. As I said earlier, that is the one point of hope to come out the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the very difficult situation in Zimbabwe, the Government have responded largely along lines approved of by the Movement for Democratic Change? If the worst comes to the worst after this weekend, what, besides any action taken by the Commonwealth, may be done at a United Nations level to ensure that there is true democracy in Zimbabwe and that we set in train efforts to restore prosperity there?
The Prime Minister: First, I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive comments. He is right. We have tried to maintain close contact with the Movement for Democratic Change in terms of what it is sensible for Britain to pursue. There are points in time—this is why I think that some of the remarks made by the Opposition are silly—at which Britain's role in Zimbabwe, if it is not handled with care, can help Mugabe rather than hinder him. We have been sensitive to that throughout. In respect of my hon. Friend's point about the United Nations, we would pursue that at every level and in every forum, but we will have to wait to determine the precise nature of that.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I, too, welcome the Prime Minister's conversion to the Opposition's view about Zimbabwe. His memory is not entirely accurate. Morgan Tsvangirai was calling for targeted sanctions long before a response came from the Government. Like the rest of us, the Prime Minister knows that it is not just Zimbabwe that is suffering from what is going on in that country; the surrounding countries

301
are suffering too. If some miracle happens and Mugabe loses the election—as we all know he should if the election were free and fair—will the Prime Minister undertake to talk to all his colleagues in the Commonwealth and in the EU and put together a rapid package of aid so that we can get Zimbabwe back on its feet very quickly?
The Prime Minister: Of course we will look at what we can do to assist Zimbabwe, at European level and in respect of the Heads of Government as well. With regard to the hon. Lady's earlier remarks, it is a feature of Opposition parties destined to remain Opposition parties for a long time that they seek to make political capital out of anything.
Paul Farrelly: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to take action where we can against those friends of Mr. Mugabe who make violence and repression possible, not least arms dealers based here in the UK? Those include Mr. Mugabe's main supplier, Mr. John Bredenkamp, whose name I have brought to the attention of the House several times. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been pursuing investigations into that individual. Over several months, I am sorry to say, my questions to the Foreign Office in that respect have simply hit a brick wall. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry work closely with the Department for International Development to do their utmost to close down the activities of those UK-based arms dealers?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will have heard what my hon. Friend said and will be in touch with him about that. My understanding is that the European Union has made it clear that the export of arms to Zimbabwe is unacceptable.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Would not our country have more credibility countering the propaganda of the Zimbabwe Government Information Minister, Mr. Jonathan Moyo, if our Government Information and Communications Service and its officers and £150 million budget did not answer to the Prime Minister's political appointee, Mr. Alastair Campbell?
The Prime Minister: It is extraordinary that on a serious subject for millions of people in Zimbabwe, and when it is obvious, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats said a moment or two ago, that the best message to send out from the House is a united one, some parts of the Conservative party have done nothing today but try to make political capital out of the situation in Zimbabwe and suggest that there is some magic resolution of it that the Government could have secured. That is nonsense. What is happening in Zimbabwe is a disgrace. The whole House should be united in condemning it, and points such as those made by the hon. Gentleman only give succour to those who support the Mugabe regime
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Prime Minister accept that many of us strongly support his
302
comment in his statement that the fudging must stop? The indecision of the Commonwealth conference has left a dreadful stain on the Commonwealth which will last for a long time to come. On the assumption that the election on Sunday will almost certainly be violently rigged by Mugabe, will the Prime Minister do everything in his power to ensure that smart sanctions are introduced as quickly as possible by as many countries that are our allies as possible?
The Prime Minister: We will, of course, do everything we possibly can. On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the test for the Commonwealth will come once the election takes place. I should have preferred action to be taken before then, but that is the chance for the Commonwealth to show that the principles that it agreed—ironically, in Zimbabwe, at Harare—10 or so years ago will be maintained in this situation. The United States has already indicated the action that it will take, as has the European Union. We will fight for action at every international level.
David Burnside: The Prime Minister knows better than any of us how important international unity has been following the national unity in this House in the international fight against terrorism, whether through the UN, the Commonwealth or the EU. As the Prime Minister has recognised through his international travel that terrorism is terrorism wherever it comes from and wherever it takes place, whether the Twin Towers, Canary Wharf, the Baltic Exchange or Enniskillen, could he foresee a time when Osama bin Laden, if he were still alive and not convicted, would receive a national and international amnesty similar to the amnesty that he and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are about to announce in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings, but the situation in Northern Ireland is different because a peace process is under way there. Whatever the difficulties, the hon. Gentleman would have to accept that the Belfast agreement has considerably improved the situation in Northern Ireland, whether with regard to jobs, investment or security, and it is important that we sustain that agreement. However, as I say. I understand why the hon. Gentleman expresses the view s that he does.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: If, as is widely expected, the outcome of this week's election in Zimbabwe is to unleash yet further violence against Mr. Mugabe's enemies, can the Prime Minister assure the House that every possible contingency plan has been taken to protect the lives of the 25,000 UK passport holders who at present reside there?
The Prime Minister: We shall obviously do everything that we possibly can. Of course, we have given considerable thought to what we could do to protect the people there, but I very much hope that it will not come to that.
Norman Lamb: The Prime Minister was right to point out in his statement that, remarkably, it is still just possible that Mugabe could be toppled from power this weekend, such is the scale of his unpopularity

303
there, as shown by what polling evidence there is. If that happens, unlikely as it may be, can the Prime Minister confirm that plans are in place to provide immediate assistance next week to help to stabilise the new President and the country and to help the reconstruction process get under way?
The Prime Minister: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if the Opposition were to win and the democratic will of the people were to prevail, we would do everything that we could to ensure that Zimbabwe was given the fresh start that it needs.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Prime Minister has said that his preference would be for action before the election on Sunday, not after. There is one thing that he could do that would send a clear signal now. Will he make it clear today that if Mugabe remains in office after Sunday, Zimbabwe will not be welcome at the Commonwealth games in Manchester this summer?
The Prime Minister: I shall certainly consult on that in the light of what happens at the weekend.
Mr. Speaker: The next business was to be a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, the statement reached the Opposition only 10 minutes ago, so in order to allow the Opposition time to study the statement I shall take the ten-minute Bill first.

Criminal Evidence (Prohibition of Sale)
4.13 pm
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of evidence gathered during criminal investigations or used during criminal proceedings.
In 1994, a series of murders committed over a number of years came to light in my constituency of Gloucester. During that time, the city became the focus for the country's, and indeed the world's, media. It soon became apparent that 25 Cromwell street had been the venue for some of the most appalling acts of sexual abuse, torture and mass murder that Britain has ever seen. During a number of agonising weeks, many people discovered the fate of their missing loved ones. It was an extremely painful time for many people, and how victims' relatives and the surviving victims can even begin to rebuild their lives is almost beyond my comprehension. I know that many have done so, however, as many of them reside in my constituency. I am introducing this Bill because their healing process was to be rudely interrupted.
In 1996, Fred West committed suicide in jail while still awaiting trial. He died intestate and the Official Solicitor made a deal with a television company for the documentary television and video rights to the archive material from his estate. That evidence included recorded interviews that the police had conducted with West, West's personal photographs, home video footage and witness testimonies—evidence that would have been covered by Crown copyright had West not committed suicide pre-trial. Essentially, all the evidence that the police had gathered during their investigations was being sold on by the Official Solicitor to a television company. That television company was the creative consortium working with Channel 5.
When the police interview a suspect such as Fred West, they give the defence counsel copies of their evidence under the disclosure rule. They do not expect evidence for a court case then to be sold on to the media to produce a salacious television documentary. Channel 5 commissioned a programme on Fred West and broadcast not just transcripts of his confessions but his voice—he described his crimes in great detail. Unsurprisingly, the Gloucestershire constabulary was aghast. The victims, many of whom live in my constituency, turned to me because they could not believe that trial evidence could be traded in such a way.
Prior to the broadcast, I wrote to or had meetings with representatives of the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission and the Attorney-General to convey the concerns of the police and those of the victims and their families. The Attorney-General told me that an application for an injunction would not be successful, and that a court could not be expected to prevent a broadcast as it would contravene article 10 of the European convention on human rights. The police argued that taped interviews and other material were covered by Crown copyright and asked the Attorney-General to block that material being broadcast on the basis that not to do so would be a contempt of court. That request was turned down. The BSC and the ITC then told me that they could only act retrospectively—after the programme had been shown.

305
Indeed, the Broadcasting Act 1990 explicitly excludes the possibility of the ITC being able to preview such a programme.
By maximising the estate of Fred West in such a way, the Official Solicitor had made it impossible for the Government or the regulators—the ITC and the BSC—to prevent footage of a mass murderer talking about his crimes in his own voice from appearing on our screens.
Channel 5 showed its documentary. Throughout the campaign to block the broadcast, Channel 5 consistently gave reassurances that the programme would be tasteful and predominantly investigative. Indeed, shortly before the broadcast, Channel 5's chief executive stated:
"This documentary is of the highest possible calibre. It is not in any way salacious."
None the less, the programme showed Fred West describing his crimes in great detail. It showed pictures of victims faded in and out against pictures of their skeletal remains, and it showed Rose West undressing in front of the camera and in bed with her clients
Some may argue that censorship is an issue in this matter, and a reason to object to the Bill. However, it has never been my intention to prevent the making of a programme about Fred West. I do not have a problem with crime documentaries. Two other documentaries about Fred West are in the public domain at present. They were made with the co-operation of surviving victims, the police and people in the legal profession. My Bill would not prevent the media from covering or documenting such cases, but the sale of evidence and the screening of the film have significant implications for future police investigations.
The police officer who led the investigation, former Detective Superintendent John Bennett, said on the eve of the Channel 5 broadcast:
"Police promises of confidentiality are rendered useless if every tape and every piece of evidence can be turned over to TV companies on the whim of some legal bureaucrat."
306
If this programme has set a precedent and more programmes of this nature are made, how long will it be before detained prisoners, aware that their confessions could soon be in every living room in the country, simply refuse to talk to the police? How long will it be before witnesses, who already face enormous difficulties in even talking about their experiences, are simply unable to open up to the police?
Furthermore, once evidence is in the public domain, there is also the danger that convicted criminals will have easy access to witnesses' testimonies once they have served their sentences. How long will it be before a convicted criminal is able to access everything that a prosecution witness has said?
This Bill does not introduce censorship. It does not undermine the media. However, it will ensure that, if surviving victims of crime or the families of murder victims object to the sale to the media of evidence that was meant for a trial, the Official Solicitor will have to seek permission from the Attorney-General.
Fred West is dead. Through the sale of evidence from his trial by the Official Solicitor to the media, his surviving victims, many of whom are my constituents, have been tormented by him again. The police and the justice system have felt undermined. In similar cases up and down the land, that could happen again. This Bill can change that. It may be too late for some, but it is not too late for others
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Tom Watson, Ms Candy Atherton, John Mann, Mr. Simon Thomas, Mr. George Osborne, Patrick Mercer, Jim Knight, John Robertson and Valerie Davey.

Criminal Evidence (Prohibition of Sale)
  CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (PROHIBITION OF SALE)
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of evidence gathered during criminal investigations or used during criminal proceedings: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 May, and to be printed [Bill 109].

US Tariffs (Steel Imports)
4.24 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the announcement made last night by President Bush on his decision to impose a range of tariff measures that would severely restrict United States imports of steel products from the rest of the world. These measures will impose additional tariffs of between 8 and 30 per cent. on products that account for some three quarters of US steel imports. They will effectively close the American market to many products.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I are extremely disappointed that President Bush has taken this action in the face of united international opinion. It is wholly unjustified at a time of falling American imports and rising prices. In our view and that of the European Commission, it is a clear breach of the United States WTO obligations. As well as having an international effect, steel import restrictions will raise costs for American industry to the detriment of consumers and the American manufacturing sector overall. Import restrictions will also only delay much-needed steel restructuring and hurt the American manufacturing sector just at a time when it appears to be rallying from the economic downturn.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, myself and a number of other Ministers have been in frequent touch with the highest levels of the American Administration since last July, when the investigation by the US International Trade Commission was announced. That has continued throughout this week, when I have twice spoken with the American Commerce Secretary, Donald Evans. We have all made it very clear that measures restricting imports would he quite the wrong response to problems that are faced by parts of the American steel industry. We have also stressed to the American Administration that this is more than an issue between the European Union and the United States. The American action, in clear disregard of international opinion, risks undermining the good work that was done a few months ago to achieve the Doha launch of a new round of trade liberalisation. Why should developing countries commit to free and open markets when the United States closes its domestic market to address a problem that many see as largely of the American industry's own making?
Of course, there are also real issues in the global steel trade market, including excess capacity and market-distorting subsidies, but they are best addressed multilaterally through the discussions that have been convened by the Organisation for European Co-operation and Development with our full support. Until now, those discussions have been making good progress, but although we hope that that effort can continue, the American action risks jeopardising that progress.
Most of all, however, I am concerned—as every Member of this House will be—about the impact that these American measures will have on the British steel industry and steelworkers. We have one of the most efficient and productive steel-making industries and work forces in the world. That achievement has been a very painful process. Some 86,000 steel jobs have been lost in Britain since 1980 and some 10,000 have been lost in the
308
past 18 months. All of us in this House know how tough that has been for workers who have lost their jobs and for their families and communities. We also know what the Government have done to see them through those difficult times. But the outcome is an efficient and productive industry that is able to compete effectively in world markets. We are not prepared to allow the United States to try to dump its problems on the rest of the world instead of facing up to the challenge of modernising and restructuring its industry.
The steel curtain that the American Administration have brought down threatens our industry in two ways. First, it will directly affect some of our exports. Three quarters of all UK steel production is sold in the European Union, including the UK. About 9 per cent. of our total production is exported to the United States, and about 4 per cent. will be affected by the American tariffs. One especially significant UK export product—hot-rolled bar and cold-finished bar—will be subject to a prohibitive 30 per cent. tariff. Given the current state of our steel industry, that will have a devastating effect on many of our companies and their workers. Secondly—this is potentially even more damaging to UK and other European industry—there is the proposed 30 per cent. tariff on flat steel products. There is a serious risk that when the tariffs take effect on 20 March, the British and European markets will be flooded by exports of these products from third countries, mainly in the far east, that would otherwise have sold to the United States.
We will stand by our steel producers in combating this unjustifiable and deeply regrettable action. I therefore fully support today's announcement by EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy that he will request immediate WTO dispute settlement action. Indeed, he has already done so. The first step in this is a 60-day consultation period with the United States, but, unless the American Administration are prepared to rethink their action, a WTO disputes panel will follow. Realistically, this case—which I am confident the European Union will win—will take some considerable time, perhaps up to two years. We are not prepared to stand by while British industry and jobs are put at risk for that length of time.
I can confirm that Commissioner Lamy, to whom I have just spoken, is already considering appropriate and urgent action to be taken to safeguard British and European steel producers and workers against a flood of steel imports. Indeed, we were already pressing the Commission last week to be prepared to take such action in the event that the Americans took protectionist measures of this magnitude.
Let me stress that safeguard action is allowable under WTO rules, where it is intended to protect countries from surges in imports that cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury. That does not mean that we are simply copying the American actions of which we are so rightly critical. We would much prefer not to have to take any action. Our trade policy is to promote open and fair global markets, but, in circumstances in which the British and European marketplace could be flooded by steel imports as a result of American action, we are forced to consider appropriate and proportionate action to protect our own industry and its work force.
I very much regret being forced into safeguard action. This would be the first time that any safeguard action had been taken by the European Union since the present regulations came into effect eight years ago. I particularly

309
regret that it is the United States that will have prompted this action. Only four months ago, we were working closely with America, and with developing countries, to launch a new round of world trade negotiations. We will continue to work for free and fair trade around the world, because it is in all our interests—those of the developed countries and the developing countries alike—to achieve that. We will also continue to stand up for the interests of the British economy and British workers at home and abroad.
Mr. John Whittingdale: Although I extend the usual thanks to the Secretary of State for letting me have a copy of her statement in advance, may I express regret that she did not see fit to apologise for the fact that it did not arrive until 10 minutes before the Prime Minister sat down? May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to convey my thanks to Mr. Speaker for making it clear, by bringing forward the ten-minute Bill, that that kind of discourtesy is unacceptable to the House?
Having said that, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has come to the House to make this statement, in contrast to her failure even to attend the debate that took place here on this issue last night. First, I would like to make it clear that the Conservatives join the Government in condemning the action taken by the United States Administration. The import tariffs that have been announced will do nothing to help the steel companies in the United States that are suffering from competition from more efficient producers at home, and they will also push up raw material costs for many more American companies that use steel. However, although this action may prove damaging to the American economy, there is no doubt that the effect on the steel industry in this country will be devastating, putting at risk yet more jobs, on top of the thousands of redundancies that have occurred in the last two years.
We therefore support the action taken by the European Union to lodge an immediate complaint with the World Trade Organisation, which must be the right place to resolve disputes of this kind. Does the Secretary of State agree that, while it is right to take action to protect the steel industry from a further flood of cheap imports that have been displaced from American markets, it would be entirely wrong for us now to impose retaliatory measures that could lead to an escalating trade war? Will she remind President Bush of the commitments that he has made in the past to the cause of free trade?
I join the right hon. Lady in expressing great concern that this latest action might put in jeopardy the achievement of a new world trade agreement, after the encouraging start that was made at Doha. However, although she is right to say that this matter will be dealt with by the WTO, she is also correct to say that we simply cannot afford to wait the two years that it usually takes for that organisation to reach a judgment. Will she therefore make every effort to ensure that the matter is dealt with as quickly as possible, and, even at this eleventh hour, press the United States Government to hold back from implementation of the tariffs? If that cannot be achieved, we will reluctantly support the taking of safeguard action, but will she confirm that that action will be measured and permissible under WTO rules?
310
Will the Secretary of State explain why, during the many conversations that have taken place between the Prime Minister and President Bush in the past six months, the Prime Minister did not raise this matter with the President until last week? It has been clear since July, as she said, that the American Government intended to take this action, yet it was seven months before the Prime Minister wrote to President Bush to press him to reconsider.
Is the Secretary of State aware of the glaring contrast between the lack of urgency shown by the Prime Minister in defending the steel industry in this country, and the alacrity with which he was willing to write to the Romanian Prime Minister to promote the interests of an overseas company which happens to be owned by a major donor to the Labour party? Is she aware of the anger felt today by steelworkers in Britain about the fact that the Government have been helping Mr. Mittal, a foreign-based competitor who has been actively campaigning against British interests by giving $600,000 to the campaign that is lobbying for tariffs in the United States?
On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State tried to claim that the American subsidiary of Corns had also supported that campaign. Does she now accept that that is completely untrue? Does she accept that the president of Corns Tuscaloosa wrote to the American Iron and Steel Institute making it clear that the firm was totally opposed to the introduction of tariffs, and would not support the AISI in the matter?
Is this not another instance in which the Government's attempt to justify their actions has been shown to be wholly incredible and based on a complete distortion of the facts? Will the Secretary of State therefore apologise to Corns, and to all who work in the steel industry in this country, for the support that her Government have given to a company whose actions may directly contribute to the loss of their own jobs?
Ms Hewitt: Of course I regret the fact that my office was unable to give the hon. Gentleman a copy of my statement any earlier this afternoon, but I know he will understand that my first priority was to ensure that we understood precisely the details of what the American Administration are proposing, how that would affect our industry and how we could best deal with the situation. As for yesterday's debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy was present throughout.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the action that we and the European Union are already taking in response to the American action. There will be no tit-for-tat retaliation. We will not respond to the American Administration's flouting of the WTO rules by flouting them ourselves. We will of course continue to press the American Administration, even now, to back off from the actions that they have announced, just as we will continue to press for exemptions of products that are of particular significance to the British steel industry. We will, however, also start urgent discussions with the European Commission and our European colleagues to ensure that we do, if necessary, take the appropriate safeguard action—as permitted by the WTO rules—to protect our industry and our workers from a flood of imports.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the issue was pressed with the American Administration. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear this afternoon, I first

311
raised it at senior Administration levels last July. It was not at all obvious at that point that the Administration would pursue this course, and for many months—through me, through other Ministers and through the embassy—we continued to try to persuade the Administration that they should not risk the consequences of this retreat into protectionism. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed this afternoon, when it became more likely that the Administration would take this action, he raised the matter directly with the President.
On the enormous pressure that trade unions and trade associations in the United States have put on the American Government, all companies operating in the American steel sector are in fact members of the trade associations that lobbied for those tariffs. Indeed, I made precisely that point this morning. Corus and Corus UK in particular have made it very clear that they are against that action.
We hear synthetic anger from the Opposition about donations and job losses in the steel industry, but they did not care about such losses when they were in government and devastating the British steel industry. Let me make the matter clear once again: donations to political parties have nothing whatsoever to do with Government policy. At any rate, they have nothing whatsoever to do with our Government's policy. We have no idea what influence political donations had on the policy of the previous Conservative Government, for the simple reason that they and the Conservative party flatly refused to publish any information on donations, whether British or foreign. We will therefore take no lessons from Conservatives on party political funding. It is this Government who have made party political donations transparent.
We will continue to support the Romanian Government's efforts to open up their economy and modernise their industry because it is in Britain's interest for Romania and other candidate countries to join the European Union and become more prosperous themselves. I suspect, however, that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is unaware that America has exempted Romania and the other candidate countries from those tariffs precisely because their exports to the United States—like those to the European Union—are too small to be of any significance.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no winners in a trade war involving the imposition of tariffs, and that we must try as quickly as possible to stop it? Let us not forget that there are 30 days in which a great deal of work can be done. I urge her to ensure that the European Union carries a big stick, and wields it if necessary. In circumstances such as this, the Americans must be made to understand that we are not a soft touch, and that the WTO will come down on them like a ton of bricks. It will not be the workers of Ohio or West Virginia who will benefit from such action.
Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with the points that my hon. Friend has made. Of course, neither the United Kingdom nor the European Union will be a soft touch on this matter. We have supported the strengthening of the WTO, and we believe in a proper framework of rules for free and fair trade, and in the use of WTO procedures when concerns exist about imports. We completely reject
312
the actions of the American Administration in flouting WTO rules. They have put at risk a new round of trade liberalisation, which, if successful, could benefit the entire global economy. We will stand up vigorously for the interests of our workers and companies.
Dr. Vincent Cable: I echo the comments of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) about the American action. It was indeed reckless and stupid in economic terms, and it threatens to contaminate the international trade negotiating process. The Americans are sending the message, "Don't do as we do, do as we say." That combination of hypocrisy and bullying will do much damage to international trade.
However, I want to part company with the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman on the issue of retaliation, and in that regard I totally endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill).
If the 30-day period expires without any sign of reasonableness from the American Administration, is the Secretary of State aware that under the article 19 action, which the Americans have taken—so-called selective safeguard action—it would be entirely legitimate for countries damaged by that process to take retaliatory action? She has seen the impact of smart sanctions from the US in the form of the so-called carousel that they operated in the banana dispute, so I wonder why she and the EU are not preparing a list of comparable sanctions to take against specific American targets, if they do not back down in this dispute.
I also part company with the Secretary of State and with the Conservative spokesman—
Bob Spink: The Opposition.
Dr. Cable: Yes, I part company from both of them on the issue of safeguard action. Will she accept on reflection that that is potentially a dangerous and counterproductive approach? Introducing safeguard action against all steel coming into the EU would do nothing to hurt the US, and would penalise steel-using industries in Britain, which would create unemployment because they are more labour intensive than the steel industry. It would be a reflex action that would be economically damaging.
The Secretary of State said a few moments ago that the Americans had exempted east European products from their action. Would that exemption also apply to the EU safeguard action, because the east European countries are directly in the line of fire? The Secretary of State may recall that the Sidex plant is underwritten by a European Bank for Reconstruction and Development loan, on the basis that eastern European producers will continue to have access to the European market. Can she confirm that she has checked out that point?
Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general support for the stance that we have taken, but I confirm again that, unlike the American Administration, we will act in conformity with the WTO rules. The hon. Gentleman may recall that at the time that the American Administration were engaged in carousel retaliation we strongly expressed the view that that retaliatory action was contrary to the WTO rules. We will act within those rules, which explicitly allow countries to take action to

313
protect their markets against an unforeseen and sudden surge in imports. It is ironic, as the hon. Gentleman implied, that President Bush has relied on the same clause in an attempt to justify his action, when of course steel imports into the US fell by 21 per cent. last year and are considerably lower than they were even four years ago.
We will of course look in detail at the points that the hon. Gentleman raises about the precise nature of the safeguard action that we will be forced to take if the Americans decide to persist in this action. At this stage, before we have had detailed discussions with the European Commission and other European member states, it is too early to say exactly what form that safeguard action will take.
Dr. Jack Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever the nature of the anger from the Conservatives, real and genuine anger will be felt in steel-making communities in Britain at the American action? Is not it insufficient to express regret at the American action, which is intolerable in the circumstances? Is not it dishonest of the American leadership to call for more open markets and more free trade while, at the same time, cynically resorting to classical protectionism of its industries, and not for the first time in recent years? Should not we therefore use every weapon at our disposal under the WTO rules to protect European and other continental markets that will be affected by that disgraceful action, and at the same time, search quickly for actions that we can legitimately direct against the US, while talks with them continue? I hope that my right hon. Friend will believe me when I say that that is exactly what British workers and their families will expect us to do.
Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's comments about the enormous anger that is felt today in the steel communities throughout our country. Their anger is justified; they are right to be angry about the action that the American Administration will take.
It is a tragedy that the American Administration, who played such a crucial role in securing the launch of the Doha development round and a new round of world trade negotiations, and signed up to negotiations that are designed to slash tariffs and import quotas around the world, have resorted to naked protectionism with no justification or legal basis.
I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's points about the need for action that is directed against America. I stress again that we shall consider what action to take, but will act within World Trade Organisation rules. That is in the interests of our country, of free and fair world trade and of the developing as well as the developed world.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady ask the Prime Minister to speak gently but firmly to President Bush, and to tell him that many friends and admirers of America, who strongly supported the way in which the Government stood by our ally in recent months, will perceive the cynical and appalling action that we are discussing in the context of
314
British-American relations? They will not regard that action as proper treatment of America's foremost ally, with which it always claims a special relationship.
Ms Hewitt: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will doubtless express his disappointment and views on the action directly to President Bush. However, it is important to understand that there is no connection between the action on steel and the global coalition against terrorism. We stand with the Americans and many other countries around the world in the global coalition against terrorism because that is the right thing to do and it is in our interests to do so. In the same way, we will stand with our steelworkers and steel producers against the American Administration, who have taken such completely unjustified action, because the Americans are wrong about that matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Americans will take a blind bit of notice of what she does?
Dr. Ashok Kumar: They should.
Mr. Dalyell: Of course they should. I believe that my right hon. Friend is wrong and that the Americans will not take any notice unless we link the global connections with what has happened to the steel industry. Should not we tell the Americans that we are not with them in their proposals on, for example, Iraq?
Ms Hewitt: Although I understand the strength of my hon. Friend's feelings on the matter, he is wrong to try to link the deeply unfortunate action on the steel industry with other foreign policy matters, which the Government should and will judge on their merit.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I tell the right hon. Lady that the anger on our Benches today, yesterday and the day before is anything but synthetic? Will she confirm a couple of small points? First, when did the Prime Minister become involved? There is an impression that that happened last Thursday—a bit late in the day. Secondly, when will she meet Pascal Lamy to discuss the way forward? Will she keep the House updated every week or 10 days about what is happening? The UK steel industry is going down the tubes.
Ms Hewitt: Of course I shall continue to keep hon. Members informed about the action that we are taking. I spoke to Commissioner Lamy a few minutes before making the statement to the House this afternoon. There will be meetings and further telephone calls between officials and Ministers in the next few days and weeks as we decide on the appropriate and lawful action to take. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will continue to support the interests of British steelworkers.
Dr. Hywel Francis: I thank the Secretary of State for her unequivocal and clear statement of support for the steel industry in the United Kingdom. Steelworkers in my constituency appreciate the Government's work on the matter.

315
Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the safeguards that she has described will be introduced immediately? That will reassure steelworkers and their communities throughout the United Kingdom and the new all-party group on steel.
Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks and I very much appreciate the work of the new all-party parliamentary group on steel, with which I will continue to work closely.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: As it is now clear from the letter published by the American chairman of Corus that the Secretary of State misled the British public on the "Today" programme this morning and has slurred Corns, will she now apologise? On three occasions, she has failed to answer a simple question, which is this; when did the Prime Minister first get involved in making representations to the American Administration and the President on this unfortunate matter?
Ms Hewitt: The statements that I made on the "Today" programme this morning and in other interviews during the day were, like the statement I made this afternoon, all factually accurate. I briefed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the situation in July last year. He has remained closely involved and recently raised the issue personally with President Bush.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: In the north Lincolnshire area that I represent alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Cleethorpzes (Shona McIsaac), we have seen tremendous changes in the steel industry. Back in 1979, there were more than 22,000 people on the works; there are now fewer than 4,000. Those steelworkers have taken those changes on the chin every time because they have been told that they would secure a long-term future for UK steel. This ludicrous decision from the American Government once again puts their jobs in jeopardy. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that at a UK, EU and worldwide level she will do everything she can to get assistance for the industry and, moreover, that she will base all her decisions on the simple criterion of protecting British steelworkers' jobs?
Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and of course I can give him that assurance.
Mr. Tim Boswell: I very much hope that the Secretary of State does not feel that our anger at the loss of British steel-making jobs would be, to use her word, "synthetic". Is it her intention to approach the European Commission with a view to exempting from the safeguard procedure the steel industry of Romania?
Ms Hewitt: I have already told the House that steel exports from the candidate countries have been exempted by the American Administration from their proposed tariffs. The reason for that is simple; it is because the exports from all those candidate countries are so small, whether those are exports to America or to the EU. The threat of diversion of imports, which is what we are concerned about, arises in the case of countries to whom the Americans are applying the tariffs, not the countries to whom they are not applying the tariffs. It will be in
316
that context that we will consider the appropriate and lawful action that we will take through safeguard measures to protect our own steel industry and workers.
Alan Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend reject at very short order the proposal from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, which is that she should, in effect, write off the UK steel industry? Is she aware that the determination that she has expressed on behalf of the Government and the EU to act urgently to challenge the legitimacy of American actions in the WTO and to prevent dumping in Europe of steel displaced from the market to the USA will be very much welcomed in steel-making communities in south-east Wales, where it is understood—in a way that the Conservative party and Plaid Cymru seem entirely unable to grasp—that the policy of the Government to assist Romania to prepare its steel industry to operate within the rules of the EU so far from being detrimental to the interests of the British steel industry, will be beneficial to it, in that it will bring to an end subsidies and unfair trading practices in that quarter?
Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree. My right hon. Friend is standing up for the interests of the steelworkers whom he represents. We will of course do all we can and will work extremely closely with our European allies to ensure that we protect as far as possible his constituents and other steelworkers around the country against an utterly unjustified and unlawful action.
Mr. John Greenway: It might surprise the right hon. Lady and the House to hear me say that the steel industry is hugely important to Ryedale. Some of our major employers and manufacturers are among the biggest customers for steel made in the United Kingdom. In particular, Ward Building Components, which is part of the Kingspan group, is important given its purchase of steel manufactured in Wales. The Portakabin and Portastore factories on the outskirts of York also purchase huge amounts of steel. Those companies need a consistent supply of high-quality steel at competitive prices.
The market has already been destabilised over the past two or three years, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) said. I foresee the situation becoming worse. We risk the loss of jobs both in steel manufacture and in firms that use steel as a major component of their manufacturing processes. The Secretary of State said that she will consider safeguard action that may cause serious injury. In doing so, will she keep in mind the serious injury that may be caused to companies that rely on the supply of steel?
Ms Hewitt: Safeguard action under the WTO rules is designed to deal with a flood of imports that would cause serious injury. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's concern, however, about the impact on our manufacturing industry of destabilisation in the steel market. Our steel industry includes some of the most productive steel companies in the world and companies at the leading edge of creating high value-added and innovative steel products of enormous importance to manufacturing industry.
The irony of what the Americans have done is that, by effectively banning from their market the high value-added products in which Britain and other European countries excel, they will damage their own steel industry, the restructuring of which will be delayed, and parts of

317
their manufacturing industry, including the aerospace industry. I hope, even at this late hour, that the serious implications for the American manufacturing sector might persuade the American Administration to moderate the stance that they took last night.
Dr. Ashok Kumar: Will my right hon. Friend tell President Bush that his draconian measure is a foolish and stupid idea that should be buried immediately? There is a great deal of anger in the House and in our constituencies. I represent a steel constituency that has lost several thousand jobs in the past year. I associate myself strongly with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who said that our people seek strong action and want their jobs to be defended. Now that Turkey and South Korea may dump their steel over-capacity not on America but on this country, what action will my right hon. Friend take?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is a staunch defender of his constituents who work in the steel industry. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the threat to their jobs posed by the diversion of imports from countries such as Turkey and Korea, which will be directly affected by the tariffs that the American Administration propose to impose. That is precisely why, with Commissioner Lamy and colleagues in our fellow European member states, we seek to take safeguard action to protect my hon. Friend's constituents and other steelworkers against a flood of imports from countries locked out of the American market.
Mr. Gregory Barker: Will the Secretary of State tell us exactly when she and the Prime Minister first became aware that Mr. Mittal was funding the protectionist lobby to the tune of $600,000? In light of the success of that lobby, will she and her colleagues take the only honourable course of action available to them and return the £125,000 that they took from Mr. Mittal?
Ms Hewitt: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not asked me to do anything at all to help steelworkers in this country. That is a mark of the nature of his interest in the subject. It is a trivial question and it insults the steelworkers about whom I am concerned.
Ms Meg Munn: Has my right hon. Friend been able to make an assessment of the effect of the outrageous 30 per cent. tariff that will be placed on exports of some products, many of which are manufactured in south Yorkshire, and of the likely effect on manufacturers in the US who currently rely on those products, which come from our area?
Ms Hewitt: We are in the process of making precisely that assessment, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that, given the number of different companies involved at this end, the number of different purchasers involved in the manufacturing sector in the United States, and the number of different products involved—we and others have been seeking exemption for over 1,000 products during these discussions—it is not possible to arrive at an instant assessment.
318
As I said in my statement, some 4 per cent. of total British steel output will be affected by these tariffs if they go ahead on the basis of last night's statement, but obviously that will affect some companies, which specialise in those products, much more than it will others. We are looking to do that assessment very quickly. We are of course already working with the steel producers, the steel trade association and the steel trade union, to ensure that we have an accurate assessment of the damage that could be done not only to our producers, but to American manufacturing industry. On that basis, we will decide on the appropriate safeguard action that should be taken.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: After the end of the American love affair—after Kyoto, the Enron debacle and now this—I am not sure that we should be so surprised that this has happened. However, given the global economy, global systems and global communications, is 60 days now an appropriate time scale in which to consult the WTO? Might we work in future to make the consultation period much shorter than 60 days? Would it be possible to invite Pascal Lamy and the president of the WTO to this place before the recess—not to the Chamber because we cannot, but to the House of Commons—so that we may express our concerns forcefully to those two people?
Ms Hewitt: Of course I will look at that possibility, but let me assure my hon. Friend that, having just spoken to Commissioner Lamy, I am in no doubt—and I hope that hon. Members will be in no doubt—about the anger that is felt by him and the Government about the American action and this defiance of World Trade Organisation rules. On my hon. Friend's other point, we will continue to try to strengthen the World Trade Organisation as an institution and to ensure that it has effective dispute resolution mechanisms that can be used by member states who have a complaint rather more speedily than they can at the moment.
David Cairns: I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation trade union. On that point, may I urge my right hon. Friend to consult fully and keep informed the leaders of all those who represent and work in the British steel industry? May I ask her to reject out of hand those calls for action that will be tantamount to a transatlantic trade war, which is certainly not in the interests of the British steel industry, or of the British economy and British jobs? Finally, while I appreciate that it is best to try to seek a cross-European approach on the matter, my right hon. Friend will be aware that such agreements can take an awfully long time to reach. May I ask her to ensure that the process is expedited and, if necessary, to retain the right to take action, as urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), that would be primarily focused on protecting British jobs and the British economy?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the important role of the ISTC and of course we are in touch with the union and with others representing steelworkers. I am very glad to say that today the ISTC has welcomed our Government's commitment to support the referral of America to the World Trade Organisation.

319
Let me stress to my hon. Friend that that referral to the WTO dispute procedure has already been initiated. Similarly, Commissioner Lamy has already initiated the work required to invoke the safeguard clause of the European Community rules. As I have stressed repeatedly to the House, we will continue to work in line with the WTO rules, which do give us precisely the basis on which we can take speedy action to defend our steel industry against this appalling action.
Mr. Adrian Bailey: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and welcome the actions that are proposed to be taken with the WTO. In addition, I particularly welcome her comments about pressing for an exemption for producers of specialised steel exports during those negotiations with the WTO and others. May I bring to her attention the plight of a company in my constituency, Firth Cleveland—a small, specialist producer of high value, high quality cold strip steel? It has maintained a constant—I emphasise the word "constant"—export market in the United States, and has not flooded it. I understand that there is no domestic alternative for its products in the United States. May I ask her to ensure that interests such as those of that company, are adequately represented when we press for exemptions?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend has already drawn my attention to that company in his constituency, and we are already ensuring that we understand fully its position. The point that he makes about the high-value-added products that are being exported at a steady rate—no sudden surge of imports there—to the United States precisely underlines the point that I made earlier that the American action risks damaging its own manufacturing sector, precisely when that sector is beginning to emerge from the recession in America. Although it may seem ironic, we may well be acting in the interests of American manufacturing industry, as well as his and other steel producers, when we seek—I hope, successfully—the exemption for which he presses.

Points of Order
5.12 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During last evening's debate in the House on whether this Parliament or the Scottish Parliament is responsible for approving new power stations in Scotland, especially nuclear power stations, Opposition parties tried eight times to elicit an answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State, Scotland Office.
Simultaneous to that debate, the Minister for Industry and Energy was answering that question outside the House. Further confusion arises because most hon. Members understood the Ministers in that debate to say that Westminster would take the final decision, while the Minister for Industry and Energy was saying that it would be taken in Scotland. What protection is there for hon. Members who are involved in a debate in the House when Ministers of the Crown make contrary statements elsewhere? Does not that involve an element of discourtesy? How do we proceed now? Does a form of arbitration between Ministers exist? Do we toss a coin? Better still, could a statement be made to clarify the position once and for all?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I add my voice as one who is fervently pro-nuclear power stations? There should be clarification; this is an important issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): May I tell both hon. Gentlemen that the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for ministerial statements? The point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is, in a sense, a continuation of yesterday's debate. The principal point is that the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for Ministers' statements on such matters.
Tom Brake: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be appropriate for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to come to the House to explain why he chose to disregard London Transport's advice not to publish the Ernst and Young report on value for money at London Underground because that would undermine the only competitive leverage left in negotiations? Would it be appropriate for him to come here to set out what assessment he has made of the commercial damage caused by his actions?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for the occupant of the Chair to judge whether those matters are appropriate or inappropriate, and I have no knowledge of such a statement.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I have given the Chair notice. Yesterday afternoon I received a letter from the BBC signed by Michael Hastings CBE, who is described as head of political and parliamentary affairs. He has previously been brought to the attention of the Chair for his activities in the House.

321
The letter relates to the proceedings on which we are about to embark. It says:
"An inappropriate level of attention has been focused on the BBC and its regulation throughout the Second Reading and Committee stages in the Commons."
Mr. Hastings goes on to say:
"It is our hope that this Wednesday's debate will be more constructive".
Referring to amendments that have been tabled for the House to discuss on Report, he says:
"Amendments have again been tabled which seek to bypass the White Paper and propose an alternative model. The BBC rejects these options."
What can one do about the impertinence of a lobbyist who writes to the Chairman of a Select Committee on such matters in an offensive way? Could it be drawn to the BBC's attention that it has no power either to reject or to accept options that are laid before the House, because they are for us to debate and to decide? Is it not particularly unsatisfactory that the House of Commons should be treated in such a way by someone whose organisation is funded by the taxpayer through the licence fee, whose job is funded by the taxpayer through the licence fee and whose letter to me was funded by the taxpayer through the licence fee? Is it not a fact that that person has a vested interest in those amendments being rejected because they would affect not only the BBC, but himself? What can we do to deal with offensive communications of such a nature from a vested interest?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Chair has no control over communications of that kind made by people outside the House. I have no doubt, however, that the BBC will have noted the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I am sure that the House, too, will bear them in mind when it debates the amendments.

Orders of the Day
  Office of Communications Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Office of Communications Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 4

      OFCOM OFFICES IN WALES AND SCOTLAND
      'OFCOM shall establish an office in Wales and an office in Scotland in order to ensure that Welsh and Scottish needs are considered.'.—[Mr. Simon Thomas.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.18 pm
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I beg to move. That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
      '(3A) The Secretary of State shall—

      (a) ensure that the membership of OFCOM includes a member to represent Welsh and Scottish matters, and

      (b) appointing this member, shall consult the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.'.

      No. 16, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
      '(4A) In appointing members of OFCOM, the Secretary of State shall consult with the National Assembly of Wales and the Scottish Parliament in order to ensure that Welsh and Scottish needs are considered.'.
      No. 17, in schedule, page 11, line 34, at end insert—
      '(4) As soon as possible after the end of each financial year, OFCOM shall also prepare and send to the National Assembly of Wales and the Scottish Parliament a report of how OFCOM is ensuring that Welsh and Scottish interests are being adequately met.'.
      No. 18, in page 12, line 9, at end insert—
      '(1A) OFCOM shall establish—

      (a) a Welsh Advisory Committee which shall advise OFCOM on the carrying out of its functions in Wales, and

      (b) a Scottish Advisory Committee which shall advise OFCOM on the carrying out of its functions in Scotland;

      and in appointing these committees, OFCOM shall consult the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.'.
      No. 19, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—
      '(5) The membership of every committee established by OFCOM must contain at least one representative for Wales and one representative for Scotland; and in appointing these representatives, OFCOM shall consult with the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.'.
      Mr. Thomas: We debated the Office of Communications in Wales and Scotland in Committee and the new clause gives hon. Members an opportunity to revisit the issue, no doubt to the great joy of Ministers. Hon. Members have had the chance to think about the import of the new clause and the amendments and how they would assist the work of Ofcom. I hope that the Minister has also thought about the wonderful job that he can do for Welsh and Scottish broadcasting and communications, which no doubt he does every day, by accepting them.
      Micheal Fabricant: I know that the hon. Gentleman will make some powerful points and I will be

      323
      interested to discover how the Minister will counter them. Does not the Independent Television Commission have representatives for Wales and Scotland, as it did when it was the Independent Broadcasting Authority? Given that it is Ofcom's role to embrace the powers of existing bodies, the lack of such representation is an omission and marks a deterioration of their function to exercise control.
      Mr. Thomas: I concur with that powerful point, although it takes me away from my argument. In light of the earlier point of order, I add that amendments tabled by Conservative Members seek to extend to the BBC board of governors some of Ofcom's powers. Of course, the BBC itself has representation for Wales and Scotland. There is a national governor for Wales on the board, and there is a broadcasting council for Wales. Much of the industry that we seek to regulate through Ofcom has a distinct representation for Wales and Scotland. That will be lost under the Bill, unless my amendments are carried and the Bill says more about how the content of communications will be regulated in Wales and Scotland.
      It may help the House if I explain how my proposals would achieve that aim.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: Again.
      Mr. Thomas: Yes, again.
      The new clause seeks to ensure that Ofcom will
      "establish an office in Wales and an office in Scotland in order to ensure that Welsh and Scottish needs are considered."
      That proposal was debated in Committee, and, to be fair, the Minister pointed out that in December 2000 the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport stated clearly that Ofcom would have offices in Scotland and Wales. I was pleased to hear that in Committee, but on reflection I think that it would be worth stating it in the Bill.
      If it is intended that Ofcom should have offices in Wales and Scotland—of course, this may also be an issue for Northern Ireland—I do not see why that should not be firmly stated in the Bill so that people in Wales and Scotland who are interested in these matters know that it will happen. We have a promise from the previous Secretary of State, but not from the present one, so it would be useful if she repeated that promise in today's debate. The new clause would ensure not only that the offices were established but that they were not ersatz or virtual offices that open only every other Wednesday when there is an R in the month. We need a real office dedicated to the needs of communications in Wales.
      Amendment No. 15 seeks to ensure that the membership of Ofcom includes a member to represent Welsh and Scottish matters and that in appointing that member the Secretary of State consults the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament. We debated in Committee whether that member should be a representative directly elected or selected by the Assembly and the Parliament. I have not tabled such an amendment on Report. The Government were very dismissive of the proposal in Committee, which is unfortunate because it is the request of the Assembly.
      324
      It is worth repeating that the Assembly Cabinet report of 24 January 2001 said:
      "We recommend that the Board of Ofcom should likewise include a member representing the interests of Wales. We suggest that that Member for Wales should be appointed by the National Assembly."
      It is true that those are only recommendations and suggestions, but the Government have not sought to implement them. The Minister nods to confirm that; I suspect that he takes a different view from the Assembly because after all he, not the Assembly, is responsible for broadcasting and communications in Wales.
      Brian White: The Bill is about more than broadcasting, which is what the hon. Gentleman has referred to. He argues that the board should be representative. Will he explain why? What vested interests should it represent? Should only Scotland and Wales be represented or should every other vested interest, legitimate or otherwise, also be represented?
      Mr. Thomas: I have a sense of deja vu from the Committee proceedings. I have been very careful in referring to communications throughout the debate, and although broadcasting is an important part of the Welsh fabric, communications are very important, as I hope I shall shortly demonstrate. The hon. Gentleman asked a serious question about why there should be representation. I promise to answer it, although he might not be happy with my answer. First, let me finish exploring why there is no representation in any shape or form for Wales and Scotland on the proposed Ofcom.
      The amendment differs slightly from that which I tabled in Committee. It would simply ensure that, whoever the five or six members of Ofcom to be appointed by the Secretary of State are, and whatever the interests, such as broadband, that they bring with them—they are unlikely to be geographical interests, as the Government have made clear; I do not accept that, but I do accept reality—a member of Ofcom should have the specific additional interest of ensuring that Welsh and Scottish interests are looked after.
      That is the minimum that we can expect within a devolution settlement. Anything less begs the questions how on earth devolution is to work, and how the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament are supposed to relate to Ofcom given that progress and evolution are occurring within devolution.
      I hope that the Minister will carefully consider my fairly new suggestion. I am encouraged by some of the responses received after our debate in Committee from commercial companies such as Vodafone. They see no problem in my suggestion. They want a small, concentrated—non-dilute, if one likes—Ofcom comprising a small but powerful body of people who know exactly what they are about, but those companies foresee no problems arising if, in addition, some of the individual members of Ofcom have a responsibility to look after Welsh broadcasting interests, or Scottish communications interests, or the disability interests covered by a later amendment.
      It is important that the Government explain how, if there is to be no dedicated person, those aims are to be achieved within Ofcom—or are Welsh and Scottish interests merely to be subsumed in the overriding UK-wide interests? Any such subsumption—if that is the right word—of Welsh and Scottish needs in a UK-wide body would be damaging to Wales and Scotland.

      325
      Amendment No. 19 would ensure that every committee established by Ofcom contains at least one representative for Wales and one for Scotland, and that in appointing those representatives, Ofcom should consult with the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament. If we are to have a small concentrated Ofcom, I see no reason why the various interests should not be represented on the consultative committees that it sets up.
      I remain to be convinced, but if the Government are right that Ofcom can work with a role that is not representative but relates to the communications sector as a whole, they have to accept that Ofcom will need roots—it will need information and some means of consulting surrounding bodies and the wider public. Six people cannot do that. They may be experts in their field and the ideal people to advise and inform the Government and to regulate the industry, but they cannot undertake the wider accountability role.
      Let us think about what we are doing. We heard in the point of order about the role of Parliament. We are abdicating our regulatory role—it is right that we do so, because we in Parliament cannot control everything, but it is rightly our role—to a quango, a non-departmental public body, a new body called Ofcom. There is nothing new in that because we have already ceded that role to the bodies that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) mentioned. However, in doing that, we should have one eye on wider accountability.
      We know how much say we as individual Members of Parliament will have in the workings of Ofcom and how few opportunities we will have to debate the matter. Perhaps there will be an annual debate, or a debate in Westminster Hall, or the occasional parliamentary question, but our day-to-day ability to hold Ofcom to account for its actions in the name of our constituents and our nations will be extremely limited. It is therefore incumbent on us to say now that Ofcom should have a good working relationship with the industries, with the people of the UK as a whole, and with the people of Wales and Scotland. It is valuable to think of the advisory bodies for Ofcom playing that important role. I have no doubt that the Minister will say, as he said in Committee, that this is only a paving Bill and that we should not bother the Government with details as they are about to set up this lovely little body. However, the devil is in the detail and the details show whether Ofcom can deliver communications needs in Wales and Scotland.
      5.30 pm
      I hope that the Minister will accept that whatever else the advisory committees might do for Ofcom and whatever other subject they might cover, there should be geographical representation for Wales and Scotland. I hope that he will put that on the record tonight, even if he is not prepared to accept the amendment.
      What is different about Wales and Scotland? What sort of matters need to be addressed by Ofcom? Why do we need, if not representation, at least an avenue—the triangle of office, individual and advisory body—so that the average person in Wales, or anybody involved in any of these industries in Wales, knows where to go and who is accountable for decisions that will impact on the communications industry in Wales?
      326
      Let us first consider the analogue switch-off and the move to digital. The Government have said that that will happen when we have achieved 95 per cent. digital television coverage. There is a danger that Wales and Scotland will lose out because that is a UK figure. If one thinks about the natural geography of Wales and Scotland, it becomes clear why a UK figure of 95 per cent. coverage could easily mean a figure of 80 per cent. in Wales and 85 per cent. in Scotland. That would be hugely disadvantageous.
      The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): The hon. Gentleman is kind to give way. As the Member for Pontypridd, unable to receive anything beyond four channels, let me tell him that over my dead body will my constituents and I not be able to receive everything through terrestrial, digital or some other platform.
      Mr. Thomas: I accept that. Unfortunately, I am not concerned about the hon. Gentleman's constituents but about mine. My constituents, who live in a rather more remote area, may be the last on the line. I am pleased that the Minister makes that promise, but I would like Wales and Scotland to reach that target of 95 per cent. coverage as well before switch-off. That would be Ofcom's job. At present, the Government promise only a UK figure. Ofcom could change that and ensure that the figure was 95 per cent. in the constituent parts of the UK. Would it do that, however, if it did not contain sufficient Welsh or Scottish representatives?
      Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman triggered my intervention by talking about being "on the line". Of course, his constituents could receive satellite distribution of digital television. Admittedly, that is a subscription service, but it carries the free-to-air broadcast. In my judgment, the rural areas will have to depend on satellite distribution if we are ever to have switch-off.
      Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of these matters informed the Committee. I do not quite agree with him, however, although I agree that it is de facto. For anyone living in Aberystwyth or anywhere along the west Wales coast, the choice if they want digital. de facto, is satellite. [Interruption.] Indeed, perhaps even in Pontypridd.
      The 28 gigahertz broadband fixed wireless access did not get sold off in Wales. I shall return to that shortly, as there is an opportunity to make more of it.
      Michael Fabricant: There will not necessarily be universal access by satellite. On the north side of a steep incline, the satellite angle of elevation is quite low. If a geostationary satellite over the equator cannot be looked at, it will not be possible to pick up satellite television. The topology of Wales—even that of Pontypridd—is known for its north faces, so I suspect that satellite distribution will not be universally available.
      Mr. Thomas: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been for a walk up the Graig recently, but he might have seen the topography of Pontypridd if he had. My notes refer to a mountainous area with intense interference, which I think is what he was referring to in a more technical and understandable way.

      327
      I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. These are matters that must be ironed out. Whether we can get to 100 per cent. take-up is a moot point, but the 95 per cent. target should apply to Wales as well as to the UK as a whole. In fact, take-up in Wales has been a little faster than in the rest of the UK, which might seem to underline my argument. The take-up has been faster, up to a point. That point is reached when the choice is not available and take-up is not possible.
      My contention is that full potential take-up of digital services and the digital communication revolution will not be possible in Wales until we have an adequate broadband network in Wales. The issues of technical interference, satellite, and take-up from analogue are all related to the overriding need for the economy of Wales to create a broadband network. One answer would be to create a range of local transmitters. Such an experiment is taking place in my area with the Maran broadband network, which Ceredigion county council, Powys and, I think, Carmarthenshire have worked together to achieve.
      That points the way, but there are drawbacks to local transmitters. There is much local opposition to radio transmitters. People worry that they are dangerous, the Stewart report has raised concerns about them, and of course the transmitters are visually intrusive. Nevertheless, in the short term that is one of the best ways of delivering broadband to rural areas.
      The National Assembly for Wales recently invested in ensuring digital take-up for every school throughout Wales. That will bring a broadband link, in theory at least, into virtually every village and community in many parts of rural Wales. The question is whether we can get the short hop from those transmitters to businesses to bring about the potential economic growth that can follow from broadband communication
      I do not want any area of Wales to miss out on the revolution in digital communications that broadband promises—for example, the ability to sell directly and to interact over broadband. That is available in only a limited way through satellite. Selling through satellite has largely been a failure. I understand that several companies are pulling back from direct marketing in that way, as it simply does not work. Scrolling through an Argos catalogue by satellite takes far too long and no one is interested, now that the internet is available. The challenge is to link the two, and broadband is that link.
      Paul Farrelly: May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the subject of the amendments? As a fellow Celt of Irish extraction, I had lunch yesterday with S4C. It was made clear to me that S4C considers itself not just a Welsh broadcaster, but a British broadcaster and was keen to be regulated from London. Coming back to the subject of the amendments, has the hon. Gentleman any comments on that stance?
      Mr. Thomas: I am not the Member for S4C, I can assure the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased that S4C gave him lunch because that obviously underpins its UK-wide remit. It is good to hear that. As he has accused me in a roundabout way of straying from the subject, I remind him that the amendments are about how Wales will benefit from the digital revolution which is to be regulated by Ofcom. I am trying to set out for the benefit of the House—
      Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Labour Members say that the hon. Member for
      328
      Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) has been wandering off the subject of the amendments. If that were the case, surely you would have called him to order?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct.
      Mr. Thomas: With that vote of confidence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall conclude the argument about broadband and its relationship to the regulatory system which Ofcom is set up to implement. At present we do not have a very good story to tell about broadband communication in the UK. According to the figures that I have for the UK's broadband connectivity, we are in 22nd place in the world league. That is a poor result for the Government. We are behind Portugal and Spain, for example. I regret to say that if the figures for Wales were disaggregated, we would be bottom in the UK in broadband access. Broadband infrastructure is essential for the development of the Welsh communications industry.
      Brian White: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not taken account of BT's announcement last week. That will be the platform under which broadband will develop extensively in Britain because it is exactly what everyone has been asking for at a low wholesale price. He should bear that in mind when he is making his comments.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been reasonably tolerant with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) so far, but he must address his remarks to the new clause.
      Mr. Thomas: I simply say briefly that the BT announcement does not take into account the cost of bringing broadband to rural areas. I do not believe that broadband access for rural areas will come through BT; it will come by other means.
      I come now to why Wales needs to be represented on Ofcom. The public service role of broadcasting is particularly relevant. Programming in Wales is different from that elsewhere in the UK. The situation is unique. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) met S4C—SpedwarC—and knows that it is a public service broadcaster, established after many years of campaigning in Wales, which provides a hugely valuable service to television viewers in Wales in the Welsh language. That is a unique feature not found elsewhere in the United Kingdom that needs to be looked after and protected within a regulatory environment. If that regulatory environment is to be Ofcom, there surely needs to be someone within Ofcom, whether an advisory committee, a member of Ofcom itself or someone on the office side, who understands what S4C and Welsh language broadcasting is about, and what English language broadcasting in Wales is about. That is why some form of representation for Wales and Scotland within the proposed Ofcom body is so important.
      If Scotland and Wales, as peripheral countries in terms of economic development—finterruption.1 In terms of economic growth we lag behind. I do not know the Scottish figure but my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) backs me up. Wales has 80 per cent. of the UK's GDP, so we cannot be described as anything other than lagging behind. We are told that broadband can bring us together, that it cuts the distance between markets and that it will be part of the answer

      329
      to bringing rural areas of Wales and Scotland into the mainstream of economic development. If that is to happen, Ofcom must regulate it. It must set up the structures and the fabric that will allow it to happen. It will not do so if it does not pay proper attention to Welsh and Scottish needs, and it will not do that if there is no way of them being effected in the constitution of Ofcom. That is why we need to decide the matter now in a debate on the membership of Ofcom, not afterwards in a debate on the communications Bill.
      Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: For those of us who are used to the hon. Gentleman's friends in the Scottish National party in their usual sectarian mode of address in the House or in Grand Committee, it was a pleasure to hear the more constructive tone with which the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) addressed the House today. I do not wish to pursue that line much further because I would no doubt be ruled out of order and I in no way wish to cause a division between the hon. Gentleman and his SNP colleague, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), who has joined him belatedly.
      Although his manner may have been constructive, I suspect that beneath the fine words of the hon. Gentleman and his SNP friends there is still the same nationalist agenda, which is to undermine the devolution settlement and reopen the question of responsibility for broadcasting between the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
      Mr. Thomas: Not undermine the devolution settlement, build on it.
      Mr. Lazarowicz: It is a matter of opinion how that is best to be done. Had the hon. Gentleman not intervened at that point he would have heard me move on to say that beneath the nationalist agenda pursued by him and his SNP friends on occasion after occasion, sometimes there are points which have some merit. Although the agenda that he is promoting today undoubtedly pursues his nationalist objectives, there are also those within Scotland, and no doubt within Wales, who are concerned about the way in which Scottish and Welsh interests will be represented within Ofcom, so it would be helpful if the Minister would restate the Government's commitment to ensuring that Scottish and Welsh interests are taken on board in the eventual structure of the new regulatory arrangements.
      5.45 pm
      Concerns about Scottish and Welsh representation have come from bodies such as the Scottish Consumer Council. I urge the Government to make clear, either at this stage or some future one, how such interests will be taken into account. In its report on the issue, the Scottish Consumer Council made the vital point that in the interests of Scottish consumers it is essential for Ofcom and its consumer panel to have a physical presence in Scotland and for both bodies to have clear effective policy relationships with the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament and with a range of stakeholders within Scotland. I endorse those comments.
      330
      I welcome the commitment that has already been made to having an office in Scotland and I urge the Government further to expand upon the ways in which they envisage such links with the Scottish Parliament, the Executive and stakeholders in Scotland being set up. During the past few weeks, as a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I have heard evidence from several organisations concerned with current affairs broadcasting in Scotland, and the relationship between Ofcom and Scottish interests after the new regulatory arrangements have been set up has been raised in passing by several bodies. I therefore hope that the Government will today be able to give some indication of the ways in which they hope to address these concerns.
      Pete Wishart: I assume from the hon. Gentleman's remarks—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) giving way or has he completed his remarks?
      Mr. Lazarowicz: I was about to complete my remarks, but I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Pete Wishart: Given the evidence of those representations, will the hon. Gentleman join Plaid Cymru and the SNP in the Division on the new clause?
      Mr. Lazarowicz: I regret that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. The way in which the new clause has been drafted is not helpful or practical. Given the size of the organisation involved, the arrangements set out are not the right way forward. However, I accept that there is a need to make clear how these concerns will be dealt with and I hope that in that respect at least the Government will be able to say how they will take such interests into account in future.
      Michael Fabricant: I rise in general support of the new clause. I do so as an Englishman and a Conservative Back Bencher, but also as someone with strong Welsh connections. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) is being as unclear as ever from a sedentary position. The hon. Gentleman could not be bothered to listen to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) about broadband—something that he himself constantly prattles on about—and arrived late. It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to appear late and start shouting from a sedentary position.
      Dr. Howells: Get on with it.
      Michael Fabricant: I am happy to talk at some length if there are to be sedentary interventions from the Minister. The hon. Gentleman made many such interventions in Committee, as a direct result of which our proceedings were elongated.
      Mr. Bryant: Arrant hypocrisy.
      Michael Fabricant: Hypocrisy?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We ought to settle down, and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) should address the new clause.
      Michael Fabricant: I shall not pursue what I heard the hon. Member for Rhondda say, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a question of what the hon. Gentleman hears or does not hear. The occupant of the Chair decides these matters. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now address the new clause.
      Michael Fabricant: I shall ignore the fact that the hon. Member for Rhondda just said that I was being a hypocrite.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should now address the new clause. Those were not the words that were used. He should get on with his speech.
      Michael Fabricant: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      It is absolutely right that Wales and Scotland should have an Ofcom office to provide symmetry with existing provision. The Minister will know that the Independent Television Commission, and, previously, the Independent Broadcasting Authority, had regional offices and offices in Scotland and Wales as well as in England. Of course, they also had offices in Northern Ireland, and I am not quite clear as to why Northern Ireland was not included in the new clause. As devolution has taken place in Wales and Scotland, it seems absolutely right that Ofcom should represent the interests of Wales and Scotland.
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion has already raised the question of analogue switch-off, which is a moot point at the moment. The Government say that analogue switch-off should take place, but no date has been set. As I understand it, analogue switch-off will occur when 95 per cent. of the population have access to digital television. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, because of topography, 99 per cent. of the population in England might have such access, while much less than 95 per cent. of the population in Wales and Scotland might have such access. There must be a voice in Ofcom, first, to ensure that analogue switch-off does not happen before adequate coverage has been achieved in Scotland, Wales and—I shall add—Northern Ireland. Secondly, there must be a voice in Ofcom to promote the provision of digital services in Wales and Scotland.
      As I said in an intervention, we cannot necessarily rely on satellite transmission for the provision of digital television. I am sure that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) will rightly say that this an issue not just about television but about interactivity. Interactivity is not available from geostationary satellites over the equator, although it may be available from low earth-orbit satellite constellations. I do not think that such satellites are currently up and running, although I stand to be corrected by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. Microwave facilities could be made available, but as the hon. Member for Ceredigion rightly pointed out, health concerns exist
      332
      about microwave provision, although they may not be justified. Concerns also exist about the looks of such antennae, with which I have every sympathy.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: This is the second time that such concerns have been raised. Will my hon. Friend note that, this week, scientists have again made it emphatically clear that emissions from masts are at a fraction of the safety levels that have been set? The scare tactics perpetrated by some newspapers and some of the so-called environmental groups in this country are nothing short of a scandal. We must lay this ghost quickly.
      Michael Fabricant: I am happy to acknowledge that point. I am—dare I say it—a fellow of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, which produced a similar report five or six months ago. It is surprising that the main media in this country are not doing much to put this lie to bed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. Nevertheless, my point was that there is a perceived danger, albeit that that perception is wrong, as I tell my constituents.
      The third reason why we need to have a representative on the main board of Ofcom from Wales and Scotland is the provision of broadband. In all fairness to the hon. Member for Rhondda, he has consistently argued for that. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, Britain does not have a great deal to boast about when it comes to the distribution of broadband in the United Kingdom. Although we have one of the highest levels of internet penetration in the world, we are 22nd in terms of the provision of broadband, and the level of provision in Scotland and Wales is far lower. It is particularly vital to make broadband available in Scotland and Wales if satellite communication is not available for the reasons that I gave earlier.
      I support the points made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion. Wales and Scotland will suffer a technical deficit if someone does not fight their corner. The best way to have someone fighting their corner is to have representatives from Wales, Scotland and—yes—Northern Ireland on the board of Ofcom.
      Miss Anne McIntosh: I remind the House at the outset of my pecuniary interest in BT. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing this debate. I am sure that those hon. Members present who were members of the Committee will recall that we discussed this matter at length.
      As we said in Committee, new clause 4 calls for an Ofcom office to be set up in Wales and Scotland. The amendments grouped with it suggest that the membership of Ofcom should include a representative of Welsh and Scottish interests and that, in appointing those representatives, the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament shall be consulted. Amendment No. 19 suggests that the membership of every committee established by Ofcom—which seems excessive, if the hon. Member for Ceredigion does not mind my saying so—will include a representative for Wales and a representative for Scotland, and that Ofcom shall consult the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament in making those appointments.

      333
      The House will recall that the White Paper dealt at length with the relationship between Ofcom and the devolved Assemblies, and the need for the regulators to
      "develop good links with the relevant committees of the devolved assemblies".
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion will recall that when we discussed this matter in Committee I favoured the approach whereby the amendments could have reflected some kind of formal consultation with the Committees of the devolved Assemblies, which was closest to that envisaged by the White Paper. I am therefore disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not follow my suggestion, which would perhaps have enabled us to support his amendments more vigorously. Members got to know each other a little better in Committee, and the Minister may want to take this opportunity to reply to my question. Why is the Bill silent on this and many other aspects that were set out in detail in the White Paper, particularly in relation to the development of good links with Committees of the devolved Assemblies? Does the Minister agree that such an approach would be far preferable?
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion, with his usual eloquence, also talked about the impact in his homeland of analogue switch-off and the switchover to digital. It is regrettable that we cannot discuss that in the context of the United Kingdom, but perhaps we can return to that on Third Reading.
      6 pm
      I enjoyed the contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). Perhaps the Committee was the poorer for the lack of such contributions.
      As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) demonstrated his knowledge of Wales, which is greater than mine. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) intervened briefly to speak about the vexed question of telephone masts and scaremongering. All hon. Members receive constituency mail on the subject. I have had cause to raise the matter with BT, which assumed that I was talking about a mast for mobile telephones. Most of the problems in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom relate to such masts. I know that that is a matter of great consequence in your part of East Anglia, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in the Dedham vale. One of my constituents has been fitted with a pacemaker, and real concerns have been raised about what could happen.
      Michael Fabricant: The average strength of signal at a mobile telephone mast is 80 watts, compared with 40 million watts at an ultra-high frequency television mast, yet people near Sutton Coldfield or Crystal Palace have not dropped dead because their pacemakers have stopped.
      Miss McIntosh: That has not happened that we know of. My hon. Friend raises an interesting point.
      The official Opposition understand the strength of feeling of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and the other hon. Members who support the amendments, but we do not share their enthusiasm for them. I do, however, support the White Paper proposal that formal consultation
      334
      with Committees of the devolved Assemblies could be possible. I wait with anticipation to hear the Minister explain why, as so often, the Government have not followed up a White Paper commitment.
      Dr. Howells: New clause 4 would require the establishment of Ofcom offices in Wales and Scotland. I am happy to confirm what I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), when he was Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, have said on the matter. I reassure the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that Ofcom will have a presence of the sort that he wants, and I confirmed as much when the Bill was discussed in the Standing Committee. Indeed, some of the existing regulators already have offices in the nations and regions. No doubt, Ofcom will want to consider how that resource might best be utilised.
      New clause 4 is, of course, limited to Wales and Scotland, and I suspect Ofcom will also wish to consider what presence will be necessary elsewhere—in Northern Ireland and, I imagine, in the English regions, given the importance of broadcasting and of other telecommunications industries in other parts of the country. The precise size and nature of any presence in the nations will be a matter for Ofcom to decide, as there will be direct cost and manpower implications for the new organisation.
      Amendment No. 15 would ensure that Ofcom has a single member to represent the interests of Wales and Scotland. As I said previously, the Bill provides Ofcom with one function—to prepare itself for taking on other functions once Parliament has considered the main communications Bill. During this initial phase, Ofcom will deal only with practical issues relating to the transfer of the staff, property and other assets and liabilities of the existing regulators.
      At this stage, therefore, I cannot envisage any matters of a specifically Welsh or Scottish nature that would warrant ensuring that the interests of Wales and Scotland should be represented on the Ofcom hoard. That applies equally, of course, to the interests of Northern Ireland and the English regions, as well as to the interests of the many other groups who may have a stake in Ofcom's activities.
      It will be important to ensure that legitimate interests should be properly reflected in the structure of Ofcom. The communications Bill will set out how we propose to ensure that the interests of the nations and regions are to be represented in Ofcom.
      I turn to amendment No. 16. Honourable Members must bear it in mind that, in the main, telecommunications, broadcasting and spectrum issues are reserved matters. It is not therefore appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to have to consult the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament on every appointment to Ofcom that she proposes. Those appointments will reflect the need for the Ofcom board to have particular skills and expertise. Indeed, an appointment may result from the need to have a board member who reflects the exact nature of broadcasting and telecommunications in Wales. However, my right hon. Friend will decide such matters on merit.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister give way?
      Dr. Howells: No. We have spent many minutes discussing the matter, and I am going to move on.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that those general requirements are properly met.
      With regard to amendment No. 17, the Bill provides that Ofcom should prepare an annual report of its proceedings and submit it to the Secretary of State, who must then lay a copy before each House. There is no reason why the report should not include matters relevant to the interests of the devolved nations. I am sure that there will be areas of Ofcom's activities in which the National Assembly for Wales and Scottish Parliament will have legitimate interests. I believe that it would therefore be appropriate for Ofcom's annual report to be made available to the Assembly and to the Scottish Parliament in order to facilitate debate; but that should be a subject for concordats rather than a matter to appear in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 18 proposes establishing specific Welsh and Scottish advisory committees. The Bill contains provisions that allow Ofcom to set up committees as it sees fit. There is nothing to stop it establishing advisory committees on national or regional issues if it considers that there is a specific need. I see no need for Ofcom to be required to set up specific Welsh and Scottish committees during the initial phase, when it will only be undertaking preparations for its future role.
      I also believe that requiring a Welsh and Scottish member to be appointed to every committee established by Ofcom, as amendment No. 19 suggests, goes much too far. Where devolved nations have legitimate interests in the work of the committees that it may establish, Ofcom will, of course, want to ensure suitable arrangements for those interests to be properly heard. However, there may well be cases where Ofcom sets up committees on matters in relation to which there are no discernable Welsh or Scottish interests. It would be entirely wrong in such cases for Ofcom to be placed under an obligation to appoint Welsh and Scottish representatives to them.
      For all those reasons, I oppose the amendments.
      Mr. Thomas: I want to reply briefly to the Minister's remarks. I am grateful for the support that I have received for some of the amendments from the hon. Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I was interested in the Scottish perspective provided by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), and especially in the comments from the Scottish Consumer Council. I was not aware of those comments, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving the House that information.
      Two central principles are at stake. As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, the White Paper made it clear that there should be some form of consultation between the devolved bodies and Ofcom. In addition, the National Assembly for Wales made it clear that it wanted more than consultation. It said that it wanted representation, and that it wanted to choose its representative on Ofcom. I point out that the Assembly in controlled by Labour.
      336
      The hon. Member for Vale of York asked why I had not changed my proposals. The reason is that, as I said, the National Assembly for Wales wanted representation as well as consultation. I hope that she accepts that explanation of why I was not able to accede to her arguments in Committee.
      The Minister has not promised representation, or that the National Assembly will be able to select or appoint Ofcom members. He has not even offered consultation, and he has not promised any connection between Ofcom and the devolved bodies in Wales and Scotland. He has said clearly that, because the matters involved are retained and not devolved, there should be no formal arrangements such as those proposed in the amendments.

      I point out that the Strategic Rail Authority has formal arrangements with the Scottish Parliament and with National Assembly for Wales. [Interruption.] I must tell the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), who has been making sedentary comments throughout the debate but does not see fit to take part, as always, that railways are not devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, so the new clause explores a very important principle—principle more important than the question whether Ofcom has X members or whether a member represents Wales or bits of Scotland and so on. The important principle is this: when we now set up UK-wide bodies, post devolution, how do they relate to the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament? The Minister's response to that question was totally inadequate, so I shall seek to press the new clause to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divieded: Ayes 62, Noes 301.

      Division No. 184]

      [6.10 pm

      ayes

      Baker, Norman

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

      Barrett, John

      Beggs, Roy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Lamb, Norman

      Brake, Tom

      Laws, David

      Breed, Colin

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Moore, Michael

      Burnett, John

      Öpik, Lembit

      Burstow, Paul

      Pugh, Dr John

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Rendel, David

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      (NE Fife)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Salmond, Alex

      Cotter, Brian

      Sanders, Adrian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

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

      Doughty, Sue

      Spink, Bob

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Thurso, John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Tyler, Paul

      Hancock, Mike

      Webb, Steve

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Weir, Michael

      Harvey, Nick

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Heath, David

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Hermon, Lady

      Willis, Phil

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Pete Wishart and

      Keetch, Paul

      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

      337

      noes

      Abbott, Ms Diane

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

      Ainger, Nick

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Alexander, Douglas

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Allen, Graham

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Dobbin, Jim

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Doran, Frank

      Austin, John

      Dowd, Jim

      Bailey, Adrian

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Baird, Vera

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Barnes, Harry

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Barron, Kevin

      Edwards, Huw

      Beard, Nigel

      Efford, Clive

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bell, Stuart

      Ennis, Jeff

      Benn, Hilary

      Fisher, Mark

      Bennett, Andrew

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Benton, Joe

      Flint, Caroline

      Berry, Roger

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Foulkes, George

      Borrow, David

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Galloway, George

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Gapes, Mike

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Gardiner, Barry

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Bryant, Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      Burden, Richard

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Burgon, Colin

      Gilroy, Linda

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Godsiff, Roger

      Cairns, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Grogan, John

      Casale, Roger

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Caton, Martin

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Challen, Colin

      Hanson, David

      Chaytor, David

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clapham, Michael

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Healey, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Heppell, John

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Heyes, David

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hill, Keith

      Clelland, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hood, Jimmy

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Connarty, Michael

      Hope, Phil

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Corston, Jean

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Cranston, Ross

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Crausby, David

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hurst, Alan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Cummings, John

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Illsley, Eric

      Irranca—Davies, Huw

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jamieson, David

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      338

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Picking, Anne

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Pike, Peter

      Joyce, Eric

      Plaskitt, James

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pond, Chris

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pope, Greg

      Kidney, David

      Pound, Stephen

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Purchase, Ken

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Purnell, James

      Lammy, David

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Laxton, Bob

      Rammell, Bill

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Rapson, Syd

      Lepper, David

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Leslie Christopher

      Levitt, Tom

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Linton, Martin

      Rooney, Terry

      Love, Andrew

      Ross, Ernie

      Lucas, Ian

      Roy, Frank

      Luke, Iain

      Ruane, Chris

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCabe, Stephen

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Salter, Martin

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sawford, Phil

      McDonnell, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacDougall, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McFall, John

      Sheridan, Jim

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Simon, Siôn

      McIsaac, Shona

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McKechin, Ann

      Singh, Marsha

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Skinner, Dennis

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McWilliam, John

      Southworth, Helen

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Squire, Rachel

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mann, John

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marris, Rob

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Merron, Gillian

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Miliband, David

      Todd, Mark

      Miller, Andrew

      Touhig, Don

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Trickett, Jon

      Moffatt, Laura

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mole Chris

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Moran, Margaret

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Morgan, Julie

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Morley, Elliot

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Mudie, George

      Tynan, Bill

      Mullin, Chris

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Watson, Tom

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Watts, David

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      White, Brian

      Norris, Dan

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Pearson, Ian

      Wills, Michael

      Perham, Linda

      Wood, Mike

      339

      Woodward, Shaun

      Wyatt, Derek

      Woolas, Phil

      Wray, James

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Mr. Graham Stringer.

      Question accordingly negatived
      Mrs. Jacqui Lait: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am most grateful to you for allowing me to interrupt the proceedings. I would like to ask you whether the Secretary of State for Health has asked your permission to make a statement to the House about the decision by Greenwich hospital to take out an injunction preventing my local paper from publicising a health risk to patients. Could you also tell me whether the hospital would require the permission of the Secretary of State to issue such an injunction?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am grateful to the hon. Lady for intimating to me that she wished to raise that point of order. I think that she will know that the Chair cannot opine on the second part of her question. The answer to the first part of her question is no. She has, however, put the matter on the record and attention will, no doubt, be paid to her anxiety.

    Clause 1

      THE OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—
      '(2A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the membership of OFCOM includes a member dedicated to ensuring that the needs of people with disabilities are represented.'.
      Amendment No. 14 is a slight rehash of what was discussed in Committee, but it is an important amendment none the less. We need to be seen to have debated this issue on the Floor of the House, and to hear the response from the Minister. The amendment seeks to ensure that the membership of Ofcom includes a member dedicated to ensuring that the needs of people with disabilities are represented. It is important to emphasise at the outset that I am not seeking to ensure that there is a representative from one of the disability groups in Ofcom. That would be difficult to achieve. One cannot conceive of the kind of structures that might be necessary to give rise to an election—or whatever it might be—to get such a representative into Ofcom. It is important, however, to recognise how Ofcom will meet the needs of disabled people as it is being established by the House.
      It was argued in Committee that all members of Ofcom should deal with the needs of disabled people, and that this is not an issue that we can hive off to one individual. I accept that, as a central premise and as a general way of working, it would be good for the whole of society to operate along those lines. Nevertheless, if we do not flag up clearly at the legislating stage just how the needs of disabled people are to be looked after by Ofcom, we are in danger not of having every Ofcom member look after them but of having none.
      There are about 9 million disabled people in the United Kingdom, and the 2 million of them with serious sight problems are of particular relevance to the Bill. There is an obvious link there to broadcasting, and we are all
      340
      aware of the campaign for subtitles in the broadcast media. That is one important example. A second example relating to sight problems is the use of the internet and the communications revolution related to it. We increasingly see the need to adapt the services available, and most internet products now have special accessibility facilities in their software to help people with disabilities to use that software to its best advantage.
      People with disabilities are now increasingly accessing the full benefits of our society through the communications revolution. The question we must ask is how we can ensure that their needs are represented on the body responsible for regulating that revolution.
      Mr. Bryant rose—
      Nick Harvey rose—
      Mr. Thomas: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant).
      Mr. Bryant: I thank the hon. Gentleman enormously for giving way. He made very cogent arguments in Committee on this point. I am still concerned, however, because I do not see why putting all the responsibility for looking after the rights and interests of disabled people on to one person on the board is better than ensuring that the whole board has that responsibility. I point to the example of the BBC. None of its governors has special responsibility for the disabled, yet it has probably the best record of any broadcasting company in the world, not only because of legislation but because of the voluntary action of the governors in ensuring that the vast majority of its programmes are subtitled. It has also taken into consideration the needs of the disabled in the development of its internet services.
      Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not really disagree with him. I could point to S4C—SpedwarC—as another example of a service that is heavily subtitled, both for linguistic reasons and for reasons of access. I shall use another example, however, slightly to counter his argument.
      In a school, each governor is responsible for ensuring that the needs of children with special needs are met. One governor, however, is specifically charged with that duty. I do not necessarily disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that unless we discuss the matter properly and—even if we cannot include a measure in the Bill—secure a response from the Minister, rather than one person being responsible for the needs of people with disabilities, no one will be responsible.
      6.30 pm
      Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is making some good points about the needs of disabled people in the context of the technological revolution, but what does he intend "dedicated" to mean? If he is suggesting that one member of the board should be designated responsible and should go about the task in a dedicated way, I am sympathetic to his proposal, but I suspect that he wants one person to carry out the task to the exclusion of all else. Given that the board might comprise only three people, there could be a chairman and a chief executive, and a third member dedicated solely to safeguarding the

      341
      interests of disabled people. I doubt whether that is what the hon. Gentleman intends, but I think it is what his amendment says.
      Mr. Thomas: It is certainly not what I intend, but I do not think the amendment says it either. I do not have Roget's thesaurus to hand, but I am sure that requiring that one member be dedicated to meeting the needs of people with disabilities does not mean that that member cannot be dedicated to other matters as well. The amendment does not use the phrase "solely dedicated". I think that the hon. Gentleman's argument is rather tendentious.
      I say to the hon. Gentleman, and to the Minister, that if my drafting abilities are flawed after a couple of years here, I am happy for the Government to exercise their full power and produce a better example—but they have not done so yet. No doubt the Minister will say that this is yet another issue for a communications Bill rather than an Ofcom Bill.
      The Towers Perrin report is an important independent report to the five current regulators, which considers how Ofcom would work and how different groups would be represented—or, at least, would have a say and an input. It states that Ofcom should
      "actively promote clear links with, and understanding of, all OFCOM's key stakeholder categories."
      Surely people with disabilities constitute an important stakeholder category. There are 9 million disabled people in the United Kingdom, 2 million of whom have sight problems. If we do not say in this paving Bill exactly how their needs will be met, we are in danger of forgetting those needs.
      I hope that my amendment will entice the Minister to say a little more than he said in Committee. He was sympathetic—I think that was the word he used then—but I want a fuller explanation of how the needs of people with disabilities will be met by Ofcom. If they are not to be met by a person who is designated, dedicated or whatever, how will the Ofcom structures meet them? I should like the Minister to say a little more about that before the publication of the communications paper and the communications Bill.
      Given the lobbying by disability organisations and the requests of people with disabilities—fair lobbying and fair requests—I think it incumbent on us to provide maximum access to communications of all kinds. That means that before passing any legislation we should pause to think about how it will meet the needs of disabled people, to debate the issue, and to give the Minister an opportunity to give what I hope will be a cogent and coherent explanation.
      Michael Fabricant: Again, I shall speak briefly.
      I support at least the principle of the amendment, although I too have doubts about the draftsmanship. I think I got the hint from what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said at the outset that he would not press the amendment to a vote, but we shall have to wait and see.
      Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman said, we ought to debate the matter here, and the amendment provides a mechanism for us to do just that. A large proportion of
      342
      those in the United Kingdom suffer from disabilities of one form or another. I have received an excellent briefing from the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which makes some interesting points. I would tell the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), if he were present, that I did not have to go out to lunch with its representatives.
      The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) rightly pointed out that the BBC has already done much to support people who are hard of hearing, by providing subtitles. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that the BBC provides a higher proportion of subtitled programmes—or closed-caption programmes, as they would be called in the United States—than any other broadcasting organisation in the world. That is commendable, although the same is done by other UK broadcasting bodies.
      There are other issues, however. There is, for instance, the whole question of what the RNIB calls digital exclusion. We heard about that earlier in the context of the inability to provide broadband in certain parts of Scotland and Wales, and in some rural areas in this country, but there are other forms of digital exclusion, some of which affect blind and partially sighted people. Such people could be watching, or at least enjoying, television programmes with their families if only audio descriptions were available.
      Mr. Bryant: I think we all agree on the absolute necessity of putting disabled people's interests at the heart of discussions about the future of information technology in the communications industry and broadcasting, but I still do not understand why what strikes me as ghettoising those issues by relegating them to a single member of the board constitutes an advance rather than a retrograde step.
      Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. As the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said, if one person out of only three performed the task, there would be a very odd ghetto in the shell Ofcom organisation to be set up by this paving Bill. However, while I cannot put words0 into the mouth of the hon. Member for Ceredigion, I think he tabled the amendment not because he particularly wanted it to be passed today, but because it could serve as a mechanism—a gadget, if you like—enabling us to debate an issue that would not have been debated without it.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentlem0an is right, and on this occasion I do not mind his putting words into my mouth. Let me also say, however, that what we really need is an explanation from the Government of how the words of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) can be made flesh. If the needs of people with disabilities are to be at the heart of Ofcom, how is that to be achieved? We cannot take it for granted. My amendment may be flawed, but at least it tries to explore that question.
      Michael Fabricant: Indeed—and, after this brief debate, the Minister will have an opportunity to sum up. I hope he will tell us then what specific measures will be taken. I warn him that I shall ask some questions in a few moments, which I hope he will be able to answer despite the short notice he will have been given.
      There is the danger of what the hon. Member for Rhondda described as a ghetto within families, when a family is watching television and a blind or partially

      343
      sighted family member cannot join in. The technology is now available to enable them to do just that—there is equipment for audio description—but in the whole United Kingdom only 45 households that include blind people have been given that equipment. Furthermore, there are no plans to produce more such equipment.
      I raise these issues because the disabled—including the blind and partially sighted—need a voice in Ofcom. Whether such issues should be discussed by one "dedicated" person, as the amendment states, or by several people is a moot point, but what is important is that they be discussed.
      Brian White: The hon. Gentleman's argument underlines the problem with the amendment. Although it and the previous amendment would establish on the Ofcom board a representative for those interest groups, they would not necessarily create a board that can respond to such issues. Surely the important question is how Ofcom will respond to the valid issues that need to be addressed, rather than whether a "dedicated" board member should put the arguments of such interest groups.
      Mr. Thomas: Let us hear the answer.
      Michael Fabricant: As the hon. Member for Ceredigion says—putting words into my mouth—let us hear the answer, and I hope that we will indeed hear it from the Minister at the end of the debate. I repeat that Plaid Cymru—I do not know why I am defending that party—was right to table the amendment, because without it the whole question of disability would not have been debated in the Bill's remaining stages.
      Discussing the amendment enables us to put on record the fact that both sides of the House are concerned about this issue. Without such discussion, we might give out the wrong signal—namely, that Parliament is not concerned about such issues—and at a time when the technology is available to overcome many of the problems associated with digital exclusion.
      Before I finish, I should like to ask three or four brief questions of relevance to the amendment, which I hope the Minister can answer. Have Ministers had high-level discussions with disability organisations, and do they plan to have such discussions in the next few months? Those organisations need to be reassured that, if the amendment is not pressed to a vote, Ofcom will nevertheless promote the interests of disabled people. Will arrangements be made to ensure that alternative programming formats are available, and will such formats be publicised effectively, so that people with visual impairment or other disabilities will know about them? Time and again, this Government and past Governments introduced beneficial initiatives, yet the very people who could have benefited from them did not because they did not know that such initiatives existed.
      Will the consultation process involve proactively seeking the opinions of visually impaired people? That is an important issue. Will fully accessible regional meetings, which the hon. Member for Ceredigion would probably welcome, be organised? Of course, this issue concerns not only blind people, but deaf people and those with other disabilities. Technological solutions exist to enable people with disabilities to play a more active role—not just by watching television or listening to the
      344
      radio, but by participating in interactivity through the provision of broadband. That technology should be made available, and one of Ofcom's roles should be the promotion of it.
      Miss McIntosh: The White Paper referred at length, in the context of the communications sector, to those with disabilities. It is regrettable that the Bill is silent on how the needs of people with disabilities will be met. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on raising the issue of people with disabilities through the amendment.
      It is right to discuss the issue of whether the Secretary of State should ensure that membership of Ofcom includes a "dedicated" or designated member, so that the needs of the disabled are represented. However, I am mildly surprised that the amendment is exactly the same as that tabled in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) recalled, several powerful written representations were made, notably by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Royal National Institute for the Blind. Responses to the White Paper went further than the amendment. They referred not only to those with disabilities, but to the elderly, those on low incomes and those living in rural areas.
      6.45 pm
      In asking whether Ofcom will reflect the needs of those with disabilities, I remind the Minister of my particular interest in equal opportunities. Sometimes, those of a different gender can also be regarded as disabled. Will that issue be reflected in the composition of Ofcom and through the work of its committees? As the hon. Member for Ceredigion will recall, I suggested a slightly different wording for his amendment. Rather than referring to a single "dedicated" member of Ofcom, it should have stated that, in the working and decision making of the committees, regard will be had to such interests. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not succumb to my alternative wording. None the less, I pay tribute to Standing Committee members and to other hon. Members for working to meet the very real needs of the deaf and the blind.
      I want to deal in particular with subtitling, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield alluded. I expect that Ofcom will consider subtitling and encourage broadcasters to extend its use as far as possible. Contrary to the wishes of the RND, the Bill is silent on subtitling and signing on television. I draw the Minister's attention to my hon. Friend's eloquent comments concerning making state-of-the-art technology available to the disabled. Even though my original plea fell on deaf ears, the Minister will doubtless take this opportunity to amend the clause.
      Hon. Members will probably agree that Ofcom's committees would have been a better forum in which to deal with such issues. I am sure that the Minister will respond positively to the idea of helping disabled people, regardless of their disability, and that he will explain exactly how Ofcom will achieve precisely that.
      Dr. Howells: The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) made an intriguing comment. She said that, sometimes, being of a different gender is a disability. Was she referring to women or to men?
      Miss McIntosh: That is an open question, which we can debate on another occasion.
      Dr. Howells: Amendment No. 14 seeks to ensure that a member of Ofcom is responsible for representing the needs of people with disabilities. I have a great deal of sympathy with the aim of ensuring that Ofcom can properly take into account the interests of the disabled. However, we made it clear during lengthy discussions—we had a half-hour debate in Committee on this one issue—that we want the Ofcom board to remain as small as possible, commensurate with carrying out its responsibilities effectively, as laid down in the Bill. During the initial period before the main communications legislation obtains parliamentary approval, Ofcom will simply be preparing for the assumption of its regulatory functions.
      In paragraph 14 to the schedule, the Bill provides that, once Ofcom is operational, it can establish committees that may be advisory or that have an executive function. Such committees can include lay representation, and we will expect Ofcom to ensure that legitimate interests are properly represented within those structures. As I have said, it is not possible to find a place on the board for every group with an interest in its activities, however worthy or vital. Having said that, the communications White Paper made it clear that Ofcom as a whole must have regard to the special needs of people with disabilities, as well as to those of groups such as the elderly. It will be possible to represent such interests on any relevant committees that Ofcom may decide to establish. That is a better way to ensure that those needs are taken into account by Ofcom in all its activities than by charging a single board member with the responsibility for representing those needs.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister mentioned how he expected the committees of Ofcom to take into account the needs of the different interest groups. It would be beneficial for the House if he could say explicitly that he would expect the committees to take into account, in whatever way is thought appropriate, the interests and needs of people with disabilities.
      Dr. Howells: I can say that unequivocally. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondcla (Mr. Bryant) made clear, we have a good and healthy tradition of so doing among broadcasters in this country. I would expect that to continue and, on that basis, I will oppose the amendment.
      Mr. Thomas: I am encouraged by what the Minister said in response to my intervention, because that was a more explicit recognition of the need for Ofcom to take account of the needs of people with disabilities through the working of its committees. I can tell the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that that is why I did not change the amendment. She addressed her argument to the committees and I addressed mine to Ofcom, and I suspected that the Minister would say that this Bill is only the paving Bill for Ofcom and that the issue is for the future and is not debatable now.
      346
      We have had a useful debate. It is especially useful to debate the matters on the Floor of the House, because it sends the signal to people with disabilities that we are not letting matters slip. In the light of the Minister's response, especially on the role of the committees of Ofcom, and the opportunity to debate the issue under the next communications Bill, I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      INITIAL FUNCTION OF OFCOM
      Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
      'and
      (c) any proposal by the Secretary of State to bring within the remit of OFCOM the BBC Board of Governors.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 6, page 5, line 28, at end insert—
      '(aba) the BBC Board of Governors.'.
      No. 8, in schedule, page 7, line 22, at end insert—
      '(aba) a member of the BBC Board of Governors'.
      Mr. Yeo: The amendments in this group, especially amendment No. 7, go to the heart of the only surviving political controversy in the Bill. Why are the Government persisting in excluding the BBC from the remit of Ofcom? The structure that Ministers have proposed for Ofcom is anomalous, irrational and likely to work against the interests of viewers, listeners, licence fee payers, other broadcasters and the BBC itself.
      It is absurd for Parliament to approve the creation of a new super-regulator for the industry and, at that very moment, leave outside its responsibilities the largest single broadcasting organisation in the country. The BBC has more than half the national radio audience and a substantial share of the total television audience—although the latter is gradually reducing. The chance of primary legislation does not come along very often. After the communications Bill in the next Session, it may be a decade or even longer before another opportunity occurs.
      To those who say that we should not prejudge the forthcoming debate about the renewal of the BBC charter, I say that that debate should start with a recognition that the BBC is increasingly one of a number of broadcasters, albeit a large, special and important one. Its role will he less dominant in future. The BBC's public service obligations are much more stringent than those of other broadcasters and its governors have a primary duty to see that those public service obligations are met. However, so do the boards of Channel 4 and the ITV companies. If the ultimate responsibility lies with Ofcom for all those other broadcasters, so it should for the BBC, especially as it continues to enjoy such a uniquely privileged funding status.
      The Government will eventually have to concede this argument and I urge them to do so today. If they do not, the only remaining chance will be in the communications Bill in the next Session. That Bill is due to be published in draft form soon—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on when we can expect to see it. We could have the

      347
      absurd situation of the Government publishing a draft Bill that contains an amendment to this Bill, perhaps even before it receives Royal Assent.
      The amendment is designed to save Ministers from that embarrassment—I am ever helpful. I also give the Minister notice that we will seek to press amendment No. 7 to a vote and I hope that we will enjoy the support of all those hon. Members who have expressed support for the principle in the amendment.
      Mr. Bryant: My problem with the amendment is that it seems to suggest that the issue of the BBC's regulation and how it relates to Ofcom is simply a matter of wholly in or wholly out. The hon. Gentleman was not able to join us in Committee, so he will not have heard all our debates—perhaps he has read all eight of them—but the point was often made that the BBC is already regulated by third parties and therefore will, in large measure, be regulated by Ofcom. The problem with the amendment is that it might make it impossible for the governors and the BBC to have any accountability directly to this House.
      Mr. Yeo: I assure the hon. Member that nothing I propose will affect his rights, should he be a member of the BBC's pension fund from his time there. I did read the reports of most of the Committee's debates with interest and I was pleased to see that the issues were addressed. I seek to put the BBC on a par with the other broadcasting organisations that will ultimately be regulated by Ofcom. That will still leave the governors with a substantial and important role, to which I shall refer in more detail presently.
      The idea that the amendment, by placing the BBC within Ofcom's remit on the same basis as other organisations, would put the governors out of a job is wrong. As to the question of how accountable the BBC is to this House, that is a matter on which hon. Members will have a variety of views. However, many of us have felt over the years that the existing system falls short of being satisfactory.
      Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The whole point about the BBC being established under a charter is that it is not accountable to the House of Commons. If it operated under an Act of Parliament, it would be accountable in the same way that Channel 4 is accountable to this House. I well recall that when the Select Committee asked the chairman of the BBC to delay a planned change until the Committee had reported on the matter, he said that that would be yielding to political interference with the BBC. It was a simple request for a delay. As I shall seek to say if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the real problem with the BBC is that it is accountable to no one.
      Mr. Yeo: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority and expertise on this subject and I know that he has studied it carefully for a long time. I entirely accept everything he says, particularly the point about the charter and the obstacle that it represents to direct scrutiny by the House. He cited an example in which a wholly reasonable request was denied. Now is the time to address that difficulty.
      7 pm
      Mr. Derek Wyatt: The hon. Gentleman may care to know that I once asked the Table Office whether I could table an amendment about the BBC. The Speaker, who is now in another place, wrote to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State could not make up his mind so he wrote to the chairman of governors, who wrote to the Speaker to say that it was up to her. Clearly, Parliament has no way of holding the BBC to account.
      The question of whether the governors want to be included in Ofcom arises because the board of Ofcom might define, once and for all, what a public service is, then ask the governors to behave by holding the BBC to that remit. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is what they fear and why they do not want to be included?
      Mr. Yeo: That is another example of the difficulties faced by hon. Members in trying to call the BBC to account.
      I do not know the motives of the governors who are apparently resisting the inclusion in Ofcom. Certainly, if Ofcom can produce a definition of public service broadcasting that commands broad agreement, it will have achieved something that has eluded many people over many years. The need to make that definition is growing increasingly urgent, for several reasons.
      My motive in moving the amendment—apart from a general sense of fairness to the other players in the broadcasting industry—is to benefit the BBC. I have no wish to damage the BBC's governors, staff, management or programme makers; and certainly not its viewers, listeners or licence fee payers. The BBC would be strengthened if it were to be so regulated in future. The present situation may have been justified a long time ago, but no longer: it is now anomalous.
      The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has come round to that viewpoint. He spoke impressively on Second Reading, explaining his conversion by saying that his concern for the future of public service broadcasting had led him to share our view that the BBC should have the same relationship with Ofcom as other broadcasters.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: The issue goes even wider than that. The BBC's problem is that it operates in an increasingly multi-channel digital age with different delivery platforms. It may therefore decide that it wishes to reinforce its position not only by using the internet, cable, satellite, and other delivery mechanisms, but by taking an interest in the production of programmes that compete with the commercial sector. If the BBC is to be able to make effective investment plans, it needs to be part of an organisation that has an overview of all those matters—that is, Ofcom.
      Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend speaks on these matters with great expertise and authority. I entirely agree that we are moving into a world that is wholly different from that of even a decade ago. Many of the opportunities presented to the BBC and other broadcasters were not conceived of at that time. Our comments are not intended as a criticism of people who in the past did not require such a regulatory arrangement. Today, the Government have an opportunity

      349
      to acknowledge the extent of the changes that have occurred by accepting what has become a widespread view.
      Brian White: Having watched the launch of BBC4 the other night, I agree with the sentiments behind the hon. Gentleman's proposal. However, does he appreciate the danger that, if the amendment were to be accepted, the establishment and initial months of Ofcom would be dominated by discussions about the BBC? The most important matters with which Ofcom will deal relate to communications, but they would be lost in a controversial political debate about the BBC.
      Mr. Yeo: The best way to ensure that the debate about the establishment of Ofcom is not dominated by arguments about the BBC would be to accept the amendment. That would largely put the matter to rest.
      Mr. Bryant: The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) seemed to suggest—and the hon. Gentleman seemed to agree—that Ofcom should decide on the future investment pattern of the BBC. That would be a dangerous route to take.
      Mr. Yeo: I am sure that that is not what my hon. Friend was suggesting, and it is certainly not what I was agreeing with. He was suggesting that the investment decisions that are made by the BBC and bodies regulated by Ofcom will he affected by a whole range of completely new factors and that it would be all the more anomalous if the BBC alone, among the bodies making those decisions, was not subject to a regulatory regime that could take account of all the new considerations.
      I want to refer briefly to the views of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), although I know that he will speak later. His opinions on the subject, and those of members of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which he chairs, have been consistent for some time. This is not an issue that has just loomed over the horizon.
      Throughout the passage of the Bill, and in the debates that preceded it, Ministers and others who tried to defend their insistence on a special exemption for the BBC, have increasingly struggled to make a coherent case. Recently, even since the conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee, the BBC has contributed to the discussions with the publication of the document, "BBC Governance in the Ofcom Age". I welcome that document, which is quite revealing in more ways than one. It frankly acknowledges some of the shortcomings inherent in the present situation. That is a useful step forward, although it begs the question why some of the issues were not dealt with before. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) says from a sedentary position that we did not change the law when we were in power. As I said, we are in a rapidly-changing environment. Even in the five years since Labour took office, the background to the whole media industry has changed fundamentally.
      I am not criticising people who have not taken such decisions before. I am saying that, in the light of our present knowledge, and given that after the passage of the communications Bill next Session we may not have
      350
      another chance to legislate on these issues for many years, we must ensure that we react to the situation as it is today. Trying to make cheap points about what the Conservatives did or did not do is completely out of keeping with the spirit of this debate.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: As the Minister responsible for science and technology in the previous Conservative Government, I can assure my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rhondda that at that time the BBC was put on notice that in the multi-channel digital environment that was already becoming inevitable, the definition of public service and the role of the BBC would need to change, perhaps well before the next review of the BBC's charter. The situation has arisen not as a result of failures by the previous Conservative Government, but because of the rate of progress since 1996 in the whole broadcast and internet technology sector.
      Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. In a spirit of consensus with the hon. Member for Rhondda, I should say that I am usually the last person to defend the record of the previous Conservative Government.
      Mr. Kaufman: Not quite the last.
      Mr. Yeo: if the right hon. Gentleman is offering to take over that role, I am sure that my Front-Bench colleagues will be glad of his assistance.
      Page 3 of the recently published BBC document reveals that a unit is to be established to ensure that the Government
      "are furnished with performance information, gain a proper understanding of audience behaviour and needs, and can access relevant expertise".
      That is interesting. If the BBC has lacked those things for all these years, one wonders how it has managed to do its job.
      The document also sets out why the BBC believes that oversight by Ofcom, in the manner of all other broadcasting organisations, would be wrong. I am afraid that some of the arguments advanced are very unconvincing. It is claimed on page 6:
      "Taking back-stop powers over the public service remit of the BBC would make Ofcom's effective early operation much more difficult."
      Because something is difficult does not mean that it is wrong. The remainder of Ofcom's very considerable tasks will scarcely be a doddle. I do not see how it should not be able to accept the difficulty—if, indeed, it is one—of dealing with the BBC at the same time. It would be much easier to deal with it from the outset than to have it imposed at a later date, spatchcocked in when Ofcom already has operating procedures in place.
      Equally odd is the argument advanced in favour of continued internal BBC regulation. The document states:
      "Unlike an external regulator, the Governors can take direct action if they believe that the BBC is not serving the public interest. They can change the management, and they can alter the BBC's budget allocation. In other words, they can ensure that the BBC must adhere to their judgement of what is in the public interest"
      Nothing proposed in the amendment would prevent the governors from doing that in future. In my view, they would and should continue to have exactly those powers

      351
      and to exercise them on a regular basis. Sadly, the reforms proposed in the document do not add up to a great deal. The first of the four aims of the reform plan, as it is described, is said to be
      "To ensure that the distinction between the Governors' role and the management's is clearly understood inside and outside the organisation."
      That is a worthy enough aim, which, after more than 70 years, it might have been hoped would have been addressed already. However, it is certainly not an aim that reduces in any way the case for bringing the BBC fully under Ofcom; nor, indeed, do the other three aims of the so-called reform plan.
      The document sets much store on the improved support that the governors will receive in future, enabling them to discharge their duties in what they describe as "the Ofcom age". This restructuring may or may not help the governors; that is not for me to judge. However, it does not answer this question; why should not the BBC now be regulated on the same basis as the rest of the industry?
      I will not stray from the subject matter of the amendment, but before leaving the document—which I commend to hon. Members as a worthwhile study, and something that will be useful when we discuss the future of the BBC in the context of the debate about charter renewal in the future—I should point out that it refers to the licence fee payers as shareholders. I was interested to pick up on that. I had not noticed that before in a BBC publication, although I have not studied them for as many years as some of my colleagues. I do not know whether that is a pointer to a secret agenda existing somewhere within Broadcasting House.
      On page 2, the chairman's foreword claims:
      "But nor do we have any desire simply to replicate services which could be provided equally well by the private sector."
      I wonder whether he cleared that with the director general before he included it in his foreword. Certainly that is something else that I look forward to returning to when we scrutinise some of the new proposals and the existing activities of the BBC.
      I happened to be in the shadow Cabinet meeting when the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) raised a point of order at the start of our proceedings, but I agree with what I believe to be the thrust of his point. I was surprised today to receive a letter from a BBC employee, saying that this House has spent too much time considering this issue and that Parliament should now debate the subject in a more constructive way. The person concerned is fully entitled to his view, but whether it is for the BBC to use licence fee payers' money to employ a member of its staff to act as a lobbyist who then writes to Members of Parliament to say that we are spending too much time debating a particular issue—suggesting that it has been discussed in a way that is not constructive—seems highly questionable.
      The BBC is a powerful organisation with a distinguished history. I hope that it has a successful future. In a multi-channel world and an increasingly global industry, its role in the future will be very different from in the past. When it started as a small organisation operating a monopoly radio station—a pioneering organisation—the role of the governors was totally different from what it is today.
      Today, the BBC enjoys immense privileges. It is funded, uniquely in our national life, by a more than inflation-proofed, guaranteed compulsory levy on
      352
      consumers; a levy that is highly regressive in its impact on households and which leaves consumers with no alternative but to pay. Against this background, to leave the BBC as a self-regulating organisation in an industry where no other organisation enjoys that status is wrong.
      The time for the BBC governors to be judge and jury in their own affairs has ended. Those governors will still have an important function in the future, but it will be a different one. It is clear to me that most of the media world believes that the BBC should be fully within Ofcom's remit. It is clear that many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that as well—it is clear, I suspect, even to many within the BBC. Eventually—sooner rather than later, I hope—it will be clear to Ministers. They can save themselves and Parliament a great deal of time if they accept the amendment, which I commend to the House.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Kaufman: May I make it clear that, in the remarks that I offer to the House, I am expressing my personal view and not speaking on behalf of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport? The Committee is considering these matters at the present time. Later in this Parliament, it will no doubt consider what will happen with the BBC when its charter ends in June 2006.
      I also make it clear that while I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), I cannot sympathise with the terms of his amendment, which would entrench the role of the BBC board of governors. I am on record as opposing the existence of the BBC board of governors, for reasons that I shall advance as I proceed.
      The hon. Gentleman deserves great credit for having studied with care the document that the BBC has issued and which Mr. Davies has sent to a number of us. The hon. Gentleman spotted a reference to all of us who pay the licence fee as "shareholders". If we were shareholders, there would be a company meeting. If there were a company meeting, we would have the right to state our views and, what is more, the chairman and the governors would have to respond to them.
      In my experience, both as an individual and as Chairman of the Select Committee, the BBC is not interested in the views of the public or of Members of Parliament. I intervened on the hon. Member for South Suffolk to refer to one episode, when the Committee was considering the BBC proposal—not yet then implemented—to remove "Yesterday in Parliament" from FM, which was a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the charter. The chairman of the BBC, Sir Christopher Bland, said that for him to yield to the request that the BBC delay removal would be political interference in the BBC. It did so happen that the BBC later—not much later—decided, because the audience had fallen so much, to transfer the programme back again. We were right all along, and if the chairman had listened to us, he would not have made that mistake.
      I have previously raised, from the very spot where I stand now, the deplorable BBC programme "The Big Ticket". I have always argued that the BBC is behaving anomalously in paying Camelot for the rights to broadcast lottery results rather than being paid, as Radio Telefis Eireann is paid. When the BBC decided to stage that programme, I pointed out firmly that that clearly violated

      353
      the charter in that the BBC was promoting commercial activity by a privately owned company. I was ignored. I received correspondence demonstrating that the BBC seriously regretted the line that I had taken. Then, the BBC board of governors accepted that it was wrong to broadcast that programme and abandoned it.
      For that reason, among others, I agree with the argument of the hon. Member for South Suffolk but do not agree with his remedy. The BBC board of governors was sufficiently supine not to interfere in either of those matters. The reason for that is that the board is not a professional group of people who have knowledge of communications. The people on the board are picked at random. They were picked at random by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in office, and I cannot say that my party has done a great deal better.
      There is a great deal of tokenism in appointments to the board of governors. I am sure that all the people who sit on it are extraordinarily worthy individuals, but I cannot understand why, for example, the chief executive of Lambeth borough council was regarded as a person who should participate in the running of the biggest broadcaster in the United Kingdom and one of the most important broadcasting organisations in the world.
      During the past two weeks, there have been two blatant violations of the watershed. First, there was the breakfast programme in which Ali G participated, regaling a 9 am audience with a stream of filth and obscenity. The BBC apologised, but so far as I know not a single member of the BBC board of governors has taken any view on that matter—certainly not publicly. Next, Stephen Fry compered the British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards the other Sunday. The broadcast started before the watershed, and again we had a stream of inexcusable obscenity. It went over the watershed, but began before it. We have heard not a peep out of the BBC board of governors on either episode, or on a range of other matters.
      I do not believe in censorship. Before and since coming to the House, I have campaigned against it. I am against theatrical censorship. I am against censorship of the cinema. I am against censorship of broadcasting, except in the sense that I believe that the protection of children is a duty of adults until those children are old enough and mature enough to think for themselves. The only activities in which I have ever participated in regard to censorship, including when the House dealt with film when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Home Secretary, have related to children.
      If the BBC board of governors cannot even perform a role in protecting children, what on earth is it for? It does not—heaven help us—run the BBC, because that is run by a partnership of the chairman and the director general. It cannot even exercise that role to make the BBC accountable for what it is supposed to be doing.
      Michael Fabricant: It is clear that some of the right hon. Gentleman's views must be shared by the chairman of the BBC, who, if I may put words in his mouth, recognises that the board of governors may, on occasion, have been supine. Nevertheless, Gavyn Davies has introduced the document "BBC Governance in the Ofcom
      354
      Age", in which he seeks to persuade us that the board of governors will become proactive in governing the BBC and its board of management. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that will be achieved?
      Mr. Kaufman: I am sure that Mr. Davies means well and understands that there is a problem. I am sure that he is doing his best to address himself to that problem in an effort to save the way in which the BBC is governed at present. I am afraid that those efforts will not work. He was good enough to send me a copy of the document, but what we have is a series of regulatory rules for the BBC board of governors, laid down on its behalf by the chairman. The regulation is not external in any way. It is internal—so much as, and no more than, the BBC itself feels it needs.
      James Purnell: My right hon. Friend's argument is interesting, but there is a common misconception that the BBC falls totally outside the scope of Ofcom. He will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the BBC would be subject to the rule of the Broadcasting Standards Commission on issues of obscenity. A complaint could be made to the BSC or to Ofcom. Ofcom would have no powers in relation to ITV or Channel 4 that it did not also have over the BBC.
      Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is highly knowledgeable about these matters, but I do not need to be reminded of what the White Paper said or of what the proposals are.
      The situation is simple. If, under the Independent Television Commission—soon to be absorbed into Ofcom, which will subsume its powers—there is a violation of, say, the statute governing Channel 4 or of the watershed, the ITC can take action against the broadcaster. When "Brookside" dealt, well before the watershed, with incest, the ITC intervened. When, under Mr. Dyke, ITV wanted to shift "News at Ten" to allow it free evenings to broadcast more adult material, the ITC stopped it. When ITV tried again and succeeded, the ITC, having caved in, came back and forced the programme back into place.
      Not only the terrestrial channels, but all commercial channels are under the ITC, and will come under Ofcom. In the case of a broadcast on MTV to which the ITC took exception, the ITC imposed a heavy fine on MTV for violating the watershed. There is no external sanction of any kind on the BBC, and under the Bill there will be no external sanction of any kind Last week, representatives of the Broadcasting Standards Commission came before our Select Committee and told us that they were looking into the Stephen Fry episode, but all that they can do is to administer a slap on the wrist.
      7.30 pm
      I shall tell my hon. Friend one reason why the present regime is entirely unacceptable. I am not in favour of fines and castigations, but if there is a regime of regulation that is enforceable, it makes those who are responsible for the programmes—with whose freedom I do not wish to interfere—aware that there is a sanction, which causes them to be slightly more wary. Let us face it: people broadcasting on the BBC do not give a damn when they violate the watershed. Nothing happens to them. There is

      355
      no external regulator to say that something should have happened to them, so they will go on violating the watershed with impunity and the BBC spokesperson will say that the BBC received, say, only six complaints.
      If there is an external regulator, even if that regulator is not heavy-handed, there is an awareness within the organisation that external regulation exists. There is no such awareness at the BBC, because all my experience in all the time that I have been in the House is that the BBC board of governors lies flat and allows itself to be walked over by whichever director general is in power at the time.
      I cannot support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Suffolk, not because I do not believe that the BBC should come within the scope of Ofcom?which I do—but because all his amendments are about the BBC board of governors, and I regard it as anomalous and antiquated that in 2002, in a multi-channel environment, with convergence a factor, with huge competition, and when the BBC can spend £20 million on a channel watched by 11,000 people, the BBC's governance should be based on the duopoly of the chairman and the director general, with a supine, inexpert board of governors. It is utterly against the interests of the BBC.
      Mr. Bryant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Kaufman: I will give way in a moment.
      By contrast, all the other broadcasting organisations are run—efficiently or inefficiently—by experts in their field. It could very well be said that, given the current travails of ITV, the people in charge are not running it all that well, but at least they are subject to the sanction of the market. Indeed, the breakdown of negotiations between Granada and Carlton was due to the fact that a leak led to a leap in Granada shares and there was not time to get the agreement as speedily as was necessary to satisfy stock exchange regulations. No one in this world, whatever they think of what is broadcast by Sky Digital—although I consider that a great deal of it is high quality, and its news has just won two awards when the BBC's news is faltering and ITN is in a sad state—could say that Sky Digital is not aware of market requirements. The constant technological advances on Sky, such as the advance of Sky interactive, and many other forms of convergence, are being made because those broadcasters know that they must cater to a market.
      The BBC is not immune to such pressures, but it is utterly immune to the necessity for awareness of such pressures. That is why the view that I have held for a considerable time, and from which I do not regard—
      Brian White: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Kaufman: If my hon. Friend will allow me for a moment, I should like to make progress.
      I cannot support the amendments because I believe that the present structure of the BBC is utterly out of date in the world in which we are living, let alone the world in which we are about to live. The BBC should have an executive chairman instead of the type of chairman that it has—I am not commenting on Mr. Davies as an individual. It should have a chief executive—not a
      356
      director general, who is an unanswerable boss. Instead of this tokenistic board of governors, it should have a board—
      Mr. Bryant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Kaufman: I will give way to my hon. Friend soon.
      The BBC should have a board of directors consisting of people who know about broadcasting, technology and convergence. When, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk said, we have further discussions approaching the charter, the Government must address themselves to such matters, because we cannot go on as we are.
      Mr. Bryant: I thank my right hon. Friend enormously for giving way, and it is a delight to hear such a nuanced and moderate set of views on the BBC.
      Mr. John Bercow: And understated.
      Mr. Bryant: Indeed, understated views on the BBC.
      Mr. Alasdair Milne, the former director general of the BBC, who was, as I understand it, sacked by the governors of the BBC, would be surprised to hear of their supine nature. Would my right hon. Friend like to suggest ways forward to enable broadcasters to prevent people from saying on live programmes things that they might not want to have said? Is it not difficult to regulate after the event?
      Mr. Kaufman: I am astonished at my hon. Friend because he is an expert on these matters. I knew Mr. Alasdair Milne very well because I worked with him on "That Was The Week That Was". He was not sacked because the board of governors suddenly decided to be a board of governors but because, as so often in the BBC, his face did not fit. That is what happens in the BBC. If someone's face fits, that is okay; if not, they are out.
      I cannot begin to tell the House what respect I have for my hon. Friend, and it amazes me that he seems to be unaware that on a considerable number of programmes "live" does not mean live. The former editor of The Sun., Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie, wrote to me last week about his station, where they run live programmes but create a seven-second delay, to ensure that any unacceptable material can be stopped. If my hon. Friend, who is an intellectual and may not devote himself to these matters, watched the live transmissions of "Big Brother" on E4 last summer, he will know that that programme had a similar delay, so that the casual obscenities used by some of the inhabitants of the house were not broadcast during the pre-watershed period. There is a thing called technology, and that technology—
      Mr. Bryant: A popular beat combo, m'Lud.
      Mr. Kaufman: Now, now; just because I have squashed my hon. Friend, he should not heckle.
      David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Kaufman: No; I will not give way because I have spoken for too long already. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I want to conclude.

      357
      Of course there are ways of dealing with these matters. One way, if one is running a breakfast-time programme, is not to ask Mr. Ali G on to the programme because everyone knows what he gets up to. Another way, when the BBC broadcasts the BAFTA awards live, is to read Mr. Stephen Fry's script in advance and tell him that certain things that he is planning to say are not acceptable before the watershed.
      I regard my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) as someone whose expertise far surpasses my amateuristic views on all these matters and I am sad that he should intervene in a way that does not allow me to agree with him.
      Miss McIntosh: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me. He will know that BAFTA also had slight delay with the problems that came to light with Russell Crowe's poem not being broadcast, so why the expletives were not removed is a question for the BBC.
      Mr. Kaufman: I accept what the hon. Lady says, although I wish that I had been able to hear Russell Crowe's poem; it may well be the best performance that he has ever given.
      Mr. Gavyn Davies has proposed, with some desperation, that the BBC should find a new way to regulate itself, but that is an example of "quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?". That is not acceptable to me, so I very much hope that, between now and when the main Bill is introduced, the Government will consider the anomaly into which the BBC might be placed. I ask them to reread the report, issued by the Select Committee on towards the end of the previous Parliament, in which we clearly advocated the subsumption of accountability for the BBC in what is now to be called Ofcom, which we proposed four years ago, and consider a way to remedy the situation, which is not acceptable.
      Nick Harvey: Until the draft communications Bill is published, until a Joint Select Committee has had a chance to grill witnesses on the Bill's proposals and until Parliament begins to debate the Bill next Session, the White Paper that was published about 15 months ago remains the most definitive statement of Government policy on the issue. It is worth remembering that the White Paper's proposals did not put the BBC outwith Ofcom's remit. What the White Paper referred to as tier 1 and tier 2 regulation involved putting significant aspects of the BBC's operations under Ofcom; what it referred to as tier 3 predominantly involved self-regulation.
      The backstop powers on self-regulation remain an issue, and a separate issue is who will approve future proposals that the BBC may have to develop new services. I am absolutely clear in my mind that Parliament—or, in a practical sense, the Secretary of State—should retain the authority to allow the BBC to develop new services. The BBC will continue to be funded by the licence for the foreseeable future, so it is an absolutely unique institution in that sense. I do not believe that Ofcom should make decisions on the creation of new services—its responsibilities are predominantly competition and protecting consumer interests, which I shall distinguish from the public interest.
      358
      I am absolutely clear in my mind that the authority to allow new services should remain with Parliament and the Secretary of State, so the remaining issue is who should oversee—the backstop powers—the tier 3 self-regulation of the BBC. It could be argued that Parliament and the Secretary of State, the BBC governors or Ofcom should have those powers.
      I share many of the reservations expressed by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, about leaving the powers with the BBC governors. I am not prepared to take a view on whether those powers should be given to Ofcom until we have resolved what its nature, characteristics and purposes will be, and under what broad remit and instructions it will act.
      7.45 pm
      For that reason, we would prejudge this issue if we were to put the cart before the horse with this relatively minor paving Bill and assume that the powers will be given to Ofcom. The official Opposition spokesman was wrong to suggest that we were in the last-chance saloon—nothing could be further from the truth. It is perfectly obvious that the sensible time to deliberate on that issue will be when we debate the communications Bill in the next Session.
      Mr. Bryant: I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I have a niggling concern about the process of confirming any new service that the BBC governors may like to propose. I am still uncertain whether the Secretary of State should decide and Ofcom provide advice, or whether it should be the other way round, but the more substantive issue that we need to consider for the future is what constitutes a new service. It is easy to say that BBC3 or BBC4 is a new service; it is a new channel in a traditional system that we understand. However, I have been troubled for a long time about one of the gaps in the market: the fact that religion is one of the drivers for internet use. Religion is relatively low in the list, but it is a driver none the less. The BBC has a reputation for independence, yet is has no religious—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is developing into a mini speech.
      Nick Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the impact of new BBC services will not be quite so predictable as in the past, because of the speed of technological change. That is the basis on which creating a single regulator has been proposed, but we have not, as yet, thrashed out very clearly what Ofcom's character will be.
      There is a slight culture clash between the regulation that the Department of Trade and Industry has traditionally sponsored and that which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport or, before it, the Home Office has tended to favour. I am concerned that Ofcom may be very much more a creature of regulation as the DTI understands it than of regulation as the DCMS or, before it, the Home Office has understood it. If that were to prove correct and if Ofcom were much more concerned with economic considerations, with theoretical models of competition policing and with a narrow definition of the consumer interest, I would have grave misgivings about it being responsible for taking some of the decisions now under discussion.

      359
      There is a difference between the consumer interest and the public interest. It can be argued that the consumer interest is served by things that are popular with consumers being on offer at all times, whereas, to return to the point that was being made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), the public interest might be better served by having more religious broadcasting. Those interests are simply not one and the same thing. If Ofcom is to have wide responsibilities for determining what constitutes the public interest, that needs to be written into the legislation that establishes Ofcom far more explicitly than anything in the White Paper led me to believe the Government envisaged or intended.
      The development of broadband internet services is an example of the consumer interest and the public interest diverging. Oftel has got the regulation of that issue horribly wrong and has completely lost sight of the public interest because it has taken a very narrow economic view of what constitutes the consumer interest. It has been so concerned to get the economic model of competition theory precisely right that it has significantly held back the development of broadband internet communications in the United Kingdom.
      If Ofcom is to get deeply into matters of public interest, that needs to be stipulated not only in terms of what powers it might have over the BBC, but how it will ensure that ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5—or channels 6, 7 and 8 if they are established—perform under whatever remit they are given. I will not decide whether Ofcom is the right body to have backstop powers for the BBC until we have hammered out some of the arguments and know much more about the colour of Ofcom.
      I am not saying that I will die in the ditch to defend the status quo. The BBC is far from perfect. Some of the regulatory mechanisms that govern the BBC are self-evidently flawed, and the right hon. Member for Manchester. Gorton gave examples of that. The BBC is more inclined to be impervious to criticism than commercial broadcasters because their regulators have had the power to instruct more remedies. In the new regime that we anticipate, the BBC must be more susceptible to instructions from external regulation.
      Mr. Wyatt: I can get the BBC on my computer, but as I do not have a television licence for that I should be arrested and locked up.
      Mr. Bryant: So the law says.
      Mr. Wyatt: Indeed, and there are many women in Holloway who have not paid the licence fee. However, to return to my substantive point, convergence means just that. We need to consider how the licence fee gets collected and the fact that under the current regulatory system there is no one to whom the BBC can complain. It needs to be covered by Ofcom. Its funding needs to change because it cannot collect the fee if people can receive its transmissions through broadband. It is an issue.
      Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The BBC will be covered by Ofcom in a considerable sense. The material issue of concern relates to the backstop powers that determine whether it fulfils the statement of programming that it proposes as part of the tier 3 regulation. The issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers can be taken to Ofcom under the proposals as laid out in the White Paper.
      360
      If the BBC and its regulation is far from perfect, so is the system of the BBC governors. I found myself agreeing with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, who spoke for longer than I expected. However, it makes no sense to put all that right in a paving Bill. I am not even convinced it would make sense to crack open that nut in the communications Bill, although I am open to persuasion. It would probably make more sense to hammer out who has the backstop powers and get Ofcom up and running for two or three years before we resolve the problems to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly referred when we deal with the charter renewal in 2006.
      The BBC has a proud heritage and a strong position in the world. Of course the rest of the broadcasting sector wants the BBC regulated by Ofcom—you bet they do! It is delighted at the thought that the BBC, unique though its history and position are, will be put into the hands of a regulator whose views may be fashioned entirely by economic rather than public interest considerations.
      Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman exposes one of the hypocrisies of the commercial sector, but there is another. The one aspect of the market in which commercial broadcasters do not want the BBC to be involved is advertising. They fear that the BBC, which is a popular broadcaster even now with its dwindled and dwindling audience, will take advertising away from them. Apart from the hon. Gentleman, myself and a few others, no one else who is engaged in the debate is totally objective.
      Nick Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about advertising. In addition, commercial broadcasters would take exception to my suggestion that Ofcom should have written into its remit more explicit public interest powers than the White Paper anticipates. The last thing the commercial sector wants is for its activities to be regulated by Ofcom with reference to a more widely defined public interest consideration. It cannot have it both ways. If the BBC is not going to invade its advertising market but remain essentially a public service broadcaster with a public interest objective and a public service remit, it cannot be treated and regulated in the same way as the commercial sector.
      There are big issues to resolve before it makes sense to do what the amendments suggest and set the cart before the horse. Let us hammer out what Ofcom is going to be and determine that it will be fit to take on the powers. Let us not prejudge the issue and throw the BBC to the wolves.
      Brian White: The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) has obviously read my speech, 90 per cent. of which I have had to cut because I agree with him entirely.
      I tried to make it clear in Committee that this is a communications Bill, not a broadcasting Bill, but we are none the less falling into the same trap on this occasion. I fear that the amendment could perpetuate the argument about the BBC to the detriment of the communications industry and the establishment of Ofcom. That would do major damage. Ofcom would become dominated by arguments about the BBC and the role of the board of governors. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) may be right about the deterioration of the BBC's standards in its terrestrial news broadcasts, he should recognise the innovative and

      361
      superb work that it has done on its web pages and on BBC news online, which marks a tremendous step forward.
      Ofcom's role is a real issue in this paving Bill, but it should not become dominated by arguments about regulation of the BBC. The key issues—Ofcom's relevance to the European Union framework directive; how it will interact with existing regulators and the European regulatory group; and market dominance, to which the hon. Member for North Devon referred—will be subsumed by arguments about the BBC.
      I do not agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) who argued that the way to kill the argument is to cover the BBC in the Ofcom paving Bill. It is important that consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny identify that as a key issue for public consultation as part of the communications Bill, but to address it now will cause the problems that the hon. Gentleman wants to avoid. We must not deal with that problem at the expense of the rest of the communications industry.
      Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) has been a powerful advocate for the other elements to which Ofcom will have regard. As he rightly says, broadcasting is not the only one to consider. However, I disagree with him and the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) when they say that now is not the time to debate whether we include the BBC under the auspices of Ofcom.
      Amendment No. 7 relates to clause 6, which sets out what is meant by the "existing regulator". The clause refers to
      "the Broadcasting Standards Commission … the Director General of Telecommunications"—
      otherwise known as Oftel—
      "the Independent Television Commission … the Radio Authority".
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has argued long and cogently, as has the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), that there is an omission, and that the BBC and its governors ought to be included. They are right.
      8 pm
      The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East says that to include the BBC would result in continuing arguments within Ofcom about BBC issues, but that is not the case. The big argument is whether Ofcom would control the BBC in the sense of the third tier having access to the BBC. Once the BBC came under the auspices of Ofcom, there would be no further argument because, as several hon. Members have said, on the whole the BBC does a pretty good job. At times, of course, the BBC has shown itself to be a bad governor of its own operations, and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton gave two recent and powerful examples of that. But the BBC has a unique role in British broadcasting, and indeed in world broadcasting, and bringing it under the auspices of Ofcom would strengthen it, not weaken it.
      This is the very time at which we should be debating that matter. The hon. Member for North Devon is utterly wrong when he says that this is not the time and place to be discussing the BBC, but he is certainly right when he
      362
      says that we will be discussing it when a communications Bill comes before the House in a year or so, if indeed it appears.
      Why should the BBC be included? Recently, the Scottish Media Group made submissions to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and to the Select Committee about the method of measuring the degree of cross-media ownership. How does one compare the radio listener with the television viewer? Does one equal the other? The formula that the Scottish Media Group came up with is simple—it uses overall revenue. Of course, the BBC's revenue comes from the licence fee, and not from the sale of advertising time. It receives a small degree of revenue from the world sales of programming, but only to the tune of a net profit of £50 million. The point is that its total revenue is about £2.5 billion; it is a major player. To say that it should be ignored is an insult not only to the BBC but to its listeners and viewers.
      The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton began to paint a picture of how the royal charter came about. Let me briefly add to that and remind colleagues that the BBC started as the British Broadcasting Company in 1922. It operated five separate radio stations around the United Kingdom. One was just down the road at Savoy Hill 2L0 in London, and there were others in Bournemouth, Leeds and Birmingham. At that time, the BBC was the only broadcaster, and the idea behind the royal charter was to create a unique monopoly position for it. The royal charter was wholly appropriate at that time. It was advocated by the then managing director of the company, Sir John Reith, who later became Lord Reith.
      What was appropriate in 1926 is not appropriate now. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said, what might have been appropriate five or six years ago is not appropriate now because of the changes in technology, in delivery and in the many different platforms by which television and radio can he delivered to viewers and listeners.
      Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman was present at a sitting of the Select Committee the other day when I made a point that I think it may be useful to place on record in the Chamber. The BBC is the only organisation in this country, in either the private or the public sector, which is organised and governed in precisely the same way as it was 75 years ago. No other public sector organisation—not the NHS, which is not as old as the BBC, nor the pension system, nor the income support system—is administered as it was only a few years ago. The private sector changes all the time. The BBC says, "Stick to the way in which we were organised and financed on 1 January 1927."
      Michael Fabricant: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. It is not only a question of the length of time during which the structure has remained static; what is even more extraordinary is the background of the degree to which the broadcasting environment has changed. Even if one compares the BBC with the NHS, established in 1948, one finds that the needs and structure of the NHS have changed less than the broadcasting environment because of all the technological changes in broadcasting. The idea that what was suitable when the BBC had a monopoly in 1927 is suitable now is risible and has to be addressed. As the right hon. Gentleman said, if it is not

      363
      dealt with now, it will have to be tackled by Parliament some time, because in June 2006, when the BBC charter has to be renewed, surely that will not be done yet again by a compliant Government.
      That would be wrong, primarily because of perception. It is utterly wrong that the BBC should be perceived to be its own judge and jury in so many different issues. The chairman of the BBC clearly recognises that point. By publishing the document, "BBC Governance in the Ofcom Age", he seeks to give greater independence and more muscle to the board of governors.
      The right hon. Member for Manchester. Gorton rightly points out that the whole history of the BBC—and to anyone who argues with this point I commend the excellent books on the subject by Lord Asa Briggs—shows that the board of governors tends to be compliant to the director general and the board of management. Perhaps the changes proposed by the chairman will help somewhat, but I do not think that they will be a complete solution. They will certainly not give the appearance of the BBC being accountable to an outside body, and that is the whole point.
      Two areas are addressed in "BBC Governance in the Ofcom Age". One is programme content and the other is fair trading. There have been numerous claims in the past few years that the BBC has used its unique position, funded by the licence payer, to trade unfairly against commercial organisations that have to operate in the real world, where their revenue is generated by sales. Those claims may or may not be true, but people who make them continue to believe that the BBC is not addressing the problem. My God, if I were chairman of the BBC, I would welcome Ofcom's independent scrutiny and judgment on that issue. But what can the chairman do? What can the director general do? All he can say is, "We have had an internal inquiry, and it found us innocent." Well, innocent they may be, but people do not believe it because they do not believe any organisation that is its own judge and jury.
      Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman comments on how those commercial activities might be perceived to work directly against the interests of other commercial organisations, but surely it is anticipated that Ofcom will be given precisely the relevant powers in the lower tiers mentioned in the White Paper.
      Michael Fabricant: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is for that very reason that the issue is now being addressed by the BBC. The BBC perceives that fair trading does not come under tiers 1 and 2, which is precisely why it is making changes to the board of governors to address that issue. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not seen the letter by Gavyn Davies, which appears to have been circulated quite widely—
      Nick Harvey indicated dissent.
      Michael Fabricant: I see that he has not, perhaps because his is a minority party. After the debate, I shall photocopy the letter and put it on the Board for him, so that he can see that fair trading is an issue of which the BBC is conscious, because it has been criticised in the past on that ground. I think that the BBC would welcome coming into the ambit of Ofcom—and it ought to be so.
      364
      Given that BBC revenues total £2.5 billion and it represents a major proportion of British broadcasting, it would be anathema were it not to come within Ofcom's ambit.
      The BBC gives many reasons why it should not become a part of Ofcom. One such reason is that it occupies a unique position—but no one here today has argued that the BBC should not continue to occupy a unique position. I half expected the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to argue about the way in which the BBC is funded, but he chose not to do so today. I shall not do so either, because for all sorts of economic reasons I do not believe that the BBC can be privatised, nor do I believe that British broadcasting would be assisted if it were.
      No one is arguing that the BBC's unique position should be weakened in any way. In fact, as I said. I believe that the BBC's position would be strengthened by its becoming a part of Ofcom. The BBC says that its position is unique because it is a public service broadcaster—but as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, so are Channel 4 and S4C, and many would say that many aspects of ITV broadcasting constitute public service broadcasting, yet they willingly come within Ofcom's ambit.
      Time has moved on since 1 January 1927. Even Parliament in its procedures is changing; perhaps the next few months hold radical changes to the way in which we operate. It seems to me that only one organisation, uniquely in the United Kingdom, has not changed: the BBC. The BBC is unique not because of the way in which it is funded, nor because of the fact that it is a public service broadcaster, but because since 1 January 1927 it has succeeded in not changing its structure, despite the fact that it exists in a dynamic and changing world.
      Mr. John Grogan: My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that there were two objective people in the Chamber tonight: himself and the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). I shall take up and reinforce three points made by the latter.
      First, the hon. Gentleman said, and I agree, that this is not the last opportunity Parliament will have to determine the relationship between the BBC and Ofcom. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton will see to it that in years to come we spend many happy hours discussing such matters. Not only is there the prospect of the communications Bill, but there is to be a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on that Bill and further opportunities during the run-up to charter renewal.
      The hon. Member for North Devon is right to say that the character of the Ofcom regulator and its relationships with not only the BBC but other public service broadcasters cannot be determined until the main Bill is produced. It is not clear what powers Ofcom will have in tier 3 regulation—the backstop powers he mentioned—in relation to ITV, never mind the BBC.
      8.15 pm
      The chairman of the BBC has appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee since Second Reading. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton refers to himself as an amateur; perhaps he is, but he is also a class act who draws in the crowds. I could hardly get into the room that day—it

      365
      was heaving. I just managed to squeeze into the corner. The chairman of the BBC began by saying that he agreed with much that my right hon. Friend had said on Second Reading. He said of the BBC:
      "In fact, if anything, it should be regulated rather more robustly"
      than other broadcasters,
      "given its unique access to the licence fee."
      He added that on
      "one or two issues of detail … I think there are nuances of difference between us"—
      that is, between my right hon. Friend and the BBC. Nevertheless, the BBC accepts that it will be subject to more regulation under Ofcom than at any time before.
      It is worth running through the three tiers. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) mentioned economic regulation. The chairman of the BBC was unambiguous, telling the Select Committee:
      "In the case of economic regulation, basic standards and quotas (Tiers 1 and 2) the BBC will be treated just like any other broadcaster and will be fully within OFCOM's remit … that is only right and proper and we welcome this change."
      For the first time, the BBC will be subject to regional programme quotas and to ensuring that news is in prime time. In terms of its economic responsibilities, it will be very much under Ofcom's wing. The hon. Member for North Devon put his finger on the issue when he referred to Ofcom's backstop powers and any role it may have in the creation of new channels. I, too, feel suspicious. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton mentioned advertising: it is not only commercial broadcasters who do not like the idea of the BBC advertising—parents dislike the idea as well. They welcome new BBC children's channels because of the absence of excessive advertising during programmes that are specifically for children. That is one of the great attractions of the BBC. Many listeners to Radio 1 and Radio 2 hope that the Opposition do not decide to adopt a policy of privatisation of those stations. People like to listen to radio programmes and watch sport on television without interruptions from advertising.
      Ofcom will primarily be an economic regulator and a light-touch regulator of public service broadcasters other than the BBC. Can it combine the skills needed for light-touch regulation of ITV and Channel 4, which will be far more unregulated than ever before, with the very different skills needed to ensure that our main public service broadcaster continues year on year to produce the public service programmes on which its reputation depends and on which its support in the House and the country depends? Can Ofcom really combine those two roles?
      As I said, the House will spend many happy hours discussing those issues. There is no need at this stage, during the establishment of the shadow Ofcom, to tear up the broadcasting ecology that has served our nation for many years. Changes will have to be made, and the White Paper mentions measures that will fundamentally change the way in which the BBC operates, and its relationship with the regulators affecting it, but we should preserve all that is good in the BBC. I am glad to see that many hon. Members acknowledge that there is much that is good and that must be preserved.
      Glenda Jackson: I will not detain the House long. I oppose the amendments,
      366
      essentially for the reasons put forward by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). It seems to be putting the cart before the horse to attempt to introduce that kind of regulation under such a small paving Bill.
      I leapt to my feet essentially to take issue with the idea that the BBC is a unique organisation on any level other than the way it is funded. It is no longer unique as a public service broadcaster. Previous speakers have referred to the BBC's capacity to introduce new channels. The BBC is not introducing new channels; it is introducing additional programmes. I regret that I feel impelled to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton has said. I find it outrageous that the BBC has seen fit to introduce its new, fourth channel which has been funded by everyone who has to buy a television licence in this country and yet is accessible only to that minority who have digital television. I do not exclude the commercial operators of the service when I say that the quality of the programmes is execrable in the main. They tend to be based on repeats—certainly that is true of the programmes that the BBC is broadcasting—and remarkably banal.
      Regrettably, in this country, culture, art, intellectual practices and expertise are still in many instances regarded as minority interests. I believe that the BBC's new channel will mean an even greater reduction in such programmes and a reduction of interest in its existing channels. For the BBC to be able to avoid what I understood was one of the central planks of its existing, supposedly unique, nature—that of serving minority interests—seems to highlight how over the past decade, if not longer, it has believed that it meets its unique situation exclusively by virtue of the way it is funded, and increasingly forgets its public service broadcasting responsibility.
      The BBC used to be an international byword for quality programmes. It gives me no pleasure to say that I think that reputation has been lost in leaps and bounds, not least in respect of its news broadcasts. As someone said to me, "If you want to know what has happened, you turn to Sky." It is almost impossible to get any kind of up-to-date news on the BBC. It spent an absolute fortune on introducing the 24-hour news broadcasting programme which, on its own analysis, is watched internationally and nationally by such a small audience that it does not even come up on the percentage scale. I strongly agree about the backstop for how the BBC adapts to the future, when we will see ever greater convergence between broadcasting and communications.
      I was particularly grateful that the Government introduced free licences for 75-year-olds because of the litany that I inevitably heard from my pensioners. They objected to paying the licence fee because they were categoric that they never watched any BBC programme on any of the BBC channels. I would hate to see the day dawn when that feeling was more general across the country.
      For the past decade, the BBC seems to have lost belief in its own identity. It believes that it has to compete with commercial stations so that it is not unique but similar in its competitive activities and programming to the commercial sector.

      367
      We have in television—one aspect of broadcasting and communications—a unique medium that has never been exploited to the full. It has never brought the greatest possible benefits to the millions of people who watch it world wide. The BBC could, perhaps, begin to forge a new path. I may be maligning the director general and the board of governors, but I think they would love to be able to have advertising in their programmes. However, if they are increasingly forced into a corner so that the process takes longer, more people are involved and the product is produced by someone else more speedily and economically, it will lose its position as the great pinnacle of broadcasting excellence. The BBC is no longer in that position, and I would hate to see it slide even further down that slippery slope. I sincerely hope it will rise again, and the amendment will do nothing to encourage the BBC to aim higher.
      Dr. Howells: We have had a wide-ranging debate about how a relationship between Ofcom and the BBC might look after the scrutiny and debate by Parliament and the Joint Committee of both Houses of a substantive communications Bill. We devoted a number of hours to this subject in Committee, and I have no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) put it, that we will spend many more happy hours discussing this in the communications Bill. I am not one to throw a wet blanket over such enjoyable occasions, but the Bill is not about that—it is about setting up Ofcom.
      Taken together, amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 would make the BBC an "existing regulator" for certain purposes in the Bill, alongside the other regulators. The amendments are the same as those put forward in Committee, so they have been discussed at great length. I made it clear then that the purpose of the Bill is only to set up Ofcom and its initial functions. At that time, I circulated a detailed briefing note to hon. Members so that they were clear on the Government's policy on the BBC and Ofcom, as set out in the White Paper. I appreciate that the BBC's place in the new regulatory structure and its relationship with Ofcom is the subject of much debate, and so it should be. However, the appropriate time for a detailed discussion on the issue will be when the draft communications Bill is published in the spring.
      I resist the amendments because clause 2 gives Ofcom the power that it needs to facilitate or secure the modification of any proposals concerning the BBC. Under subsection (1), Ofcom has the power to do whatever is appropriate in preparing for its task. The BBC's charter will allow it to prepare for implementing our legislative proposals. The phrase
      "whether by transfers from the existing regulators or otherwise"
      has been included in subsection (3). That means that Ofcom's power is not limited to transfers from existing regulators, as defined in the Bill, but can also include transfers from the BBC. I am satisfied that the powers in the Bill are sufficient to cover the points that have been debated. They will allow Ofcom and the BBC to make preparations for implementing the new regulatory regime. They do not prevent proper debate of the exact relationship between Ofcom and the BBC when the time comes, nor do they pre-empt the outcome of that debate. I therefore oppose the amendments.
      Mr. Yeo: This has been an excellent debate, and I am grateful to all those who have taken part in it.
      368
      I should like to reply to the Minister's comments. We have not brought forward the amendment at this stage because it is the last opportunity to do so. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) was wrong to claim that I said it was. It clearly is not, as the Minister has explained. There will be an opportunity to do so under the forthcoming communications Bill. However, this seems to be the most appropriate opportunity, not least because this paving Bill lists the regulators whose functions are to be taken over by Ofcom and because it will be much more sensible to have the debate about Ofcom's functions when we know what organisations it will be responsible for. I am afraid that it is those who are resisting the amendment who are in danger of getting the cart and the horse the wrong way round, not those who share our views.
      8.30 pm
      I am sorry that we seem unlikely to have the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) with us in the Lobby. He is a powerful advocate of the merits of an external regulator, and he was right to question the effectiveness of the present accountability arrangements of the BBC. He made it clear that he does not want the BBC to be ignored by Ofcom—far from it. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and me is one of means, rather than ends. In due course, perhaps, there will be opportunities to try to reach a shared position.
      I am sorry also that we will not have the support of the Liberals this evening. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) seemed unable to decide what the party's view should be. He said that that would have to wait until Ofcom had been debated in more detail, but that misses the point. The question is one of principle: whether we believe that the BBC should be regulated in a manner similar to the other organisations operating in the field. The Liberal party clearly does not. It wishes to preserve a privileged position, for whatever reason, for the BBC. The clue to the Liberal position was in the dying phrase of the hon. Gentleman's speech, when he said that putting the BBC within the remit of Ofcom would be throwing it to the wolves. That did not suggest to me that he would approach the future debates in an open-minded manner.
      On the contribution of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), I entirely accept that there are many other issues in the Bill, but this is the one that is before the House. That is why I have been addressing it. There will be a chance to address or return to some of the others later.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is a powerful advocate of the case that I have tried to advance. When I listened to his views, it made me think that on this issue I had been right to say what I had said earlier.
      The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), like a number of those who oppose the amendment, seemed to assume that including the BBC within Ofcom would somehow stop the governors carrying out their function of scrutinising how the BBC was meeting or failing to meet its public service obligations. It would do nothing of the sort. The governors would still have that function. They would be the first stop and Ofcom would be the backstop, to use the language that others have adopted.
      The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) criticised the way the BBC is moving away from a strict public service role, perhaps in pursuit

      369
      of higher ratings. I am sure that that is a widely held concern. My only regret is that the hon. Lady does not conclude from it that some change in the present regulatory arrangements is needed, and needed urgently.
      As I explained at the outset, amendment No. 7 is the crucial amendment in the group. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 6.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 5, line 28, at end insert—
      '(aa) the BBC Board of Governors.'.—[Mr. Yeo.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 308.

      Division No. 185]

      [8.33 pm

      ayes

      Amess, David

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Key, Robert

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Bacon, Richard

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Barker, Gregory

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Baron, John

      Leigh, Edward

      Beggs, Roy

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Liddell—Grainger, Ian

      Bercow, John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Loughton, Tim

      Blunt, Crispin

      Luff, Peter

      Boswell, Tim

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Brady, Graham

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Brazier, Julian

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Burns, Simon

      Malins, Humfrey

      Burnside, David

      Maples, John

      Cash, William

      Mates, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mercer, Patrick

      Collins, Tim

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Conway, Derek

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Norman, Archie

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Page, Richard

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Paice, James

      Evans, Nigel

      Paterson, Owen

      Fabricant, Michael

      Prisk, Mark

      Flook, Adrian

      Randall, John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Francois, Mark

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Garnier, Edward

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick

      Ruffley, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Goodman, Paul

      Selous, Andrew

      Gray, James

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Greenway, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Grieve, Dominic

      Simmonds, Mark

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hammond, Philip

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hayes, John

      Spink, Bob

      Heald, Oliver

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Steen, Anthony

      Hermon, Lady

      Streeter, Gary

      Hoban, Mark

      Swire, Hugo

      Horam, John

      Syms, Robert

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      370

      Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Wilkinson, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Trend, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Yeo, Tim

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mr. Charles Hendry and

      Watkinson, Angela

      Mr. Desmond Swayne.

      noes

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Alexander, Douglas

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Allen, Graham

      David, Wayne

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Davidson, Ian

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Atkins, Charlotte

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

      Austin, John

      Bailey, Adrian

      Dawson, Hilton

      Baird, Vera

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Barnes, Harry

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Barrett, John

      Dismore, Andrew

      Barron, Kevin

      Dobbin, Jim

      Beard, Nigel

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Doran, Frank

      Bell, Stuart

      Doughty, Sue

      Benn, Hilary

      Dowd, Jim

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Benton, Joe

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Berry, Roger

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Efford, Clive

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Borrow, David

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fisher, Mark

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bryant, Chris

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Burden, Richard

      Foulkes, George

      Burgon, Colin

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Galloway, George

      Cairns, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Gidley, Sandra

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Caplin, Ivor

      Godsiff, Roger

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Casale, Roger

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Grogan, John

      Challen, Colin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Chaytor, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Harvey, Nick

      Clelland, David

      Healey, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heath, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Connarty, Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cotter, Brian

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cousins, Jim

      Heyes, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Hill, Keith

      Crausby, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cummings, John

      Hope, Phil

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      371

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Morgan, Julie

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Mullin, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Irranca—Davies, Huw

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Norris, Dan

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jamieson, David

      Olner, Bill

      Jenkins, Brian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Perham, Linda

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Picking, Anne

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pike, Peter

      Joyce, Eric

      Plaskitt, James

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pond, Chris

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pope, Greg

      Kidney, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Price, Adam

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pugh, Dr John

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Lamb, Norman

      Purnell, James

      Lammy, David

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Laws, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Laxton, Bob

      Rapson, Syd

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lepper, David

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Levitt, Tom

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Rooney, Terry

      Linton, Martin

      Ross, Ernie

      Lloyd, Tony

      Roy, Frank

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ruane, Chris

      Love, Andrew

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lucas, Ian

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Luke, Iain

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Salter, Martin

      McCafferty, Chris

      Sanders, Adrian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sawford, Phil

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonnell, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      MacDougall, John

      Sheridan, Jim

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Singh, Marsha

      McKechin, Ann

      Skinner, Dennis

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Squire, Rachel

      Mann, John

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Marris, Rob

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Stringer, Graham

      Merron, Gillian

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Tami, Mark

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Miliband, David

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Mole, Chris

      Todd, Mark

      Moore, Michael

      Touhig, Don

      Moran, Margaret

      Trickett, Jon

      372

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Willis, Phil

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Winnick, David

      Tyler, Paul

      Wishart, Pete

      Tynan, Bill

      Wood, Mike

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Woolas, Phil

      Wareing, Robert N

      Wray, James

      Watson, Tom

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Watts, David

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Webb, Steve

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Weir, Michael

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Mr. John Heppell.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule

      FURTHER PROVISION ABOUT OFCOM
      8.45 pm
      Miss McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 11, line 3, at end insert—
      ', up to a maximum of £10 million in any one financial year.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in page 11, line 6, leave out "and at such rates".
      No. 21, in page 11, line 7, at end insert—
      '(3) The rate of interest on any sums advanced under this paragraph shall be the same as the lowest rate determined by the Treasury under section 5 of the National Loans Act 1968 (c. 13) in respect of similar loans made out of the National Loans Fund on the day the advance is made.'.
      Miss McIntosh: It gives me great pleasure to speak to these amendments, which arise from a debate that we had late in the day during our happy hours in Committee, to which the Minister has referred. The Government should address several of the issues that arose.
      Amendment No. 22 would set a maximum of £10 million of projected expenditure by Ofcom in any one financial year. That is important because it is not guaranteed that the main communications Bill, for which we wait with anticipation, will reach the statute book. We may, therefore, find ourselves in the regrettable situation in which Ofcom may have to be disbanded. The Bill does not make sufficient provision for that. Amendment No. 32 is purely consequential—the Secretary of State would not set such rates because, under amendment No. 22, a maximum of £10 million would have been set.
      Amendment No. 21 enshrines what the Minister helpfully set out in a letter for the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on 8 February 2002 about what the rate of interest on a loan should be. It is our fervent desire that the rate of interest on sums advanced under this paragraph of the schedule should be the same as the lowest rate determined by the Treasury under section 5 of the National Loans Act 1968 in respect of similar loans made from the national loans fund on the day of the advance.

      373
      These amendments are important because of the gap left by the helpful comments about clause 5 made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. He said:
      "Subsection (6) deals with the procedures that will apply in relation to the shell Ofcom's assets if … it were to be wound up."
      He continued:
      "Paragraph (b) refers to the power to provide for the property rights and liabilities of Ofcom to be divided between different persons."
      The Minister responded:
      have told the Committee on a number of occasions that the only source of funding will be loans made to Ofcom by the Secretary of State on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport."
      At column 249, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said that
      "the end of the story is that it will be a loan that must be repaid."
      He went on to point out that
      "clause 5 makes absolutely no reference to who will repay the loan that will undoubtedly arise from the operating costs of Ofcom."
      He added:
      "How are the operating costs to be dealt with? The assets and liabilities are dealt with in detail, but the operating costs are not."
      He finally asked:
      "Why not, and who will be liable?"
      The point is that, in giving his explanation to the House, the Minister raised more questions than the Bill answers. At column 250, he claimed that
      "Clause 5 will provide precisely what Opposition Members were arguing for"
      and
      "gives the Secretary of State the power to wind up Ofcom."
      He also said:
      "Other provisions allow property, other assets and liabilities to be transferred to the Secretary of State from Ofcom, the existing regulators or other specified persons."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 5 February 2002; c. 248–50.]
      In my view, those provisions are not at all clear, which is why I tabled the amendments.
      Dr. Howells: We debated in some detail in Committee how it is proposed that Ofcom should be funded. It may help the House—and, I hope, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)—if I set out again what those arrangements will be.
      As hon. Members will know, the general approach for sectoral regulators is that the cost should be borne by the sector concerned. Indeed, industry recognises that that is part of the cost of doing business and is generally content with that. That arrangement applies to the existing broadcasting and telecommunications regulators, although, in the case of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, half the costs are met by grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
      At the start, when Ofcom is preparing to take on its later functions, it will have no fee income from industry. It is the Government's view that the extra cost associated with creating Ofcom should be borne by the sector, but it makes sense for the businesses that are in the sector once the new regime comes into force to finance that cost rather than those which are in the sector today. We therefore
      374
      envisage that all—or virtually all—of the cost of transition should be financed by a loan to Ofcom made by the Secretary of State. It is intended that that loan will eventually be repaid by Ofcom out of the fee income that it will start to receive when it takes on its regulatory functions.
      I do not believe that a limit should be set in primary legislation on the maximum amount that the Secretary of State can advance to Ofcom, as amendment No. 22 suggests. At this early stage, there is too much uncertainty about how long Ofcom's preparatory stage might last and what practical steps it will need to take to prepare to receive its regulatory functions. Obviously, we all want the transition to the new regulatory regime to be as smooth as possible for all concerned, but it is only when the Ofcom board is in place later this year that it will be able to take decisions on the practical steps.
      It is not necessary to set out in the Bill the level of interest payment on any advance that might be made to Ofcom—the subject of amendments Nos. 32 and 21. As I explained in Committee, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), to which the hon. Member for Vale of York referred, the level of interest charged on any advance made by the Secretary of State to Ofcom would be made on the presumption that it should reflect the cost to the Government of borrowing. I therefore oppose the amendments.
      Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. Although I resist his arguments, I believe that we may be able to explore the matter at a later stage. My hon. Friends and I believed that this was the best opportunity to consider the provisions in question, but as the Government are not minded to accept my temptations and agree to the amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Miss McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—
      'Consumer Panel

      14A(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish a Consumer Panel of 10 members, comprising persons who are neither members nor employees of OFCOM.

      (2) Members will be appointed for four year terms and shall serve a maximum of two consecutive terms.

      (3) Paragraphs 17, 18, and 19 of the Schedule shall apply to the proceedings of the Consumer Panel, but paragraphs 15 and 16 shall not apply and the Consumer Panel shall make other such arrangements for regulating their own procedure as they think tit.

      (4) The Consumer Panel shall—

      (a) research consumers' views and concerns on issues relating to OFCOM's functions,

      (b) publish its advice, conclusions and reports to OFCOM, and

      (c) take due account in its work of the views of consumers with special needs, including those on low incomes or with disabilities.

      (5) The Consumer Panel shall be funded by means of grants from OFCOM.

      (6) The Consumer Panel shall make an annual report of its proceedings and financial position to each House of Parliament.'.

      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—
      'Radio Committee
      14B It shall be a duty of OFCOM to establish a Radio Committee to provide advice to OFCOM about, and carry out functions in relation to, the radio sector.'.
      No. 20, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—
      Deregulation Committee
      14C It shall be a duty of OFCOM to establish a Deregulation Committee to provide advice to OFCOM about how relevant proposals about the regulation of communications could be modified to deregulate the communications industry.'.
      Miss McIntosh: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this group of amendments, particularly amendment No. 12, which relates to the role and constitution of a consumer panel. We wish to see Ofcom establish a consumer panel of 10 members, who would not be members or employees of Ofcom, and who would serve for a maximum of two consecutive four-year terms. In our view, Ofcom should have a duty to have regard to the work of such a panel. The fact that the panel would provide an annual report of its proceedings and financial position to each House of Parliament would ensure its accountability to Parliament.
      Under the provisions of the amendment, the consumer panel would be funded by grants from Ofcom, and would research consumers' views and concerns on issues relating to Ofcom's functions. The panel would publish its advice, conclusions and reports to Ofcom, and its work would take account of the views of consumers with special needs, including those on low incomes or with disabilities. I regret that the amendment on disabilities tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) met with such a lack of response from the Government. In light of that amendment's failure, this amendment takes on additional importance. It would be the rightful role of the consumer panel to have regard to those with special needs and, in particular, those with disabilities. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport supported such a move in its report on the White Paper on communications.
      The White Paper refers to Ofcom's consumer protection role in paragraph 7.4 on page 72, which states:
      "Ofcom will have a principal duty to protect the interests of consumers and will have powers to take action if the industry does not develop an effective consumer protection regime."
      The White Paper makes many other references to consumer protection, and I must ask the Minister why the Bill makes no mention of a consultative panel.
      I also want to speak briefly to amendment No. 13, which invites Ofcom to establish a radio committee to provide advice to Ofcom and to raise issues and problems that are very different from those of television, having regard to the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) so eloquently pointed out in Committee and in the House today, the radio sector is of huge importance to the communications and broadcasting industry. A radio committee established under the auspices of Ofcom would he able to consider and advise on all those issues.
      On amendment No. 20, it is the wish of the official Opposition to see a deregulation committee established. Such a committee would advise Ofcom about how the regulation of communications could be modified so as to
      376
      deregulate the communications industry. If Ofcom is to achieve anything, it must deregulate. It is to replace five existing regulators, if we include the BBC—we would like it to replace six—and will, therefore, be essentially deregulatory in nature. We believe that placing a duty on Ofcom to establish such a deregulation committee is the best possible way to monitor Ofcom's deregulatory activities.
      Michael Fabricant: I welcome all the amendments, but especially the one that deals with radio. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and others will know, I have the gravest concern about the possibility of our reverting to the position that obtained in the days of the Independent Broadcasting Authority when the radio division was confined to a few bleak offices in the Brompton road.
      It being Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [14 January] put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Dr. Howells.]
      9 pm
      Miss McIntosh: I feel a certain sadness at this stage. As the Minister said, we have spent many happy hours debating the Bill in Committee and this evening. Despite the sad conclusion that those happy hours have reached, I welcomed the opportunity to consider its remaining stages. Obviously, Opposition Members are disappointed by our failure to carry any of our amendments. We shall have opportunities to return to some of the issues involved but others need to be raised now.
      I remind the House that I have a pecuniary interest in BT, albeit a small one.
      The composition of Ofcom should represent all forms of the media and communications. That applies to board members, officials and staff. We think that appointments should be approved by a parliamentary Committee such as that chaired by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), or alternatively by the Joint Committee that the Government intend to request the House to set up.
      For the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), our fervent desire—eloquently expressed by many Members on both sides of the House: I think it struck a chord with certain Labour Back Benchers—was that the BBC's board of governors should have been included in every respect. As my hon. Friend said, it is important that we recognise the public service broadcasting obligations of the BBC's board of governors. It is a bizarre omission that, as we speak, the BBC has no parliamentary accountability. I am sorry that the opportunity offered by the Bill for discussion of that was turned down.
      As I have said, we believe that Ofcom should be a deregulatory organisation with a light touch. We shall monitor developments over the next month, especially in view of the Minister's promise of a communications Bill in the spring. No doubt the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee will work carefully to ensure that the organisation has a light touch and a deregulatory mandate.

      377
      We shall also take the opportunity to ensure that consideration is given to the needs of those with special requirements and disabilities—the deaf, the blind and many others—and to precisely how the commitment in the White Paper to liaison with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will be achieved.
      We are especially keen for the particular needs and interests of the radio sector to be reflected through a radio committee. We had a good discussion in Committee about the needs and concerns of religious broadcasters, although we did not have an opportunity to discuss them this evening. A greater range of frequencies would enable greater choice in religious broadcasting, which both sides of the House would welcome. Other media and forms of communication—such as mobile phones, broadband technology and the internet—should properly have been referred to. Those who represent Ofcom should have regard to those special interests.
      On financing, loans should be set at the interest rate referred to by the Minister in his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), and the Secretary of State should set a limit on the expenditure that Ofcom can incur. The Minister should also offer a commitment that, if the main Bill never appears and Ofcom is wound up, the somewhat complicated procedure that he set out in Committee will be simplified so that even hon. Members can readily understand it and explain it to all concerned outside this House.
      I consider the BBC one of the finest British institutions. It holds a special place of affection in the hearts and minds of the British people, including me. However, as I have said, it is our fervent desire that, if one regulator is to replace existing regulators, it should replace all six, including the BBC board of governors. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said, initially the board of governors will monitor all first and second-tier responsibilities. However, in the light of its public service obligations, there should be one rule and a one-size-fits-all regulator. For that reason, the BBC should be included.
      I make a special plea for the ongoing delivery of regional programming and news editions by the BBC, ITV and other companies. As Members of this House, we are keen that such programming be improved, and that the high standards that we enjoy across the United Kingdom be maintained. I recognise only too clearly that we are in the midst of perhaps the longest and deepest recession for some time. Advertising revenues are down, which has put especial pressure on the delivery of regional programming and news editions.
      As we have said at various stages in the Bill's consideration, it is the fervent desire of all Opposition Members that parliamentary accountability be paramount. Ofcom's committees, its annual report and the preparation and presentation of its annual accounts should be considered by the relevant body of each House of Parliament. Its annual accounts should be considered by the Public Accounts Committee, and its annual report should be considered by the relevant Select Committees.
      Mindful of a possible Government reshuffle this Easter, may I take this opportunity to wish the Minister a fair wind? Perhaps he will be transported to another Department, or to a more elevated position.
      378
      In its lengthy, considerable and interesting deliberations, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's report on the communications White Paper raised the question of merging the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry. There are many merits in that argument, and I could think of many people who were less fit for that position than the Minister.
      I hope that the Minister will take account of our plea for the Ofcom committees to meet in public when possible and for us to he able to deliberate on their work and recommendations.
      There was a glaring omission in our debate and we were unfortunately unable to reach the amendment that dealt with it. We failed to consider the measure's competition aspects and their implications for the communications sector. Consequently, there will be two competition authorities: Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading. I fervently believe that the Bill should declare that, in cases of any doubt about which body should be the ultimate arbiter on competition matters, the OFT is the right body to rule on them.
      Nick Harvey: We all agree with the hon. Lady that Ofcom should be a light-touch regulator. However, she is keen for the regulation of the BBC—a complex task—to be transferred to Ofcom and, if a competition issue arises, for Ofcom to defer to the OFT. In the world that she envisages, the BBC would barely be regulated and, if it deigned to do anything in competition terms that was deemed to conflict with anyone else, the case would simply be rolled over to the OFT.
      Miss McIntosh: Those comments are interesting, but believe that the hon. Gentleman confuses two matters. By "competition aspects", I mean, for example, media ownership. I served an apprenticeship in the part of the Commission in Brussels that deals with competition, and I am therefore mindful of the means that competition lawyers will employ if they believe that an uncompetitive practice is occurring. The hon. Gentleman confuses a true competition aspect, which the OFT should tackle, with my earlier comments about the BBC's public sector broadcasting obligations. I apologise to him if I did not make myself sufficiently clear.
      We have had the opportunity this evening to consider many points in some depth. It therefore gives me great pleasure to support the Bill, with the proviso that I am disappointed that many of the issues that we wanted to include remain open for discussion when we consider the main communications Bill.
      9.13 pm
      Brian White: I am pleased that the Bill is receiving a Third Reading and that it will move us forward. However, a lot of nonsense was talked on Second Reading, in Committee and again tonight. That does not move the debate forward.
      As was said earlier, changes are happening all the time. Indeed, British Telecom's announcement on broadband wholesale prices shows that change has occurred since the end of our deliberations in Committee. I plead with the Minister to publish the communications Bill by the end of April or the beginning of May, even if all the i's have not been dotted. It is important to get it into the public

      379
      domain and have a debate, even if Ministers have not made every decision. It is more important for the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee to be up and running than for Ministers to do everything that they normally achieve before presenting a Bill to the House. There is a need to consider regulations, the EU framework and the work of the existing regulators and their relationship to the shadow Ofcom, and how that develops during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the communications Bill. Those are real issues.
      There is also a serious issue about the BBC. We must debate the BBC, its licence fee and its relationship to Ofcom. There is also a need to debate cross-media ownership, but these matters must not be confused and, in the communications Bill, must be tackled separately.
      I conclude with two heresies. There has been an awful lot of talk about convergence. Things are converging technically, but socially and in the way that people use technology, they are not. It is important that we understand how people use, or do not use, technology. We should not just assume that because it is technically possible to converge technologies, it will automatically happen. There is a danger that the policy assumptions of the Bill and the communications Bill are not solid in terms of the way in which people use technologies. I urge the Minister to understand what is happening in the real world, and not just the whizz-bang technological stuff.
      The second heresy concerns the role of regulators and whether existing models can cope in a world that is changing so fast. The economy is speeding up and changing. Ofcom will need to be adaptable, flexible and quick in its decision making, which is why the Minister was right in regard to the composition of the board. Things will need to be done quickly and, in setting up Ofcom, such imperatives will need to be recognised. The Minister recognises that it is important that when Ofcom is set up, the right people are chosen and that they understand the issues.
      Is this a step forward? The debate on the communications Bill will show a lot of areas of agreement, but it will also show some fundamental problems and disagreements. I hope that we concentrate on the disagreements and get the bits where we do agree into Ofcom as soon as possible.
      9.17 pm
      Nick Harvey: On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked what Ofcom is actually for and what the regulation of the communications industry is supposed to be all about. Do we need to have a specialist regulator for the communications industry, or could it just be regulated by the OFT and the other bodies that regulate industry and competition within industry?
      I believe that there is a justification for the communications industry having a specialist regulator and that Ofcom, in the shape proposed, is more or less the right way to go forward and certainly is the basis on which we can debate what this regulatory body ought to be.
      It is essential that Ofcom is allowed to take a view on what constitutes the public interest. The OFT is explicitly prevented from introducing into its considerations aspects of what constitutes the public interest. As I understand the Government's reforms, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's ability to enter into the chain of decision
      380
      making in competition issues is forced back. The regulator—set up without a brief to take account of the public interest—makes competition decisions against what I referred to earlier as very dry economic criteria.
      If Ofcom, which is obviously going to need technical expertise relevant to this sector—and will also, rightly, have to consider competition issues—is not allowed to go beyond that and consider public interest issues, it will not achieve some of the purposes that are being envisaged for it. It certainly will not be fit to be the sole and total regulator of the BBC. I have misgivings about some of its other anticipated roles.
      When the communications Bill is published and we debate what Ofcom is for, we must decide either to give it explicit public interest powers or to retain for Parliament or the Secretary of State some ability to introduce considerations of public interest; otherwise, it would be virtually pointless to set the body up. All that it would add to the existing regulatory framework would be some specialist technical know-how. The question of what the body is for is so fundamental that we have probably expended too much time and endeavour on the paving Bill, which contains just seven clauses and a schedule and merely empowers the setting up of Ofcom and the hiring of offices and staff. The sooner we get on with the real debate, which publication of the draft Bill will begin, the better it will be.
      9.20 pm
      Angela Watkinson: I, too, was a member of the Standing Committee that met for the many happy hours referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) to discuss the establishment of an Office of Communications. Our debates centred on the size and composition of the new body and its initial functions in preparing for the regulatory duties across the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors that will be imposed on it by the communications Bill soon to come before the House. We also debated the vexed question of the relationship between Ofcom and the BBC, to which I shall return later.
      Clause 1 proposes that the membership of Ofcom should be determined by the Secretary of State and should be not fewer than three people and not more than six. Ofcom is to become an umbrella organisation replacing the existing regulators—the Independent Television Commission, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, Oftel, the Radio Authority and the Radiocommunications Agency. Concern remains that a body that may be comprised of as few as three people will be able to ensure that the interests of so many different services, groups and organisations are represented fully. I have received from a wide range of those organisations representations that certainly echo those concerns.
      Inclusion of the necessary range of professional expertise and divergence of experience and view will be extremely challenging. The appointment of a chairman and the members of Ofcom will rest with the Secretary of State. There should also be a chief executive and other executive members, but there is a question about that. Clause 1(5) states:
      "It shall be for the members of OFCOM … to determine whether there should be any executive members"
      and
      "to make any appointments".

      381
      That will be an interesting exercise. Given that the maximum and minimum numbers for membership allow little flexibility, an Ofcom of three members would include a chairman, one member and a chief executive. Even an Ofcom of six members would include only a chairman, between one and four members and a chief executive. Clause 1(7) states:
      "The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument modify the numbers".
      I hope that that opportunity will be taken.
      Much debate in Committee concentrated on whether the Bill should be concerned with Ofcom's future functions—it is, after all, only a paving Bill. I submit that the establishment of Ofcom cannot be readily separated from those functions or from the existing functions of the five regulators that it will replace. Representations have been received from a wide range of interest groups, all expressing individual concerns. For example, the Royal National Institute for the Blind is particularly concerned about the special requirements and circumstances of individuals who are disabled and those of pensionable age. It has requested that an advisory committee be set up for disabled people.
      As my own mother was blind, I am aware from personal experience of the importance of both radio and television to blind people. Very few sight-impaired people are totally blind, and they often watch television in the company of sighted people. For those viewers, audio description is an important new technology. It adds to the existing soundtrack and enables blind people to build a better mental picture and understanding of the action. Currently, fewer than 50 people are receiving digital terrestrial television audio description—I apologise for that long title—as part of a trial. I hope that Ofcom will give high priority to supporting the development of that service, to enable a large number of people to benefit.
      There are 8.7 million disabled people in the United Kingdom, including 2 million with serious sight problems, who are more dependent on radio and television than most people, and many of whom have unsuitable equipment. That is an area where Ofcom could take the lead and ensure that the future needs of disabled people were met, but it will need specific expertise to do so.
      There is currently an obstacle to Christian and other religious broadcasters in applying for a UK broadcasting licence in the same way as their secular competitors. There is a call to remove the ban against religious persons and bodies applying for licences for national and regional analogue and digital terrestrial TV services and national analogue and digital and local digital radio services. I would urge Ofcom to look sympathetically at that area of demand.
      Even those already in possession of a licence are not without their problems. Premier Radio, London's Christian radio station, has been given a yellow card by the Radio Authority. That means that if the station does not mend its ways it could lose its licence. Premier Radio had 14 programming complaints and one advertising complaint lodged against it, which is far more than any other station listed. Every single complaint was from the Mysticism and Occultism Federation. Its website states that it has five part-time unpaid volunteers who monitor the media. Irony of ironies, the pretext for the group's
      382
      monitoring and complaining is in fact pluralism. The group that seems determined to remove Premier Radio from the airwaves claims that it is actually committed to valuing and respecting the beliefs of others.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying. I do not see why the radio frequencies should not be opened up more to a diverse range of stations, as long as they can remain within the law and the regulation that Ofcom might seek to lay down, but that may well lead to the establishment of radio occult. Would the hon. Lady welcome that?
      Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), if only because it gives me the opportunity to try to pronounce the name of his constituency. I just wonder how large an audience such a station would attract.
      One is surprised to learn just how seriously those complaints were taken by the Radio Authority. The authority, or its future incarnation Ofcom, must be kept more accountable by the Secretary of State to expose vexatious complaints. Specific expertise is needed to overcome such problems.
      I shall now discuss the future status of the BBC. Currently, the BBC answers only to itself or to the Secretary of State. It would be far better for any future regulatory dispute to be decided between Ofcom and the BBC rather than with an elected politician.
      The BBC's public service remit will be largely self-regulation but with back stop powers resting with the Secretary of State. If the governors fail in that task, the Secretary of State may act to remedy the situation. The Secretary of State would also retain the power to approve new BBC licenced fee-funded services and material changes to existing services, although Ofcom will give formal advice on the market impact of such proposals. It is essential that the BBC retains public confidence and credibility in its editorial independence as an impartial public broadcaster, and that role would be more appropriately carried out by an independent Ofcom.
      A huge responsibility will rest on Ofcom in having control of the nation's communications—those conveyors of ideas, information and culture. The Orwellian opportunities are obvious. We must ensure that this new all-encompassing regulatory body has a light touch and transparent procedures, which will meet the continuing fast-moving developments and challenges facing the communications sector and take a balanced and fair view across the spectrum of media platforms. To succeed, it will need to be efficient and innovative and have an explicit commitment to providing first-class services to all sections of the viewing, listening and communicating public.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I, too, served on the Committee that considered the Bill, and its proceedings were very interesting and informative. On the whole, it considered the Bill at a reasonable pace and discussed issues that were worthy of debate. There were one or two examples of certain hon. Members perhaps taking up time in a dilatory way, but on the whole it was a model of how a Committee should work and the right amount of time was devoted to a Bill of this length.

      383
      I cannot accept that we have discussed any issue that should not rightly have been considered in Committee or even on Report. It was right and proper for hon. Members to try to explore the Bill's paving element and its less welcome elements. Paving is a useful substance when it is put down to walk on—it opens the way—but it becomes a harrier if it is stacked up. When we started to consider the Bill, we were not quite sure whether we were looking at paving that would provide a nice, flat way forward or at an obstacle, and I am still not convinced which of those this Bill represents.
      On the whole, this is a genuine paving Bill, but it has always had a slightly worrying aspect: clause 2, which relates to Ofcom's initial function, states that
      "the function of OFCOM … is to do such things as they consider appropriate for facilitating the implementation of, or for securing the modification of, any relevant proposals about the regulation of communications."
      That clause gives powers to Ofcom very early in its existence, and we were right to explore in Committee how those powers may be used and to consider Ofcom's membership because it will set the tone for the forthcoming, fully fledged Ofcom, to which we now look forward.
      We await with interest the draft communications Bill that the Minister said he would introduce. In Committee, he clearly said that it would come in the spring. When he was pressed to say when spring time was, he said that it was a time of flowers and warm air. I have to tell him that the snowdrops are out, even in Ceredigion; that the daffodils are out in London; and that I saw frogspawn on my walk up the Nedd Fechan in Pontneddfechan on Sunday, so it is important to recognise that spring is on its way.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) that we now need to see that draft communications Bill. It does not matter whether it is complete because we have been promised pre-legislative scrutiny in both Houses, so we shall have plenty of time to consider it. I fear that, if we do not see that Bill early enough to continue some of our arguments, the suspicion will grow that the Government have sought to establish Ofcom as a nice, tidy way to deal with these things while further distancing themselves from accountability and responsibility for them.
      The matters of most interest to me are representation not only for Wales and Scotland, to give us a voice in Ofcom in whatever way that is arranged, but for disabled people, as well as the interesting issues raised about the number of people at Ofcom and the length of their service and how the body will be constituted. All those valid and valuable issues were raised in Committee, and, on the whole, the Minister dealt with them reasonably effectively, but one issue remains outstanding.
      Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party are concerned that there is still no representation for Wales or Scotland or a method to consult them, as promised in the White Paper. There is no mention of having a member for Wales. We have extracted a promise that Ofcom will have an office in Wales, but we must be aware that it replaces five regulatory bodies, most of which already have in place a method for representing Wales as well as contacting and consulting the National Assembly on such matters. That is why the Assembly Cabinet made it clear that it wanted to choose a Welsh member of Ofcom.
      384
      It has long been my party's policy that we should have a regulatory body for communications in Wales—Ofcom Cymru, or Ofcom Wales if hon. Members prefer. I accept that that was never on the agenda and have not pursued it. It is perhaps better addressed in a bigger political fight. Nevertheless, we are extremely disappointed that the Bill has fallen so far short of reflecting Welsh and Scottish needs.
      Despite the powers not being devolved to the National Assembly, it has a huge interest in communications, and in broadband in particular, because they do relate to the economic development of Wales. It funds broadband expansion in Wales and is a partner with the European Union in much of what is best in broadband in Wales. That is obvious to anyone who has ever pressed the fourth button on a television in Wales and seen the Welsh language channel, SpedwarC. The Assembly is charged by the Government of Wales Act 1998 to discuss such matters. They do not have to be devolved for it to have an interest and want to have a say.
      Unfortunately, it is not clear how discussions in the Assembly or thoughts in Wales on how the communications revolution should continue will be taken up by Ofcom and fed through to the decision-making processes in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and, to an extent, in the Department of Trade and Industry. That is a disappointing aspect of the Bill. We will of course explore such issues more thoroughly when we debate the communications Bill, and I look forward to advancing the case for Welsh and Scottish communications needs to be taken into account by the Government.
      9.37 pm
      Michael Fabricant: We have come to the end of a long period of deliberation on what is a fairly small Bill. However, it was right to spend that time establishing the structures and, where possible, to discuss what needs to be put into place when the communications Bill is introduced.
      The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) is often right on technological matters. He was certainly right to say that what might be possible technically need not necessarily dictate the future. Studies in the United States show that people operate personal computers differently from the way in which they watch television. Convergence might mean that the PC and the television use the same screen, but in practice, as the hon. Gentleman said, that will probably not be the case because we watch television at a distance and operate a PC close up.
      Nevertheless, as I said when I argued that the BBC should be involved in Ofcom, time has moved on. There is greater convergence. Technology means that the BBC's position cannot be sustained. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) rightly explained that we are in a sustained period of recession, certainly as far as advertising revenue is concerned. The Independent Television Commission recently sent me some information. Between 1994 and 2000, the annual growth in independent television net advertising receipts was 8.6 per cent. That is a massive annual growth. Yet during 2001, ITV suffered losses in net advertising revenue that were larger than the average for the industry as a whole. Carlton reported its advertising revenue down by 13 per cent. for the year ending September 2001. Granada posted similar losses of 12 per cent.

      385
      Those losses are partly due to the fact that the BBC has shown itself to be an excellent and competitive broadcaster. Since the birth of independent television in 1955, the BBC has managed to capture a larger audience share than ITV. However, the real reason for net advertising receipts falling is the fragility, as people see it, rightly or wrongly, of the economy in the future. That is even more reason to set up an Office of Communications, and that is why my Front-Bench colleagues and I welcome its introduction.
      However, we do not want Ofcom at any cost. We do not want a body that is flawed. I am not convinced that the shell organisation set up by the Bill will be flawed: it will exist only until a communications Bill goes through Parliament and is enacted. Incidentally, over the years the Government have promised to introduce legislation in many areas, but the legislation never appeared, so I want to be convinced that a communications Bill will be announced in the next Queen's Speech. It is important for the sake of the industry that a communications authority be established. It is terribly important that we get that right so that the BBC is not seen to be its own judge and jury, as I said earlier. Furthermore, it must be seen to be controlled in the best interests of the viewers and listeners, who after all pay for it.
      It is important also for the industry as a whole that we get this right. I do not want news corporations such as Berlusconi or Bertelsmann to take over the media in the United Kingdom and worldwide. Britain has so much to be proud of, including not only the BBC, which is the largest individual producer of radio and television programmes in the world, but stations such as Granada and Carlton, which have sales worldwide. British broadcasting has to be promoted, and we must have a structure that enables us to do that.
      The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East would chide us with the fact that this is not only a question of controlling broadcasting bodies: we must also ensure that there is an expansion in digital technology in this country. It is a sad indictment of this Government that despite all the boasts made in the White Paper a year ago and in earlier White Papers, broadband has failed to expand in the UK, to such an extent that we are now 22nd in the world league.
      I hope that when the communications body is established it will manage to speed up that expansion; otherwise we will see a digital deficit, not only in regard to disabled people, as I said earlier, but in the nation as a whole, and that will cost us dear. I have no doubt that the will of the Government is to see that everyone becomes computer literate and has access to a PC on a broadband network so that they can apply their literacy. However, that requires a great deal more than the Prime Minister visiting a school and playing on a computer; a structure needs to be established.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)—I call him my hon. Friend because we became great allies in Committee—is right to call for interests in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be represented in Ofcom, and not only because of the question of languages that exists in Wales. Incidentally, I had to smile wryly when he talked about the work of S4C, because while many people enjoy watching S4C, plenty]
      386
      of other people build tall aerials on their roof so that they can pick up Channel 4 from England—but that is not to say that I want to deprive Welsh viewers of S4C. I would like viewers in Wales to receive both S4C and Channel 4, and that may well be possible in future.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Not only will it be possible in future—it is possible now. The whole point of digitalisation is choice. What is important is getting the whole of Wales switched on to the digital revolution and making sure that there is someone to represent Wales and ensure that it is switched on, rather than relying on general, UK-wide figures. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports me in that.
      Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I believe that the aim even of digital terrestrial television is to give people access to S4C and to Channel 4. That is what the Bill is all about—diversity and digital access, not digital disability.
      The Minister's position of insisting that the BBC should not be encompassed by Ofcom is unsustainable. If he does not grasp the nettle now, he will have to do it in 2005 or 2006, when the royal charter comes up for renewal—unless there is a general election in the meantime, in which case the task will fall to those who now sit on the Opposition Benches but who will then sit on the other side of the House.
      The BBC enjoys a unique position. I have resisted quoting the famous letter from Michael Hastings. It is arrogance in the extreme for the head of the political and parliamentary affairs unit of the BBC, which is a publicly funded body, to write to Members of Parliament saying:
      "An inappropriate level of attention has been focused on the BBC and its regulation through the Second Reading and Committee stages".
      I almost wonder whether it is a breach of privilege for someone to describe the legislative process as "inappropriate". Can hon. Members imagine civil servants at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport writing to tell me that it was "inappropriate" of me to mention in Committee the comment made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) to the effect that their Department is "dysfunctional"? They probably thought it was inappropriate of me to say so, but they would never write to me about it, because it would be improper.
      It is equally improper of the BBC to write to Members of Parliament as Mr. Hastings did, and that is part of the problem. Some cogent points are made in other parts of the letter, but they are ruined by the arrogance that permeates the BBC because it is ultimately answerable to no one—and because it is answerable to no one, it thinks that it can get away with it. As I said, if the BBC fell under the auspices of Ofcom, it would find that Ofcom provided protection.
      I wish the Bill a fair wind, but I hope that the main communications Bill will be scrutinised seriously. I hope that during that scrutiny the Government will listen and be prepared to accept amendments to that Bill. They certainly were not willing to do so in the Committee on this one.
      9.49 pm
      Miss McIntosh: With the leave of the House, I shall sum up for the official Opposition. I would hate to disappoint the Minister, who I am sure wants to keep the dialogue going a wee while longer.

      387
      We have heard some interesting speeches on Third Reading. It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), who speaks with such authority and high regard for the technological ability of the industry. I regret that the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) has again confused the role of the Office of Fair Trading in dealing with competition matters and the BBC, whose public sector responsibilities we want to be brought within Ofcom's remit.
      Despite the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), I hope that we have made Mr. Michael Hastings, for whom I have considerable affection, happy this evening, and that we have satisfied his
      "hope that this Wednesday's debate will be more constructive and will give due regard to the central, positive and creative role the BBC plays in the nation's cultural and education life."
      As I mentioned earlier, I continue to have the highest regard for the BBC, which can only be enhanced when we succeed in bringing its public sector provision, as well as its other provision, within the remit of Ofcom
      My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) spoke eloquently on the role of television and radio for the visually impaired. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) also said, although this is a paving Bill, it would have been opportune this evening for us to have regard for those with special needs.
      In summing up, let me express the clear disappointment felt by more than one party. We should not only have considered the composition of Ofcom but have had the opportunity to consider its functions. It has been extremely difficult in Committee and during the Bill's remaining stages to consider Ofcom's composition and functions separately. Perhaps the Minister could now admit his regret that the Government did not make that possible.
      9.52 pm
      Dr. Howells: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) for being such courteous and erudite spokespersons for their parties. I agreed with almost nothing that they said, but they said it very nicely. The hon. Member for North Devon is a fount of common sense—most of the time, anyway.
      It has been a real joy to watch the warmth and glow of the fraternal friendship that has developed between the Tories and the Welsh and Scottish nationalists. What a ménage trois! I am only glad that it is after 9 o'clock and the watershed, such has been the passion with which they leapt into each other's arms.
      The Bill was introduced in another place, where it was thoroughly scrutinised and debated, in July 2001. That thoroughness has been continued as the Bill has progressed through the House. Discussion of it has covered a wide range of issues and given us a foretaste of some of the variety of topics that are likely to be debated in much greater detail when the communications Bill is published in a few weeks' time. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debates, and look forward to their future contributions.
      The Bill is in excellent shape and I commend it to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 6.

      Division No. 186]

      [9.53 pm

      ayes

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Davidson, Ian

      Ainger, Nick

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Allen, Graham

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dismore, Andrew

      Austin, John

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bailey, Adrian

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Baird, Vera

      Doran, Frank

      Barnes, Harry

      Doughty, Sue

      Barrett, John

      Dowd, Jim

      Barron, Kevin

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Beard, Nigel

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Efford, Clive

      Bell, Stuart

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Benn, Hilary

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bennett, Andrew

      Fisher, Mark

      Benton, Joe

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Berry, Roger

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Borrow, David

      Galloway, George

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bryant, Chris

      Gidley, Sandra

      Burden, Richard

      Gilroy, Linda

      Burgon, Colin

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Cairns, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Grogan, John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Harvey, Nick

      Casale, Roger

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Caton, Martin

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Challen, Colin

      Heppell, John

      Chaytor, David

      Hermon, Lady

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Heyes, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hill, Keith

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clelland, David

      Hope, Phil

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cohen, Harry

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Connarty, Michael

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Cotter, Brian

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cranston, Ross

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Crausby, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      David, Wayne

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      389

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Moore, Michael

      Joyce, Eric

      Moran, Margaret

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Morgan, Julie

      Kemp, Fraser

      Mullin, Chris

      Kidney, David

      Munn, Ms Meg

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Lamb, Norman

      Olner, Bill

      Lammy, David

      Öpik, Lembit

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Laxton, Bob

      Perham, Linda

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Picking, Anne

      Lepper, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Leslie, Christopher

      Pike, Peter

      Levitt, Tom

      Plaskitt, James

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Pond, Chris

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Pope, Greg

      Linton, Martin

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Love, Andrew

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Lucas, Ian

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Luke, Iain

      Pugh, Dr John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Purchase, Ken

      McCabe, Stephen

      Purnell, James

      McCafferty, Chris

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Quinn, Lawrie

      MacDonald, Calum

      Rapson, Syd

      McDonnell, John

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      MacDougall, John

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      McKechin, Ann

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Rooney, Terry

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Ross, Ernie

      McWalter, Tony

      Roy, Frank

      McWilliam, John

      Ruane, Chris

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Ruddock, Joan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Mann, John

      Salter, Martin

      Marris, Rob

      Sanders, Adrian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sawford, Phil

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Merron, Gillian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Sheridan, Jim

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Simon, Siôn

      Miliband, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mole, Chris

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      390

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Tyler, Paul

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Tynan, Bill

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Squire, Rachel

      Watson, Tom

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Watts, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Webb, Steve

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      White, Brian

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stringer, Graham

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Willis, Phil

      Winnick, David

      Tami, Mark

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wood, Mike

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Woolas, Phil

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wray, James

      Todd, Mark

      Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Touhig, Don

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wright Tony (Cannock)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Dan Norris.

      noes

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Price, Adam

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Mr. Simon Thomas and

      Weir, Michael

      Pete Wishart.

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

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

    CONTRACTING OUT
    That the draft Contracting Out (Local Education Authority Functions) (England) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kemp.]
    Question agreed to.

  Operation Lancet
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
  10.8 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: By my reckoning, this is the fifth Adjournment debate on Operation Lancet. However, it is the first to be held consequent upon a partial conclusion—that is, the 14 guilty pleas and the forced resignation of former Detective Superintendent Mallon from Cleveland police. Although Operation Lancet is not terminated, it might be said that, for the first time and with facts available, the House is able to have a reasoned—if short—debate.
  Operation Lancet has gone on for four and a half years. What has it been about? In part, it has been about allegations that a group of Middlesbrough detectives gave inducements such as drugs to criminals in order to gain information. There were suspicions that close personal relationships existed between some Cleveland police officers and people believed to be drug traffickers. Even if only a fraction of the complaints were true, the officers involved had behaved in a regular and systematic fashion, apparently safe in the knowledge that compromised colleagues would not betray their activities. When Mallon pleaded guilty to 14 disciplinary charges arising out of Operation Lancet, he converted these allegations in relation to drugs into facts.
  Operation Lancet has highlighted a culture among some Middlesbrough police officers who traded with drugs as their currency—a fact again confirmed by Mallon's guilty pleas. It found that drugs taken into police custody were not properly recorded or handled, or correctly disposed of by destruction. What happened to the unaccounted for drugs? They were given to prisoners in police cells in exchange for information, and they were used by police officers themselves. All of that is confirmed by Mallon's guilty pleas.
  Mallon based his entire policy of zero tolerance on one officer who was himself a known drug abuser and another who had already been removed from the CID for disciplinary reasons. According to the West Yorkshire police report on which Mallon relies, those two individuals were
  "the right tools to do the job".
  Having chosen the tools, it was hardly surprising even to the West Yorkshire police that he became less forthcoming in dealing with allegations about them. Even the West Yorkshire police accept that he dealt with those allegations in an unprofessional way.
  The facts are simple. Mallon failed to investigate an allegation that a female prisoner had been given heroin by a detective in his force. An employee of a firm of Middlesbrough solicitors told a civilian custody officer on 7 April 1997 that her client had indeed been supplied with heroin. That information was passed on to an inspector who informed Detective Superintendent Mallon. However, Mallon made no effort to investigate this allegation and indeed raised it directly with the detective concerned. He thus thwarted any operation to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegation. He has now pleaded guilty that between March 1997 and May 1997 he failed to investigate an allegation that a detective had supplied a controlled drug to a female prisoner.
  392
  On 23 May 1997, it emerged that two detectives—the one who was a known drug abuser and the one who was a risk taker; or the "tools for the job", according to West Yorkshire police—had taken a prisoner from police cells to identify houses he had burgled, but in truth the prisoner was supplied with heroin and taken to a pub by the officers. That information comes from the West Yorkshire report on which Mallon relies. The prisoner was a known heroin addict and was on charges of theft and burglary. The detectives had stopped by a garage on the way to the pub and returned with some "gear"—a euphemism for controlled drugs. At the pub, the prisoner was given two pints of beer and allowed to use a controlled drug. Due to the drinks and drugs, and not quite knowing what he was doing or where he was, the prisoner signed a statement admitting to a number of offences that would be taken into consideration at his forthcoming trial. That was how the clear-up rate of crime was improved in Mallon's Middlesbrough.
  When the prisoner was returned to his prison cell, the custody officer noticed the remains of a wrap of heroin still in his possession. This was a roll of aluminium containing heroin which the prisoner had been given by one of the detectives and had already used. Traces remained on the aluminium.
  Mallon said to me on BBC television, on "North of Westminster", that allegations saying that he had pleaded guilty to drug-related offences were "lies". He also claimed in The Northern Echo that five of the allegations related to an incident in which it was claimed that a prisoner was taken out of a police station and given drugs. He says that he was satisfied that no drugs were passed. In fact, the drugs would end up in Holm House prison with the prisoner's belongings—the aluminium foil and the heroin clinging to them—when the prisoner was remanded to the prison. All these facts were uncovered by Operation Lancet, whose team ensured that the incident was thoroughly investigated.
  The fact that a prisoner had been given drugs by one of his detectives was known not only to Mallon. He sent one of the detectives back into the cell—prior to the prisoner's removal to Holm House—and ordered the custody sergeant to allow him access. The detective told the prisoner that he must keep his mouth shut—a prudent course which the prisoner had felt he should adopt anyway. Mallon then addressed junior officers in the force and told them they, too, must keep their mouths shut and forget about the incident. At this meeting, Mallon even praised the officer whom he knew to be on drugs. He did this in a hectoring and dismissive fashion, setting no example to the young officers at all.
  On 4 February 2002, Mallon pleaded guilty to failing to investigate allegations that detectives had supplied a controlled drug to a prisoner and, following his guilty plea, he was required to resign from the force. He also pleaded guilty to the fact that he did not pass on information in his possession when this incident was investigated by another officer.
  Zero tolerance seemed to be based on a drug-abusing detective and a risk-taking detective having obtained statements from a prisoner so sozzled on booze and heroin that he admitted to other offences. Not all members of the public were enamoured of the policy. Two of them made a number of serious allegations of criminal conduct against the two detectives—the drug abuser and the risk taker—or rather, the "tools for the job". The allegations

  393
  were reported to a police constable who brought them to the attention of his inspector. A report was prepared by that inspector, but when the report was presented to Mallon, he deleted the majority of the allegations and instructed the inspector to prepare a diluted version. These were serious allegations that required investigation. The inspector retained the original report, which clearly showed that certain allegations had been deleted and that comments had been written on it by Mallon in his own handwriting. This document is a smoking gun in relation to Mallon's lies, and provides clear evidence that he was protecting officers who should have been prosecuted rather than protected.
  Mallon has already pleaded guilty to all the above charges, and accepted that they amount to neglect of duty, misconduct to a member of a police force, falsehood and prevarication, and discreditable conduct. For this, too, he was required to resign. The passing of drugs and the cover-up thereof are serious disciplinary offences to which to plead guilty, along with the other guilty pleas. I should add that had Mallon made his guilty pleas to the West Yorkshire police—who conducted a review of the evidence—they would, of necessity, have come to the conclusion that there was sufficient standard of proof to support a criminal prosecution.
  The West Yorkshire police report says that, given Mallon's denials of wrongdoing, it would be difficult to prove criminality. But Mallon denies no more; he has pleaded guilty to wrongdoing and to criminality. He has also pleaded guilty to failing to investigate reports that drug dealers were being tipped off to the imminence of a drug raid.
  Police officers executed a search warrant in respect of drugs that might be found on premises in Marton road, Middlesbrough. On their arrival it became evident that the occupier had been warned. No drugs were found. One of the officers dialled 1471, and obtained details of the last incoming call before the search. The number was that of Middlesbrough police station.
  Mallon caused no inquiries to be made, because he knew who had made the call and why he had made it. The house that was raided had been the house of not only a drug dealer but an informant. He was on the books of Middlesbrough CID during Ray Mallon's watch. Certainly he would not be a witness who might have been relied on had Mallon ever been brought before a criminal court.
  On that guilty plea, too, Mallon was required to resign. He also pleaded guilty to lying—on 27 November 1997, when being interviewed for police purposes. He was, in fact, required to resign on 11 of the 14 charges to which he pleaded guilty.
  It must also to be said that when allegations against Mallon's officers became a flood rather than a trickle, Mallon stayed mum. He declined to impart any of his knowledge to Operation Lancet's inquiry team. He hindered the operation from the outset and ensured that it stretched far beyond its natural life, at a heavy cost to the taxpayer—a cost of £3.3 million, not the £7 million tagged to it by the operation's detractors.
  Of that, £1.9 million has been returned by central Government to local ratepayers; but Mallon perpetrated a fraud on those ratepayers. He made allegations about key
  394
  members of the Operation Lancet inquiry team, requiring each and every allegation to be investigated. That cost the ratepayer £369,223. Needless to say, none of Mallon's allegations were substantiated. Then there were the costs specific to him within Operation Lancet—some £320,589—as well as, of course, a proportion of the operation's online costs. Mallon gave the Teesside ratepayer a total bill of £689,812, all of which would have been saved had he fully co-operated with Operation Lancet and pleaded guilty to the disciplinary offences at the outset.
  Why did Mallon do it? Why did he ruin a police career? He breached those disciplines and committed those offences, knowingly and deliberately, because he did not wish to damage his reputation as Robocop, because he did not want the public to know that his policy was based on passing drugs for information, obtaining admissions from prisoners of other offences they might or might not have committed, clearing up the crime rate in an entirely bogus fashion—on false pretences—and using drug-abusing and risk-taking detectives, his "tools for the job", to do it.
  This was his policy. This was his watch. It is by his own mouth and his own guilty pleas that he stands convicted. His vanity was such that he preferred to turn a blind eye to drug dealing rather than acting as a senior police officer with duties in the force and to the local community.
  We do not need a police force of zero tolerance that rides roughshod over human rights. The streets may be clear in totalitarian countries, but we do not want their tactics here. We have, and must abide by, the rule of law. Middlesbrough people deserved better. They did not deserve to be deceived by Mallon.
  They deserve, and have now got, a dedicated police force acting within—rather than without—the law.
  Mallon walked on the wild side. He pleaded guilty to 14 disciplinary offences, and was forced to resign from the force. The evidence against him was such that, had he not pleaded guilty, he would have been found guilty. He knew all along that he was guilty, and he will be guilty to the end of his days.
  I am glad to say that Cleveland police are confronting daily drug problems in Middlesbrough and elsewhere on Teesside. Their policy is to arrest a drug dealer a day, and by Monday of this week 134 operations—involving searches of people, vehicles and premises—have been carried out in the Middlesbrough district alone. Some 127 warrants have been issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and 122 people have been arrested, 75 per cent. of whom were male. Drugs to the value of £12,500 have been recovered, and £24,500 in cash has been seized. Positive results have been achieved in 70 of the 134 operations.
  I am grateful to the Minister for listening courteously to me as I have given the background to Operation Lancet. In the short time available, I ask him to confirm that, on two separate occasions, Mallon entered unequivocal guilty pleas to all 14 disciplinary charges after having maintained his innocence for more than four years; that the offences were drug-related and linked to a culture of passing drugs in prison cells to gain information, tipping off drug houses of impending raids, and using drug addicts as informers; and that such disciplinary charges are extremely serious. Mallon was a senior officer with

  395
  23 years in the service at the time that the offences were committed, and because of their seriousness he was required to resign from the service forthwith.
  I also ask the Minister to confirm that the offences were not, as one noble Lord described them, "minor matters"; that members of the Cleveland police authority unanimously proposed that all papers relating to Operation Lancet be eventually returned to the Crown Prosecution Service, having regard to Mallon's guilty pleas; that Mallon was not cleared of criminal conduct in June 2000 or at any other time; and that West Yorkshire police had to agree that, given the lifestyles, convictions and nature of the individuals with whom Mallon was dealing—drug-abusing detectives and informants who were drug dealers themselves—it would have been impossible to reach a conviction beyond reasonable doubt before the Mallon pleas.
  I also ask the Minister to spare a thought for the chief constable of Cleveland police, Barry Shaw, who has been much maligned throughout Operation Lancet. He is the oldest chief constable in the country. He could have retired two years ago, but he wished to see Operation Lancet through to its conclusion. He wanted to leave behind a decent and efficient police force that is free from the taint of corruption. He wanted to confront the social problems of our time, which are not of his making, and to create a police force able and willing to work with the public, notwithstanding the difficulties. He should be praised, not berated, for those policies, and I trust that the Minister agrees.
  The Taylor review will inform the deliberations of the Home Office in establishing a new independent police complaints commission. Cleveland police have contributed to the review, which will make its report to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary must ensure that Mallon's delaying tactics and allegations against key members of the Operation Lancet team can never be repeated. In the form of Operation Lancet, they have cost the taxpayer dear. I thank the Minister in advance for his answers.
  The debate might seem routine, but it goes to the heart of our society. Do we want a society that is decent and built on the rule of law or one in which anything goes, rules can be bent and the rule of law discarded? I know the sort of society that I want, that the Minister wants and that the people want.
  10.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on initiating a debate about the investigation of misconduct in Cleveland police, which continues to attract interest and concern locally and nationally. I shall not be able to answer all my hon. Friend's points in the time that he has left me, but he well understands that. He believed that it was more important to get his comments on the record.
  Public confidence in the police service rests on a reputation for integrity. When allegations of corruption or misconduct are made and the service's reputation is brought into question, it is important that thorough scrutiny takes place to establish the facts and determine the appropriate action.
  396
  It would have been entirely wrong if the force had not investigated the serious allegations of corruption. Cleveland police acted robustly by initiating an investigation into allegations in the case that we are considering. Although the investigation concluded in November 2000, the disciplinary process has ensured its continued high profile. That has been especially true of the case involving Ray Mallon.
  Mr. Mallon, a senior police officer has, according to his own unequivocal admissions, committed serious acts of misconduct. They include failing to investigate allegations involving the misuse of drugs and giving false statements. Integrity has to be fundamental to the police service, and those matters are therefore serious. Six other officers remain suspended.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that if any appeals result from a disciplinary hearing, the Home Secretary may be called to make the judgment as the appellate authority. It is therefore not for me to comment on the details of any ongoing case.
  As my hon. Friend stated, neither Mr. Mallon nor anyone else has appeared in court because of Lancet. The Crown Prosecution Service decided that no criminal charges should be brought. Again, that is a matter for the police and the CPS, not Ministers.
  My hon. Friend said that there had been calls for issues arising from Lancet to be resubmitted to the CPS. That is entirely a matter for Cleveland police. Neither the Home Secretary nor I can play any role in that.
  Let me ensure in the time remaining that I answer all my hon. Friend's specific questions. I can confirm that Ray Mallon entered pleas of guilty on two separate occasions to all 14 disciplinary charges.
  The specific charges were serious, and because of that, Mr. Mallon was required to resign from the police service forthwith. He pleaded guilty to giving false statements at interviews, and my hon. Friend is right that the police authority has asked the chief constable to consider resubmitting the issue to the CPS. My hon. Friend knows the answer to his question about whether the issues have been before a court. I can confirm that Mr. Mallon's case concerned failure to investigate allegations involving the misuse of drugs.
  I appreciate that the considerable cost and time taken by the investigation has been a source of concern and frustration and that such major investigations can place a significant burden on the budget of a small force such as Cleveland.
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ainsworth: No. These debates are for the Back Bencher in whose name the debate is tabled. It is for them to decide how the time is allocated. It is not for Front-Bench spokesmen to decide how the debates are used.
  The total cost of Lancet was £3.25 million. A further £690,000 has been spent on associated investigations and the disciplinary hearing against Mr. Mallon. In these exceptional circumstances, the then Home Secretary authorised a contribution towards these costs of £1.9 million from Home Office funds.

  397
  I appreciate the difficulties that Cleveland police and the chief constable have experienced and the burden placed upon them by Lancet. I gladly take this opportunity to recognise the work that they are doing now. With my responsibility for drugs, I can welcome particularly the structures that they have put in place and the efforts that they are making to combat drug trafficking, such as the dealer-a-day campaign.
  My hon. Friend called upon the Government to provide a fast-track procedure for all disciplinary measures. A fast-track procedure was introduced when the new police misconduct procedures were established in April 1999. Those procedures provide for exceptional cases of gross misconduct to be dealt with swiftly. The fast-track procedures are used rarely. I think that that is generally right. Most cases should be dealt with through the normal route, but I will reflect on my hon. Friend's comments about speeding up the process.
  The important thing is to ensure that lessons from Lancet are not forgotten now and then repeated in the future. The Government are committed to reform of the
  398
  police complaints system. We are also determined to learn from Lancet. The Government instigated a review of Lancet as a case study.
  Following the unfortunate death of Sir John Hoddinott who was originally asked to carry out the review, William Taylor, formerly Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary in Scotland undertook to complete it—it will be completed shortly. It will not reconsider the conclusions of Lancet; the terms of reference were drawn up specifically with this in mind. It will inform the Government's policy as to the new system that we have in mind.
  The problems of the present system in dealing with complex, long-running investigations have been a significant cause for dissatisfaction within the police service and with the public. We need to be confident that the new system will be robust enough to deal with the most testing cases.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Iraq
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]
9.30 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: When I heard last Thursday that the Speaker had granted me one and a half hours' debate on Her Majesty's Government's policy on military action against Iraq, I rang the Foreign Secretary's office to suggest that the subject was of such importance that he should follow the precedent set by Douglas Hurd when he was Foreign Secretary and addressed the question in a Back-Bench Adjournment debate on Lockerbie.
We completely understand that the Foreign Secretary could not consider attending the debate today because of the sad events surrounding the death of his father. I would like to express my condolences to him on his personal loss. People often forget that politicians are human, and that we all have personal grief. The loss of a parent is traumatic, however confident and advanced a person may be.
This debate should take place on the Floor of the House of Commons, not in Westminster Hall. Given what the Prime Minister said to the Australian media, he has a duty to hold a full-dress debate with his parliamentary colleagues—he should not just make a statement. He should make a proper speech that outlines his thinking, as Harold Wilson did almost every three weeks.
What the Foreign Secretary proposed in an article in The Times yesterday, and what the Prime Minister is reported as having said in Australia, is of overwhelming importance and concern. It is frankly horrendous to many of us. If there is to be a war, it must surely be a "just war"—in the words of Aquinas. We should consider those words: one of the conditions of a "just war" is that everything possible should be done to avoid war. That means talking to the Government and people of Iraq.
The Prime Minister is quoted as saying that the Iraqis are not like us. My experience is that they are very like us. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) will recollect that their foreign affairs group met us when we went to Baghdad in 1994. Halfway through the meeting in the Baghdad reception building, my hon. Friend told me that he was the only person of 16 in the room who had not been educated at a British university and did not have a British university degree. Britain has been the second home of those northern Arabs for a long time. Thus there is every reason to hold discussions—which, I am informed, they want very much indeed—on terms of dignity and good sense.
The idea that we could attack and that there would be a Northern Alliance situation—the Northern Alliance might be the Shia—is a crackpot one. Those of us who
70WH
visited the great mosque of the Shi'ites at Kerbala and have been elsewhere in Iraq know that it is not that kind of society. I deeply regret that no British Minister and, as far as I know, few in the current diplomatic service have been to Iraq. I say this to the Foreign Office: for pity's sake, listen to some of the former British ambassadors, including Sir Stephen Egerton and Sir John Moberly, who urge great caution. If people do not have direct experience of Baghdad, they should at least speak to those who served there with distinction for many years.
These are not maverick views. Others, including Iran, are appalled at the idea of bombing. Four years ago, my wife and I went on holiday to Iran. One striking feature of that country is the war memorials to the terrible Iran-Iraq war that can be seen not only in Tehran, but in Rasht, Hamadan, Kashan, Isfahan, Shiraz and Yazd. No one has greater cause to loathe Saddam Hussein than the Iranians, but the Iranian Government believe that a military attack, particularly a bombing attack, would be counterproductive. They, who have every reason to be critical of Saddam Hussein, are against such action.
Last week, I was in Tunis, because the Foreign Minister of Tunisia—the most moderate of all Arab countries—requested that I visit him. I am authorised to say that that man, who is a former ambassador in Washington and has been Foreign Minister of Tunisia for 11 years, is wholly against an attack of the kind that is contemplated. That view is shared by Kofi Annan, who says publicly that no attack on Iraq should take place at the present time. Incidentally, if there is to be any action, it should be taken through the United Nations. The idea that we can change matters in Iraq by a bombing attack is preposterous.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and I went to Belgrade. The bridges are still down at Novi Sad, and the old buildings of the Austro-Hungarian empire have been left completely unrepaired. The Pancevo chemical complex is still a danger, and Zastava is just twisted metal. The Government promised that they would rebuild the Balkans, but there has been very little rebuilding.
How much good has bombing done in Afghanistan? It has not caught bin Laden. On 12, 13 and 14 September, when there was great sympathy for the United States throughout the Islamic and Arab world, some of us wanted a proper intelligence operation. However, bombing went ahead and may be counterproductive.
The idea of bombing Iraq is ill conceived, unwise and, some of us think, wicked. If there are to be 200,000 ground troops, I suggest that someone come to the House of Commons and ask the duly elected Members of Parliament for their view.
Ms Diane Abbott: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said thus far. Does he agree not only that there is widespread concern across the House and in the country about the prospect of a bombing campaign against Iraq, but that Britain's Muslim community,

71WH
which was so concerned about the bombing of Afghanistan, would find such a campaign very hard to accept?
Mr. Dalyell: As my hon. Friend represents Hackney, North and Stoke Newington she can talk with more authority than I can about the Muslim community, so colleagues should take the point from her.
I believe that speeches should be short, so I end with this plea: as a matter of urgency the Prime Minister should set out the Government's thinking, at length and in a proper speech, not in a statement. It should be the kind of speech that Harold Wilson and James Callaghan used to make regularly to the House of Commons—an interruptible speech to prove a case that I believe could lead to terrible consequences for this country.
9.41 am
Mr. Alan Simpson: I shall be brief, as I can see that many hon. Members want to speak. I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) by asking the Minister at the very least to take on board a number of points and to pass them on to the Prime Minister who has the principal responsibility for addressing them in a debate of the whole House.
First, the Prime Minister must understand that a war against Iraq would not be a war against terrorism. Despite the assertions made in the United States immediately after 11 September, there has been no evidence to connect Iraq with those terrible events. It would be wrong to seek to extend presumptions about the action in Afghanistan as though they applied equally to Iraq. Such action would be seen as an act of war perpetrated by the United States and supported by us. It would break the international coalition against terrorism, and the consequences of that in terms of international agreement, let alone regional destabilisation in the middle east, are awesome.
If the Prime Minister is intent on going to the United States later this month, there is not much point in his going to see President Bush, but a great deal of point in going to see Kofi Annan. Any action in respect of Iraq must be UN led with a fresh UN mandate. Rather than being driven by an outbreak of daisy-cutters, we need an outbreak of diplomacy. In the 10 years of peace since the war against Iraq finished, Britain has spent an average of £5 million a month in undeclared continuing war. The United States has spent a great deal more: it now amounts to £7 billion. Not one penny or cent of that has been spent on diplomacy.
We must engage in direct diplomatic links. There is a compelling case for the UK at the least to send someone such as Lord Levy to Iraq to discuss security and inclusion, which relate to internal scrutiny. As I understand it from discussions that my hon. Friends and I have held during the past week, that is not off the agenda for Iraq. Iraqis constantly tell us that the situation is like rolling probation. There have been inspections, but no lifting of sanctions throughout the whole period. There was an open-ended sanctions regime demanding inspections wherever, but not one jot of movement towards the complete removal of those sanctions. We must therefore offer something that has genuine meaning to Iraq.
72WH
If we also argue that the pretext for any military action would be either the continuing defiance of UN resolutions or the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, we should be aware of just how tentative the ground is on which we would stake out that claim. If we are not to apply it equally, we should not apply it at all. Israel is in breach of several UN resolutions. No matter how much I disagree with the current Israeli regime and its treatment of Palestinians, I would not suggest that it provides a sufficient basis for bombing Israel. We do not apply the same logic to Iraq—Iraq is said to be different.
Ownership of weapons of mass destruction is another criterion, and we know that Brazil and Ukraine possess such weapons. We also know that America and the United Kingdom are likely to endorse the US plan to extend national missile defence, which will be an act of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, about which the rest of the world feels deeply uneasy. Does that provide a legitimate basis for the right to use weapons against us in a military attack? Absolutely not. The failure in our understanding stems from the fact that our thinking has been entirely military-driven, rather than diplomacy-driven.
The Minister must take back to his Cabinet colleagues the reality that any Prime Minister of this country who signs a blank cheque of endorsement of American military action will be signing up to George Bush's war—the war of his daddy's ego—and such a cheque will not be sanctioned or supported by other parts of the international community. Wherever the Prime Minister makes his announcements about UK involvement—in Australia, Washington or elsewhere—he will end up walking down that path alone. What will be perceived throughout the country as a declaration of war against Iraq will be opposed by large sections of opinion—not just the Labour party, but the public as a whole. Many will choose not to endorse that course of action.
Several hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I want to point out that the previous contribution was commendable in its brevity. Many hon. Members are trying to catch my eye: it would help if contributions were kept as brief as possible, so that not too many people will be disappointed.
9.46 am
Mr. Andrew Turner: I shall be as brief as possible. I echo the comments of the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), when he spoke about the importance of talking to the Government and people of Iraq. I recall spending considerable time trying to secure an answer from the Foreign Secretary about whether he had spoken to the Government and people of Afghanistan after 11 September. Eventually, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), replied that the information had been placed on the website—not an effective way of communicating with any Government

73WH
or people. That is not exercising the diplomacy that is so important for Afghanistan and Iraq.
Many people will not understand the degree of trust and the length of the chain of trust required to secure the support of the British people for any action that may follow the Prime Minister's revelations in Australia. Our electors have to trust us. Opposition Members have to trust their leaders and they are happy to do so. I am pleased to trust my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). They have to trust the Prime Minister, who has to trust the President of the United States. A long chain of trust should be built up if military action is to gain support in this country, but I fear that it is not being built up.
Mr. Dalyell: Before the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) reaches a conclusion he should talk to the former Conservative Prime Minister, Edward Heath, who has been to Iraq. That is something that divides those who have been to Iraq from those who have not had that opportunity.
Mr. Turner: I accept that entirely. I was about to say that I can trust my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex because I know him personally. Not all my constituents know me personally and I—even less my constituents—do not know personally the others in the chain of trust.
John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that trust must be earned? It cannot be demanded. President Bush has not yet shown that we can trust him.
Mr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman made exactly the point that I was about to make, without personalising it—that trust must be earned by the President of the United States in the way in which he deals with international issues. He successfully earned our trust following 11 September; it is not so clear that he has done so today.
Similarly, the Prime Minister must earn our trust. I do not wish to make partisan points, but it is difficult for some Opposition Members to trust the Prime Minister as we would wish to do. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow said, it would help enormously if the right hon. Gentleman came to the House and made the case to the British people for the action that he will support. An act of statesmanship and courage is needed to bring round the mass of people who are not convinced either way. They hear appalling reports of what is going on in Iraq and observe the curious behaviour of nations that may be the targets of Iraq, but they hear little or nothing from the Prime Minister.
Labour Members will recall what it was like in the 1980s when President Reagan bombed Libya, with the support of my right hon. and noble Friend the Baroness Thatcher, which I believed she was right to give at the time. Labour Members felt then that the chain of trust had not been built up or was not being sustained.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Some of our constituencies have large Muslim communities. The
74WH
chain of trust was difficult to sustain throughout the Afghan war. It will be even more difficult now and we will lose the trust of Muslim communities if we bomb Iraq.
Mr. Turner: The hon. Lady puts it as clearly as I would have done. My concern is not only about the Muslim communities; we need to trust the Prime Minister. In a constituency such as mine, where less than 10 per cent. of the electorate voted for the Prime Minister's party at the last election, large numbers of people do not automatically expect to trust him. Labour Members did not trust the Prime Minister in the 1980s and neither did many Labour voters. I am desperately concerned that unless the Prime Minister comes to the House, goes on television and explains himself, it will not be only the Muslim communities that are fearful of the consequences and unwilling to trust his actions.
I understand perfectly that the Prime Minister may think that he has more urgent and important things to attend to, but on this occasion he must secure the trust of the British people for any action that he decides to support. Whether we think it is right or wrong depends on what the Prime Minister says, and so far he has not said it.
9.54 am
Mr. George Howarth: First, I congratulate the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on securing the debate on this important subject. He spoke with his customary eloquence and passion and, although it will not surprise him to hear that I do not agree with every particular, I know that he also spoke with sincerity.
The central issue that we must determine is in the form of a question—is it possible to deal with rogue states under the auspices of Security Council resolutions, and is Iraq a serious enough threat to warrant the type of action that seems to be under consideration? If the United Nations is to deserve continue to enjoy a good level of support, it is vitally important that Security Council resolutions and the sentiments that the UN attaches itself to, in this issue as in others, are taken seriously and amount to more than mere words on paper.
Courtesy of the Prime Minister, who has given me rather more time for such things than I previously had, I have recently been reading more of what one of my hon. Friends—who shall remain nameless but is present today—calls improving texts. One issue that I have examined more closely is the role of the League of Nations in the 1930s. Historians are disputatious on such matters and it is often difficult to claim a consensus, but everyone agrees that the failure of the League of Nations was based on its failure to act against the expansionist tendencies of Germany in the 1930s.
Although I do not make any direct comparison, if an institution such as the UN is to represent everything that we want, it must have respect. It must be known that those countries that support the UN and everything that it stands for consider Security Council resolutions to be more than mere words.
Mike Gapes rose—
Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but I do not intend to give way further as I am anxious to make progress and be brief.
The question of whether the matter is serious enough to warrant action against Iraq was summed up in an article in The Times yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. He stated:
"The international community's most pressing demand is for Iraq to allow UN officials to return and inspect his weapons programme. Saddam broke his own word, and has been in breach of his international obligations, since he effectively threw out the UN weapons inspectors three years ago."
That is the crux of the matter and we should take my right hon. Friend's words seriously.
Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend mentions UN Security Council resolutions. Resolution 1284, adopted after several months of painstaking negotiation in December 1999, provides exactly the way out of the problem. As he says, if the Iraqi Government had been prepared to engage with and carry through the resolution, there would have been increasing official exports of oil and the prospect of the sanctions ending within a specified period. The conflict could have been resolved. Unfortunately, those of us who have visited the border with Kuwait and seen the need to provide protection to the Shias in the south and the Kurds in the north, know that unless that UN approach is followed, we will have to protect large numbers of people in the region from Saddam Hussein's aggressive intentions for many years.
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention—a rare one because he made my next point for me and my speech will be probably that much briefer as a result.
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction of different kinds. No reasonable person can doubt that Iraq's deplorable human rights record deserves attention. Nor can there be doubt that our security is threatened by what might happen if no action is taken. What should be done? The Foreign Secretary's position, as outlined in his article in The Times, and the words spoken by the Prime Minister, point us in the right direction. I have no difficulty in supporting them, nor would I if it became obvious that an appropriate form of intervention was necessary.
However, I believe that my hon. Friend the Father of the House has a point about the role of Parliament. A debate and a vote on the subject are not constitutionally necessary—there are plenty of precedents to the contrary—or politically essential. I do not believe that there is an issue of trust, although I accept that we must take into account the many links in that chain, not least the position of Muslims in our country. However, it would be worth debating and voting on the subject, as it would have two consequences. First, it would demonstrate that our parliamentary democracy gives serious consideration to such matters, debates them, weighs them in the balance and then makes a decision. I am sure that any such decision would be one of which the Government would approve. Secondly, provided that the argument was put properly—I am sure that it would be—it would demonstrate that there was
76WH
overwhelming support for the sort of action that is likely to be proposed. I should have no difficulty supporting the Government and I am sure that most Members would feel the same way.
In summary, there is a case for action, but it must be cautious, considered and carefully weighed, and it would be wise to consult the House before it is taken.
10.02 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Father of the House, on securing the debate. I agree that it is timely. I endorse his view about the fact that it is being held in Westminster Hall. The fact that we have held this debate should not be used as a barrier or excuse to prevent the matter from being debated on the Floor of the House, where it properly belongs.
This is the first occasion on which I can recall it being so crowded at this end of the Chamber in a Westminster Hall debate. Normally, when I attend Westminster Hall I see a row of Government Back Benchers who are keen to sit close to the Minister and make helpful speeches and interventions. There is a gulf between the tone of Government Back Benchers' contributions and what we have heard from Ministers in the press in the past few days, which is well represented by the physical gulf between them today in Westminster Hall. I feel some sympathy for the Minister, who is out on a limb in the face of all the aggressive pacifism from this end of the Chamber.
Mr. Dalyell: On the reference to pacifism, I wear the tie of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards.
Mr. Carmichael: I take the hon. Gentleman's chastisement in the spirit in which it is offered. I have been a Member since June last year and am deeply conscious that, in the company of hon. Members such as the Father of the House, I am a parliamentary minnow. I therefore approach the subject with some humility. I may not have learned much since last June, but the one thing that I have learned is never to say never when dealing with such issues. That would be my general approach to the question of military action against Iraq. I would not say never, but I would say not now and certainly not until a lot more has been done to resolve several of the festering sores that exist in Israel Palestine, for example, and Kashmir—situations that we were told would be taken seriously and dealt with properly in the aftermath of 11 September and on which little more than token progress and efforts have been made. To launch a bombing attack on Iraq now can do nothing but harm to the standing of western nations in the middle east in attempting to resolve situations such as that in Israel Palestine, which seems to get worse with every day that passes. Our bottom line must be that nothing can be done without the full authority and approval of the UN. There can be no departure from that as the baseline for future action.
After 11 September, we were promised a war against terrorism. Like several Members and people in the wider community, I felt uneasy with such rhetoric—I kept several of my reservations to myself and perhaps I was wrong to do so. We did so because we were promised

77WH
that it would be more than a war against Afghanistan; it would be a war against terrorism, and the challenges of globalisation, which allow western developed nations to exploit the vulnerability of undeveloped and developing nations, would be taken seriously. We were told that the problems of poverty and the conditions in which support for terrorism can be allowed to grow would be taken seriously. I have seen precious little of that since the bombs started falling on Afghanistan. Unless and until I see signs that the Prime Minister is prepared to take those challenges seriously, if he comes to the House of Commons to ask for support, he will not find it from me.
The Father of the House referred to the Prime Minister's speech that suggested that Iraqis were not like us. I beg to differ. Cut them and they bleed like us, kill their children and their parents grieve like us. We must remember that what we in this House say and decide will have a human impact. That must be justified in any action that we take. The thrust of Government policy and the tone of their recent pronouncement must be deeply regretted.
10.8 am
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) secured this debate. I am dismayed that once again we are not having it on the Floor of the House and that we might be being led into military action without any serious debate. I was alarmed by both the Prime Minister's statement in Australia and yesterday's article in The Times by the Foreign Secretary.
I tabled an early-day motion this week to express the feeling of deep unease among Members on both sides of the House, about which we are hearing today, at the prospect that Her Majesty's Government might follow and support the United States' military action against Iraq. The motion states that we agree with Kofi Annan, who has warned that further military action or an attack on Iraq would be unwise at this time. There is a real danger, of course, that that could threaten the coalition that we have built up to fight terrorism, which would be a disaster. The Governments of some Muslim countries, such as Pakistan and Indonesia, have taken great risks with their own populations. They could face a backlash if their militant groups turn round and say, "Well, you could never trust the west. We told you so."
We are about to hear huge spin about how many weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq. When we receive the dossier, no doubt we will read that some such weapons are more sophisticated than those in the Pentagon. I expect that, and I shall read about it with interest.
I do not think that there is a United Nations resolution that gives the Americans the right unilaterally to take action while we run alongside as little bag carriers. The United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I am sure that it has faxed or written to everyone—agrees with me. It says:
"We certainly do not believe that at present a UN security council mandate exists authorising the type of military action that is currently being discussed regarding Iraq."
It continues to say that it is not convinced that that is the best way forward. However, it does insist that we get the weapons inspectors returned by using all means that we can, including diplomacy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said.
78WH
Last week, I attended a meeting of NATO parliamentarians with the Russians—we now have dialogue with them again. The Russian Federation Members from the Duma were totally against unilateral military action in Iraq, as were other European Members of Parliament of all parties. The Russians pointed out that they are in a good position to help to negotiate the return of the weapons inspectors, and we should take up their offer. I know that such help is on offer because I spoke to people from the Russian embassy yesterday. Why are we not using that? Why is it sacrosanct to use military action rather than diplomacy?
I was born into a party that was proud that conflict resolution and peaceful methods were at the heart of every part of its foreign policy. I know that some of us who signed the early-day motion were described as the awkward squad, but many Labour Members who signed the motion are not the usual members of the awkward squad. We do not believe that the Prime Minister has the right unilaterally to make us support unilateral action by the United States. The party that I was born into has a proud record of seeking peaceful solutions to conflicts, but, at present, it seems that we go to war at the drop of a hat.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said. If we support the Prime Minister, who loves his children dearly, when he sends war planes to bomb another country, we must accept that other people who love their children and whose humanity is exactly the same as ours—whether they are in Iraq, Afghanistan or Yugoslavia—will often end up picking up little body parts because of that action. That is why I totally oppose such action and I urge the Minister to use diplomacy and seek a peaceful solution.
10.14 am
Mr. James Wray: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the issue that the Father of the House raised. During the action in 1991, I was horrified while people in the American Cabinet sat round calculating how many lives would be lost. It was calculated that about 63,000 lives would be lost and 319,000 people would be injured. The Americans asked Scotland to calculate the beds that would be needed if the war continued. The figure was something like 7,500 beds for long-term casualties, and they wanted 500 beds a day. The Americans spent something like $500 million dollars a day on that war and it was costing Britain about $4 million.
Biochemical weapons and long-range missiles were discussed. The other night, I asked the Minister which countries have the capability to produce them. Does Syria have that capability, or Iraq, or Iran, or China, or Japan? I had also asked NATO that question. It said that it could not name a specific country, but some of them might have those capabilities. However, the Minister knew better than NATO—or the United Nations, or any other organisation and country that was sitting around the table, including the Americans—because he named North Korea.
There are many countries outwith those to which I have referred that have a lot of biochemical weapons. Great Britain, America and Russia have polluted the waters. If we are really worried about biochemical weapons, we should focus on the 387,000 tonnes of

79WH
polluted matter that is being dumped into the North sea and in places such as Denmark, Sweden and the Baltic states. They were told that the 50 years was up in 1997, and, as far as Russia is concerned, the matter was declassified. We could have an ecological disaster, regardless of our worries about countries such as Iran. America and Britain have asked for another 20 years before they declassify the matter, but they should be concerned about what is going on in the Baltic and the North sea as the Russians have discovered that there have been explosions in some of the ships there. That has implications for marine life and we do not want the food chain to be affected.
If America were really interested in peace, it would not withdraw from the anti-ballistic missile treaty by using article 15. That caused the Russian Federation and the rest of Europe to hold up their hands in horror and NATO was not a great help, because it was a shrinking violet.
I was listening to people talking about the United Nations. I was disappointed in it the last time and I have been disappointed in it for the past 30 years, because we would not have the chaos in Palestine and Israel if it implemented the resolutions that have been on the books for 33 years. That concerns me.
We are listening to a right-wing, reactionary American Government and they are dictating to us. Does anyone honestly think that that is right? They did not ask the UN or NATO or anyone else when they bombed Iraq the last time. As a socialist and a pacifist, I am opposed to sending boys—especially from Scotland—to die in the sands at 17 years of age, when they are not old enough to have a drink in a pub. It is sad that we are calling them heroes, when 2,000 veterans of the last war are suing the Ministry of Defence to get compensation for injuries that they received.
I am against all wars and I do not have any admiration for Tony Blair, Bush or the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein. The only people who suffer in wars are the poor and the defenceless. It is time, as socialists and as a Labour Government, that we showed the way, not by dropping bombs, but by sitting around the table to create a situation in which a world government can be set up to stop the war from happening.
We can now laugh about the non-proliferation treaties because nobody is abiding by them. That—and especially the NMD system that America is going to put up in the sky—has implications for countries such as India. I have always said that one has the right to defend one's country using reasonable defences, but one does not have that right with regard to nuclear defences because everyone is involved, such as European and world organisations. The Americans do not care. They do not even pay their affiliation fees to such organisations—in fact, they have just paid their affiliation fees. They do not really care about Britain, or anywhere else. They just take their own decisions.
It is a case of like father, like son. When Bush's father was in power, America invaded countries as if it was peanuts. It intervened in Grenada, Nicaragua and Panama for instance. I am against that. I hope for a strong, vigorous attack against our Government—
80WH
against those Ministers who are pontificating about war and killing, although I think that it was President Chirac who said that shields are not as mighty as swords.
10.20 am
Mr. George Galloway: My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) spoke eloquently about the United Nations. For the avoidance of doubt, I must say that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has stated explicitly that there is no authority and no justification for launching a war against Iraq. Given their public statements, the majority of members of the Security Council of the United Nations are likely to express themselves similarly. Just as Britain and America did not ask for United Nations authorisation to launch the previous war against Iraq in December 1998—a time to which I shall return—my hon. Friend must know that the United States has no intention of seeking Security Council authority before it launches the war against Iraq. If he is worried about the integrity and importance of the Security Council of the United Nations, he should be on our side of the argument, not on the Government's side.
Mr. George Howarth: If my hon. Friend reads tomorrow the report of what I said, he may find that he is misrepresenting my words. I chose them carefully.
Mr. Galloway: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said, as I always do. I clearly recollect that he was anxious for the credibility of the United Nations to be maintained and believes that its centrality to world events is extremely important. As a member of the Labour party, how could he think otherwise? The last organisation in the world that is likely to authorise George Bush's attack on Iraq is the United Nations. If I am right about that, I look forward to receiving support in the Lobby. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was right to say that the matter of opposing the war should be dealt with in the Lobbies and in the Chamber.
If the answer to the political crisis in the middle east were the overwhelming use of force, blood, ire, fire and war, General Sharon's Israel would be the most peaceful place on earth. For 17 months, his Government have launched overwhelming fire power at Arab nationalist aspirations—at the Muslim and Christian people of Palestine. The friends of Israel shake their heads to the embarrassment of those sitting next to them, but no one in the Chamber is in any doubt that the policy of war, war rather than jaw, jaw as a means of resolving political disputes is the policy of the Government of Israel.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) that in the list of countries that possess weapons of mass destruction, that occupy other people's land and disobey United Nations Security Council resolutions, the one country that he forgot to mention was Israel. It is sitting on top of a mountain of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, which we know about thanks to the brave Jew, Mordechai Vanunu, now in his 15th year in solitary confinement in an Israeli prison. As well as sitting on top of the land of other people, in defiance for decades of international resolutions of the Security Council, Israel is also sitting on top of a mountain of weapons of mass

81WH
destruction. Yet the only sanction contemplated against Israel is forcing it to take part in the Eurovision song contest.
I am astounded that people are seriously contemplating launching another war in the middle east, at a time when, in Afghanistan, the American forces are engaged in—and I quote last night's news bulletins—
"the heaviest fighting of the war".
The most intense confrontation of the Afghan war is taking place this week, yet we are discussing whether to start a new war alongside it.
There is already another war in the middle east. The holy land is on fire. People are being killed by the dozen—sometimes, two dozen—each day. F 15s, F 16s, tanks, heavy artillery, mortars, kalashnikovs and stones are filling the air of the middle east and threatening to drag the region into total war. Yet on top of that conflagration, we are seriously discussing starting another middle east war at the same time. We would have to be insane to depart down that track.
Let us be clear about the scale of the war. Bloody and disastrous though the Afghan war has been, it is a Vauxhall conference war. Another war would be a premier league war, with weeks, if not months, of carpet bombardment of Iraq, followed by an invasion of an Arab country by 200,000 foreign solders, most of whom would be American. Some who invade Iraq may be British. The figures are not mine; that is the Pentagon's own plan. Those foreign soldiers will crush military resistance, including civilian militias, town by town, city by city, village by village. They will occupy and garrison that country and install a puppet government there. That puppet government will be sustained for an unlimited time. That is the enterprise that we are discussing.
Who can sanely contemplate such action? It is not Labour policy; 86 in 100 Labour MPs, polled by the BBC's "On the Record" programme, expressed opposition to such a war. Only seven in 100 Labour MPs expressed support for it. One Government personality said to a friend, "I wonder who the seven were." The policy is American. It is the policy of a right-wing, republican American Administration. I say to Labour colleagues who contemplate supporting the George Bush war mark 2 that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) was right: the White House is not a Clinton White House; it is not a third-way White House nor is it a social democrat White House. It is the Reagan-Bush era White House reconstituted.
What sort of Labour Member of Parliament will support in the Lobby a war launched by such a grizzly crew? What justification is there for launching such a war? Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorism on 11 September. Ministers repeatedly made that clear. They said that they had seen no evidence linking Iraq to the terrorism on 11 September—but they tried so hard, did they not? There were anthrax flasks, and meetings with Mohammed Atta in Prague airport that turn out never to have happened. Whatever happened to the anthrax flask that Atta was supposed to have given? We know now that the anthrax used in the attacks on the United States was American anthrax sent by an American lunatic who was probably a former employee of the US Government. The propaganda canards are being dragged out. We have seen them all.
82WH
You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we were told in the Chamber about the five-year-old boy who was imprisoned for throwing a stone at a picture of the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein. When we asked for further details, the Foreign Secretary referred us to the Defence Secretary. When we asked the Defence Secretary, he referred us to the Minister of State. When we asked the Minister of State, he took shelter behind the protection of intelligence sources.
We all know about the babies in the incubators in Kuwait city and the professional public relations firm that was hired in the US to build the propaganda case for war. The daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador posed as a nurse. She said that she had watched Iraqis in a Kuwaiti hospital unplugging incubators from the wall, which killed the babies, and shipping those incubators north to Iraq. We found out only later that she was a professional actress and that the whole stunt had been paid for as part of the war propaganda.
We remember the presidential palaces. The former Member for Hamilton, South, now the Secretary-General of NATO, held up a map of my constituency in the Chamber and said that the palaces were larger than the area of Paris. However, when they were mapped, they turned out to be smaller than Paddington. We were told that all sorts of weapons of mass destruction could be found in them. When the UN inspectors searched them, they found not so much as a bow and arrow.
I say two things to hon. Members who suspect that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction. Scott Ritter—the former senior official of the arms inspectorate—who spent years in Iraq destroying weapons, told an audience in this Chamber that Iraq had been effectively disarmed by 1998. He also said that that meant that every child who had died under the sanctions since then had died under false pretences, and that the campaign on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was the longest running hoax in the international community. Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow nor I know what weapons exist in Iraq or in any other country. However, Scott Ritter is in a better position than either of us to know whether Iraq has such weapons, as he spent years destroying them as an employee of the United Nations Special Commission.
There is a better way. Last week, Iraq told Britain that if it believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it should send a team of weapons experts to Iraq. Why was that offer dismissed so out of hand? Why was it laughed off as a propaganda ploy or a game? If we make allegations about a country, why do not we take up that country's invitation to send anyone we like for any length of time that we like?
Mr. Tom Harris: My hon. Friend has spoken eloquently about the need to maintain the United Nation's authority in the matter. Does he believe that Britain can act unilaterally as a weapons inspector? Should not that be done under the auspices of the United Nations?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Hear, hear.
Mr. Galloway: I am glad that the Minister said, "Hear, hear" to my hon. Friend's intervention because

83WH
I want to ask the Minister a blunt question. If Iraq readmits the United Nations weapons inspectors, whom the British and American Governments withdrew, does he agree that war in those circumstances would be unconscionable? I invite him to rise in response to that point, or at least to deal with it in his speech. The House should know whether the war is off the agenda if Iraq admits those weapons inspectors.
I talked about a five-year old boy in the context of Iraq. Yesterday I spoke to a five-year old Palestinian boy on the west bank. I asked him what he was doing in these horrendous days when play and school were impossible. He told me that he was gathering a pile of stones. When I asked him why that five-year old boy said, "I am going to be a martyr. I dreamed that I went to heaven and God was there and we played and he gave me sweets and chocolate." That is the prevailing mindset among children in the middle east about the current conjuncture of events. I warn the Government that to launch another devastating war in the middle east on top of the war already raging there will bring forth a torrent of hatred and bitterness against us that will never subside.
10.36 am
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I doubt that I can match the eloquence of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), but I will seek to emulate his clarity. No Government committed to the security of their citizens can sensibly exclude in all possible circumstances the use of military force. But the use of military force should be a last resort. In saying that I echo the words of the Minister when he replied to an Adjournment debate on Monday.
Military action should never be undertaken without clear and realistic political objectives that are capable of achievement. The duty of a Government in their foreign policy is to secure the interests of their citizens, even if at the expense of alliances. Those are not my sentiments alone. I heard them expressed by Mr. Richard Perle at the Munich security conference just a few weeks ago.
Yesterday in The Guardian Hugo Young wrote:
"Saddam Hussein is an international criminal, brutal to his own people and an unrepentant enemy of any world order the UN attempts to invigilate."
In the capitals of the middle east there is little or no sympathy for Saddam Hussein and his regime. But we know that there is considerable sympathy for Iraqi citizens who have paid a terrible price for Saddam Hussein's intransigence. Since December 1998, when the UN withdrew its inspectors because Richard Butler was not satisfied that they could do their job properly, a strategy of surveillance, containment and deterrence has been effectively pursued against Iraq.
As has already been said, there is no evidence to link Baghdad with the events of 11 September. Nor is there any published evidence of the chemical, biological or nuclear capability of Iraq, but it would be reasonable to conclude from past history that there is a strong probability that such capabilities exist or at least are being actively pursued. There is nothing to indicate that any of Iraq's neighbours, with the possible exception of Kuwait, would provide political backing for military action or host nation support for military operations.
84WH
If Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction it would, if attacked, use them against its adversaries or the allies of its adversaries. If Israel were attacked with weapons of mass destruction, or even with conventional weapons, retaliation would be likely. Its failure to respond under heavy American pressure during the Gulf war is unlikely to be repeated. If Israel were attacked, by whatever means, the prospect of an Israeli nuclear strike in return cannot be ruled out.
The most immediate cause of instability in the middle east at present is the terrible escalating violence between Israel and the Palestinians. Military action against Iraq would severely increase the already formidable difficulties of launching a peace initiative. However, if Russia could be persuaded to enter into dialogue with Iraq, Security Council resolution 1284 could still provide the basis for the return of the inspectors and a regime of targeted sanctions. We should surely pursue that option. Speaking last week at the London school of economics, the Secretary-General of the UN used delicate diplomatic language when he described military action as "unwise".
On the basis of all those facts, conclusions and inferences—none of which is unreasonable—we cannot claim that the case for military action against Iraq has been proved. We cannot conduct our foreign policy on the basis of the principle "my ally right or wrong". The United States has never done so. The events of the 1956 Suez crisis demonstrated that; US unwillingness to support the pound, which, as a reserved currency was under severe pressure, was a compelling factor in causing the United Kingdom to withdraw from that ill-fated and ill-conceived adventure.
At 2.44 pm on 12 January 1991, the US Senate passed a joint resolution to authorise the use of US armed forces pursuant to UN Security Council resolution 678. In short, it authorised the commitment of US forces in the Gulf war. That resolution was passed by only five votes—by 52 to 47. Among those who voted against it were Senators Sam Nunn, Robert Byrd and Daniel Pat Moynihan, none of whom could be described as fainthearted about ensuring that US interests were other than paramount. That vote tells us that—albeit some 11 years ago—to express reservations about the use of military forces against Saddam Hussein cannot be described as anti-American or appeasement. Before the UK lends its support for action against Iraq, hon. Members must be satisfied that there is no other course.
10.43 am
Mr. Alan Duncan: I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for securing this debate. He has shown a sustained interest in the subject and, although I am rarely in total agreement with him, his long-standing concern for the region reflects especially well on him, as it does on the House. I join him in extending condolences to the Foreign Secretary on the sad death of his father.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq refuses to acknowledge international norms or its own international agreements. It is run by a regime that oppresses its own people and appears intent on developing weapons of mass destruction—we would be naive to see them as being merely defensive in purpose. Iraq under Saddam Hussein represents a clear danger to international

85WH
security and regional stability and represents a clear affront to human rights—a point about which I would have thought Labour Members would feel especially strongly,
We must be clear that discussion about Iraq is entirely separate from the events of 11 September and nobody seriously attempts to link them in the United States or the United Kingdom—the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) was absolutely right about that. Anyone who tries to establish a link fails to realise that it is a red herring. The events of 11 September may have sharpened perceptions of the various threats posed to international security, but we would be foolish to claim a direct link. Those horrific events changed United States psychology and revealed a new vulnerability. They brought home the fact that the US would rather act to prevent disaster than react when disaster occurs. That is the judgment that it must now make about Iraq.
Containment has been our first aim in tackling Saddam Hussein. It is the policy that we have followed so far—with some success—but we must face the reality that containment alone is not enough to defeat the evil of the Iraqi regime and its weapons programme. Saddam Hussein is abusing the patience of the world and is developing far more destructive potential than he has yet possessed. We must question whether it is any longer realistic to pursue the policy of containment and whether that policy is sufficient to guarantee the safety and security of Iraq's immediate neighbours and the wider world. In an article that I am sure all will want to read in today's Daily Express, The Prime Minister says clearly that containment is now insufficient.
As we assess the latent threat that we face from Iraq, we should not rule out any course of action. I visited Washington in December and was reassured by the mature, intelligent and open way in which those at the heart of the Bush Administration were considering all the options and weighing them up before taking action.
Mr. Dalyell: Has not the Prime Minister the duty to come to the House of Commons with his parliamentary colleagues to say the same thing?
Mr. Duncan: On that, I sense that we are all in agreement. Yes.
Conservative Members support the Prime Minister in his determination to tackle the issue and not shy away from it, as some would wish. His full support for President Bush shows an appreciation of the gravity of the issue and we await the outcome of their talks in April. There is clear and present danger and we must face it. Saddam has ignored United Nations resolutions, misused the oil-for-food programme and tortured and killed his people. The no-fly zones are an important policy for protecting the Kurds. I should like to discuss them, but we are squeezed for time and I know that the House will want to hear from the Minister.
There are those who question Saddam's capacity to produce the chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons that we feel are a growing threat. I say to them, where are the thousands of tonnes of precursor chemicals, suitable for chemical weapons use, that are still unaccounted for? Saddam Hussein has not yet complied with UN Security Council resolution 687 regarding inspection, so what is he hiding?

86WH
Recently, it has been suggested that Saddam Hussein might once again be prepared to admit inspection teams into Iraq. We would welcome that, but let him say so to the UN and prove to us that it is a realistic option. In the absence of that progress, our options include military action parallel to that undertaken in Afghanistan but, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow says, on an altogether different scale. We should not think that some rebel force, similar to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, will take that military action. On that, too, the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right.
If we or the Americans were to use the Kurds as pawns, they would be massacred. It would be wrong and reckless to sacrifice them on the altar of our ambitions to topple Saddam Hussein. If we are to topple him, we must look for other means, which must include winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and not simply expecting to win through force. As in Afghanistan, we must always remember whose country it is. We must also be certain to win the peace as well as any war. That means considering a post-Saddam Iraq before we act. We must consider reconstruction, humanitarian aid and the massive difficulty of filling the political vacuum left by the regime of a dictator.
We must be firm in our resolve that there can be no support for any form of separatism or any breakaway state. The integrity and unity of the Iraqi state is a must for regional geopolitics and for the continuing viability of the country. We do not want a triangular split into Sunni, Shia and Kurds. If there is to be a change of regime in Iraq, it must be achieved quickly and cleanly. We should be clear that Arab opinion will not tolerate a long, drawn-out campaign, but demands, if it is to tolerate any action, a rapid and decisive conclusion. We must make it clear that effective and conclusive action would constitute liberation, not invasion.
If, as I believe, the Government have considered Iraq's long-term requirements, they should enjoy our support—the support of all those who have a long-term, serious view of what is needed and of those who genuinely have the interests of the Iraqi people at heart. Those who continue to argue that containment is sufficient must answer the charge of naivety.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I congratulate the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), on securing the debate.
I apologise in advance as I do not intend to take any interventions. I have barely 10 minutes to respond to hon. Members' questions and to put Government policy on the record, especially in the light of the 16 minutes taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway).
First, I shall take head-on the points raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow began by making a point that, strangely, is often made when a debate has been secured on an issue: he complained that we never have enough time to debate these things. That view was echoed by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who spent all his time addressing that matter rather than the subject.
I do not need to remind hon. Members that the Prime Minister has spent more time in the House answering questions and making statements than either of his two

87WH
predecessors. I shall bring the matters raised by my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
The Father of the House talked about proposals; there are no proposals, only speculation. The hon. Gentleman said that everything possible should be done to avoid military action; I agree with him. He urged the Government and the international community to talk to the Iraqis. As I am sure he knows, Kofi Annan is tomorrow holding a meeting with an Iraqi delegation in New York and we await the outcome with interest. Our doors are always open to the Iraqis with whom we have contacts in this country and at the United Nations. However, we have nothing to say to them in private that we do not say in public. We wait to see whether they are serious; Saddam Hussein has embarked on charm offensives before and they have come to nothing.
I was grateful to the Father of the House who, in contrast to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin, at least quoted Kofi Annan accurately. He included the phrase "at the present time" in the Secretary-General's views on military action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) made the point that this has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. We do not quite agree; Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism. But, we make no secret of the fact that our main concern about that country is its determination to build weapons of mass destruction and the threat that it poses, not just to its neighbours, but to the rest of the world.
My hon. Friend urged the Prime Minister to speak to Kofi Annan. The Prime Minister speaks to him on a regular basis. He called for an outbreak of diplomacy; I am not sure where he has been for the past 12 years. Britain has been in the lead as the architect of the oil-forfood programme and in trying to get a new sanctions regime instituted at the United Nations, which we are confident will be done in May, having won support from the Russians. It is wrong to suggest that Britain has been inactive on the diplomatic front.
My hon. Friend questioned whether there would be any legal base in the hypothetical circumstances that there is military action. The legal view, with which I have some sympathy, is that Iraq is in flagrant breach, not just of United Nations resolutions, but of the ceasefire agreement that it entered into at the end of the Gulf war, which makes that cease fire no longer valid. My hon. Friend went on to say that other countries possess weapons of mass destruction. That is stating the obvious, but he must accept that Iraq is unique in the history of the world in that it has used chemical weapons against its neighbours and its own people, killing tens of thousands in both cases. He went on to suggest that any action against Iraq would break up the international coalition against terrorism and would go down extremely badly in the Arab world.
It is worth making the point that all Labour Members who have spoken in the debate in opposition to the Government's policy opposed our policy in Afghanistan and opposed our policy in Kosovo. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. They also raised the spectre of a disaster in the Arab world over
88WH
Afghanistan—and look what has happened. I know from my contacts with leaders in the Arab world as recently as last week at the Gulf Co-oporation Council and the EU summit at Grenada in Spain that, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, there is no love lost between the Arab countries and Saddam Hussein. If anything does happen, their main concern is that it works.
I am grateful for the sympathy of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), but I do not need it. He suggested that the layout in Westminster Hall meant that the Government were isolated. That was a rather bizarre statement, coming immediately after a supportive speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) and a supportive intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes). The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said some wise things about the middle east, but he suggested that, before there was talk about taking military action against Iraq, we needed to solve every other problem in the world. That is a strange argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) spoke about the Labour party being the party of conflict resolution. Yes, we are the party of conflict resolution and peaceful solutions. But she and her hon. Friends have to ask themselves—as they failed to do in the instances of Kosovo and Afghanistan—what do they do, faced with a brutal, dictatorial regime that is building a weapons of mass destruction programme and threatening its neighbours and us? It has used those weapons on its neighbours and on its own people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) spoilt his argument about United States isolationism because he said that he had no confidence in the United Nations either. I do not know where that leaves us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin made his familiar views known in his inimitable way. Some of the good points that he made on the middle east peace process would, I believe, carry more credibility if he had not made a career of being not just an apologist, but a mouthpiece, for the Iraqi regime over many years.
Mr. Galloway: Why do you not give way on that slander?
Mr. Bradshaw: We are not discussing—
Mr. Galloway: The Minister is a liar.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that statement.
Mr. Galloway: The Minister told a lie about me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that statement.
Mr. Galloway: Why? The Minister told a blatant lie about me. What else could I do. What else can I call it? I demand that he withdraws the allegation against me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw immediately.
Mr. Galloway: An allegation of dishonourable conduct has been made against me by the Minister. It is an assumption in the House that Members are honourable gentlemen and ladies. His imputation that I am a mouthpiece for a dictator is a clear imputation of dishonour. He is the one who should be withdrawing, not me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no alternative, but to report this matter to the House. I must immediately suspend the sitting for 10 minutes.
10.59 am
Sitting suspended.

European Parliament
11.10 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): May I apologise to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for taking 10 minutes from his debate? The situation was unavoidable. I shall report the circumstances to the House at 3.30 pm or thereabouts.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fancy that we may not need all the time available, so the otherwise unfortunate circumstances of this morning may not be disastrous. By good fortune, our debate is relevant and topical because we must decide relatively soon how the next European parliamentary elections should be handled, what system should be used and what the criteria should be.
I remind the House that on 10 November 1998, during the passage of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, the then Home Secretary—the present Foreign Secretary—gave an explicit assurance that the system would be reviewed in light of the 1999 experience and also moved a Government amendment, which I shall quote in full, because it is extremely important:
"(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons—
(a) to review the operation of the systems of election provided for by section 3 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 as substituted by section I of this Act, and
(b) to make a report to the Secretary of State within six months from the day of appointment.
(2) The Secretary of State shall carry out his duty under subsection (1) within one month from the date of the first general election to the European Parliament which takes place after the coming into force of section 1.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report received under subsection (1)(b) before each House of Parliament.".
The right hon. Gentleman went further, telling the House:
"I must make it clear that a review of the operation of the system does not simply mean a review of the counting process. If this House and the other place approve the amendment, the review will consider whether the closed list system itself operated satisfactorily."
He also promised:
"If the review concludes that the closed-list system is the wrong system as it has produced all sorts of perverse results—and if that is what Parliament finally accepts, and I hope it is—there will be huge pressure on the Government to change. In any event, there will have to be a debate on the result of the review."—[Official Report, 10 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 207–8.]
In the event, the amendment was not accepted.
Hon. Members will recall the to-ings and fro-ings between the two Houses before the Bill finally reached the statute book, but the review was entirely internal to the Home Office—the Government looking at their navel, not an independent, outside review inviting evidence from other interested groups or parties. It was not completed in the six months specified, and there has been no debate until this morning.
The internal review used unequivocal terms:
"The question of the precise type of voting system is obviously a political one which it would be inappropriate for us to try to answer".

91WH
Incidentally, that completely negated the statement of the Minister in the other place in answer to my noble Friend Lord Greaves on 4 December 2001. Will the Minister confirm that, as yet, there has been no independent, objective and comprehensive review of the system?
Almost immediately after the 1999 election, a number of myths were peddled by opponents of representative electoral systems. First, Labour reactionaries blamed their poor performance on the system. By a curious coincidence, there was on the same day a by-election under the first-past-the-post system in Leeds, Central. That election had a much lower turnout. In the European election, there was a gap between the parties that reflected the gap in the country, which, had first past the post been used, would have given the Conservatives 60 per cent. of the seats for only 36 per cent. of the vote.
Some Conservatives naturally preferred a system that would have given them that undeserved advantage, although I must say, in fairness to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), that Conservative Front Benchers argued strongly for open lists during the latter part of the Bill's passage. I anticipate that that will remain the position of their party.
Others claimed that the system caused the low turnout—23.1 per cent. However, it can hardly be said that such a poor turnout was the result of the system, given that, on the same day, the turnout for the Leeds, Central by-election was a disgraceful 19.6 per cent. So, on a day on which two systems were used, that for the European election was marginally more successful.
However, everybody in the House must take low turnout seriously, particularly because we have experienced further disappointments, so I would like to refer to research done since the European election. Official research undertaken on behalf of the Home Office identified a number of factors accounting for the poor turnout—lack of campaign activity during the European election, electoral fatigue after the Scottish, Welsh and council elections, less media coverage, a general trend towards apathy and a feeling of remoteness from the political process—but failed to find any substantial resistance to the system. For example, 89 per cent. of voters found the ballot paper easy to use and the proportion of spoilt papers, which is a good indicator, was lower than in the 1997 first-past-the-post general election. In an Office for National Statistics survey, 95 per cent. of respondents said that the new voting system had no bearing on their decision as to whether to vote.
Research by NOP found that voters were doubtful about the system for a different reason: they saw the regional closed list as evidence that candidates would put party loyalty before loyalty to the electorate, which might have been a material factor in increasing scepticism and discouraging voting. That view was reflected in debates on the Bill. All in all, the official research concludes that the electoral system had a neutral effect on turnout.
Nothing in the subsequent report by the Independent Commission on Alternative Voting Methods, which is more to do with the mechanics of voting, suggests that
92WH
changing the arrangements on postal voting, e-voting or telephone voting or other tinkering with the traditional polling arrangements can compensate for the perception that voting does not make a real difference. That is the biggest single factor on the issue of turnout.
In parenthesis, interesting evidence from the 1999 European parliamentary elections came from the experience in Northern Ireland. Electors were already familiar with a representative system, as they have had the single transferable vote for some time, and turnout on the same day in the same election was a comparatively respectable 57 per cent.—two and a half times that in the rest of the UK, which suffered from the closed list system.
In those circumstances, it is no surprise that the Labour party's national executive committee accepted soon after the 1999 European parliamentary elections that the closed regional list was unsuitable for elections in Britain.
I hope that the Government, with the non-party Electoral Reform Society, to which I pay tribute, will now consult widely on a voting system for the 2004 European parliamentary elections, which must achieve the following three essentials. First, it must allow voters to choose candidates, not just parties. Secondly, it must be broadly proportional and avoid wild distortion. Thirdly, it must maintain a link between MEPs and areas of the country, presumably in multi-Member constituencies.
The most voter-friendly system, best able to meet those criteria, is undoubtedly STV, as used in Northern Ireland. It enables voters to rank all candidates within and across parties and to take account of all the factors that they think important. Each candidate, not just those lucky enough to be at the top of the list, has a reasonable chance of being elected. All candidates, including those who think that they might be marginal, would have to work for their support before, during and after the election.
The STV system also reduces the power of the party hierarchy and rebuts accusations of control freakery, which have become part of daily comment on politics in recent years. Under the STV system, success depends on the candidates' appeal to the wider electorate, not on rewards for party loyalty. The system also offers opportunities to independents. Most important, however, no vote is wasted. If the first-choice candidate is knocked out, the vote is transferred to the next preference and so on. Voters need not choose among a list of candidates whom they do not support, and their wishes will not be completely wasted.
Let me give an example, in parenthesis, of what I mean. In the south-west, in 1999, a very popular, active and high-profile candidate, who had served as an MEP, was pushed down the list. The system did not register the fact that he appealed across parties, rather than, for example, simply to Liberal Democrats. Under the previous regime, Robin Teverson was seen as Cornwall and Plymouth's MEP, but that counted for nothing under the list system, because he could not appeal for support among members of other parties on a non-party basis. That was a tragedy for the system and for our part of the country.
STV is obviously the most voter-friendly system, and experience in Northern Ireland gives us a useful and demonstrably successful precedent. However, a fully

93WH
open list system is worth considering, and the Conservative party took up that position in 1998. The open list system has some features of STV, and the determined voter can break away from the order of preference that the parties dictate. Votes count for the party of one's choice, however, so voters may find themselves helping to elect candidates whose views they do not support.
It must be absolutely clear that the closed list system is firmly discredited, and I hope that the Minister takes this opportunity to say that on the Government's behalf. Indeed, it was discredited to a considerable extent, even before it was used, in both Houses and among Members of all parties. It was accepted only reluctantly so that a measure could be placed on the statute book in time for the election. Unless the Government want to increase cynicism and contempt for artificial party discipline, they should say that the closed list system has been firmly rejected as inappropriate to this country.
Semi-open lists are not much better. To start with, they are incredibly complicated, but that is not the real problem. Voters put an X next to their preferred candidates on a party list, but, unless a lot of people do that and the list changes dramatically, the outcome will be no different. That means that only exceptional candidates have any chance of beating the rank that their party gives them. They would require strong individual support, which is almost impossible to achieve in large areas. Large constituencies are inevitable, and they are likely to become bigger when the EU is enlarged and the number of MEPs reduces. The electorate would be likely to view such arrangements as something of a confidence trick played on them by the parties. Let me give an example.
Let us suppose that 80 per cent. of a party's vote comes from loyal party voters over a wide area who simply put their X on the party list. The other 20 per cent. might come from voters who favour a candidate who is popular because he or she is something of an individualist. Even if that candidate has a much larger personal vote than candidates at the top of the ranked list, he or she simply could not be elected. That would be seen as cheating the voters.
It might be suggested that we should consider alternative vote plus, the system advocated by the commission headed by my noble Friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Had the sequence of events been different—if the commission had been able to report well in advance of the devolution legislation—there might have been merit in adopting a standard system for Scotland, Wales, Greater London and so on. Frankly, that was not an option at the time, although it would be appropriate if one were trying to elect the same sort of bodies, as would have been the case.
AV plus is designed to provide a strong local constituency link and broad proportionality. The former, which would inevitably involve duplication and confusion with the roles of Westminster Members of Parliament, is not especially desirable. Indeed, there would be resistance in the House to a system that emphasised the constituency connection, and MPs would fight such duplication and confusion.
As the 2001 general election amply demonstrated, the most powerful turn off for turnout is the perception that one's vote does not matter. Much comment on that
94WH
election has been about the average turnout, which was an extremely disappointing 59 per cent., but the perceived foregone conclusion is the big disincentive, as can be shown by disaggregating the figures. What matters is not only the average across the country, but what happened in different constituencies.
For example, in Winchester my Liberal Democrat colleague had a majority of only two in 1997, and every vote seemed to the voter to be extremely valuable. The turnout there last year was 72.3 per cent. In Liverpool, Riverside, a traditionally safe seat for the Labour party, there seemed to be little chance of change and the turnout was only 34.1 per cent. The average disguises such wide variations. Taken with the overall perception that the Labour Government were likely to be returned, the incentive to vote in apparently safe seats for all parties was at an all-time low. I can demonstrate that from my experience.
When I was first elected to the House in 1974, my majority was just nine. The electorate had seen that the result was likely to be close, and turnout was 83 per cent. I am glad to say that, last year, my majority was rather more comfortable and well in excess of 9,000. However, it was difficult to persuade my electorate that the result would be terribly close, and I am sad to report that turnout fell to 63 per cent.
In the next European Parliament, we want to ensure that our representatives have a respectable democratic mandate. If we are to achieve that, we must devise an electoral system that gives the voter real choice, minimises wasted votes and affords votes equal value. Such a system would put the people rather than the parties back in the driving seat.
11.28 am
Richard Burden: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing the debate and, as chair of the all-party group on electoral reform, I am grateful to be able to make a brief contribution. Before the debate, I heard the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) say, "Oh God, it's the pro-proportional representation lobby." I have to plead guilty, but it is important to make one or two points about debates on the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 and what resulted from of it.
No doubt for the best of motives, it has been said that the system of election adopted under the 1999 Act was favoured and pushed for by Members of the House from all parties who, over the years, have supported the more proportional systems. As we discuss reviews of that system, it is important to state that that was simply not the case. If hon. Members read the debates on the legislation, including my contribution on 25 November 1997, they will see that those people said that there were problems with closed lists.
Ultimately, an amendment that called for a review of the system was tabled by hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who have been notable in their support over the years for a more proportional system. There was concern among those who generally support such a system and those who support first past the post about the closed list system as drawn up in the Bill.

95WH
Before I move on to the changes that might he made to that system, we should go back a stage. The valid criticisms that people make of the electoral system that was adopted, especially the closed list system, sometimes lead them to look through rose-coloured spectacles at the system that existed before. Let us remember that, under the previous system for elections to the European Parliament, constituencies often did not reflect real communities and were often not generally known in their area. I lived in part of Birmingham that would have been described, geographically, as west of Birmingham, but the European constituency was called Birmingham, East. Such constituencies often did not reflect anything real.
There is logic in considering the region as the basic unit of election for the European Parliament, as that makes sense in terms of the way in which Europe operates, including the disbursal of European funds and programmes. The regional dimension is vital to that, so considering the link between the European Parliament and the regions is sensible. Whatever criticisms we may make of the precise form of electoral system adopted for the 1999 Act, a regional basis for elections should not be rejected out of hand. There is a great deal of merit in the idea.
I ask supporters of first-past-the-post electoral systems, who object to closed lists on the ground of democracy, to reflect on the fact that an electoral system based on first past the post also results in a closed list. The only difference is that the closed list has one name on it per party, rather than several. It is argued that, if there are a number of names on a closed list, voters are denied the choice that they have under first past the post with single-Member constituencies, but that does not stand up to close scrutiny.
My other point about those rose-coloured spectacles that people sometimes put on relates to turnout. The hon. Member for North Cornwall rightly alluded to the matter. If we consider turnout before the last European elections, we may make some interesting discoveries. It is often said that adopting a more proportional system that ties numbers of European parliamentary seats more exactly to votes cast for the parties has led to a drop in turnout, but the evidence for that does not exist.
Before the adoption of the proportional system, Britain was virtually unique in Europe in electing MEPs in first-past-the-post constituencies. If we consider turnout for the 1994 elections, we see that Britain did not come out well compared with other counties. Turnout was 90.7 per cent. in Belgium, 52.5 per cent. in Denmark, 60 per cent. in Germany, 59 per cent. in Spain and 52 per cent. in France. The percentage in the Netherlands was low at 35.6 per cent.—lower, just, than in Britain, where turnout was 36.4 per cent.
The argument that adopting a more proportional system leads to lower turnout does not stand up to scrutiny. Turnout was low in 1994 and appalling at the last elections under the changed system of parliamentary electoral arrangements, but, interestingly, the drop in turnout for those elections is roughly the same as that for general and local elections. Percentages are dropping across the piece. That is not meant to be comforting. The issue should and does worry all politicians, and the drop
96WH
represents people's profound disconnection with the political process, but it is not related to the introduction of more proportional voting arrangements.
It is important to get those things on the record, but not everything in the garden was lovely during the last European elections. Turnout was appalling and people rightly had deep reservations about adopting a closed list. That has been given more graphic meaning in the past 24 hours. There is a problem with a list system that does not allow the voter to record any preference for specific candidates of the same party. What happens if circumstances change after the election?
A gentleman named Richard Balfe was elected a Labour MEP on a Labour list at the previous European parliamentary elections. We read, in a rather strange statement, that he has joined a different political party. Interestingly, he joined the Conservatives. It is no surprise that that has received a lot of media coverage—it does not happen often.
When the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) defected from the Labour party recently, there was an argument about whether, as one elected a Labour MP, he should stand and fight as a Liberal Democrat or resign his seat. It seemed to me that there was a good argument that he should pursue the latter course. However, at least he could argue that people voted for him personally. How far his constituents voted for him rather than the Labour party is an interesting question—perhaps we will see the results of his decision at the next general election—but he could say that people voted for the individual whose name was on the ballot paper, against which they had put their X. He played down the importance of the fact that his name had "Labour" printed next to it. I disagree with him on that, but we can resolve the issue in due course.
In the European parliamentary elections, however, although the name Richard Balfe was on the ballot paper, the individual voter could not record any preference whatever for him. There is a powerful argument that, when he decided, for his own reasons, to leave the Labour party and join the Conservatives, the voter became disfranchised. Mr. Balfe was not elected as an individual, but because he was on the Labour list. He probably needs to consider his position as a result, but his situation says something about the operation of closed list systems that we need to consider seriously.
There is also the issue of fairness. The relationship between the individual voter and people seeking elective office of any kind is important, and there is a great tradition in British democracy of retaining that link so that the voter can acknowledge the importance of party, but connect on an individual level. It is rather fanciful to suppose that political systems can operate in this day and age without organised political parties, but political parties are made up of people. Not all candidates have the same qualities or views, even within the same party. We should protect the voter's right to recognise that and to express preferences, particularly in multi-Member systems. The credibility of the electoral arrangements adopted for the European parliamentary elections suffered from that link being broken.
In the run-up to passing the 1999 Act, several alternatives were proposed. The hon. Member for North Cornwall alluded to the fairly minimalist idea that became known as the Belgian system. In most cases,

97WH
it achieves proportionality on the basis of parties and it usually ensures that the ranking of party lists prevails in elections, but it does allow the voter to record a vote against a candidate if he or she wishes. The previous Home Secretary was greatly exercised about naming famous Belgians in that debate, and about Mr. d'Hondt, whose name frequently appeared.
It was decided not to adopt that voting system, but if we are reviewing arrangements for European parliamentary elections we should at least consider it. However, I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall that it is not the only option we should examine. A range of electoral choices and systems are available, and he is right to say that, at this stage, we must consider the principles on which the system should operate.
One principle that we should support is a voter's right to vote for a candidate as well as a party. That can happen in different ways. The second principle appears radical when suggested in this place, although one would not think that it should be. The system adopted should broadly reflect the number of votes cast for a party in the number of seats it secures. That might be thought to be common sense, but it is all too often seen in this Parliament as radical and outlandish. It is a principle that should be upheld in any review of European parliamentary electoral arrangements.
The third principle is the most difficult, but perhaps, in a way, the most important. The arrangements that we adopt must reflect, support and encourage a reconnection of voters with the political process. That is the real challenge for us all. No electoral system in the world, whether that of Mr. d'Hondt or anyone else, will alone ensure a reconnection of voters with the political process. Electoral arrangements alone do not do that. They can help, but I put it no more strongly than that.
If we provide that help, we must ensure that we move on to the next task. If we are elected to the House on an ever-dwindling proportion of the vote, we shall all suffer. More importantly, democracy will suffer. When democracy suffers, the whole political system, voters and citizenship suffer too. That possibility is faced not only by this Parliament, but by the European Parliament, for whose elections turnout is already low and worsening, to judge from recent examples. We need to turn our minds to the issue.
Wisdom on this subject is not the monopoly of any one political party. All too often we need to examine how we go about our affairs in this place and in political debate, and consider how we contribute to the disconnection.
It seems to me that all too often the press contribute to the disconnection of politics from the citizen. If the press wish to promote real debate, they should examine some of the ways in which they go about their affairs. The issue is partly about making voting easier in all kinds of ways, although on the basis of experiments that have been carried out so far, the impact of that approach seems limited. We can all do something, but that reconnection is most vital. I hope that the review of European parliamentary electoral arrangements will take place promptly and will reflect the principles of voter choice and representation, broadly linking the
98WH
numbers of votes cast to seats gained. Most important of all, it should contribute towards reconnecting the citizen with the political process.
11.45 am
Mr. Robert Syms: It is a pleasure to engage in this debate—a debate that I remember fondly from the previous Parliament. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on raising the matter. He made the important point that if there is a review, it should be open and the subject of widespread debate, rather than being an internal matter for the Home Office or the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. One factor in that decision may be the Government's embarrassment about how things have turned out.
I remember the European Parliamentary Elections Bill ping-ponging backwards and forwards between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and certain phone calls being made by the then leader of the Liberal Democrats to Downing street to say how important and totemic the issue was, and that it should form the basis of co-operation between Liberal Democrats and the Labour Government. Eventually, the Government pushed through the legislation, and I can remember a cheer on the Floor of the House, not from the Labour or Conservative Benches, but from about 20 Liberals, who waved their Order Papers as if the Bill were a milestone to be welcomed.
Listening to the debate today, one gets the impression that people are defensive about the system that has been pushed through. The tone of the debate has been to try to explain why turnout is so low and to argue that it is apparently not the fault of the system. The key point is that European elections are different from every other election. When people turn out for a general election, they turn out to elect a Government. If people turn out for a council election, in most cases, they turn out to elect an administration to run a local authority. I am unsure what people think that they are doing when they turn out for a European election, because the division of seats between parties does not have a dramatic effect on people's lifestyles. I am not sure that people connect politically with the system of government in Europe, which is why low turnouts are inevitable.
In addition, I suspect that the general antipathy towards Europe means that there will always be low turnouts, although it is clear that the turnout under a closed list system was lower than under the original firstpast-the-post system. I like first past the post. It is simple and ensures that a Member is linked to a geographical area. Although the European Parliamentary Elections Bill was much criticised when it went through the House of Commons on the basis that the constituencies were large and unwieldy, I thought that it worked quite well.
In my constituency, there was a Member for Dorset. In the next-door county, there was a Member for Wiltshire. That meant that there was a county council, half a dozen local authorities, branches of the National Farmers Union and the Women's Institute, and a definite link between organisations and the elected representative. On the whole, people knew who their Member was, and if there was a problem, they knew who to get hold of. There was also a link between the Member elected to the European Parliament and the

99WH
half a dozen Members of Parliament for that area who would discuss problems and correspondence among themselves.
The then Home Secretary—the present Foreign Secretary—said that the constituencies were far too large and not sufficiently representative, but the Government then managed to give us a system of constituencies with millions of voters. If there was any logic in saying that a Dorset or Wiltshire constituency was too large, there is little logic in having Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Dorset lumped together. I do not believe that it is possible to act as a representative of such an area.
We have gone backwards. Having introduced the 1999 Act and abolished those large European constituencies, the Government introduced the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which, under an additional member system, created large first-past-the-post constituencies in London that meant twinning London boroughs. If that size was unacceptable for Europe, it is inconsistent to have first-past-the-post representatives for two London boroughs, because they are similar in size to the former European constituencies. I suspect that the Government's views change depending on what objectives they have at the time. First past the post worked pretty well.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) is right about the closed list of one, but that allows people to vote for individuals. The hon. Member for North Cornwall made a good point about Mr. Teverson. It is ironic that, had the system been first past the post in the west country, it is likely that at least two Liberals would have been elected. Changing to a list system, in the west if not in the country as a whole, was a disadvantage to them.
I raised another subject with the then Home Secretary several times. If the principal driving force of the system is proportionality, and if people have ticked the box that says, "Conservative", "Liberal Democrat", "Labour", "UKIP" or whatever, what happens when someone switches party? Those Members will not have been voted for personally; they were on a party list. I asked the then Home Secretary about that before the Bill went through the House, but he did not want to address the issue.
The first Member to switch party was Bill Newton-Dunn; he was elected as a Conservative but switched to the Liberal Democrats. The second Member to switch was Michael Holmes, who was leader of the UK Independence party but fell out with its two members and decided to become an independent Member in the south-west. We come next to the far-sighted and extremely principled decision of Mr. Richard Balfe to join the Conservative party, which brings our proportionality back to what it was before Bill Newton-Dunn left us.
It is a poor system if although people have voted for a party, the Member can switch sides. I believe that such a person should be disqualified. Otherwise, it makes nonsense of proportionality. Because by-elections are not held, if Mr. Bill Newton-Dunn, Mr. Michael Holmes or Mr. Richard Balfe were to die, they would be replaced by someone else from the party list that the
100WH
Member was on at the time of the election; someone would automatically move up the list. Proportionality would thus be restored.
The dilemma with a closed list system is that allowing Members to switch parties at will makes nonsense of it. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield that if someone has been elected as Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, and it was his name on the ballot paper, it is a respectable position to argue that people voted for him—expecting him to use his judgment. However, that argument is less respectable when people have simply voted Labour, and it would be interesting to see what would happen.
The only Member to have switched parties in my lifetime who thought it reasonable to go to his electorate after having changed party was Bruce Douglas-Mann, in the constituency of Mitcham and Morden. He switched to the Social Democratic party, and decided to stand again because he had gained a small majority in 1979 with the help of his Labour activists. Having done the honourable thing, however, he lost his seat to my former colleague Angela Rumbold. Those who switch parties may not necessarily wish to follow that precedent.
There is a general problem with the closed list system. I believe in first past the post, because the rules have been adequately drawn up. Turnout under the closed list system will inevitably be low; unlike the first-past-thepost system, in which candidates had to get their party workers out on the streets, the large regional area constituencies probably led to a lower turnout.
Today the Liberals trotted out their policy for a single transferable vote in multi-Member constituencies, except where there are natural geographical boundaries. I have never been a great fan of STV. We used to use it a little for university elections, but I do not think it is used by any country apart from Malta and southern Ireland.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the single transferable vote is now used for the election of some Members of the European Parliament in the United Kingdom, because it is used in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Syms rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There seems to be an electrical fault of some sort in the microphone system, or a loose connection somewhere. I can give hon. Members that professional advice free.
Mr. Syms: So long as you assure me that it is not the Iraqis, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I seem to remember that the Australian Senate uses STV to some extent. The biggest problem is that the system requires competition between candidates of the same party. If we moved to an open list system or STV, a great change of culture would be required, especially if the constituencies were geographically large. Also, individuals rather than parties would have to run campaigns. In terms of expense, and in terms of our culture in the UK, that would not go down especially well. In Ireland, individuals' children or grandchildren

101WH
often inherit constituencies, because party machines have been built up in specific areas to win STV contests. I am not sure that I am a great fan of STV.
There is a respectable argument for the German system, and if we were to depart from first past the post—my first love—and use it for London, Scotland and Wales, it would be sensible to stick to that one system. People would at least have a chance of understanding it. The proposals for the European election were unacceptable, and the system has proved to be poor. Most people would prefer change. My preference would be for first past the post, but moving to smaller regions and open lists might increase public choice. Electoral systems must ultimately be for people, not for party machines.
Another problem caused by closed list systems for large regions was how the parties selected candidates. None of the parties felt happy about the manner in which we had to select and then rank candidates for specific contests. That left a nasty taste in most of our mouths. We ought to review and change the system so that it is more publicly acceptable.
The Government have given us an unacceptable system that needs reform. Change will best be provided by open debate and dialogue between members of parties in the House, rather than internally and quietly. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government will be far more open about the electoral system that our people deserve.
11.58 am
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing the debate, which is exceptionally timely. He drew attention to the fact that Opposition parties should not have to bring this matter before the House. Instead, the Government should seek the views of the House and lay their proposals before us. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will make up for the deficit of the failure to carry out the promised review.
In lieu of that, and before we consider what we should do in future, it is worth being realistic about the good and bad points of the 1999 election. For the first time, an election was held across the whole United Kingdom using proportional representation. The implementation of that system throughout the UK was a close-run thing. Hon. Members suggested that it was by no means certain that it would happen at the time. However, it did happen. The Liberal Democrats unashamedly welcome that, and hope for a widening of the application of proportional representation to our electoral systems—for this place among others—in the years to come.
The most obvious of the good outcomes of the change is that a much more proportional result, in party political terms, was achieved than ever before, whether for European or other elections. Secondly, regional balance was provided. I make that point because the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) alluded to the situation in the south-west. That is fine, but I come from the north-west, where the chances of a Liberal Democrat being elected in a non-proportional system are approximately zero. We now have a fair representation of all the parties in all the regions.
I would not want the House to misunderstand the importance of such fair representation. It is no good for democracy if all the Conservatives come from the
102WH
south-east of England, all the Labour Members come from the north of England and all the Liberal Democrats come from the south-west. We need the benefits that regional balance has brought.
Another result of change, although perhaps not everyone would agree that this is a positive outcome, is that it has allowed a measure of gender balance in representation. There has certainly been an opportunity for my party to attend to that in a conscious and determined way, resulting in an exact 50:50 split between the sexes. The vagaries of first past the post, for instance, often make that difficult to achieve.
Changing from first past the post to the closed list system that was used in 1999 brought about some clear good outcomes. However, some other effects that are sometimes assumed to be negative have proved, on examination of the evidence, to be neutral. Certainly, the effect on turnout was neutral. There was a substantial fall in turnout between the 1997 general election and the 1999 European election. One could draw the conclusion that that had something to do with the system. However, study of the figures for the 2001 general election shows that that fall was part of an overall pattern of decline.
The Minister might want to reflect on the idea that a reduction in turnout between the 2001 parliamentary election and the next European election equal to that between the 1997 general election and the 1999 European election would imply national turnouts in the low teens for the next European parliamentary election. The Home Office's internal report makes the point that there is no evidence of an impact on turnout as a result of the change that we are discussing.
The second way in which the impact of the change has proved to be neutral is related to the question of whether the electorate were confused, whether they could discriminate, and whether the new arrangements affected the way in which they cast their votes. The Home Office report contains useful figures, and its finding is that voters were not confused. Only a small minority said that they failed to understand the system. The proportion of spoiled votes was lower than in the preceding general election, and there was little evidence that any voter failed to go to the polling booth because of confusion about the voting system—still less because of worry about a very large ballot paper.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall made a point about the Leeds, Central parliamentary by-election, which took place on the same day as the European election. Some myths have been built around that event, but it is worth examining the facts. Almost exactly 13,000 votes were cast in the by-election, and, to within 20 votes, the same number were cast in the same constituency for the European election on the same day. There is every indication that it was the same 13,000 voters who went to the polling station in Leeds, Central, were given two ballot papers, and put them in separate boxes.
Interestingly, the outcome was not the same in the two elections. The voters of Leeds, Central did not vote for the political parties in the parliamentary by-election in the same proportions as they did in the European election in the same constituency area. Those figures are on the record and easy to find. In other words, the voters of Leeds, Central went into the polling booth, were

103WH
given two papers and deliberately voted differently in the parliamentary by-election, in which they were sending a new MP to Parliament, from the way that they voted for their Member of the European Parliament.
That is interesting and should dissuade us from the view that the electorate does not know what the hell it is doing. The electorate is quite smart. I will make a point that is not particularly to the advantage of my party: in Leeds, Central our result for the parliamentary by-election was substantially better than our result for the European election. In all conscience I must say that that was because the voters of Leeds, Central were less impressed with our approach to European policy than they were with our approach to national policy.
I am not revealing any great state secret there—one can see the evidence in any MORI poll—but my point is that, far from being confused by having two voting systems and separate programmes put in front of them, the voters were able to discriminate. I want to nail down the argument that, by introducing a proportional system, we have somehow confused people into not voting, or putting their vote in the wrong place.
Having said something about the good outcomes, and having, I hope, dispelled some of the myths about the neutral outcomes, I should say that there have been some poor outcomes. The hon. Member for Poole says, quite rightly, that there was much waving of Order Papers on the Liberal Democrat Benches when a proportional system was introduced, but it is no secret that we argued strongly that that system should have been better. The system that was introduced is, comparatively speaking, fair to political parties, but it is not fair to voters. The voters, who, as I said, are quite smart, know that well.
All the matters under discussion today could have been presented in the form of an official Government report for consideration by the House, in preparation for the next election. It is a matter of great regret that a full review has not taken place. The Home Office conducted a review that said some useful things, but did not collect evidence in a proper consultative way. There has been no opportunity to debate the outcome. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall very properly made the point that, had things gone to plan, such a review would have been a legal requirement under the Bill. It appears to have been a fluke of the timing of the second Bill that that requirement was not built in. It is disappointing that the Government have not felt able to hold such a review.
The Liberal Democrats would like to see the single transferable vote extended from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom. That would provide the opportunity to choose between new and old Labour candidates, pro and anti-Euro candidates, men and women, Lancashire and Cheshire, and between Merseyside-based and Manchester-based candidates, in a way that is not open to electors under a closed list system.
Will the Minister introduce a review? Even if he does not, will he abandon the closed list—and if he abandons the closed list, will he ensure that we adopt the single transferable vote? Will he and his Government, for goodness' sake, let go of the candidate selection
104WH
procedure, so that the popular conception that politicians are in control of the voting system can be ended and the people put back in control? We also need to raise awareness of the significance of the European Parliament and ensure that voters understand what it does.
The hon. Member for Poole made a number of highly relevant points. However, in reply to his point about by-elections, closed lists and standing down, I should point out that the system works for the lower House in Australia, where the Chief Whip of every party holds a letter of resignation from every Member, and may submit that letter if a Member changes party.
Mrs. Theresa May: Do not give them ideas.
Mr. Stunell: For every illness there is a cure, and for every cure there is an illness. When we make our claims, we must be careful how we proceed.
12.11 pm
Mrs. Theresa May: To follow what the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has just said, I agree that we should be careful, especially when we make suggestions that Chief Whips might be listening to. One never knows where one will end up.
The last time the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the Minister and I debated electoral issues was during proceedings on the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill. I am pleased that that legislation has been enacted. I mention it because at that time, there was much unanimity of view on the importance of that legislation. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove commented on how proportional representation systems have enabled parties to achieve a better gender balance. However, parties should not rely on proportional representation to improve gender balance. It is essential that all parties in this House—especially mine, given its record—work hard to ensure that more women enter the House, so that women are better represented.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall has raised a valid subject. Like other hon. Members, I want to comment on some of the issues relating to individual electoral systems for the European Parliament and elsewhere. However, the core issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised is the fact that the Government gave a commitment to review the electoral arrangements for the European Parliament, but so far have not done so.
I refer hon. Members to a written answer that the Minister gave the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 26 February. The hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about
"the timing and structure of the proposed review of the new voting systems for the devolved administrations and the European Parliament and the report of the Jenkins Commission."
The Minister replied:
"In our manifesto, which sets out our intentions for this Parliament, we said we would review our experience of the new voting systems for the devolved Administrations, the European Parliament, and the London Assembly along with the recommendations of the Jenkins report to assess whether changes

105WH
might be made to the electoral system for the House of Commons. That remains our intention. The timing and structure of any review has yet to be decided."—[Official Report, 26 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 1181 W.]
The next round of the European parliamentary elections will be in 2004, so the Government will have to get their skates on if they are to conduct an open review of the type that every hon. Member will welcome. They will have to act swiftly if there is to be a genuine assessment of the voting system that was introduced before the last European parliamentary elections, and changes are to be made if the review implies that they are necessary. Yet again, I fear that the Department is too taken up with other matters, and is not addressing the real issue.
There is a need to review. This is not just about closed lists; I hope that the Minister will respond to a report from some months ago in a national newspaper that the European Commission was considering the introduction of transnational party lists as a voting system for the European parliamentary elections. Those of us who do not like the concept of party lists for the elections in the United Kingdom believe that transnational party lists are even more likely to alienate the electorate from wanting to vote.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall suggested in passing that those who opposed proportional representation did not believe in representative systems of election. In fact, the first-past-the-post system, which I believe in, is a representative system, although it does not fall within the category of proportional representation. I would not want the debate to go by without challenging the suggestion that systems other than proportional representation are not representative.
The hon. Gentleman commented on the impact that the closed list system had had on the Conservative party's results in the 1999 European parliamentary elections. He acknowledged that those who were on the Opposition Front Bench during the passage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill had argued for an open list system. He added that our party would have won more seats under the first-past-the-post-system—but our concern is to support the system that we believe will provide the best representation for the electorate and the best means of developing a Government who can govern and take decisions in the interests of the electorate.
My party has both gained and suffered as a result of the systems of proportional representation in different parts of the country. We continue to oppose proportional representation for the European Parliament and to support the first-past-the-post system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole made clear.
My hon. Friend also said how bad the system that the Government had introduced for the European parliamentary elections was. They introduced a closed list system, which increased the control of political parties over the electoral system and reduced the feeling among the electorate that they were connected to those who represented them in the European Parliament.
I accept the evidence, such as it is, as regards the low turnout in the European parliamentary elections. The quantitative research carried out by the Office for National Statistics did not show that the turnout was
106WH
connected to the voting system, as anyone who reads the Library note on the subject will see. On the face of it, that was the result of the research, but I wonder whether it is true. When I was canvassing during that election, people would ask, "Who is my candidate?" When I explained that there was a different system and they did not have an individual candidate, they immediately turned off, saying, "I want to be represented by an individual who I know and who I can go to."
One fact that became apparent from the low turnout in the European parliamentary elections was that people did not feel connected to the European Parliament and did not, therefore, feel a desire to vote for it. I suspect that the closed list system that the Government introduced will lead to increasing apathy and to an increasing lack of connection between the electorate and the European Parliament, whose Members they elect. Turnout could be adversely affected if we continue to use that system. Indeed, people still ask me, "Who is my Member of the European Parliament?" I have to explain that the Conservative party has allocated individual MEPs particular geographical areas, such as the county of Berkshire, so that they can build up a relationship, and people can feel connected. The system goes against the building of such relationships, however, and does not provide the electorate with the same degree of connection.
My party continues to believe that the first-past-thepost system is the best way to enable members of the electorate to feel that they are voting for an individual who will represent them, whatever the elected body. That system requires a party to have a wide appeal across the electorate, rather than simply to gain votes on the back of appeals to narrow sectional interests, as is the case in some proportional representation systems. This is not only about the zindividual, but about the need for a party to have a set of policies that appeal widely across the electorate.
The Government should keep their manifesto commitment to review the electoral arrangements for the European Parliament. The fundamental issue for the debate has been that the Government have failed to keep that commitment, but I continue to support the view that the best system for elections to that Parliament is first past the post.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing the debate, which has produced some interesting contributions. Clearly the issue will not go away. I am grateful to all hon. Members who took part for their advice, although it will be no enormous surprise when I say that not all of it can be accepted.
In such debates, there is a sense in which we move towards having a philosophical seminar on the practical utility of Kant's categorical imperative as the basis of an ethical system. I am interested both in Kant's categorical imperative and in elections, so I welcome that. However, we need to ensure that we consider not only the philosophical basis of what we are discussing but its utility, as several contributions have emphasised.
In terms of utility, I was a little perplexed by the suggestion that a change in the system would put votes back in the hands of people rather than parties. I wonder

107WH
what parties mean in such a view of the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, parties are collections of people who work within the democratic process for positions and ambitions. Parties are about people. We might paraphrase Voltaire and say that in a democracy, if parties did not exist it would be necessary to invent them. The idea that we could somehow produce a system that checkmated the influence of parties by offering a greater good than them does not have great bearing on the utility of electoral systems, which is what we ought to be thinking about.
Several hon. Members suggested that Members of the European Parliament could have a read-across from Members of Parliament in terms of their constituency responsibilities. I wonder about the genuine utility of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield reminded us that even under the previous system, MEPs were not exactly known by every member of every household. Indeed, it is difficult to see how they could have been. Hon. Members have pointed out that under the proposed expansion of the European Community, the number of our MEPs would be reduced to 72 from 87, but the idea that even 72 MEPs across the country could have similar individual connections with constituencies, as if there were a direct analogy with Members of Parliament, is fanciful.
My hon. Friend suggested that in terms of how Europe and its debates work, there was a strong philosophical case for allying representation in the European Parliament with some regional basis, and that has some salience. As hon. Members have pointed out, however, the issue is essentially political. I cannot see the immediate philosophical objection to different electoral systems for different forms of representation, for example. The idea that we must have the same system for Parliament, the Greater London Assembly and European elections does not have a great basis in fact.
One could say that the advocates of the single transferable vote are the Plymouth Brethren of the PR firmament, and tend to regard other forms of proportional or semi-proportional representation as lesser moral activities. However, there is something to be said for taking a pluralistic view of how systems work and considering the relationship between desired outcomes and representative institutions.
Mr. Tyler: Does the Minister not think that there is value in having consistency between the systems that operate for the same election in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Dr. Whitehead: I did mention the Plymouth Brethren element of the debate.
Certain factors associated with the electorate and the system in Northern Ireland enhance the value of using the single transferable vote in Northern Ireland. However, my general point was that for elections to a particular assembly that is directly related to the people whom it represents, and is seen to be making decisions immediately adjacent to those people, one might consider a system different from the one that is appropriate for electing a number of members to another assembly, other members of which are elected from elsewhere.
108WH
As for utility, I was interested in the logic of the suggestion that there should be resignation notes in the Whip's locker, especially under a system in which people are elected through party lists. However, that leads us to the further philosophical question—Burke's question, in fact—of whether a person is a representative or a delegate. If people are representatives they should be able to change their minds—but that opens up other problems.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and others talked about declining election turnouts. Indeed, the Home Office review indicated that there was no direct connection between the new system and the decline in turnout. Many hon. Members have rehearsed the arguments about turnout. It is true that turnout for European parliamentary elections is distressingly low throughout Europe. As hon. Members have said, it is up to all of us to think more widely about how that decline can be reversed, but the idea that one method of electing people to one parliament will turn things around is fanciful.
The debate has concentrated on comparing the closed list system with the open list system but the first election that was held under the new system is not exactly ancient history; it took place only three years ago. At the time, we had extensive debates about the merits of the two systems. The system worked in the election. The publicity put out by the Home Office ensured that public knowledge—both of the fact that an election was to take place and that a new proportional system would be used—was high. About 57 per cent. of the electorate knew that they would be voting in a different way, and there was no suggestion that anyone did not vote because they preferred to vote using a different system. The closed list system is not discredited. Indeed, it continues to operate in several European countries, where there is no ferment of discussion about whether it should be abandoned.
The closed list system has several advantages for voters. It is simple and easy to understand. It relates well to previous systems with which the electorate are already familiar. One vote for the party of one's choice is a familiar scenario for most voters. It produces a proportionate result—an important change that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has welcomed. Although some might argue that the complexities of the d'Hondt method might tax the best mathematicians, I suspect that members of the public are not especially concerned about what method will be used to count the votes. The electorate know that the top candidate from each party is likely to get in. It is, therefore, possible to defend the closed list system. So far, it has been used for only one election, which is hardly a fair trial. We adopted it only three years ago and have operated it only once.
The Labour party's manifesto commitment was to review the Jenkins commission recommendations for Westminster elections. The question from my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) included all elections, but if the hon. Member for Maidenhead reads the Labour party manifesto commitment, she will see—
Mr. Nigel Beard (in the Chair): Order. The next debate is on medical liability.

Medical Liability
12.30 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Beard. I congratulate you on your elevation to the Chairman's Panel. It is nice to meet again in a different environment.
I look forward to the debate. It seems from opening a newspaper or listening to the radio as though everything that can go wrong with this country's health care system is going wrong. We have filthy and germ-infested hospitals, our surgeons are incompetent and our nurses uncaring. Things are so desperate that the Leader of the Opposition has to raise an individual case with the Prime Minister before taking the time to check out the facts or speak to the hospital involved. However, in my experience, most national health service treatments work well, most doctors are good at what they do and most patients leave NHS care not only unharmed, but substantially better than when they entered it.
The recent Wanless report, which focused mainly on NHS funding, contained an interesting finding. People who are asked whether they are satisfied with the NHS are more likely to say that they are satisfied if they have recently been in hospital. That is an important piece of information. We are more likely to see the positive aspects of our health care system if we have direct—not indirect—experience of it. However, there is no point in denying that things do occasionally go wrong in the NHS. Some people are distressed and alarmed by the level of care that they or their relatives receive, and, indeed, sometimes things go badly wrong. We may all remember the case of 18-year-old Wayne Jowett, who had the wrong drug injected into his spine and died some weeks later. We certainly remember the terrible and unforgivable details of the scandals surrounding Bristol Royal infirmary and Alder Hey children's hospital, and Harold Shipman's incomprehensible violence. The Guardian's headline today is "Drug mistake led to baby's heart failure". On one or two occasions, events in hospitals and the health service go sadly wrong.
Those cases are examples of things going wrong, but they are all very different. Various mistakes are made in the health service. There is simple human error, which will always occur, no matter how regrettable its outcomes might be. There is incompetence and negligent failure to pick up on doctors who are out of their depth or who consistently let down their patients. There are criminal evil-doers who wilfully and recklessly damage people in their care. Individual failures and the inability of the system to pick up on those failures play a role in all those categories.
It is difficult to estimate how many adverse events occur in the NHS. A study conducted in two London hospitals found that about 10 per cent. of patients admitted to acute hospitals experienced an adverse event, about half of which were preventable with current standards of care. That is also the picture that I gained following an analysis of the local Norfolk and Norwich hospital.
The debate about problems of medical error must be held on two premises. First, errors will occur. No matter how hard we try, we occasionally get things wrong. One of my friends who is a consultant recently told me that hospital practice should operate under the presumption
110WH
of Murphy's law, which states that whatever can go wrong, will. There are some lessons in that for the organisation of hospitals and for patient care in general. Processes must be analysed to establish what can go wrong, and strategies of prevention need to be considered.
Secondly, if things have gone wrong, that is hugely distressing for all the parties involved. It should be recognised that no system of dealing with medical errors after they have occurred, whether it be straightforward litigation, mediation, no-fault compensation or a complaints procedure, can do away with that basic fact. There will be conflict, dissatisfaction and irritation no matter which system of compensation and redress is devised. The people who advertise so-called alternative ways of conflict resolution sometimes forget that basic fact.
We must try to do several things. We need to prevent mistakes—and resulting harm—wherever possible, and to help those who have suffered through a medical error quickly, proactively and cost-effectively; and we must do those things in ways that do not demoralise and undermine health professionals at their place of work.
Someone who has taken part in complaints procedures and independent reviews has told me that he has witnessed consultants angrily storming out of meetings about a complaint against them, and immediately joining their team in the operating theatre to conduct major surgery. That cannot be in anyone's interests.
We must guard against surgeons becoming unwilling to operate on high-risk patients; and that is happening. If doctors focus on their position in a league table rather than on what is best for their patients, something is profoundly wrong.
That checklist serves to highlight that the NHS, and the politicians responsible for the NHS, can do better in many areas. For a long time, no quality assurance systems were in place, and patient safety was dealt with in uncoordinated and haphazard ways. The Government have started to implement a proper patient safety agenda to address those problems. The Health Act 1999 set up the Commission for Health Improvement, which carries out clinical governance reviews. There are now national service frameworks for many conditions and treatments. In 2001, a new National Patient Safety Agency was established to collate and monitor a central register of all adverse events within the NHS. The NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill has introduced a new body, the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals, and it has also abolished the community health councils—which some of us have had debates and disputes about—and replaced them with the patient advocacy and liaison services, which we are examining, to see how effective they will be.
Those are great measures. They address prevention, and the design of health care to ensure that it is safe and satisfying for patients, and they ought to be welcomed. However, those measures were introduced recently, and more needs to be done.
By way of offering an example of what further measures should be taken, let us consider the case of injecting a drug that must only be used intravenously into the spine, as happened to a young man named

111WH
Wayne Jowett with fatal consequences. Two cancer drugs, vincristine and methotrexate, got mixed up. No proper system of reporting and collecting such incidents has been in place in past years. Over the past 10 years, 10 people have died in these circumstances. If one thinks of the amount of injections that are given in hospitals every day, or the amount of times that those particular cancer drugs are injected, that figure is not very high. However, each case represents a huge tragedy, particularly as this mistake—a simple human error—is so easy to prevent.
It would be technologically easy to design the respective syringes and needles in such a way that only intra-spinal drug syringes could be used with intraspinal needles. It is incomprehensible to me—and to people who work in hospitals—why that has not happened: it seems to be one of those cases where the drug companies point at the needle manufacturers, and vice versa, but why on earth do the Medicines Control Agency or the Medical Devices Agency not intervene? What are they for, if not to make medicines and medical equipment safer?
It is a good idea to standardise best practice, but no health practitioner can know and memorise 300 or so written procedures for every conceivable treatment. That, more than anything else, highlights that the NHS is in dire need of investment in proper information dissemination and storage systems. Too many accidents happen because a practitioner does not have, or cannot find, information that is theoretically available.
No one present cannot have seen, and been shocked by, piles of patient notes—unconnected heaps of paper floating around in cardboard files. Essential, life-saving information is hidden away among stacks of irrelevant—and sometimes decades old—correspondence. Vital information about a patient can be hidden in a welter of waste paper. It is astonishing that a safety-critical process such as health care depends on a documentation system that has changed little in two centuries.
A huge investment in information technology for the NHS is needed. A functioning electronic patient record is essential to the reduction of clinical misjudgement caused by lack of information. One of the longest running electronic patient record systems is in the oncology department at my local hospital, the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. It has served the clinicians there for at least eight years, and it has been demonstrated twice to the Department of Health, but it has not received a flicker of interest. We cannot afford to ignore the under-investment in information dissemination systems in the NHS any longer.
In fact, the solution does not lie with small-scale EPR systems, but with the development of a national medical records system that is maintained on a secure backbone using common and non-proprietary datasets and applications through the wired-up NHS. The NHS information technology strategy that exists must be implemented urgently. I remember the disaster following the introduction of IT systems into the Home Office's passport section, and the thought of a similar occurrence in the NHS sends shivers down my spine. It must be possible to muster the expertise and commitment that is required to get the NHS wired up.
112WH
There is a strong economic incentive for bringing the NHS up to speed and into the age of information technology, although I hope that that is not the only argument to which the Department of Health will listen. The Wanless report argues for that.
Medical errors are extremely expensive. Department of Health figures show that the NHS spends £400 million a year on settling claims for negligence. The money that is spent on negligence cases alone would be sufficient to fund the work of a large health service trust for an entire year.
We must rethink what we need to do if things go wrong. I welcome the Department of Health's decision to establish a clinical negligence working party to draft a White Paper on medical negligence and liability.
I shall mention a few more core facts. Last year's Audit Commission report shows that the cost of litigation to the NHS in the vast majority of cases exceeded the value of the settlements that were reached. For every £10,000 that was spent on an average case, the subsequent compensation settlement was £5,000.
In 1999, the Select Committee on Health found that 70 per cent. of claimants came out of litigation feeling dissatisfied and, especially, that many of their questions remained unanswered. Under the current system, it is hard to obtain remedies other than financial compensations, such as prevention of recurrence, apologies and the opportunity to discuss issues with the other side.
Legal aid is available to only 48 per cent. of the adult population in medical negligence cases. One must be either very poor or quite wealthy in order to access the civil justice system. Additionally, medical negligence cases take longer than any other cases before the High Court.
The threat of litigation has profound effects on staff morale and the culture of clinical institutions. Professor Ian Kennedy's report on the Bristol Royal infirmary children's surgery scandal points out that we need a culture of change. A culture of openness and cooperation will not be achieved in the shadow of an adversarial and defensive legal system.
I will be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about the Department's ideas for tackling those problems. Is the Department contemplating a no-fault compensation scheme, which was recommended by Professor Kennedy? 'Will the Minister listen to the worries of patient groups that no-fault compensation does not do away with the problems of identifying whether an error has occurred and of public and personal accountability?
The often-quoted New Zealand example shows that no-fault compensation cannot be given to anybody who is unhappy with the outcome of health treatments. People who receive treatment are ill, and it is necessary to distinguish between an operation that could not help a patient and an operation that was botched. If we give up that distinction, medical compensation may become unsustainable. The New Zealand model is continuously adapted to consider such problems.
Is the Minister considering the use of mediation as an alternative form of conflict resolution? How would mediation relate to litigation? Could people access the courts after they had tried mediation?

113WH
Some people argue that an extended and more flexible complaints procedure could offer the solution to the problems that I mentioned earlier. However, if compensation was made available within complaints procedures, which the National Audit Office suggested in 2001, they might become as defensive and adversarial as court procedures are at present.
I realise that we are examining a complicated problem for health service providers, patients and politicians. I doubt that there are many easy answers. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us about the lines of thinking that the Department of Health pursues. The problem is major to the NHS, and if we do not solve it, we may increase the cynicism that people have towards our health system.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing this important debate on medical liability and clinical negligence. It is an important subject and my hon. Friend has made some significant and thoughtful points.
The national health service treats thousands of patients every day. It treated more than 12 million patients in England in 1999–2000 alone. Additionally, 43 million patients attended out-patient clinics and more than 14 million visited accident and emergency departments. My hon. Friend is right that with so many patients being treated, clinical errors are sometimes inevitable. When things go wrong, it is important that patients can take the appropriate action and that there is a simple, clear and transparent system for dealing with their concerns quickly, effectively and with the minimum trauma. My hon. Friend is right that there are two aspects to this. It is about learning from mistakes to prevent their repetition and about ensuring that patients get proper redress, explanation, and response.
Under the current system, compensation for harm or injuries suffered as a result of clinical negligence is, in general, paid only where legal liability can be established. Compensation is payable where it can be shown that there has been negligence either by act or omission, there has been harm, and the harm was caused by the negligence. Each claim for compensation will need to be considered on its own merits. Where an agreement between the parties involved cannot be reached, the issues can be resolved only through the civil justice system.
The Government believe that NHS patients who have been harmed or injured as a result of clinical negligence should be able to obtain correct and full compensation. That applies equally to NHS patients treated in the independent sector or overseas and those treated in NHS hospitals. The need to reform the handling of clinical negligence cases was illustrated by the criticisms of the present system in the National Audit Office report published in May 2001, to which my hon. Friend referred, "Handling Clinical Negligence Claims in England".
The report highlighted the increasing number and cost of claims, including legal costs, the length of time it takes to settle claims and the problems caused by the existing separation of the complaints and compensation
114WH
systems in providing the remedies that claimants say they want. In particular, it pointed out that legal and other costs of settlement can often be greater than the settlement itself for some smaller-value claims. The summarised accounts for health authorities, NHS trusts and the NHS litigation authority show that expenditure by the NHS on clinical negligence for the financial year 1999–2000 was £373 million.
The costs of clinical negligence are rising for a number of reasons. Examples include recent House of Lords and Court of Appeal judgments, which have had implications for compensation levels in general. Several factors need to be taken into account. The numbers and costs of clinical negligence claims are significant concerns to the public, the Government and the NHS. We said in the NHS plan that we intend to make further changes to the system for dealing with clinical negligence to try to address those concerns. My hon. Friend asked a series of questions about the Government's present thinking. I will try to set out for him some of the issues that are being considered at this stage, but he will understand that conclusions have not yet been reached.
The chief medical officer, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, is chairing an advisory committee, drawn from patient groups and the medical and legal professions, to consider possible options for change. The public have also had an opportunity to make their views known. We are taking an open-minded approach to a wide range of potential measures and are not ruling anything out at this stage. However, in considering what reforms may be necessary, the chief medical officer's advisory group is exploring a number of specific areas for reform, including no-fault compensation.
No-fault compensation would remove the need for a claimant to show negligence. Previously the Government have not been convinced of the need to introduce such a system on the grounds that it might not make the process of resolving claims any less adversarial, because disagreement over compensation would remain, and it might not address patients' concerns about receiving an adequate explanation of the events that led to the injury. Such a system would not necessarily reduce the increasing number of claims or the costs to the NHS.
Different factors must be taken into account. We want to develop a no-blame culture in the NHS and need to take account of the issues raised in the report on Bristol Royal Infirmary, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and measures that are being implemented following the chief medical officer's report "An organisation with a memory". We must consider all those factors in reconsidering no-fault compensation.
Another area for evaluation is the interface between complaints and claims. Currently, these are seen as separate processes, but the CMO and his advisory group are considering whether a more intelligent, responsive and patient-focused approach to complaint and claims handling is needed. That might be to provide joint remedies that are more closely tailored to individual claims and complaints, including financial, nonfinancial and practical measures that would quickly address concerns. As many people have commented, a poorly handled complaint can result in a claim that could have been resolved at a much earlier stage in the process.

115WH
We are considering the role of mediation and other alternatives to dispute resolution through the courts. My hon. Friend talked about the issues surrounding mediation. As hon. Members may know, the NHS Litigation Authority, which manages most claims for the NHS, is working with the Legal Services Commission to develop a joint strategy to promote greater use of mediation. Since May 2000, the NHSLA has required solicitors representing NHS bodies in claims to offer mediation in appropriate cases. The findings of that initiative are being considered as part of the chief medical officer's work to find out whether more can be done to encourage mediation as an alternative approach.
The final main area in which reform is being considered covers the way in which compensation awards are paid. We are considering carefully the relative advantages and disadvantages of using structured settlements or periodic payments instead of lump sum awards. Periodic payments allow for part of an award to be paid in tax-free instalments for the duration of the claimant's life. As periodic payments can be reviewed, such a system could help to ensure that any changes in patients' circumstances or needs are accommodated and that assistance is better tailored to their requirements.
Those broad areas are being considered. Clearly, a number of complicated issues are involved, but the intention is to announce the outcome of the CMO's review later this year. Other issues which my hon. Friend mentioned are also at stake. There are ways to reduce clinical negligence costs in the meantime. It is important to prevent clinical errors from occurring in the first place. The NHS must respond in a way that prevents such errors and respond to errors appropriately so that we can learn from them.
There are other ways of changing the clinical negligence system. We must ensure that money spent on claims goes to the patients who deserve it and not on spiralling legal costs. The NAO has acknowledged the steps that have been taken by the NHSLA and the Legal Services Commission to improve the speed and quality of claims management by rationalising access to better legal advice for claimants and defendants. We must build on that work to ensure that claimants get timely access to the compensation that they deserve. At the same time, we have to address the increase in costs for the NHS.
Perhaps most important, we need to continue the work that is under way on reducing clinical errors in the first place. A series of new mechanisms are in place to ensure that we prevent errors and create the right learning culture—rather than a blame culture—across the NHS, as set out in the CMO's report "An organisation with a memory". One development from that is the new independent body, the National Patient Safety Agency, which was established in April last year. It operates a new national reporting system to record adverse events, the problems to which my hon. Friend referred, and also near misses, which should certainly be included even though adverse consequences may not have happened. We must ensure that lessons learned in one part of the NHS are properly shared with the entire service.
116WH
The new National Clinical Assessment Authority will also provide a fast response to concerns about doctors' performance and a central point of contact for the NHS where such concerns have arisen.
Dr. Gibson: Before my hon. Friend proceeds with discussion of the new structures—and they are welcome—will she spend a minute on medical technologies? Sometimes the wrong tubes are fitted, the wrong anaesthetics administered and the wrong syringes made available to patients, but it is possible to outdo any potential mistakes technologically. Labelling is another serious problem requiring thorough examination. Is that being done?
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that technological solutions can prevent repeated errors. We must ensure that when new technologies become available they are in place to respond to adverse events and near misses. It is sometimes obvious that technology should be introduced in response to problems. It ties in with the need to respond to events taking place throughout the country. A national reporting system to pick up and respond to such events is part of the overall picture. Otherwise, a particular problem could arise in one area and the lessons to be learnt from it not reach other parts of the NHS. A local response may not be noticed across the NHS.
Part of the problem is picking up problems, but my hon. Friend is also right that the technological solutions should be in place. He mentioned particular examples, so I will write to him with the details of the responses in those sectors. New technology is part of ongoing work and it is important that the right systems are in place to learn from mistakes and prevent their repetition.
My hon. Friend also mentioned clinical governance, which is crucial at the local level for raising early concerns. Clinical governance provides NHS organisations and health care professionals with a framework for quality improvement that will, over time, develop into a single coherent local programme for assuring and improving the quality of clinical services.
My hon. Friend also rightly mentioned the Commission for Health Improvement, one of whose functions is to help the NHS identify and tackle serious or persistent clinical problems. Information about clinical negligence claims is considered by the Commission in the context of, its clinical governance reviews of individual NHS organisations.
Considerable work is being undertaken across the NHS with the aim of learning from problems and preventing their repetition, and resolving the difficult issues surrounding medical liability and clinical negligence. No simple answers can be found, but it is widely felt that improvements can and must take place. We need to reflect on the issues and debate them fully, but the reforms must take place. The aim is to improve the current system of handling and responding to clinical negligence claims. We expect those who are harmed or injured to receive appropriate and adequate compensation, and an apology and an explanation of what went wrong where costs are reduced. That would cause less trauma to all involved. I look forward to discussing these issues further with my hon. Friend as we set out what changes must occur throughout the NHS in the interests of patients and the medical profession, including clinicians.

Level Crossings
1 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of level crossings. As so often happens, I started to deal with a specific local problem, but have become aware of a wider issue that should be drawn to the attention of hon. Members and the Minister.
The specific problem relates to a Railtrack proposal to change the method of operation of a level crossing at Pooley Green, Egham. Egham is in the north of my constituency and is immediately next to the M25 motorway. The general point that has arisen from my investigation is that there appear to be no constraints on Railtrack's ability to close level crossings, to increase barrier down time or to disrupt road traffic considerably in an area. That is no basis for a genuinely integrated transport policy, and that is why it was important to raise the matter in this debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
On 4 October 2000—coincidentally the same day as the Hatfield train crash—an accident occurred on the level crossing at Pooley Green where traffic is frequently backed up on both sides. There is, of course, a yellow box junction on the crossing, and no motorist should enter it until his exit is clear. However, motorists sadly often ignore those regulations. A bus was trapped on the level crossing by the barriers. Fortunately, the bus driver had the presence of mind to get his passengers off the bus and no one was injured. However, the accident could have been serious. Railtrack responded immediately by imposing a 20 mph temporary down line restriction across the level crossing. There are different forward visibility curves if one approaches the level crossing from different directions, and it was not considered necessary to impose a temporary speed restriction on the up line.
Her Majesty's railway inspectorate issued a notice to Railtrack that required it to propose long-term mitigation measures by 27 April 2001. The level crossing is an automatic half-barrier level crossing, and it looks like state-of-the-art technology to my untrained eye. The train activates the barriers as it approaches the crossing, the half-barriers drop and then rise again as soon as the train passes. Currently, the barriers are down for approximately 10 minutes an hour at peak periods, and traffic tails back substantially.
Railtrack unveiled its proposal for the level crossing at a meeting on 12 April 2001. The proposal suggested replacing the automatic half-barriers with manually operated full barriers that would be covered by closed circuit television controlled from the Feltham signal box some miles away. A ringing bell would alert the signalman to an approaching train, and the signalman would look at the CCTV coverage of the crossing as he lowered the barriers. He would then set the signal to clear for the approaching train only when he was sure that the barriers were closed and the crossing was clear. As Railtrack said at the time, the effect would be to increase the peak-hour barrier closure period from 10 minutes to 40 to 45 minutes per hour.
118WH
Railtrack announced that it was going to cut off Egham from its hinterland at peak hours for a substantial part of each hour, effectively paralysing commerce and traffic in the town. Considerable concern has been expressed about the proposal, as one might expect. The ambulance and fire services have concerns about emergency response times. The local chamber of commerce is greatly concerned about both the direct economic cost to businesses and the broader cost of road traffic congestion.
Borough and county councillors are concerned about the impact on the town and adjoining communities of traffic avoiding the bottleneck. Bus operators have expressed doubts about their ability to continue the frequency and perhaps even the route of some services if the proposal goes ahead. The Highways Agency has expressed concern that traffic will tail back on to the M25 slip road, and perhaps on to the motorway itself, with significant consequences. There are also environmental concerns about the air pollution resulting from the extra standing traffic.
Railtrack says that it needs to make the changes to lift the temporarily imposed 20 mph limit. That would increase the capacity of the line and allow new train paths to be generated in response to the pressure from train operating companies to lay on more services. Railtrack's view of the world is entirely railway-centric. It does not take into account the external costs that the railway solution imposes on other transport users. Even if a bridge or a tunnel were an affordable solution—and it probably is not—it is unlikely to be technically feasible in that location because of the immediate proximity of the M25, which is on a substantial embankment.
Railtrack held a workshop on 17 April 2001. The borough council was invited, but no one from the highway authority—the county council—was present. Perhaps that is indicative of the problem. During the discussions, no consideration was given to the possibility of maintaining the 20 mph temporary speed limit. I am not suggesting that that is an ideal or optimal solution, but if all transport modes, not just railways, were debated under Railtrack's approach, we would at least have considered the possibility of maintaining the 20 mph limit.
Railtrack is not motivated solely by safety, although that is an important consideration. It is also motivated by the desire to maximise capacity. I held a series of meetings with Railtrack and took a delegation of councillors to see the Feltham signalling centre in operation. From our discussions, I learned that Railtrack could impose a solution without the requirement for consultation and without having to take into account in any structured way the requirements of other road users. I learned that there is no mechanism for determining how to share fairly a scarce resource—in this case the little patch of road that forms the road-rail interface at the level crossing. Once the Secretary of State has approved an order proposed by Railtrack, there is no appeal mechanism.
The switch from automatic half-barriers to manually controlled full-barrier crossings covered by CCTV is a step backwards in terms of technology. Some hon. Members will have been to France, where half-barriers seem to be ubiquitous. They drop at a moment's notice, and a few seconds later a TGV hurtles past at 120 or 130 mph. I find it slightly embarrassing to think that the

119WH
British solution to the problem is to remove the advanced automatic barriers and go back to a more primitive manually controlled solution. It is bizarre that Railtrack is not required to consider road traffic in the design of level crossings. Apparently, the railway has priority and there is no requirement to balance the needs of road and rail users. Perhaps that leads to a cavalier attitude.
At the outset of this debate, it was suggested that Railtrack would increase the barrier down time to 40 or 45 minutes. Doubt is being cast on that figure—perhaps it will be only 35 minutes. The fact that no detailed analysis has been done, and no definitive figure is available, underlines the lack of any requirement on Railtrack to argue its case. The real problem is that Railtrack is not independent. It has a clear financial interest in enhancing the capacity of the railway and is responding to pressure from train operating companies in dealing with such matters.
Until this issue arose, I was always extremely supportive, as were my constituents, of attempts to improve and increase rail services on the branch line that serves Egham. I have also supported the air track proposal that would bring a rail link into Heathrow from the south-west, possibly using that line. The Minister should be aware that community and political support for improved and enhanced rail services will soon melt away if their introduction will result in disruption.
Representations and responses must be made to the Secretary of State by 24 March. My local authority has just made its response and, in due course, I will urge the Secretary of State to send the proposal back to Railtrack. It must examine the benefits achieved versus the burdens imposed on road traffic and seek alternative methods to reduce the maximum down time at peak hours. However, work is scheduled to proceed in April and I imagine that contracts have already been let. I am sceptical about whether anything can be done at this stage.
The issues that I raise today were mentioned by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) in a Westminster Hall debate in February 2000. The situation has changed little since then. Railtrack has effectively been nationalised and is a quasi state-run body, rather than the private company that it was in 2000. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the element of direct Government responsibility.
The hon. Member for Lincoln found herself in a similar situation to the one that I described. She received a vague response from the Minister then responsible for this issue, now the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), who said:
"The transport White Paper announced the…development of local transport plans, which need to address all forms of transport. Local transport plans are important in this context. The part that rail plays in transport provision must be seen as part of the Government's integrated transport policy…There needs to be a partnership between transport operators, local authorities, business, local interest groups and users to ensure that all modes of transport are properly integrated".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 22 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 338WH.]
120WH
Those are fine words, but it will take more than a bit of waffle about partnership to resolve a situation in which a cash-strapped, quasi state-owned monopoly with a financial incentive to provide more train paths proposes a change that will impose a considerable burden on a community that has no voice at all. Local transport plans and integrated transport strategies have not contributed very much to the debate in Egham.
The Minister should also give some thought to the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998. Now that Railtrack is effectively a state-controlled organisation, is the lack of ability to appeal entirely consistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of that Act?
Clearly, there are no proper mechanisms in place for resolving conflicts of interest between road and rail use, or for evaluating the costs and benefits of proposals—at least, there is no publicly accessible mechanism. The process appears to be unilateral and controlled by a body with a financial interest. There is no mechanism for forcing Railtrack to recognise and take into account the external costs imposed by a course of action. Although the railway was for many years in decline, that may not have been a major problem in this case. Although what happened recently has not been helpful, I am pleased, taking the medium-term view, that the railway is in a period of renaissance and that we can anticipate that road and rail traffic will to continue to grow. Although the issue that I have raised relates to a change in operating procedure because of safety concerns, the same issues will arise whenever Railtrack seeks to establish additional train paths to accommodate growth in rail traffic. I was genuinely shocked, and so were the councillors involved, to discover that Railtrack could theoretically close a level crossing barrier for 60 minutes in the hour and that there is no formal mechanism by which the other parties interested in that transaction could bring their concerns to the table.
I want to make four specific points. First, I urge the Minister to take a critical look at the application of the 2002 order for the Pooley Green level crossing, which he is about to receive, and to consider asking Railtrack to look again at the proposal. Secondly, I ask him to consider whether it is general practice to retreat, in technological terms, when faced with such problems. It cannot be in the interests of UK plc that Railtrack's response to a problem with automatic half-barriers is to retreat to manually controlled full barriers, thus significantly increasing the down time of the barrier per train crossing. I therefore ask the Minister to consider the possibility of authorising the siting of infringement cameras similar to those used at road traffic lights. Railtrack would install the cameras and keep the revenue generated by the prosecution of drivers or the imposition of fixed penalties to encourage drivers' behaviour to become more compliant with Railtrack's railway safety requirements. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider that proposal.
Thirdly, will the Minister consider the establishment of a proper forum for consultation on procedural change or increased barrier down time? There should be a formal mechanism for Railtrack or the responsible highway authority to come to an agreed position rather than Railtrack simply imposing its requirements.

121WH
Fourthly, to inform the process that I have just described, I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of providing a publicly available, independent cost-benefit analysis to review proposals made for changes in level crossing operating procedures, so that the external costs can be fully taken into account. At the same time, I ask him to consider delivering a mechanism for an independent element and a right of appeal in the event of such changes taking place. I emphasise my support for the rail renaissance, but I am worried that in my constituency at least, public support will decline sharply if burdens are placed on communities apparently without a proper process taking place.
1.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on securing this important debate, on conducting it with his usual forensic attention to detail and on his courteous manner in doing so.
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, although he lost the plot at one stage and said that Railtrack had been nationalised, which it certainly has not been. I can see from the rueful smile on his face that he does not really believe that, but he made a good point. I am pleased that he agrees with us that the railways are in a period of renaissance and that, perhaps for the first time in 100 years, there has been an improvement in their performance. I thought that I heard him say that a crossing could be closed for 160 minutes in an hour, although the Hansard reporter may have heard something different. We may return to that point later.
I am sure that we all agree on the importance of ensuring the safety of road and rail passengers at points where the two modes of transport intersect. The hon. Gentleman spoke graphically about that. Sadly, wherever railway and road cross on the level, mishaps are possible. Each year, a number of people are killed on level crossings, often in vehicles. In 2000–01, 10 people were killed on them.
We must do everything possible to contain that risk. The public has the right to expect that risks will be properly assessed and appropriate action taken. The type of protection that is provided depends on the prevailing road and rail traffic levels at the crossing, which of course can change from time to time.
The Level Crossings Act 1983 enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make an order that may specify in detail the protection to be provided, be it a full or half-barrier, lights or road markings and the railway signalling or other means whereby the train is given the right to proceed over the crossing. The order-making procedure can be used to alter the protection at a crossing in the light of changed circumstances or experience. I think that this is what has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
The safety of a level crossing, particularly a half-barrier crossing, depends partly on the road user using the crossing correctly. A determined or impatient driver may skirt round a half-barrier, sometimes with disastrous results. If a crossing is regularly misused or for some reason more than usually prone to incidents,
122WH
Railtrack, the legal operator of the crossing in the great majority of cases, may need to examine the reasons for the problem and how it can be minimised.
In 1997, the Level Crossings Act was amended to increase the circumstances in which the Secretary of State could make a new order in relation to a crossing. Previously, an order could be made only if the crossing operator—in this case, Railtrack—agreed. Now, the Secretary of State has the power to make an order with or without Railtrack's agreement.
Mr. Hammond: Can orders specify a maximum barrier down time? In other words, can the Secretary of State secure the protection for road users that I am concerned about?
Mr. Jamieson: When the Secretary of State takes a decision, the rail and road issues are given equal weight. He weighs the matter up, considering the views of Railtrack, the highway authority and any other authority that is involved. In most cases, level crossing orders are made on the Secretary of State's behalf by the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate. It examines all the circumstances and consults the relevant local authorities, including the highway authority. I think that, on highway matters, Runnymede council is the agent for Surrey county council. The inspectorate generally holds a local meeting to hear the views of local residents, businesses and rail users.
In the vast majority of cases, a solution that is acceptable to the railway inspectorate, users, local authorities and others can be found. In a small number of cases, it may be difficult to find a solution that is acceptable to all. For example, a high level of protection at a crossing, such as a full-width barrier, may result in the crossing being closed to road traffic for longer periods and that may exacerbate road congestion. In such cases, the parties may consider more radical solutions, such as removing the crossing and replacing it if necessary with a bridge or tunnel, which has the great benefit of eliminating most of the risk inherent at the level crossing. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that alternative is not possible on the site that we are discussing because of the lie of the land.
In the absence of agreement, the Secretary of State may become involved. He would need to take account of the views of the Health and Safety Executive and other interested parties in coming to a decision. I repeat that he must give equal weight to the various views with which he is presented.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister is dealing with a case in which Railtrack has proposed a change in the operation of the level crossing. However, I also want to consider a situation in which an existing level crossing is not being changed, but the barrier down time is being significantly increased because additional train paths are being created. Does the Secretary of State have any power to intervene to set a maximum allowable barrier down time?
Mr. Jamieson: As several intricate issues are involved, it might help to make the position clear if my officials wrote to the hon. Gentleman through me, rather than my making it up on the hoof or giving him an incomplete answer. We will then have a complete understanding of the legal situation.

123WH
The incident at Pooley Green level crossing at Egham on 17 October 2000 did not reach the media because of the dreadful events at Hatfield on the same day. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the incident had the potential to be extremely serious. He said that the bus driver had the presence of mind to get the people off the bus. Unfortunately, he did not have the presence of mind not to enter the box on the crossing in the first place, and he put himself and his passengers at serious risk. His exit was blocked by a queue of rush hour traffic heading towards Egham high street and the M25 slip road at junction 13. Within moments of the bus becoming trapped on the crossing, an approaching train started the sequence for the operation of the level crossing. The bus was completely destroyed, and it was fortunate that no passengers were on the train at the time and therefore no injuries. Loss of life and further damage were avoided only because certain events fortunately came to pass.
The Surrey police charged the bus driver with motoring offences and the prosecution was successful. The level crossing is an automatic half-barrier installation and is fitted with road traffic signals. It is operated automatically by the approach of a train. Once the train has started the sequence of operation, the sequence cannot be stopped. I am advised that the level crossing met the required standards when it was last modernised in the late 1970s. However, the Pooley Green level crossing has a poor safety record, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. Some 11 serious incidents have been recorded that resulted in a total of four fatalities since 1983. Road traffic has increased substantially over this period. Those incidents did not occur because of any fault in the barriers or any action
124WH
by Railtrack, but because of the way in which road users try to weave through the barriers before the train arrives. That is highly dangerous and puts at serious risk the driver, those on the train and any pedestrians nearby.
As a result of the continuing investigation into the accident, Her Majesty's railway inspectorate discovered that substantial road user indiscipline at the level crossing was causing serious concern for the safety of rail and road users. There was therefore a reasonable likelihood of further collisions. I cannot overstate the importance of motor vehicle drivers acting responsibly and safely. Unfortunately, the drivers who act responsibly and safely on this and some other crossings are in a minority.
Since the accident in October 2000, there has been a temporary 20 mph speed restriction on the down line, as the hon. Gentleman said. The crossing is sufficiently visible to trains on the up line to allow them to operate at the appropriate line speed. A Railtrack employee now staffs the crossing and monitors the flow of traffic. If necessary, he can make an emergency telephone call to the signal box to ensure that preventive action is taken. Under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, Railtrack was asked to take emergency action on 14 February 2001 to minimise risks to the public. That followed an unannounced visit by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate when problems caused by queuing traffic, red traffic light offences and yellow box marking offences were noted on many occasions during the morning peak hour.
I have not had time to cover several issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, and he made some important points. I answered some of the questions that he asked at the end of his speech but, if he feels that I have not covered other matters in sufficient detail, I will write to him.

Housing (St. Albans)
1.30 pm
Mr. Kerry Pollard: I am delighted to have this opportunity to debate the important topic of key worker housing in my constituency. St. Albans has the lowest unemployment in the country. As a consequence we have a shortage of key workers and skilled workers. My definition of a key worker is a nurse, teacher, police officer and so on, but I accept that someone who is running a business will consider any employee to be a key worker as companies employ only the people that they need to keep the business running.
The special care baby unit at Hemel Hempstead general hospital was going to be closed down due to lack of staff. One of the prime reasons for not being able to recruit was the lack of affordable housing either to rent or buy. Housing in St. Albans is among the most expensive in the country and the area has one of the smallest rented sectors in the country. Indeed as the local Member of Parliament with a salary two and a half times the national average I could not afford to buy a modest three bed semi-detached house in the constituency. I was therefore pleased when the Government recognised that the provision of key worker housing was vital to many constituencies, particularly in eastern and south-eastern regions.
In the first bidding round for extra funds for key worker housing Hertfordshire did less well than our neighbours. The Tory county council complained vigorously about that. At the same time I pointed out to the Minister for Housing and Planning, Lord Falconer, that our need was greater than almost anywhere else. I was delighted therefore when Hertfordshire came out top in the second round. The Government acknowledged our great need.
It is not just the Government who have been keen supporters and providers of key worker housing. The investment bank Schroders have taken up the cause. A recent article in The Observer states:
"Have investment bankers at Schroders been smoking dope? What else could explain straight-laced money men investing £45 million in building homes for essential workers at below market rents?"

Schroders is making a nice return on its investment. In that instance everyone wins.
I have to point out the hypocrisy of Tory-controlled Hertfordshire county council which complained about the lower than average grant for key worker housing when at the same time it is selling off its own housing stock. Even when I wrote to challenge the leader of the county council about that, he wrote back that before any more houses were sold he would personally have to approve the sale. There was no admission of any inconsistency or thanks for bringing it to his attention or an undertaking that sales would now be stopped.
With the concentration on key worker housing, developers have quickly cottoned on to that and are now substituting key worker provision for general social housing provision. Their reasoning is that key workers are perceived as more preferable neighbours than those housed by registered social landlords. Being cynical, I suspect that developers prefer a police officer to an ex-prisoner being housed. That could add to the selling price of the homes on a development that has key
126WH
worker as opposed to general social housing. St. Albans council has recognised that preference by developers and has conditioned a recent planning decision specifically prohibiting key worker and insisting on general social housing. That is the subject of an appeal by the developer with everybody awaiting the outcome with great interest.
Councils should include in their district plans a yearly target for key worker housing and an appropriate policy. Once the target has been planned for, councils can refuse further key worker units and insist on the provision of general social housing. Once planning permission has been refused, the planning inspectorate must support that decision if it is challenged by the developers—and there is no doubt that they will regularly challenge. If the planning inspectorate does not support it, it drives a coach and horses through all the local district council's policies and will not help with social, general or key worker housing provision. All participants understand what is possible and what is required.
Our public services are suffering as a result of the lack of affordable housing because they cannot recruit staff. One way of helping is to provide homes specifically for these workers—key worker housing. The Government have recognised the problem and allocated additional ring-fenced funds. All the extra money is for homes for sale, but we should also provide rented homes for key workers.
Finally, I would like to highlight an innovative key worker scheme in my constituency. An office block that stood empty for two years with no potential buyers—despite being actively marketed—has been secured by Try Homes with a view to demolition and building flats in its place. I was approached to facilitate this proposal and, after bringing together Try Homes and Hightown Praetorian housing association—one of the major local suppliers of registered social housing—a planning application was submitted. It included one and two-bedroom flats with shared amenity space and a small office for Try Homes. The site is close to the railway station, city centre and other amenities. It is also in a mainly residential area with a similar block of flats opposite.
The uniqueness of the scheme is that the developers have agreed to keep 40 per cent. of the homes available for key workers to rent. The housing association has put together a package that involves no public subsidy and allows the rents to be borne by an £18,000 annual income, making them affordable for teachers, police officers and all the other key workers outlined earlier. Overall, it amounts to 40 per cent. key worker provision, homes for rent, no public subsidy and affordability.
The scheme has received widespread support within St. Albans—from headteachers, the Bishop of St. Albans, health trusts and many others. St. Albans is at the cutting edge of housing provision and the scheme has national implications. However, local authority planners are not sure whether to recommend approval.
We need much more affordable social housing in St. Albans, as we currently house some families in bedand-breakfast accommodation. We also need key worker housing. The Government are helping with special provision for key workers. I have tried to show how active partnering can provide homes and that the

127WH
Try Homes-Hightown Praetorian scheme is ground breaking. It will be to our council's credit if it approves it.
1.37 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) on securing the debate on key worker housing in St. Albans. I am well aware of his extensive knowledge of, and interest in, housing issues in St. Albans and the south-east, and of his successful work in arranging annual conferences on the subject.
I should like to explain the Government's proposals for resolving St. Albans' housing problems, and the general programmes to help key workers and secure more affordable housing, including the planning system. I shall also comment on the tension between providing housing for key workers and increasing pressure on the same funds for general social housing and tackling homelessness. Such tensions are acute in London and the south-east.
I shall not comment on the current council planning application. My hon. Friend has made his case, but the Secretary of State may have an important role and I do not want to prejudice any decisions.
Schools, hospitals, the police and other public services are vital. In London and the south-east, public services operate in a competitive market and have to compete for skilled staff.
My hon. Friend is right to argue that the private sector also experiences problems with recruiting skilled staff. There are skill shortages in some parts of London and the south-east. However, I agree that we should take a narrower approach to key workers, partly because of the role of public services in underpinning the economy. For example, we must ensure that young people leave school with the right kind of skills for today's job market.
My hon. Friend outlined the difficulty and pressure experienced by key workers in finding affordable housing, which is well understood in London and the south-east. I pay tribute to the excellent results achieved by key workers in my hon. Friend's constituency because, despite their difficulties, teachers in St. Albans helped Hertfordshire to achieve GCSE results that are among the best in the country, and the police helped to ensure that the area has the lowest crime rate in the east of England.
Staffing difficulties in the special care baby unit in Hemel Hempstead general hospital were also mentioned by my hon. Friend. He takes a particular interest in such issues because he is a sponsor of the Royal College of Midwives. The West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS trust acknowledges the lack of adequate accommodation for staff that has caused problems in attracting nurses to the hospital, although I understand that a post has not yet been refused specifically on those grounds. The hospital is working with English Partnerships to develop new accommodation for nurses, although it will not be ready until next year. I hope that it will help to meet some of the real pressures on nurses looking for accommodation in the St. Albans area.
128WH
In recognition of the difficulties faced by key workers, the Government published the Green Paper "Quality and choice: A decent home for all" in April 2000, which set out our policies on home ownership. It included existing schemes and proposals for a new initiative to help people into low-cost home ownership—the starter home initiative.
The aims of the initiative were to help key workers—especially health workers, teachers and police—to buy homes within a reasonable distance of work, thus promoting a culture of opportunity, choice and self-reliance, and giving people more of a stake in their neighbourhoods; to ensure that key workers could buy homes in areas where high demand and prices may otherwise price them out of communities to whom their services are vital; to support other housing related objectives that contribute to the regeneration or development of an area; and to promote a better mixture of housing tenures to achieve more sustainable mixed income communities.
One aspect of providing housing for key workers in London and the south-east is that housing policies must take cognisance of people's housing aspirations and not force them to live in homes that they do not want. We have identified that many key workers prefer home ownership to other types of housing, so the starter home initiative tries to meet those aspirations.
The Government made available £250 million in 2001–02 and 2003–04 in support of the scheme, which is already up and running. The bulk of that, some £230 million, was made available in the first round. It was allocated to 95 schemes in September 2001 to help 8,000 key workers buy homes within a reasonable travelling distance from their place of employment. The schemes included share ownership, equity and interest free loans primarily for the purchase of existing properties on the open market. New-build schemes were also provided to allow key workers to purchase using starter home initiative equity loans or through shared ownership.
In St. Albans, that meant that Aldwyck housing association was successful in obtaining funding based on a county-wide bid under the first round. It will make offers to key workers, including some in St. Albans, during the next few weeks. I shall ask my officials to ensure that my hon. Friend is kept informed about the allocations.
Additionally, Ridgehill housing association was successful in securing funding. It has worked with Hertfordshire constabulary and is providing police officers with three properties in St. Albans that are divided into smaller units. The units are for rent and will be ready in the next few months. My hon. Friend mentioned the need to provide homes for rent under the starter home initiative. Ridgehill is also providing grants to allow key workers to purchase their own homes. It is working with a police officer in St. Albans who will purchase a property with a grant. It is expected that more grants will be approved during the coming year.
In the wider picture, many of the successful bidders in the first round were registered social landlords. Some developer bids were successful and they will be implemented in conjunction with RSLs, who will administer and claim the grant. Other successful bidders

129WH
included local authorities, an unregistered housing association and a charitable care and support organisation.
The second round of the starter home initiative involved the allocation of £20 million of the budget as equity loans of £10,000 each to help 2,000 key workers in high-cost areas outside London in which further assistance was required beyond that provided by the allocations that were made in September 2001. My hon. Friend is correct that that round addressed a wider area than the first round, which was heavily concentrated on London. There has been a welcome and positive response to the allocations.
Assistance under the second round of the starter home initiative will focus on people who are able to purchase a home with less assistance than that provided by the first round. I am pleased that bidding for the second round is well under way following guidance that was issued in 2002. As my hon. Friend said, Hertfordshire, including St. Albans, is targeted for assistance. Bids are due back on 16 March 2002, and we will be able to announce the successful schemes in May 2002.
I am aware of the disappointment in Hertfordshire that bids for the first round of starter home initiative funding were scaled back. Indeed, several Hertfordshire Members have written to me about that. Nationally, we received bids amounting to over £520 million. That substantially outweighed the available budget of £250 million, so all large bids had to be scaled back. However, the over-subscription of the scheme highlighted that it was popular and that people required such assistance.
We decided to allocate the bulk of the starter home initiative funding—£230 million—in the first round because it was considered important to get the schemes up and running. That was done by careful evaluation of the bids while taking account of a range of factors, such as affordability of housing to people on modest incomes, the proposed assistance to allow key workers to purchase properties, administration costs and whether additional financial contributions were provided by other sources.
However, in the first round, £7 million was allocated to help 267 key workers in Hertfordshire. The second round includes funding to help a further 127 key workers throughout Hertfordshire—70 nurses and other essential health staff and 57 teachers—with equity loans of £10,000 each. If the bids for the second round of the starter home initiative are forthcoming and gain approval, we will have given £8.27 million of support to help a total of 394 key workers throughout Hertfordshire. Of course, that includes people in St. Albans.
The use of the shared ownership scheme has been especially important because it combines the aspirations that key workers and others have for home ownership with the advantages of low-cost ownership. That has been particularly beneficial for people who might have the prospect of a higher salary further down the line, but who start out on modest incomes.
My hon. Friend has pointed out the kinds of prices and financial pressures that people can face when they are starting out and have to pay for high-cost housing. However, I have visited shared ownership schemes
130WH
where people who are on modest incomes are able to look at buying their own home—albeit, to start with, they will have a smaller share of the equity. I have visited homes occupied by, for example, a fireman and a teacher, or a nurse and a teacher, who have been able to move out of rented accommodation. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows more than I do about the costs of private sector rented accommodation in the area that he represents, but I know of some people who have been able to move out of expensive private sector rented accommodation in a high-demand, high-value area, and into a shared ownership home, where they find that their net outgoings on housing have considerably decreased, and that they have secured a home for themselves.
Other initiatives are being taken to build on shared ownership—and similar schemes—to ensure that we can alleviate some of the current pressures on key workers in high-demand, high-value areas of London and the south-east. The starter home initiative complements other measures that we are taking. We are determined to help key workers find affordable housing. There has been criticism that the starter home initiative is too small. It cannot hope to provide accommodation for all the key workers who want it, but it has succeeded in doing some pump priming of a wide variety of different schemes that will maximise the amount of affordable housing in London and the south-east.
The Government's determination to meet some of the real pressures on key workers in London and the southeast has been highlighted by the establishment in my Department of an affordable housing unit, with a remit to put into place, by the end of 2002, measures that will significantly increase the delivery of affordable housing within three years. Those measures will include bringing empty properties back into use, and the initiatives that my noble Friend Lord Falconer, the Minister for Housing and Planning, has recently announced with regard to looking at ways of using air space by building above low-rise properties to ensure that we provide more housing units.
A great deal of discussion is also taking place about the use of the planning system to ensure that we procure more affordable housing in any housing development—there is even discussion about requiring that from commercial and other types of development. In London, there has been a high-profile discussion about whether we should be looking for 50 per cent. affordable housing. Under the current planning system, St. Albans' local plan requires housing developments to contain 25 per cent. affordable housing. If those kinds of policies are rigorously enforced, that will help to ease some to the pressures on key workers.
We are consulting on radical proposals for more effective delivery of affordable housing through the planning system. The new tariff-based approach that we are proposing as part of the consultations around the planning Green Paper, and associated documents, will mark a radical change from the current planning system. It will ensure that planning is more responsive to the community's affordable housing needs. In many areas we expect the provision of affordable housing—including key-worker housing, where that is a priority need—to be the main beneficiary of this approach.
Mr. Pollard: Does my hon. Friend agree that key-worker housing should be additional to the 25 per cent. requirement, rather than form part of it? In my constituency in particular, and throughout the east and south-east, there is a great need for key-worker housing. However, we also have an overwhelming need for affordable social housing. I alluded in my brief speech to families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That has happened in the past two years, but it did not happen in the 10 years previous to that, and it causes tension. Developers have cottoned on to that need, and are trying to substitute key-worker housing for general affordable housing. We must address that.
Ms Keeble: My hon. Friend has raised a number of issues, and I shall certainly deal with them. There is no definition of affordable housing, but we do not necessarily mean it to be social housing for rent. It could be affordable housing to buy. On requiring key worker housing from the planning system, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point that I made at the beginning of my speech. We are considering mixed-tenure developments in order to ensure that we do not have monolithic single-tenure estates like those built in the past, which we are now knocking down.
It is essential that local authorities have a clear understanding of housing needs in their locality. When considering economic growth, provision needs to be made for any consequential growth in the social infrastructure, such as demand for school places and health services. That provision must include affordable housing for key staff. Authorities need to be innovative in how they deliver the right mix of accommodation, as they will often provide private developers to procure it and to consider different types of tenures and financial arrangements within a housing development.
Many innovative approaches are being developed locally to St. Albans. For example, in Stevenage surplus business premises are being brought back into use as flats for letting, and Watford and Three Rivers share funding and letting arrangements for new developments. Authorities need to consider whether they should fund shared ownership schemes if they are needed. They might consider the type of developments being made elsewhere. Private sector developers will
132WH
engage in quite sophisticated partnership arrangements, both with housing associations and with local authorities, to make sure that they have a range of different types of tenures and prices within one housing development. That would mean that residents did not have the social stigma of being a council tenant or a housing association tenant as opposed to a private owner-occupier.
Spending on affordable housing has increased. Funding for the affordable housing programme delivered by the Housing Corporation is set to increase to more than £1.2 billion by 2003–04. That is almost double the 2000–01 level. Key workers will also benefit from our empty homes strategy and our planning agreements for the inclusion of affordable housing in new developments.
In conclusion, affordable housing provided through development is just one way of maximising the opportunities that lie around us. Many of the initiatives that I have mentioned will result in more and better housing in incremental amounts. Together, those initiatives will make a real difference to key workers in St. Albans and other areas with the same difficulty. I am pleased that my hon. Friend highlighted the fact that it is also important to make sure that there is adequate provision of subsidised social housing for people who need to rent it. Often in discussions about London and the south-east there is tension between the needs of key workers and the need for general social housing. Quite often, the needs of the second group are ignored.
There are no simple solutions to the problem. We need to work with our partners in the private sector, in housing associations and in local authorities to make sure that we get the right type of housing, the right mix of tenures and the right prices. We and our partners need to make the best use of land and investment to create more homes and widen the range of housing on offer. I hope that I have set out clearly some of the Government's approaches, and that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that the Government are aware of the problems of key workers and are taking action that will specifically benefit his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the turnover of staff, broken down by type was in each region in each year since the inception of the CPS. [35947]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]: The available turnover figures are set out in table 1 and table 2.

  Table 1: Crown Prosecution Service—staff turnover

  Turnover rate

  As at now 1 January 2002

  1 April 2001

  1 April 2000

  Avon and Somerset

  3.6

  3.6

  13

  Bedfordshire

  3.9

  6.9

  15.5

  Cambridgeshire

  9.6

  20.5

  5.7

  Cheshire

  5.7

  7.9

  8.2

  Cleveland

  5.9

  6.1

  7.3

  Cumbria

  1—

  1—

  8

  Derbyshire

  12.4

  8.3

  5.3

  Devon and Cornwall

  2.7

  4.1

  5.1

  Table 2: Crown Prosecution Service—staff turnover

  Turnover rate

  31 March 1999

  1 April 1998

  1 April 1997

  1 April 1996

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1994

  Headquarters

  7.4

  22.7

  7.5

  0.7

  1.3

  0.8

  Anglia

  9.7

  8.8

  0.6

  0.9

  0.2

  1.0

  East Midlands

  4.9

  6.5

  0.8

  0.6

  1—

  0.6

  Humber

  6.8

  9.4

  1.1

  1.1

  1.4

  0.8

  London

  10.6

  11.6

  1.6

  0.6

  0.9

  0.4

  Mersey/Lancs

  6.8

  6.7

  0.7

  1—

  0.3

  1—

  Midlands

  7.5

  11.6

  1.8

  0.8

  0.2

  0.3

  North

  5.0

  2.6

  0.6

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North West

  7.9

  6.5

  2.4

  0.5

  0.3

  0.3

  Severn Thames

  9.4

  15.2

  2.2

  0.3

  0.8

  0.9

  South East

  8.5

  15.3

  1.1

  0.5

  0.4

  0.5

  South West

  8.4

  7.6

  0.7

  0.3

  1.4

  0.4

  Wales

  3.4

  5.8

  1.9

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  Yorkshire

  9.0

  8.7

  1.3

  0.7

  1.0

  1—

  1 Less than 1 per cent.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps are being taken to assess the feasibility of implementing the recommendation made by Sir Robin Auld that the Crown Prosecution Service should take over from the police responsibility for charging defendants at the outset of a prosecution. [41697]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General has agreed with the Home Secretary that the Crown Prosecution Service and police should pilot the proposals over a period of six months in five different areas: in Bath, the Medway area, Essex, the Wrexham area and in Halifax. The objective of the pilot is to identify the practical implications of implementing Sir Robin's
  308W

  Table 1: Crown Prosecution Service—staff turnover

  Turnover rate

  As at now 1 January 2002

  1 April 2001

  1 April 2000

  Dorset

  6

  2.4

  1—

  Durham

  2.9

  5.2

  1—

  Dyfed Powys

  5.5

  1—

  17

  Essex

  7.4

  3.1

  11

  Gloucestershire

  1.9

  9.3

  4.7

  Greater Manchester

  7.4

  6.7

  10.5

  Gwent

  1.3

  1—

  4.7

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  8.6

  8.2

  10.4

  Headquarters

  6.4

  10.6

  12

  Hertfordshire

  11.7

  12.1

  11.6

  Humberside

  10.5

  15.3

  9

  Kent

  5

  9.6

  6.1

  Lancashire

  2.8

  5.4

  3.5

  Leicestershire

  7.2

  4.9

  5

  Lincolnshire

  4.1

  12.6

  4.6

  London

  8.4

  12.9

  11.6

  Merseyside

  5.7

  4.1

  3.2

  Norfolk

  8.7

  7

  6.9

  North Wales

  14.8

  8.2

  3

  North Yorkshire

  8.4

  7

  9.9

  Northamptonshire

  1.8

  7.9

  2.1

  Northumbria

  5.8

  4.8

  2.2

  Nottinghamshire

  6.2

  4.8

  1.6

  South Wales

  5.1

  4.7

  4.3

  South Yorks/Admin.

  6.8

  3.9

  8

  Staffordshire

  3.7

  1

  5.1

  Suffolk

  1.4

  5.9

  2.1

  Surrey

  8.5

  12.1

  7

  Sussex

  4.4

  5.2

  13.1

  Thames Valley

  9.9

  8.4

  17.9

  Warwickshire

  9.8

  10.1

  12.6

  West Mercia

  5.5

  7.4

  6.6

  West Midlands

  6.5

  5.1

  9.8

  West Yorkshire

  5.4

  6.4

  6.9

  Wiltshire

  4

  2.4

  9.4

  1 Less than 1 per cent.

  recommendation that the Crown Prosecution Service should determine the charge in all but minor, routine offences or where, because of the circumstances, there is a need for a holding charge before seeking the advice of the Service. Where there may be practical difficulties, the pilot will seek to identify how these can best be overcome. The Crown Prosecution Service and ACPO have been working closely together to set up the pilot which commenced on 18 February 2002. An evaluation report will be produced in autumn 2002.

  Further details of the pilot are contained in a background note, copies of which I have caused to be put in the Libraries of both Houses.
  309W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what budget was allocated to each CPS region; and how much of the annual budget was allocated to training, in actual terms and as a percentage of the total budget in each year since its inception. [35943]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]: The table shows the non-ring-fenced running cost(NRFRC) budget allocated to each Area, the amount of this budget locally allocated by each Area to fund

  Analysis of training budget against non ring fenced running cost budget allocations to areas

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Area

  NRFRC

  Training

  Percentage

  NRFRC

  Training

  Percentage

  NRFRC

  Training

  Percentage

  01 Avon and Somerset

  3,460,000

  20,520

  0.59

  3,782,397

  6,500

  0.17

  4,426,805

  16,500

  0.37

  02 Bedfordshire

  1,464,000

  7,000

  0.48

  1,521,180

  10,000

  0.66

  1,753,584

  6,200

  0.35

  03 Cambridgeshire

  1,849,000

  7,000

  0.38

  1,912,600

  4,870

  0.25

  2,363,320

  23,000

  0.97

  04 Cheshire

  2,859,025

  20,000

  0.70

  2,911,600

  8,806

  0.30

  3,576,900

  20,000

  0.56

  06 Cleveland

  2,046,000

  5,000

  0.24

  2,132,350

  1,000

  0.05

  2,572,056

  3,500

  0.14

  07 Cumbria

  1,787,600

  6,000

  0.34

  1,785,500

  5,000

  0.28

  2,056,160

  9,000

  0.44

  08 Derbyshire

  2,447,663

  13,000

  0.53

  2,578,450

  8,555

  0.33

  3,136,018

  26,800

  0.85

  09 Devon and Cornwall

  3,266,665

  17,900

  0.55

  3,444,300

  9,050

  0.26

  3,964,709

  21,725

  0.55

  10 Dorset

  1,442,000

  10,035

  0.70

  1,502,780

  2,000

  0.13

  1,811,252

  10,400

  0.57

  11 Durham

  1,794,000

  9,000

  0.50

  1,976,204

  12,000

  0.61

  2,302,056

  13,000

  0.56

  12 Dyfed Powys

  1,619,000

  8,000

  0.49

  1,728,500

  11,800

  0.68

  1,973,107

  11,250

  0.57

  13 Essex

  3,362,495

  3,000

  0.09

  3,420,800

  15,250

  0.45

  4,100,900

  13,750

  0.34

  14 Gloucestershire

  1,380,000

  10,000

  0.72

  1,425,418

  5,000

  0.35

  1,624,686

  17,800

  1.10

  15 Greater Manchester

  9,415,075

  20,000

  0.21

  9,752,500

  19,706

  0.20

  11,293,480

  40,378

  0.36

  16 Gwent

  1,967,112

  19,803

  1.01

  2,062,500

  23,200

  1.12

  2,483,882

  20,100

  0.81

  17 Hampshire

  4,324,158

  7,992

  0.18

  4,831,235

  9,000

  0.19

  5,692,740

  20,544

  0.36

  18 Hertfordshire

  2,007,729

  5,000

  0.25

  2,209,060

  2,000

  0.09

  2,731,565

  6,700

  0.25

  19 Humberside

  2,463,000

  17,738

  0.72

  2,508,000

  8,763

  0.35

  2,808,450

  12,716

  0.45

  20 Kent

  3,943,894

  15,444

  0.39

  4,237,750

  6,564

  0.15

  5,016,453

  33,115

  0.66

  21 Lancashire

  5,261,511

  20,000

  0.38

  5,439,141

  28,000

  0.51

  6,323,380

  50,000

  0.79

  22 Leicestershire

  2,415,070

  11,070

  0.46

  2,544,600

  3,227

  0.13

  3,085,080

  10,900

  0.35

  23 Lincolnshire

  1,585,000

  13,085

  0.83

  1,643,960

  17,560

  1.07

  1,832,528

  15,936

  0.87

  24 Merseyside

  5,675,323

  4,200

  0.07

  5,977,367

  20,000

  0.33

  6,957,480

  66,000

  0.95

  25 Metropolitan and City

  27,787,531

  116,000

  0.42

  28,585,703

  130,000

  0.45

  34,940,980

  160,000

  0.46

  26 Norfolk

  1,876,000

  8,000

  0.43

  2,008,210

  4,600

  0.23

  2,407,060

  5,000

  0.21

  27 Northamptonshire

  1,576,430

  9,600

  0.61

  1,710,025

  30,050

  1.76

  1,998,580

  52,100

  2.61

  28 Northumbria

  5,430,400

  17,000

  0.31

  5,762,178

  16,715

  0.29

  6,929,696

  87,500

  1.26

  29 North Wales

  2,140,400

  9,000

  0.42

  2,132,872

  4,500

  0.21

  2,361,101

  5,677

  0.24

  30 North Yorkshire

  1,933,000

  0

  0.00

  2,008,095

  6,000

  0.30

  2,188,262

  5,000

  0.23

  31 Nottinghamshire

  3,926,140

  17,950

  0.46

  4,151,900

  7,000

  0.17

  4,773,597

  8,799

  0.18

  32 South Wales

  4,977,000

  34,329

  0.69

  5,138,183

  9,720

  0.19

  5,961,745

  36,917

  0.62

  33 South Yorkshire

  3,746,000

  7,557

  0.20

  4,004,200

  6,000

  0.15

  4,687,606

  8,782

  0.19

  34 Staffordshire

  2,983,400

  10,000

  0.34

  3,129,200

  8,500

  0.27

  3,569,740

  15,500

  0.43

  35 Suffolk

  1,530,000

  2,000

  0.13

  1,698,422

  0

  0.00

  2,069,760

  4,800

  0.23

  36 Surrey

  1,861,421

  21,367

  1.15

  1,827,633

  19,468

  1.07

  2,130,113

  6,900

  0.32

  37 Sussex

  3,203,300

  44,172

  1.38

  3,306,661

  5,616

  0.17

  3,872,722

  33,012

  0.85

  38 Thames Valley

  4,452,580

  31,174

  0.70

  4,706,700

  22,100

  0.47

  5,229,848

  25,000

  0.48

  39 Warwickshire

  1,003,000

  2,400

  0.24

  1,041,400

  3,319

  0.32

  1,144,080

  500

  0.04

  40 West Mercia

  2,737,116

  13,730

  0.50

  2,831,352

  4,700

  0.17

  3,171,313

  13,000

  0.41

  41 West Midlands

  8,835,565

  46,800

  0.53

  9,770,500

  54,500

  0.56

  11,360,398

  38,100

  0.34

  42 West Yorkshire

  7,315,000

  57,500

  0.79

  7,809,185

  31,419

  0.40

  9,159,749

  54,900

  0.60

  43 Wiltshire

  1,365,000

  9,247

  0.68

  1,405,600

  7,800

  0.55

  1,570,400

  3,160

  0.20

  Total

  156,514,603

  728,613

  0.47

  164,356,211

  609,858

  0.37

  193,413,341

  1,033,961

  0.53

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what progress has been made in respect of Cm 3960, Summary of the report, paragraph 26, concerning the shift in CPS priorities from involvement in relatively minor cases to serious crime cases in the Crown Court. [35965]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]: The CPS is making steady progress implementing changes to deliver the reforms recommended by Sir lain Glidewell in his review of the CPS to bring about better justice.

  The CPS has been restructuring its front-line operation, working more closely with the police in the preparation
  310W
  training courses in actual terms and then as a percentage of the NRFRC budget.

  The figures are shown for each year since the establishment of a 42 Area structure in the CPS. They exclude the costs of trainee time attending courses and the associated travel and subsistence costs. These are not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  of magistrates and Crown Court cases, by establishing co-located criminal justice units and trial units, which focus resources towards the more serious cases and better support for victims and witnesses. By the end of March 2002, the CPS will have 51 dedicated trial units in place across 29 areas, focusing efforts on Crown Court cases. These structural changes are enabling early legal advice before charge, to ensure that prosecutions are built on secure ground. The CPS and police are currently piloting the recommendations of Sir Robin Auld that the CPS should take over responsibility from the police for determining the charge from the outset of the case.
  311W
  More Crown Prosecutors are benefiting from greater exposure to Crown Court proceedings and their skills, experience and expertise in dealing with the more serious cases are being developed. The CPS is presently training 100 Crown Prosecutors annually to secure accreditation as Higher Court Advocates with full rights of audience to appear in the Crown Court on a more regular basis. They have gained positive feedback from the judiciary.

  To support Crown Prosecutors, a modern IT infrastructure has been deployed providing a suite of up-to-date electronic legal reference products and a new electronic case management application is planned for 2003. More lawyers, caseworkers and administrative staff have been recruited in the last 12 months, from resources provided by the last spending review.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Justice Reports
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to publish draft legislation covering the recommendations of the(a) Halliday and (b) Auld reports and the results of the subsequent consultations. [40005]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Responses to the public consultation exercise on John Halliday's report "Making Punishments Work" were published on 4 February 2002. Those to Lord Justice Auld's report on the Criminal Courts have been made available on the Criminal Courts Review website.

  The Government are currently considering the recommendations of both reports in the light of those responses, with the intention of setting out its position in a White Paper later this year. Until the legislative programme for next Session has been finalised, it is not clear when there will be an appropriate opportunity to publish legislation in draft.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the departmental report on the aftercare treatment of victims of miscarriages of justice. [38360]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The report of the independent study has contributed useful material for further development of proposals but it does not stand alone, and was an internal document not designed for wider circulation.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the central unit for the advice for victims of miscarriages of justice. [38363]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The Home Office has established a working group that is considering how best to provide an advice and information service for wrongfully convicted prisoners. Proposals will come forward from the working group shortly but, as yet, no decisions have been taken.

  Taliban/Al-Qaeda
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any persons believed to have fought in Taliban or Al-Qaeda forces are known to have returned to the UK; and if he will make a statement. [39713]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: No such persons are known to have returned to the United Kingdom to date.

  Gun Licences
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many gun licences, and for which type of weapon, are held(a) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency, (b) in the Teesside area, (c) in each police force area and (d) in the UK. [38249]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Office collects numbers of firearm and shotgun certificates for each police force area in England and Wales. The numbers of certificates, and weapons held on those certificates, are given in the table.

  Firearm certificates cover a range of weapons. From incomplete returns, about 73 per cent. of the weapons held under 'firearms' certificates are rifles, with the remainder including section one shotguns and those handguns that remain legal, such as muzzle loading handguns and humane killers.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Certificates on issue at 31 December 2000, and weapons covered

  Police force area

  Firearm certificates

  Firearms covered by certificates

  Shotgun certificates

  Shotguns covered by certificates

  Avon and Somerset

  4,812

  12,064

  21,230

  47,570

  Bedfordshire

  1,323

  3,305

  6,908

  14,920

  Cambridgeshire

  2,531

  5,598

  14,238

  32,060

  Cheshire

  2,412

  5,525

  12,688

  27,797

  Cleveland

  774

  1,760

  2,503

  5,159

  Cumbria

  3,059

  6,478

  10,427

  21,360

  Derbyshire

  2,441

  5,777

  12,237

  28,855

  Devon and Cornwall

  8,171

  15,181

  34,291

  72,516

  Dorset

  2,682

  5,507

  10,919

  24,241

  Durham

  2,095

  4,795

  6,348

  12,845

  Essex

  3,957

  10,565

  21,291

  46,638

  Gloucestershire

  2,337

  5,436

  11,591

  25,243

  Greater Manchester

  2,013

  4,992

  9,067

  20,039

  Hampshire

  4,419

  11,440

  21,196

  48,485

  Hertfordshire

  1,859

  4,866

  10,754

  24,552

  Humberside

  2,607

  4,938

  10,352

  25,079

  Kent

  3,730

  19,213

  21,731

  145,417

  Lancashire

  2,493

  6,233

  212,054

  27,223

  Leicestershire

  1,704

  3,614

  11,109

  27,244

  Lincolnshire

  3,426

  7,619

  16,100

  39,263

  London, City of

  32

  228

  38

  74

  Merseyside

  1,091

  2,735

  4,027

  7,778

  Metropolitan police

  5,399

  14,265

  28,139

  55,099

  Norfolk

  3,414

  9,076

  21,144

  53,405

  Northamptonshire

  2,156

  5,411

  9,547

  21,619

  Northumbria

  3,396

  7,550

  9,285

  20,662

  North Yorkshire

  5,434

  11,310

  18,760

  38,114

  Nottinghamshire

  1,633

  4,863

  9,299

  22,567

  South Yorkshire

  1,566

  3,705

  8,198

  16,602

  Staffordshire

  2,291

  5,885

  14,256

  31,627

  Suffolk

  3,505

  6,493

  17,591

  40,946

  Surrey

  2,710

  8,245

  13,083

  28,297

  Sussex

  5,443

  15,052

  22,008

  47,962

  Thames Valley

  6,229

  16,794

  28,902

  65,095

  Warwickshire

  1,710

  4,183

  9,069

  19,473

  West Mercia

  5,497

  13,369

  30,311

  65,654

  West Midlands

  1,703

  4,651

  9,998

  21,043

  313W

  Certificates on issue at 31 December 2000, and weapons covered

  Police force area

  Firearm certificate s

  Firearms covered by certificates

  Shotgun certificates

  Shotguns covered by certificates

  West Yorkshire

  2,583

  6,182

  10,993

  23,009

  Wiltshire

  2,633

  6,341

  12,096

  27,762

  Dyfed-Powys

  3,047

  4,855

  18,689

  35,606

  Gwent

  940

  2,481

  6,884

  14,510

  North Wales

  2,326

  14,018

  13,834

  128,083

  South Wales

  1,780

  4,251

  9,348

  19,390

  All forces

  125,363

  296,849

  2602,533

  1,320,883

  1 Estimate

  2 Revised since earlier publication

  Immigration Act Detainees
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Immigration Act 1988 detainees are held in prisons in England and Wales. [38102]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest available information on the number of persons detained under Immigration Act 1988 powers relates to 29 December 2001. The number of detainees held in prisons in England and Wales is given in the table.

  Immigration Act detainees as at 29 December 20011

  Place of detention

  Number

  Dedicated Immigration Service wings2

  330

  Other prison establishments3

  335

  Total3

  665

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Persons detained at the dedicated Immigration Service wings at Haslar, Lindholme and Rochester

  3 Includes 270 persons detained under dual immigration and other powers.

  The temporary use of spaces in a number of local prisons ended in mid-January 2002, as did the use of the accommodation at Her Majesty's Prison (HMP) Rochester. In addition, the dedicated detention facilities at HMP Haslar and HMP Lindholme were redesignated formally as immigration removal centres on 8 February 2002, thus requiring them to operate under Detention Centre Rules rather than Prison Rules. These changes will be reflected in the quarterly asylum statistics which will be published on 31 May 2002 on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

DEFENCE

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the public-private partnership for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. [41452]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made in the House on 24 July 2000,Official Report, columns 77–79 about our decision to implement the Core Competence model for the DERA public-private partnership. Under this approach, on 1 July 2001 around three-quarters of the former DERA organisation was vested with its assets as QinetiQ, a wholly Government
  314W
  owned company. For strategic reasons, the remainder was retained within Ministry of Defence as the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory to carry out functions that could not appropriately be transferred to the private sector.

  Since the vesting of QinetiQ as a company on 1 July 2001, work has concentrated on preparing the company for sale, options for which were through a flotation or strategic partnership. We have now completed a comprehensive review of the available options for the transaction route and timing in conjunction with specialist advisers and QinetiQ's senior management. Although flotation has always been our preferred route, as we have consistently stated, the priority is to achieve a successful move into the private sector with a transaction that clearly achieves best value for the taxpayer. We believe that a flotation under current market conditions would not realise this, yet delay could lead to a damaging loss of momentum. We have, therefore, decided that the strategic partner route offers the best potential for a transaction within 2002, offers value to the taxpayer and meets our objective of a successful public-private partnership.

  A strategic partner would work closely with QinetiQ and contribute significantly to growing the overall value of its business, from which the taxpayer would benefit through MOD's initial retention of a significant financial interest in the company. MOD will also retain a special share as a means of protecting UK defence and security interests.

  Confidential discussions with potential strategic partners will now begin, and it is expected that a preferred partner will be selected, and agreements signed, later this year.

  Departmental Leave Entitlements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the average annual leave entitlement of staff in his Department in each of the last four years. [31739]

  Dr. Moonie
  Within the Ministry of Defence there exist slight differences in annual leave entitlements between members of the Senior Civil Service, non-industrial staff and industrial staff.

  Over the whole period, Senior Civil Servants have received the maximum 30 days on entry, whereas non-industrial staff have received 25 days on entry and then the maximum 30 days after 10 years' reckonable service.

  Industrial staff are divided into two categories, those at Industrial Technician level and those below. In 1998, Industrial Technicians received 26 days on entry, 28 after five years' reckonable service and 29 days after 10 years' reckonable service. In 1999, the maximum entitlement was increased to 30 days after 10 years' reckonable service. Other industrial staff received 24.5 days on entry in 1998, which was increased to 25 days in 1999. In 1998, they received and still do, 26.5 days after five years' reckonable service. In addition, the maximum entitlement, awarded after 10 years' reckonable service, has been increased annually from 27 days in 1998 to 30 days in 2001.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's total expenditure by month in each financial year since 1997–98. [32790]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 692W.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many employees in—(a) his Department and (b) his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98; what the total cost is; and if he will make a statement. [32313]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: The Civil Service Management Code specifically precludes the provision of private medical insurance as part of any structured remuneration package. Consequently, private medical insurance is not a feature of Ministry of Defence civil service employment. The employees of MOD's non-departmental public bodies are not civil servants although, in practice, their terms and conditions are partially modelled on civil service lines. One of the MOD's non-departmental public bodies—the Oil and Pipelines Agency—does offer private medical insurance to its employees. The numbers of annual costs since 1997–98 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of employees

  Cost pa (£000)

  1997–98

  110

  4.4

  1998–99

  7

  5.0

  1999–2000

  8

  5.9

  2000–01

  8

  5.0

  2001–02

  5

  6.2

  1 Estimate

  The number of staff taking up the option of private medical insurance has diminished over the years because it constitutes a taxable benefit, which many find increasingly unattractive.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost of his Department's website was in real terms in each of the last four years; and how many hits it received in each of those years. [36137]

  Dr. Moonie
  Direct costs for the Ministry of Defence's departmental website http://www.mod.uk are recorded for expenditure on contractual support—web design, maintenance and hosting—and staff costs for the central MOD website team. Total costs for the four-year period from April 1998 to April 2002 are as follows:

  Financial year

  £

  1998–99

  54,000

  1999–2000

  100,000

  2000–01

  153,000

  2001–02

  202,000

  Usage of the MOD website began to be measured on a monthly basis in December 1997. The figures for
  316W
  2000–01 are rounded extrapolations based on data recorded between June 2000—December 2001. Hits for the four-year period from December 1997 to December 2001 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  December 1997—December 1998

  4,576,859

  December 1998—December 1999

  18,195,760

  December 1999—December 2000

  20,700,000

  December 2000—December 2001

  26,200,000

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in each of the last four years. [36197]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not record paid time off for trade union duties by days but by percentage of their overall work time. The following table shows the number of employees who are allowed paid time off for trade union activities, the percentage of their time allowed and the cost for each of the past four years.

  Numbers of TU representatives

  percentage

  0–10

  11–49

  50–99

  100

  Total

  Cost (£)

  1997–98

  Industrial

  478

  64

  11

  21

  574

  788,576

  Non-industrial

  722

  113

  13

  37

  885

  1,858,958

  1998–99

  Industrial

  455

  66

  12

  19

  552

  920,671

  Non-industrial

  824

  105

  17

  35

  981

  2,265,064

  1999–2000

  Industrial

  426

  71

  16

  24

  538

  1,228,087

  Non-industrial

  758

  108

  27

  34

  927

  2,037,451

  2000–01

  Industrial

  360

  89

  17

  21

  487

  1,123,993

  Non-industrial

  700

  106

  21

  36

  863

  2,181,641

  We do not collect the information for trade union representatives in the Service Museums which are non-departmental public bodies.

  Building Works
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of new builds, demolitions, rebuilds and PFI projects in his Department in each of the last 10 years. [39465]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information available on the cost of new builds is contained in UK Defence Statistics 2001 (Table 1.8 page 18). Information on demolitions and rebuilds could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Gender Free Physical Training
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many women have been injured as a result of gender free physical training; [39502]
  317W
  (2) how many claims for compensation have been received from female recruits injured during gender free physical testing; [39503]

  (3) how many person-days have been lost as a result of injuries sustained in gender free physical training; [39504]

  (4) what has been the cost of treating women injured as a result of gender free physical training. [39505]

  Mr. Ingram
  Numbers of women injured since 1 April 1998, when "Gender Free" testing and training was introduced have not been separately identified. Gender distributions have been monitored on the basis of medical discharges rather than on individual injuries received. For completeness, however, the following table shows the numbers of individuals attending a general practitioner at the various Army Training Regiments (ATRs) recorded as having injuries due to training or with other injuries or disease that could be related to training. The data cover both male and female trainees and trainers alike (although the vast majority are trainees) and is expressed as a rate per 1,000 per month:

  Reason

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Injuries due to military training

  204.74

  188.05

  120.70

  Musculo-skeletal diseases

  74.48

  70.70

  63.79

  Knee disorders

  47.41

  50.34

  47.28

  In 1999–2000, the combined rate for female medical discharges due to injury for all Phase 1 training establishments was 4.8 per cent., when the female to male ratio of injuries among trainees was 6:1. In the following year, this combined rate dropped to 3.5 per cent. and the ratio also fell to 3.5:1. This reduction was attributable, at least in part, to changes introduced into the selection and initial training regime, as a result of the recognised higher rate of female injury in the training system.

  Similarly, the number of person-days lost as a result of injuries sustained directly as a result of gender free testing and training cannot be easily identified. The following table shows the number of working days lost as a result of injuries due to training or with other injuries or disease that could be related to training injuries and is again expressed as a rate per 1,000 personnel per month at the ATRs:

  Reason

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Injuries due to military training

  207.55

  211.06

  165.23

  Musculo-skeletal diseases

  108.21

  97.79

  92.43

  Knee disorders

  62.80

  67.73

  63.93

  With regard to compensation claims, the Ministry of Defence does not record separately those cases brought against the Department by female recruits injured during gender free physical training. Again, the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Costs associated specifically with treating women injured as a result of gender free physical training cannot be readily identified. The Army training authorities are constantly working to reduce the numbers of individuals injured in training and therefore the costs associated with this, both in actual treatment costs and in respect of the number of training days lost.

  Deployments
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the mission types for British Forces. [38509]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The broad missions we have identified for the armed forces, as set out in paragraph 29 of Defence Policy 2001, published in February last year, are:

  Peacetime Security

  To provide forces needed in peacetime to ensure the protection and security of the United Kingdom, to assist as required with the evacuation of British nationals overseas, and to afford military aid to the civil authorities in the United Kingdom, including military aid to the civil power, military aid to other Government Departments and military aid to the civil community.

  Security of the Overseas Territories

  To provide forces to meet any challenges to the external security of a British Overseas Territories (including overseas possessions and the sovereign base areas) or to assist the civil authorities in meeting a challenge to internal security.

  Defence Diplomacy

  To provide forces to meet the varied activities undertaken by the Ministry of Defence to dispel hostility, build and maintain trust, and assist in the development of democratically accountable armed forces (thereby making a significant contribution to conflict prevention and resolution).

  Support to Wider British Interests

  To provide forces to conduct activities to promote British interests, influence and standing abroad.

  Peace Support and Humanitarian Assistance Operations

  To contribute forces to operations designed to prevent, contain and resolve conflict, in support of international order and humanitarian principles, and to contribute to efforts to deal with humanitarian crises and disasters.

  Regional Conflict and Crisis

  To contribute forces for a regional conflict (but not an attack on NATO or one of its members) which, if unchecked, could adversely affect European security or which could pose a serious threat to British interests elsewhere, or to international security. Operations are likely to be carried out under the auspices of the UN or relevant regional security organisations.

  Regional Aggression against NATO

  To provide forces needed to respond to a regional crisis or conflict involving a NATO ally which calls for assistance under Article 5 of the Washington treaty.

  Strategic Attack on NATO

  To provide, within the expected warning and readiness preparation times, the forces required to counter a strategic attack against NATO.

  These defence missions form a sound basis for planning, but they can be, and are, adjusted from time to time.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the exercises outside Europe undertaken by the British Armed Forces in 2001 and the unit which took part. [38507]
  319W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The exercises that UK Armed Forces took part in outside Europe are listed in the table:

  Exercise

  Location

  Unit

  Atlantic Drive

  Ascension

  64CRE

  Turtle Heritage

  Ascension

  CVHQRE

  Turtle Truss

  Ascension

  71 Engr Regt

  Longlook

  Australia

  Tri-Service Individuals

  Suman Warrior

  Australia

  1 D and D

  Initial Link

  Bahrain

  E3D

  Cygnet Goose

  Belize

  30 Sig Regt

  Native Trail

  Belize

  1 RWF

  Native Trail

  Belize

  7 RHA

  Panther Cub

  Belize

  1 RGBW

  Panther Cub

  Belize

  1 D and D

  Panther Cub

  Belize

  1 D and D

  Panther Cub

  Belize

  2 Para

  Panther Cub

  Belize

  2 Para

  Panther Cub

  Belize

  2 Para

  Sailfish

  Belize

  36 Engr Regt

  Thirsty Panther

  Belize

  521 Stre

  Diamond Cutter

  Botswana

  1 R Irish

  Ulu Rajah

  Brunei

  Cast North

  Bass Rock

  Canada

  22 Regt RA

  Cross Check

  Canada

  C130

  Fingals Cave

  Canada

  KCR

  Maple Flag

  Canada

  10 x JAG, 9 x F3, VC10

  Maple Flag

  Canada

  10 x JAG, 9 x F3, VC10

  Medicine Man

  Canada

  1 Staffords

  Medicine Man

  Canada

  1G

  Medicine Man

  Canada

  KRH

  Medicine Man

  Canada

  RDG

  Pond Jump West

  Canada

  1 RGJ

  Pond Jump West

  Canada

  1 WG

  Snow Shoe

  Canada

  Gren Gds

  Snow Shoe

  Canada

  Gren Gds

  Western Vortex

  Canada

  GR1 Sqns

  Western Vortex

  Canada

  GR1 Sqns

  Western Vortex

  Canada

  GR1 Sqns

  Western Vortex

  Canada

  GR1 Sqns

  Western Vortex

  Canada

  GR1 Sqns

  Western Vortex

  Canada

  GR1 Sqns

  Western Vortex

  Canada

  GR1 Sqns

  Western Vortex

  Canada

  GR1 Sqns, F3 Sqn

  Bell Buoy

  Chile

  NCS Org

  Bright Star

  Egypt

  PJHQ

  Cape Petrel

  Falklands

  CBFFI Forces

  Cape Petrel

  Falklands

  CBFFI Forces

  Falkland Sound

  Falklands

  21 Sig Regt

  Kelp Drive

  Falklands

  12(AS) Engr Bde

  Kelp Drive

  Falklands

  12(AS) Engr Bde

  Kelp Drive

  Falklands

  12(AS) Engr Bde

  Kelp Fire

  Falklands

  12(AS) Engr Bde

  Purple Strike

  Falklands

  CBFFI Forces

  Purple Strike

  Falklands

  CBFFI Forces

  Sea Trout

  Falklands

  29 Regt RA

  Red Stripe

  Jamaica

  1 PWO

  Golden Sands

  Jordan

  1 KORBR

  Saffron Sands

  Jordan

  1 Cheshire

  Crab Apple

  Kenya

  38 Engr Regt

  Grand Prix

  Kenya

  1 LI

  Grand Prix

  Kenya

  1 Para

  Grand Prix

  Kenya

  1 RRF

  Mono Prix

  Kenya

  1 RRW

  Oak Apple

  Kenya

  35 Engr Regt

  Pine Apple

  Kenya

  33 Engr Regt

  Sharp Point

  Kenya

  5 GS Med Regt

  Lucky Sentinel

  Kuwait

  JFHQ, 1 BDE(-)

  Lads Adex

  Malaysia

  HMS Gloucester

  320W

  Exercise

  Location

  Unit

  Stardex

  Malaysia

  HMS Gloucester, FDU,

  Nimrods

  Burning Bush

  Morocco

  Gib Regt

  Himalyan Bluebell

  Nepal

  4 BN REME

  Pacific Kukri

  New Zealand

  1 RGR

  Boron Mercury

  Oman

  JFHQ & SIGS Sqn

  Magic Carpet

  Oman

  Jaguar

  Magic Roundabout

  Oman

  Nimrod

  Magic Roundabout

  Oman

  Nimrod

  Magic Roundabout

  Oman

  Nimrod

  Rocky Lance

  Oman

  1 PWO

  Saif Sareea 2

  Oman

  1(UK), ARMD Div,

  1 Mech Bde, 4 Armd

  Bde, RDG, 4 Regt RA,

  21 Engr Regt, 1 IG 2 CS

  Regt RLC, 1CS Med

  Regt, 1 BN REME, HMS

  Cornwall, HMS

  Monmouth, RFA

  Oakleaf, 11 Sqn RAF,

  12 Sqn RAF, 617 Sqn

  RAF, No 1 ACC

  Saif Sareea Mapex

  Oman

  PJHQ, JFHQ

  Adventure Exchange

  Turkey

  AMF(L) Elements

  Anvil Ghost

  Turkey

  1 RECCE Bde, 1 Arty

  Bde, 7 AD Bde, 29 Engr

  Regt, HQ CSSG, 3 Div

  UAE CPX

  UAE

  PJHQ, JFHQ

  UAE FTX

  UAE

  RM Coy

  Air Warrior

  USA

  GR7

  Blue Flag

  USA

  JFAC HQ

  Civil Bridge

  USA

  CA GRP

  Cope Thunder

  USA

  9 x F3, VC10

  Cope Thunder

  USA

  9 x F3, VC10

  Flying Rose

  USA

  12 Engr Bde

  Flying Rose

  USA

  12 Engr Bde

  Georgian Cormorant

  USA

  JSCSC

  Impact

  USA

  58 FD Sqn

  Initial Look

  USA

  HQ JFAC

  JEFX

  USA

  JFACHQ

  JIATF

  USA

  Nimrod

  JIATF

  USA

  Nimrod

  JIATF

  USA

  Nimrod

  JRTC

  USA

  C130

  JTFEX

  USA

  GR4, FA2, SU

  JTFEX

  USA

  E3D, Nimrod

  JTFEX

  USA

  Nimrod

  Kernel Blitz

  USA

  FDG

  Leapfest

  USA

  ITC Catterick

  Red Flag

  USA

  GR4, F3, JAG, VC10

  Red Flag

  USA

  GR4, F3, JAG, VC10

  Red Flag

  USA

  C130, GR7

  Red Flag

  USA

  GR1/4

  Red Flag

  USA

  GR1/4

  Red Flag

  USA

  GR1/4

  RM COM GP EX

  USA

  RM COY

  Rum Punch

  USA

  Nimrod

  Sea Dragon

  USA

  RM COY

  Stonewall

  USA

  42 CDO

  Stoneyrun/Millrace

  USA

  3 Para

  Torpedo Focus

  USA

  GR 1

  Unified Endeavour

  USA

  JFAC HQ

  Updated information indicates that British forces took part in 33 exercises (including one multinational exercise) in the USA in 2001 as listed in the table, compared with 29 unilateral and bilateral exercises identified in the answer I gave on 9 January 2002, Official Report, column 831W to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).

  Armed Forces Pensions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to award armed forces pensions to those who served before 1975; and if he will make a statement. [39486]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have no plans to award armed forces pensions to those who served before 1975 and left before qualifying for benefits.

  Armed Service Pensions were awarded to those who served before 1975 but only to those who completed the necessary qualifying periods of 22 years (from age 18 for other ranks) and 16 years (from age 21 for Officers). Prior to 1975 there was no requirement for pension schemes to preserve benefits for those who left the scheme early. The Armed Forces Pension Scheme is not unique in this respect; the same provisions applied to all pension schemes both in the public and private sector. However, the qualifying periods for the Armed Forces Pension Scheme were less than for most other schemes at that time. In addition, those who left before qualifying for pensions, but had completed nine years (for Officers) 12 years (for other ranks), were paid a gratuity. The provisions were changed in 1975 to meet with the requirements of the Social Security Act 1975 but, in keeping with the policy of successive Governments, the provisions were not made retrospective.

  Airships
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the potential for airships to contribute to(a) airborne early warning, (b) large cargo carrying, (c) surveillance operations, (d) anti-submarine warfare, (e) landmine removal and (f) naval minesweeping. [39927]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is monitoring developments in airships and hybrid air vehicle (HAV) technology, as we do other novel concepts. Recent military airship trials and assessments, in the context of a specific surveillance capability requirement, together with commercial progress in this area gives us confidence that the technology is sufficiently mature to contribute to meeting future capability requirements.

  Airships and HAVs have a number of generally common characteristics that need to be considered when assessing their suitability for particular roles. They are relatively cheap compared with manned winged or rotary aircraft; can loiter for sustained periods in suitable weather conditions; and are generally significantly larger and slower than other types of aircraft. Potentially, they could carry significantly more payload than a winged aircraft, although increases in lift capacity increase the overall size dramatically. Recent military trials and assessments have indicated that, while their size makes them relatively easy to visually identify and target, they are relatively difficult to target by other means, and difficult to destroy. Airships are generally expected to have less maintenance and infrastructure requirements than conventional air vehicles, and the challenges in manpower intensive ground handling have been largely overcome.

  For airborne early warning, which is one type of surveillance operation, the potential to loiter for long periods could be a useful characteristic, although the high
  322W
  speed winds at the altitudes required for large-area coverage can limit this ability. The high visibility of airships limit their suitability for some surveillance roles.

  For large cargo carrying, although slower than other aircraft types, the potential carrying capacity of future airships could be attractive, as demonstrated by the commercial interest in developing them in this field. However, we currently plan for the UK's future strategic and tactical airlift requirements to be met from 2010 by a combination of C130 Hercules and A400M aircraft, and have no current endorsed requirement for additional strategic lift.

  For anti-submarine warfare, airships and HAVs could in future provide a potent platform for maritime patrol, through, for example, monitoring dispersed sonar buoys. However, we have no additional endorsed requirement for maritime patrol for some time, given the procurement of the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft.

  Research has been conducted into the possibility of using airships for the detection of minefields. While this research is primarily intended for military use, the possibility of humanitarian mine-clearance has also been addressed. The ability to detect minefields from an airship remains a probability, but it is unlikely that such a system would be able to find all the individual mines, particularly anti-personnel mines, and a complementary land-based location and clearance system will still be needed.

  If HAVs that could land on water and use organic sonars or deploy unmanned underwater vehicles could be developed, their low sonar signature and relatively high speed compared with ships could be expected to have advantages for other types of anti-submarine warfare and naval minesweeping and hunting. Concept work is considering what contribution airships or HAVs might make to the solution for the Future Surface Combatant capability requirements, when the current frigate classes leave service. It is likely that concept work for future minesweeping/hunting requirements will consider what contribution these technologies might offer.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the operational status is of the Skyship 6000 Airship ZH762; and what plans there are for further RAF trials with airships. [39926]

  Mr. Ingram
  Airship ZH762 was sold in 1998 following completion of trials for which it was purchased. There are currently no plans for any further RAF trials with airships.

  War Graves Commission
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the grave sites the War Grave Commission maintains in Egypt; how much money is allocated to their upkeep; and how many are buried there, broken down by military personnel who fought in the(a) Suez Canal zone emergency 1951 to 1954 and (b) Suez crisis 1956. [40457]

  Dr. Moonie
  The graves sites maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in Egypt are:

  Abbasiya Indian Cemetery

  Alamein Cremation Memorial

  Alexandra (Chatby) British Protestant Cemetery

  323W

  Alexandria (Chatby) Jewish Cemetery No.3

  Alexandria (Chatby) Military and War Memorial Cemetery

  Alexandria (Hadra) War Memorial Cemetery

  Aswan Bandar British Cemetery

  Cairo New British Protestant Cemetery

  Cairo War Memorial Cemetery

  El Alamein War Cemetery

  Fayid War Cemetery

  Halfaya Sollum War Cemetery

  Heliopolis War Cemetery

  Ismailia War Memorial Cemetery

  Kantara War Memorial Cemetery

  Manara Indian Muhammadan Cemetery

  Moascar War Cemetery

  Old Cairo New Latin Cemetery

  Port Said British Protestant Cemetery

  Port Said Muhammadan Civil Cemetery

  Port Said War Memorial Cemetery

  Suez African and Indian Army War Cemetery

  Suez War Memorial Cemetery

  Tel El Kebir War Memorial Cemetery.

  The Commonwealth War Graves Commission does not keep financial records by country. However, they have advised that their approximate expenditure on maintaining graves in Egypt for 2001 was in the order of £600.000.

  The total number of graves in the twenty four cemeteries is 32,144. This figure includes world war graves, non-world war graves, service dependants, civilians and foreign nationals.

  Detailed figures for the two periods are not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many members of the British Armed Forces are stationed in Macedonia; what activities they are involved in; and if he will make a statement; [40611]

  (2) how much longer he expects there to be a UK military presence in Macedonia; and if he will make a statement. [40610]

  Mr. Ingram
  At any one time there are approximately 12 UK Armed Forces personnel working in Macedonia as part of the headquarters of NATO's Task Force Fox and in support of KFOR. Some may be allocated to both. So long as there is a requirement for these or successor forces provided by NATO, we expect to contribute a number of British Armed Forces personnel to them.

  In addition, three UK Armed Forces Personnel are providing advice to the Macedonian Ministry of Defence as part of a bilateral Outreach programme; we expect them to remain until the programme is complete.

  One UK Army officer has been seconded to the British Embassy in Skopje as Defence Attaché

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has made as to the total extra cost to 324W
  his Department in relation to Afghanistan in the financial year 2001–02; and from where these funds are being made available. [40422]

  Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1133–34W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). This sum has been made available from the reserve and the conflict prevention budget.

  Secondments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff in his Department have been seconded to jobs in the(a) private and (b) public sector in each of the last four years. [31780]

  Dr. Moonie
  Secondments form a valuable part of the Ministry of Defence's Interchange programme, which promotes the exchange of individuals and best practice between the civil service and other sectors of the economy.

  The information requested is as shown.

  Private sector

  Private sector (DESG)1

  Public

  1997–98

  28

  128

  8

  1998–99

  8

  155

  26

  1999–2000

  22

  130

  16

  2000–01

  13

  104

  6

  1 The MOD's Defence Engineering and Science Group (DESG) arranges industrial placements for graduate trainees and students in engineering and science disciplines. These short-term secondments are recorded separately to distinguish them from those longer-term secondments from the Department to the private sector.

  Television Sets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) integrated digital and (b) analogue television sets have been bought by his Department in each of the last 24 months; and if he will publish the guidance given to officials making decisions on television purchases. [33238]

  Mr. Moonie
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: There is no central point within the Ministry of Defence that purchases televisions and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  As with the purchase of all of the Ministry of Defence's goods and services, the normal rules and principles of good public procurement apply. Budget holders must ensure that the purchase represents value for money and is supported by a sound business case.

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal costs have been incurred by his Department in each of the last four years. [34284]

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

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many days have been lost owing to industrial action by staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [36177]

  Dr. Moonie
  771 man days were lost as a result of strike action in the Ministry of Defence, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in the past four years. This arose from an industrial dispute in July and August 2000 involving Royal Fleet Auxiliary personnel who were members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Industrial action short of a strike is not recorded in terms of man days lost.

  Keel lay

  Launch

  Delivery to AWSR

  1st vessel—Hurst Point

  21 January 2002

  19 April 2002

  16 August 2002

  2nd vessel—Hartland Point

  8 October 2001

  11 April 2002

  21 October 2002

  3rd vessel—Eddystone

  22 April 2002

  16 August 2002

  1 November 2002

  4th vessel—Anvil Point

  1 March 2002

  23 July 2002

  21 January 2003

  5th vessel—Longstone

  19 August 2002

  8 November 2002

  31 January 2003

  6th vessel—Beachy Head

  31 January 2003

  14 February 2003

  30 April 2003

  Airlift/Sealift Capability
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to improve the(a) airlift and (b) sealift capability of the Armed Forces; and if he will make a statement. [40615]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have already improved our strategic airlift and sealift capabilities in the short term, by leasing four C-17 aircraft, which provide a new outsized airlift capability, and by introducing the provisional strategic sealift service, so that there are now three rather than two ships available for this task. In the medium to longer term, we are in the process of procuring a PFI strategic sealift service (which will ensure that the MOD can call upon six roll on/roll off vessels when required, with four permanently available), and 25 A400M aircraft.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what projects are being scaled back as a result of the transfer from capital to resource DEL announced in the supplementary estimates 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [40423]

  Mr. Ingram
  Budgetary allocations are regularly revised in year to reflect actual progress on capital projects as well as changing priorities and requirements. The transfer from capital to resource DEL is within the Treasury authorised flexibility for the current year. Even after the transfer, there has been an overall net increase to the Ministry of Defence's capital DEL since the main estimates published in April 2001.

  Private Military Companies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what private military companies have licences in Britain; what work they are involved in; and if he will make a statement. [38799]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  Strategic Lift Transport Ships
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the dates are for(a) lay-down, (b) launch and (c) delivery of each of the strategic lift transport ships. [40316]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: As announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 26 October 2001, Official Report, column 413–14W, the UK's future strategic sealift capability is due to be provided under a PFI contract between the Ministry of Defence and AWSR Shipping Ltd., to come into full effect from June 2003. The lay down, launch and delivery dates for the six vessels involved are as follows:

  Private military companies based in the UK are not at present subject to a licensing regime in respect of the provision of military services. One of the options set out in the FCO's discussion paper "Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation", published on 12 February, is for the introduction of a licensing regime.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Reproductive Health Services
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to increase women's access to reproductive health services in Africa. [37322]

  Hilary Benn
  Increasing women's access to reproductive health services is a high priority in Africa, where women are affected by poverty, high maternal mortality and, increasingly, by HIV/AIDS. DFID is working with national Governments and other organisations to improve sexual and reproductive health. We invested £150 million on this last year, and expect to invest more this year.

  West Africa
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's programme of development assistance to west Africa. [37323]

  Clare Short
  We maintain a substantial development programme to West Africa, and plan to spend around £130 million and contribute £37 million through the EC over the next three years. We provide further support through the World Bank, Africa Development Bank and UN system.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with her European counterparts regarding aid to west Africa. [37341]
  327W
  Clare Short
  I meet my European counterparts regularly, and discuss West African issues with them as appropriate. In particular I have encouraged other European countries to become more deeply engaged in Sierra Leone, both politically and financially. I travelled to Guinea and Sierra Leone with the French Development Minister last May.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the prospects for peace, justice, improved human rights and development in Sudan. [37324]

  Clare Short
  I believe that 2002 offers a real window of opportunity to bring Africa's longest running conflict to an end. I am convinced that with greater international pressure on the main parties, Sudan can be helped towards a just and lasting peace. The human rights of the people of Sudan can be better protected with peace and a stable social and economic environment in place throughout the country. The same applies to the consideration of Sudan's longer-term development needs. Development partnerships will not be effective without peace and political stability.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to promote peace and development in Sudan. [37330]

  Clare Short
  We are working with the FCO, to increase the international effort to bring about peace in Sudan. Efforts have been stepped up following my visit to the country in January when I was able to discuss the prospects of peace with Sudanese leaders on both sides of the conflict.

  I believe the UK can play a significant role in helping resolve the conflict and that our involvement would be welcomed by both sides. The Prime Minister recently announced the appointment of a UK special Representative for Sudan who will be answerable jointly to myself and the Foreign Secretary and supported by a dedicated team drawn from both Departments. He is working closely with the US and Norway and we will maintain close liaison at official and ministerial level.

  Long-term development of Sudan cannot be achieved without an end to the war. My Department continues to address urgent humanitarian needs arising from conflict and drought and has provided over £40 million of humanitarian assistance since 1997. We are liaising closely with the World Bank and European Commission to try and ensure that their engagement reinforces the search for peace.

  St. Helena
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made on the construction of an airfield on the island of St. Helena. [37325]

  Clare Short
  A "Comparative Study of Air and Sea Access" was published last July. A copy of the report was placed in the Library of the House. It identified options, which have since been under consideration by the St. Helena Government. As part of that process, the views 328W
  of the islanders have been sought in a referendum. The outcome was a majority preference in favour of air access, as an alternative to replacing St. Helena's dedicated passenger and supply ship. Island representatives are currently visiting the UK to discuss next steps.

  Replenishment Negotiations
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's priorities are for the International Development Association's 13th replenishment negotiations.
  [37326]

  Clare Short
  Our priority for the International Development Association's replenishment (IDA 13) negotiations is to build on the progress achieved under the last replenishment, particularly in consolidating a sharper poverty focus and embedding the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper process as the Lynchpin of the World Bank's engagement in low-income countries.

  The UK has indicated that it is prepared to increase substantially its contribution to IDA 13, depending upon the resolution of policy issues.

  The negotiations are still under way and are facing serious difficulties. We will report to the International Development Committee once the negotiations have been concluded.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the future role of her Department's projects in Zimbabwe. [37327]

  Clare Short
  As I informed the House in April 2001, DFID withdrew from projects with the Zimbabwe Government relating to economic management because these could no longer meet their objectives. This has not impacted on levels of assistance to Zimbabwe, rather it has helped us give greater priority to humanitarian assistance and direct help for the poor.

  We have of course been preparing strategies for the post election situation and will work with others to provide support for any government committed to responsible reform. If there is no such government we will continue to provide humanitarian assistance.

  New Partnership for African Development
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to the New Partnership for African Development. [37328]

  Clare Short
  We strongly support the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) because it is an African owned and led initiative. We are continuing to work within the international community to ensure an appropriate response, including through the G8, which is preparing an Action Plan for Africa to be presented at the Kananaskis Summit.

  We are working closely with the UN Economic Commission for Africa, which has been mandated by NEPAD to develop technical proposals on governance.

  Child Poverty
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to combat child poverty in developing countries. [37329]

  Clare Short
  We seek to reduce the poverty of children, which causes suffering to today's children and jeopardises the well being of future generations, by working to address the causes of deprivation in their communities. Support for children's rights to basic health care, education, nutrition, shelter, protection from violence and abusive labour, along with sustainable livelihoods for their parents, is central to our work towards the millennium development goals.

  We are working to energise the international system to achieve the goals. The goals include the target of, by 2015, lifting one billion people out of abject poverty, universal primary schooling, and reducing under-five child mortality by two-thirds.

  Senegal
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what conclusions she has drawn from Senegal's fight against HIV/AIDS. [37331]

  Clare Short
  Senegal, like Uganda and Thailand has shown that political leadership to fighting the disease is a vital element in slowing the spread of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. These countries have also demonstrated the importance and effectiveness of strategies which promote awareness and behaviour change through information, education and community mobilisation; prevent infection through condom promotion and treatment of sexually transmitted infections; and support and encourage voluntary counselling and testing.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's work in sub-Saharan Africa. [37332]

  Clare Short
  Sub-Saharan Africa suffers the deepest and most widespread poverty of any continent and faces the greatest challenges in meeting the Millennium Development Goals. We have significant programmes in many countries, supporting where possible nationally-owned poverty reduction strategies, both in particular sectors such as health or education, but also through direct support for national budgets. This country-level support is complemented by work at the regional and sub-regional level to help address cross-border issues such as conflict and trade. In 2000–01, total UK bilateral development assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa was £757 million, up from £445 million in 1996–97.

  Afghanistan
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress on the reconstruction of the Afghan economy. [37333]

  Clare Short
  We continue to work with the Afghan Interim Administration (AU) to begin the reconstruction of Afghanistan, while continuing to support immediate 330W
  humanitarian assistance and quick impact recovery and rehabilitation projects. The newly established Assistance Coordination Authority in Afghanistan will be the primary focal point for co-ordination with the AU. The United Nations Development Programme currently administers the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund for the payment of civil service salaries, to which DFID has contributed over £2 million. Later this year the World bank will establish a successor trust fund. We are also participating in missions led by the International Monetary Fund to assess what support could be provided to the Ministry of Finance and the Central bank. At the Tokyo Conference on the reconstruction of Afghanistan in January 2002, I pledged £200 million from DFID's budget over the next five years for both reconstruction and humanitarian assistance.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [37336]

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [37339]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan remains fragile and significant needs will remain for some time to come in challenging and volatile operating conditions. Due to severe weather conditions and continuing security concerns in some areas of the country, there are still pockets of un-met need where vulnerable people cannot be reached. With our support, the United Nations and other humanitarian agencies continue to do what they can to overcome these obstacles and deliver life-saving assistance to those in need. Since October 2001, a record 250,000 tonnes of food aid have been distributed to over 6 million people.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the UN Economic and Social Council report "Discrimination against women and children in Afghanistan"; and if she will adopt its recommendations in respect of UK operations in Afghanistan. [38130]

  Clare Short
  We welcome the UN Economic and Social Council's report on discrimination against women and girls in Afghanistan and support its recommendations.

  We recognise the need to build the capacity of Afghanistan's women to enable them to take full part in the reconstruction of their society, including the new Interim Administration, and to ensure that legal, constitutional and other provisions are not discriminatory against women. Our funding for support of Afghan women during the recovery and reconstruction of Afghanistan is being channelled through United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations who will work closely with the Interim Administration and who have expressed a commitment to involving Afghan women in the design and implementation of their strategies and programmes.

  To date this includes an allocation of $1 million to the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) for a programme to support Afghan women's leadership through awareness raising, capacity building and mainstreaming of gender issues in development activities; $0.5 million to the UN Office of the High Commission for Human Rights (OHCHR) for preliminary

  331W
  human rights assistance activities in Afghanistan; as well as local level, quick impact recovery projects supporting women. We are also in discussion with the Afghan Ministry for Women's Affairs on how we can provide support for its establishment and activities.

  Corruption
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department is taking to help developing countries combat corruption, with particular reference to the security sector. [37334]

  Clare Short
  Our partnerships with developing countries increasingly focus on the reduction of corruption through the establishment of Anti—corruption authorities and by the tightening of financial management and budget discipline, including reducing off-budget defence expenditure; the development of procurement systems designed to ensure thorough appraisal of value for money, transparency and probity; the strengthening of parliamentary oversight mechanisms; and acceptance of a role for civil society in such scrutiny. We are also increasing our focus on Security Sector reform and full democratic accountability and transparent management of this sector.

  Medicines
  Phil Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what policies her Department is pursuing to increase access to medicines in developing countries. [37335]

  Clare Short
  We are committed to working with our developing country partners and other international organisations to address the four key factors which are recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as effecting access to medicines. These are sustainable financing, affordable pricing, reliable health and supply systems and the rational selection and use of existing drugs.

  On sustainable financing, we are supporting, with a commitment of $200 million from DFID's budget over five years, the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, which will help pay for increased coverage of proven interventions for three diseases and some associated health systems strengthening.

  The Working Group on Access to medicines, which I chair is working to bring about more affordable pricing. The UK is also supporting work undertaken by the WHO, World Trade Organisation and the European Commission on drug pricing.

  We have committed over £1 billion since 1997 to strengthening developing countries' health systems, building their capacity both to deliver medicines to the poor and to make effective choices about the selection and use of drugs.

  Great Lakes Region
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the prospects for peace and long-term development in the Great Lakes region. [37337]
  332W
  Clare Short
  The vital element in achieving peace in the Great Lakes region is the full implementation of the Arusha and Lusaka Peace Accords. The Government continue to press all parties to these agreements to honour their commitments. I was encouraged from my recent visit to the Great Lakes that there is now a window of opportunity for achieving peace, provided the commitments expressed to us by Heads of Government are translated into real action on the ground and the international community and Security Council also focus on the full implementation of Lusaka. Key will be the successful implementation of MONUC deployment into eastern DRC, and a positive outcome to the Sun City talks currently underway. Progress in the peace process will enable the international community, finally, to concentrate on a partnership with governments in the region for the long-term development of their countries—an outcome keenly awaited and much needed by the long suffering population of the region.

  Brazil
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the UK's aid contribution is for Brazil. [37338]

  Clare Short: DFID's programme for Brazil supports the fight against poverty through promoting social inclusion, addressing inequality and fostering pro-poor, sustainable growth. The current programme is focused on reducing poverty through improved natural resource management, health and good governance, working with government, civil society and other donor partners.

  Our role, as in other Middle Income countries is to support more effective use of Brazil's resources and resources available from the EC and Development Banks for the reduction of poverty. The UK provided £7.5 million in 2001–02 for technical assistance and DFID provided approximately £2 million (in 2000) through the EC programme.

  Sustainable Fishing
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to promote the development of a sustainable fishing policy in developing countries. [37340]

  Clare Short
  Fisheries make a vital contribution to the livelihoods and nutrition of poor people in developing countries. We are therefore pressing for improvements in international fisheries policies through the World Summit for Sustainable Development, through the review of the Common Fisheries Policy and through our contributions to the rural development and fisheries development strategies of the European Commission. More directly, we promote sustainable fisheries by helping West African countries implement the internationally agreed Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries which, if properly applied, can secure the health of fish resources and the livelihoods dependent on them.

  DFID also has an explicit objective of achieving coherence between the EU's fisheries and development cooperation policies, especially in the way in which fisheries agreements between Europe and developing countries are implemented. The transfer of excess European capacity through such agreements poses serious

  333W
  risks to fisheries in developing countries, many of whom do not have the necessary management capacity. DFID also funds research to clarify and highlight the impacts of these agreements and is pressing the EU/EC at all levels to introduce measures to safeguard both the short-and long-term interests of poor people in the countries concerned.

  World Trade
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on helping developing countries increase their trade with developed countries. [37342]

  Clare Short
  The agreement reached at the Doha WTO Ministerial defining the work programme under the Doha development agenda provides an important potential source of gains to developing countries through international trade. To ensure these gains are realised will require support for continuous improvement of developing countries' capacity to implement and negotiate various elements of international trade agreements. The UK is committed to building capacity in developing countries to increase their gains from international trading arrangements. I recently announced a package of £20 million for trade related capacity building, of which a third will be used to assist developing countries with the new capacity needs arising from the Doha agenda.

  The UK is at the forefront of efforts to ensure that trade related technical assistance by all donors and multilateral agencies is provided within a coherent policy framework, so as to avoid duplication of effort and maximise impact.

  Kenya
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on initiatives to support and promote the implementation of political reforms in Kenya. [37343]

  Clare Short
  The Kenyan Government have reappointed a Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) to make recommendations on how its constitution might be improved. The international community, including the UK, is supporting the work of the CRC and is also financing initiatives to promote civic education in Kenya. The UK and other donors are also helping to strengthen Parliament, including by building the capacity of Parliamentary committees to hold the executive to account.

  Education
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to increase the availability of primary education in the poorest countries. [37344]

  Clare Short
  We are working hard to mobilise the international development system to focus more sharply on the delivery of the commitment to universal primary education by 2015. We have made clear in all forums our view that this goal can only be achieved if primary education is free. We are also working in 29 countries to support delivery of this policy and have since 1997 committed £650 million. We will do more.
  334W
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what recent assessment she has made of the progress being made to achieving the targets set at the World Education Forum at Dakar. [39612]

  (2) what progress is being made in achieving the goal set at the World Education Forum of free universal primary education by 2015. [39613]

  Clare Short
  There are widely different levels of progress against the millennium development goal of achieving universal primary education (UPE) by 2015. In sub-Saharan Africa an additional 88 million children will need to be enrolled in school between 1997 and 2015. This requires a threefold improvement in the rate of expansion achieved from 1990 to 1997. If the current rate of enrolment increase were to be maintained, fewer than half of the 43 countries would achieve even a gross enrolment rate of 100 per cent. by 2015 if this goal is to be achieved. Ten times the previous rate of increase will be needed in countries such as Angola, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Liberia and Somalia. In South and West Asia the rate of enrolment is less challenging; although the overall numbers of children out of school remains high. It is estimated that an additional 40 million children will need to be enrolled to achieve the UPE target and that this will require the same pace of enrolment increase that was achieved from 1990 to 1997.

  Achieving UPE can happen only through reform and action at the country level. But the wider international community, including bilateral and multilateral agencies, have responsibilities and roles in meeting the commitment of the Dakar Framework for Action that
  "no countries seriously committed to education for all will be thwarted in their achievement of this goal by a lack of resources".
  The international response to the Dakar commitment has been slow and has lacked effective co-ordination. At the Education for All High-Level Group meeting convened by UNESCO's Director-General in Paris last October, I presented DFID' s paper "Children out of School" which identifies the different circumstances of children who are not in school and proposes an eight-point plan of action for accelerating progress towards the 2015 target.

  The Government give high priority to addressing this challenge. We believe that UPE can be achieved by 2015 if the lessons of the past are learned and if governments in developing countries put in place the right policies, and receive appropriate external assistance. We have committed over £650 million to support the development of primary education since 1997. We will do more.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the proportion of Britain's aid budget which is spent on health and education; and if she will make a statement. [39614]

  Clare Short
  Health and education are key priorities for the UK's development programme. As well as being fundamental human rights, better quality of and access to health and education are essential if poor people are to benefit from globalisation. Since May 1997, DFID has committed about £800 million to support education in developing countries and over £1 billion on strengthening developing countries' health systems to deliver the health-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
  335W
  agreed by UN Members. Support to health and education has increased steadily as a proportion of the total programme over this period.

  In addition to this bilateral support, and the assistance we are providing to health and education through general budgetary support, DFID provides significant support to wider international efforts to tackle the global health and education dimensions of poverty. For example, we are working to ensure that the international community meets the Dakar Framework commitment that "no countries seriously committed to education for all will be thwarted in the achievement of this goal by a lack of resources". The UK also provides significant support to multilateral agencies tackling the major diseases of poverty. We have taken an active role in establishing the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria (GFATM) and pledged US $200 million over five years.

  A full report of our work on health, education and the rest of our programme can be found in our Departmental Report (the 2002 edition will appear in April). In addition, my department's education strategy paper, "The Challenge of Universally Primary Education", sets out the UK's strategy for delivering the MDG of universal primary education by 2015. Similarly, the UK strategy paper "Better Health for Poor People" details our approach to tackling health issues as part of our wider strategy to eliminate poverty. Both of these papers are available on www.dfid.gov.uk.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish the(a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by her Department to (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte Touche, (ii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34990]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 896W.

  Debt relief
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made on debt cancellation for HIPC countries by multi-lateral financial institutions. [38087]

  Clare Short
  25 countries have so far qualified for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. Ghana reached its Decision Point this week, and up to five more countries could be taken by the Boards of the IMF and world bank by the end of the year. Of the 25 countries, 21 have reached Decision Point and are receiving interim debt relief and four have completed the HIPC process, and are receiving full debt relief. We hope that a further five will reach their Completion Point in the 336W
  next six months. Multilateral financial institutions account for some US$13.7 billion in net present value terms of the HIPC debt relief to these countries. The World Bank is co-ordinating this with the other multilateral financial institutions.

  Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contributions have been made to the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, broken down by country. [38108]

  Clare Short
  Pledges to date amount to over US$1.9 billion. The Department for International Development has pledged £138 million (US$200 million) over five years. Contributions pledged to the GFATM listed by country can be found on the GFATM website at:http://www.globalfundatm.org/contribute.html.

  Governments are now beginning to fulfil their pledges. To date, initial contributions have been received from Italy (US$43.25 million), Belgium (US$4.9 million) and Switzerland (US$3 million). The UK is the process of disbursing its initial contribution of £25 million. Substantial contributions from others should follow shortly. The fund expects to have around US$750 million to disburse in its first year.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the global fund for AIDS, TB and malaria concerning the aptitude of health systems to deliver programmes for the eradication of TB and malaria in developing countries. [38106]

  Clare Short
  My officials are involved in intensive ongoing discussions with the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria (GFATM). These discussions have included the issue of the capacity of health systems to deliver programmes for the eradication of TB and malaria in developing countries.

  The UK Government are strongly committed to health systems strengthening. We also believe that for GFATM to be effective it needs to focus largely on financing the purchase of drugs and commodities in order to add value to other international efforts.

  Broader systems strengthening and multi-sectoral work will continue to require substantial funds which should and will more appropriately come from elsewhere: bilateral and multilateral donors and domestic developing country resources.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her forecast spending is on the UN Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria for each of the next five years. [39468]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development has pledged £138 million to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria (GFATM) over five years, to be disbursed as follows.
  337W

  £ million

  2001–02

  25

  2002–03

  25

  2003–04

  25

  2004–05

  30

  2005–06

  33

  As the fund gets up and running, we will closely monitor its effectiveness and the value it adds to the international effort against the three diseases, and review our contributions accordingly.

  The Global Fund is an independent entity, which draws on the expertise of the UN specialised agencies and others. It is not a UN fund.

  Capita
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many contracts the Department has with Capita; and how much they are worth. [38376]

  Clare Short
  We have one current contract with Capita RAS, to provide a recruitment service for Pillar IV of UNMIK Administration at a cost of £180,000.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by her Department in each of the last four years, specifying the(a) purpose, (b) cost to public funds, (c) number of staff involved and (d)/ method of evaluation in each case. [39095]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID does not run publicity and advertising campaigns.

  Deforestation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has made to the Government of Brazil regarding the deforestation of the rain forests. [38111]

  Clare Short
  I have not made any direct representations to the Brazilian Government regarding deforestation.

  DFID's approach is to support Brazilian efforts to achieve sustainable development in the rain forest regions. Through our bilateral co-operation programme, including the G7 pilot programme to conserve the Brazilian rain forest, to which we have contributed £16 million to date, we aim to support sustainable development initiatives that respond to the development goals of Brazil and its people, particularly the poorest—and maintain environmental benefits. We do this through strengthening the capacity of Brazilian environment and development agencies, piloting new approaches to resource management and increasing knowledge and awareness of the issues.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set out for each civil service grade within her(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies the (i) total number of staff employed, (ii) number aged (A) 16 to 25, (B) 26 to 35,
  338W
  (C) 36 to 45, (D) 46 to 60 and (E) over the age of 60 years, (iii) number of registered disabled and (iv) number of ethnic minorities. [39175]

  Clare Short
  The information requested is shown in the table and reflects the latest recorded position as at October 2001. Details by age grouping are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  DFID does not have responsibility for executive agencies.

  Civil Service grade

  Number of staff

  Registered disabled1

  Ethnic minorities2

  Senior Civil Service

  57

  0

  3

  Grade 6

  128

  2

  0

  Grade 7

  198

  0

  5

  Senior Executive Officer

  102

  0

  3

  Higher Executive Officer

  251

  1

  6

  Executive Officer

  270

  6

  20

  Administrative Officer

  318

  10

  38

  Administrative Assistant

  104

  3

  8

  Total

  1,428

  22

  83

  1 Based on staff who have recorded a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  2 Based on information provided to date voluntarily by staff.

  Bolivia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what requests she has had from the Bolivian Government for help in relation to the floods in La Paz; and what action has been taken. [38409]

  Clare Short
  We have received representations from the Bolivian Government in the aftermath of the flooding, but there was no formal international appeal. We have made an immediate commitment of £10,000 through the British Embassy in La Paz to be directed at assisting and protecting local communities to the south of La Paz which had been the most seriously affected.

  LNM Holdings
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many times her Department has supported applications from(a) LNM Holdings and (b) Mr. Lakshmi Mittal for bank loans. [39141]

  Clare Short
  We are aware of four loans approved by those international financial institutions that my Department is responsible for: Ispat-Sidex in Romania (EBRD), Ispat-Karmet in Kazakhstan (EBRD and IFC), and Caribbean Ispat in Trinidad (IFC). The UK supported all these loans.

  Cameroon
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to combat urban poverty in Cameroon. [39471]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not fund any programmes to combat urban poverty in Cameroon. We contribute to poverty reduction efforts in Cameroon through our support to the forestry sector. This is in recognition of the forestry sector's importance to the Cameroonian economy and the fact that a majority of poor people live in the forest zone.

  Fair Trade
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether fair trade products are sold in her Department. [39836]

  Hilary Benn
  I am pleased to confirm that fair trade products are sold in DFID. All coffee provided for official meetings is fair trade, and fair trade coffee is available to staff from our in-house restaurant. In addition, our caterers are looking into providing additional fair trade products, and are actively promoting fair trade fortnight.

  Rural Development
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of her Department's development spending in(a) sub-Saharan Africa and (b) south-east Asia is provided to the rural sector. [39472]

  Clare Short
  In the last year my Department has committed £374.3 million to projects in support of sustainable rural livelihoods, of which 61 per cent. was in sub-Saharan Africa and 28 per cent. in south Asia.

  In addition, contributions to livelihoods in rural areas were made through funding to global public goods research, contributions to multilateral organisations, funding for national infrastructure, and as contribution to policy in support of poverty reduction, including the role of rural economies and international trade. Much of my Department's spend in areas such as education and health is also in rural areas, which reflects the higher proportion of poor people living in rural areas.

  Given the multi-sectoral, national and international nature of much of the work of my Department, it would take disproportionate time to allocate these costs against rural, regional and other spend, and therefore to present these figures as a proportion of the Department's development spending.

  Africa Private Infrastructure Financing Facility
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds have been allocated to the Africa Private Infrastructure Financing Facility; and when it became operational. [39475]

  Clare Short
  The fund, which is now known as the Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund (EAIF), comprises both equity and loan finance. Equity is being contributed by a group of bilateral donors including Holland, Sweden and Switzerland, in addition to the United Kingdom. My Department has committed £71 million over the period to March 2004. A consortium of commercial banks is providing both senior and subordinated debt, at a current level of about £140 million.

  The first meeting of the board of the company took place on 18 December 2001 in The Hague, while the public launch occurred on 30 January 2002 in London.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects being supported by the Africa Private Infrastructure Financing Facility and indicate how much money has been allocated to each project. [39473]
  340W
  Clare Short
  The facility has now been launched as the Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund. It is currently investigating a number of possible investment opportunities but, since it has been in existence for a short period of time, the board has not yet taken a decision to commit funds to any specific initiative.

  The amount of funding available for investment presently stands at over £200 million. An investment policy has been agreed with the fund managers which will ensure that the projects selected are socially and environmentally sound, and contribute to pro-poor development.

  Women
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the micro-credit agencies supported by her Department are allocated to empower women. [39470]

  Clare Short
  Most clients of micro-finance institutions are women, who use their community banks to make regular saving deposits or to take out loans to expand their manufacturing or trading micro-enterprises. Research shows that micro-finance services can have a hugely positive social and economic impact on poor and socially marginalised women.

  DFID funds many such institutions worldwide. While we do not possess detailed, disaggregated data, we estimate that 70–80 per cent. of our funding for micro-finance directly support women. Many organisations that we support explicitly target women clients. For example, BRAC in Bangladesh serves 4.3 million members, over 98 per cent. of whom are female. We are also making progress in countries where women have limited rights. Over the last five years, we supported the rapid growth of Kashf Foundation in Pakistan, a micro-finance institution dedicated to empowering women. It is entirely female-owned and managed, and serves 10,000 women.

  Likewise, in several African countries we support FINCA, which provides services almost exclusively to women. We also fund Opportunity International's network of micro-finance institutions in five African countries, serving almost 43,000 women or almost 70 per cent. of its total client base.

  Tanzania
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many letters from the public her Department has received regarding the sale of an air defence system to Tanzania. [39469]

  Clare Short
  DFID has received 94 letters from the public and 23 letters from constituents via their MPs regarding the sale of an air traffic system to Tanzania.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the European Union directives and regulations relating to her Department that have been implemented in each of the last four years, specifying(a) the title and purpose of each, (b) the cost to public funds of each and (c) the cost to businesses of each. [39125]
  341W
  Clare Short
  The information requested is not held centrally and providing it would involve disproportionate cost. Regulatory impact assessments are produced for all proposals, including those originating in European legislation, likely to impose significant costs on businesses in the UK and are generally made available in the Library of the House. We do not hold information on the costs of implementation to public funds or businesses.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the job advertisements placed by her Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39058]

  Clare Short
  The information requested on job advertisements which are place through an advertising contract, has been placed in the Library of the House. In addition, advertisements for the position of Director General (Programmes) were placed in "The Times" and "The Economist" at a cost of £11,461.

  Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by her Department in each of the last four years. [38931]

  Clare Short
  My Department has spent the following amounts on(a), in-house canteen and (b) catering services since 1 April 1998:

  £

  In-house canteen services (a)

  Catering services (b)

  1998

  51,025.46

  15,118.02

  1999

  85,728.66

  11,242.02

  2000

  130,495.84

  18,177.59

  2001

  109,303.59

  11,363.61

  EBRD Projects
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects her Department has asked officials at the EBRD to support; and what the value of each of these projects was in each of the last five years. [39142]

  Clare Short
  The EBRD exists to help restructure the economies of former communist countries in central and eastern Europe. We support all responsible projects that serve this purpose. During the last five years for which figures are available (1996–2000) EBRD made commitments to 482 projects (total value of euro 11.7 billion).

  Lists of the projects that EBRD Directors have approved in the years 1996–2000 are available in the Annual Reports on the EBRD website www.ebrd.com. I will place a copy of EBRD's Annual Report for 2001 in the Library when it is published.

  Volunteers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many members of her 342W
  staff in each of the past two years have been granted a day's paid leave to work as a volunteer; and if she will make a statement. [39744]

  Clare Short
  Our formal volunteering strategy was introduced in January 2001. All staff are eligible for one day's paid leave a year to allow them to take part in voluntary activities.

  I cannot provide statistics for the last two years but following the introduction of our strategy, nine staff were granted paid leave during 2001 to undertake volunteering activities. This figure excludes those staff who have used annual leave to enable them to participate in voluntary activities, or who did so out of working hours. For 2002, we have already approved three days paid leave for one individual.

PRIME MINISTER

  Prime Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Ramsbottom [37359]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  City of London Corporation
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those functions, engagements and events which he, his officials and advisers have attended which have been sponsored, funded, promoted and hosted by the City of London Corporation since 1997. [35697]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings. Since 1997, I have regularly attended the annual Lord Mayor's Banquet.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Prime Minister what communications have taken place between himself, his Office and his advisers and the City of London Corporation in relation to the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill since May 1997. [35660]

  The Prime Minister
  I and my advisers have received representations on the importance that the City of London Corporation attach to the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill.

  Volunteers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 701W, on voluntary work, how many members of his staff in 2001 were granted a day's paid leave to work as a volunteer. [39549]

  The Prime Minister
  Our records show that 15 staff who were part of the 2000 project with a school have continued into 2001. There are another 10 staff who have also carried out different activities, including in their local area in 2001.

  A400M
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make representations to Airbus to ensure that a British team(a) leads the planning and (b) provides the powershaft for the A400M heavy lift transport for the RAF. [40563]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government of course hope that the UK defence industry will be involved as much as possible in this project and recognise the considerable expertise that industry could bring to this project. Ultimately, Airbus Military is free to select its own suppliers on the grounds of performance and cost.

  Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Prime Minister what his objectives are for the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Coolum, Australia; and if he will make a statement. [39520]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made in the House today.

  Fort William to London Sleeper Service
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on departmental responsibility for financial assistance for the Fort William to London sleeper service. [40083]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The current arrangement is for the Scottish Executive to fund the franchise payments made by the Strategic Rail Authority to ScotRail, the train operating company which holds the franchise to run this service. For that purpose, the Executive receives a matching transfer of funds, under interim arrangements, from the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Romania
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2002,Official Report, column 1450W ref 39039, (1) whether information on the number of occasions in the past two years he has written to the Prime Minister of Romania about the award of contracts to companies with British interests is available; [40634]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2002, ref 39032, for what reason disclosure of the number of occasions in the past two years that he has written to foreign Governments about the award of contracts to companies with British interests would harm the conduct of international relations or affairs; [40636]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2002, ref 39032, whether information on the number of occasions in the past two years he has written to foreign Governments about the award of contracts to companies is available; [40635]

  (4) pursuant to his answer, of 28 February 2002, ref 39039, for what reason the disclosure of the number of occasions he has written to the Prime Minister of Romania would harm the conduct of international relations or affairs. [40637]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 28 February.

  British Companies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1268w ref 38395, on British companies, what his criteria are for deciding whether to support British companies seeking contracts abroad. [40718]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my previous answer.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 November 2002,Official Report, column 966, what discussions he has had with President Bush in relation to Iraq and the pursuit of international terrorism in all its forms. [37657]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly discuss all aspects of Iraq policy and the campaign against terrorism with President Bush. We share the concerns of all responsible Governments about Iraq's relationship with terrorism and its development weapons of mass destruction.

  Engagements
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official engagements between 3.30 pm and 4.30 pm on Tuesday 26 February. [39805]

  The Prime Minister
  As has already been made public I was meeting the heads of all the Regional Development Agencies.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Staff
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people her Department employed in each of the past seven years; how many of those employees worked on(a) a part-time basis and (b) a full-time basis; and if she will make a statement. [38132]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is set out in the table.

  Average staff in post

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1995

  363

  354

  9

  1996

  350

  339

  11

  1997

  344

  331

  13

  1998

  364

  339

  15

  1999

  375

  358

  17

  2000

  405

  382

  23

  2001

  456

  433

  23

  My Department supports a range of work patterns, including part-time, intended to help staff better manage their work and other responsibilities.

  Volunteers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many members of her staff in each of the past two years have been granted a day's paid leave to work as a volunteer; and if she will make a statement. [39747]
  345W
  Dr. Howells
  My Department does not have a central record of the number of staff who have been granted a day's paid leave to work as a volunteer over the past two years. The Department supports voluntary public service and encourages its staff and managers to take advantage of the extra day's paid annual leave, and other special leave arrangements, which are in place for those who wish to undertake such work.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will answer the question tabled on 22 January Ref. 279, in regard to the New Year's festivities at the Millennium Dome; and if she will make a statement. [39393]

  Dr. Howells
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The hon. Gentleman's original question (29586) was transferred to his Department and I understand that he will be replying today.

  Aldeburgh Festival
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the work of the Aldeburgh Poetry Festival Trust; and what financial assistance and support her Department is giving to the festival. [39543]

  Dr. Howells
  The funding of arts festivals is a matter for the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards. I understand that East England Arts is working closely with the Aldeburgh Poetry Trust to bring about sustainable growth in its activities. The Trust is in the first year of a three year funding agreement with East England Arts which will provide investment of £41,388 over the three years 2001–04.

  Gambling
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) economic and (b) other evaluation has been made of the impact of the independent review of the gambling controls in Great Britain on holiday resorts. [40505]

  Mr. Caborn
  We intend, when announcing our conclusions on the report of the Gambling Review Body, to publish a partial regulatory assessment which will provide an overall assessment of the benefits and costs of the recommendations in the report for the gambling industry and the economy as a whole.

  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people are employed in the manufacture of gaming machines in Great Britain. [40506]

  Mr. Caborn
  Evidence submitted by the industry to the Gambling Review Body indicated that about 1,800 people are directly employed in the manufacture of gaming machines in Great Britain.
  346W
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment her Department has made of the number of jobs created by the gaming industry in each of the last three years. [40524]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not collected. The available information indicates that about 95,000 are currently employed in the gambling industry as a whole.

  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the framework used in the independent review of the gambling controls in Great Britain. [40544]

  Mr. Caborn
  We hope to be able to announce our conclusions on the report of the Gambling Review Body within the next few weeks.

  Lottery Funds
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Department has to ensure that unused Lottery money is allocated in the next six months. [40633]

  Mr. Caborn
  All the income received by the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) is allocated to the distributing bodies. At the end of December 2001, commitments by the distributing bodies to projects totalled approximately £3.82 billion, some £290 million more than the NLDF balance at the same date.

  The Government are working with the distributing bodies to ensure not only that Lottery funds are committed to projects, but that this money is paid over to project operators as quickly as reasonably possible so that good causes derive the greatest possible benefit from the funds raised by the Lottery. We will set out our proposals in more detail in due course.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in her Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40436]

  Dr. Howells
  DCMS travel and subsistence rules encourage staff to use Standard Class travel wherever possible. To obtain best value for money management of the policy is delegated to line management who are responsible for authorisation and economical management of all official travel. While first class travel is permitted for some grades many of them travel at standard class unless, for example, they need extra space or comfort to work during travel.

  Capita
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list all contracts awarded by her Department to Capita since 1997, including(a) start and finish date of contract, (b) value of contract, (c) description of work to be carried out, (d) evaluation mechanism for successful delivery of contract, (e) penalty charges for failure to deliver and (f) if penalty charges have been incurred; and if she will make a statement. [40488]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The information is as follows.
  347W

  Capita

  £

  Year

  1998–99 (January-April 1998)

  Recruitment of Chairman and Members—New Opportunities Fund

  14,000

  1998–99 (January-April 1998)

  Recruitment of Chairman and Trustees—National Endowment for Science and Technology (NESTA)

  13,000

  1998–99

  Recruitment for BBC Appointments

  12,000

  2001–02 (October-November 2001)

  Training for Recruitment Scheme—Middle and Senior Managers

  17,000

  2001–02 (February-March 2002)

  Providing and Marking Standard Civil Service Written Tests

  1,000

  2001–02 (November 2001-February 2002)

  Civil Service Junior Manager Recruitment Scheme

  8,000

  Total

  65,000

  Note:

  Includes Royal Parks (nil return)

  For each contract, DCMS appoints a "Performance Monitoring Officer". His/her satisfaction is the benchmark for success.

  There have been no "penalty charges"—but failure to deliver might lead to the contract being determined, moneys being withheld from the contractor, or the employment of a replacement contractor at the outgoing contractors expense.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Building Research Establishment
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports she has received from the Building Research Establishment on the disposal of the Building Research Establishment library stock. [36478]

  Mr. Wilson
  This is a matter for the Building Research Establishment. However I have asked them to write to my hon. Friend and I have received no formal reports from BRE on the disposal of its library stock.

  Atlantic Frontier Environmental Network
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the membership of the Atlantic Frontier Environmental Network; and what its terms of reference are. [37747]

  Mr. Wilson
  The membership of the Atlantic Frontier Environmental Network (AFEN) varies over time. The most recent list of members is:Agip (UK) Ltd., Amerada Hess, British Gas E&P Ltd., BP Amoco, Chevron UK Ltd., Conoco (UK) Ltd., Department of Trade and Industry, Enterprise Oil plc, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Phillips Petroleum Company UK Ltd., Scottish Executive—Environment and Rural Affairs Department (Fisheries Research Services), Shell UK Exploration and Production, Statoil and Texaco North Sea UK.

  AFEN has a Mission Statement rather than "Terms of Reference". AFEN's Mission Statement is:
  "The Atlantic Frontier Environmental Network will co-operatively work as an industry to understand the key aspects of the Atlantic Frontier region environment and implement
  348W
  monitoring programmes and protection measures necessary to minimise or eliminate adverse impact. The strategy will be implemented by:
  Reviewing, investigating and understanding the natural and physical environment of the Atlantic Margin including:

  Seabed sediments and topography

  Hydrographic phenomena

  Benthic Fauna

  Fishing and associated resources

  Sea mammals, particularly large cetaceans Seabirds.

  Identifying parts of the environment vulnerable to routine Exploration and Production operations and planning pollution prevention or minimisation strategies. Operations would include:

  Seismic

  Drilling

  Production

  Decommissioning

  Assessing the risks and possible impacts of unplanned or emergency pollution incidents and implementing response plans.
  Developing a wider dialogue and consensus with local communities and parties with a legitimate interest in the offshore environment of the Atlantic Margin."

  Development
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how often the Department has applied the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments) to a development by the Department; and if she will make a statement. [38708]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has not applied the special urgency provisions of DOE Circular 18/84 since it took over overall responsibility for the property management of its estate in April 1996. The DTI does not hold centralised property records prior to 1996.

  Electricity
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role she or her officials will play in the DTI study into the electricity transmission and distribution system's resilience; if it will be an independent study; and when and to whom the consultants will report. [39196]

  Mr. Wilson
  The study has been commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry. It is being carried out by the independent consultants British Power International (BPI), who were appointed following a competitive tender exercise. They are managed by a
  349W
  project management team consisting of officials from the Department's Energy Group and a representative from Ofgem. BPI will produce a report for DTI ministers in April 2002. Ministers' role will be to decide on what follow-up action is appropriate.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received concerning extending the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme to retail businesses; and if she will make a statement. [39814]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have received representations from a variety of bodies over a period of time about the reintroduction of retailing as an eligible business activity under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme.

  The Scheme is currently being considered as part of the DTI's wider review of business support.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the role of her Department in the operations of small business/Europe, with respect to(a) policy formation, (b) lobbying and (c) personnel. [39645]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service of the Department of Trade and Industry manages the contract under which small business/europe operates. Small business/europe is, however, a private company that determines its own policy formation and lobbying strategy through consultation with other UK SME representative organisations, trade associations and small and medium sized businesses themselves. The Director of small business/Europe, Ben Butters, is responsible for personnel for the organisation.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on planned funding arrangements for small business/Europe over the medium term. [39659]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Small business/europe has full Government funding for the first two years of operation and thereafter must find an increasing proportion of its funding from private sources as the funding from the Small Business Service of the Department of Trade and Industry is reduced.

  LNM Holdings
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions took place between her Department and other Government Departments on the takeover of Sidex Steel by LNM Holdings. [38850]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Discussions took place between Trade PartnersUK and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what employer recruitment subsidies have been put in place to support those made redundant from Corns in(a) Wales and (b) the UK as a whole. [39811]
  350W
  Ms Hewitt
  None. Redundant Corus workers, in Wales and the UK as a whole, were offered help to find new employment through the Job Transition Service (now called the Rapid Response Service) which is designed to match worker's skills to local job vacancies. In some circumstances, where the eligibility criteria are met, newly redundant workers have early entry to the national new deal programme that offers a wide range of options, including employer subsidies—designed to encourage the employment of the long term unemployed.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 22 January regarding the construction industry. [38456]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The reply in question has been signed by myself and forwarded to my hon. Friend prior to the tabling of his question.

  Volunteers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many members of her staff in each of the past two years have been granted a day's paid leave to work as a volunteer; and if she will make a statement. [39745]

  Ms Hewitt
  All members of staff in my Department have the right to one day's special leave with pay per year to undertake voluntary activity for the benefit of the wider community.

  The granting of paid time off for voluntary activity is delegated to line management level and figures are not held centrally.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to locate a respiratory specialist in Merseyside to assist with medical assessments of former miners seeking compensation. [38347]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: There are now almost 1,560 claims in respect of living miners registered in Merseyside. Centres have been positioned geographically in areas of high concentration of claimants and where respiratory specialists are available to staff the centres. Claimants are usually invited to attend a test centre within a 25-mile radius from their residence. The centres Merseyside claimants will be directed to are Wrexham, Wigan and Manchester. These are considered to be adequately close to service the needs of Merseyside claimants. However, claimants are given the option to attend a different centre if a more suitable time is available. For those claimants who are not able to travel to a centre, and have a letter from their doctor, Healthcall, the company contracted to undertake the Medical Assessment Process, MAP, can carry out home visits. Where there are pockets of claimants outside the 25 mile radius of a test centre, but insufficient numbers to set up a permanent centre, one of the mobile testing units will be used to assess these claimants.
  351W
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in processing miners' compensation claims in(a) the UK, (b) the north-east, (c) south Tyneside and (d) the Jarrow constituency. [39617]

  Mr. Wilson
  IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have made the following interim and full and final settlements to date:

  Region

  Number of interim payments

  Number of full and final payments

  Damages paid (£ million)

  Respiratory disease

  (a) UK

  31,163

  12,920

  172.6

  (b) North-east

  5,929

  1,627

  36.6

  (c) South Tyneside

  499

  184

  2.8

  (d) Jarrow

  121

  55

  0.7

  Vibration White Finger

  (a) UK

  41,883

  22,577

  396.2

  (b) North-east

  9,171

  5,167

  97.4

  (c) South Tyneside

  982

  305

  9.2

  (d) Jarrow

  249

  102

  2.5

  There has been some good progress lately, particularly in relation to respiratory disease. In January alone, over 2,800 full and final offers, excluding expedited offers, were made worth £21.1 million in relation to respiratory disease. With regards to Vibration White Finger, 3,200 offers have been made in January, worth £29.5 million.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many outstanding claims for miners' compensation there are in(a) the UK, (b) the north-east,(c) south Tyneside and (d) the Jarrow constituency. [39616]

  Mr. Wilson
  IRISC, the Department's claims handlers have registered the following number of claims and made the following settlements:

  Region

  Number of claims

  Number of full and final payments

  Number of denied/withdrawn claims

  Number of outstanding claims

  Respiratory disease

  (a) UK

  131,731

  12,920

  3,584

  115,227

  (b) North-east

  26,635

  1,627

  572

  24,436

  (c) South Tyneside

  2,368

  184

  40

  2,144

  (d) Jarrow

  607

  55

  9

  543

  Vibration White Finger

  (a) UK

  111,644

  22,577

  4,510

  84,557

  (b) North-east

  20,677

  5,167

  931

  14,579

  (c) South Tyneside

  1,916

  305

  67

  1,544

  (d) Jarrow

  519

  102

  17

  400

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates have been made about the future potential of CHP in sectors of the economy, with particular reference to industry, in the Department's report, Long-Term Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the UK, from the Inter-departmental Analysts Group chaired by the Department. [39383]

  Mr. Wilson
  The report by the Inter-departmental Analysts Group makes a number of references to the future potential for CHP and micro CHP in all sectors of 352W
  the economy to contribute to savings in greenhouse gas emissions. For the industry and services sectors this (technical) potential is incorporated within the estimates for potential savings from improved energy efficiency. That potential has been considered on the basis of a scenario approach to 2050, explained within the energy efficiency sections of the paper prepared by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and specifically in annexes C and D. Overall, the report suggests potential for CHP to provide up to 25 per cent. of electricity generation for industry and services by 2050. The full report is found at http://www2.dti.gov.uk/energy/greenhousesgas/index.htm.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will revise the sustainable development guidelines to reflect the Government's target to double the UK use of combined heat and power by 2010. [39980]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has not issued any guidelines on sustainable development. However the DTI's Sustainable Development Strategy was published in October 2000 and is available on the DTI website. The Government remain committed to supporting CHP and my Department is working with colleagues in DEFRA and industry to improve the economic conditions for CHP and we are actively contributing to the development of the Government's CHP strategy.

  E-mail
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the common position on Directive COM2000/0385, with particular reference to the compromise agreed on Article 13 regarding unsolicited e-mail marketing; [39458]

  (2) if she will include an opt-in system for e-mail marketing in the Government's transposition of the E-commerce Directive. [39457]

  Mr. Alexander
  At the Telecoms Council on 6 December last year, member states and the Commission reached political agreement on the draft Communications Data Protection Directive, including the provisions on unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE) in Article 13, where the issue has been whether UCE should be subject to opt-in rules, under which it could only be sent with the prior consent of the addressee, or member states should have discretion to apply opt-out rules, under which UCE can be sent unless the addressee has objected, either to e-mails from a particular sender or on a blanket basis by registering on a central opt-out list.

  The Commission's original proposals produced a very divided response, and at the council, a compromise was agreed. Under this, the general principle would be opt-in, but with an opt-out exception for e-mail sent in the context of an existing customer relationship provided, among other things, that the sender has obtained the addressee's contact details in accordance with existing data protection rules. The UK supported this compromise wording at the council, and we believe it offers a sensible and workable regulatory approach. The draft Directive is now going through second reading procedures in the European Parliament.
  353W
  The Government will shortly be publicly consulting on draft Regulations implementing the E-Commerce Directive.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many members of staff her Department employs in its regulatory impact unit; and if she will make a statement. [39976]

  Ms Hewitt
  Two members of staff currently work in the departmental regulatory impact unit (DRIU). Of the two staff, one member works full-time and the other member spends three days of the week with the DRIU team. A new full-time member of staff will be heading the DRIU team from Wednesday 20 March. In addition there are 11 members of staff who work in the Small Business Service on better regulation for small business across Government.

  Export Promotion
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the level of support provided for UK export promotion by the Government; and what information she has collated on the level of support provided by other members of the European Union. [40257]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Government funding for trade development and promotion is the responsibility of Trade Partners UK, an arm of British Trade International which is a joint operation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. Programme funding for 2001–02 is £68 million. For a more detailed breakdown of Government support for trade development and promotion, please refer to the Expenditure Plans Reports of British Trade International (Cm 5123), the Department of Trade and Industry (Cm 5112), the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Cm 5110) and British Trade International's Resource Accounts for 2000–01 (HC 526).

  The export support provided by members of the European Union is broadly similar to that provided by Trade Partners UK. However, member states use different management systems and structures to provide their export promotion services, which make direct comparisons between individual countries very difficult.

  Gas Supplies
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish a list of the priority end users under the network gas supply emergency procedure. [40051]

  Mr. Wilson
  DTI does not hold copies of these lists. As the procedures to which my hon. Friend refers state, these lists are held and maintained by Transco Local Distribution Zones. The lists are kept up to date locally with advice from gas shippers and suppliers to ensure that the details are as accurate as possible.

  The prioritisation process was agreed after an extensive public consultation period. As the Network Gas Supply Procedures make clear, the first priority is to maintain domestic supply. If it is possible and necessary to
  354W
  implement the priority gas consumer arrangements, generally speaking, hospitals and those caring for the sick will receive priority.

  I have placed copies of the categorisation of priorities in the Libraries of the House.

  Credit Union
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has commissioned to(a) assess the potential contribution of the credit union movement to financial inclusion for disadvantaged households and (b) assess the role credit unions might have in progress towards meeting the objectives of the Government's fuel poverty strategy. [40070]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has not commissioned research on credit unions. Officials have participated in the steering group of a research project commissioned by Ofgem under its Social Action Plan, and sponsored by Innogy, which includes a study of the feasibility of promoting credit unions as part of a wider strategy to tackle fuel poverty. The report on this work, "Ending Financial Exclusion and Fuel Poverty—A Factor 4 Approach" was published by Ofgem on 5 March.

  Parliamentary Question
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will reply to the question from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley of 15 October 2001 (Ref 6545). [40380]

  Nigel Griffiths
  My response of 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 981–82W said:
  "Inquiries are being made and I shall respond to my hon. Friend as soon as possible".

  I am now in a position to respond and apologise for the delay in doing so. Details of all export licensing decisions taken between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 2000 were set out in the Government's 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 annual reports on strategic export controls, published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; copies are in the Libraries of the House.

  Components and associated equipment for armoured vehicles are controlled under entries ML 1, ML2, ML3, ML4, ML5, ML6, ML11, ML13, ML 15 and ML17 in Part 3 of Schedule I to the Export of Goods (Control) Order, commonly known as the Military List. From 1 January 2001 to 24 January 2002, 69 SIELs and no OIEL were issued covering the export of items with the relevant ratings. During that same period one SEIL and one OIEL application were refused. In addition 22 SIEL and one OIEL applications were still awaiting a decision as of 24 January 2002.

  In addition, goods on the Military List may have been exported to Indonesia since May 1997 under certain open general export licences; copies of all open general export licences are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Information relating to licences for components and associated equipment for specific armoured vehicles is confidential information, which is exempt from disclosure under Part 2, sections 1, 13 and 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  EU Delegations (Scottish Ministers)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether a Scottish Executive Minister will be a member of the UK delegation to the forthcoming Research European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 11 March; and what information is being provided by her Department to guarantee effective pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [40320]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: My noble Friend the Minister for Science normally attends Research European Union Council of Ministers meetings for the UK. A Scottish Executive Minister will not be a member of the UK delegation to the Research Council meeting on 11 March. It is the responsibility of the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Executive's involvement in preparations for EU Council meetings. These arrangements are a matter for the Committee and the Scottish Executive. My Department provides information to Scottish Executive officials as part of that process. In developing the UK Government's position on European research issues, the Office of Science and Technology regularly consults the devolved administrations.

  Owner

  Name

  Location

  Distillation capacity1

  Shell UK Ltd

  Stanlow

  Ellesmere Port, South Wirral

  11.5

  Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd

  Fawley

  Southampton

  15.6

  BP Ltd.

  Coryton

  Stanford-le-Hope, Essex

  9.6

  Grangemouth

  Grangemouth, Stirlingshire

  10.1

  TotalFinaElf Ltd.

  Lindsey

  Killingholme, North Lincolnshire

  10.0

  TotalFinaElf Ltd./Murco Ltd.

  Milford Haven

  Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire

  5.3

  Conoco Ltd.

  Killingholme

  Killingholm, North Lincolnshire

  9.4

  Texaco Refining Co. Ltd.

  Pembroke

  Pembroke, Pembrokeshire

  10.1

  Petroplus International Ltd.

  North Tees

  Port Clarence, Cleveland

  5.0

  Three smaller specialist refineries at Harwich, Eastham and Dundee do not directly produce road transport fuels, and have a combined distillation capacity of 2.3 million tonnes per annum.

  The output of refined road transport fuels at each location is commercially sensitive, but some information is available on the UK Petroleum Industry Association website www.ukpia.com.

  For the UK as a whole, provisional data for 2001 was made available on the DTI Internet site at the end of February 2002. This indicates that total intake to petroleum refineries in 2001 was 82,323 thousand tonnes, from which a total production of Motor Spirit (petrol) of 21,455 thousand tonnes and Gas diesel oil of 26,564 thousand tonnes was obtained, of which 15,045 thousand tonnes was road diesel (DERV).

  According to the Annual Business Inquiry for 2000 carried out by the Office for National Statistics, a total of 13,799 people are employed in the oil refining sector in Great Britain. This survey does not identify employment at individual refinery level for confidentiality reasons, and we have not been able, in the time available, to identify publicly available data at individual refinery level on employment numbers.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in her Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40430]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department's policy on travel is set out in its staff handbook "The Guide" which states:Need for economy (minimum expenses rule)
  Staff travelling on official business must take advantage of any cheap facilities which may be available (e.g. special offers, day returns or season tickets) wherever practical. Line managers and staff should keep total expenses to the minimum, consistent with efficiency.

  Road Transport Fuels
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the(a) names, (b) locations, (c) owners, (d) total output of refined road transport fuels and (e) number of employees of each of the oil refineries in UK. [39853]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The following table is taken from the 2001 Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, published by the DTI in July 2001.

  Information and Consultation
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government intends to implement the European Directive on Information and Consultation. [40975]

  Alan Johnson
  The directive will be formally adopted in the coming weeks. Each member state will then have three years to bring into force the necessary implementing legislation. We will be consulting in due course on how best to implement it in the UK.

  Sellafield
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the incident involving rods being taken out of the reactor core at Sellafield on 8 February. [40077]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The four reactors at BNFL's Calder Hall power station have been shut down for a prolonged period while BNFL undertakes work to review the safety of defuelling activities at the station. This follows the incident that occurred at the Chapelcross power station (which is similar in design to Calder Hall) where the grab on the hoist inside the defuelling machine failed causing the basket to detach

  357W
  from the hoist and some fuel rods to fall down the discharge well into a water filled fuel transport flask at the bottom of the well.

  In accordance with the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), BNFL is currently carrying out work to recommission the fuel discharge route for the four reactors at the Calder Hall power station. This is part of the planned return to service of the reactors. The recommissioning process provides for particularly careful oversight of these operations in order to ensure that no problems arise as a result of any plant modifications that may have been made during the shutdown.

  With NII's agreement, BNFL started to carry out some defuelling of Reactor I at Calder Hall as part of that recommissioning process. On 8 February 2002, the first 24 fuel rods had been safely removed from the reactor and were in a fuel basket inside the defuelling machine. The fuel basket was about to be lowered in the normal way when it unexpectedly descended partway down the discharge well before stopping. The basket remained attached to the hoist and all the fuel remained inside the basket within the containment of the fuel discharge route.

  BNFL reported the event to the NII on 8 February. The NII observed the subsequent operation to recover the basket by manually lowering it down the discharge well into the flask. This operation was completed on 10 February and the fuel was removed in the normal way. There was no health risk either to members of the public or to personnel on site at any stage.

  Defuelling at Calder Hall has been suspended until BNFL reports the outcome of its internal investigation and completes any requirements for remedial action to the satisfaction of the NII.

  Fuels Market
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce a regulator for the UK downstream fuels market; and if she will make a statement. [39854]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The Government have no such plans.

  Post Office
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the external financing limit target of the Post Office was in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; whether it was met; and what proportion of post tax profit the external financing limit represented in each year. [40555]

  Mr. Alexander
  As set out in the White Paper: "Post Office Reform: A World Class Service for the 21st Century", the Government replaced the setting of external financing limits with a new regime based on commercial dividends. No external financing limit was therefore set in respect of the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the external financing limit target of the Post Office is in(a) financial year and (b) 2002–03;and whether expects those targets to be met. (40556)
  358W
  Mr. Alexander
  As set out in the White Paper: "Post Office Reform: A World Class Service for the 21st Century", the Government replaced the setting of external financing limits with a new regime based on commercial dividends. No external financing limit was therefore set for the current financial year or will be set for 2002–03.

  Postal Services
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she will make to the Postal Services Commission in order to ensure the continued availability of postal services in rural areas. [38674]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in regular contact with the Postal Services Commission. The Government have enshrined the universal postal service in legislation. The Postal Services Commission therefore has a primary statutory duty to ensure provision of a universal postal service. It also has a duty to have regard to the interests of individuals residing in rural areas. In exercising its functions Postcomm must act in accordance with all its statutory duties. These duties provide for continued provision of postal services in rural areas.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Incinerators
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the waste-burning incinerators that are being used in the Greater London area. [37263]

  Mr. Meacher
  The table details the waste incinerators currently regulated by the Environment Agency in the Greater London area.

  Company

  Location

  Incinerator type

  Johnson Matthey

  Enfield

  Chemical waste

  Clinical Energy

  Hillingdon

  Clinical waste

  London Waste Ltd.

  Edmonton

  Municipal waste

  Thames Water

  Beckton

  Sewage sludge

  SELCHP

  Deptford

  Municipal waste

  Thames Water

  Crossness

  Sewage sludge

  Reichhold (UK) Ltd.

  Mitcham

  Process water from polymerisation process

  Smaller facilities are regulated by local authorities. Each year my Department surveys the 32 London boroughs and the Corporation of London seeking information on the number of incinerators they regulate. 27 authorities responded this year. In total, these 27 authorities regulated 20 crematoria and five other waste incinerators. Rounded up to the 33 authorities, this relates to 23 crematoria and six other incinerators.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to(a) monitor and (b) reduce harmful emissions from municipal incinerators. [39212]
  359W
  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Emission standards apply throughout the EU to municipal solid waste incineration facilities (MSWI's), both old and new. Enforcement action will be considered where monitoring reveals breaches of these standards.

  MSWI's are required to operate in accordance with best available techniques (BAT). The Environment Agency provides guidance to operators on how to achieve this. This identifies requirements for incinerators' design and operation. To ensure effective destruction of pollutants; residence time, temperature and turbulence are strictly controlled. The Agency is currently updating this guidance and I understand that an early consultation draft has also been placed on the Agency's website.

  Additionally the Environment Agency has recently varied the authorisations for existing MSWI's to reduce the dioxin emission limit to 0.1 ng/m3.

  We are currently transposing the new waste incineration directive, which will further tighten emissions standards. The older generation of incinerators has now been replaced with newer, cleaner technology, and most municipal waste incinerators in this country already meet the tough standards that will be introduced with the new directive. Incinerator emissions of all air pollutants are now less than 1.5 per cent. of total UK emissions.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the frequency and methodology of sampling for dioxin emissions at the SELCHP incinerator. [38829]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Dioxin emissions from SELCHP are regularly monitored by the operators on a six-monthly basis to check compliance with the EU-wide emission standards.

  Additionally, the Environment Agency carries out independent check monitoring at a minimum frequency of once per year. All monitoring results, including those carried out by the operators, are available on public registers held at the offices listed.

  The emissions monitoring methodology is based on US Environmental Protection Agency Method 23. This requires samples to be taken over a period of six to eight hours, at a variety of locations in the stack. Samples are then removed for laboratory analysis using sophisticated and time consuming techniques.

  Public registers containing monitoring results for SELCHP are available at:

  London Borough of Lewisham Laurence House

  1 Catford Road

  Catford

  and

  The Environment Agency Swift House

  Frimley Business Park Frimley

  Surrey.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the level of dioxin emissions from the SELCHP incinerator. [38826]
  360W
  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Dioxin emissions have been regularly monitored at SELCHP for the last eight years, both by the operator and by the Environment Agency, to check compliance with EU-wide emission standards. Level of dioxins monitored at SELCHP over the last four years are given in the table:

  Reporting period

  Dioxin level at stack 1 ng/m 3

  Dioxin level at stack 2 ng/m3

  Monitoring body

  November 2001

  0.031

  0.008

  EA

  September 2001

  0.003

  0.008

  SELCHP

  April 2001

  0.015

  0.012

  SELCHP

  January 2001

  0.06

  0.14

  SELCHP

  November 2000

  0.01

  0.0098

  EA

  September 2000

  0.025

  0.034

  SELCHP

  March 2000

  0.008

  0.009

  SELCHP

  September 1999

  less than 0.01

  less than 0.01

  SELCHP

  April 1999

  0.005

  0.005

  SELCHP

  October 1998

  0.005

  0.005

  SELCHP

  September 1998

  0.007

  less than 0.01

  SELCHP

  March 1998

  0.0

  0.01

  SELCHP

  December 1997

  0.01

  0.02

  EA

  September 1997

  0.02

  0.01

  SELCHP

  The dioxin emission limit for SELCHP was reduced from 1.0 ng/m3 to 0.1 ng/m3 in October 2000.

  The result recorded for Stack 2 for January 2001 is numerically above this limit, although the inherent uncertainty of measurement at these very low levels is such that the true concentration cannot confidently be said to be above the limit. Nevertheless, in view of this uncharacteristic result, the Environment Agency required further monitoring which was carried out in April 2001 as shown in the table above. A note was placed on the public register stating, for the January 2001 results:
  "The reported results for dioxins on stream two are shown to be slightly in excess of the recently reduced limit of 0.1 ng/m3. In view of the uncertainty reported for this result, the exceedance is not considered as a breach of emission limits. Retests are being carried out this will be discussed with the operator."

  Public registers containing monitoring results for SELCHP are available at:

  London Borough of Lewisham

  Laurence House

  1 Catford Road

  Catford

  and

  The Environment Agency

  Swift House

  Frimley Business Park

  Frimley

  Surrey.

  Fuel Poverty
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the most recent available information is on the extent of fuel poverty in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland; what sources have been used to calculate latest statistics; and what progress has been made in reaching a common agreed definition of fuel poverty that can be used on a UK-wide basis. [38212]
  361W
  Mr. Meacher
  The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy was published in November last year. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  It is estimated that in 2000 there were 2.8 million households in fuel poverty in England, when fuel poverty is defined as occurring when a household needs to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income on all fuel use to achieve a satisfactory heating regime (where income includes housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest). Using the alternative definition of income (excluding housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest) it is estimated that there were 3.9 million households in fuel poverty. These estimates are based on the 1998 Energy Follow Up Survey taking account of changes in income and energy prices between 1998 and 2000. The method and data sources used to produce these figures are set out in "Fuel Poverty in England in 1999 and 2000" available at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/fuelpoverty/index.htm which can be accessed via www.defra.gov.u1c/environment/energy/fuelpov/index.htm.

  Fuel poverty is a devolved issue and it is for the Devolved Administrations to comment on their most recent available information, an agreed single definition of fuel poverty is not possible until Wales and Scotland have completed a consultation exercise. However, it is the Government's intention to move to a UK-wide definition in the medium term.

  Agriculture Council
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether a Scottish Executive Minister will be a Member of the UK delegation to the Agriculture European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 18 February; and what information is being provided by her Department to permit pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [38037]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: Scottish Executive Ministers did not attend the February Agriculture Council as there was nothing on the agenda of specific interest to Scotland. On the second point, the Department does not provide pre-council briefing direct to the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament.

  End user emissions from transport by gas, MtC

  Gases

  Base year

  2000

  2005

  2010

  2015

  2020

  Carbon dioxide

  39.1

  40.0

  42.9

  45.4

  47.7

  50.1

  Methane

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Nitrous oxide

  0.4

  1.3

  1.8

  2.0

  2.1

  2.3

  HFCs

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  0.4

  0.5

  Total GHGs

  39.7

  41.6

  44.9

  47.8

  50.4

  53.0

  Change from 1990 levels (percentage)

  —

  5

  13

  20

  27

  33

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will investigate the use of the enhanced capital allowance scheme to encourage greater take-up of energy efficiency equipment and methods for(a) retail/commercial, (b) individual and (c) domestic applications. [39379]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Carbon Trust will soon take over the management and promotion of the Government's
  362W

  Composting
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects a national composting standard to be put in place. [38402]

  Mr. Meacher
  Comprehensive standards for compost are a top priority for developing markets for organic waste derived products. They will be vital in achieving both local authority statutory targets for recycling and composting and our obligations under the landfill directive to reduce the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste.

  The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) are currently working with the Composting Association to develop the existing industry standard for compost, launched in 2000, to achieve British Standards Institute (BSI) accreditation. The first stage is the development of a BSI Publicly Available Specification (PAS) which WRAP anticipates will be available in autumn 2002.

  Traffic Emissions
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what predicted levels of emissions from traffic the Government are using over(a) five (b) 10 and (c) 20 years periods to meet the Kyoto and successor protocols. [39840]

  Mr. Meacher
  The latest set of projections was published in the UK's Third National Communication on Climate Change in October 2001. The table provides details of end user emissions from the transport sector. The end user classification re-allocates emissions from the energy supply sector so that a more complete picture is given of transport's contribution to the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. Road transport accounts for over 90 per cent. of the total level of carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector.

  The projections include the effect of the fuel duty escalator to 1999, but they do not include the estimated carbon savings from the EU-level voluntary agreements with car manufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions from new cars by 2008–09 or from the 10-Year Plan for Transport. We estimate that the voluntary agreements will save 4 MtC and that the 10-Year Plan will save 1.6 MtC in 2010.

  enhanced capital allowance scheme for energy saving technologies. As part of its responsibilities, the Carbon Trust plan to carry out surveys and stakeholder investigations to assess the impact of the scheme. The retail and commercial sector will be among those which will be invited to participate.

  Enhanced capital allowances relieve business expenditure against profits for tax and do not apply to private and domestic expenditure.
  363W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what incentives exist for installation of energy efficiency equipment to enable the introduction of measures to control plant more efficiently and effectively. [39380]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are committed to encouraging the installation of energy efficiency equipment through the enhanced capital allowance scheme. The scheme was set up in April last year and provides a fiscal incentive for business to purchase and install energy saving technologies. The Carbon Trust will soon take over the management of the enhanced capital allowance scheme and the Government's energy efficiency best practice programme—that offers businesses advice regarding energy efficient and low carbon technologies.

  In addition the Energy Saving Trust provides advice and information to the domestic sector.

  Flooding
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government plan to increase the amount of flood defence funds for coastal communities this year; and if she will make a statement. [39401]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are committed to sustaining flood and coastal defences and have increased spending plans in both of their spending reviews and again following the severe flooding in autumn 2000. Recognising the severity of the 2000 floods the Government announced a further £51 million over the period to 2003–04.

  DEFRA's funding is set to increase from an outturn of £66 million in 2000–01 to £106 million in 2002–03 and £114 million in 2003£04. The amounts allocated to coastal and tidal river defences within these totals will depend on decisions by the operating authorities (Environment Agency and local authorities) on priorities for reduction of risk from flooding and coastal erosion and timing of works.

  EU Vessels
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs further to his answer 364W
  of 4 December 2001, Official Report, column 271W, on EU vessels, how many vessels, operating under non-EU flags of convenience but owned by Community companies, receive Community financial support for activity other than modernisation grants. [39754]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not available.

  Aquatic Pursuits
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what date each Regional Fisheries, Ecology and Recreation Advisory Committee of the Environment Agency last discussed improving access to water for non-powered craft. [39477]

  Alun Michael
  The dates that each of the Regional Fisheries, Ecology and Recreation Advisory Committees of the Environment Agency last discussed improving access to water for non-powered craft are as listed.

  North—23 January 2002

  Anglian—12 January 2000

  Thames—28 January 2000

  Southern—27 January 2000

  South west—21 January 2000

  Midlands—18 January 2000

  North West—21 January 2000

  Wales—27 January 2000.

  Ancient Woodland
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what planning proposals she has to protect ancient woodland. [40353]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  The review of Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) note 9 on Nature Conservation will present an opportunity to consider guidance on trees and ancient woodlands, including areas of ancient woodland that are not designated as sites of special scientific interest.

  My Department will also provide any planning advice that is required in respect of the proposed best practice guidance on forestry and woodlands, and in the updating of Circular 36/78 on Trees and Forestry.

WALES

  Cynon Valley
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last discussed the future development of the former phurnacite plant site in the Cynon Valley with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales; and what conclusions were reached. [40529]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with the First Minister when we discuss a range of issues affecting Wales.

  The former Phurnacite plant at Abercwmboi is presently the subject of a mediation process led by the Environment Council. The process is trying to establish whether it is possible for interested parties to reach agreement on how remediation of this site, and the adjoining Ancit plant site, might be taken forward. No decisions on the future use of the site will be taken until the mediation process is completed later this year.

  Fair Trade
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether fair trade products are sold in his Department. [39839]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No. My Department has no shops or other outlets where such products could be sold.

  External Contracts
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations which previously held contracts with his Department(a) won new contracts at the culmination of the existing contracts and (b) won new contracts after a period of inactivity with his Department in each of the past five years. [38721]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: There have been no such cases since the creation of the Wales Office in July 1999. For the former Welsh Office, the information requested is not readily available and the question can be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by his Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date, indicating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [38722]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: For the former Welsh Office (covering the period until June 1999) the information requested is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Since its creation in July 1999 the Wales Office has continued these contracts which it inherited from the former Welsh Office:

  Cleaning by Appointment (office cleaning)

  Securicor Guarding (out-of-hours security)

  Government Car and Despatch Service (Ministerial cars)

  Sykes and Sons (flying of flags).

  366W
  It has also had a contract with The Bridge to provide counselling services in connection with the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal.

  The value of these contracts is commercially confidential.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations have won new contracts with(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies in each of the past five years. [38720]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: For the former Welsh Office the information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Wales Office, since its creation in July 1999, has only continued existing contracts inherited from the Welsh Office.

  Sports
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding the development of centres of sports excellence in Wales. [34844]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I meet regularly with the First Secretary and his Cabinet colleagues to discuss a range of issues affecting Wales.

  Wales already has 42 Centres of Regional Excellence and over 170 Centres of Local Development. I understand that the Sports Council for Wales has developed a set of criteria for prioritising the specialist facilities needed by governing bodies of sport.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters were received by(a) the Secretary of State for Wales and (b) the Under-Secretary of State for Wales in each month since July 1999. [30626]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information is contained in the table:

  Letters received by:

  Secretary of State

  Under-Secretary State of State

  Inter- departmentals

  July 1999

  21

  7

  360

  August 1999

  206

  68

  327

  September 1999

  174

  58

  559

  October 1999

  173

  57

  636

  November 1999

  138

  46

  981

  December 1999

  115

  38

  602

  January 2000

  75

  26

  870

  February 2000

  106

  35

  720

  March 2000

  102

  34

  925

  April 2000

  70

  24

  592

  May 2000

  84

  28

  587

  June 2000

  72

  24

  625

  July 2000

  65

  22

  620

  August 2000

  64

  22

  506

  September 2000

  49

  17

  389

  October 2000

  39

  13

  540

  November 2000

  52

  17

  759

  December 2000

  13

  5

  469

  January 2001

  2

  —

  405

  February 2001

  29

  4

  454

  March 2001

  34

  10

  703

  April 2001

  16

  10

  368

  May 2001

  17

  4

  326

  June 2001

  11

  —

  183

  367W

  Letters received by:

  Secretary of State

  Under-Secretary of State

  Inter-departmentals

  July 2001

  19

  2

  546

  August 2001

  28

  1

  346

  September 2001

  25

  1

  306

  October 2001

  30

  5

  581

  November 2001

  33

  2

  620

  December 2001

  13

  6

  439

  January 2002

  35

  2

  340

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Millennium Dome
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total(a) costs and (b) revenue were of the (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001 new year's eve functions held at the Millennium Dome; how the events were planned; how the contracts were negotiated; with whom contacts were entered into; if similar events are planned at the Millennium Dome in the future; what the costs for maintaining the Dome and the surrounding site were for each of the past 24 months; and if he will make a statement. [29586]

  Ms Keeble
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) was responsible for the Dome up to the end of June 2001. English Partnerships took ownership of the Dome on 1 July 2001.

  The new year's eve events in 2000 and 2001 were both held by the Ministry of Sound.

  NMEC received £90,900 from the Ministry of Sound in connection with the new year's eve 2000 event which included payments to cover incremental costs totalling £40,900. NMEC bore costs of £11,000 directly related to the event and the Ministry of Sound met additional costs itself. The event was carefully planned by staff at the Dome and representatives of the Ministry of Sound over a period of several weeks, resulting in an agreement between NMEC and the Ministry of Sound. The event took place in the "Skyscape" building situated on land adjacent to the Dome.

  For the 2001 new year's eve event in the Dome, English Partnerships received a total payment of £219,125 from Ministry of Sound—£75,000 as a basic hire charge and the remainder as a share of ticket revenue. In addition, Ministry of Sound paid for all the costs of organising the event.

  The records of NMEC show that maintenance costs for the Dome and site (in £000s) as borne by NMEC were as follows (calculated on a cash paid basis):

  £000

  2000

  January

  2,078

  February

  1,897

  March

  2,013

  April

  1,868

  May

  1,956

  June

  1,802

  July

  1,937

  August

  1,705

  September

  1,306

  October

  1,492

  368W

  £000

  November

  1,388

  December

  1,543

  2001

  January

  280

  February

  352

  March

  357

  April

  662

  May

  773

  June

  -630

  July

  59

  August

  121

  September

  -498

  October

  82

  November

  28

  December

  14

  The figures for 2000 include insurance. The available figures for 2001 do not include insurance. It is estimated that the element of NMEC's insurance for 2001 which related to the Dome and site was approximately £700,000. It is not possible to apportion this to individual months. The figures for the last six months in 2001 relate to outstanding invoices and rebates for the first half of the year.

  Since English Partnerships took ownership of the Dome on 1 July 2001, their total running cost1 expenditure incurred (in £000s) in relation to the Dome, broken down by month and calculated on an accruals basis, has been2

  £000

  July

  223

  August

  238

  September

  220

  October

  229

  November

  275

  December

  266

  All these costs will be recovered from eventual sale proceeds.

  As regards the future use of the Dome, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on 18 December 2001, Official Report, columns 220–21W.

  English Partnerships have been asked to explore further short-term events at the Dome and have received a number of approaches for events during 2002, on which discussions are continuing.
  1 Includes rates, utilities, security and maintenance, and EP staff costs on management and maintenance of the Dome.
  2 Subject to any reassessments by the relevant authorities, of rates or other charges included in the cost of managing and maintaining the Dome.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide a breakdown of the monthly costs of maintaining the Millennium Dome until the contract with Meridian Delta has been completed, including(a) the cost of staff, advisers and details of their responsibilities, (b) maintenance and (c) other costs. [32805]
  369W
  Ms Keeble
  Since English Partnerships took ownership of the Dome on 1 July 2001, their total running cost1 expenditure incurred in relation to the Dome, broken down by month and calculated on an accruals basis, has been2

  £000

  July

  223

  August

  238

  September

  220

  October

  229

  November

  275

  December

  266

  During 2001 English Partnerships also incurred £6.1 million on decommissioning the Dome contents in preparation for a future use and £2.2 million in relation to the current sale process. The cost of the previous competition to find a long-term use for the Dome, which began in March 1999 and ended at the beginning of 2001, was £6.7 million.

  All these costs will be recovered from eventual sale proceeds.

  I will be pleased to write to the hon. Member informing him of monthly running costs figures in arrears, until the proposed deal with Meridian Delta Ltd is concluded.
  1 Includes rates, utilities, security and maintenance, and EP staff costs on management and maintenance of the Dome.
  2 Subject to any reassessments, by the relevant authorities, of rates or other charges included in the cost of managing and maintaining the Dome.

  Strategic Rail Authority Strategic Plan
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what additional private investment is expected under the Strategic Rail Authority Plan between 2001–02 and 2011–12 in addition to the £16 billion in infrastructure enhancement and £7 billion in new trains, referred to on page 25 of the Strategic Rail Authority Strategic Plan. [37523]

  Mr. Jamieson: The strategic plan states that the total amount of private sector investment leveraged by this plan is expected to be very similar to that envisaged in the 10-Year Plan.

  This investment will cover enhancements to the network, new rolling stock, infrastructure renewals, additional freight infrastructure and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects Railtrack to complete its asset register. [37243]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In April 2001 the Rail Regulator amended Railtrack's network licence to require the company to create a complete and accurate register of the condition, capacity and capability of its assets. Railtrack is required to produce regular plans detailing how the company expects to ensure it has access to and knowledge 370W
  of its assets. The next set of plans is due to be submitted to the regulator in April 2002, covering development of the register over the next two years.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 13 February 2002,Official Report, column 376W, on Railtrack, how much public lending is being made available to remunerate these professional advisers. [39418]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No public lending is being made available.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 783W, on Railtrack, if he will provide an updated schedule of the financial support given to the Railtrack administrator. [39424]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Approximately £1.8 billion has been made available under the commercial loan agreement.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 8 February 2002,Official Report, column 1188W, on Railtrack, what assessment of those examples of companies limited by guarantee listed was carried out by his Department; and if he will place all related documentation in the Library. [40269]

  Mr. Jamieson: The outline proposal for a company limited by guarantee (CLG) as a possible successor to Railtrack was developed with regard to the model used for Glas Cymru and a variety of other organisations. No assessment of these organisations was carried out because the model needed to be developed to apply to the particular circumstances of the rail network operator, as outlined in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001, Official Report, columns 195–97W.

  Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 25 February 2002, Official Report, column 783W, from which budgets or revenue sources additional finance could be granted to Railtrack in an interim review. [40290]

  Mr. Jamieson: Neither the outcome of any interim review nor the appropriate budget sources can be anticipated in advance.

  London Underground
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the increase in 2000 prices for fares in the London Underground in each of the last 10 years. [37229]

  Mr. Spellar
  London Underground advise that data covering the complete range of individual ticket types available can be provided only at disproportionate cost. It has, however, produced the following table, which gives the increase in fares, in year 2000 prices, based upon revenue per passenger journey.
  371W

  Revenue per passenger journey at 2000 prices (£)

  Percentage change from previous year

  1990–91

  0.911

  —

  1991–92

  0.945

  3.80

  1992–93

  0.996

  5.40

  1993–94

  1.05

  5.40

  1994–95

  1.108

  5.60

  1995–96

  1.114

  0.60

  1996–97

  1.151

  3.30

  1997–98

  1.165

  1.30

  1998–99

  1.18

  1.20

  1999–2000

  1.175

  -0.40

  2000–01

  1.164

  -0.90

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the safety case which the Health and Safety Executive is required to produce for the London Underground PPP when the London Underground is transferred to Transport for London and the Greater London Assembly. [40342]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Health and Safety Executive (HSE) assesses and considers safety cases for acceptance. It is for London Underground Ltd. to submit to HSE any material revision to its railway safety case that may arise from the transfer of the underground to Transport for London. The HSE has not yet received any revision to this effect.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the terms of reference of the original contract relating to the value for money assessment on the PPP carried out for his Department by Ernst and Young; and whether the contract allowed the specification of the final report to be altered by(a) his Department and (b) Ernst and Young (i) before and (ii) after it was written. [40341]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 493W. The terms of reference referred to in that answer were final and did not change, with the single exception of the deadline by which Ernst and Young were to report. This was necessarily tied to London Underground's own timing on its evaluation of bids.

  Housing Benefit
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy to pay housing benefit for council tenants on the same basis as for tenants of registered social landlords; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the current arrangements in this regard. [38092]

  Ms Keeble: The differences between the financial arrangements for local authorities and registered social landlords are largely a reflection of the fact that council housing finance regime is operated as a national system which seeks to share out the available resources as fairly as possible. We have no plans to change that.

  M11 Link Road
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what applications for compensation arising from the building of 372W
  the M11 Link Road were received by the Highways Agency; how much has been allocated for payment of such compensation; and if he will make a statement; [38997]

  (2) how much was allocated to Transport for London to cover compensation commitments of the Highways Agency arising from the building of the M11 Link Road; and if he will make a statement. [38998]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Papers relating to this scheme have been passed to Transport for London. However, it is unlikely that any claims for compensation for injurious effect by business or residents were received by the Highways Agency, since these must be made between one and six years after completion of the scheme.

  The Agency made provision of £19.8 million, over the period 2000–01 to 2004–05, for compensation claims in relation to road schemes transferring to Transport for London. The bulk of this amount related to the Hackney/M11 Link Road.

  These estimates were taken into account by Ministers in determining and making provision for GLA transport grant, which is a block grant paid for the purposes of Transport for London.

  Traffic
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, what predicted traffic rates over the next(a) five, (b) 10 and (c) 20 years the multi-modal studies are using. [39841]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The multi-model studies do not use a pre-determined rate of traffic growth. Each study makes its own estimate of how traffic will grow in its study area over the study period. In each case, account is taken of study-specific factors such as changes in the numbers and location of households and workers, the level of current and future congestion, the availability of alternative modes of transport and the implementation of local demand restraint measures.

  Bridges (Somerset)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what grants have been made available to North Somerset council for bridge strengthening and related works in each of the last three years. [38459]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The Government are committed to halting the deterioration in local road conditions by 2004 and to eliminating the backlogs in carriageway, footway, bridge and street lighting maintenance by 2010. Over £30 billion for local road maintenance will be provided over the next 10 years, an extra £9 billion (41 per cent.) above the funding levels in the previous 10 years—an increase of 23 per cent. in real terms. This extra money will allow us to tackle the substantial backlog in local road maintenance due to past under-investment.

  North Somerset council have received the following grant allocations for highway maintenance and bridge strengthening works over the last three years. The figures for the financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02 have been allocated under the Local Transport Plan process. However

  373W
  the allocation given for the preceding year 1999–2000 was administered under the previous Transport Policies and Programmes process.

  Highway maintenance and bridge strengthening

  Allocation

  £000

  1999–2000

  686

  2000–01

  895

  2001–02

  3,173

  Railway Industry
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 791W, on the railway industry, up to what total amount the Government will guarantee these loan facilities. [39423]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The guarantee will be sufficient, within the limits of the state aid clearance, to cover principal, interest and other fees and expenses under the facility.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 589W, on railway policy, what non-public consultation took place on the change of structure in his Department. [40271]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This was an internal management matter of re-allocation of resources in response to changes in demand. No other consultations took place.

  Shoreham Port Authority
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the occasions on which he has declined to reappoint members of the board of Shoreham port authority or declined to confirm candidates nominated. [39241]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Airport Security
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many people were employed in the UK to oversee the security of baggage at UK airports in each year since 1990; [40260]

  (2) what investigations are made into the background of potential staff employed to oversee the security of baggage at UK airports; [40263]

  (3) what recent assessment the Government have made of the pay levels for people employed to oversee the security of baggage at UK airports; [40259]

  (4) what recent discussions he has had with companies in the air transport industry regarding the pay associated with those employed to oversee the security of baggage at UK airports; [40264]
  374W
  (5) what recent estimate the Government have made of (a) the turnover of staff employed to oversee the security of baggage at UK airports; and (b) the impact this has on the security of airport baggage; [40261]

  (6) what training is required for staff employed to oversee the security of baggage at UK airports. [40262]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is responsible for prescribing the security measures required at UK airports and for monitoring compliance. Our measures are implemented by the aviation industry, under the requirements of legally binding directions.

  Directions have been issued to all UK airports and airlines operating in the UK relating to, among other things, the recruitment and training of staff involved in specified security duties. The specified duties include the screening of baggage. In respect of recruitment, the criteria for security staff require a five year employment record check and a counter terrorist check. Our training directions require staff to undergo appropriate training modules applicable to the security functions they will be undertaking. These requirements apply regardless of whether the airports/airlines use directly employed security staff, or those of private security companies who they have engaged as agents.

  Airports, airlines, and security firms are private companies and staffing matters, including pay issues, numbers of staff engaged, and staff turnover, are entirely management issues for those companies. We therefore do not collate figures on total staff numbers or turnover.

  Motor Vehicles
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 25 February, 2002 Official Report, column 871W, on motor vehicles, why data have not been included for the (a) Craigleith, (b) Moredun and (c) Newington wards. [40023]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The answer of 25 February said that the vehicle data were available for analysis only by pre-1996 definitions of Scottish wards. Edinburgh constituencies did not include Craigleith, Moredun or Newington wards under this definition.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many motor vehicles are licensed for use on Britain's roads. [40210]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of motor vehicles licensed in Great Britain in September 2001, the latest data available, was 29,676,258.

  Pilots
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the(a) years and (b) pilotage areas of serious pilotage errors since 1980; and how many inquiries have been (a) instituted, (b) completed and (c) published. [40200]

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

  Airports
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which consultants have been commissioned in the SERAS study of the economic and environmental impacts of airport expansion; and which studies have been commissioned that are independent of the aviation industry and the Government. [40074]

  Mr. Jamieson
  At various stages of the SERAS technical work the following consultants have been commissioned to support the core economic and environmental appraisal of a wide range of options:

  Halcrow Group Ltd (also acting as the managing consultants of the SERAS study), Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick & Co Ltd, CAA Environmental Research and Consultancy Department, AEA Technology Environment and Qinetiq (formerly DERA).

  The SERAS study has been undertaken for the Government alone, advised by a reference group comprising a wide range of external representatives, including regional and local government, environmental organisations and airport consultative committees, as well as aviation industry interests.

  I am unaware of the details of other independent studies.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the SERAS study of the environmental impact of airport expansion reflects criticisms of Leq as a noise measure by the Terminal Five Inquiry report; and how the study will incorporate noise disturbance above the World Health Organisation target level (50dB Leq) but below the primary measure of 57dBLeq. [40071]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SERAS study uses Leq as the primary measure for daytime aircraft noise as, on the basis of available evidence, it is the most appropriate single index of the overall noise climate. The study will include information about noise impacts down to the 54 Leq level, as stated in the appraisal framework published in November 2000.

  Further research has been commissioned to reassess attitudes to aircraft noise. This was announced in May last year and underlines the Government's commitment to underpin our policy on aircraft noise by substantial research.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what account is being taken in the SERAS study of the environmental impact of airport expansion of(a) ozone emissions, (b) sulphur dioxide emissions and (c) carbon dioxide. [40072]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Appraisal Framework for Airports in the South East and Eastern Regions of England published in November 2000 following widespread consultation, sets out the indicators used for assessing impacts of airport development options in the SERAS study.
  376W
  The study has included an assessment of the impact on carbon dioxide emissions under a range of future scenarios. Ozone and sulphur dioxide emissions were not assessed.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what methodology is being employed in the SERAS study of the employment effects of airport expansion to capture the impact of(a) labour scarcity, (b) housing scarcity in the South East of England and (c) employment in the regions. [40073]

  Mr. Jamieson
  An appraisal of the employment impacts arising from a wide range of airport development options has been undertaken in SERAS. The objective has been to identify demands on the local labour and housing markets and to assess any resulting urbanisation pressures. The broad appraisal methodology is set down in The Appraisal Framework for Airports in the South East and Eastern Regions of England published in November 2000. The regional airport studies have assessed the effects on employment in the regions of a range of scenarios relating to airport capacity in the South East.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to amend his departmental expenditure Limits and running cost limits for 2001–02. [40185]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Departmental expenditure limits and the administration costs limit are amended throughout the year according to need and the parliamentary timetable for Supplementary Estimates. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced changes for 2001–02 in written answers on 22 June 2001,Official Report, columns 12–13W, 28 November 2001, Official Report, columns 948–52W and 13 February 2002, Official Report, columns 398–401W. There are no plans for further changes until the end of the financial year.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the allocations of capital housing expenditure for each year since 1992 for each London borough broken down into(a) repairs to local authority property, (b) repairs to regulated social landlord property, (c) new local authority build and (d) new regulated social landlord property. [40181]

  Ms Keeble
  The total allocations made by central Government to London boroughs to support their housing capital programmes in the years since 1992–93 are given in the table. Apart from the major repairs allowance (MRA), which was introduced in 2001–02 to provide resources to meet the on-going capital costs of maintaining the council housing stock, the resources are not generally allocated for particular types of expenditure. Details of the MRA allocations are available in the Library.
  377W

  Housing capital allocations to London boroughs, 1992–93 to 2002–03

  £000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  London total

  539,255

  529,146

  422,485

  410,295

  391,598

  326,985

  390,237

  399,263

  613,482

  730,034

  736,701

  Barking and Dagenham

  7,675

  6,832

  5,470

  5,558

  6,091

  6,294

  9,741

  9,550

  15,720

  20,053

  20,738

  Barnet

  10,245

  11,687

  10,742

  9,033

  9,367

  6,602

  7,380

  6,957

  10,186

  14,323

  15,354

  Bexley

  5,250

  4,767

  3,626

  3,659

  3,157

  3,525

  4,456

  3,113

  2,665

  2,494

  2,607

  Brent

  20,543

  16,379

  14,875

  16,656

  16,286

  14,159

  14,656

  13,877

  21,309

  25,514

  24,322

  Bromley

  10,599

  8,163

  5,454

  5,053

  4,124

  3,137

  2,931

  2,911

  3,342

  2,678

  3,074

  Camden

  25,100

  24,495

  18,700

  18,019

  16,977

  13,428

  18,072

  19,450

  32,394

  41,010

  39,817

  City of London

  705

  862

  697

  836

  632

  548

  620

  597

  1,050

  2,015

  2,060

  Croydon

  20,395

  23,105

  19,088

  17,542

  16,975

  11,362

  9,088

  10,082

  13,900

  17,001

  17,802

  Ealing

  20,191

  16,610

  13,278

  14,077

  11,882

  10,556

  12,352

  12,504

  19,406

  24,045

  23,634

  Enfield

  19,480

  15,989

  11,620

  10,630

  9,876

  8,009

  8,336

  7,801

  10,368

  14,563

  15,890

  Greenwich

  15,973

  22,136

  18,706

  18,615

  16,770

  13,430

  14,393

  16,952

  28,142

  31,907

  31,652

  Hackney

  29,834

  29,700

  23,538

  26,531

  25,960

  20,256

  22,370

  25,166

  37,481

  40,199

  42,735

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  18,007

  16,817

  13,442

  14,296

  14,144

  11,914

  13,572

  15,782

  23,844

  26,134

  24,887

  Haringey

  27,894

  23,661

  19,749

  18,404

  15,777

  13,928

  15,887

  15,809

  28,199

  32,667

  34,258

  Harrow

  7,440

  7,600

  5,933

  5,750

  5,137

  4,031

  4,011

  3,878

  6,430

  8,407

  8,648

  Havering

  6,926

  6,053

  4,878

  4,372

  3,716

  3,371

  4,400

  4,507

  6,548

  11,309

  11,707

  Hillingdon

  14,445

  16,924

  13,042

  12,439

  11,383

  7,854

  7,464

  7,798

  11,481

  14,127

  13,923

  Hounslow

  15,825

  13,919

  11,819

  11,628

  10,717

  7,757

  8,252

  7,685

  11,098

  15,531

  15,673

  Islington

  27,161

  24,166

  20,970

  19,651

  16,629

  15,084

  18,862

  18,150

  28,557

  38,297

  40,237

  Kensington and Chelsea

  12,445

  11,325

  9,296

  10,142

  10,504

  8,053

  9,899

  10,625

  16,395

  18,727

  17,829

  Kingston upon Thames

  5,282

  4,305

  3,842

  4,730

  4,417

  3,166

  3,399

  3,238

  4,428

  5,903

  6,351

  Lambeth

  30,781

  32,885

  22,841

  20,167

  20,578

  17,849

  24,073

  23,762

  37,832

  46,329

  45,168

  Lewisham

  16,180

  18,376

  14,728

  14,499

  15,062

  14,298

  19,574

  22,135

  32,410

  36,837

  35,394

  Merton

  7,602

  7,734

  6,149

  6,287

  5,671

  4,474

  5,014

  5,282

  6,492

  7,728

  8,163

  Newham

  22,534

  30,483

  26,452

  23,266

  24,459

  19,876

  22,536

  20,441

  36,127

  39,475

  41,826

  Redbridge

  9,695

  9,271

  8,216

  7,201

  6,631

  5,317

  5,875

  5,643

  6,593

  8,490

  8,539

  Richmond upon Thames

  9,715

  7,493

  6,883

  6,896

  6,674

  4,857

  5,020

  4,287

  5,697

  2,930

  3,243

  Southwark

  24,596

  25,370

  17,484

  18,859

  19,414

  20,129

  27,752

  29,229

  45,946

  52,921

  54,739

  Sutton

  5,475

  5,273

  4,981

  4,973

  5,093

  4,145

  4,662

  5,281

  6,063

  8,646

  8,847

  Tower Hamlets

  20,674

  21,623

  16,620

  15,083

  14,056

  13,611

  21,211

  21,907

  34,594

  37,844

  39,244

  Waltham Forest

  20,365

  14,134

  9,726

  9,995

  9,949

  8,749

  11,557

  12,933

  22,418

  24,834

  23,666

  Wandsworth

  28,186

  25,809

  19,022

  17,024

  16,252

  13,874

  18,006

  16,330

  20,832

  27,896

  26,937

  Westminster

  22,038

  25,196

  20,620

  18,424

  17,238

  13,342

  14,816

  15,601

  25,535

  29,197

  27,737

  Note:

  Excluding funding for Estate Action, which is now part of the Single Regeneration Budget, and Arms Length Management Organisations.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the value was of the Government's local government financial settlement for Cities of London and Westminster for each year from 1978–79 to 2001–02; and what the percentage increase was in each year. [40186]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information on allocations to individual authorities in years before 1990 is no longer held centrally. The table gives figures for Standard Spending Assessments (SSA) for the two authorities from 1990–91 to 2001–02, and the percentage increase in each year after adjusting for changes in function or funding responsibilities:

  SSA £ million

  Increase per cent.

  City of London

  1990–91

  41.6

  —

  1991–92

  42.7

  2.5

  1992–93

  44.5

  4.2

  1993–94

  48.3

  10.2

  1994–95

  69.9

  44.6

  1995–96

  65.9

  -6.3

  1996–97

  62.1

  -5.9

  1997–98

  63.0

  1.2

  1998–99

  46.3

  -26.6

  1999–2000

  48.2

  4.2

  2000–01

  49.2

  3.1

  2001–02

  50.8

  3.4

  2002–03

  54.6

  9.0

  378W

  SSA £ million

  Increase per cent.

  Westminster

  1990–91

  172.2

  —

  1991–92

  210.3

  22.1

  1992–93

  228.0

  8.4

  1993–94

  221.4

  1.3

  1994–95

  220.3

  -1.6

  1995–96

  241.8

  2.4

  1996–97

  241.3

  -1.8

  1997–98

  249.4

  2.0

  1998–99

  232.6

  -8.0

  1999–2000

  244.8

  5.2

  2000–01

  257.1

  5.4

  2001–02

  275.3

  7.2

  2002–03

  290.3

  8.4

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the increase in(a) standard spending assessment and (b) council tax between the previous and current financial years was for the Cities of (i) London (ii) Westminster. [40179]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The table shows the increases in standard spending assessments (SSA) after adjusting for changes in function or funding responsibilities and own band D Council Tax between the previous (2000–01) and current (2001–02) financial years.
  379W

  Authority

  2000–01 £

  2001–02 £

  Percentage increase

  City of London

  SSA

  49.1221

  50.7791

  3.4

  Own band D council

  525

  548

  4.4

  Tax

  —

  —

  —

  Westminster

  SSA

  256.8271

  275.2851

  7.2

  Own band D council

  235

  259

  10.2

  Tax

  —

  —

  —

  1 £ million.

  Rail Punctuality
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason(a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority do not (i) hold centrally, (ii) collate, (iii) make publicly available and (iv) place in the Library the monthly figures on the punctuality of train operating companies as published at mainline stations. [40272]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The punctuality of the train operating companies and the rail network is measured using the Public Performance Measure (PPM). PPM data are published quarterly by the SRA, are placed in the Library and on the SRA website. The next publication on 18 March will include information on individual train operating companies. The information on train punctuality and reliability published by train operating companies at mainline stations is Passenger Charter data.

  PPM replaced the Passenger's Charter as the means of measuring passenger train performance in June 2000 to provide better information on the actual performance of Britain's passenger rail. It combines figures for punctuality and reliability into a single performance measure. It covers all scheduled services, seven days a week. It measures the performance of individual trains against their planned timetable.

  Passenger Charter forms the basis of season ticket refunds. It only covers some trains, broadly defined as weekday am and pm peak services in the south-east and all day Monday to Saturday elsewhere. There are some variations between train operating companies.

  Railway Investment
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total public sector investment in the railways was in 1995–96; and what it will be in 2010–11 in real terms based on 2001 prices. [40204]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Total investment in rail in 1995–96 was around £1.25 billion in 2000–01 prices which, within a mainly public sector rail industry, was all classified as public sector investment. Through the 10-year Plan, total investment in rail in 2010–11 is projected to be £3.6 billion in 2000–01 prices, of which £0.95 billion is estimated to directly funded public sector investment.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if his Department has conducted a sensitivity analysis on the impact of changes to the rate of return required by private sector investment in the 10-year plan. [40231]
  380W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has not carried out such an analysis.

  Rail Safety
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much his Department has spent on rail-related safety issues in each of the last three years. [40226]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Total rail safety expenditure by Government and the rail industry is not recorded in a manner to allow spending on safety to be identified separately. Much transport expenditure simultaneously delivers improvements in safety as well as other benefits.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the ratio between total rail safety spending in the United Kingdom and the number of passenger and freight journeys each year. [40228]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Road Network
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he plans to privatise the main road network. [40286]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Private companies have had an important role in road building and maintenance for many years and the 10-year plan assumes that around 25 per cent. of new investment by value will be funded by the private sector. However there are no plans to transfer ownership of the road network to the private sector.

  Spring Supply Estimates
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what purpose item lxxiv on page 8 of the Spring Supply Estimates is being transferred. [40235]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The purpose for which item lxxiv on page 8 of the Spring Supplementary Estimates 2001–02 is being transferred is explained in item lxxxii on page 9 of those estimates.

  Western Region Trains
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the Passengers Charter measuring points are for train(a) punctuality and (b) performance on the Western Region franchise. [40306]

  Mr. Jamieson
  First Great Western single, return and weekly season ticket holders are compensated for journeys that are delayed by one hour or more. The threshold for compensating other season ticket holders is below 88 per cent. for punctuality and 98.2 per cent. for reliability.

  Traffic Management
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department makes of the impact of traffic management schemes in London on overall traffic flows. [39977]
  381W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Assessment of the impact of traffic management schemes in London is the responsibility of Transport for London and the boroughs.

  The Department makes forecasts of overall traffic flows, using the National Transport Model, and outputs from TfL's London Transportation Studies model. These are strategic models and do not represent every investment in the transport network in detail. In general, individual traffic management schemes are too small to be represented in either model and their impacts are modelled by the Department in aggregate.

  High Hedges
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he has taken on legislation to control the nuisance caused by Leylandii and other high hedges. [40258]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government will introduce legislation giving local authorities the power to deal with complaints about high hedges as soon as there is space in the parliamentary timetable. We supported the Private Member's Bill on this issue introduced by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) in the last session of Parliament and were disappointed that the Bill failed to complete all its stages before the election.

  Guidelines commissioned by my Department, which provide an objective method for assessing whether high hedges block out too much light to adjoining properties, were published on our website in December. These guidelines are likely to be a factor for local authorities to take into account when determining complaints under a future statutory scheme. In the meantime, we want to encourage people to apply the guidelines and use the results to settle disputes with their neighbours amicably. We are preparing a leaflet specifically designed for this purpose, which we expect to launch in the spring.

  Road Accidents
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the annual cost of road crashes including those crashes not reported to the police. [40549]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The value of prevention of injury accidents reported to the police in 2000 is estimated to be £12,170 million. A further £4,790 million is attributed to damage only accidents which are generally not reported to the police.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will provide advice to local authorities on the supply of copies of electoral registers following the judgment in the Robertson case; and if he will make a statement. [40367]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The Robertson case raises complex and difficult legal and policy issues in relation to the sale of electoral registers which we and the Electoral Commission are currently considering very carefully. It is for the Electoral
  382W
  Commission to issue advice to local authorities in this matter and it has already posted interim advice on its website.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the Galileo navigation system may be deployed to tackle road traffic congestion; and if he will make a statement. [40309]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: How and when Galileo could be deployed to help tackle road traffic congestion will depend on timing and technical decisions yet to be taken.

  Satellite navigation is used as an embedded technology in many intelligent transport systems (ITS) such as in-car navigation, passenger and traffic information, vehicle tracking and fleet management systems. It has the potential to he used in road user charging.

  At present ITS use data from the US Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites. The European Commission has proposed that Galileo be developed as an independent satellite navigation system but inter-operable with GPS. The Transport Council on 26 March is expected to take decisions on the development and validation phase (2002–05) of Galileo. Subject to this work, further decisions would be required to proceed to deploy Galileo and begin operation in 2008. In principle, therefore, Galileo and GPS could jointly provide a navigation service from that date.

  School Bus Schemes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to implement fully the provisions of the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations in respect of yellow school bus schemes; and if he will make a statement on reasons for which the pilot schemes were exempted from the regulations. [40769]

  Ms Keeble
  The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations apply to new vehicles used on local or scheduled services where passengers are carried at separate fares. The key features of the yellow bus scheme are that it is only open to children and non-fare paying adults, that each child has a designated seat, and that the scheme is being monitored by my Department. Exemptions were given from two provisions of the regulations dealing with route and destination information, and improved seat dimensions. The exemptions will be reviewed in the light of the results of the monitoring. The vehicles comply with all other aspects of the regulations.

  Structure Plan (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Third Review of the Structure Plan in Gloucestershire. [40708]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Gloucestershire county council have started the process of reviewing their structure plan, following the adoption in November 1999 of Gloucestershire Structure Plan 2nd Review to 2011. The county put out an Issues Paper for consultation, between 12 February and 30 March

  383W
  2001. Responses to the Issues Paper were considered by the county in July 2001. A Draft Deposit Plan is due to be published during winter 2002. Further details for the structure plan timetable are yet to be confirmed.

  Private Finance (Merseyside)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of local private sector participation in the Merseyside Objective 1 1994–99 programme with reference to the role outlined in the Single Programming Document. [38365]

  Ms Keeble: The involvement of the private sector was positively encouraged as part of the partnership implementing of the 1994–99 Merseyside Objective 1 programme, and a representative from the Liverpool chamber of commerce was appointed as the private sector co-ordinator to the programme. The financial tables in the programme also included a private sector contribution and we expect this to be fully delivered.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will approve the general plan for the spending of the net proceeds from the proposed London congestion charging scheme. [41286]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today approved the general plan.

  In deciding to approve the plan, my right hon. Friend has had regard to the relevant statutory requirements. In particular, paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 23 to the GLA Act 1999 provides that "the net proceeds of the scheme shall, during the scheme's initial period 10 years beginning with the coming into force of the scheme be available only for application for relevant transport purposes". And "relevant transport purpose" is defined in paragraph 1 of Schedule 23 as "any purpose which directly or indirectly facilitates the implementation of any policies or proposals set out in the Mayor's transport strategy". Paragraph 16(5) of Schedule 23 provides that "the net proceeds of charging schemes may only be applied for purposes which provide value for money".

  My right hon. Friend has had regard to all the representations to Ministers about the general plan including those set out in the letter of 2 November 2001 from Councillor Kit Malthouse of the City of Westminster to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also had regard to those representations about the general plan submitted to Transport for London (TfL), to TfL's report which they submitted to the Mayor on 8 February about those representations, and to the Mayor's comments on them set out in his letter of 18 February to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that the general plan is consistent with the Mayor's transport strategy (which he has considered previously). He is also satisfied that the general plan enables the net proceeds to be applied for purposes which provide value for money. In this regard, my right hon. Friend considers that the general plan and the transport strategy are consistent with the Government's 10-year transport plan.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list for 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year the amount spent by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies in respect of hotel and other similar privately provided accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) other persons; if she will list the proportion of this cost incurred in respect of (x) food and (y) alcohol in each case; and if she will list the average cost per hotel room or similar unit of accommodation provided in each case. [34387]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 560W.

  Focus Groups
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many focus groups her Department has convened since June 2001; and if she will list the topics discussed; [36579]

  (2) if she will place a copy of the discussions held with focus groups convened by her Department since June 2001 in the Library. [36580]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department commissions research involving focus groups for two main purposes: to help develop and evaluate publicity campaigns; and to understand the attitudes to education and skills issues of key groups, like teachers, parents, students and others affected by the Department's policies.

  Research projects involving focus groups convened since June 2001 covered: adult basic skills; higher education; modern apprenticeships; science year; Connexions; young persons' communications; information, advice and guidance branding; matriculation diploma; dads and sons booklet; child care recruitment; foundation degrees; and the money to learn booklet.

  I have placed a copy of the report of research into attitudes of key groups to modern apprenticeships in the House of Commons Library. I will place in the Library the report of research into attitudes to various higher education issues in due course when the research and report are completed. All those other research projects which have been completed and which involve focus groups are commercial in confidence as they tested creative work commissioned from advertising agencies as part of the development of advertising campaigns.

  Capita
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what information concerning individual learning account holders has been deleted from electronic databases held by Capita; [36942]

  (2) when Capita took the decision to delete information relating to individual learning account holders; whether she was informed of such action; and if she will make a statement. [36943]
  385W
  John Healey
  The only information concerning individual learning account holders deleted from the individual learning account centre system has been that resulting from regular housekeeping such as to remove inaccurate information, duplicated entries or data input in error.

  Rural Schools
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funds the rural school grant scheme has to distribute in 2001–02; and by what means these will be distributed. [37627]

  John Healey
  The Department does not fund a rural schools grant scheme. However, rural schools can benefit from a number of programmes, including those that aim to help small schools. The school standards grant of £7,000 for 2001–02 is paid via local education authorities (LEAs) to schools with 100 pupils or less. There is also the small schools fund worth a total of £80 million a year, guaranteed until 2004. It is allocated to LEAs according to the number of primary and special schools with 200 pupils or less and secondary schools with 600 pupils or less. LEAs have to devolve at least 95 per cent. of the money to schools, either using the Department's threshold for small schools or by setting their own, lower thresholds. The funding is particularly intended to support collaborative projects, such as shared bursars or pooled

  Table 2: DfEE communications with all primary or secondary schools 1 April to 6 June 2001

  Page number

  April 2001

  The National Numeracy Strategy: Professional Development Pack: 3 and 4

  811

  Parent governor representatives on local authority committees dealing with education: notification of guidance

  1

  Policy and Consultation Note on Formula Allocation

  16

  The School Organisation Proposals by the Learning and Skills Council for England Regulations 2001

  15

  Key Stage 1–3 Regulations

  3

  School Teachers' Pay 2001–02. (Confirmation of pay settlement)

  7

  May 2001

  Key Stage 3 National Strategy: Framework for Teaching English: Years 7, 8 and 9—Management Summary

  13

  Response to the Consultation on School Governing Bodies (letter from Jacqui Smith)

  2

  Briefing note on organising teacher training

  2

  Developing Early Writing—The National Literacy Strategy (booklet and CD)

  169

  Spectrum 42

  12

  Survey of Absences in Schools

  5

  Table 3: Secondary

  Page number

  April 2001:

  Parent governor representatives on local authority committees dealing with education: notification of guidance

  1

  Policy and Consultation Note on Formula Allocation

  16

  The School Organisation Proposals by the learning and Skills Council for England Regulations 2001

  15

  Key Stage 1–3 Regulations

  3

  School Teachers Pay' 2001–02 (confirmation of pay settlement)

  7

  Key Stage 3 National Strategy—Publication Summary

  1

  Key Stage 3 National Strategy—Letter from Secretary of State

  2

  May 2001

  Key Stage 3 National Strategy: Framework for Teaching English: Years 7, 8 and 9—Management Summary

  13

  Response to the Consultation on School Governing Bodies (letter from Jacqui Smith)

  2

  Child Protection: Handling Allegations against Teachers and Other Staff: appointment of Coordinators

  2

  Briefing note on organising teacher training

  2

  Key stage 3 National Strategy: Framework for teaching English: Years 7, 8 and 9

  75

  Spectrum 42

  12

  Survey of Absences in Schools

  5

  Key Stage 3 National Strategy: Framework for Teaching Mathematics: Years 7, 8 and 9 Management Summary

  11

  386W
  administrative staff. An element of it can be spent on extending hours of existing administrative staff, buying in staff cover or investing in ICT equipment.

  Circulars
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the circular documents that were sent by the Department for Education and Employment to(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools between 1 May 1997 and 6 June 2001; and how many pages each document contained. [38802]

  Mr. Timms
  The following table 1 shows the total number of documents sent to schools between 1 May 1997 and 6 June 2001. The full lists of titles are contained in tables 2 and 3, updating the list placed in conjunction with a parliamentary answer given to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 313W.

  Table 1: Mailings to all primary or all secondary schools by school year

  Items Primary

  Items Secondary

  1997–981

  86

  85

  1998–99

  96

  115

  1999–2000

  146

  164

  2000–012

  64

  63

  1 From 1 May 1997

  2 Up to 6 June 2001

  School Federations
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations her Department has received from schools wishing to form federations of schools; and if she will list the schools which would be included in each federation. [38856]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: No official representations have been received. As arrangements for the establishment of federations of schools will be governed by regulations under clauses 23 and 24 of the Education Bill, which have yet to be made, there is no statutory mechanism for considering federation proposals.

  PFI
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if her Department maintains a list of PFI-funded projects. [39539]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department maintains a list of projects, available on the DfES internet website www.dfes.gov.uk/ppppfi, procured under the public-private partnerships/private finance initiative (PPP/PFI).

  Design Champion
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is the role of the design champion in her Department. [39540]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The DfES designated design champion is the Director of Strategy and Communications, whose responsibilities include promoting best practice design principles in the work of the Department. The design champion role involved raising awareness across the Department of the benefits to policy making and service delivery of good design management. In fulfilling this role, the Director of Strategy and Communications worked with the Design Council and other Departments on a series of best practice procedures that were subsequently incorporated into departmental guidance on, and prominence given to, project management. He also helped the Design Council produce a handbook of case studies in which good design had led to better outcomes. This included the creation of the Westminster suite at Caxton house, the learning journey handbook for parents and improved organisation and colour coding, etc. of materials being sent into schools.

  Volunteers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many members of her staff in each of the past two years have been granted a day's paid leave to work as a volunteer; and if she will make a statement. [39746]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department does not keep central records of paid leave which staff have been granted to work as volunteers. The DfES fully supports voluntary public service and offers staff paid leave for some voluntary activities.

  Schools (Commercial Activities)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her Department's388W
  policy with regard to the control of commercial activity within maintained schools by companies wishing to sell goods to pupils. [39893]

  Mr. Timms
  While we welcome business support for education, it is for schools themselves to decide whether to accept business sponsorship of educational activities or the sale of goods to pupils. We issued guidelines entitled "Best Practice Principles: Commercial Activities in Schools" last year to help schools make informed and sensible decisions about the nature of business involvement. The guidelines make clear that schools should satisfy themselves that the educational benefits of the commercial activity outweigh the potential disbenefits; that explicit sales messages should be avoided wherever possible; and that the level of any branding should be appropriate to the activity.

  Examination Papers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she will take to ensure that all examination papers for A-levels will arrive on time. [40670]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In its review of Curriculum 2000: Report on Phase Two, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has stated that it will set challenging targets and performance indicators for the awarding bodies. The Joint Council for General Qualifications—the umbrella organisation for the awarding bodies—will expedite further work that it is undertaking on common labels for question paper packets.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she will take to ensure that no exam scripts are lost after being returned to the examination board. [40671]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The awarding bodies, which are independent non-profit making enterprises, are responsible for their own arrangements for the storage of scripts.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she will take to ensure that examination boards inform schools and colleges about re-mark grades before students move on to further and higher education. [40672]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Since 1999, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) has set targets for the awarding bodies to meet all requests for remarking and appeals. The agreed targets for the two stages of the awarding bodies' appeals process are:Inquiry stage
  where requests are received within seven days of the publication of results. Remarking should be completed within 30 calendar days. This service is a priority service available only to A and AS level candidates whose higher education places may be dependent on a remark.
  where requests are received after the seven days of the publication of results but before 20 September, they should be completed within 40 calendar days. This service is available for all candidates.
  second stage
  The second or formal appeal stage should be completed by 14 February.
  389W
  Data for awarding bodies' performance in 2001 against these targets will be published by QCA later in the month. In 2000 95 per cent of A/AS level inquiries and 93 per cent. of GCSE inquiries where completed within the target time.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the loss of psychology examination scripts from Runshaw College by Edexcel. [40673]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Runshaw College requested the return of 84 psychology scripts, 78 scripts were sent back to the college. Of the six that were missing, two had been transferred to Edexcel's script archive before the college requested the scripts. These are being returned to the college. Four scripts have been mislaid. Edexcel will continue to search for them urgently.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement(a) on the failure of AQA to re-mark scripts from Runshaw College before 17 October 2001 and (b) on its provision only of provisional marks. [40674]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Inquiries about A level results received within one week of the publication of results are treated as priority cases. The response time laid down by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is 30 days from receipt of the inquiry. Inquiries received after one week of publication of results have a target response time of 40 days from receipt. On 17 October there were four inquiries that were unresolved for Runshaw College. The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) received these inquiries on 19 September, one day before the closing date for inquiries. They were completed by 29 October.

  All Statements of Results are printed as "Provisional". These results can be subject to amendment and are confirmed by the issue of a Certificate some four weeks after the publication of results.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she will take to ensure that there is a consistency of marking throughout examination boards. [40675]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority as regulator of the public examination system is responsible for the maintenance of standards. They operate a range of mechanisms to check the examination process, and police and monitor a code of practice, which all awarding bodies must adhere to. The code of practice—which is a public document—is designed to promote quality and consistency in the examining process across all awarding bodies. It helps to ensure that grading standards are constant in each subject across different awarding bodies and different syllabuses from year to year.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she is taking with respect to the examination boards who have failed to provide the service required in order to ensure that the errors and faults that occurred last year do not occur again. [40676]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), as the regulatory body, is responsible for monitoring the performance of the awarding bodies. QCA has recently published audit reports on two 390W
  awarding bodies, Edexcel and the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance, which made a number of recommendations for improvements to the delivery of services. QCA is monitoring the implementation of the recommendations to ensure that they improve their performance in coming months and are able to deliver the examinations in summer 2002 and beyond efficiently.

  Specialist Schools
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of applications for specialist school status were successful in 2001. [40715]

  Mr. Timms
  A total of 423 applications for specialist school status were received in 2001 of which 218, or 51.5 per cent., were successful.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Government have to replace the individual learning account. [40627]

  John Healey
  There will be a replacement ILA-type scheme building on the strengths of the ILA and taking into account the findings of the current stakeholder consultation exercise, which are due in early April.

  Modern Apprenticeship Schemes
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what Government initiatives are in place to attract capable young people to advanced modern apprenticeship schemes. [39710]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: Last November, at the launch of the new generation of modern apprenticeships, the Secretary of State announced a £16 million marketing campaign, to be run over three years in England, to promote apprenticeships and boost participation. That campaign, led jointly by the Department and the Learning and Skills Council, started on 4 March. A new television advertisement, aimed at young people, will run throughout March from today.

  We have also now agreed with the Learning and Skills Council a detailed implementation plan for the strengthening and expansion of new generation modern apprenticeships, in line with the recommendations of the MA Advisory Committee chaired by Sir John Cassels. From the spring, a range of marketing measures will be introduced to reach not only young people, but also key influencers and employers. At the local level, Learning and Skills Councils, Connexions Partnerships, careers services and other partners will work together to raise awareness of, and foster support for, modern apprenticeships; and to provide young people with essential information and advice on the opportunities available in their communities. This action supports the Government's aims for stronger vocational and work-based learning for young people, as announced in our Green Paper published recently.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings Ministers in her Department have held with the Minister for Children and Young
  391W
  People since June 2001; what the date of each meeting was; which Ministers were present; and what subjects were discussed. [40477]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: In accordance with Part II of the Open Government Code of Practice, it is not the practice to disclose details of such internal discussions.

  Public Appointments (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people from Warrington, North she has appointed to non-departmental public bodies since 1997. [39448]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Nobody with a home address in the parliamentary constituency of Warrington, North has been appointed to a non-departmental public body sponsored by my Department since 1997.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Romania
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the official diaries of the British Ambassador to Romania, covering meetings with businessmen from Britain over the period June and July2001, are available. [39512]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: As is the normal practice, the Ambassador's diaries covering the period are held in the British Embassy Bucharest. It is not our policy to release internal diaries.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department invited the Romanian Government to visit Britain in November 2001. [39053]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The Romanian Prime Minister was invited by the CBI in June 2001 to speak at their annual conference on 6 November. On the advice of the FCO, the Prime Minister agreed to a meeting with Mr. Nastase during this visit.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department(a) made and (b) received regarding Romania's accession to the EU following the successful acquisition of the SIDEX steel plant by LNM/Ispat International. [39016]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 611–12W.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list nongovernmental organisations operating in the South West Region that receive public funds from his Department; and what amount of annual funding they received in the most recent year for which figures are available. [39187]

  Mr. Straw
  The information is not available in the format requested and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.
  392W

  Angola
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the prospects for peace in Angola; and if he will make a statement. [39725]

  Mr. MacShane
  The recent death of UNITA leader, Jonas Savimbi, offers Angola a unique opportunity to move the peace process forwards, after nearly three decades of civil war. We look to the Government of Angola to take the initiative in building dialogue. We call on the Angolans to respond positively.

  This is also a chance for the Government of Angola to turn their full attention to addressing the worsening humanitarian crisis and the rebuilding of Angola's infrastructure.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to hold discussions with the Angolan Government. [39611]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have invited Foreign Minister Miranda of Angola to visit the UK at the end of March. During his visit he will hold substantive bilateral discussions with UK Ministers.

  Non-Refoulement
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the EU on the compliance of national states which receive aid from the EU in respect of non-refoulement; and if he will make a statement; [39870]

  (2) which countries in receipt of British or EU bilateral or multi-lateral aid are suspected of breaking international law on human rights, with particular reference to non-refoulement. [39871]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have not had any specific discussions on aid dispersion in respect of non-refoulement with EU Governments.

  However, when considering overseas aid the UK Government and the EU take into account the human rights record of the receiving country.

  We are committed to the principle of non-refoulement and support UNHCR's efforts to ensure that states are aware of, and act on, their obligations to protect refugees and persons seeking asylum.

  Foreign Investment (Government Assistance)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many companies employing under 150 people in the UK seeking to invest in a particular country, have been(a) granted access to the ambassador, (b) granted ministerial attention and (c) recommended to the Prime Minister for endorsement during the last three years. [39714]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: Ministers and ambassadors lobby frequently in support of UK commercial interests in overseas markets. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Members for East

  393W
  Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 14 February 2002, Official Report, columns 610–11W.

  The information requested by the right hon. Gentleman is subject to commercial confidentiality (exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies).

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held in the last six months with the US Government about the position of Allied POWs held in Japanese prisoner of war camps during World War II. [40613]

  Mr. MacShane
  None.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations in the last six months he has received about the status of the 1951 San Francisco treaty with Japan. [40616]

  Mr. MacShane
  I held a meeting with former far east prisoners of war on 15 January to hear their views on this issue. I have also been in correspondence with members of a former far east prisoner of war group on the subject.

  Montenegro
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the holding of a referendum on independence in Montenegro by the end of this year; and if he has received representations from the Montenegran Government on the issue. [40638]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The future of Montenegro is ultimately in the hands of the people of Montenegro. But we and our EU partners have made clear our belief that Montenegro's interests, and those of the wider region, will best be served by a negotiated outcome between Belgrade and Podgorica which leaves intact a single internationally-recognised state. The EU High Representative, Javier Solana, has been working with the parties on this issue since November 2001. We strongly

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  March 2002

  1

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (evening)

  1

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council

  4

  Brussels

  Eurogroup (evening)

  4

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  5

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  7

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  11

  Brussels

  Research Council

  11–12

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  15–16

  Barcelona

  European Council

  18

  Toledo

  Meeting of Trade Ministers (Ministerial Informal)

  18–19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Toledo

  Euromed Trade Ministers Meeting

  23–24

  Brussels

  Defence Minister's Meeting (Ministerial Informal)

  25–26

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecom Council

  27–28

  Monterry, Mexico

  Financing and Development Conference

  The following are the principal events in the EU between 1 April and August 2002 (certain relevant events
  394W
  support his efforts and have advised the parties against any abrupt or unilateral moves in this delicate situation. All those concerned, including President Djukanovic of Montenegro, have engaged constructively in this process.

  We maintain regular contact with the Montenegrin authorities, and with President Djukanovic personally, on this and on other issues.

  Europe Day
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to celebrate Europe day in 2002. [41288]

  Peter Hain
  The FCO today launched a new website, www.europeday.gov.uk, to raise awareness of Europe day and of Britain's role in Europe. It is hoped that the website format and the style of the content will primarily appeal to teenagers and young adults. It will feature information about Europe day and the European Union, details of Europe day celebrations and a quiz to promote an interest in European affairs.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish the next report to Parliament on Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration. [41289]

  Mr. MacShane
  The tenth report in this series, covering the period July-December 2001, was laid before the House yesterday. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website, www.fco.gov.uk. The report includes a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend the report to the House.

  European Union
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for March and also the major European Union events for the period between 31 March and August. [41290]

  Peter Hain
  The information is as follows.

  are also included: the list is based on the information available at the date of issue).
  395W

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  April

  5–6

  Luxembourg

  Migrations Council (ASEM Ministerial Informal)

  8

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  13–14

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN (Ministerial Informal)

  15–16

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  22–23

  Valencia

  Euromed Conference

  22–23

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  25–26

  Luxembourg

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  27–30

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council (Ministerial Informal)

  May

  3–4

  Brussels

  Tourism Council (Ministerial Informal)

  6

  Brussels

  Eurogroup

  7

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  9

  —

  Europe Day

  13

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council and Defence Ministers Meeting

  17–18

  Madrid

  EU-Latin America and Caribbean Summit

  21

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council

  23

  Brussels

  Culture and Audio-visual Council

  24–26

  Brussels

  Environment Council (Ministerial Informal)

  27–28

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  30

  Brussels

  Development Council

  30

  Brussels

  Education and Youth Council

  31–1 June

  Brussels

  Transport Council (Ministerial Informal)

  June

  3

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  3

  Brussels

  Eurogroup

  4

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  6–8

  Brussels

  Foreign Affairs Council (ASEM Ministers)

  6–7

  Brussels

  Industry and Energy Council

  10–11

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  10–11

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  11

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  13–14

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecoms Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  21–22

  Seville

  European Council

  24

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council (Evening)

  24–25

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  25

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  26

  Brussels

  Health Council

  July

  6

  Copenhagen

  ASEM Ministers for Finance

  12

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  12–13

  Kolding

  Meeting of Employment and Social Policy Ministers (Informal)

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Brussels

  Budget Meeting

  19–21

  Arhus

  Environment Ministers Meeting (Informal)

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  August

  31–1

  Elsinore

  Gymnich (Ministerial Informal)

  European Union
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 27 February 2002, Ref 38404, if his Department has conducted an internal analysis of the recurring annual direct and indirect(a) costs and (b) benefits arising from UK membership of the European Union. [40849]

  Peter Hain
  No.

  Laeken Declaration
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a396W
  statement on paragraph 1 of the Laeken conclusions, with particular reference to the inclusion of the concept of irreversibility. [39631]

  Peter Hain
  The opening paragraph of the Laeken conclusions refers to three of the EU' s main projects—the introduction of the single currency, enlargement and the Future of Europe debate. The Gothenburg European Council in June 2001 noted the impressive progress in the enlargement negotiations and observed that"The enlargement process is irreversible".

  At Laeken, in December, the European Council confirmed the continued good progress of the negotiations and reiterated the irreversible nature of the process. The

  397W
  Government remain committed to the timetable for enlargement agreed at Gothenburg and reinforced at Laeken.

TREASURY

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue the Treasury estimates has been lost each year since 1997 through(a) income tax evasion, (b) VAT evasion, (c) non-payment of national insurance contributions and (d) benefit fraud. [36075]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no reliable measure of the total income tax and national insurance contributions lost to evasion. In his report, published in March 2002, Lord Grabiner QC commented on the scale of the hidden economy and said:"By its nature, the size of the informal economy is hard to measure. Most estimates are based on analysing high-level economic aggregates, such as labour market statistics or income and expenditure surveys, and calculate the result as a percentage of GDP. However there is research which suggests that these estimates tend to be exaggerated."
  "It would be impractical to arrive at a precise and meaningful figure as to the scale of the problem without a considerable investment of time and resources."

  There are no revenue estimates for all VAT evasion since 1997. However, estimates for VAT Missing Trader Fraud have been published and I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 19 of the Customs and Excise paper "Measuring Indirect Tax Fraud" that was published on 27 November 2001 a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This gives estimates for this type of VAT fraud for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. There are no estimates for any earlier years. The most recent estimate of the annual loss to benefit fraud is £2 billion.

  New Enterprise Support Initiative Helpline
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of usage of the New Enterprise Support initiative helpline. [38513]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The NESI helpline opened for business in April 1999 and is on target to receive half a million calls from employers and prospective employers this year.

  Debt (Customs and Excise)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the outstanding debt to HM Customs and Excise at(a) 31 March 2000, (b) 31 March 2001 and (c) the most recent date for which information is available was in respect of (i) assessments being challenged by business, (ii) fraud-related debts where recovery action has been suspended and (iii) debt placed under civil recovery action through the courts; [38601]

  (2) what was the total outstanding debt to HM Customs and Excise at (a) 31 March 1996, (b) 31 March 1997, (c) 31 March 1998, (d) 31 March 1999, (e) 31 March 2000 and (f) 31 March 2001. [38602]
  398W
  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: Relevant statistical information concerning debt owed by HM Customs and Excise is published on a routine basis in their Departmental Annual Report.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many parliamentary questions tabled to his Department since July 2001 have yet to receive substantive replies. [40012]

  Mr. Boateng
  3,162 of the 3,291 written questions tabled to the Treasury in the present parliamentary session have already been answered substantively. The dates by which answers are due have not yet been reached in the case of 68 of the remaining 129 questions.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of(a) ordinary written questions and (b) named day questions have been answered by his Department (i) within a week of tabling and (ii) on the named day since June 2001. [40014]

  Mr. Boateng
  1,714 of the 2,236 ordinary written questions (76.7 per cent.) tabled in the present parliamentary session were answered within a week, and 780 of the 1,055 named day questions (73.9 per cent.) were answered on the nominated day.

  Brownfield Sites
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal incentives he provides to encourage the development of brownfield sites. [40421]

  Mr. Boateng
  Budget 2001 introduced a 150 per cent. accelerated tax credit for the costs of cleaning up contaminated land. It allows companies to claim an enhanced tax deduction for the costs that they incur in cleaning up contaminated sites acquired as part of their trade or schedule A business, and applies to expenditure on or after 11 May 2001.

  Construction Industry
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what taxation and regulatory measures he has applied to the construction industry to encourage environmentally friendly building practices. [40420]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have introduced a number of taxation measures which are intended to have positive environmental impacts, including encouraging environmentally-friendly building practices. These include the following.

  The aggregates levy will encourage a shift in demand away from virgin aggregate towards recycled construction and demolition waste, and will promote greater resource efficiency in the construction industry. The aggregates levy-funded sustainability fund in England will include projects to promote more sustainable construction and demolition practices.

  Increases in the landfill tax encourage the recycling of construction and demolition wastes, and create incentives to minimise waste.
  399W
  The 150 per cent. accelerated tax credit for cleaning up contaminated land encourages urban regeneration and reduces pressure on greenfield sites.

  The reduced rate of VAT on the installation of energy saving materials supports the introduction of energy efficiency measures in the domestic sector, particularly through Government-funded programmes such as the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Regulations on the construction industry are a matter for other Government Departments.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many members her Department employs in its regulatory impact unit; and if she will make a statement. [38265]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Treasury, Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise each have separate departmental regulatory impact units in which two, five and three people respectively co-ordinate work on regulatory impact.

  The staff in each unit works closely with the officials responsible for developing policies within their department and the regulatory impact within the Cabinet Office. They focus on those regulations which impact on business, charities, and the voluntary sector.

  Export Licences
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the expected time limit is on decisions for export licence applications. [40256]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Export Control Organisation (ECO) sets out the Government's commitment to exporters in a Service and Performance Code (available on its website www.dti.gov.uk/export.control). Where, as in almost all cases, it is necessary for a Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) application to be circulated to other Government Departments the aim is to provide a response to 70 per cent. of cases within 20 working days, except in special circumstances. Details of performance in processing SIEL applications against the target are published in the Government's annual reports on strategic export controls, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  While there is no time limit placed on decisions for export licences, the Government are committed to processing all export licence applications as quickly as possible, consistent with our determination to manage the transfer of all goods and technology controlled for strategic reasons in a responsible manner.

  Financial Questionnaire
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the criteria used to determine which companies are required to answer the Annual Business Inquiry-Part II for 2001 Financial Questionnaire from the Office for National Statistics; for what reasons this is compulsory; what the timescale is in which companies are required to answer; what proportion have responded to previous 400W
  annual inquiries since 1997; how long it will take to process the information for this inquiry; and for what purposes the information will be used. [39959]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Adrian Flook, dated 6 March 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question regarding the criteria used to determine which companies are required to answer the Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) - Part II for 2001 Financial Questionnaire from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). I am replying in his absence. (39959)
  The ABI is a vital source of information about the structure of UK industry and the economy. It is used to compile the input/output tables, which underpin the United Kingdom National Accounts, including estimates of GDP, and is increasingly being used as a source of regional economic data.
  ONS compiles a register of businesses classified by size, as defined by the number of employees, and by the nature of their business activity. It is important for ONS to ensure representative results from its business inquiries, including the ABI. Representative results have to be based on representative survey samples and, as such, data has to be collected from businesses of all sizes and all sectors of the economy. ONS therefore approaches small, medium and large sized companies. However, ONS is conscious of the need to lighten the form-filling burden for businesses wherever possible, and particularly for smaller businesses, without compromising survey results. Companies with fewer than 10 employees are selected and are subject to a guarantee that they will only be expected to complete one business inquiry form, at most, every 3 years. Small to medium sized businesses are usually included in the sample for 2 consecutive years and are then replaced by another similar sized business in their industry. The largest companies will inevitably always be selected. In 2001, 72,000 UK businesses, out of a total of just under 2 million businesses, received the ABI Part II form.
  The ABI is a statutory inquiry conducted under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947. Its statutory nature reflects the importance of the information collected for the monitoring of UK economic trends by the Government. A voluntary inquiry would have to approach a much larger number of businesses in order to ensure a similar level of response, and even then response would be biased towards those companies that were inclined to be co-operative with such business inquiries.
  Companies are required to submit data by 31 March or within 2 months of their business year-end. If no figures are available for calendar year 2001, a return may cover a business year ending on any date between 6 April 2001 and 5 April 2002. Contributors to the inquiry are welcome to telephone the ONS contact named on the inquiry form for assistance in making their return.
  The proportions of companies responding to Annual Business Inquiries over the three years since it was implemented in 1998 are 85% in 1998, 86% in 1999 and 85% in 2000.
  For the 2001 inquiry provisional results will be made available in a First Release in December 2002 with final results in June 2003.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which organisations have made representations to the Treasury since 7 June 2001 concerning the structure of capital gains tax taper relief; and if he will make a statement. [39901]
  401W
  Ruth Kelly
  As is normal in the run up to the Budget, the Government have received a number of representations from a variety of organisations. The pre-Budget report said:"The Government are considering the various proposals it has received in response to the consultation launched in June 2001 on value for money options to simplify CGT within the existing policy framework. It is also considering whether there is any case for changes to the CGT regime for non-business assets."

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which organisations made representations concerning capital gains tax taper relief between 1 May 1997 and 1 April 1999; and if he will make a statement. [39902]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's reform of capital gains tax generated a large number of representations, some in response to the consultation announced by the Chancellor in his Budget on 2 July 1997, some outside that consultation. A comprehensive list of all the parties concerned could be produced only at disproportionate cost. We are grateful to the many individuals and organisations who took the trouble to let us know their views. Their ideas fed into the reforms that the Government made to capital gains tax in 1998 and subsequently.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many press releases were issued by his Department(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40042]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  1 May-31 December 1997

  129

  1998

  239

  1999

  283

  2000

  151

  2001

  154

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed in a press or public relations function in his Department on 1 January in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [39931]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 5 December 2001, Official Report, column 328W.

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in his Department. [40976]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury policy on the payment of relocation expenses is that assistance can only be given in the form of reimbursement of reasonable vouched expenses actually and necessarily incurred.

  Email Mailing List
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of 402W
  days that the Treasury's email mailing list system has been operational since 1 January 2001; and if he will make a statement. [40813]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury's email mailing list system was set up more than seven years ago and has historically proven very reliable. Since January 2001, the system has encountered some technical difficulties and become difficult to maintain. Over the last 14 months the service has been out of operation for approximately four to six weeks. Where possible, the Treasury Internet team have informed subscribers when the service is not available.

  The Treasury's Information Services team are currently evaluating alternative systems that should prove more reliable. In the meantime, Members interested in seeing lists of recent Treasury press notices can find them on the Treasury's website at http://www.treasury.gov.uk/Newsroom_and_Speeches/.

  Intrastat System
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use is made by the Government of the statistical information obtained from Intrastat returns. [40836]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Customs and Excise collect statistics for intra Community trade via the Intrastat system. Statistical data are supplied to other Government Departments to enable them to carry out their economic and strategic obligations.

  Data from Intrastat returns are a necessary component of the Office for National Statistics' (ONS) monthly trade first release and is a significant part of the Quarterly Balance of Payments (BOP) and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data. The data appear in three economic indicators that are widely used across Government, in particular in HM Treasury and the Bank of England, to assess the economic performance of the UK.

  A number of other Government Departments and devolved Administrations with policy interests in overseas trade, such as the DTI and the Welsh Assembly Government use the data for their own needs. It is used to evaluate global markets and in the development of regional international trade strategies.

  The Defence Analytical Services Agency uses the data for reporting the export and import of defence equipment and the defence balance of payments for trade in services and for estimating UK employment dependent on defence equipment exports.

  The Defence Export Services Organisation uses the information for the reporting of statistics on exports of military equipment, published in the annual report on Strategic Export Controls.

  Customs supply data to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) for, among other uses, compiling Government reports, e.g. BSE and foot and mouth.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to simplify the classification system used to identify products under the Intrastat system. [40837]
  403W
  Ruth Kelly
  HM Customs and Excise collect statistics for intra-Community trade via the Intrastat Supplementary Declaration. Declarations can be submitted on paper or electronically.

  Intrastat, including the classification system used to identify products, is governed by European legislation. There are currently no plans to simplify the classification system.

  Insurance Cover (Overseas Treatment)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the availability of insurance cover for medical treatment overseas for injuries received from terrorist activities. [41189]

  Ruth Kelly
  We receive a great many representations from both industry and individuals.

  Insurance cover for medical treatment overseas, including for injuries received from terrorist activities, continues to be available in the UK marketplace.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment he has made of the total real terms expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity in each of the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (A) advertising and (B) press and public relations. [36169]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  No expenditure has been incurred by my Department on publicity.

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in each of the last four years. [36199]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  No staff in my Department have received paid leave to undertake union duties.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list for 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year the amount spent by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies in respect of hotel and other similar privately-provided accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) other persons; if he will list the proportion of this cost incurred in respect of (x) food and (y) alcohol in each case; and if he will list the average cost per hotel room or similar unit of accommodation provided in each case. [34377]
  404W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 559–60W.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how much was spent on entertainment by the Lord Chancellor's Department in each year from 1997 to date. [40067]

  Mr. Wills
  Estimated expenditure by both officials and Ministers on entertainment for the financial year 2000–01 was £60,768, in 1999–2000 was £71,166 and in 1998–99 was £45,087. Information for 1997–98 is not readily available.

  These figures differ from those previously provided by the Department in an earlier answer in the previous Parliament on 8 May 2001, Official Report, column 55W. The reason for the discrepancy is that a significant amount of expenditure that should not have been included in the total for entertainment had been miscoded as such by officials. The majority of the miscoded amount was for working lunches for panel members conducting interviews of candidates for judicial office. The effect was to overstate the true figure by approximately 20 per cent. for each of the three years covered above in the 8 May 2001 answer.

  I apologise to the House for this mistake. The errors resulted from an incomplete understanding of existing guidance by staff and the Department has drawn the attention of budget management staff to the correct procedures to be followed. Comprehensive guidance is to be re-issued before the end of the financial year.

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what legal costs have been incurred by his Department in each of the last four years. [34289]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department has incurred no legal costs during the period mentioned.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Marriage and Relationship Support
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what grants she will make towards marriage and relationship support in the financial year 2002–03. [41698]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  During the next financial year (2002–03), the Lord Chancellor's Department will spend £5 million on marriage and relationship support, an increase of £0.5 million on the funding for the financial year 2001–02.

  This is the first financial year in which the marriage and relationship support fund has been allocated using the new grant programme launched in September 2001. The new programme introduced openly published criteria, which have been used to evaluate all applications received for this round of allocations. The aim of the Department is that the marriage and relationship support grant should be targeted on improving existing service delivery, as well as developing research, innovative projects, and the

  405W
  dissemination of better links and good practice among a wider and more diverse range of service providers than in previous years.

  The funding has been allocated as set out in the tables:

  Core funding

  Funding allocated (£)

  Parentline Plus

  62,000

  Relate

  2,104,000

  Marriage Care

  300,000

  Family Welfare Association

  30,000

  One Plus One

  242,000

  London Marriage Guidance Council

  103,000

  Tavistock Marital Studies Institute

  464,000

  Jewish Marriage Council

  44,000

  Asian Family Counselling Service

  50,000

  Research and development funding

  Project title

  Amount allocated (£)

  University of Exeter, School of Psychology

  Money management and marital commitment in new couples: An evaluation of the efficacy of the FOCCUS inventory

  43,000

  Relate

  Accessibility (follow-on bid)

  32,000

  Relate

  Domestic Violence (follow-on bid)

  40,000

  Care for the Family

  Asian Family Matters

  19,000

  Relate

  Quality Assurance (follow-on bid)

  30,000

  2as 1

  Development and Adaptation of Relate Training Material

  66,000

  London Marriage Guidance Council

  Community Development

  71,000

  The Minster Centre

  Aracas Project (domestic violence)

  72,000

  Tavistock Marital Studies Institute

  Brief Psychotherapy

  32,000

  2as 1

  Partnership project (Relate)—Awareness campaign to promote MARS to the Black African and Afro-Caribbean communities

  120,000

  Sussex Family Mediation Service

  One Stop Shop

  26,000

  The Church of England

  Marriage Preparation and Support in the South East

  54,000

  Brook in Birmingham

  Counselling for Young Couples

  39,000

  Marriage Care

  Emotional Literacy: Foundations for a Good Life: Phase 2

  30,000

  The Richmond Centre

  Videos are Valuable

  38,000

  One Plus One

  Investigation of Use and Value of Helpline Services

  39,000

  One Plus One

  Investigation of Relationship Support

  46,000

  Jewish Marriage Council,

  Starting Marriage on the Right Foot

  40,000

  Talking Matters1

  Infrastructure for Marriage Preparation in the Orthodox Jewish Community

  24,000

  Total

  861,000

  1 Moved from core to R&D

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will make it her policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in her Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40434]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Paragraph 8.2.1 of the Civil Service Management Code requires Departments and agencies to ensure that staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel in the circumstances, taking into account any management benefit or the needs of staff with disabilities. In the headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department (including associated offices), the Court Service and the Public Guardianship Office, staff at or above the equivalent of senior executive officer level who travel on official business by train may travel first class. Staff at more junior levels may also do so if there is a business need for them to accompany staff who are permitted to travel first class. There are no present plans to change this policy.

  Magistrates Pilot (Bristol)
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will make a
  406W

  Core funding

  Funding allocated (£)

  2as 1

  150,000

  Totnes Family Partnership

  58,000

  Somerset Family Partnership

  50,000

  Family Matters York

  50,000

  The Lesbian and Gay Foundation

  48,000

  Muslim Women's Helpline

  20,000

  The Salvation Arm

  40,000

  Aquila Care Trust

  88,000

  Project for Advocacy, Counselling and Education

  46,000

  Basic For Life

  34,000

  The Cogwheel Trust

  4,000

  Poole Community Family Trust

  50,000

  CFP Guildford

  40,000

  Bristol Community Family Trust

  50,000

  Total

  4,139,000

  statement on the success of the scheme run in conjunction with Operation Black Vote and piloted in Bristol, East which enables members of the ethnic minority community to spend time shadowing magistrates on the Bristol and Northavon circuit. [40351]

  Mr. Wills
  Bristol is one of seven areas piloting the magistrates shadowing scheme that my Department is running in conjunction with Operation Black Vote. The other areas are Birmingham, Bradford, Cardiff, Inner London, Middlesex and Oldham. It is a little too soon for me to be able to make a general statement on the success of the scheme. A full evaluation of the pilots is due to take place in the summer once all the pilots have been completed. The Lord Chancellor and I have been struck by the enthusiasm of the participants in Bristol and other pilot areas. I hope that participants will go out into their communities and explain and promote the role of magistrates, and so encourage more people from ethnic communities to put themselves forward for appointment.

  Court Closures
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which magistrates courts have closed since 1 May 1997. [39376]
  407W
  Mr. Wills
  The courthouses that have closed since 1 May 1997 are listed in the table.

  Magistrates courts committees are not statutorily required to inform the Lord Chancellor's Department of proposed courthouse closures which are not subject to an appeal by its paying authority or authorities.

  It is the Government's policy that decisions concerning the number, location and future of magistrates courts are for each magistrates courts committee to determine, in consultation with its local paying authority or authorities.

  Magistrates courthouse

  Closure date

  Bromsgrove

  31 May 1997

  Ledbury

  31 May 1997

  Hebburn

  5 June 1997

  South Shields (Kepple street)

  5 June 1997

  Bargoed

  30 June 1997

  Chippenham (Market place)

  30 June 1997

  Monmouth

  30 June 1997

  Pontlottyn

  30 June 1997

  Pontypool

  30 June 1997

  Ashton under Lyne (Manchester road)

  31 August 1997

  Duckinsfield

  31 August 1997

  Thorne

  31 August 1997

  Braintree

  31 December 1997

  Clacton on Sea

  31 December 1997

  Saffron Walden

  31 December 1997

  Stokesley

  31 December 1997

  Malton

  6 February 1998

  Appleby

  31 March 1998

  Bishop's Stortford

  31 March 1998

  Chertsey

  31 March 1998

  Farnham

  31 March 1998

  Hatfield

  31 March 1998

  Hitchin

  31 March 1998

  Market Rasen

  31 March 1998

  Marlborough street

  31 March 1998

  Oxted

  31 March 1998

  Lutterworth

  31 July 1998

  Ripon

  1 August 1998

  Barnard Castle

  31 December 1998

  Clerkenwell

  31 December 1998

  Corwen

  31 December 1998

  Diss

  31 December 1998

  Felixstowe

  31 December 1998

  Haverhill

  31 December 1998

  Lytham

  31 December 1998

  Newmarket

  31 December 1998

  Saxmundham

  31 December 1998

  Sheerness

  31 December 1998

  Stowmarket

  31 December 1998

  West Mailing

  31 December 1998

  Abingdon

  31 March 1999

  Christchurch

  31 March 1999

  Henley on Thames

  31 March 1999

  Morley

  31 March 1999

  Pudsey

  31 March 1999

  Windsor

  31 March 1999

  Stow on the Wold

  30 June 1999

  March

  31 December 1999

  Ampthill

  1 January 2000

  Biggleswade

  1 January 2000

  Dunstable

  1 January 2000

  Leighton Buzzard

  1 January 2000

  Lichfield

  31 March 2000

  Keighley

  1 April 2000

  Keswick

  30 April 2000

  Appleby

  31 May 2000

  Windermere

  31 May 2000

  Wigton

  31 May 2000

  Gravesend

  9 June 2000

  Wootton Bassett

  2 October 2000

  408W

  Magistrates courthouse

  Closure date

  Abergele

  31 December 2000

  Alfreton

  1 January 2001

  Ashbourne

  1 January 2001

  Bakewell

  1 January 2001

  Matlock

  1 January 2001

  Leigh

  31 March 2001

  Middleton

  31 March 2001

  Leek

  31 March 2001

  Worcester

  31 March 2001

  Macclesfield Park Green

  1 April 2001

  Warrington Patten Hall

  1 April 2001

  Bideford

  30 April 2001

  Exmouth

  30 April 2001

  Kingsbridge

  30 April 2001

  South Molton

  30 April 2001

  Teignmouth

  30 April 2001

  Tavistock

  30 April 2001

  Axminster

  4 May 2001

  Tiverton

  4 May 2001

  Newquay

  30 June 2001

  Womborne

  31 August 2001

  Southampton (Commercial road)

  31 August 2001

  Gillingham

  30 September 2001

  Bridlington

  9 November 2001

  Brough

  9 November 2001

  Driffield

  9 November 2001

  Hull (Guildhall)

  9 November 2001

  Hull (Lowgate)

  9 November 2001

  Pocklington

  0 November 2001

  Withernsea

  9 November 2001

  Magistrates
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people from the Warrington, North constituency have been appointed to the magistracy in each year since 1997. [39453]

  Mr. Wills
  The figures sought are set out in the table. This year the Advisory Committee is looking to recommend five new appointments but no decisions have yet been made about who will be recommended. The Advisory Committee normally submits its recommendations in June or July.

  Warrington, North

  Warrington, South

  1997

  1

  1

  1998

  4

  1

  1999

  3

  0

  2000

  5

  5

  2001

  2

  2

  Non-Governmental Organisations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list non-governmental organisations operating in the south-west region that receive public funds from her Department; and what amount of annual funding they received in the most recent year for which figures are available. [39182]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Details of grants in aid funding provided directly to non-governmental organisations (i.e. those organisations operating in the charity/voluntary sector) are contained in my Department's annual appropriation accounts. The most recent accounts, those for the financial year 2000–01, were published on 20 February 2002 (HMSO). Overall grants in aid funding
  409W
  totalled £5,673,020, though as funding is often to the national office of the organisation concerned for distribution locally, details of funds received by those in the south-west region could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Funding is also provided to non-governmental organisations through NDPBs sponsored by my Department.

  Special Urgency Provisions
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how often the Department has applied the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments) to a development by the Department; and if he will make a statement. [38717]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has never made an application to use the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments).

  Auld Report
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from and on behalf of magistrates(a) nationally and (b) by region regarding the Auld report; and if he will make a statement on the areas on which most comments focus. [38254]

  Mr. Wills
  We have received over 400 responses. On behalf of magistrates:(a) nationally, we have received responses from: Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees, HM Council of District Judges (Magistrates Courts) and the Magistrates Association; (b) by region, we have received representations from magistrates in 37 of the 42 Magistrates Courts Committee areas. These focus on the establishment of a unified criminal court, and the proposal for an intermediate tier. Representations on all the recommendations in Sir Robin Auld's report are now being carefully considered and analysed in detail. The Government will announce their conclusions by way of a White Paper in the spring.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been done to explain the implications of the Auld report's recommendations to magistrates in the Teesside area. [38255]

  Mr. Wills
  In October 2001 copies of the Auld report were sent to all Justices Chief Executives, to distribute to chairmen of magistrates benches in their Magistrates Courts Committee (MCC) areas. The representative organisations for district judges (Magistrates Courts) and lay magistrates also received copies. On 28 November 2001, a ministerial "roadshow" was held in Newcastle and magistrates from the Cleveland MCC area, which covers Teesside, attended. Written representations have been received from the Cleveland MCC and the Teesside Magistrates' Bench.

  Retrospective Legislation
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the introduction of retrospective legislation. [38121]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have been asked to reply.
  410W
  The Government's policy before introducing a legislative provision having retrospective effect is to balance the conflicting public interests and to consider whether the general public interest in the law not being changed retrospectively may be outweighed by any competing public interest. In making this assessment the Government will have regard to relevant international standards including those of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which was incorporated into United Kingdom law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits (Epsom and Ewell)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Epsom and Ewell constituency receive housing benefit. [23430]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Housing benefit recipients in August 2001

  Number

  Epsom and Ewell borough council

  1,790

  Mole Valley borough council

  2,540

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households which may be a family, a couple, or a single person.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 10 cases.

  3. Epsom and Ewell parliamentary constituency is covered in part by Epsom and Ewell and Mole Valley local authority areas. Figures are not therefore representative of the constituency area.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload count—August 2001.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate by how much it would be possible to raise the basic state pension for the over-75s, on a revenue neutral basis, and taking account of offsetting savings in expenditure on means-tested benefits and enhanced income tax revenue, if he were not to introduce the pension credit and were instead to spend the money on the state pension for the over-75s. [27687]

  Mr. McCartney
  Diverting £2 billion away from the state pension credit to increasing the basic state pension (BSP) for the over-75s would mean standard rate BSP could rise from £72.50 to £87.55 per week for the over-75s. Approximately 75 per cent. of pensioners aged 75 and over who were previously entitled to the minimum income guarantee would remain on the means tested benefits (MIG) if BSP was increased to £87.55 and because this is lower than the current MIG level they would be no better off.

  Also, millions of pensioners living on low or moderate incomes, who struggled to put money aside for their retirement, would find themselves little or no better off than people who had saved nothing. Over 4 million pensioners would no longer receive a reward for any savings that lifted their incomes above the minimum income guarantee. In addition, the upper capital limit of £12,000 and the assumed rate of return of £1 in every

  411W
  £250 would be retained. By introducing pension credit we will tackle poverty among today's pensioners, while not discouraging future pensioners from saving.

  Benefits (Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people claimed incapacity benefit in the York and North Yorkshire area in(a) 1997, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [28197]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the table.

  Number of people claiming incapacity benefit in York and North Yorkshire local authority areas

  York

  North Yorkshire1

  31 August 1997

  4,700

  14,300

  31 August 1999

  4,500

  14,000

  31 August 2000

  4,800

  13,900

  31 August 2001

  4,800

  14,700

  1 North Yorkshire includes Craven, Hambleton, Harrogate, Richmondshire, Ryedale, Scarborough and Selby.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  Source:

  Figures are taken from a 5 per cent. sample of the incapacity benefit computer system and exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the basis was for the reference in his Department's recent Targeting Fraud advertisements to the number caught by fraud investigators; and if he will estimate how many of that number were successfully prosecuted. [30372]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The figures in the Targeting Fraud advertisements were derived from successful prosecutions data. Since the advertisements were made we have improved the data sources used to compile this information. Over 9,000 people were successfully prosecuted in 19992000 and over 11,000 in 2002–02. We shall amend the radio advertisements in the final stage of the campaign in March to reflect the new figures.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of benefit fraud were recorded in each of the past five years in(a) Wales, (b) England and (c) Scotland. [32270]

  Malcolm Wicks: The information is not available in the format requested.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what powers the Child Support Agency has to obtain child support from a self-employed absent parent who has not contributed maintenance to a parent with care; and how these powers have been used in the case of Elaine Lanchbury, a constituent. [31116]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  412W
  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Huw Edwards, dated 4 March 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
  You have asked firstly what powers the Child Support Agency has to obtain child support from a self-employed non-resident parent who has not contributed maintenance to a parent with care and secondly how these powers have been used in the case of Elaine Lanchbury a constituent.
  There are a number of options available which can be considered when the Agency is trying to obtain maintenance payments from a non-compliant, self-employed non-resident parent.

  Those options include:

  County Court Judgement—entering a Liability Order on the register which is passed to Credit Reference Agencies,

  referring a case to Bailiffs,

  a garnishee order—which allows recovery from money held in a bank account,

  a charging order—which enables the payment of debts to be secured by a charge on land or property and

  referral of a case to court for it to consider committal to prison or withdrawal or holding of a driving licence.

  Individual cases are a confidential matter and I have written to you separately regarding Ms Lanchbury.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of people who have had their driving licences removed by the courts since April 2001 as a result of the provisions introduced under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. [33342]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 4 March 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
  You ask two questions of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Firstly, if he will estimate the number of people who have had their driving licences removed by the courts since April 2001 as a result of the provisions introduced under the Child Support Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. Secondly, how many people have been (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted; and what was the average sentence from that conviction under the criminal offence of non-co-operation with the CSA.
  No driving licences have been removed by the Courts from non-resident parents. In two cases the Courts ordered a non-resident parent to be disqualified from holding a driving licence but the order was suspended. They are both now making regular payments.
  There have been no prosecutions and therefore no convictions made under the criminal offence of non-co-operation with the Child Support Agency. The deterrent effect of a criminal sanction for failing to provide information when requested is an important element of the new system. We strongly encourage parents to co-operate voluntarily with requests for information before referring the case for consideration of prosecution under the new legislation.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average payment is made in child support maintenance by the non-resident parent under the CSA system for(a) one child, (b) two children and (c) three children. [33266]
  413W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  The average maintenance paid in the current child support scheme

  Number of qualifying children

  Average per week (£)

  1

  7.98

  2

  10.65

  3

  10.23

  Note:

  Includes nil assessments.

  Source:

  5 per cent. scan of the Child Support Computer System August 2001.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the(a) percentage and (b) number of non-resident parents who would see a reduction in their CSA child support maintenance liability under the April 2002 scheme. [33264]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Based on an assessment made in 1998, had all cases transferred to the new child support scheme at that time, around 65 per cent. of non-resident parents in work would have seen a reduction in their child support liability. This amounts to approximately 425,000 cases. However, it is not possible to make a firm estimate of the impact on non-resident parents for 2003, five years later, given earnings growth and changes in family circumstances.

  Note:

  New scheme maintenance modelled on 5 per cent. scan of the child support computer system August 1998.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff have been(a) redeployed and (b) retrained as a result of the introduction of Jobcentre Plus; and what his estimate is of the costs incurred by his Department in undertaking retraining programmes. [33507]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Approximately 4.000 staff are employed in the 56 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices that have opened since October 2001. The majority of these staff were perviously employed by either the Employment Service or the Benefits Agency. All have received some Jobcentre Plus specific training. The amount of training delivered to individual members of staff was largely dependent on their background and experience. The estimated cost of designing, implementing and delivering Jobcentre Plus training for all Jobcentre Plus pathfinder staff is £5 million.

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the annual saving in handling costs is anticipated when benefits payments are changed to automated credit transfer. [33068]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: The movement to payment direct into bank and building society accounts assures a safe, convenient, more modern and efficient way of paying benefits and pensions and will bring very substantial savings. Against this, we will incur some additional costs which cannot yet be quantified, including payments to Post Office Ltd. which will depend
  414W
  on the outcome of the current contract negotiations between the Government and the Post Office, and on the number of Post Office Card Accounts.

  Universal Bank
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what level of investment the Government have committed themselves to providing for the universal bank project. [34794]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department, together with the Inland Revenue and the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency, are close to finalising contractual terms with the Post Office for universal banking services. The amounts involved will be commercially confidential to the parties.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the Government have reached an agreement with the high street banks as to the level of funding that they will invest in the universal bank project. [34792]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness on 30 October 2001,Official Report, columns 589–90W.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases were the subject of rolling reviews in each of the last five years in determining the level of fraud in jobseeker's allowance and income support. [36254]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The total number of sample cases has been around 30,000 since the start of the area benefit review programme. The number for each reporting period is in the table.

  The smaller sample size for 2001–02 was introduced as part of the move to a common sample for determining levels of fraud and customer error, and official error. The smaller sample size for 2002–03 is a result of the Department restructuring from 13 areas to 11 Government office regions. Neither of these reductions in sample size will result in a reduction in the confidence levels of the reported results.

  Income support/jobseeker's allowance review

  Reporting period

  Sample Size

  October 1997 to September 1998

  31,200

  April 1998 to March 1999

  31,200

  April 1999 to March 2000

  31,200

  April 2000 to March 2001

  31,200

  April 2001 to March 2002

  27,333

  April 2002 to March 2003

  26,900

  Source:

  Area benefit reviews

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of the minimum income guarantee in 2050 in today's prices if it is raised in line with earnings and if the basic state pension is raised in line with prices. [35844]
  415W
  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The estimated cost of uprating the MIG in line with earnings is approximately £12 billion in today's prices in 2050.

  Debt Recovery
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the locations of debt recovery centres within his Department and those after the planned reductions. [37018]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Debt Management Services, a unit within the Department, currently has responsibility for Swansea approximately 1,800 staff based in 127 sites across the country. These sites are generally co-located with existing Benefits Agency offices. The plan is to consolidate these units into 10 debt centres over the period ending March 2005. Departmental staff outside Debt Management Services also process overpayment work for the benefits administered centrally, such as Retirement Pension. This work is carried out at a further three sites, and is currently under review.

  Details of the current and planned future sites are in the following list.

  Current locations for debt processing work

  Barking

  Twickenham

  Hackney

  Bedford

  Norwich

  Slough

  New Forest

  Chichester

  Weymouth

  Plymouth

  Derby

  Nottingham

  Perry Barr

  Hereford

  Wolverhampton

  Wrexham

  Porth

  Barrow

  Warrington

  Crewe

  Salford

  Hull

  Mexborough

  Hemsworth

  Gateshead

  Sunderland

  Glasgow City

  Newlands

  Irvine

  Falkirk

  Bathgate

  Balham

  Hounslow

  Glasgow (for Ealing and Euston)

  Watford

  High Wycombe

  Bury St. Edmonds

  416W

  Peterborough

  Isle of Wight

  Bath

  Gloucester

  Chippenham

  Skegness

  Lincoln

  Halesowen

  Shrewsbury

  Cwmbran

  Newtown

  Swansea

  Toxteth

  Whitehaven

  Skelmersdale

  Keighley

  Leeds

  Sheffield

  Durham

  Stockton

  Annisland

  Bridgeton

  Stornoway

  Dumfries

  Peterhead

  Dundee

  Poplar

  Stratford

  Belfast (for Neasden and South Circular)

  Wood Green

  Stevenage

  Corby

  Bexley

  Hastings

  St. Austell

  Bristol

  Lichfield

  Loughborough

  Edgbaston

  Smethwick

  Walsall

  Cardiff

  Caernarfon

  Blackpool

  Breckfield

  Preston

  Birkenhead

  Bradford

  York

  Doncaster

  Newcastle

  Middlesbrough

  Greenock

  Springburn

  Ayr

  Galashiels

  Motherwell

  Perth

  Harlow

  Ilford

  417W

  Ashton in Makerfield (for Palace)

  Edgware

  Clacton

  Oxford

  Lewes

  Portsmouth

  Barnstaple

  Taunton

  Worksop

  Sutton in Ashfield

  Sparkhill

  Coventry

  Nuneaton

  Merthyr

  Pembroke Dock

  Kirkby

  Widnes

  Southport

  Chorlton

  Dewsbury

  Rotherham

  Barnsley

  Hexham

  Hartlepool

  Renfrew

  Cranstonhill

  Stranraer

  Cowdenbeath

  Bellshill.

  Sites where benefits are currently administered centrally:
  Blackpool, Washington and Newcastle.

  Proposed locations for debt centres:
  Chorlton, Porth, Stornoway, Nuneaton, Ashton in Makerfield, Corby, Dearne Valley, Bradford, Glasgow and Salford.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to revise the number of centres for debt recovery in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [37017]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) on 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 544W.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many former mineworkers applied for an award for vibration white finger; and how many were rejected by the Benefits Agency in the last year for which figures are available; [35236]

  (2) if he will advise the Benefits Agency to use the test developed to diagnose vibration white finger in former mineworkers by the Department of Trade and Industry, [35237]

  (3) how many former mineworkers who applied for vibration white finger were rejected for an award because they had neurological damage in the last year for which figures are available. [35238]
  418W
  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The information is not available in the format requested.

  There is no simple, reliable and universally accepted test for vibration white finger. The test used by the Department of Trade and Industry for the settlement of compensation claims against British Coal fulfils the civil burden of proof in finding that former mineworkers have contracted vibration white finger as a result of their employer's negligence. This process involves litigation in individual cases and as such can be lengthy, detailed and expensive.

  The test used for the industrial injuries scheme is simple, straightforward to administer and consistent nationally. We have no plans to adopt the tests being used by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Pension Service
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to launch the Pension Service; and if he will list the locations of the proposed 26 pension centres and their catchment areas. [37520]

  Mr. McCartney
  The pension service will be launched on 1 April 2002. Pension centres, which will roll out in stages over the next two years, will process work as set out in the table.

  Government office region

  Pension centre locations

  East Midlands

  Derby, Leicester, Nottingham

  Eastern

  Norwich (2 sites)

  London

  Glasgow, Newcastle (Tyneview Park), Dundee (initially)

  North East

  Stockport, Seaham

  North West

  Burnley, Stockport, Warrington

  Scotland

  Motherwell, Dundee

  South East

  Blackpool, Cwmbran, Liverpool, Wrexham

  South West

  Bath, Plymouth

  Wales

  Swansea

  West Midlands

  Birmingham, Walsall, Wolverhampton

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Dearne Valley, Seaham, York

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many new entrants to the civil service were employed in his Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 and over. [36498]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Cabinet Office on 27 February 2002, Official Report, columns 875-80W.

  Capita
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many contracts the Department has with Capita; and how much they are worth; [38375]

  (2) if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Department. [39345]
  419W
  Mr. McCartney
  The Department for Work and Pensions currently has 12 contracts with Capita, with a total value of £134.1 million.

  DWP Accommodation and Office Service—North-west and Greater Manchester

  DWP Accommodation and Office Services—Tyne Tees and Yorkshire

  DWP Accommodation and Office Services—West Midlands and Mercia

  Working Age Specification Framework

  Consultancy support to Pension Credit Project Central Design Authority

  Winter Fuels Payments Project

  Recruitment Services

  Private Sector Led New Deal—Solihull

  Employment Services Estates Corporate Supply

  New Deal Next Phase (progress2work)—Birmingham North

  New Deal Next Phase (progress2work)—Birmingham South

  Disability Marketing in North-west.

  HIV
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he plans to extend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to give protection to people with HIV from the point of their diagnosis. [38474]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer given to the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 904W.

  Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the ability of parents of children who are suffering from attention deficit hyperactive disorder to access disability living allowance. [39434]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: Parents of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can claim disability living allowance (DLA) and have their child's entitlement assessed in the normal way. The claimant's medical condition is not, necessarily, the key factor in qualifying for DLA because entitlement to the allowance is based on walking difficulties and/or the need for personal care or supervision which arise from severe disability. For children under age 16, these needs must be substantially in excess of the normal requirements of a child of the same age who is in normal health.

  The guidance to decision makers in the disability handbook contains a chapter on behavioural disorders including the likely care, supervision or mobility needs arising from ADHD. Currently, DLA is received by some 42,500 children whose primary disability is recorded as being a "behavioural disorder".

  Notes

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures are at 31 August 2001.

  Source:

  ASD Information centre: 5 per cent data.

  Foster Carers
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if foster carers who give up work to care for foster children will be entitled to the Second State Pension; and if he will make a statement. [40335]

  Mr. McCartney
  Foster carers cannot qualify for state second pension simply because they are fostering a child. This is because they are not entitled to child benefit in respect of foster children.

  They may, however, qualify for state second pension in respect of any child under the age of six for whom they receive child benefit. They will also qualify for state second pension where, throughout a complete tax year, they are entitled to invalid care allowance, or qualify for home responsibilities protection because they are caring for a disabled child, whether or not that child is a foster child.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to extend home responsibilities protection to foster carers; and whether it will cover the entire length of time they have been fostering. [40336]

  Mr. McCartney
  Foster carers whose allowance contains a reward element may be liable for national insurance contributions on a self-employed basis. Where there is no liability, they may choose to pay voluntary contributions to assist in qualifying for state retirement pension. Foster carers who receive child benefit for their own children aged under 16 will be eligible for home responsibilities protection. We will keep these arrangements under review as we do with all rules relating to benefits.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of extending home responsibilities protection to foster carers(a) caring for foster children and (b) to cover the entire length of time they have been fostering. [40337]

  Mr. McCartney
  We cannot calculate the cost of extending home responsibilities protection to foster carers whose retirement pension entitlement is not already protected since this is dependent upon the individual's circumstances at pension age.

  Compulsory Retirement
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action the Government will take against companies who enforce retirement on male employees at 60 instead of 65. [37427]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are currently undertaking a public consultation exercise on implementation of the European employment directive. The directive provides a framework for member states to introduce legislation outlawing unfair discrimination at work on the grounds of age, sexual orientation, religion, and disability. Among the age issues on which we are seeking general views is whether employers should be able to require people to retire at a certain age and, if so, whether legal limits should be placed on their right to do so. We shall carry

  421W
  out a further consultation on specific age proposals later this year, developed in the light of responses to this consultation.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions replied on 25 February 2002, Official Report, column 781 W, explaining that the Government actively encourage employers to value the contribution of older workers and to adopt flexible approaches to retirement.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in his Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40443]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Civil Service Management Code requires all Government Departments and agencies to ensure that employees use the most efficient and economic means of travel in the circumstances, taking into account any management benefit and the needs of staff with disabilities.

  Although entitlement to first class rail travel is an agreed condition of service at Band B2 level and above, Cabinet Office policy encourages use of standard class travel for all rail journeys outside the rush hours and for journeys of two hours or less.

  First class travel for other journeys recognises the level of work which may need to be carried out by staff in grades B2 and above while travelling by train.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will list the official visits to(a) Paris and (b) Brussels made by each Minister in his Department in 2001 and the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in his Department on the choice of mode of travel for such visits; [38158]

  (2) if he will list the official visits within the UK outside London made by each Minister in his Department in 2001, giving for each (a) the origin and destination and (b) the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in his Department on choice of mode of travel for official visits. [38192]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published in a similar form to previous years as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.
  422W
  The additional information requested in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Global Crossing
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the dates on which Ministers in his Department have received hospitality in their ministerial capacities since 1 January 1999 from Global Crossing; and if he will make a statement. [37685]

  Mr. Leslie
  Offers of hospitality which are accepted must be registered in line with the requirements of paragraph 139 of the Ministerial Code.

  City of London Corporation
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those functions, engagements and events which Ministers, his officials and advisers have attended which have been sponsored, funded, promoted and hosted by the City of London Corporation since 1997. [35709]

  Mr. Leslie
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Secondments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the written agreements and protocols with the Whitehall and Industry Group governing their secondments to Government; and if he will list all the secondments placed under the auspices of the group since June 2001. [40561]

  Mr. Leslie
  A memorandum of understanding between the Cabinet Office, as sponsors of the Whitehall and Industry Group (WIG), and WIG is currently under negotiation. Copies of the agreement will be placed in the Libraries of the House in due course. It is open to any organisation to become a member of the Whitehall and Industry Group and some 45 Government Departments and agencies have joined. Copies of the information pack that organisations receive when they join WIG have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Currently two senior civil servants act as non-executive directors of the Whitehall and Industry Group.

  Since June 2001 five secondments (lasting three months or more) have been arranged through WIG into Government Departments, comprising:
  three into the Lord Chancellor's Department;
  one into the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; and
  one into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

HEALTH

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been reported in his Department under paragraph 11 of the Civil Service Code since 13 May 1999; and how many of them related to special advisers. [25335]
  423W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The procedures for making complaints under the civil service code are set out in the Department's staff handbook. Civil servants are encouraged, in the first instance, to raise complaints made under paragraph 11 of the "civil service code" with their line manager. If for any reason this is not felt to be possible, perhaps because the line manager is part of the complaint, individuals may take their complaint to a nominated official (or officials). It is not possible to provide a comprehensive figure for the number of complaints made within this Department under paragraph 11 of the code as there is no requirement for managers to report to the centre details of complaints made under the civil service code which are resolved within the management line.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to seek information from the chief executive of each NHS trust about possible inappropriate adjustments to in-patient waiting lists. [25489]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Following publication of the National Audit Office report we commissioned the Audit Commission to initiate a system of spot-checks on waiting list statistics hospital-by-hospital.

  The Government believe that this approach is the best way to ensure that such inappropriate adjustments do not happen again.

  In addition, the Government are identifying a series of measures which will help identify at an early stage any trusts where there appears to be a problem in managing their waiting lists.

  Data in waiting lists returns will continue to be routinely validated by the Government statistical service. Any discrepancies will be resolved directly with the trusts prior to finalising the figures for publication.

  In future, any manager found to have deliberately distorted waiting figures will face dismissal on grounds of gross misconduct. This will be supported by a new code of conduct for NHS managers. Anyone who breaches that code of conduct will not be re-employed as a manager anywhere in the NHS.

  GPs
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioners are connected to NHSnet. [27473]
  424W
  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The latest figures available as at 28 February 2002 show that over 98 per cent. of general practitioners in England have NHSnet connections in their practices.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost per head of(a) emergency and (b) non-emergency ambulance services in (i) Shropshire, (ii) Wiltshire and (iii) the Isle of Wight in the last financial year. [28228]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Expenditure per head of population

  £

  Ambulance trust

  Non-emergency services

  Emergency services

  Shropshire's community and mental health services NHS trust

  0.99

  14.88

  Wiltshire ambulance service NHS trust

  2.44

  12.40

  Isle of Wight health care NHS trust

  3.42

  11.45

  Source:

  Annual financial returns of NHS trusts 2000–01

  Weighted population estimates 2000–01

  Arthritis
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each regional health authority area are being prescribed anti-TNF drugs for arthritis. [28502]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is conducting an appraisal of these treatments. Guidance to the national health service is expected in April 2002. We expect health authorities and primary care trusts to fund treatments from their unified allocations which are increasing on average next year by 7.2 per cent. in real terms. We do not hold information centrally about current usage of these drugs.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to provide funding for the increased supply of the drugs Infliximal and Etanercept; [28617]
  425W
  (2) what percentage of sufferers of inflammatory arthritis in the UK have been prescribed the drugs Infliximal and Etanercept; and if he will give a breakdown by health authority area of the numbers of people who have been prescribed these drugs; [28619]

  (3) what assessment has been made of the cost of prescribing the drugs Infliximal and Etanercept for treatment of inflammatory arthritis (a) in total and (b) per sufferer of this condition; and what evidence he has assessed on the long-term effectiveness of these drugs compared to other available forms of treatment. [28616]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March, Official Report, column 192W.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is conducting an appraisal of these treatments. Guidance to the national health service is expected in April 2002. We expect health authorities and primary care trusts to fund treatments from their unified allocations which are increasing on average next year by 7.2 per cent. in real terms. We do not hold information centrally about current usage of these drugs.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that the new strategic health authorities from April 2002 take responsibility for patients in nursing homes for whom the present health authority is paying part only. [31153]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Responsibility for funding services for patients will pass to the relevant primary care trust (PCT) in April 2002. Care and funding are provided on the basis of assessed need, so the PCT will take on the same responsibility as the health authority, except where the needs have changed.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the average length of stay of a resident in(a) a local authority nursing home and (b) a privately owned nursing home; and if he will make a statement. [39171]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested on average length of stay in privately owned nursing homes is not collected centrally.

  Local authorities do not own or run nursing homes.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds in care homes there were in Kent in(a) 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [39459]
  426W
  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of residential places and registered nursing beds in Kent, at 31 March each year, is shown in the table.

  Residential and nursing care beds in Kent, 1997 and 2001, as at 31 March

  (a)19974

  (b) 20015

  Number of residential care homes1

  16,009

  15,928

  Number of beds in nursing homes2,3

  4,712

  4,868

  1 Excludes places in childrens' homes.

  2 Private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics.

  3 Information is presented for East Kent and West Kent health authorities.

  4 Figures for registered nursing beds relates to registered beds during the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  5 Information is presented for the county of Kent prior to local government reorganisation on 1 April 1998. Figures for 2001 therefore relate to the area corresponding to the unitary authority of Medway Towns and the county area of Kent.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the average length of time it takes to set up a(a) residential home and (b) nursing home from the time of its original planning application. [39442]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Correspondence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Romsey, on orthopaedic waiting lists and the Lord Mayor Treloar hospital in Alton, Hampshire. [31340]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  A reply was sent on 16 February.

  Bolton South East Primary Care Group
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Wigan and Bolton health authority has used its increase in Government funding for the financial year 2002–03 to move the Bolton South East Primary Care Group closer to its target funding. [31233]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  For 2002–03, the allocations received by the new Bolton Primary Care Trust will increase by 10.14 per cent. in comparison to the funding received in 2001–02 by the two Bolton primary care groups.

  This is an above average settlement which will help to bring Bolton closer to target by almost 1 per cent. This rate of change is considered to be significant and is one which will not threaten the stability of other areas of the local health service.

  Enron
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings(a) he and (b) his senior departmental officials have had with Enron and its subsidiaries in the last two years. [32429]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, The Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists. Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis, and in order to preserve confidentiality, it is not the normal practice for Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  NHS (Directors' Secondments)
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 955W, on NHS directors' secondments, if he will list the organisation to which the (a) chief executive and (b) executive directors listed in the table were seconded as at 1 December 2001. [31804]

  Region

  Chief executives

  Executive directors

  Total

  West Midlands

  2 to the Department of Health

  2 to West Midlands Regional Office

  1 to the Workforce Development Council

  5

  Trent

  2 to the Department of Health

  4 to NHS Trent Regional Office

  1 to NHS Trent Regional Office

  1 to the NHS Modernisation Agency

  1 to NHS Estates

  1 to a University Health Research Department (SCHARR)

  South West

  1 to the NHS Leadership Centre

  1 to South West Regional Office

  1 to Education Purchasing Consortium

  1 to the National Shared Services Project

  1 to National Police Training Service

  1 to the NHS Leadership Centre

  1 to NHS Estates

  7

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1 to Northern and Yorkshire Regional Office

  1 to Northern and Yorkshire Workforce Confederation

  2 to Northern and Yorkshire Regional Office

  1 West Yorkshire Financial Shared Services Project

  1 to Tyne and Wear Health Action Zone

  6

  South West

  1 to Commission for Health Improvement

  1 to the NHS Modernisation Agency

  2 to Department of Health

  3 to South East Regional Office

  7

  North West

  1 to NHS North West Regional Office

  9 to NHS North West Regional Office

  1 to the Department of Health

  1 to the Department of Health

  12

  Eastern

  4 to Eastern Regional Office

  6 to Eastern Regional Office

  10

  London

  1to Project Role with Prison Service

  7 to London Regional Office

  1 to London Health Observatory

  1 to the NHS Modernisation Agency

  1 to NHS Estates

  11

  Total

  19

  49

  68

  428W
  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  My previous answer of 23 January 2002, Official Report, column 955W, referred to the secondment of executive directors of national health service trusts and health authorities to other organisations excluding secondments within the NHS. The figures provided included secondments within the NHS.

  The number of executive directors and chief executives of NHS trusts and health authorities who were on secondment to other organisations as at 1 December 2001 is shown in the table.

  Region

  Chief executives

  Executive directors

  Total

  West Midlands

  0

  5

  5

  Trent

  3

  7

  10

  South West

  2

  5

  7

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1

  5

  6

  South East

  6

  1

  7

  North West

  2

  10

  12

  Eastern

  4

  6

  10

  London

  1

  10

  11

  Total

  19

  49

  68

  The organisations to which the (a) chief executive and (b) executive directors were seconded as at 1 December 2001 is shown in the table.

  PFI/PPPs
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts and what fees in each financial year since 1997–98(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, (c) KPMG, (d) PA Consulting, (e) WS Atkins, (f) Accenture, (g) Deloitte & Touche, (h) McKinsey, (i) Capita, (j) AEA Technology, (k) Xansa Group, (l) Sema Group, (m) CMG Admiral, (n) ICL Group and (o) Logica received for advising his Department on PFI and PPP contracts; and if he will make a statement. [32504]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  1997–98

  No fees were paid to any of the companies listed in the question.

  1998–99
  No fees were paid to any of the companies listed in the question.

  1999–2000
  Cap Gemini Ernst & Young: 3 contracts, £58,603.03

  2000–01
  PricewaterhouseCoopers: I contract, £13,325
  Cap Gemini Ernst & Young: 5 contracts, £40,282.16
  Deloitte & Touche: 1 contract, £5,010

  2001–02
  KPMG: 2 contracts, £50,000
  PricewaterhouseCoopers: one contract, £23,818.19.

  NHS Walk-in Centres
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by centre, the number of people accessing NHS walk-in centres each month since opening. [35862]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The 42 NHS walk-in centres are being piloted as a new initiative to offer convenient access to primary care services.

  The Department commissioned an independent evaluation of all NHS walk-in centres. This has been led by Dr. Chris Salisbury at the University of Bristol. The national evaluation final report, including figures on the number of people accessing walk-in centres, is due for publication in the summer 2002.

  Estimates show, however, that overall more than 1.3 million people have visited walk-in centres since opening.

  Fire Injuries
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have received injuries in the south-west 430W
  region relating to (a) an open fire, (b) an electrical heating system and (c) a gas central heating system, in the last three years. [35474]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2000, Official Report, column 192W.

  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made in reviewing methods of recording calls to NHS Direct about mental health-related matters so as to align them closely with the clinical assessment system. [35509]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  All calls to NHS Direct are logged and recorded; this includes mental health calls. Nurse advisers use decision support systems (algorithms) as part of the national health service clinical assessment system (CAS) to enable them to identify the nature of the call and assess the needs of the caller. Mental health is seen as an integral part of the CAS and mental health callers will be assessed and advised using the CAS through the use of mental health algorithms developed by mental health clinicians. As CAS is available across England, the information available on all calls will become even more robust and will provide a credible data source supporting mental health service development.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 679W, what the timetable is for selection and implementation of instrumentation for the measurement of clinical outcomes in the mental health services. [39845]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: The selection and implementation of instrumentation for the measurement of clinical outcomes in mental health services is developing as planned.

  The instruments to be used were selected in January 2002.
  They will consider aspects of morbidity, patient satisfaction and quality of life.
  Piloting the instruments is currently in hand.
  Data are expected to be flowing from the pilot sites by September 2002.
  Routine measurement of outcomes is expected from April 2003.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of people, broken down by age, were(a) admitted and (b) discharged from hospital in each of the last five years where the main diagnosis was mental illness. [40577]
  431W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The tables show the estimated numbers of Finished Consultant Episodes and Discharges with a primary diagnosis of

  Finished consultant episodes with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders (F00-F99), England, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Under 16

  20,210

  25,150

  20,010

  18,170

  14,580

  16–24

  33,880

  36,540

  31,500

  27,870

  22,220

  25–44

  103,540

  109,640

  106,350

  98,890

  79,560

  45–64

  54,390

  56,190

  56,010

  54,550

  45,850

  65–74

  26,090

  25,520

  24,700

  23,720

  18,840

  75–84

  32,310

  32,920

  33,300

  31,560

  24,210

  85+

  18,460

  19,180

  17,820

  17,510

  15,060

  Not known

  2,400

  470

  730

  250

  420

  All ages

  291,280

  305,610

  290,420

  272,520

  220,740

  Psychiatric diagnosis as a percentage of all diagnoses

  2.7

  2.7

  2.5

  2.3

  1.9

  Notes:

  1. Data for 2001–01 have not been grossed for coverage and have a provisional status.

  2. Figures may not add up due to rounding.

  3. Codes have been taken from the 'International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems' Tenth Revision (1CD-10).

  Discharges with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders (F00-F99), England, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Under 16

  20,000

  24,950

  19,620

  18,050

  14,270

  16–24

  32,170

  35,130

  29,940

  25,970

  20,400

  25–44

  97,330

  104,070

  100,000

  90,360

  72,230

  45–64

  50,550

  52,780

  51,990

  49,480

  40,970

  65–74

  24,000

  23,670

  22,740

  21,190

  16,630

  75–84

  29,330

  30,310

  30,250

  27,800

  20,940

  85+

  16,660

  17,540

  16,010

  15,230

  12,740

  Not known

  2,350

  450

  690

  230

  410

  All ages

  272,390

  288,890

  271,230

  248,300

  198,580

  Psychiatric diagnosis as a percentage of all diagnoses

  2.7

  2.8

  2.5

  2.2

  1.9

  Notes:

  1. Data for 2001–01 have not been grossed for coverage and have a provisional status.

  2. Figures may not add up due to rounding.

  3. Codes have been taken from the 'International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems1 Tenth Revision (ICD–10).

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring of compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 in psychiatric units his Department has undertaken in the last three years; and what resources have been made available for this. [38367]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Mental Health Act Commission's role is to routinely visit all hospitals and registered nursing homes with detained patients to monitor the operation of the Mental Health Act and interview detained patients in private. It is also their role to monitor complaints made by detained patients through the NHS complaints procedures and monitor the operation of the consent to treatment safeguards and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. New legislation following the reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 will fully comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a substantive reply will be given to Dr. R. D. Fouracre's letter of 1 August 2001, concerning continence management services. [36840]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to the question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave
  432W
  mental and behavioural disorders, in England, for 1996–97 to 2001–01. The figures for 2000–01 are provisional, as no adjustments have yet been made for shortfalls in data.

  my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The Department has no record of receiving this correspondence. The hon. Member's office have been asked to supply a duplicate.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [37441]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is in the table, which shows the percentage of letters replied to within the Department's service first targets of 20 working days.

  Year

  Volume of letters

  Percentage increase

  Percentage of replies sent on target

  1998

  10,648

  —

  61.0

  1999

  18,346

  Up 72.0

  47.0

  2000

  18,621

  Up 1.5

  50.0

  2001

  19,665

  Up 5.6

  60.0

  Health Action Zones
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what independent evaluation has been made of the work of health action zones. [37382]

  Ms Blears
  The national independent evaluation of health action zones (HAZ) is due to be completed by December 2002 and is being conducted by a consortium led by Professor Ken Judge of the University of Glasgow. In addition, each HAZ is carrying out a local evaluation. Some reports have already been published and are available locally and at www.Haznet.org.uk.

  Social Work Training
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue guidance to social services departments to ensure that care workers will not be charged when undertaking their training for the NVQ level II as set out in the domiciliary care standards. [37694]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is no intention either implied or stated in the draft National Minimum Standards for Domiciliary Care to levy a charge on home care workers for their NVQ training.

  Foot Health Care
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chiropodists/podiatrists were employed in the NHS in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [38214]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Qualified staff employed in chiropody/podiatry in England as at 30 September each year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Headcount

  3,290

  3,320

  3,370

  3,470

  3,560

  Whole-time equivalents

  2,730

  2,750

  2,770

  2,850

  2,890

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Herbal Medicines
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what basis the decision was made to require 30 years' continuous usage to be demonstrated before a licence could be obtained for herbal medicinal products as specified in the EU traditional herbal medicinal products directive; and if he will make a statement; [38287]

  (2) on what basis the decision was made to apply the same testing and manufacturing standards to herbal medicinal products as active pharmaceuticals as specified in the EU traditional herbal medicinal products directive; and if he will make a statement. [38286]

  Ms Blears
  The recent proposal by the European Commission for a directive of the European Parliament and Council on traditional herbal medicinal products will be subject to the normal processes of scrutiny and negotiation applicable to proposals for European legislation.
  434W
  The proposed directive would not affect the existing arrangements whereby a marketing authorisation may be obtained for a herbal medicine, based on evidence of safety, quality and efficacy. The directive would, however, put in place an additional route to the market for traditional herbal medicines under which evidence of traditional use would replace the requirement to demonstrate efficacy and, in many cases, also allow a simplified safety assessment. Any figure for a stipulated period of use, such as 30 years, which may be agreed during negotiations is likely to be one which is generally recognised by European Union member states as indicating that a herbal medicine can reasonably be accepted as having genuinely traditional usage.

  Herbal medicines with a marketing authorisation and those with a traditional use registration would typically be likely to share similar product characteristics. The proposed quality standards are already successfully met by the many companies, both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the European Union, which hold marketing authorisations in relation to herbal medicines. Existing European regulatory guidelines on herbal medicines are intended to be applied in a way that is appropriate to the product under consideration and we envisage that this would continue to be the case under a traditional use registration scheme.

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost is to public funds in each case. [39079]

  Ms Blears
  The only equipment directly leased by the Department (excluding agencies) for its own use is post room equipment at an approximate cost of £76,000 per annum.

  Emergency Readmissions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of the emergency readmission figures for Q3 2001–02 in the Library. [39165]

  Ms Blears
  Emergency readmission figures for quarter 3, 2001–02 have been placed in the Library.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has taken to address the issues identified in the 10 Annual report of the Chief Inspector of Social Services 2000–01 paragraph 3.71 regarding domiciliary care. [39167]

  Jacqui Smith
  We expect that the National Minimum Standards for domiciliary care will be implemented from July 2002. Quality issues such as reliability of domiciliary care are addressed in the draft National Minimum Standards, which we published in October 2001. Decisions about registration of domiciliary care agencies by the National Care Standards Commission will take account of compliance with the Standards.

  NHS Estate (Repair and Maintenance)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of(a) essential, (b) non-essential

  435W
  and (c) all buildings in the NHS estate in England are classified as being in Estatecode condition (i) A, (ii) B, (iii) C and (iv) D. [39140]

  Ms Blears
  Information in respect of the percentage of 'essential' and 'non-essential' buildings in the National Health Service Estate which are classified as being in Estatecode condition A, B, C, D, is not collected centrally. Similarly, information that is collected centrally in respect of the percentage of 'all buildings' relates to NHS trusts and is not broken down into the A, B, C, D classifications.

  A figure which is available is the average percentage of the occupied floor area of all NHS trust buildings that is in physical condition C and D (ie. below conditions A and B).

  The latest available figure for 2000–01 indicates this figure to be 18 per cent. In comparison with the previous year when the figure was 24 per cent, this indicates a general reduction in the percentage of the estate in which 'all buildings' are below physical conditions A and B.

  Please note that these figures exclude empty NHS trust buildings, premises or facilities which may be awaiting disposal.

  Alcohol and Drug Misuse
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths were attributable to alcohol misuse in each of the last five years. [38653]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information collected centrally about the cause of deaths does not systematically record whether a death is attributable to alcohol misuse. A number of health and lifestyle factors can contribute to diseases such as cancer, stroke and coronary heart disease, and it can be difficult to isolate alcohol consumption as the most important of these factors.

  A research review commissioned by the Department in 1997 concluded that between 5,000 and 40,000 deaths are attributable to alcohol misuse each year in England and Wales.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff in his Department work on measures specifically to tackle(a) alcohol misuse and (b) drugs misuse. [38652]

  Ms Blears
  Within the Sexual Health & Substance Misuse branch, there are 20 staff members working on drug treatment, drug prevention and alcohol issues. Within the wider Department, staff from other branches work alongside the dedicated substance misuse team e.g. statisticians and finance experts. It is not possible to quantify numbers as they work in a wide range of policy areas.

  Private Hospital Treatment
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the private hospitals which have carried out operations on behalf of the NHS since 1997; what has been the total cost incurred to the NHS in respect of each private hospital which has carried out operations on behalf of the NHS over that time; and what the total cost of all operations carried out in private hospitals in the UK and abroad on behalf of the NHS has been since 1997. [38469]
  436W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested in respect of individual private hospitals is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  For information on the total cost of all operations carried out in private hospitals in the United Kingdom and abroad, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 15 November 2001, Official Report, column 855W.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce or amend regulations in order to provide free NHS prescriptions for medication required to treat cystic fibrosis. [38657]

  Ms Blears
  Our policy for national health service prescriptions dispensed in England is that, with the exception of contraceptives, exemption applies to a person rather than to the type of medication prescribed. Further, 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 cystic fibrosis. Arrangements for NHS prescriptions dispensed in Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting times in accident and emergency units were in each(a) constituency and (b) health authority in England since 1992; and what the most recent 12 month figures are. [38341]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The average waiting time in accident and emergency units is not collected.

  However, the NHS Plan set a new target for Accident and Emergency: reduce the maximum wait in Accident and Emergency from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge to four hours by 2004.

  With the following interim milestones;
  75 per cent. of patients attending Accident and Emergency to wait 4 hours or less from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge by March 2002.

  90 per cent. of patients attending Accident and Emergency to wait 4 hours or less from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge by March 2003.

  In line with this, from August 2001, the Department has collected data on total time in Accident and Emergency from arrival to transfer, admission or discharge. Information suggests that the national health service is on track to meet the March 2002 milestone. Currently 77 per cent. of all Accident and Emergency attenders spend four hours or less in Accident and Emergency.

  Information on the number of patients waiting from admission from an accident and emergency department is also collected and the latest information is available on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for which procedures he guarantees six-month maximum waiting time. [40695]
  437W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: At present, no procedures are guaranteed a six-month maximum waiting time. However, from 1 April 2002, all patients waiting for their first out-patient appointment will be guaranteed to be seen within six months. This is in line with the targets set out in the NHS Plan.

  The NHS Plan sets out this Government's targets for improving NHS waiting times. By the end of March 2005, the maximum waiting time for all in-patients will have been cut from 18 now down to 15,12, nine and eventually to six months and the maximum waiting time for initial out-patient appointments will be cut to three months. Urgent cases will continue to be treated in preference and in accordance with clinical need.

  Detailed waiting time data are available in the Library.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if health purchasing authorities set minimum waiting times in contracts with NHS and independent providers; and if he has offered guidance on securing minimum waiting times. [40692]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Maximum waiting times for first out-patient appointments from GP referral and for in-patient appointments are set out in the NHS Plan. From 1 April 2002, the maximum waiting time from GP referral to a first outpatient appointment will be six months and the maximum waiting time for an in-patient appointment will be 15 months. Maximum waiting times will fall on a staged basis each year up to 2005, when the maximum waiting time for a first out-patient appointment will be three months and the maximum waiting time for an in-patient appointment will be six months.

  Primary care organisations and strategic health authorities are expected to purchase adequate care from NHS and independent health care providers in order to ensure patients are treated within the maximum waiting times standards.

  There are no minimum waiting times standards set nationally.

  NHS Procurement
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the objectives of the NHS procurement initiative ProCure21. [38688]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The information is as follows:
  NHS ProCure21—objectives
  NHS ProCure21 aims to improve capital procurement in the national health service through improving design, strengthening the performance of the NHS as a client, benchmarking and promoting better performance, and establishing partnering frameworks to deliver capital schemes. Its objectives are to deliver better facilities, faster and at greater value for money for the NHS, thus delivering significant benefits for patients, staff and visitors. Further details are set out in "Sold On Health", published May 2000, and on the NHS ProCure21 website www.nhs-procure21.gov.uk.
  The National Audit Office uses NHS ProCure21 as a case study in its report "Modernising Construction" (January 2001). Details can be found at www.nao.gov.uk/publications.
  438W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procurement methods are available to NHS organisations for projects over the threshold of?1 million in capital value, subject to the approval of the ProCure21 steering group; and what the criteria are for successful application of the alternative methods. [38691]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 March 2002]: HM Treasury's "Constructing a Better Government Client—Achieving Excellence" identifies the procurement methods available to the national health service. In May 2000 we published "Sold on Health" jointly with HM Treasury and the Public Services Productivity Panel, which set out our proposals for improving capital procurement in the NHS, NHS ProCure 21, and includes details for the piloting of partnering in the north west and west midlands areas.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who the principal supply chain partner is in each of the regions where the NHS pilot procurement initiative ProCure21 is in place; who the core suppliers are; and what the selection criteria are for those core suppliers for each of these regions where the initiative is in place. [38690]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: We are currently undertaking the selection process to identify principal supply chain partners for the two pilot areas for the partnering element of NHS ProCure21. The selections reflect the European Community works directive and include technical and commercial criteria as well as commitment to working closely with the national health service, delivering continuous improvement and innovation, and the ability to deliver high quality facilities for the NHS.

  Three Star Hospitals
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research the performance management unit has conducted into three star hospitals; and how many of them have been found to be failing. [38461]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: No research has been done on the performance of three star national health service trusts since the performance ratings were published last September. Their performance will be re-assessed as part of the next national annual rating exercise.

  Autism (West Sussex)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities are available in the West Sussex health authority area for children with autism disorders. [39232]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Children with autism will benefit from a range of initiatives we are taking to improve services for disabled children. As part of the quality protects programme, we set new national objectives for children's services which for the first time set out clear outcomes for children and, in some instances, give precise targets which local authorities are expected to achieve. These were updated in "Valuing People".

  Disabled children have been made a priority area in quality protects. The last spending review made substantial additional funding available for the children's services grant which now totals £180 million in 2001–02,

  439W
  £220 million in 2002–03 and £290 million in 2003–04. Of this, £60 million has been earmarked for services for disabled children and their families—£15 million in 2001–02 and 2002–03 and £30 million in 2003–04.

  Currently in West Sussex, there are a number of specific provisions for children with autism. For example, in the Mid Sussex NHS Trust area, a recently developed Joint Assessment Team to diagnose children with these needs. This includes, a consultant paediatrician, a clinical psychologist, a speech therapist and a diagnostic services. Treatment is usually given in conjunction with education and there are special schools in the area where this joint approach can be implemented effectively.

  Another example comes from the Sussex Weald and Downs NHS Trust area, where the Community Paediatric Service runs a child development centre for autistic children who are under five, and work is undertaken with schools who have pupils with these needs. The over fives are dealt with by CAMHS. The trust also works with the Autistic Society to ensure that all treatment is suitable for each individual's needs.

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions on the designation of

  Table 1: Expenditure per financial year on social care of the elderly per resident aged 65 or over for each council with social services responsibilities

  £

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Avon

  516

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barking and Dagenham

  631

  702

  766

  831

  933

  Barnet

  633

  669

  730

  789

  848

  Barnsley

  505

  543

  542

  569

  616

  Bath and North East Somerset UA

  —

  421

  544

  557

  594

  Bedfordshire (old)

  541

  592

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  610

  615

  643

  Berkshire

  534

  555

  720

  —

  —

  Bexley

  551

  662

  714

  722

  760

  Birmingham

  628

  695

  781

  842

  915

  Blackburn with Darwen UA

  —

  —

  —

  890

  971

  Blackpool UA

  —

  —

  —

  723

  755

  Bolton

  552

  642

  750

  755

  809

  Bournemouth UA

  —

  —

  606

  602

  595

  Bracknell Forest UA

  —

  —

  —

  650

  681

  Bradford

  564

  614

  840

  894

  942

  Brent

  756

  798

  881

  847

  880

  Brighton and Hove UA

  —

  —

  672

  730

  795

  Bristol UA

  —

  741

  712

  859

  943

  Bromley

  434

  474

  504

  657

  719

  Buckinghamshire (old)

  514

  540

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  592

  621

  671

  Bury

  689

  838

  740

  806

  864

  Calderdale

  735

  801

  858

  924

  963

  Cambridgeshire (old)

  409

  372

  434

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  511

  558

  Camden

  1,148

  1,254

  1,317

  1,589

  1,599

  Cheshire (old)

  459

  601

  653

  —

  —

  Cheshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  691

  747

  City of London

  2,102

  2,241

  2,216

  2,227

  2,167

  Cleveland

  452

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  348

  458

  543

  569

  548

  Coventry

  525

  594

  611

  670

  737

  Croydon

  590

  730

  775

  787

  814

  440W
  the cases of children who suffer from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as eligible for disability living allowance. [39386]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have had no such discussions but understand that parents of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder can claim disability living allowance and have their child's entitlement assessed in the normal way.

  Elderly Care
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the spending on care of the elderly per resident of pensionable age in each social service authority was in England and Wales(a) this year and (b) in each of the previous five years; what the average of the spending on care of the elderly per resident of pensionable age in (i) England, (ii) Wales, and (iii) the north-west of England was (A) this year and (B) in each of the previous five years. [39456]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on spending on social care for the elderly per resident of pensionable age is not available centrally. Table 1 shows spending per financial year on social care of the elderly per resident aged 65 or over for each council with social services responsibilities in England from 1995–96 to 1999–2000 (the latest year for which data are available). As a result of local government reorganisation, there are differences in the councils in existence during this period. Table 2 shows the average spend on care of the elderly per resident aged 65 or over for England and north-west England. Data for Wales are the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.
  441W

  Table 1: Expenditure per financial year on social care of the elderly per resident aged 65 or over for each council with social services responsibilities

  £

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Cumbria

  427

  509

  541

  556

  597

  Darlington UA

  —

  —

  435

  398

  695

  Derby UA

  —

  —

  698

  747

  792

  Derbyshire (old)

  558

  633

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  671

  481

  673

  Devon (old)

  465

  539

  585

  —

  —

  Devon (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  566

  629

  Doncaster

  654

  769

  817

  857

  908

  Dorset (old)

  349

  409

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset (remaining)

  —

  —

  435

  413

  437

  Dudley

  526

  541

  642

  699

  719

  Durham (old)

  479

  539

  —

  —

  —

  Durham (remaining)

  —

  —

  597

  630

  849

  Ealing

  627

  668

  800

  744

  1,024

  East Riding of Yorkshire UA

  —

  477

  591

  612

  774

  East Sussex (old)

  377

  491

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex (remaining)

  —

  —

  462

  505

  536

  Enfield

  608

  697

  787

  723

  705

  Essex (old)

  453

  507

  516

  —

  —

  Essex (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  519

  580

  Gateshead

  613

  694

  855

  890

  963

  Gloucestershire

  297

  343

  340

  474

  478

  Greenwich

  742

  784

  941

  1,004

  1,055

  Hackney

  1,386

  1,399

  1,439

  1,501

  1,542

  Halton UA

  —

  —

  —

  790

  855

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,105

  1,166

  1,325

  1,454

  1,831

  Hampshire (old)

  433

  502

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  478

  479

  488

  Haringey

  1,027

  1,060

  1,108

  1,160

  1,158

  Harrow

  600

  602

  627

  715

  765

  Hartlepool UA

  —

  638

  696

  625

  663

  Havering

  500

  581

  631

  634

  627

  Hereford and Worcester

  414

  457

  447

  —

  —

  Herefordshire UA

  —

  —

  —

  350

  502

  Hertfordshire

  494

  535

  570

  595

  659

  Hillingdon

  602

  624

  636

  653

  708

  Hounslow

  639

  685

  717

  844

  929

  Humberside

  523

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight UA

  383

  504

  521

  558

  605

  Isles of Scilly

  549

  540

  577

  718

  844

  Islington

  1,279

  1,439

  1,597

  1,417

  1,577

  Kensington and Chelsea

  930

  944

  1,014

  1,013

  1,067

  Kent (old)

  504

  567

  548

  —

  —

  Kent (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  580

  625

  Kingston upon Hull UA

  —

  675

  646

  875

  1,005

  Kingston upon Thames

  606

  691

  718

  808

  858

  Kirklees

  616

  684

  698

  761

  822

  Knowsley

  472

  466

  531

  593

  522

  Lambeth

  973

  1,037

  1,132

  1,119

  1,068

  Lancashire (old)

  527

  613

  691

  —

  —

  Lancashire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  707

  734

  Leeds

  571

  602

  650

  664

  701

  Leicester UA

  —

  —

  482

  782

  761

  Leicestershire (old)

  499

  530

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire (remaining)

  —

  —

  514

  525

  547

  Lewisham

  887

  955

  1,000

  1,056

  1,125

  Lincolnshire

  344

  357

  390

  534

  556

  Liverpool

  827

  876

  825

  937

  1,005

  Luton UA

  —

  —

  700

  759

  802

  Manchester

  802

  905

  905

  1,014

  1,138

  Medway Towns UA

  —

  —

  —

  641

  734

  Merton

  554

  636

  670

  777

  900

  Middlesbrough UA

  —

  561

  603

  658

  851

  Milton Keynes UA

  —

  —

  672

  703

  781

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  533

  568

  680

  709

  779

  Newham

  1,160

  1,138

  1,167

  1,139

  1,172

  Norfolk

  448

  527

  568

  618

  647

  North East Lincolnshire UA

  —

  533

  542

  615

  727

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  691

  709

  692

  744

  North Somerset UA

  —

  453

  503

  536

  561

  North Tyneside

  350

  385

  551

  586

  621

  North Yorkshire (old)

  453

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire (remaining)

  —

  510

  547

  581

  636

  442W 443W

  Table 1: Expenditure per financial year on social care of the elderly per resident aged 65 or over for each council with social services responsibilities

  £

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Northamptonshire

  486

  533

  544

  597

  609

  Northumberland

  505

  661

  781

  811

  869

  Nottingham UA

  —

  —

  —

  798

  934

  Nottinghamshire (old)

  630

  705

  733

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  734

  743

  Oldham

  676

  746

  816

  831

  920

  Oxfordshire

  438

  480

  538

  568

  613

  Peterborough UA

  —

  —

  —

  477

  615

  Plymouth UA

  —

  —

  —

  740

  754

  Poole UA

  —

  —

  458

  488

  503

  Portsmouth UA

  —

  —

  766

  808

  867

  Reading UA

  —

  —

  —

  612

  793

  Redbridge

  517

  575

  631

  672

  723

  Redcar and Cleveland UA

  —

  584

  613

  659

  682

  Richmond upon Thames

  622

  707

  763

  762

  792

  Rochdale

  635

  675

  721

  769

  830

  Rotherham

  575

  615

  756

  807

  895

  Rutland UA

  —

  —

  488

  512

  554

  Salford

  605

  815

  873

  946

  1,029

  Sandwell

  609

  725

  828

  887

  956

  Sefton

  531

  595

  624

  715

  767

  Sheffield

  641

  701

  716

  783

  820

  Shropshire (old)

  443

  521

  582

  —

  —

  Shropshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  580

  620

  Slough UA

  —

  —

  —

  867

  935

  Solihull

  402

  422

  425

  442

  470

  Somerset

  306

  320

  333

  347

  466

  South Gloucestershire UA

  —

  403

  420

  461

  502

  South Tyneside

  587

  653

  705

  721

  767

  Southampton UA

  —

  —

  638

  689

  772

  Southend UA

  —

  —

  —

  546

  554

  Southwark

  1,194

  1,227

  1,290

  1,756

  1,503

  St. Helens

  594

  659

  698

  833

  992

  Staffordshire (old)

  505

  555

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  538

  582

  654

  Stockport

  598

  683

  676

  749

  788

  Stockton on Tees UA

  —

  623

  634

  775

  830

  Stoke-on-Trent

  —

  —

  755

  815

  894

  Suffolk

  466

  547

  568

  596

  641

  Sunderland

  563

  628

  652

  856

  963

  Surrey

  442

  485

  493

  565

  570

  Sutton

  606

  658

  693

  772

  841

  Swindon UA

  —

  —

  551

  453

  551

  Thameside

  560

  672

  741

  773

  864

  Telford and Wrekin UA

  —

  —

  —

  732

  815

  Thurrock UA

  —

  —

  —

  657

  688

  Torbay UA

  —

  —

  —

  642

  713

  Tower Hamlets

  1,203

  1,294

  1,338

  1,318

  1,483

  Trafford

  417

  556

  609

  651

  728

  Wakefield

  499

  560

  561

  609

  671

  Walsall

  508

  610

  670

  724

  884

  Waltham Forest

  679

  750

  890

  996

  1,037

  Wandsworth

  922

  1,021

  1,090

  1,133

  1,184

  Warrington UA

  —

  —

  —

  718

  799

  Warwickshire

  421

  477

  507

  527

  550

  West Berkshire UA

  —

  —

  —

  672

  711

  West Sussex

  432

  490

  529

  514

  523

  Westminster

  1,009

  1,049

  1,144

  1,148

  1,206

  Wigan

  520

  580

  626

  692

  743

  Wiltshire (old)

  382

  482

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  474

  472

  631

  Windsor and Maidenhead UA

  —

  —

  —

  555

  616

  Wirral

  555

  590

  656

  662

  770

  Wokingham UA

  —

  —

  —

  454

  562

  Wolverhampton

  688

  791

  843

  879

  938

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  —

  490

  550

  York UA

  —

  516

  545

  575

  617

  UA = Unitary Authority

  Sources:

  1. Population data—Office for National Statistics

  2. Expenditure data—form RO3
  444W 445W

  Table 2: Expenditure per financial year on social care of the elderly per resident aged 65 or over for England and north-west England

  £

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  North-west

  544

  647

  695–

  740

  —

  Merseyside

  631

  675

  693

  770

  —

  North-west (new)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  806

  England

  526

  590

  633

  671

  725

  Sources:

  1. Population data—Office for National Statistics

  2. Expenditure data-form RO3

  Gynaecologists
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) female and (b) male gynaecologists are employed by each local health authority in England. [39515]

  Number of hospital medical staff, of which consultants within the obstetrics and gynaecology specialty by gender and health authority1, as at 30 September 2001

  All staff

  Consultants

  All

  Male

  Female

  All

  Male

  Female

  England

  4,150

  2,170

  1,980

  1,220

  930

  290

  Health authority

  Avon

  QD8

  100

  40

  60

  20

  20

  10

  Barking and Havering

  QAP

  50

  20

  30

  20

  10

  10

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  QEW

  40

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Barnsley

  QCG

  20

  10

  10

  0

  0

  2—

  Bedfordshire

  QA6

  40

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Berkshire

  QA7

  70

  30

  40

  10

  10

  0

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  QEY

  60

  40

  30

  20

  20

  0

  Birmingham

  QD9

  I30

  70

  60

  40

  40

  10

  Bradford

  QDD

  50

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Brent and Harrow

  QAR

  40

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  QA8

  60

  30

  30

  10

  10

  0

  Bury and Rochdale

  QCT

  30

  10

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  QDT

  50

  20

  30

  10

  10

  0

  Cambridge

  QER

  70

  40

  30

  20

  20

  0

  Camden and Islington

  QAT

  120

  50

  70

  40

  20

  20

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  QDV

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  0

  County Durham

  QDE

  40

  30

  10

  20

  10

  0

  Coventry

  QEA

  30

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  Croydon

  QAD

  20

  10

  0

  10

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  QCK

  30

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Dorset

  QDW

  50

  30

  20

  10

  10

  2—

  Dudley

  QEC

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  QAV

  110

  50

  60

  30

  20

  10

  East Kent

  QAE

  50

  40

  10

  20

  20

  0

  East Lancashire

  QCX

  40

  20

  20

  20

  10

  10

  East London and The City

  QAW

  100

  50

  50

  40

  30

  10

  East Riding

  QDF

  40

  30

  20

  10

  10

  0

  East Surrey

  QAK

  30

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  East Sussex

  QAM

  50

  30

  20

  20

  10

  0

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  QDG

  50

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Gloucestershire

  QDY

  30

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Herefordshire

  QED

  10

  10

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  Hertfordshire

  QEX

  70

  40

  30

  20

  20

  0

  Hillingdon

  QA2

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  QEV

  50

  30

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  QA3

  80

  40

  40

  30

  20

  10

  Kingston and Richmond

  QAG

  30

  10

  20

  10

  0

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  QAH

  180

  80

  100

  30

  20

  10

  Leeds

  QDH

  80

  40

  40

  20

  20

  0

  Leicestershire

  QCL

  80

  40

  40

  20

  20

  0

  Lincolnshire

  QCM

  40

  20

  20

  10

  10

  2—

  Liverpool

  QC2

  70

  40

  40

  20

  20

  10

  Manchester

  QC3

  80

  30

  50

  20

  10

  10

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  QAJ

  60

  30

  30

  20

  10

  10

  Morecambe Bay

  QC4

  30

  20

  10

  0

  0

  2—

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  QDJ

  50

  30

  30

  10

  10

  0

  Norfolk

  QET

  60

  40

  20

  20

  10

  0

  North and East Devon

  QDX

  30

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  North and Mid Hampshire

  QD1

  30

  20

  10

  10

  0

  0

  North Cheshire

  QCV

  20

  10

  10

  10

  10

  0

  North Cumbria

  QDK

  20

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  North Derbyshire

  QCH

  20

  10

  10

  0

  0

  0

  North Essex

  QAX

  60

  30

  20

  10

  10

  0

  North Nottinghamshire

  QCN

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  0

  446W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  There has been a 42 per cent. increase in female obstetric and gynaecology consultants since 1997.
  447W

  Number of hospital medical staff, of which consultants within the obstetrics and gynaecology specialty by gender and health authority1, as at 30 September 2001

  All staff

  Consultants

  All

  Male

  Female

  All

  Male

  Female

  North Staffordshire

  QEH

  30

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  North West Lancashire

  QCY

  50

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  North Yorkshire

  QDR

  60

  40

  30

  20

  10

  0

  Northamptonshire

  QCC

  40

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Northumberland

  QDM

  40

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Nottingham

  QCP

  70

  30

  40

  20

  10

  10

  Oxfordshire

  QCE

  60

  30

  30

  20

  20

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  QA5

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  QCQ

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Salford and Trafford

  QC6

  30

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Sandwell

  QEE

  20

  10

  10

  0

  0

  2—

  Sefton

  QC7

  40

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  Sheffield

  QCR

  50

  20

  30

  20

  20

  10

  Shropshire

  QEF

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Somerset

  QD5

  30

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  South and West Devon

  QD6

  50

  30

  20

  10

  10

  0

  South Cheshire

  QCW

  60

  30

  30

  20

  10

  0

  South Derbyshire

  QCJ

  30

  10

  20

  10

  10

  0

  South Essex

  QAY

  30

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  South Humber

  QDL

  30

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  South Lancashire

  QCI

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  South Staffordshire

  QEJ

  30

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  QD3

  50

  20

  30

  20

  10

  0

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  QC5

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Stockport

  QC8

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  QCF

  40

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Sunderland

  QDN

  30

  10

  20

  10

  0

  0

  Tees

  QDP

  50

  30

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Wakefield

  QDQ

  20

  10

  10

  10

  10

  2—

  Walsall

  QEK

  20

  10

  10

  0

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  QEL

  30

  10

  10

  10

  10

  0

  West Kent

  QAF

  60

  40

  30

  20

  20

  0

  West Pennine

  QC9

  30

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  West Surrey

  QAL

  70

  30

  40

  20

  10

  10

  West Sussex

  QAN

  60

  30

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Wigan and Bolton

  QDA

  40

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Wiltshire

  QD7

  30

  20

  20

  10

  10

  2—

  Wirral

  QDC

  30

  20

  10

  10

  10

  0

  Wolverhampton

  QEM

  20

  10

  10

  10

  10

  0

  Worcester

  QEN

  40

  20

  20

  10

  10

  0

  1 Staff holding appointments in more than one HA are included separately in each HA. The sum of HA totals therefore differ slightly from the England total and a direct comparison between England total and HA totals is not advised.

  2 Denotes zero

  Notes:

  1.0 denotes 5 or less

  2. Figures rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health 2001 medical and dental workforce census

  Compensation
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total amount of compensation paid in out of court settlements for patients in each local health authority area in each of the last 10 years. [39516]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not hold figures for all aspects of litigation made against the national health service and therefore the information requested is not held centrally.

  Dentists
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in England were trained at dental schools in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland; and what proportion each represents of the total. [39818]

  Ms Blears
  The number of General Dental Service (GDS) dentists in England trained at dental schools in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the percentage of the total number of dentists is shown in the table.
  448W
  The total number of dentists covers principals on a HA list, their assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  Area of qualification

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Dentists working in England

  Principals

  Number

  1,099

  444

  91

  16,124

  Percentage of principals

  7

  3

  I

  —

  Assistants

  Number

  43

  4

  3

  1,214

  Percentage of assistants

  4

  0

  0

  —

  VDPs Number

  25

  15

  7

  599

  Percentage of VDPs

  4

  3

  1

  —

  Total

  Number

  1,167

  463

  101

  17,937

  Percentage of total dentists

  —

  —

  —

  —

  449W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in England were trained at dental schools outside the United Kingdom; and what proportion they represent of the total. [39817]

  Ms Blears
  The number of General Dental Service (GDS) dentists in England trained at dental schools outside the UK and the percentage of the total number of dentists in England at 31 December 2001 is shown in the table. The figures exclude dentists whose title of registration is shown as Statutory Exams and dentists awaiting entry.

  The total number of dentists covers principals on a HA list, their assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  General Dental Service: Number of dentists trained at dental schools outside the UK and the percentage of the total number of dentists in England at 31 December 2001

  Dentists qualified overseas

  Dentists working in England

  Percentage of dentists who work in England qualified overseas

  Principals

  2,094

  16,124

  13

  Assistants

  717

  1,214

  59

  VDPs

  1

  599

  0

  Total

  2,812

  17,937

  16

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce in which health authorities his Christmas Eve announcement on hearing aids will be implemented; and what criteria will determine his choice of health authority. [39815]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have invited expressions of interest by 8 March 2002 from all health communities not yet involved in the modernising hearing aid services project. Decisions will be made shortly thereafter, based on a

  Number of admissions to NHS Hospitals in England where the main diagnosis was asthma1 by health authority of treatment, (London health authorities); finished episodes; children aged 0–14, 1996–97 to 2000–01.

  Health authority of treatment

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  All 5 years

  QA2 Hillingdon

  426

  384

  351

  162

  126

  1,449

  QA3 Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  523

  480

  357

  196

  255

  1,811

  QA4 Enfield and Haringey

  403

  292

  273

  257

  224

  1,449

  QA5 Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  509

  395

  286

  226

  222

  1,638

  QAA Bexley and Greenwich

  395

  306

  288

  211

  204

  1,404

  QAC Bromley

  173

  166

  120

  142

  122

  723

  QAD Croydon

  252

  271

  215

  154

  173

  1,065

  QAG Kingston and Richmond

  0

  0

  0

  135

  122

  257

  QAH Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  967

  796

  722

  645

  552

  3,682

  QAJ Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  775

  539

  553

  473

  378

  2,718

  QAP Barking and Havering

  244

  195

  179

  149

  136

  903

  QAQ Barnet

  175

  220

  224

  232

  206

  1,057

  QAR Brent and Harrow

  272

  219

  198

  213

  125

  1,027

  QAT Camden and Islington

  452

  401

  311

  297

  325

  1,786

  QAV Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  395

  423

  532

  428

  398

  2,176

  QAW East London and The City

  579

  588

  678

  655

  508

  3,008

  Total

  6,540

  5,675

  5,287

  4,575

  4,076

  26,153

  1 Asthma (ICD-10: 'J45' thru 'J46X'

  Notes:

  1. Admissions are defined as the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  2. The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  3. Figures have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health
  450W
  number of criteria including geographical distribution, preparedness, and the support of the whole local health community.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in the Isle of Wight were trained at each Scottish dental school; and what proportion they represent of the total. [39816]

  Ms Blears
  Out of a total of 40 General Dental Service (GDS) dentists working in the Isle of Wight at the end of January 2002, 7 or 18 per cent. were trained in Scotland.

  Of the seven dentists who were trained in Scotland, four were trained in Dundee, two in Glasgow, and one in Edinburgh.

  Dentists include principals on an HA list, their assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of expenditure on health was spent in the last 12 months of patients' lives in the latest year for which figures are available. [39626]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Asthma
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been treated for asthma in each London borough, in each of the last five years. [39966]

  Mr. Hutton
  The figures shown represent the number of admissions to national health service trusts within the London health authorities, where the main diagnosis was asthma' in the last five years. Figures represent children aged up to 14 years.
  451W

  NHS Catering
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the applicants for the national franchise for NHS catering; and if he will name the successful applicant. [39776]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: The initial exercise to examine his proposal identified that further work was required to fully explore the significant and complex issues which a franchise option raises. This work is continuing and, as previously noted any franchise arrangements will be subject to European Union regulations on open competition within the community. Since we have not yet reached this stage there are no applicants.

  Quality Protects
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each local authority responsible for implementing the Quality Protects programme under LAC(98)28 and subsequent circulars budgeted to spend in 2001–02; and what the(a) actual and (b) budgeted spend was in the previous two years. [39311]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The tables set out the quality protects grant allocations made to local authorities with social services functions for 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02, together with the actual amounts spent by each authority on implementing the programme in the first three years.

  Quality Protects—1998–99

  £

  Grunt allocation

  Expenditure incurred

  Barking and Dagenham

  31,000.00

  38,214.00

  Barnet

  32,500.00

  25,347.00

  Barnsley

  32,500.00

  35,296.00

  Bath and North East Somerset

  32,500.00

  40,299.00

  Bedfordshire

  32,500.00

  32,674.41

  Bexley

  32,500.00

  32,848.00

  Birmingham

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Blackburn with Darwen

  32,500.00

  33,897.00

  Blackpool

  32,500.00

  31,637.00

  Bolton

  32,500.00

  32,691.41

  Bournemouth

  32,500.00

  14,154.00

  Bracknell Forest

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Bradford

  32,500.00

  31,790.00

  Brent

  32,500.00

  34,466.75

  Brighton and Hove

  32,500.00

  32,943.00

  Bristol

  32,500.00

  34,494.12

  Bromley

  32,500.00

  32,747.00

  Buckinghamshire

  32,500.00

  45,153.00

  Bury

  32,500.00

  49.807.00

  Calderdale

  32,500.00

  32,934.38

  Cambridgeshire

  32,500.00

  35,680.00

  Camden

  32,500.00

  34,825.00

  Cheshire

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  City of London

  3,000.00

  5,000.00

  Cornwall

  32,500.00

  45,563.00

  Coventry

  32,500.00

  33,213.00

  Croydon

  32,500.00

  34,973.00

  Cumbria

  32,500.00

  33,110.00

  Darlington

  32,500.00

  34,242.00

  Derby

  32,500.00

  32,980.00

  Derbyshire

  32,500.00

  32,816.00

  Devon

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Doncaster

  32,500.00

  25,544.89

  Dorset

  32,500.00

  34,502.00

  452W

  Quality Protects—1998–99

  £

  Grunt allocation

  Expenditure incurred

  Dudley

  32,500.00

  34,544.00

  Durham

  32,500.00

  34,542.42

  Ealing

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  32,500.00

  35,820.00

  East Sussex

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Enfield

  32,500.00

  32,979.00

  Essex

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Gateshead

  32,500.00

  31,731.00

  Gloucestershire

  32,500.00

  32,100.00

  Greenwich

  32,500.00

  32,756.00

  Hackney

  32,500.00

  34,369.22

  Halton

  32,500.00

  35,696.82

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  32,500.00

  32,831.37

  Hampshire

  32,141.00

  33,035.18

  Haringey

  32,500.00

  37,046.00

  Harrow

  32,500.00

  32,584.00

  Hartlepool

  32,500.00

  24,801.00

  Havering

  32,500.00

  32,774.00

  Herefordshire

  32,500.00

  37,345.14

  Hertfordshire

  32,500.00

  49,257.00

  Hillingdon

  32,500.00

  9,531.95

  Hounslow

  32,500.00

  48,093.00

  Isle of Wight

  32,500.00

  32,510.00

  Isles of Scilly

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  Islington

  32,500.00

  30,435.00

  Kensington and Chelsea

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Kent

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Kingston upon Hull

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Kingston upon Thames

  32,500.00

  32,633.62

  Kirklees

  32,500.00

  30,062.64

  Knowsley

  32,500.00

  28,347.00

  Lambeth

  32,500.00

  32,885.00

  Lancashire

  32,500.00

  39,783.00

  Leeds

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Leicester City

  32,500.00

  34,424.00

  Leicestershire

  32,500.00

  33,871.57

  Lewisham

  32,500.00

  33,754.00

  Lincolnshire

  32,500.00

  32,653.16

  Liverpool

  32,500.00

  34,541.00

  Luton

  32,500.00

  32,561.72

  Manchester

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Medway

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Merton

  32,500.00

  28,252.00

  Middlesbrough

  32,500.00

  32,753.00

  Milton Keynes

  32,500.00

  33,221.00

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  32,500.00

  33,812.36

  Newham

  32,500.00

  32,804.00

  Norfolk

  32,500.00

  42,691.00

  North East Lincolnshire

  32,500.00

  31,225.14

  North Lincolnshire

  32,500.00

  35,322.31

  North Somerset

  32,500.00

  32,544.00

  North Tyneside

  32,500.00

  33,095.00

  North Yorkshire

  32,500.00

  27,199.00

  Northamptonshire

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Northumberland

  32,500.00

  34,072.00

  Nottingham

  32,500.00

  38,107.00

  Nottinghamshire

  32,500.00

  38,123.00

  Oldham

  32,500.00

  38,652.00

  Oxfordshire

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Peterborough

  32,500.00

  32,464.00

  Plymouth

  32,500.00

  32,160.00

  Poole

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Portsmouth

  32,500.00

  29,616.00

  Reading

  32,500.00

  35,109.00

  Redbridge

  32,500.00

  32,717.43

  Redcar and Cleveland

  32,500.00

  32,613.09

  Richmond upon Thames

  32,500.00

  33,316.00

  Rochdale

  32,400.00

  32,508.00

  453W

  Quality Protects—1998–99

  £

  Grant allocation

  Expenditure incurred

  Rotherham

  32,500.00

  32,529.00

  Rutland

  32,500.00

  33,195.00

  Salford

  32,500.00

  23,827.00

  Sandwell

  32,500.00

  32,266.00

  Sefton

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Sheffield

  32,500.00

  25,662.47

  Shropshire

  32,500.00

  29,299.77

  Slough

  32,500.00

  16,867.27

  Solihull

  32,500.00

  34,505.00

  Somerset

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  South Gloucestershire

  32,500.00

  34,734.00

  South Tyneside

  32,500.00

  23,052.00

  Southampton

  32,500.00

  33,189.39

  Southend-on-Sea

  32,500.00

  40,515.00

  Southwark

  32,500.00

  34,360.00

  St. Helens

  32,500.00

  30,968.00

  Staffordshire

  32,500.00

  34,085.00

  Stockport

  32,500.00

  34,713.00

  Stockton-on-Tees

  32,500.00

  35,342.00

  Stoke-on-Trent

  32,500.00

  35,677.67

  Suffolk

  32,500.00

  38,950.89

  Sunderland

  32,500.00

  30,181.00

  Surrey

  32,500.00

  54,612.00

  Sutton

  32,500.00

  32,752.00

  Swindon

  32,500.00

  32,503.00

  Tameside

  32,500.00

  36,302.00

  Telford and the Wrekin

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  Thurrock

  32,500.00

  34,860.00

  Torbay

  32,500.00

  32,613.00

  Tower Hamlets

  32,500.00

  42,513.71

  Trafford

  32,500.00

  32,934.00

  Wakefield

  32,500.00

  33,535.00

  Walsall

  32,500.00

  32,185.00

  Waltham Forest

  32,500.00

  47,143.00

  Wandsworth

  32,500.00

  50,533.00

  Warrington

  32,500.00

  34,160.00

  Warwickshire

  32,500.00

  32,178.06

  West Berkshire

  32,500.00

  34,500.00

  West Sussex

  32,500.00

  33,210.00

  Westminster

  32,500.00

  28,139.00

  Wigan

  32,500.00

  32,841.00

  Wiltshire

  32,500.00

  33,783.00

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  32,500.00

  34,324.00

  Wirral

  32,500.00

  35,055.00

  Wokingham

  32,500.00

  34,954.00

  Wolverhampton

  32,500.00

  20,200.00

  Worcestershire

  32,500.00

  32,500.00

  York

  32,500.00

  32,508.00

  Quality Protects—1999–2000

  £

  Grant allocation

  Expenditure incurred

  Barking and Dagenham

  378,953.00

  379,302.00

  Barnet

  540,110.00

  504,748.00

  Barnsley

  278,096.00

  278,096.00

  Bath and North East Somerset

  154,973.00

  184,663.00

  Bedfordshire

  356,687.00

  366,929.00

  Bexley

  280,521.00

  291,000.00

  Birmingham

  2,591,786.00

  2,898,652.28

  Blackburn with Darwen

  273,182.00

  262,138.00

  Blackpool

  236,835.00

  238,381.00

  Bolton

  396,975.00

  397,000.00

  Bournemouth

  229,845.00

  231,331.00

  Bracknell Forest

  117,522.00

  132,308.00

  Bradford

  884,401.00

  900,285.62

  454W

  Quality Protects—1999–2000

  £

  Grant allocation

  Expenditure incurred

  Brent

  976,211.00

  985,653.00

  Brighton and Hove

  429,491.00

  429,470.00

  Bristol

  713,666.00

  719,140.39

  Bromley

  358,039.00

  358,851.00

  Buckinghamshire

  387,837.00

  388,279.00

  Bury

  219,510.00

  232,419.00

  Calderdale

  259,611.00

  276,897.00

  Cambridgeshire

  455,000.00

  455,000.00

  Camden

  876,424.00

  879,962.00

  Cheshire

  592,040.00

  592,040.00

  City of London

  16,286.00

  11,130.00

  Cornwall

  488,072.00

  488,000.00

  Coventry

  541,941.00

  542,000.00

  Croydon

  717,253.00

  812,613.00

  Cumbria

  444,301.00

  464,002.00

  Darlington

  132,436.00

  140,870.00

  Derby

  386,441.00

  386,838.00

  Derbyshire

  604,045.00

  735,009.00

  Devon

  624,424.00

  624,423.00

  Doncaster

  395,605.00

  408,032.91

  Dorset

  302,431.00

  302,777.00

  Dudley

  324,165.00

  350,641.00

  Durham

  599,079.00

  413,704.00

  Ealing

  838,296.00

  939,685.00

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  215,630.00

  202,183.00

  East Sussex

  540,272.00

  540,360.00

  Enfield

  522,279.00

  522,718.00

  Essex

  1,268,060.00

  1,281,958.00

  Gateshead

  297,693.00

  305,222.00

  Gloucestershire

  523,690.00

  422,352.00

  Greenwich

  760,609.00

  1,111,456.00

  Hackney

  1,227,189.00

  1,187,987.47

  Halton

  226,711.00

  226,711.00

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  698,515.00

  713,096.63

  Hampshire

  1,075,112.00

  1,399,134.00

  Haringey

  987,351.00

  935,986.00

  Harrow

  305,314.00

  313,712.00

  Hartlepool

  147,244.00

  147,261.00

  Havering

  252,220.00

  253,926.50

  Herefordshire

  153,445.00

  154,712.08

  Hertfordshire

  1,066,840.00

  1,096,700.00

  Hillingdon

  380,758.00

  459,984.00

  Hounslow

  514,769.00

  529,483.00

  Isle of Wight

  150,553.00

  146,269.00

  Isles of Scilly

  12,261.00

  13,160.00

  Islington

  1,023,002.00

  1,043,385.00

  Kensington and Chelsea

  560,122.00

  560,122.00

  Kent

  1,458,706.00

  1,458,706.00

  Kingston upon Hull

  499,512.00

  502,223.00

  Kingston upon Thames

  174,194.00

  174,194.00

  Kirklees

  547,178.00

  551,729.00

  Knowsley

  422,471.00

  432,643.00

  Lambeth

  1,573,817.00

  1,590,658.00

  Lancashire

  1,365,835.00

  1,474,651.00

  Leeds

  1,048,900.00

  1,276,450.00

  Leicester City

  686,801.00

  688,298.00

  Leicestershire

  411,678.00

  461,898.00

  Lewisham

  1,111,262.00

  1,111,262.00

  Lincolnshire

  565,509.00

  579,047.00

  Liverpool

  1,149,943.00

  1,150,061.00

  Luton

  359,059.00

  380,737.35

  Manchester

  1,394,058.00

  1,394,058.00

  Medway

  299,593.00

  300,103.00

  Merton

  323,737.00

  324,354.00

  Middlesbrough

  313,474.00

  317,586.00

  Milton Keynes

  293,645.00

  186,105.82

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  539,359.00

  793,068.00

  Newham

  1,070,696.00

  1,072,986.00

  Norfolk

  722,580.00

  760,075.72

  North East Lincolnshire

  224,251.00

  225,105.00

  455W

  Quality Protects—1999–2000

  £

  Grant allocation

  Expenditure incurred

  North Lincolnshire

  158,955.00

  166,489.81

  North Somerset

  151,981.00

  158,211.00

  North Tyneside

  278,868.00

  278,868.00

  North Yorkshire

  438,571.00

  439,000.00

  Northamptonshire

  659,698.00

  660,000.00

  Northumberland

  296,640.00

  262,759.00

  Nottingham

  701,493.00

  703,983.00

  Nottinghamshire

  712,558.00

  713,150.00

  Oldham

  374,513.00

  375,010.00

  Oxfordshire

  586,043.00

  544,518.94

  Peterborough

  246,202.00

  248,789.00

  Plymouth

  438,917.00

  436,756.00

  Poole

  140,267.00

  141,318.00

  Portsmouth

  345,827.00

  345,827.00

  Reading

  254,616.00

  249,277.00

  Redbridge

  375,752.00

  258,973.00

  Redcar and Cleveland

  222,123.00

  223,894.91

  Richmond upon Thames

  199,650.00

  192,684.00

  Rochdale

  371,504.00

  391,712.00

  Rotherham

  327,544.00

  346,518.00

  Rutland

  32,573.00

  33,178.00

  Salford

  425,589.00

  417,187.00

  Sandwell

  544;269.00

  544,035.00

  Sefton

  411,861.00

  394,443.00

  Sheffield

  761,467.00

  811,922.00

  Shropshire

  209,125.00

  209,125.00

  Slough

  250,111.00

  250,168.00

  Solihull

  223,969.00

  212,642.00

  Somerset

  436,982.00

  446,236.00

  South Gloucestershire

  178,281.00

  186,677.00

  South Tyneside

  275,020.00

  275,020.00

  Southampton

  411,525.00

  439,783.00

  Southend-on-Sea

  259,093.00

  260,576.00

  Southwark

  1,269,129.00

  1,244,778.00

  St. Helens

  233,469.00

  244,736.00

  Staffordshire

  674,749.00

  695,807.00

  Stockport

  294,530.00

  294,530.00

  Stockton-on-Tees

  267,578.00

  267,578.00

  Stoke-on-Trent

  347,894.00

  357,048.00

  Suffolk

  602,421.00

  614,941.00

  Sunderland

  497,704.00

  588,099.00

  Surrey

  868,583.00

  956,223.00

  Sutton

  249,730.00

  249,730.00

  Swindon

  201,610.00

  200,214.00

  Tameside

  314,349.00

  319,189.00

  Telford and the Wrekin

  206,945.00

  208,529.02

  Thurrock

  194,469.00

  196,586.84

  Torbay

  174,772.00

  174,648.00

  Tower Hamlets

  1,034,484.00

  1,008,313.81

  Trafford

  289,088.00

  289,088.00

  Wakefield

  367,119.00

  367,119.00

  Walsall

  462,560.00

  462,560.00

  Waltham Forest

  669,924.00

  770,139.00

  Wandsworth

  866,095.00

  1,115,666.00

  Warrington

  194,551.00

  250,672.65

  Warwickshire

  426,028.00

  475,478.00

  West Berkshire

  112,417.00

  116,624.00

  West Sussex

  676,043.00

  737,735.00

  Westminster

  755,373.00

  752,691.00

  Wigan

  360,316.00

  337,962.00

  Wiltshire

  357,641.00

  362,613.00

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  123,163.00

  130,990.00

  Wirral

  542,273.00

  716,388.00

  Wokingham

  85,864.00

  85,864.00

  Wolverhampton

  470,718.00

  510,181.00

  Worcestershire

  493,543.00

  493,543.00

  York

  164,894.00

  165,715.00

  456W

  Quality Protects—2000–01

  £

  Grant allocation

  Expenditure incurred

  Barking and Dagenham

  608,000.00

  611,455.00

  Barnet

  861,000.00

  893,098.00

  Barnsley

  440,000.00

  440,000.00

  Bath and North East Somerset

  243,000.00

  280,140.00

  Bedfordshire

  560,000.00

  560,990.02

  Bexley

  443,000.00

  453,000.00

  Birmingham

  4,097,000.00

  5,218,092.00

  Blackburn with Darwen

  430,000.00

  430,000.00

  Blackpool

  379,000.00

  385,893.00

  Bolton

  625,000.00

  643,729.00

  Bournemouth

  365,000.00

  367,974.00

  Bracknell Forest

  182,000.00

  181,975.00

  Bradford

  1,398,000.00

  1,433,280.00

  Brent

  1,540,000.00

  1,915,281.00

  Brighton and Hove

  684,979.00

  693,342.00

  Bristol

  1,134,000.00

  1,260,884.00

  Bromley

  563,000.00

  563,313.00

  Buckinghamshire

  609,000.00

  609,033.00

  Bury

  351,000.00

  364,262.00

  Calderdale

  410,000.00

  417,905.00

  Cambridgeshire

  718,000.00

  766,472.00

  Camden

  1,404,000.00

  1,406,438.00

  Cheshire

  930,000.00

  950,552.00

  City of London

  26,000.00

  29,143.17

  Cornwall

  764,000.00

  942,122.00

  Coventry

  853,000.00

  972,269.00

  Croydon

  1,140,000.00

  1,147,234.00

  Cumbria

  706,000.00

  922,012.00

  Darlington

  212,000.00

  219,974.00

  Derby

  612,000.00

  612,937.00

  Derbyshire

  957,000.00

  1,673,176.00

  Devon

  986,000.00

  985,999.00

  Doncaster

  618,000.00

  623,050.55

  Dorset

  479,000.00

  492,973.00

  Dudley

  507,000.00

  507,000.00

  Durham

  951,000.00

  1,057,617.00

  Ealing

  1,334,000.00

  1,334,000.00

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  344,000.00

  333,481.00

  East Sussex

  857,000.00

  864,520.00

  Enfield

  822,000.00

  822,650.00

  Essex

  1,990,000.00

  2,116,430.00

  Gateshead

  470,000.00

  496,699.00

  Gloucestershire

  821,000.00

  821,000.00

  Greenwich

  1,211,000.00

  1,211,000.00

  Hackney

  1,954,000.00

  1,955,166.00

  Halton

  357,000.00

  359,638.00

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,124,000.00

  1,142,347.00

  Hampshire

  1,687,000.00

  2,042,846.49

  Haringey

  1,572,000.00

  1,582,662.00

  Harrow

  485,000.00

  486,752.00

  Hartlepool

  234,000.00

  235,458.00

  Havering

  395,000.00

  396,171.90

  Herefordshire

  244,000.00

  247.263.23

  Hertfordshire

  1,674,000.00

  1,676,854.00

  Hillingdon

  605,000.00

  646,175.00

  Hounslow

  815,000.00

  815,000.00

  Isle of Wight

  241,000.00

  244,593.00

  Isles of Scilly

  14,000.00

  34,838.00

  Islington

  1,648,000.00

  1,647,993.00

  Kensington and Chelsea

  916,000.00

  916,000.00

  Kent

  2,302,000.00

  2,764,100.00

  Kingston upon Hull

  795,000.00

  796,810.00

  Kingston upon Thames

  277,000.00

  277,000.00

  Kirklees

  861,000.00

  901,324.26

  Knowsley

  669,000.00

  699,825.00

  Lambeth

  2,525,000.00

  2,601,897.00

  Lancashire

  2,167,000.00

  2,642,885.00

  Leeds

  1,661,000.00

  1,679,286.00

  Leicester City

  1,082,000.00

  1,082,000.00

  Leicestershire

  646,000.00

  710,468.00

  457W

  Quality Protects—2000–01

  £

  Grant allocation

  Expenditure incurred

  Lewisham

  1,768,000.00

  1,768,000.00

  Lincolnshire

  890,000.00

  930,627.00

  Liverpool

  1,834,000.00

  1,914,036.00

  Luton,,

  561,000.00

  567,250.00

  Manchester

  2,221,000.00

  2,221,000.00

  Medway

  470,000.00

  470,000.00

  Merton

  512,000.00

  502,405.00

  Middlesbrough

  495,000.00

  502,598.00

  Milton Keynes

  457,000.00

  456,173.42

  Newcastle upon Tyne.,

  854,000.00

  996,393.06

  Newham

  1,701,000.00

  1,843,266.00

  Norfolk

  1,149,000.00

  1,180,423.57

  North East Lincolnshire

  356,000.00

  355,976.00

  North Lincolnshire

  250,000.00

  251,764.09

  North Somerset

  238,000.00

  238,981.00

  North Tyneside

  443,000.00

  443,000.00

  North Yorkshire

  700,000.00

  707,999.00

  Northamptonshire

  1,035,000.00

  1,035,000.00

  Northumberland

  467,000.00

  467,220.00

  Nottingham

  1,108,000.00

  1,108,000.00

  Nottinghamshire

  1,128,000.00

  2,901,208.00

  Oldham

  588,000.00

  601,020.00

  Oxfordshire

  925,000.00

  939,298.21

  Peterborough

  387,000.00

  388,193.00

  Plymouth

  694,179.00

  694,179.00

  Poole

  218,000.00

  218,000.00

  Portsmouth

  544,000.00

  592,575.00

  Reading

  403,000.00

  417,917.00

  Redbridge

  593,000.00

  758,776.00

  Redcar and Cleveland

  346,000.00

  346,247.50

  Richmond upon Thames

  319,000.00

  319,838.00

  Rochdale

  589,000.00

  588,976.00

  Rotherham

  512,000.00

  512,294.00

  Rutland

  45,000.00

  45,723.00

  Salford

  669,000.00

  680,518.00

  Sandwell

  849,000.00

  849,000.00

  Sefton

  654,000.00

  670,780.00

  Sheffield

  1,207,000.00

  1,225,668.00

  Shropshire

  328,000.00

  333,060.00

  Slough

  389,000.00

  389,000.00

  Solihull

  350,000.00

  347,096.00

  Somerset

  688,000.00

  759,562.00

  South Gloucestershire

  278,000.00

  303,963.00

  South Tyneside

  435,000.00

  435,000.00

  Southampton

  651,000.00

  663,079.00

  Southend-on-Sea

  411,000.00

  412,465.00

  Southwark

  2,025,000.00

  2,066,349.00

  St. Helens

  369,000.00

  391,049.00

  Staffordshire

  1,059,000.00

  1,189,904.00

  Stockport

  467,000.00

  524,336.00

  Stockton-on-Tees

  423,000.00

  469,565.00

  Stoke-on-Trent

  555,000.00

  560,646.83

  Suffolk

  951,000.00

  961,689.00

  Sunderland

  779,000.00

  862,870.00

  Surrey

  1,358,000.00

  1,371,619.00

  Sutton

  392,000.00

  392,000.00

  Swindon

  319,045.00

  374,704.00

  Tameside

  498,000.00

  602,510.00

  Telford and the Wrekin

  329,000.00

  329,023.00

  Thurrock

  309,000.00

  307,426.09

  Torbay

  278,000.00

  282,249.00

  Tower Hamlets

  1,633,000.00

  1,631,601.00

  Trafford

  455,000.00

  473,152.00

  Wakefield

  581,000.00

  581,304.00

  Walsall

  726,000.00

  734,203.00

  Waltham Forest

  1,056,000.00

  1,093,252.00

  Wandsworth

  1,374,000.00

  1,783,815.00

  Warrington

  306,000.00

  377,608.84

  Warwickshire

  669,000.00

  727,910.00

  West Berkshire

  176,000.00

  176,003.00

  458W

  Quality Protects-2000–01

  £

  Grant allocation

  Expenditure incurred

  West Sussex

  1,062,000.00

  1,501,822.00

  Westminster

  1,234,000.00

  1,237,813.00

  Wigan

  566,000.00

  612,741.00

  Wiltshire

  564,000.00

  610,375.00

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  193,000.00

  209,907.00

  Wirral

  858,000.00

  857,313.67

  Wokingham

  133,000.00

  137,081.00

  Wolverhampton

  737,000.00

  845,092.00

  Worcestershire

  779,000.00

  779,000.00

  York

  261,000.00

  267,779.00

  Quality Protects—2001–02

  £

  Grant allocation

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,632,988.00

  Barnet

  2,057,315.00

  Barnsley

  1,142,954.00

  Bath and North East Somerset

  593,912.00

  Bedfordshire

  1,430,673.00

  Bexley

  1,198,185.00

  Birmingham

  9,655,311.00

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1,065,518.00

  Blackpool

  978,614.00

  Bolton

  1,535,893.00

  Bournemouth

  904,237.00

  Bracknell Forest

  455,457.00

  Bradford

  3,363,661.00

  Brent

  3,430,645.00

  Brighton and Hove

  1,677,490.00

  Bristol

  2,777,929.00

  Bromley

  1,470,905.00

  Buckinghamshire

  1,502,091.00

  Bury

  907,997.00

  Calderdale

  1,025,748.00

  Cambridgeshire

  1,761,439.00

  Camden

  3,356,252.00

  Cheshire

  2,304,651.00

  City of London

  82,563.00

  Cornwall

  1,917,024.00

  Coventry

  2,069,504.00

  Croydon

  2,767,307.00

  Cumbria

  1,781,595.00

  Darlington

  514,503.00

  Derby

  1,521,252.00

  Derbyshire

  2,475,919.00

  Devon

  2,470,550.00

  Doncaster

  1,566,459.00

  Dorset

  1,190,383.00

  Dudley

  1,295,132.00

  Durham

  2,426,324.00

  Ealing

  3,215,189.00

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  863,087.00

  East Sussex

  2,169,433.00

  Enfield

  2,087,477.00

  Essex

  5,023,904.00

  Gateshead

  1,226,995.00

  Gloucestershire

  2,043,753.00

  Greenwich

  3,017,843.00

  Hackney

  4,503,350.00

  Halton

  889,886.00

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,864,562.00

  Hampshire

  4,180,823.00

  Haringey

  3,705,070.00

  Harrow

  1,156,863.00

  Hartlepool

  580,453.00

  Havering

  1,008,188.00

  459W

  Quality Protects—2001–02

  £

  Grant allocation

  Herefordshire

  605,137.00

  Hertfordshire

  4,090,242.00

  Hillingdon

  1,609,311.00

  Hounslow

  1,943,464.00

  Isle of Wight

  631,612.00

  Isles of Scilly

  16,703.00

  Islington

  3,992,342.00

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,379,035.00

  Kent

  5,974,305.00

  Kingston upon Hull

  1,980,321.00

  Kingston upon Thames

  763,996.00

  Kirklees

  2,061,623.00

  Knowsley

  1,664,574.00

  Lambeth

  6,005,303.00

  Lancashire

  5,433,080.00

  Leeds

  4,152,471.00

  Leicester City

  2,475,945.00

  Leicestershire

  1,605,199.00

  Lewisham

  4,196,109.00

  Lincolnshire

  2,162,767.00

  Liverpool

  4,573,026.00

  Luton

  1,356,539.00

  Manchester

  5,280,917.00

  Medway

  1,221,478.00

  Merton

  1,293,921.00

  Middlesbrough

  1,190,012.00

  Milton Keynes

  1,178,019.00

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,154,096.00

  Newham

  3,931,866.00

  Norfolk

  2,924,401.00

  North East Lincolnshire

  902,525.00

  North Lincolnshire

  644,589.00

  North Somerset

  611,398.00

  North Tyneside

  1,163,286.00

  North Yorkshire

  1,702,211.00

  Northamptonshire

  2,624,204.00

  Northumberland.

  1,232,552.00

  Nottingham

  2,657,610.00

  Nottinghamshire

  2,768,099.00

  Oldham

  1,479,374.00

  Oxfordshire

  2,225,509.00

  Peterborough

  997,387.00

  Plymouth

  1,679,210.00

  Poole

  574,483.00

  Portsmouth

  1,342,536.00

  Reading

  980,588.00

  Redbridge

  1,427,212.00

  Redcar and Cleveland

  833,365.00

  Richmond upon Thames

  799,982.00

  Rochdale

  1,450,451.00

  Rotherham

  1,315,989.00

  Rutland

  93,367.00

  Salford

  1,721,616.00

  Sandwell

  2,117,629.00

  Sefton

  1,629,565.00

  Sheffield

  2,998,839.00

  Shropshire

  805,546.00

  Slough

  945,849.00

  Solihull

  905,895.00

  Somerset

  1,721,509.00

  South Gloucestershire

  738,464.00

  South Tyneside

  1,130,676.00

  Southampton

  1,598,346.00

  Southend-on-Sea

  1,098,103.00

  Southwark

  5,071,690.00

  St. Helens

  968,376.00

  Staffordshire

  2,680,547.00

  Stockport

  1,206,047.00

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1,048,730.00

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1,501,346.00

  460W

  Quality Protects—2001–02

  £

  Grant allocation

  Suffolk

  2,318,876.00

  Sunderland

  1,924,230.00

  Surrey

  3,409,520.00

  Sutton

  978,215.00

  Swindon

  826,353.00

  Tameside

  1,253,245.00

  Telford and the Wrekin

  836,362.00

  Thurrock

  812,839.00

  Torbay

  740,053.00

  Tower Hamlets

  3,937,273.00

  Trafford

  1,085,639.00

  Wakefield

  1,564,260.00

  Walsall

  1,710,437.00

  Waltham Forest

  2,548,677.00

  Wandsworth

  3,354,460.00

  Warrington

  766,475.00

  Warwickshire

  1,699,102.00

  West Berkshire

  412,229.00

  West Sussex

  2,681,810.00

  Westminster

  3,201,093.00

  Wigan

  1,437,294.00

  Wiltshire.

  1,394,412.00

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  494,625.00

  Wirral

  2,141,008.00

  Wokingham

  332,082.00

  Wolverhampton

  1,815,910.00

  Worcestershire

  1,975,395.00

  York

  630,353.00

  Note:

  The figures for expenditure for each local authority for the years 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are wholly based on audit forms provided by the authority's chief finance officer and an auditor appointed by the Audit Commission. The figures for 2000–01 include a small number of figures from pre-audit certificates and may therefore be subject to change.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what arrangements(a) his Department and (b) local authorities have made to publicise the reporting and referral system established in line with the quality protects programme under LAC(98)28 and subsequent circulars; [39310]

  (2) how many local authorities (a) have full compliant policies and procedures, (b) have draft policies and procedures and (c) are not compliant with the protection of children guidance, quality protects programme under LAC(98)28 and subsequent circulars. [39309]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: Local Authority Circular (98)28 gave councils and their partners details of" the quality protects programme. It explained that the Department would be publishing further guidance covering issues such as reporting and referral systems and child protection procedures.

  The Department published the "Framework for Assessment of Children in Need and their Families" in April 2000. It has undertaken an extensive programme of dissemination at local, regional and national levels. The quality protects regional development workers have played a key role in ensuring agencies know about and are implementing the assessment framework. The Department has worked with local councils and consulted software suppliers to develop and publish "Core Information Requirements" for children's social services to help improve councils' capability in managing information.
  461W
  The Department held a series of regional roadshows in the autumn of 1999 on the final draft version of the "Working Together to Safeguard Children" guidance, following which 100,000 copies of the revised guidance were distributed to child protection professionals through the area child protection committee network. The social services inspectorate is currently participating, together with other statutory inspectorates, in a series of themed inspections looking at the effectiveness of safeguards for children across all relevant statutory agencies.

  Developments and best practice under quality protects are publicised in a number of ways, including the quality protects newsletter and website www.doh.gov.uk/qualityprotects.

  Local authorities' progress in implementing quality protects is monitored through a number of mechanisms, including inspections, position statements and annual management action plans. In their autumn position statements, 83 per cent. of councils stated that they had implemented the assessment framework by 30 September 2001. A further 13 per cent. expect to have done so by 1 April 2002 at the latest. The remaining six authorities expect to implement during 2002–03.

  Local authorities submitted their fourth quality protects management action plans in January 2002. These set out their progress in and plans for delivering the quality protects programme. The social services inspectorate is currently assessing these plans. We will be publishing an overview report of the plans and their evaluation later in the year. Copies of the national overview reports for the previous three years' management action plans are available in the Library.

  Strategic Health Authorities
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued concerning public consultation over the proposed locations of the headquarters of the new strategic health authorities; and if he will make a statement. [36750]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The location of new health authority headquarters is regarded as a matter for the chairman (designate) and chief executive (designate) of those authorities to determine. As part of the consultation on health authority boundaries held last autumn, the Department advised that option appraisals should be conducted for appropriate national health service and Government Office for the regions accommodation available within the area. Decisions will have been made in the light of these appraisals.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 2002,Official Report, column 1238W, on community health councils, if
  462W
  he will list the CHCs in England which submitted representations supporting their abolition. [36822]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The listening exercise did not ask stakeholders whether community health councils should be abolished. The information requested is not available centrally.

  Free Nursing Care
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people who were receiving nursing care on (1) October 2001 are waiting to be assessed for free nursing care; [38351]

  (2) what the average time for an individual to be assessed for free nursing care has been in the last three years; [38353]

  (3) how many people were receiving nursing care on 1 October 2001. [38352]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The likely number of those self funders eligible for national health service funded nursing care at any one time is based on the results of a survey carried out in June 2001. The total number of self funders identified through the survey was 42,700.

  At 31 December 2001 around 80 per cent. of determinations had been competed. Around 95 per cent. had been completed by the end of February. These figures would include those in a home on 1 October 2001, when NHS funded care was introduced, as well as those who had entered a home after that date.

  Determinations for NHS funded nursing care were only introduced with effect from I October 2001.

  Heart Services
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many purchasing health authorities regularly purchase heart services from(a) private providers and (b) the King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst. [40691]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department has recently conducted a survey of national health service bodies on the levels of activity being commissioned in the independent sector and the accompanying cost. Findings from the survey will be published shortly. The published results are likely to include details on the number of NHS organisations within the returning sample that commissioned specific heart procedures during the survey period. It is not our intention to publish information in respect of individual hospitals, since it was not collected for that purpose.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the capacity is for tertiary heart surgery in the south-east region; and what the average waiting times were at each centre in the last 12 month period. [40696]
  463W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Our aim is that in time the national health service should be able to offer all heart patients fair access to the surgical and other specialist services they need in a local unit and within an acceptable time. This is why we have developed a national strategy to expand the capacity to perform heart operations. The capital investment programme means that we are investing £230 million in 12 schemes to provide new and bigger heart surgery facilities.

  Currently, cardiac surgery is carried out in Brighton, Southampton and Oxford. Capacity is flexible as it depends on a number of factors, including availability of staff, Intensive Treatment Unit beds and hours of theatre usage. Approximately half of the tertiary cardiac procedures for South-east residents are carried out in London centres.

  Average waiting times, by month, for south-east centres over the last 12 months are shown in the table.

  Datayear 2000–01—Mean waiting time (days)—Revascualisations by operation type

  CABG

  RGU Brighton health care NHS Trust1

  RHM Southampton University hospital

  RTH Oxford Radcliffe hospital NHS

  Month of admission

  April

  60

  319

  157

  May

  63

  292

  102

  June

  96

  282

  152

  July

  112

  258

  163

  August

  101

  221

  131

  September

  128

  282

  113

  November

  91

  147

  161

  October

  143

  205

  113

  December

  82

  177

  123

  464W

  Datayear 2000–01—Mean waiting time (days)—Revascualisations by operation type

  CABG

  RGU Brighton health care NHS Trust1

  RHM Southampton University hospital

  RTH Oxford Radcliffe hospital NHS

  January

  126

  219

  146

  February

  118

  156

  141

  March

  140

  171

  241

  1 Activity was building up from April 2000

  Source:

  HES

  Television Sets
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) analogue and (b) integrated digital television sets his Department has purchased in each of the last 24 months; and if he will make a statement. [38171]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not record centrally or separately the numbers of televisions, analogue or integrated digital, that it purchases for use within the Department. Specific guidance on the purchase of televisions is not published or disseminated to officials, but buyers are required to follow normal departmental procurement guidance and procedures whenever purchasing such goods.

  Capita
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts the Department has with Capita; and how much they are worth. [38374]

  Ms Blears
  Since April 2001, five separate business areas within the Department have commissioned work from Capita Business Services and Capita SHG Resourcing, to a total value of £271,700.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Housing
Baroness Knight of Collingtreeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy to encourage local authorities to set up private housing sector departments and, if so, what the aim of this venture is.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, we want local authorities to think strategically about housing in their areas. That should cover all tenures, not just the housing they own. We are certainly encouraging local authorities to move their landlord functions into arm's length management organisations, leaving the centre to take this more strategic view.
We do not expect local authorities to set up private housing departments, but most local authorities already have officers who deal with private housing, administering renewal grants.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, will the Minister ask local authorities to take great care in operations of this kind? Is he aware that for local authorities to send teams of surveyors into thousands of private homes to inquire into the condition of those homes, the accommodation they comprise, and the needs of the residents is offensive to owner occupiers? Is it not against data protection law for councils to use the lists of names and addresses on the council tax register for any purpose other than that for which those lists were compiled?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Baroness is referring to when she mentions teams of surveyors going around. Each local authority has a strategic function in relation to housing, including private housing. They must perform that function appropriately and with discretion. One of the points they must look for is whether or not intervention is required in low-quality private housing stock. Without in any way offending the people who own such property, that is one of the factors they must keep in mind.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is considerable concern about the amount of housing disrepair, particularly in older, private housing? What priority will the Government give to providing resources for that purpose in the
248
Comprehensive Spending Review? In asking the question I declare an interest as vice-president of the National Home Improvement Council.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree. There is considerable concern about the quality of some private housing stock. One knows that in particular towns, both in the North East and North West, there are concentrations of low-quality privately-owned stock, which is often of much lower quality than the social housing in that area. It is a matter that needs to be addressed. Like all other issues in relation to housing, it will be addressed in the Comprehensive Spending Review. It would be wrong for me to make any predictions in relation to that.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Homelessness Bill entitles several more categories of person to be given priority for housing. Does the Minister believe that there is a greater role to be played in that regard by the private housing sector? Does he think that the administration of the housing benefit system is sufficiently robust to enable that to happen? En asking the question I declare an interest as a member of a local authority.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the first part of the question. The private rented sector has an important role to play in relation to homelessness. As regards the second part of the question, I fully accept that the administration of housing benefit requires to be improved. The Government have always accepted that. We have allocated resources to improving the administration of housing benefit. We are nowhere near being all the way there, but we are working on it.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, can the Minister provide some information about the consultation period for the registration of private landlords? Will the Government make resources available to ensure that such registration is dealt with efficiently?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Secretary of State issued a consultation paper a few months ago which raised the issue of whether there should be licensing of private landlords in areas of low demand. Landlords in such circumstances have often put in tenants without regard to their conduct, which has brought down the whole neighbourhood. That consultation period has just come to an end, or is about to come to an end. The Secretary of State will make an announcement shortly in relation to it.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, would the Minister be kind enough to answer the second part of the question asked by my noble friend Lady Knight regarding the Data Protection Act and the data on council tax lists?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the difficulty I have is that I am not sure to what the noble Baroness referred. She said that using a particular list, local

249
authorities sent surveyors round to privately-owned properties. I do not know what list is being referred to, nor what the surveyors were doing, so I am not in a position to comment. I shall discuss with the noble Baroness precisely to what she referred. It would be wrong for me to comment on that at this stage.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, in asking my question I declare an interest as chairman of the Housing Corporation. Does the Minister agree that one of the problems the Government inherited with private housing is that, with the sale of some council stock in areas of regeneration, people who have bought their own homes from the council do not have the funds to maintain them and the taxpayer has to step in to buy back the property to regenerate the area?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, yes, that is a problem that arises in areas of regeneration, particularly in the North East and the North West. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, made the point that we need to consider what steps need to be taken as regards regeneration in areas that have a concentration of privately-owned homes.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on the question asked by my noble friend Lady Maddock, does the Minister recall the recent debate on the private rented sector in which he participated? It is at the lower end of that sector that some of the worst housing conditions in this country exist. Irrespective of what might be decided in the Comprehensive Spending Review, can he tell the House what the local authorities are now being asked to do about that serious problem?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do recall that very important debate. All of us are keen to see the private rented sector rise in quality. As the noble Lord says, it has some very low quality property. In particular, the lowest quality housing in that sector is homes in multiple occupation.
Local authorities must make priorities. They must form a strategic view about where they should concentrate their efforts in relation to housing in their area. That is what we are urging local authorities to do.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the Northampton area 2,500 people, whose names were taken at random from the council's rateable value list, were sent letters saying that a team of surveyors had been employed to go into their homes to find out these details? They are, after all, people who have managed their own affairs perfectly well.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, obviously the Data Protection Act applies. I was not aware of what the noble Baroness has referred to. I shall write to her and make inquiries about the matter.

Channel Tunnel: Security
2.44 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to improve security at the Channel Tunnel and to preserve safety on trains passing through it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Eurotunnel has invested heavily in effective anti-intrusion measures at the French terminal of the Channel Tunnel. SNCF is currently installing anti-intrusion measures at its adjoining Fréthun freight yard. The Government are pressing the French Government at the highest levels to provide adequate policing resources at Fréthun to support these measures and tackle the disruption to Channel Tunnel services caused by would-be illegal immigrants.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. Has he seen reports that asylum seekers have been jumping on to trains and lorries leaving France? Are the Government working very closely with the French authorities—I was glad to hear what he has had to say so far on the matter—in order to deter such illegal immigrants, although the French may be glad to see the back of them?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of the report to which the noble Lord refers; in particular, with regard to would-be illegal immigrants seeking to jump on to trains. It is an issue that we take incredibly seriously. I entirely agree with the premise of the noble Lord's question. The matter must be dealt with in cooperation with the French. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has written twice to M. Jospin and has stressed the urgent need to ensure that adequate measures are taken relating to both physical security and police presence in order to enable SNCF to resume full services through Calais Fréthun freight yard properly protected from potential illegal immigrants.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister give any reason to the House why these would-be illegal immigrants are so keen to come to the United Kingdom, rather than staying in France or in the rest of the European Union?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord should listen to the Question.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, while noting that there has been a decline in the number of people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom, can the Minister say what progress is being made in discussions with the rest of our partners in the

251
European Union so that applications for asylum can be processed in the first safe country at which applicants arrive?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, discussions are going on at the moment with our partners to try and reform the Dublin convention to try and make that very process occur.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord reassure us that a complete freight service has been resumed? The absence of one has caused very large economic losses. Does he also agree that this is not just a matter of security but of assessing who is and who is not an asylum seeker or refugee? That would best be done in France.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this is about safety on trains first; safety both for the people on the trains and the people who are illegally trying to get on them. It is a very important safety issue. There is also the separate issue of where is the best place to assess the asylum claims. Of course we would say that it is not by coming into Britain illegally.
As to the question about whether full services have been resumed, I think that the answer is that they have not yet been fully resumed. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord and confirm that.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I previously asked the noble and learned Lord whether halting the trains at Fréthun is the right policy and whether they should run through Fréthun from further back in France, which I know involves some expenditure. But the Government are facing that expenditure in making up to Eurotunnel the minimum user charge. So they are paying in either case. The cost can be met. The Eurotunnel passenger trains run from Paris and Brussels arid do not have to stop at the border.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we believe that the key to the resolution of the problem is for SNCF and for the French authorities to put in place adequate physical security and policing resources at Fréthun, so that there can be a restoration of the full rail freight service without disruption. That is the solution that we are pressing for.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, in supporting the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is not the main problem the fact that the Red Cross centre is within walking distance of the Fréthun terminal? When the would-be immigrants get to the fences some get over and get on the trains. Others, who are turned back by the police and are escorted back to the Red Cross centre, try again another night. Is not the real answer to persuade the French Government to close that centre?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have indicated, discussions are going on with the French. We are proposing solutions that in effect provide adequate security so that the full freight service from Fréthun can be resumed.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may not quite have understood my question, which was different from the Question posed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. My question was: what is it that makes illegal immigrants want to come to this country, rather than stay in France? What is different about this country?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, I fully understood the noble Lord's question.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I understand that the volume of freight being carried through the tunnel has been reduced to only 50 per cent of what it was before the trouble started. Can the Minister offer us any comfort by telling us, apart from the security measures that he mentioned, what other satisfactory measures can be taken to ensure that freight and the full economic viability of the tunnel return?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I said, we will not achieve full resumption of the freight service until the security measures are available at Fréthun. That in turn depends on co-operation on the French side from SNCF and the French security services, so that adequate security is provided. Only once there is adequate security there can the full freight service be resumed from Fréthun.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell us how many people have lost their lives in and around the entrance to the tunnel?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot say what is the total number, but there have been two fatalities during the course of this year alone.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that, fond as we all are of him and much as, at times, we admire his style if not the content of his answers, he has gone a little too far today in refusing to answer in any seriousness the question put to him twice by my noble friend Lord Pearson? Does he agree that the House deserves something more than a flippant reply of the kind that he gave?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I did not intend in any way to be disrespectful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. His question is one that we could all speculate on; it is not a question of particular fact that would be appropriate for me to answer.

BBC Standards
2.52 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider changes to the BBC charter when it next falls due for renewal so as to require a high standard of programming, particularly in television.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, under the terms of its current charter and agreement, the BBC is required to maintain high general standards in all respects, and in particular in respect of the content, quality and editorial integrity of its programmes. It is for BBC governors to satisfy themselves that the requirements are fulfilled.
The charter expires in 2006 and the process of review will begin during 2004. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will announce the terms of the review in due course.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am reasonably grateful for that Answer. Does the noble Baroness share the idea that the BBC, in its recent television programmes, has tended to prefer the easy popularity that is to be found downmarket to quality and has tended to put its market share in front of excellence? That makes me wonder whether the time is coming when the BBC's privileged access to funding should be terminated.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord agrees that it would be wrong for Ministers to interfere in deciding what is and what is not high quality. As I said in my initial Answer, that is for the governors of the BBC. If the noble Lord is asking me personally, I think that there is currently a good mix of programmes on the BBC. There are popular programmes that the noble Lord may not like but that many other people do; there are also many very high-quality programmes. I am thinking, for example, of "The Blue Planet", which has won several prizes and attracted a huge number of viewers. I am not sure that there is great cause for concern, but, as I said, that would be a matter for the BBC governors.
Lord McNally: My Lords, while the BBC could be improved—it certainly could—does the Minister agree that it is still a massive national asset to have a public service broadcaster of such quality? Is she at all afraid that during a three-year period in which we shall be examining the regulatory system and structure of the commercial sector as well as that of the BBC, the BBC will be open to sniping by commercial vested interests on the basis of short-term interests of shareholders rather than the broader national interest, which is why we have the BBC as a public service broadcaster?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the BBC is something for
254
which Britain is well known. People around the world respect the United Kingdom because of the quality of what the BBC broadcasts, not just to the United Kingdom but around the world. I have no doubt that during a period of change for broadcasting there will be plenty of sniping from all sides, but I am sure that the BBC will be well able to defend itself by citing many examples of high-quality programmes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are the Government aware that people at large are not themselves unaware that the Government always consider themselves able and in recent times willing to pass their opinion on practically anything? Is there any reason why the Government cannot form a view and communicate it to the governors of the BBC? I should not wish to put myself forward as an arbiter of taste, but I fancy that I am not alone in sensing a sharp deterioration in quality at the BBC during the past six months or so.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not really agree with my noble friend that either I or the Government in general should be an arbiter of taste for the BBC. People have been saying for the past 30 years that there has been a deterioration in the quality of what the BBC produces; that is the kind of thing people always say. The BBC is well equipped to rebut such claims. If my noble friend watches some of the excellent programmes broadcast by the BBC, he may just possibly revise his opinion.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when negotiations for the renewal of the BBC charter take place, could it be borne in mind that of the 60 million people in the United Kingdom, 9 million are estimated to be deaf in one way or another, and that the most common form of deafness is high-tone deafness, which makes it difficult for listeners accurately to hear broadcasters with high-pitched voices shrieking away?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall try to bring my voice down and answer in a low pitch. I entirely accept that there are almost 8 million deaf or hard-of-hearing people in the United Kingdom. I am not sure that the solution is to avoid high-pitched voices; the right solution is to provide more subtitling on terrestrial and digital channels. All the broadcasters are considering that and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People is campaigning to achieve a higher proportion of subtitling.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that a message is passed to the governors of the BBC that they should not in any circumstances try to produce programmes that would satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, because if they did, they would in no way achieve balanced programmes?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I think that I shall leave it to the former deputy chairman of the BBC to pass on that message.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, do the Government agree that the governors of the BBC should be reassured that

255
as a non-profit-making organisation the public are more concerned with the quality of its programmes than with its market share?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the governors of the BBC, a public service broadcaster, must constantly consider high quality. At the same time, they will want to achieve a reasonable market share to justify the licence fee and the investment that the public make through their payment of it. There must be a sensible balance in that respect. I apologise if that is a boring answer.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we must get on. My noble friend Lord Rooker is keen to answer the next Question.

Prison Population
3.00 p.m.
Lord Eltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to reverse the growth in the prison population in England and Wales.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, that is not fair. I have just said to my noble friend Lady Blackstone, "Don't do what you did yesterday and give the killer answer that doesn't create any supplementaries".
The prison population has risen to unprecedented levels. The figure, as of this morning, is 70,019. We are committed to dealing with the issue. Prison must be targeted effectively and used for dangerous, serious and persistent offenders. We are committed to a radical re-think of the sentencing framework in order to make sense of sentencing by protecting the public, punishing people for the crimes that they have committed and ensuring that we engage in rehabilitation to reduce offending and prevent crime.
We welcome the approach adopted by the Lord Chief Justice and senior colleagues in underlining the fact that lengthy prison sentences should be focused on violent and repeat offenders, with appropriate intensive community sentences replacing short and ineffective custodial decisions.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I recall the discomfort with which, 22 years ago, I announced from that Dispatch Box a prison population figure that was over 23,000 less than the one that the Minister has just given, so I sympathise with the Minister as I thank him for the Answer. It must have been difficult to give the Answer against the background of the pleas made by the Lord Chief Justice to magistrates, recorded in today's press, and more difficult still in view of the Home Office's own prediction that the level in September 2003 will be 71,500.
When will the Government recognise that nothing that they are doing—or have been doing—has had an effect on this horrible phenomenon? When will they
256
realise how much cheaper and more effective it would be—as well as more humane—to spend £5,000 to £6,000 on each child known to be at risk of becoming a criminal, rather than spending £25,000 a year, as they now do, imprisoning the small proportion of such offenders who are caught and put into custody, each of whom is reckoned by NACRO to have cost society £75,000? Surely, common sense, humanity and good economics all show that we should concentrate on getting to the children before they offend, not on trying to lock them up afterwards.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord has said. I fully accept that he was in this position 20 years ago. I was checking up on some of the issues this morning, and one that was drawn to my attention was the possibility of executive action under a piece of legislation from 1982. Lo and behold, when I looked to see who the then Home Secretary was, I discovered that the Minister of State was today's questioner.
There is a serious issue. We can make predictions of the prison population, but the fact is that the figure is 2,000 to 3,000 higher than was predicted in October/ November last year. There has been a substantial increase in the past few months. There is no single factor, but some factors have been highlighted and raised in the House. There is a large increase in the female prison population, especially in the past 12 months. There are two reasons for that: one is a large increase in the amount of fraud committed by women and the other is the substantial number of foreign nationals involved in the import or export of drugs. So there are some serious issues.
Nevertheless, as I said in my Answer, giving people very short sentences for non-violent offences does not make sense. It clogs up the system, does not help with rehabilitation and gets in the way of the rehabilitation of persistent offenders when we are trying to reduce the number of such offenders who go back to prison. There is a serious problem, and we are taking steps to reduce it. Later in the year we will make proposals for sentencing policy, following last year's report from John Halliday.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the proportion of the population in prison in England and Wales is the highest in Europe, with the sole exception of Portugal? Has not the time come to set a target to reduce prison numbers in England and Wales, so as to reach at least the European average? The present system is totally unacceptable.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it may be that, with today's figures, we have actually topped Portugal. That is not something of which we can be proud, but the fact is that people are going to prison for non-violent, non-serious offences for very short periods. It does them no good, and it does not help the Prison Service to run a decent, professional penal policy of rehabilitation and training. That must be addressed, and I hope, in the light of the Lord Chief Justice's decisions yesterday,

257
that those who are responsible for dishing out extremely short sentences—six months or less—will take note of what the Lord Chief Justice said.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, can the Minister say what proportion of prisoners are on remand? What is being done to reduce the time that prisoners on remand spend in prison due to the processes of the legal system?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I regret to say that I do not have a figure for the numbers on remand, although I should have. The same applies as for short sentences: people must have a good reason for sentencing someone or holding them on remand. They must consider the nature of the offence and the likely outcome.
We read too often that, when a case is finished, the person concerned, having got a sentence, does not go to prison because he has probably spent longer than the sentence on remand. That shows a failure in the system on the part of those who are responsible for handing out short sentences.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, between the two debates this afternoon, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Hanningfield set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Blaker to two hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to whom the Employment Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 12,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 13 to 29,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 30 and 31,

Schedule 3,

258

Clauses 32 and 33,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 34 to 38,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 39 to 50,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 51 to 53,

Schedule 7,

Clause 54,

Schedule 8,

Clause 55.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hanningfieldrose to call attention to local government, its structures, powers and responsibilities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to open the debate on the structures, powers and responsibilities of local government. As many of your Lordships will know, I am the leader of Essex County Council and vice-chairman of the Local Government Association.
Improving people's lives through the delivery of decent public services and a decent environment depends on high quality local government. We welcome reforms that will make a positive difference to the communities that those of us in local government serve, but we doubt that the measures currently proposed by the Government will meet that objective.
As the leader of a local authority, I am committed 100 per cent to the delivery of real improvements to the lives of individuals and local communities. We have a responsibility to lead those communities. The Government have a responsibility to give us the freedom and the tools to undertake that leadership role effectively. Decisions affecting local people should be taken locally, within the communities affected by those decisions. They should be taken accountably, by people whose performance is directly judged by the local electorate through the ballot box.
In December, the Government published their local government White Paper, Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services. That paper contains many words with which, I am sure, noble Lords can agree. For example, we can support the commitment to deregulation and plan reduction, but I doubt that the Government can turn that rhetoric into reality.
For more than 100 years, local government functioned on the basis of one clause in an Act and one set of standing orders. During those years, local government was the engine of radical change in our society. The Government have introduced over 450 pages of regulation, guidance and direction. Those 450 pages of red tape will not encourage diversity and creativity in local councils or flexibility at the front line.

259
If the Government are genuinely committed to decentralisation, why have they not set a target for reining in the tremendous growth of ring-fenced grant? The Government, outwardly committed to devolution, have nevertheless overseen the proportion of ring-fenced money grow from 5 per cent in 1997 to over 12 per cent this year and a projected 15 per cent for next year. That growth represents a substantial failure on behalf of any government who really believe in devolution. It is another example of creeping centralisation. It is an inefficient way to run a country and it is an affront to democratic accountability.
In their drive to measure their way to success, the Government propose that soon we should all be subject to a comprehensive performance assessment by the Audit Commission. We support performance assessment, but we have grave doubts about the Government's proposals. All councils will be branded as "high performing", "striving", "coasting" or "poor performing". Being a "coasting" council may have some attractions for tourism purposes but, joking aside, this kind of categorisation is offensive, crude and fuzzy. The Government have already stated that they expect most councils to fall into the "coasting" category. Why then are they bothering to spend taxpayers' money on finding out what they already know?
It has been suggested that that kind of categorisation will inform local people. It is said that they will finally get to know how well their authority is performing. But, frankly, I think that is ridiculous. Local people know whether the roads are full of potholes, whether their rubbish is collected, whether their sons or daughters go to decent schools, whether the elderly are looked after or whether their council tax bills are going through the roof—and they will vote on the basis of that knowledge. People do not need an expensive comprehensive performance assessment involving hundreds of bureaucrats running around the country to tell them what they already know.
We welcome performance assessment, but we question the need for extensive and lengthy field visits, annual reviews and crude categorisations. We are already spending £600 million a year on inspection. How much more is it going to cost taxpayers? Perhaps it will cost £1 billion that might be better spent on children, the elderly or the sick.
The Green Paper on planning was also published in December of last year. Its objective was to achieve a better, simpler, faster and more accessible system. We agree with that objective. Reform of the planning system is necessary. We would like to see less red tape, greater certainty for business and a more streamlined appeal process. What we do not want to see is the exclusion of local communities or planning decisions taken with no regard for accessibility or accountability.
I have serious doubts as to whether the proposals outlined by the Government will deliver a more streamlined process. At the moment a county council produces a structure plan that provides the framework within which district councils prepare their local plans
260
and determine planning applications. This process involves detailed public consultation. The Green Paper proposes that those county powers should be sucked up to the regions. Difficult planning decisions will be determined hundreds of miles away by bodies that are inaccessible and, in large part, unaccountable.
In essence, the functions of the counties will be transferred to the regions and the districts, but the Government have failed to advance any evidence that the counties are not delivering or that they are the cause of the planning problems that must be tackled. In fact, one could search high and low in the Green Paper to locate any criticism of county councils in relation to the exercise of their planning functions. The only reason given in the Green Paper for removing strategic planning responsibility from counties is in paragraph 4.37, which states that the counties are no longer the most appropriate level at which to deal with strategic planning issues because many of the issues cut across county boundaries.
The same is true of course with regard to the regions. For example, the Thames Gateway cuts across the eastern and the south-eastern regions. Do we really think that value will be added to the planning process by ensuring that the people of Norfolk have an equal say in the planning framework for the Thames Gateway as will people in Essex or Kent, or that there will be fewer boundary disputes in the eastern region with a system based on 48 authorities rather than six?
Far from the counties coming in for criticism, the Green Paper makes it clear that most of the problems in planning have generally resulted from the weaknesses at the district or regional level. For example, paragraph 4.45 states that at the regional level:
"there has been a tendency to avoid making the hard strategic choices … Instead lowest common denominator approach is taken, which in the long term can damage development across the region".
At the district level around 13 per cent of local plans are still to be put in place and many more are overdue for updating. It is Alice in Wonderland politics to transfer responsibility from the bit of the system that is working to the bits of the system that are not.
We are told that business and other stakeholders are clamouring for reform. That is true. They want to see changes made to the planning system, and so do we. The changes that the CBI and the House Builders Federation have been lobbying for are changes to the arrangements for development control. They seek a speeding up of the decision-making processes, not a wholesale massacre of the existing planning structure. Greater confidence in the outcomes of planning proposals will not be delivered by the plans set out in this Green Paper.
The proposals are also expensive, with one-off costs of £60 million and ongoing annual costs of an additional £62 million. On top of those financial costs there will also be significant capacity problems for small district councils and for regional authorities which simply do not have the staff to carry out these new functions.

261
Do the Government's proposals deliver a more accessible and accountable planning process? The short answer to that is no. The authority that prepares the regional strategy will be a quango; it will not be democratically accountable. And it will be remote, sometimes hundreds of miles from the place where its decisions will have an impact. There is no question that the Government's proposals dilute democratic accountability and reduce access to the planning process by pushing decisions upwards away from the people affected by those decisions.
We would like to see a more balanced and less dogmatic approach from the Government—an approach that builds on the strengths of the current system while tackling the real problems that we all recognise exist. I hope that the Government will take on board these comments and look again at their flawed proposals.
We are now also awaiting a further paper from the Government on the development of the regions. The Government seem to be in turmoil about their policy in this area. In the spirit of friendship perhaps I may offer them some help.
If regions were to be based on genuine historical units with a coherent identity—as they are in Europe—and if they were to be given real power, devolved from central government, we might support the concept. Essex, for example, has been a unit of government since it was the Kingdom of the East Saxons in 600 AD. It has a population of 1.6 million, which means that it is larger than 13 American states and many European regions. Currently we are part of the eastern region. We have nothing against our colleagues in Norfolk and Suffolk, but nor do we have much in common with them. If we are to have regions, then let us have real regions based on counties. That would make more sense than the meaningless entities dreamed up for the convenience of bureaucrats in Whitehall.
Local government must be freed. It must be freed from bureaucracy—performance indicators do not deliver services. It must be freed from central control. Whitehall cannot know what is best for local communities. Why should the Government and the Audit Commission rather than local voters decide whether local authorities have the right to exercise freedoms?
To reinvigorate local democracy, we need new thinking. To usher in a new civic dynamism, we need a new vision. We shall not attract the Chamberlains or the Herbert Morrisons back into local government if we fetter it with petty financial controls. We would urge the Government to be more bold on local government finance, more sophisticated on planning and more imaginative on regions. I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords. I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for missing the
262
beginning of his remarks. I am guilty of some discourtesy and I apologise to him for it. I congratulate the noble Lord on introducing what I hope will be an extremely wide-ranging and broad debate in which we can look at the full range of issues concerned with local government.
I declare an interest. For almost 24 years I have been a member of a London borough council. I relinquish that role in May and do so with a sense that perhaps I remained in it too long. However, I do so in the knowledge that at the point I give up I shall still be some eight years younger than the average age of local government councillors across the country. That suggests to me that something perhaps needs to be done about adjusting the age balance of local authority councillors.
I share with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, the delights of serving on the executive of the Local Government Association where many of these issues have been discussed. Since May 2000 I have been an elected Member of the Greater London Assembly, a new form of local government which may form the model for new types of regional structure in the future. We await the White Paper with interest.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that, for some time, there has been a need for new thinking in relation to local government. My contention—it probably would not be his—is that much of that new thinking has been contained in the successive White Papers produced by the Government since their election in 1997. Those publications have required those of us who are active in local government to rethink from the start how local democracy operates and to develop new ways of working in relation to the delivery of services and the economic, social and environmental development of the areas we represent. That has been extremely important.
As to the noble Lord's final rallying call, I believe that the first shoots of the development of new freedoms for local government are contained in the latest White Paper. When my noble friend replies to the debate, I look forward to his reassurance that those new freedoms are on the way.
Looking back over my period in local government, I have seen some very dramatic changes, which I hope your Lordships will feel have been beneficial. Certainly in my early years in local government, our entire preoccupation was with direct service delivery—the services that the local authority itself ran and organised on behalf of local residents. We have gradually moved on. In my early years as leader of a local authority I spent all of my time on inward-looking meetings; by the end of that period most of my efforts were devoted to working with other agencies in outward-looking arrangements to ensure that services were delivered in a particular way.
We have seen the development of much more partnership working. Some of it is underpinned by statute—for example, the crime reduction partnerships introduced following the crime and disorder legislation. Some of it has been as part of

263
financial frameworks to deliver regeneration where partnerships have been created to respond to bidding regimes from central government.
A new approach has been developed which underpins what the Government call in their successive White Papers "community leadership". This is about recognising that local politicians are there on behalf of local communities to design what is needed for those local communities. That may not necessarily be achieved through the service delivery of the local authority; it may be better delivered—and will frequently only be delivered—by working with other public sector agencies and private agencies. That has been at the core of partnership working.
When my noble friend replies to the debate, I hope that he will recognise that the democratic accountability elements that the local authority in its community leadership role brings has to be at the core of effective local partnerships. It has been a major and important change.
The second change—the creation of the executive/ scrutiny split—is much more recent. It has not been without its controversial moments in many local authorities, but that has been as much about people adjusting to a new way of working as to anything else. I became a less prominent member of my local authority at the point at which the executive/scrutiny split happened. As a back-bench member of my local authority, it is much easier to find out what is happening through a clear process, with the transparency that is offered by an executive structure and scrutiny mechanisms to keep track of what is going on. The transparency offered by the new arrangements is part of a process which I hope will lead to the reinvigoration of local government.
This is a very welcome debate. I hope that it produces a commitment from all present to the rebuilding of local government and a recognition of the primacy of a system of local democracy where there can be genuine community leadership. In my view, if local democracy means anything, it means local people electing local councillors to act on behalf of local communities, to make things happen and to work with other non-elected bodies, whether in the public or private sector, to find the best route possible to enable the local community to meet its aspirations. That is what local democracy is about and it is what the Government's agenda for rebuilding local government is about.
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for giving us the opportunity to debate local government. I shall concentrate mainly on issues surrounding powers and responsibilities.
The power to promote the environmental, social and economic well-being of the community was an extremely welcome addition to the Local Government Act 2000. It gives the possibility of allowing local authorities more freedom in the way they give leadership to their communities. It is early days and
264
there is very little clarity about the conditions under which councils can use the new power. This illustrates the difficulty of expecting fundamental change to follow a limited increase in change of powers if the powers are not matched by wide-ranging financial independence. It is quite clear that budget pressures on councils have prevented some of the reforms that we would like to see.
Not for the first time we on these Benches have said that we would like a constitutional settlement with local government. In addition to righting the financial balance of power, it is essential that local government is given the constitutional power of general competence.
Some of the ideas we have put forward are reflected in the Government's White Paper. I suspect that many noble Lords will discuss them today. For example, we welcome the Government's vision of more freedom and flexibility for local government and less central government intervention, but it is not clear from the detailed proposals in the White Paper that this will be delivered for the majority of councils.
There are some moves in the right direction—for example, the freeing-up of capital finance, reductions in the number of statutory plans and the abolition of the inequitable council tax benefit subsidy limitation—but accountability would be better obtained by shifting the emphasis of funding to the local level and away from central government grants.
It is true that the White Paper pledges to reduce the amount of ring-fenced grants, but this has not been backed up in the local government financial settlement announced for the coming year, which includes a massive hike in specific grants.
The new freedoms given to some councils are very welcome, but why are they offered to only a few? Very prescriptive proposals for poor performing councils will tie them up in bureaucracy, inspections and assessments instead of devoting their resources to improving performance. The performance assessment system described as "balanced scorecards" —we are really talking about league tables—are yet another form of central control. As has been said with different emphasis by speakers on different Benches, local authorities are accountable to local residents—to those who elect them. We believe that councils should have an autonomous right, not one given to them for good behaviour.
All councils need the freedom to find innovative local solutions to local problems, not just those that are high in the league tables. Local people need to hold the councils to account. Therefore, the systems need to be transparent and understandable. In the White Paper, the Government proposed the introduction of four categories. "High performing" and "poor performing" are fairly understandable; but would the general public understand "striving" and "coasting"?
We welcome the prudential framework for capital finance—which is largely based on the ideas put forward for some years by my Liberal Democrat friends at the Local Government Association. However, the Government will need to flame their

265
reserve powers very carefully. We should have preferred the decision on exceeding borrowing guidelines to be made by local people in a local referendum, rather than by the Secretary of State.
Turning briefly to my own area, housing, the freedom to borrow against housing revenues will be introduced. That could assist authorities which do not want to pursue stock transfer. But the key factor is how much freedom the local council will be given. It depends on the extent to which any surplus rental revenue can be retained locally and used for capital funding.
The Government have promised significant additional funding to raise the standard of council housing. But again, there are strings attached. Local councils will be able to access the money only if they have established an arm's length management company to run housing management. Furthermore, that company must be high performing—it must have received two or three stars, which very few organisations, if any, have so far received.
Despite the rhetoric of the White Paper, it would appear that the Government are still keen to hog control, and there is little action coming from the White Paper. Perhaps I may quote from a briefing sent to me by the Local Government Association, which holds a similar view. It is concerned that if the White Paper is truly to deliver better local public services, the rhetoric must be turned into action. The association seems to think that there has been little progress on a large number of issues. It states:
"The Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Stephen Byers, announced at a conference at the LGA on January 18th that an implementation plan setting out how each proposal would be progressed and a timetable would be published. However, that plan has yet to appear".
That is our main concern. There are many good intentions, but very little has actually changed.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I think that my noble friend would agree with me that it would be unrealistic to talk about local government without talking about the threat of regional government. I use the word "threat" advisedly. It is not so long ago that the Prime Minister's spokesman said from No. 10:
"We need regional government like a hole in the head".
After that, someone decided that it was right to give Mr Prescott something to do and, unfortunately, the bandwagon started rolling. Unless we are very careful, we shall finish up not with a hole in the head, but in the condition in which Sir Richard Mottram found himself on 12th February, along with his department and Mr Sixsmith.
There are some matters on which we can surely agree there is common ground. First, regional government certainly cannot be viewed as the English answer to Scottish devolution. It does not answer the West Lothian question. It does not right the wrong of Scottish Members at Westminster being able to vote on English matters when English Members of
266
Parliament at Westminster cannot vote on Scottish matters. And anyhow, no one suggests that the powers that would be devolved to the regions would be remotely like the powers to legislate which have been delegated to the Scottish Parliament.
Secondly, regional government will not increase expenditure on public services. People in the North East may look over the Border at Scotland and envy what they look upon as better services. But those better services in Scotland are not made possible by the existence of a Scottish Parliament. They are the result of the Barnett formula, and the fact that Scotland receives a far higher proportion of public expenditure per head than we do in England.
Lastly, regional government will not bring government closer to the people. That point was made clearly and fairly by my noble friend. The recent Green Paper on planning is just one glaring example of how it is already proposed that the county councils should lose power to the regions. That does not mean government closer to the people. In my part of the world, Lancashire, it means taking it further away.
What sort of regions are these? They are entirely artificial creations which rarely reflect any kind of regional loyalty. People in north-east Lancashire do not feel a special brotherhood with the citizens of Birkenhead. People in Cumbria think of themselves as Cumbrians; they do not think of themselves as "citizens of the North West".
The pretence that in the North West, for instance, there is widespread interest in regional government is laughable. In five regions, Church of England Bishops have taken the chair of regional conventions. Chris Moncrief, who is known to many of us in this House and is a great friend of Parliament, got the matter entirely right when he wrote a rather nice piece in the House Magazine on 15th October. He stated:
"It is astonishing how easy it is to fool some of the people some of the time. The European Union has, apparently, been impressed by what is considered to be the 'clamour' all over Britain for elected regional parliaments. This has been engendered, in some degree, by the emergence of the grandly named North West Constitutional Convention. Further investigation has shown that this organisation, if it is an organisation at all, is housed in a dilapidated shed at the back of a pub".
In replying, perhaps the Minister can respond to the following point. There may be some little comfort for the North West. The 2001 Labour manifesto contains the statement that regional government will not be inflicted on any part of the country unless, first, the people in the area vote for it; and, secondly,
"predominantly unitary local government is established".
We in the North West have three county councils, 24 district councils and 18 unitary authorities. Can I take it that the test is not met in the North West, that the Bishop of Liverpool can take a rest, and that the shed at the back of the pub can be re-let?
It should be understood that, before anyone has voted for regional assemblies, regional government is already burgeoning. Both RDAs and Government Offices for the Regions are growing. A paper by

267
Newcastle university quoted an official as saying that the latter are not outposts of the unitary state but could become the nucleus of a regional civil service.
We can be sure that, as these bureaucracies grow, we shall hear more and more the false argument that as we have a regional bureaucracy we need a regional assembly to bring it under control. That is absolute nonsense. The last thing an elected assembly would do would be to bring bureaucracy under control. As the bureaucracy does more and more to justify itself to the assembly, the more self-important and pleased with themselves will the assembly members become. Elected assemblies will start as talking-shops, pontificating about planning and transport; but in no time at all they will demand a wider and wider role and they will be costly millstones round the necks of the people.
And that is not the end of it. Regional government does not just mean expensive, pointless bureaucracy and deadbeat councillors drawing large allowances. It is a lot more insidious than that. On 7th July, the Bishop of Liverpool told his constitutional convention that there was a big question as to whether regional assemblies would bring stronger national cohesion. It is a good question. How can it be argued that nine English regions, each with an office in Brussels and each competing with the others for handouts from the EU, are likely to make a happier and more united nation?
For some people that is part of the purpose. For them, maintaining our national identity is anathema. Just as they rejoice when they see Euro laws diminish our Parliament here at Westminster, so they cheer for regional government, which will bring us one step nearer to a Europe of the regions and put another nail in England's coffin. The Prime Minister was entirely right: we need regional government like a hole in the head.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in his vigorous statement of views on a White Paper that is yet to emerge. Like him, I look forward with great interest to the publication of the White Paper on regional government.
I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on introducing the debate and apologise for the discourtesy of having arrived in the Chamber a few moments into his speech. I also declare an interest in two businesses that from time to time advise companies on their relationships with local authorities.
I congratulate the Government on their record over the past four or five years, specifically on the increase in financial support for local government, which has been ongoing and strong since Labour took office. I also congratulate them on the increased stability and certainty that they have introduced to revenue support for local government. However, there remain many things to do and I want to look forward as well as addressing past performance.
268
I share the Government's view, expressed in the White Paper of December 2001, that thriving communities and strong democratic leadership go hand in hand. Effective local democracy is essential to strong community leadership and improved service delivery. I also agree with the Government that there are two important principles of public service reform on which they and local government should concentrate. The first is a national framework of standards and accountability. Secondly, the effective delivery of national standards requires the devolution of real power and responsibility to local leaders and front-line staff.
In applying the first principle, the Government say that national priorities must be more clearly identified in future, but acknowledge that that will not be effective if they simply specify targets from above. Despite those sensible sentiments, the White Paper and the Government's actions provoke the occasional feeling that their fundamental concern is to ensure that local government does what central government want, but does so more efficiently and effectively, rather than to develop local choice and local democracy. Much of what the White Paper says about improving efficiency and effectiveness in delivering public services locally is sound, but if local community involvement programmes and local public service agreements between councils and government are largely devices to get what central government want rather than to strengthen local choices, local decisions and local democracy, we may not revive democratic leadership and local democracy as much as the Government—and certainly I—would wish.
Perhaps the most open test of the proclaimed desire to devolve real power and responsibility from the centre will come in the Government's promised proposals on regional government. As I have already said, I look forward to those proposals with great interest.
The new political arrangements seem to be settling in more quickly than sceptics predicted. The distinction between an executive role and a scrutiny role, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, said, is working in most authorities, although the understanding and development of the full potential of the scrutiny role of back-bench councillors is, in my experience, patchy between and within local authorities.
Slowly but surely, I sense that a change in culture is emerging, as local councils see that the new arrangements open up opportunities for the constructive development and oversight of policies and their implementation, as well as opportunities for strengthening wider community and agency involvement in local decisions.
That wider role of promoting and facilitating community involvement and helping to bring together the interests and actions of different public and private agencies requires a great deal of skill and historically different skills for elected councillors and their officers. I therefore welcome the Government's clear recognition in their White Paper of the need to support

269
local government in building capacity and skills in strategic leadership, in effective overview and scrutiny and in partnership development, partnership working, performance management and project management.
There is also a need to build capacity and skills in the wider community and agencies, both public and private. In my experience in Yorkshire, the councils may begin to see the need to develop partnerships and capacity, but they often find that the other agencies that they are dealing with do not have the same background and capacity to engage in a partnership on an equal basis. I hope that the Government will look at wider capacity-building issues as the process goes forward to see whether there are ways of building capacity and skills not only in local government, but among the many community partners, public and private.
It is essential that the hopes and aspirations raised by community involvement and partnership development lead to positive outcomes at local level. It could be all too easy for local authorities to slip back into running the show locally, with decreasing commitment to the initial ideals of involvement and partnership.
I remain sceptical about the Government's enthusiasm for mayors. The lack of public support does not surprise me. There is a conflict between the role of an all-powerful mayor and the process of widening participation and developing stronger local democracy at local authority level—not at regional level, as in the case of the Greater London Authority. Having a wider executive and a larger group of backbenchers provides a healthier balance and a wider pool of current and future leaders of local authorities and local communities.
The one disappointment in the White Paper was that the Government view poorly performing councils, under their new system of performance assessment, as particularly ripe for having a mayoral system imposed on them. Poorly performing authorities will need not a bureaucratically efficient solution to the failure of democracy in action, but a combination of the other sensible measures proposed in the White Paper, together with a major programme of capacity-building within and outside the authority. In that way, a new, stronger local democracy can re-emerge alongside improvements in performance.
I welcome the White Paper and the Government's performance to date and I look forward to the implementation of many of their proposals.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hanningfield for introducing the debate. As the leader of a major local authority and an officer of the Local Government Association—to say nothing of his wider perspective as a member of the Committee of the Regions—he is well suited to address the House on the subject. Although my experience of 30 years in local government and 18 years as a leader
270
is not so fresh, I am depressed by how little things have changed and how much the conversations we are having today are the same as those of 20 years ago.
Interest in local government and in freeing it from central control is not so much the prerogative of one party as the prerogative of whichever party happens to be in opposition. The rhetoric of the 1997 Labour Party manifesto has produced few of the promised freedoms, although there have been some gestures in that direction—including the White Paper published in December to which my noble friend referred.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin—whose experience of local government from a previous incarnation is considerable—may disagree with my assessment of the Government's approach. I hope that he will enlighten us on how performance assessment frameworks will work by categorising the speakers in this debate as high performing, striving, coasting or poor performing.
As to gestures in the direction of freedom which have not proved of enormous substance, I recall that elected mayors were to be the salvation of local democracy. It is clear that the public have little interest and even less enthusiasm for the idea. Any attempts to force elected mayors on communities will be doomed to failure. In view of the lack of interest and take-up, what do the Government propose? Have they any plans for what should follow?
Part of the trouble has been a failure to realise that a great idea in Europe or the United States may not translate easily to England. We cannot cherry-pick elements from different political systems and expect them to flourish here. In this country, elected mayors would have too few powers and little control over small finances to produce any interest.
The cabinet idea is not one that I oppose but it will be fraught with difficulty if local authorities are maintained at their present size. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, says that the cabinet system is working, which it is—but it is not popular. The idea that scrutiny and community representation will prove a worthwhile task for the balance of the large number of local authority members left after excluding the cabinet is expecting too much. Many people enter local government because they want to do something positive for the communities they represent.
No doubt London will be paraded as an example of advances in local government, but not enough trouble was taken to understand the proposals. I have asked in the House on more than one occasion whether the Government were creating a regional authority or a local government institution. I was told once that the Government were creating something unique. That misunderstanding seems to continue. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to a new local government institution—whereas the extensive advertisements for staff issued by either the mayor or the GLA often refer to it as a regional authority. Any suggestion of local government reorganisation is denied but that is precisely what it has been.

271
Out there on the streets, there is little to show for it. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to say whether London is a better place for what has been done. Is that the impression given? At grass roots level, has any progress been made towards making London a safer, cleaner place with better transport than previously existed? I ask the noble Lord to particularise the achievements of the mayor and the Greater London Authority as he sees them.
Council tax bills in London, as elsewhere, are rising disproportionately with inflation. The claim that the electorate of London will see no more difference than 3p at band D rings hollow now. Compulsory competitive tendering was abolished with an enormous flourish and the trumpet call of best value was introduced. That brought its own problems. On two occasions in your Lordships' House, I was assured that the cost of implementation was in the region of £50 million per annum. A letter in the Library dated 27th April 1999 confirms that point, yet in September 2001 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a respected institution, produced a paper showing that the estimated annual cost of the inspectorates covering local government is around £600 million. Somebody's figures are incorrect. An increase from £50 million to £600 million seems almost impossible, given the Government's great record on inflation. I would be interested to know the reason for that discrepancy.
Across the country, local authorities are finding a gap between the sums that they need to spend and grant support. It is depressing that the DETR continues to produce the same kind of answer we have always heard—that with the grant settlement, local authorities should be able to maintain services and council tax rises will not go beyond whatever percentage they choose. That leads to no accountability and total uncertainty on the part of the public. Many questions could be raised about how local government is progressing but we do not have time to raise them all today.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for introducing this debate. It was interesting to hear the impeccably new Labour presentation by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, of the Government's vision for local government. He said that local councillors should be elected by local communities with the power to carry out their wishes. I want to talk about one way in which that ability is being severely curtailed. I refer to rules on declarations of interest, which are being implemented in a rigid and draconian way that is getting out of hand and preventing councillors doing their job.
Traditionally, councillors declared any pecuniary interests. That requirement has been extended to a wide range of non-pecuniary interests. In most cases, the individual withdraws from the meeting and does not vote. However, the rules have been tightened up so much that it is getting silly. The proposals from the Commissioner on Standards in Public Life and the production of a code of conduct for local councilors
272
are fine as far as they go but many councils are going much further. That is sometimes due to a series of rulings by the local government ombudsman, particularly in respect of planning applications, which have overemphasised the quasi-judicial role of councillors and downgraded their representative role. In many parts of the country, rules are being imposed on councillors by over-zealous officers—many of whom seem to have a growing paranoia. One suspects that some have their own agenda on stifling councillors and issuing them with instructions.
There is a sheaf of examples but I have time to mention only a few. A Liverpool city councillor got into serious trouble for voting on the future of one of the city's main football grounds after it became known that he was a season ticket holder of the club—along with thousands of other people. It was held that he therefore had an interest and should not have participated in the vote.
Last summer, Kirklees council in West Yorkshire voted to close a secondary school. One of the councillors who voted for that decision was a governor appointed by the council to a neighbouring school. The matter eventually went to the Queen's Bench Division on 28th July 2000, when it was decided that councillor should not have voted and the closure decision was overturned. The school is still open, partly because of a subsequent change in political control of the council. The point is that something which many of us in local government traditionally regarded as a non-declarable interest—representing the council as a school governor—turns out to he a declarable interest and gets the whole council into real difficulty.
There are also some quite foolish examples. A friend of mine, Councillor John Fletcher of Stockton-on-Tees Council, took part in deciding a planning application affecting his whole ward. However, after a complaint by the applicant, the potential developer, the council's legal officers ruled that the decision was invalid because John Fletcher was a friend not of the applicant or anyone with an interest, but of one of the principal objectors. It was ruled that he should not have taken part in that decision, and the whole process had to be repeated. Moreover, the council had to re-decide the application without half a dozen councillors who had friends who would be affected in one way or another by the decision. We therefore return to an issue that has been debated before in your Lordships' House: what is a friend and who is a friend? In local government, however, declarations of interest can stop one from participating and voting. It is therefore a much more serious issue.
Another friend of mine, Councillor Keith Orrell, in Ryedale, in Yorkshire, was debarred from taking part in a decision on whether to improve some derelict land owned by the council, by turning it into a little park. On the advice of the legal officer, he was excluded from the decision because his wife had actively campaigned for the development. Her only interest in the matter was, as a citizen, to seek improvement. Consequently, however, he was ruled ineligible to participate in the

273
decision. That is nonsense. If we were not in your Lordships' House, I would call it an unparliamentary word beginning with B—but I shall not.
Is an interest of a councillor's wife an interest also of the councillor? It is getting to the stage that those who campaign in the community in ward elections or on a given issue cannot participate in council discussions and decisions on those issues because they have expressed a view on them, particularly if they involve planning applications. Such applications may well be the main issue in an election campaign. The restrictions are a denial of the democratic process, and I believe that the Government and others need to step in, find out what is going on and stop it.
It is not happening everywhere, but a cancer is creeping through local government, particularly in relation to legal officers in many places who are trying to impose restrictions. Given those restrictions, if one is the sole councillor for a small rural ward comprising not many more than 1,000 electors, how can one properly represent that village or small town? One will undoubtedly live in the ward, work there and belong to many of its local groups. One's children may attend the local school, and one may attend the local church. At least every four years, one will knock on its doors. How on earth can one be an effective councillor if one must declare an interest in relation to anything at all to do with that village or any of its groups? It is a spreading cancer at the heart of local democracy, public involvement and the councillor's role as representative, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said, of his community.
If we were in a council chamber and not in your Lordships' House, I would not have been able to talk about many of these issues because I have been talking about some of my friends.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, at seven minutes per speaker, my arguments must be severely compressed. Many of my worries on this subject relate to the handling of planning issues by local authorities, in which I have had some involvement and experience. However, I shall omit these matters entirely as we are expecting a new White Paper on them. I urge the Government to bring forward that White Paper soon so that we may debate their far-reaching ideas, exposed in the Green Paper, before the Summer Recess. This timetable is surely necessary if the issue is to be included in the next Queen's Speech.
What are the Government's plans regarding the regions? The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, mentioned that subject. As he said, it featured briefly in the 1997 Labour Party manifesto, but we have not heard much about it since. So much for the mandate theory of government. However, what is the future relationship going to be between the regional development agencies and local government? RDAs currently lack any proper local method of democratic control, and those in charge of the RDAs are nominees of central government. Do the Government understand that the
274
regional concept is not universally popular in England? It has some appeal in the North East and North West where they need to replace old industrial structures, and there is also some support in the South West where Cornwall feels left out, but I doubt that it has much support elsewhere.
I also draw the Government's attention to the fact that the county is still the focus of attention for the majority of the population. The county is our oldest administrative unit, dating back to Saxon times. As he became victorious in reclaiming the Danelaw, King Alfred introduced the county throughout his territories. The shire was also used by the Normans for raising troops in medieval England, taxation and returning Members of Parliament. The British Army has long been based on regiments recruited on a county basis—a system much admired abroad. Of course the scene has changed with the growth of our great industrial cities but, to this day, the county is responsible for police forces, transport, planning, the environment, highways, consumer protection and personal social services. The county is often—I dare say generally, if one does not live in a large city—the unit with which the citizen most readily identifies himself. It is therefore with regret that I notice the Government's apparent tendency to displace the county by using their power to finance the RDAs.
I suggest that the Government have many difficult problems on their plate in the area of regional institutions and policies. I urge them not to destroy the units we have that enjoy local support, to eschew one-size-fits-all formulas which could be a recipe for confusion and perhaps uproar, and to turn away from the authoritarian trend of channelling investments to bodies—the RDAs—appointed from London with inadequate knowledge of the regions. Above all, I suggest that they should examine with care the cost of establishing new regional authorities, the cost of finding premises for them, and the cost of compensating current local government employees who will lose their jobs. Instead, we should concentrate on making better what we have now.
The key to this will be to improve the economic resources available, particularly at the county level. It is not impossible to streamline procedures and to concentrate resources where they are most needed. We may also need to consider giving local authorities greater revenue-raising powers.
An idea that has long intrigued me is this: could one rearrange the collection of VAT and income tax on a county basis and empower local councils to raise a small and carefully limited extra amount of tax from those resources? A national equalisation formula, like the Barnett formula, would no doubt be needed for areas with special needs. I do not expect the suggestion to meet with much support, but it does seek to remedy what seems to me to be the basic flaw in the current system, whereby central government set the standard of services to be provided but give local authorities only 60 per cent of the resources needed. Authorities that take pride in providing their own first-class services for education and health in their areas may well find it easier to gain support for somewhat higher

275
contributions from local taxpayers than in the case of taxes raised at the national level. This would also reverse the centralising trend of the past 30 years, which I believe has been the greatest problem faced by local authorities. I submit that practical decentralisation would be the best way of reinvigorating local government in our nation.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am both undermined and overwhelmed to see from the list of speakers that I have been emasculated. It would seem that I am no longer female but male. It is important to make it clear to your Lordships at the outset that I regard that as a vile calumny. I am a woman; I like being a woman; and I have every intention of remaining a woman.
People elect councillors hoping to get good local services, police on the streets, well-maintained roads, good schools and assistance for those in need who are unable to help themselves. That costs a lot of money and if there is not enough the council either has to increase taxes or cut services, both of which are electorally extremely unpopular.
However, there is something else that should be done right at the start when services and budgets are planned. I was a councillor for 10 years before I entered Parliament and I have never forgotten the advice that I received when I started: always spend public money twice as carefully as you would spend your own and never waste it. How I wish that that advice was followed today.
Last month—your Lordships who were here for Questions will know what I am about to say—I received a letter addressed to the occupier of my house, which happens to be me by a strange coincidence. It was from Northampton borough council's private sector housing department, informing me that a surveyor would be coming to inspect the condition of my house and its accommodation and to assess my housing needs. It said that 2,500 owner-occupiers had been selected at random from the council tax register and all who gave an interview might receive £100. What is the council doing poking and prying into people's private homes?
If I had applied for council help, or if the council was checking rateable value, or if I were not keeping my house as I should—it is a grade II listed historic house—I could understand the demand to inspect. But none of those things applied. Earlier this afternoon it was suggested that inspection was necessary because some owner-occupied houses were in bad condition. However, such houses show from the outside that they are in bad condition. I see no reason why thousands of interviews should take place in perfectly good houses. It will cost a great deal of money.
If I were incapable my family would step in and if I had no family the council would be informed by people such as family doctors, neighbours, daily helps or even milkmen. It is totally unnecessary for the council to snoop around private homes to find out what they would be told anyway.
276
Surveyors do not come cheap. To employ enough to visit 2,500 people in their homes must cost a lot. Trying to bribe owner-occupiers with £100 of ratepayers' money is appalling. If all that were going on while a rich council was providing all the services that ratepayers could possibly dream of, it would still he a bad idea. But far from it! Northampton desperately needs more police on the streets; many roads are a disgrace; valuable museum collections are being dispersed and curators are being sacked; and library services are cut.
I rather think that the scheme may also be breaking the law. I tried to find out this afternoon but to no avail. I am told that the Data Protection Act forbids local authorities from using their lists of ratepayers for any other purpose than that for which the lists were compiled. They certainly were not compiled for what I have just described.
And another thing. The Government could be fairer about funding local councils. Northamptonshire has been a pilot area for speed cameras, which I naively thought were to promote road safety by slowing down fast drivers. I do not believe that any more. Their main purpose is to procure money for the Government. In 2000–01, 84,000 speeding tickets were issued in Northamptonshire, raising £6.5 million. All that goes straight to the Treasury. The local authority and the police are then kindly allowed—the Treasury is all heart—to claim back the cost of the cameras and the administration. They cannot just ask for a sum of money. They must prove on paper what they spent and the Government can argue against the claim. The local authority and the police get their costs back and the Government keep the rest.
In summary, revenue for the year 2000–01 was £6.5 million; costs were £2 million; and the Chancellor waltzed off with £4.5 million. Your Lordships may call that a windfall but I call it a stealth tax. If only the police could have had it. That would have been a real bonus for residents as some of our streets in Northampton are very dangerous at night. The money could have been spent on road repairs as a great many of our roads desperately need repair. Why cannot there be priorities in local government? Are all the really important services cut in order to provide unimportant ones?
Councils have enormous power and are paid pretty generously. I sometimes think that they operated better when the job was done for free. To serve their communities was its own reward and they were recompensed only when they lost money. Those days have gone for ever. It is no longer cool to serve out of love and duty. What a pity.
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, that it is even more of a privilege to follow her than it would have been to follow the noble Lord, as she was billed in the list of speakers.
I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for giving us the opportunity to focus on this important topic today. In the brief time available,

277
I shall focus not on the structures and powers of local authorities, and not even on their responsibilities, but on the way in which they discharge those responsibilities and the positive experiences that I have had in both the roles with which I have come most closely into contact with local authorities recently.
I am referring to my roles as interim chair of the General Social Care Council that was set up to regulate those who work in social care and as chair of the New Opportunities Fund, the largest of the good cause lottery distributors. The way in which responsibilities are discharged by local authorities is a far more important issue for citizens than the structure or even the balance of power.
With regard to the provision of social services, or social care services, as they are increasing called, local authorities come in for a great deal of stick. Some of that criticism is undoubtedly justified, as we can see only too clearly from the Climbie inquiry, led by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. However, we must not allow that justified criticism to get in the way of acknowledging the marvellous job that is done by most social services departments, or of understanding the problematic world in which they operate.
Social care services operate in areas of conflicting values and ethical dilemmas. Staff work with groups that are often marginalised, tackling difficulties that most of us would prefer not to admit even exist. They operate at the boundaries between public and private interests and individual and family interests. They try to strike a balance between autonomy and dependency and between choice and control. The work involves judgments about risk and priorities and the competing and conflicting interests in the most stressful of circumstances, when political and public opinion, especially in the press can be volatile, inconsistent and sometimes vicious.
I take this opportunity to praise local authority social services departments for the diligent and responsible way in which they carry out their onerous duties. Even in the face of tremendous pressure, many of them remain able to embrace new ideas and be innovative in their approach.
An example of that is their attempt to address issues such as increasing user participation and raising the standards of care. It is a feature of social care that many who use its services are disadvantaged and disempowered for reasons of youth, old age, ethnicity or illness. These are groups with few opportunities to have their say or to influence decisions. Yet local authorities are finding ways of helping them to do so, often through consultation processes which are not just about putting a notice in the local paper stating that there will be a public meeting but which spend time and money enabling those groups to be involved, to be listened to and to see services change as a result of their input. Work such as that totally contradicts the cynical view that people are not interested in local services or in participating in local government.
When the General Social Care Council published for consultation our codes of conduct and practice, more than 10,000 sessions took place on our website in
278
three weeks. Helped by local authorities, we have organised consultation events for about 2,000 people and there is still a waiting list.
I also commend local authorities for their flexible and innovative approaches to partnership working, which other noble Lords have mentioned, and which is a fairly new activity for many of them which saw themselves formerly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, reminded us, as majority providers of all services. I have seen those partnerships working productively for the benefit of citizens through many of the programmes set up by the New Opportunities Fund. Our programmes are too numerous for me to give details of all those in which we have had excellent support from local authorities, but a few examples include setting up the People's Network via our public libraries which encourages more adults into learning by improving access to learning opportunities through the use of information and communications technology; training librarians and teachers in the use of new technology and providing out of hours childcare and out of school hours learning programmes for consortia of schools within local authority areas. We are also currently working with local authorities to develop bids to the fund for our £750 million programme for physical activity for schools and the wider community. Through those programmes I have been made aware that the process of engaging with local communities is alive and well.
In developing those and many other programmes and in delivering them we have been guided and assisted by individual local authorities, local strategic partnerships and by the Local Government Association. They are helpful, farsighted and totally committed to meeting the needs of their local population in spite of the problems which local authorities face, of which we have heard examples this afternoon and will no doubt hear more before the debate is ended. I believe that we can and should celebrate that commitment to partnership working and to innovation and resolve to encourage even more of that kind of working at national and local level across the public, private and voluntary sectors for the benefit of all our citizens.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for tabling the debate. Like him, I declare an interest as a member of a county council in the neighbouring county of Suffolk and also as a member of the Local Government Association transport executive.
I have served as an elected member in Suffolk for just over a decade. I enjoy that post very much and undertake the work as I believe passionately in government at local level. However, one great frustration has been to watch local government increasingly turn into a local administrator and a deliverer of nationally set priorities and policies. It is a matter of great disappointment to me that successive governments, regardless of what they say in opposition, have sought to reduce the power of local government by directly removing whole areas of

279
responsibility to quangos or to the Secretary of State, by using the very real financial power that central government has simply to control the way local government goes about its work, or by using the legislative process to remove any real meaning of local choice. In that regard I think particularly of the best value regime and its hundreds of performance indicators.
I speak as a member of a council which has been in joint Labour/Liberal Democrat control since 1993. We were among the first councils in the country to adopt the new management structures, way ahead of the legislation in fact. We have achieved beacon status in a number of areas. We have glowing Ofsted and Audit Commission reports. Indeed, last year we received the council of the year award. I set out that stall not merely to brag but to demonstrate that my authority is prepared to innovate and to adopt new ways of working provided they are in the interests of the people we represent and not simply in the interests of some government agenda.
As I speak to colleagues about new legislation, over and over again I sense that they are concerned about increasing centralisation and about the powers that are removed from local authorities, local community health councils and local police authorities and carried to the Secretary of State. That may not make headlines in the papers but it represents a very real assault on local democracy which should worry us all. I wish to concentrate on one area where I consider that process is particularly dangerous; that is, the proposals contained within the Green Paper on reform of the planning system. So far we have not had a full debate on that subject in this House and therefore I make no apologies for raising it now.
The Green Paper makes a case for reform of the planning system with which I believe few of us would disagree. However, it draws some conclusions to which I take profound exception. We on these Benches agree completely that there ought to be a regional dimension to the planning system, but until there is a democratically elected tier of regional government the proposed removal of county councils from the planning system could have disastrous effects. Currently, there is almost no national dimension to the planning system. As we have seen in recent debates on housing numbers and major infrastructure problems such as Terminal 5, local public inquiries end up debating major issues of national and sometimes international interest alongside, for example, local access issues concerning where buses should run. It is no wonder that they take months and, indeed, years. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw will say more about that aspect, but the removal of the only democratically elected tier large enough to deal with strategic issues will not help the situation.
The Green Paper proposal that Parliament will in future decide on all major infrastructure projects is inadequate in every way. How many times have we spoken in this Chamber of legislation which has come to us from another place inadequately scrutinised and debated? Are we really to believe that our honourable
280
friends in another place will have the capacity to carry out the kind of work that is required to decide on a Terminal 5 or a Sizewell C? I think not.
As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Greaves, local councillors are now prevented by legislation, and the interpretation of it, from making decisions on the most simple matters, even garage extensions. Yet it is proposed that colleagues in another place can use the huge government majority to dragoon through major infrastructure projects. There is much national guidance on the minutiae of planning but no overall planning policy framework in major areas such as aviation, land use, housing or, indeed, nuclear energy. Under the proposals in the Green Paper, we shall end up with no effective national planning system, an embryonic and undemocratic regional planning system, and then the district councils.
As a former district councillor, I can tell noble Lords that the planning skills required for district council officers are largely regulatory and related to development control. It is within the shire counties that the strategic planning skills lie. Under the proposed reform, those planners will have no incentive to move to smaller district councils. They will retire early at great cost, take up other employment within county councils, or, more likely, join the army of consultants charging councils four times what it used to cost to employ them.
The transfer of planning powers from 35 English counties to 238 district councils will cause serious skills shortages in a profession which the Green Paper admits is already overstretched. The Green Paper proposes business zones in which planning controls will be removed altogether to make life easier for developers. Local authorities have a much wider agenda than that which relates to business. Of course, they must be mindful of business, but there may be times when local environmental or social sustainability is more important than simply providing a business or a developer's charter. We simply cannot let that go.
In terms of performance, there is no evidence to suggest that it is the county level of government which is causing the hold-ups. Rather, it is district councils which are having difficulty undertaking their planning functions due to skills shortages. At county level, structure planning is a slow and laborious process but that is because of the statutory processes that have to be gone through and is not the fault of dilatory planning officers and members.
County councils, along with others, accept the need for change. They have come up with some proposals for change. I urge Ministers to give serious consideration to the points made by the County Councils Network, the LGA and various other bodies before they carry out this assault on a planning system which has served us well for 50 years.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, as many noble Lords know, I come from a rural background with farming

281
interests and family and relatives who have served, as many still do, in local government in Leicestershire at parish, district and county levels.
My motivation for speaking in today's debate is my growing concern, not to say alarm, at what appears to be happening at all levels of local government. In the few minutes allocated to me, I shall outline my concerns under four main headings: first, consultation; secondly, codes of practice; thirdly, the proliferation of pamphlets and regulation; and fourthly, funding, including the additional responsibilities being placed on county councils without the relevant funding, resulting in increases in council tax at both district and county level. I accept the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield about the future of local government, and I thank him for giving us the opportunity to debate them today.
I have decided to highlight two such concerns, and in that respect I follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Codes are proliferating. There are codes to control the relationships between inanimate bodies—for example, the code of practice governing local education authorities in school relations. There are codes relating to inclusion and all forms of political correctness, and codes arising from the pronouncements of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the most recent of which is causing real anguish at local, parish level.
I have not made a study of all the codes available. However, I am aware of their growing irrelevance to the job in hand that they have to do, whatever it may be. For example, school governors control school budgets but they have very little ability to spend hard cash. In most schools, teaching and support staff salaries account for 80 to 85 per cent of the budget. Other items, such as business rates, heat, light and power, are not open to manipulation, and, in practice, many governors find themselves in control of maintenance but very little else. Governors are supposed to conform to a code of financial declaration as stringent as that applied to county councillors. Yet in areas where patronage and deceit could cause problems they are not covered at all. In that respect, I refer to exclusion panels, staff recruitment, and even discipline and grievance procedures, in which a failure to declare a relationship—that is, my sister's best friend's son—could result in unfairness, not to mention injustice.
I am interested to discover that school organisation committee members shall,
"act in accordance with the seven principles of public life",
but are only bound to declare an interest in any proposals affecting a school of which they are governors, which any child of theirs attends or in respect of which they may have a pecuniary interest. Contrast that with the new code for local councils, which requires a member to declare a personal interest in any matter that may or may not have more than an average effect on the well-being or the financial
282
position of himself, his spouse, his partner, his parents, his parents-in-law, and so on. If it were not so serious, it would be hugely entertaining.
However, at village level, I can foresee many decisions having to be shelved because all the councillors may have to declare an interest. What is even more frightening is that the clause binds each councillor to report, in writing, any member of the council whom he reasonably believes has failed to comply with the authority's code of conduct. The code that defines "a relative" in such all-enveloping detail does not define "reasonable". I request the Minister to do so before the end of this debate, in terms that will perhaps stand up in court; the Minister is well qualified to do that.
Clause 15 of the parish council code requires written notification within 28 days of the receipt of any gift or hospitality over £25. That is strange. In this House we are limited by the same code to a maximum of £1,000, which could reasonably be regarded as an incentive to support a cause. Twenty-five pounds could provide supper and a good bottle of wine for two persons and, therefore, fall within that range. I urge the Minister to look at that particular section of the code.
I turn to the matter of funding—the other axe that I have to grind. Funding is an issue to be considered in all areas of local authority spending. Will the Minister tell us when the review, promised for so long, to make funding easier and fairer will be made public?
I now turn directly to my local county of Leicestershire, and I declare an interest—my brother is a county councillor. Leicestershire follows the national trend in regard to pressures on its budget. Two main areas are under-funded by the Government: social services and the environment, and protective and cultural services.
I deal first with social services. Leicestershire has an above-average number of young persons who qualify for preserved rights because they live at Care Shangton, which is under community care and funding for which, prior to 1993, was provided by the DHSS. A change was made which meant that social services would pay the resources that were not transferred. The under-funding shortfall for the year 2002–03 is £679,000. In respect of residential allowances, there is a shortfall in funding for the independent sector for 2002–03 of £548,000. The reduction in residential care income for the 12-week property disregard is £350,000 for the same year. The reduction in residential care income—change to capital limits—is £275,000. There are many others.
In addition, Leicestershire has topped the SSA for environmental, protective and cultural services by £17.2 million, but, following the EU legislation on the disposal of fridges, the cost is now £300,000 for 2002–03. The landfill tax is estimated at £325,000; the increase in waste tonnage (landfill) is £150,000; the increase in waste tonnage (haulage) is £110,000; and there are others. The total cost of growth of waste disposal comes to the huge figure of £1,055 million. The SSA for this service was £25.2 million, increased for 2002–03 to £1.16 million. There is a huge deficit in

283
relation to which the county councils will need some help. Are they to disregard some of their services, such as libraries, in order to cope with additional legislation and additional responsibilities for which they have not been funded?
4.38 p.m.
Lord King of West Bromwich: My Lords, when I was first elected to my local authority in 1979, our local MP was Peter Archer, now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. He said to me, "If you manage to achieve five per cent of what you set out to achieve, you will be doing very well". That casual remark clearly demonstrated a need to look at the way councils were run. I therefore believe that the Government's directive to ask local authorities to review the way they carried out their affairs was overdue.
Councils around the country were urged to revitalise themselves, respond to local people's needs and deliver top-class services. At the heart of that modernisation campaign was the shake-up of the traditional committee system, which had remained largely unchanged since the 19th century and which did not adequately reflect a modern, complex society.
As noble Lords will be aware, three basic models were put forward by the Government. It was left to the local authority, in consultation with its communities, to choose one of those three models. The new style was to have an executive that was clearly responsible for taking decisions. Those executives would be held to account by overview and scrutiny systems, which would monitor their actions. The revised system aimed to clarify who was responsible for taking a decision and hold them accountable rather than allow the matter to become lost in a committee.
I am pleased to say that my own authority, Sandwell, has stayed ahead of the game. It launched its drive to modernise the council two years ahead of the deadline by piloting one of the three ways of managing town hall business. That enabled it to be one of the first authorities in the country to submit and have approved its formal political constitution. Sandwell has been formally operating the new "cabinet and leader" model of government since September 2001, following two years of piloting. The council adopted that model not because it was told to but because it was felt to be the most suitable system for a borough such as Sandwell, which is composed of a series of tight communities that are focused around six towns. That view was backed by the community through extensive consultation, which took place throughout the pilot period.
One of the cornerstones of that consultation process were the six town committees that were established in each town in the borough where the proposals were debated. Although overall it has proved difficult to create much enthusiasm for the changes, the local committees have proved to be very popular with local people and are now a central part of the way in which the council runs itself.
284
I am pleased to say that I was the council leader at the time of the council meeting. Extracts from my speech at that meeting were reproduced in the local newspaper. I spoke about the advantages of the new system as we saw them. I said:
"New ways of running the Council are important to everybody in the Borough and will affect all members of the public … We have listened to the people by carrying out extensive consultation, and now we are able to forge ahead with the Leader and Cabinet system we have been piloting for sometime … We are in a perfect position to press ahead and get on with the job of ensuring that the new system delivers the goods for all local people … Our aim remains to give them a Council which listens to their views and aspirations and then responds flexibly and efficiently".
I also said:
"Modernisation is essential to that aim and the delivery of Sandwell's Community Plan".
For those noble Lords who do not know Sandwell, I explained that the plan was,
"developed by the Borough's Civic Partnership of key public, private and voluntary sector agencies",
and that it is,
"centred upon the vision that Sandwell by the year 2020 will be a thriving, sustainable, optimistic arid forward looking community … The Council has re-organised itself internally to ensure the delivery of services based upon that vision. Now the Council's modernised political management system will play its part in making the vision a reality".
Sandwell has always put great emphasis on partnership working to deliver its local agenda. We welcome the new power of well being to bring about the economic, environmental and social improvements that are so needed in a deprived area such as ours. We also welcome the proposals in the recent White Paper to rationalise the number of plans and strategies that local authorities have to produce. The Sandwell community plan that I mentioned is a good example of the way in which one all-embracing partnership strategy can replace the many plans and strategies that a range of local agencies are required to produce by central government.
Obviously, the plan needs more attention and more needs to be done to rationalise the various regimes that impact on local government and its partners. The Government should set the overall framework within which local authorities and partners deliver local solutions to local needs. We must continue to move away from the "one size fits all" mentality and recognise that needs are best interpreted locally and met at the local level in a partnership setting that reflects the local community.
Local authorities are best placed to interpret those community needs but they require freedoms, flexibilities and, most importantly, adequate resources from central government so that they can deliver the improved public services that we all want.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, several noble Lords have spoken of the need to invigorate local government. I want to discuss that in a particular context—the need to strengthen local government's historic role as a vital ingredient in the glue that holds our country together.

285
We are all seriously worried about the growing stresses and strains on our so-called social cohesion. Part of that anxiety involves cynicism about and lack of interest in our democratic institutions and the low turnouts at general elections in particular. As we wonder what should be done, it is important to remember that nowadays, although people gain their impressions of our democratic process from television and the newspapers, their day-to-day experience, their contact with real people and their experience of how the system can help or hinder them comes mainly from local government. Few people have met their Member of Parliament, more have met their councillor and many—very many—have met local government officials.
Despite the changes over the years to local government, the services and functions that it provides are still those that are nearest to people's day-to-day lives. Those services and functions are recognised and experienced locally as local government's concern. Councillors and local government officers, many of whom are among the most dedicated and hardworking of our public servants, are of necessity in close touch with local people—their needs and opinions. Because of their nearness to the electorate geographically and in terms of what they do, local government people play a large part in helping their customers to discover the basic workings of the system and the part that they can play.
Most people are regularly involved in some way with their local council. What they find frequently affects how they vote. In my experience, that affects how they vote not simply in local elections but also in general elections, and whether they vote at all.
How much more could be done if the scope of local government could be widened again in new ways, so that more local people could have greater contact with the system and so that the interest of the role would attract a wider variety of able councillors and officers? I do not believe that that would be easy. We cannot turn back the clock. Technology and social science will go on developing and will make it increasingly easy to run services from the centre, to regulate, monitor and manage from the centre and to communicate directly with each elector from the centre over the heads of local government. The devolved assemblies will do that even more than central government. Those are the signs in Scotland. We cannot turn back the clock, yet the signs are that the effect of this centralization—this vicarious, media-depicted experience of our system is a principal element in public cynicism. Surely it would be wise now for this Government, or a successor government, deliberately to seek new involvements for local government. I have in mind involvements as challenging and as interesting as they can be, so that they attract increasing numbers of able men and women, more younger men and women, to do the job; and so that they offer the maximum possible number of opportunities for local people to experience their system and play a part in it.
286
As I said, I do not believe that it will be easy, but it should be deliberately done. The Government should set out to do it and local councils should set out to think of ways of doing it. Some years ago, Schumacher's message was "Small is beautiful"—that local satisfaction is the way to wider satisfaction, part of the glue that holds the country together. In modern government, we forget that at our peril.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for inaugurating this debate into,
"local government, its structures, powers and responsibilities".
I should like to make the declaration that I have been a councillor for 24 of the past 29 years and am still a serving member of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council. Much could be said on this subject, and I shall be speaking from personal experience.
Perhaps I may begin with structures—the cabinet system. It starts for real in May. All that has been taking place until now has been a matter of practising at running the cabinet system. My view is that the jury is still out, and will be for a long time, on whether or not this will be a better system. It is perhaps wonderful that we have got rid of all those meetings, many of which did not really achieve anything in the end. Indeed, there may have been far too many meetings, with an element of a "talking shop" in the process.
Like many noble Lords in this Chamber, I have knocked on doors—not necessarily for the vote, but actually to suggest to whoever opened the door that he or she would make a very suitable local government candidate and councillor—sometimes with, but often without, success. When people ask, "What does it involve?", you reply that there is a full council every so often and that he or she may be on this, or that, committee. You make that response while biting your tongue; you know that if they are not careful, they could find themselves in the town hall every night of the week.
I believe that under the new system we can be honest with some of those people, especially if they are not to be members of the cabinet. I suspect that they will not be on the first occasion they are elected. However, so far, there is some evidence to suggest that the non-cabinet members believe that they play a diminished role in local authorities. I wonder about the tight group of decision-makers in the cabinet. It does not seem to me that there is any transition for those who are scrutineers and who, perhaps next year or the year after, will be required to serve on a cabinet.
In Calderdale, where we were formerly also part of West Yorkshire County Council, we now have some joint bodies that the various authorities thought it worth while to keep going. Because they are decision-making bodies, only members of the cabinet can serve on those joint bodies, which is really taking things too far. That, in itself, would have been at least one area of training for people who might subsequently serve on a cabinet.

287
I turn to powers. In order to exercise powers you need resources. I recall being involved in a debate earlier this year, or perhaps late last year, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, agreed with me that the revenue support grant settlement was the major determinant for local government in coming to a view on setting the level of council tax. I believe that that is right, but it is only part of the process. The other elements that are highly significant in determining what a council tax should be are the various special offers. Officers must be hired in order to look for special offers. However, those special offers are not the ones to be found in supermarkets; it is not like going to Morrison's, Asda, or Sainsbury's. We have the standards funds for education, and, in our part of the world, we have the neighbourhood renewal scheme, for which £900 million has been designated over three years.
Every council that fringes around Calderdale—Bradford, Kirklees, Oldham, Rochdale, Burnley and Pendle—all receive neighbourhood renewal support, but not Calderdale. Indeed, 31 out of 36 metropolitan councils receive such support. Even Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster receive it; but not Calderdale. I should like to know how you get an invitation to receive these special offers. In my view, the powers of local government are far greater and far more important than what local government seems to be doing at present; namely, creating a multitude of plans and strategies.
I turn, finally, to responsibilities. However one considers this, I believe that the major responsibility of local government is to make the community— that area, that place—a splendid place in which to live. But we should look at some of the recent features that have perhaps set authorities against that course of action. We have this concept called "best value". What does it mean? I think it means striving for the best standards and that everyone must be in the top quartile. I find that difficult to understand.
In my part of the world, we are having a best value review of museums and galleries. We have a splendid place in Calderdale called Shibden Hall. It is an accident of history as to whether Shibden Hall might have been an asset of English Heritage or one of the National Trust, but it is not: it is an asset of Calderdale council. Therefore, when we consider whether Calderdale is over or under "museumed", we must take such matters into consideration. Local authorities study national statistics to see whether they are over or under "museumed". I wonder whether the City of York will be having a best value review on heritage, and whether it will turn out to be under or over "heritaged". I believe that I know the answer.
I was involved last week in a rate fixing debate, the most depressing aspect of which is the area of discretion. It seems to me that discretion is used only to cut. The more tightened the revenue support grant settlement and the special offers become, because of the real concern that statutory services must be covered the more local authorities use their discretion to cut resources for parks, gardens, leisure centres, museums, the environment, the countryside, and
288
grants to voluntary bodies. Every shift that takes place from national to local taxation means an attack on the discretionary activity of local government.
5 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to speak in this debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. He and I served together for many years in County Hall, Essex. I sometimes regret saying, and I am sometimes relieved to say, that it is now so long since I departed that place that I have no interest to declare. It is almost a relief to find myself discussing local government once again after the intense pressure of dealing with a Bill from the Secretary of State at the Home Office, which is devising ever more detailed and intimate ways of intervening in a locally-provided service; the police. I recommend that noble Lords skim through that Bill to see what the future might be.
I had the privilege of serving on the Front Bench during the passage of the Local Government Act. My worst fears have been borne out. It has done nothing to increase the freedom and independence of local government. Now I find that local government has to agree with national government 46 separate plans of its affairs. They are judged against 145 specific performance indicators. There are four separate inspection regimes, about which we have heard, now costing £600 million per annum. The best-value system, introduced by the Local Government Act 2000, is inevitably applied in detail to particular services. That has led Public Finance magazine, which is a remarkably useful source of information, to comment:
"These reports are a waste of public money. Our calculations show £157,000 on audit fees alone for two unusable reports".
I can imagine that being replicated backwards and forwards across the country. At the same time we have seen ring-fenced grants in the annual revenue support grant settlement increase from 5 per cent in 1997 to 12 per cent this year. Is that greater independence for local government?
Now, in the forthcoming White Paper, we see the Government threaten direct intervention in authorities perceived to be under-performing. On whose judgment is that? There are possibilities of transfer of functions away from councils; and of a council being put into administration or even being run by another council. All of that led the Local Government Association—I am glad that that is still a strong power to represent local government well—to comment:
"Formal intervention should be avoided wherever possible as there will only be sustained improvement where an authority accepts the need and owns the problem and its solution. That is unlikely where a solution is externally imposed".
It is unsurprising, therefore, that in considering the White Paper, Public Finance magazine published an

289
article by Tony Travers, the director of the Greater London group at the London School of Economics, which states:
"The overall tone of the white paper is pro-local government. But its proposals are sufficiently modest to suggest the government can only just bring itself to move in this particular direction. It looks as if a genuine desire to reverse the tide of centralisation has run up against other demands to ensure that, say, it is possible for Whitehall to intervene directly in poorly performing authorities. The government has two personalities: one is Stalinist and interventionist, while the other understands that the Soviet Union's 'democratic centralism' did not work".
Later in the same article, there is a comment that:
"The centre cannot break its addiction to control".
That may be a common government failing, but it is certainly one which I intend to continue to resist.
I turn to the Government's proposals for the planning system. I have to confess a marginal sympathy with their proposals for major infrastructure projects. However, when we get below that specific issue—the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, did a precise and expert demolition job on the proposals to remove county councils from the planning process—there is an additional aspect to be considered. In the old days I used to have some dealings with Europe. When we were dealing with nascent regionalism, it always struck me that the reason Brussels was so enamoured of the regional question was because it found it almost impossible to deal with national governments. It wanted to have regions as a means of getting into matters more locally. National governments were an obstacle to Brussels expanding its view. That is not an anti-European view, it is a straightforward observation. On the whole, I favour Europe.
We need to think seriously about the proposals for regionalism. If they also involve, as they appear to do, proposals to remove counties from the scene, we are into yet another round of structural reform of local government. That process has been going on in this country ever since I was involved in local government. It has been a huge waste of intellectual effort and a huge distraction from the proper provision of services to the public, which the public have a right to expect.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a member of Oxfordshire County Council. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for initiating the debate. I shall concentrate on planning aspects and start by asking what is wrong with the present planning system. There are some delays. Although many of those are due to the queues for public inquiries experienced at present by many local authorities, much could be done with the few other cases by government intervening directly with the local authorities concerned.
I believe that the main frustration of business lies in the big schemes, whether airport terminals; runways; large waste incinerators; big roads or nuclear power stations. We want to know how such decisions will be taken in future. Will they concentrate on whether we
290
need the facility and what will be its particular location? If specific location decisions are avoided—for example, by deciding that we need a runway somewhere in the South East—that would still leave the issue of location to be fought out through the existing planning process. Conversely, how will Parliament make the decision without the implicit or explicit involvement of the party Whips, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, alluded?
The Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry took a total of six years to conclude at a total estimated cost of £80 million. That is neither democratic nor does it involve communities. The reason for that is that planning inquiries—I am sorry to say this in the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—have become a meal ticket for the planning bar. If we want radical reform of the planning system why not change it for one where the inspector conducting the inquiry does so on an inquisitorial basis? He is qualified so to do and he could ask the relevant questions without them being drawn from witnesses under cross-examination. That reform would speed the process and cheapen considerably planning at all levels.
There is a shortage both of planning staff and those going to planning colleges and universities to qualify as such. Past experience shows that any radical shake up of local government causes many experienced people to leave. Obviously, those people do not move into the new posts that are created.
The re-organisation of local government in the 1990s cost double what was forecast. Any change that the Government postulate will be very expensive. Does the Minister know what the cost will be? Does a figure of £40 million attached to the Green Paper as a one-off cost and an amount in the region of £80 million annually thereafter seem excessive, as all the staff in post will have to be paid?
Of course, the whole procedure may be postulated on regional government. We hope to see that, but as a means of devolving power. Of course that would settle the power on elected regional assemblies. However, we have strong fears that we shall end up with appointed assemblies and that the real decisions about land use and sensitive issues such as housing numbers will be taken not through those assemblies but by central government through their regional offices.
The Minister claims business support for the Green Paper. Can he say from where he gets his evidence? Is business really complaining about the uncertainties of the public inquiry system rather than the planning system itself?
Another issue concerns compensation for planning blight and compulsory purchase. More generous and less bureaucratic systems abroad make people less resistant to planned changes. Do the Government have any proposals for that?
One of the strengths of the current planning procedure is the integration of land use, transport, minerals and the growing problem of waste disposal. Counties with their small staff understand how those link together and how policies relating to housing and

291
industrial development link into them. The local transport plans have been successfully launched. We involve the district councils and the process allows for the involvement of town and parish councils, both in the structure plan and in the local development control process. Because of the historic pattern of governance, decisions—even extremely unpopular ones such as those on housing numbers and minerals extraction—are accepted with the counties in place and their district and parish councils underneath them. The misery is shared. But if these decisions are removed to a superior tier of government there will be, at best, a sullen distrust of anything which emanates from it. That will be because the decisions will be taken more remotely from the people who are most involved.
We think that regional planning guidance could be re-written and simplified in the process. But I urge the Minister to think carefully about the cost of the upheaval proposed and the probability that there are insufficient trained staff to do as he proposes; the democratic deficit which we face from appointed regional assemblies; and the threat posed to integrated planning in the counties which still exist.
I have proposed an alternative reform of the planning system and have asked questions about how major decisions are to be taken in the future.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for providing the House with the opportunity to consider the structures, powers and responsibilities of local authorities. I find myself in agreement with much of his opening speech to the House. I am delighted that he raised so many issues that are of concern to people who work in and serve local authorities.
My noble friend the Minister will be aware that I had the privilege of heading up the task force which examined the causes of the serious disturbances in Burnley last June. One of the paramount responsibilities of Burnley's local authority will be to implement the recommendations of that task force. I want to touch on one or two of the practical matters that they will be faced with.
The concept of a task force to look into the problems of Burnley came as a result of a borough-wide conference—an initiative of the people of Burnley. It was organised in a matter of days by a very efficient Burnley Borough Council. That conference expressed deep concern at what had happened in the town and asked the task force, as part of its remit, to make recommendations in an attempt to avoid a recurrence of what had shaken the people of Burnley.
The task force report was published before Christmas. It contains over 80 recommendations. It represents a good deal of hard work by a number of people, all of whom, including myself, were volunteers. The recommendations cover a range of issues.
I am aware that the Government are actively considering the findings of the task force so I shall not dwell on that part. The recommendations impact on
292
the local authority and the powers that it has to implement some of what is needed to be done in order to avoid a recurrence of the disturbances.
In the limited time available today I should like to ask my noble friend a number of questions and ask whether he will give consideration to some of the recommendations that fall within the terms of this debate? First, Burnley is unique among the areas that experienced civil disturbances. As the House will know, a number of areas in the North West and the North of England suffered disturbances. However, it was unique inasmuch as it is a borough council and a county council. Sometimes it is very difficult to find the dividing line. It is a dual, two-tier authority rather than a single unitary or metropolitan authority.
It was felt by the task force that that situation caused some difficulties in understanding, especially by the people of Burnley. We were able to make direct contact with over 9,000 of Burnley's 90,000 residents with our consultation procedures. That. I believe, should act as a model for the future. However, the task force considered that a unitary authority would be worth considering as part of the consultation on the forthcoming White Paper on regional government. The reason I say that is because Burnley is unique in its authority position but not in the problems that it faces. It has all the inner city problems without the inner city status. Therefore, it suffers as a result of available finances.
Secondly, I should like to make a plea that local authorities such as Burnley be given more flexibility over the spending of moneys received from the Government.
I should say as a matter of apology that, although I was in the Chamber for the first hour and ten minutes of the debate, I then had to leave. As a little treat, the young people on the Burnley task force came here for tea. I could not leave them abandoned in the tea room. I apologise to noble Lords who made speeches in my absence, but tomorrow I shall read every word they said.
I believe that the concept of local strategic partnerships should be given a greater say. I heard both the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Woolmer, talk about the need for local people to have direct involvement in the decisions and in what is clone in those areas. The Government should look at ways of giving them a greater say. I shall explain the matter as briefly as I can. One of the problems that led to the serious disturbances—the terrible violence —was the misunderstanding of how local government money was being allocated to areas. Under the present system, allowances are given for regeneration and earmarked with specific guidelines and criteria.
If the council had had a little more flexibility, it could have made the matter easier to understand. It would have been able to say, "We will do something in this as well as the other area". But it could not do that. Therefore, it led to a great many misunderstandings and, in some cases, to some dreadful propaganda from what I would describe as "neo-fascist organisations".

293
In those circumstances, the restrictions that were placed on the local government were a barrier to making progress in race and community relations.
I ask my noble friend to consider the position of local authorities which, like Burnley, have less income today than they had 10 years ago. That may seem a little unusual. But in 1992–93 Burnley had £11.5 million. That has decreased by 2 per cent this year. Inflation increased by 26 per cent over the period and council spending increased by 16 per cent, but the council standard spending assessment has decreased by 2 per cent. Unless the Government reconsider how money is allocated to places such as Burnley, we face a losing battle.
I turn to the housing surplus. At present, the local authority cannot do much about regeneration because of the enormous cost to it of clearing each derelict, abandoned, neglected property. The figure cited in Burnley is £16,000. Burnley cannot afford that on its own. One recommendation in the task force report that I ask my noble friend carefully to consider is that a co-ordinated approach is needed between the regional development agency, the Housing Corporation and the local authority to tackle the problem not just in towns such as Burnley but across the area where problems are common.
I should like to illustrate how people are trapped in derelict property. Some cannot move because they took out mortgages 15 years ago at £9,000 to buy a house. The compensation to get them out of their appalling state does not give them a chance to go anywhere else. Most of them are of the age at which they had to have an endowment mortgage. But they end up with no equity and so are trapped in those properties.
In all seriousness, I ask my noble friend the Minister to address some of those problems. I know that the Government are considering them—I have received a good response from the Home Secretary downwards—but I hope that they will be considered in the continuing discussions.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. He talked about the Conservatives' support of the local and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, commented that freeing local government is the prerogative of opposition. I must say that those two noble Lords are among an honourable band who have always supported the local under every government.
I should declare an interest as a member of the London assembly—a part of the Greater London Authority—which will be affected by some of the White Paper proposals if enacted. At present, I chair the assembly and we have been experiencing the delights of the executive/scrutiny split, to which I shall return in a moment.
For me, the first issue is not structure but functions and powers—form before function, of course—and so I welcome the new shoots of freedom, as the noble
294
Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, referred to them, that pop up in odd places in the White Paper. But I still believe that its approach is too centralised. It suggests rewards for those local authorities that are doing well. But doing well by whose judgment: that of Her Majesty's Government; that of the Audit Commission, keeping its scorecard—we are all aware of the temptation to measure numbers and speed rather than quality—or that of local voters?
A couple of months ago, when the Minister repeated the Statement introducing the White Paper, he said:
"We will also intervene decisively where councils are failing their local people".—[Official Report, 11/12/01; col. 1257.]
But is it up to the Government to assess that? Is it not a matter for voters? What has happened to the proposals for annual elections, about which we heard a good deal a little while ago? Local authorities should be answerable first and foremost to local people and have autonomy by right, not as a reward from central government. They should have the freedom to innovate and to make mistakes. Arguably, that freedom is more necessary for local authorities that are struggling to cope with difficult local circumstances than for those that are high performers.
Greater freedom for high performers could lead to a difficult, vicious circle—a virtuous circle for the few, of course, but vicious because of the need to attract able people as councillors, to which many noble Lords have referred. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, said that it was no longer "cool" to serve from a sense of duty. I am not sure whether any of your Lordships feel that they are of an age to be cool, but it is perfectly clear that there is huge recent and current experience of local government in this House—not just experience but, as my noble friend Lady Scott described it, a passionate belief in local democracy, as distinct from local administration. That point was also powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy.
As the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, put it, poor performers are threatened with having a mayor—one model of the executive/scrutiny split—imposed on them. It is that split, especially the executive mayor model,that in itself is deterring potential councillors. It means that no career path is obviously open to them. Whether or not it is cool, there is certainly a sense that some councillors count and some are second class. The noble Lord. Lord King, supported the executive/scrutiny split, but it was notable that what he described and supported was the Cabinet model, to which different arguments apply.
We must attract passion back into local government among a younger generation. There was a resonance around the Chamber when my noble friend Lord Shutt described knocking on a door to say, "Have you thought of being a local councillor? You just have to go to a few meetings". I remember being told in 1978 that I would have to attend two meetings every six weeks. Frankly, that was a fib. Four years later, when I recruited someone else, I handed over my diary to let her see the honest truth.

295
I am desperately anxious that in imposing new models of form we are losing sight of the substance and deterring those who have so much to contribute. I am anxious about deterring not just politicians but professionals. Reference has been made to inspections. In many cases, officers are professional people. I wonder how much disaffection there is now among professional officers who feel threatened rather than supported by some inspection regimes.
I turn to finance. There is a good deal that we welcome in the White Paper—in particular, the proposed new capital regime. I was interested to read in the description of how that would function a reference to consultation. I am glad of that. Consultation is hugely important and I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, said about not just consultation but participation, because consultation is not enough. It is not enough to ask views without, ideally, seeking participation and, at least, providing careful feedback.
The London assembly is currently considering that matter. We are concerned to ensure that the mayor consults Londoners in the most effective way. Several voluntary organisations strongly pointed out to us the huge risk, if there is inadequate feedback, of jeopardising the great fund of goodwill available when a new government is formed with widespread support— let us leave aside questions of turnout in the referendum, and so on—for a regional government, which has been badly missed. We must perform well. I must say that on that matter I am critical of the mayor—whom I support in many ways on many matters. He publicly expresses scepticism about consultation, which, I think, he feels is an activity too far. He says:
"I get on the Tube every morning and people will occasionally stop and tell me what they think. My tracking polls show I'm slightly more popular than I was when I was elected but I know when the public mood is up or down…because I find it on the streets…Before anyone invented opinion polls, politicians managed quite well in Victorian England because they had a gut feel for what the people felt".
That is not enough. As politicians, we must all be open and accessible, invite opinions and take them on board.
To return to the issue of finance, I must say that there is a long way to go before the local government financial system is adequately transparent. My own borough, Richmond-upon-Thames, for instance, which is similar to the neighbouring borough, Kingston, receives far less in central government grant than its neighbour. Trying to explain that to council tax payers, who forget, of course, that they are also income tax payers and VAT payers, is immensely difficult, without talking about gearing, ring-fencing or special offers.
As there has been some comment on regional government, I shall end with reference to a comment that was made to me yesterday by a senior figure in public life. He expressed the view that regional government—in London, at any rate—was like a black hole. He did not mean a black hole in the sense
296
that things go into it and never reappear, but in the sense that its existence has pointed up the regional issues that require democratic involvement.
It is interesting that there has been little reference in the debate to turnout. That is a good thing, and it indicates how conscious we all are that the issue is not the mechanics of voting. The issue is good government and how we make people feel that they have a stake in it.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, it would be fair to say that the debate has generated a fairly wide-ranging discussion that has underlined the importance of local government. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, it is the tier of government that is closest to the electorate and affects their lives most immediately. It is certainly the one that those of us who are involved— I declare my interest as a member of a London borough council—believe to be the most effective, when there is not too much regulation or centralisation. The Minister holds the ring today, but I am not sure that there was much comfort for the Government in what was said this afternoon.
My noble friend Lord Hanningfield, who, if I may say so, made a powerful and important speech, drew particular attention to the planning Green Paper. Many other noble Lords referred to it as well. In particular, my noble friend spoke about the exclusion of county councils from a role in the structure plans. Not surprisingly, there is enormous concern about that, as expressed so adequately by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. There is also concern about the intention to reserve decisions on larger developments to Parliament and the pressure to increase the amount of delegation of planning decisions to officers.
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the value of ensuring a hearing by democratically elected councillors who know and understand their area, as well as the need to turn round planning applications within a given timescale. I shall comment briefly on the latter. In some instances—possibly many—applications are significantly improved by the intervention, at an early stage, of planning officers, advising on aspects relating to a council's unitary development plan, previously set precedents and design issues, which may mean that the application does not go out to consultation within the normal timescales and is not determined within the constrained period. That is particularly important if there are conservation issues involved. However, the result is, often, a much better proposal that is more likely to receive unreserved approval when considered. So, nothing has been lost because the time taken was over the target.
Much attention has been paid to the structures of local government. They should not be the plaything of the Government. The future of the county council is just one of the matters that have been allowed to surface as a result of the Government's push towards

297
regional government. As my noble friend rightly commented, we do not need regions: we have counties. The current proposals, which would encompass the planning regions—that is what they are—would make a tier of government that would be incoherent in any terms, wield power over enormous numbers of electors and be out of touch with nearly all of them. My noble friend Lord Waddington spoke knowledgeably about that. I do not want to emulate him or repeat what he said, but I thought that his speech was forceful.
I am also reminded that, in response to a recent Question asked in the House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that, if there were to be regional government, there would be one tier of government too many and one would have to go. The assumption must be that that means the county councils.
It is interesting that the White Paper on regional government, which was expected in March, has suddenly vanished from the screen. That raises suspicions that a diktat from No.10 that there should not be three tiers of government has affected the way in which the proposals were to be couched: so "Out with the counties!".Would it also mean, "Out with the districts"? That would be no small, insignificant little rearrangement of tiers of government. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith suggested, it would be another sizeable, disruptive and expensive proposal, which would take years to sort out. The expense is exemplified by the reorganisation of Humberside in 1999. That reorganisation alone cost—at 1999 figures—£53 million. If that is used as a benchmark, it would indicate that if such reorganisation were carried out on a wholesale basis, the taxpayer would have to foot a bill of up to £1.8 billion.
The truth is that the Government are obsessed with modernisation and reorganisation. Many speakers have drawn attention to the difficulties that are daily becoming apparent from the restructuring of local government itself into the leader/cabinet model. There are one or two honourable exceptions, such as the noble Lord, Lord King of West Bromwich, who has found a reassuring way through it. Fortunately, the great icon of a "mayoralty" has so far proved to be less than popular with the electorate.
My noble friend Lord Bowness and the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, drew attention to the mayoral system and the lack of popular support. There have been several mayoral elections. The turnout has been disappointingly low, and the numbers voting in referendums in which a mayoralty has been accepted have been derisory. The new arrangements have given power to a limited number of highly paid councillors—the cabinet. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, I do not believe that the cabinet system enhances transparency. It enables a small number of people to take over control of an elected council and has left beached the rest of the councillors who have been elected to serve their community.
Elected councillors have, traditionally, been accustomed to being strategic leaders. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, drew attention to the fact
298
that, nowadays, one must find a system of capacity building. In the past there was an apprenticeship system. Councillors learned from each other. Gradually, through that system, they learned to understand both what local government is about and how it is operated. All that is lost. Now, everyone has to devise systems of capacity building and training in order to ensure that those in the council not involved in the cabinet system are able to learn what to do.
Again, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about transparency. It is extraordinarily difficult for anyone not involved in the cabinet system to find out in any depth what is going on. I speak as one who sits on a scrutiny committee and I can say that it is almost impossible to find out what it is that is being scrutinised and what lies behind it.
The whole system has raised many questions about the succession arrangements and about how to train future cabinet members. There is now hardly any role for the two-thirds of councillors left outside the cabinet to play in the decision-making process. If those who brought about these structures thought that acting as a "scrutineer" of policy decisions was going to engage the minds and hearts of those people, I fear that they were wrong. It is clear that the committee system had its faults, but it did ensure that all councillors felt involved, which clearly is not the case now. It is my view—it is also the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—that these arrangements will have to be rethought before too long if we are to attract good—I would add, possibly any—candidates in the future
Perhaps I may turn to funding. The current funding arrangements for local government mean that between 65 per cent and 75 per cent of funding is provided by the Government, including the parcelling out of the business rate, while about 25 per cent is raised from council tax. All government finance is provided against the opaque structure of the SSA. In all my time in local government I have never known of a system that satisfied everyone, and the current one is no less open to complaint than any other. However, we are promised a further attempt and, indeed, a Bill has been expected. I am not surprised that nothing has yet appeared because I expect that, as always, the various interests are irreconcilable. But if new arrangements are to be put into place for 2003–04, which was anticipated, then the legislation cannot be delayed much longer or it will be impossible for councils to implement in time. Perhaps the Minister could give us some idea of when the Bill is to be brought forward.
Noble Lords have referred to many other matters during the course of our debate, such as the percentage of grant that is ring-fenced, the ridiculous criteria laid out for the performance of councils—they are to be categorised as "high performing", "striving", "coasting" and "low performing"—which requires further explanation, and the move towards centralisation. However, I have had time to refer to only a few of those issues.
I am sure that we would all agree that this has been a debate of experts and practitioners. It is clear from their enthusiasm and their interest that we discuss

299
matters relating to local government on too few occasions in this House. I am grateful that we have had an opportunity to do so today.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I strongly concur with the concluding remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. In one afternoon we have tried to debate a White Paper, a Green Paper and probably the past 10 years of local government, along with the next 10 years. In future we must hold more debates on local government and on planning. We cannot do justice to the issues in such a limited time. I am particularly conscious of the difficulty of trying to do justice, in a mere 20 minutes or so, to the very wide-ranging and interesting contributions of noble Lords to this debate. I offer my regrets in advance that it will be impossible to respond to every point in that short time without being totally tedious.
I shall start by setting out that the Government are committed to trying to improve governance and services for the public at the local level. As my noble friend Lord King remarked, that is crucial. It is a serious endeavour and we all share in it. The Government's approach is based squarely on the belief that local government is an important sphere of government in its own right. I shall quote briefly from the White Paper:
"Even in those areas where local authorities act primarily as agents of central government, they cannot discharge that role properly if they arc over constrained by government. And we are clear that local authorities have a role which extends well beyond national priorities. They are a separate tier of government, answerable to local voters and taxpayers, with local priorities to pursue and a local community leadership responsibility to discharge".
Varying degrees of cynicism may be expressed about central government, but it is crucial that those words have been put in writing by the Government so that, it is hoped, they give at least half the lie to the suspicion voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the Government are Janus-faced on these matters.
I shall turn to some of the issues that have been raised. It is wrong to assume that there is automatically a conflict between central and local government over many issues. Many of the issues that matter to people and to councils at the local level are also those which matter at central government level, whether that may be reducing crime, improving transport, raising standards in education or promoting better health. These things are common goals between central and local government. None can be fully achieved without the full and effective commitment of local government. Thus,local government is absolutely essential to the achievement of the goals set by central government just as, one suspects, a positive approach by central government is crucial to local government in order that it can fulfil its role in the way that many noble Lords have emphasised in our debate.
The White Paper therefore makes it clear that central and local government need to work together to try to agree a narrower range of priorities than perhaps
300
we have seen in the past. It is easy to keep on generating priorities, but then local government finds it impossible to know how to respond. Quite rightly and, I think, quite bravely, the Local Government Association has stated that it wishes to negotiate what will be a core agenda. I hope that that is what is agreed across the parties in the LGA, rather than any other approach.
Let us look at some of the specifics. The comprehensive reform of the appraisal and assessment system has been talked about extensively, which is right because it will represent a major change. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, helpfully and rightly acknowledged that performance appraisal and assessment is a reality of modern government. None of us can pretend that we should not have it in place and thus the debate has turned on how best it should be operated rather than on whether it should he done at all.
The system now being prepared by the Government will try to rationalise the inspection and assessment regime so that a lighter burden is put on councils: it is more comprehensible, it is objective in its judgments; it is undertaken separately from central government; and, above all, it is not simply about trying to put local authorities into a certain box or category. However, that in itself can be useful because sometimes it will challenge the complacency from which we can all suffer. Rather it seeks to focus on an action plan aimed at bringing about improvements in the best interests of the public, whom both central and local government serve. That focus on action and improvement is the centre of whether the new proposals succeed, as we trust they will.
In response to a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, we do not believe that it will cost any more money. It will be carried out within the Audit Commission's current budget and it should put less of a burden on local authorities if it avoids a constant sequence of inspectorates coming over the hill, which is sometimes commented on. The Audit Commission is currently engaged in an intensive process to develop the comprehensive performance assessment, the CPA, working actively with local authorities which in turn are engaging positively with the agenda rather than in an atmosphere of scepticism. Some 10 councils have volunteered to act as pathfinders.
Comments have been made about best value as being too bureaucratic, too expensive and so far not able to justify the costs of its input and processes. It is clear that in some authorities there is evidence to justify those comments. That is why the Government are looking to streamline best value and to try to make the system more effective. Equally, however, there is evidence from authorities that have understood the spirit and the challenge of putting the public first and of seeking to question fundamentally whether there may be new ways of doing things and whether they could be done more effectively and more economically. Evidence from a number of authorities indicates that that is bringing about significant

301
improvements. There are not enough, but just because some people are finding the system difficult is no reason to abandon it.
A number of noble Lords emphasised the importance of democratic renewal. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said that it was vital. Unless the public feel that their democratic institutions, whether at national or local level, have some meaning and value and are in some way accessible to them and can be influenced by them, we will be in serious trouble in the future. It is a truism that it is easier to have that feeling at local level than at national level. That is why the renewal and reform of local government is so crucial.
There has been more debate than I expected about whether the current structural system within existing local authorities is working well or whether it should be abandoned. It is early days and there are divided views. In some areas the public clearly do not want elected mayors. It is right that they should be able to choose and there is no agenda to force elected mayors on authorities unless their public want them.
But I cannot believe that we are really and genuinely arguing that we should go back to the 19th-century committee system, in all its glory and with all the sham, which many of us recognise from our local government experience, whereby decisions were made somewhere else and rubber stamped through a committee process.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, drew attention to some serious issues in regard to declarations of interest. I should love to respond to them but there is not the time. I shall have to write to him on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, rightly challenged the Government by asking, "Do you mean what you say? Will you do any of it because if you do, there will, in a sense, be a welcome for it?" Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, also asked whether any of this would happen.
The thrust of the Government is to move to a different style of relationship with local government. They are moving away from a model that was basically dirigiste in style, that said, "Submit to us a plan. We will then give you a little pot of money. We will then have lots of people crawling over it and second guessing it, and that will deliver improvement". We are moving away from that model—which many recognize does not work effectively —to a system which tries to agree outcomes, that tries to incentivise local authorities to achieve those outcomes and that tries to provide them with support if and where it is needed to succeed in reaching those outcomes. It is a very different model of central/local government relationship from the "produce a plan and we will put it in a filing cabinet" model. It is one that we should strongly welcome because it is quite clearly a more sensible process than the traditional one.
Will the Government let go? We have put on record in the White Paper that we are dissatisfied with the current relationship. We have said that it does not make sense for 66 plans to be submitted by local authorities to central government. We have made a
302
commitment to reduce that by half and we hope that noble Lords will give us some credit for that. We have said that we will reduce consent regimes, we will reduce bidding, we will reduce special funding and we will reduce the 30 area initiatives. I do not know why Calderdale does not have neighbourhood renewal, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, or why Bradford does not have other funding. These are good questions but I cannot answer them because I do not have sufficient time available or the answers to hand. We have said that we will streamline best value. We have said that we will give permission to trade where local authorities are delivering good services.
As to powers, local authorities have now been given a statutory authority to develop community strategies for their areas which states that they have to have the leadership role, working with and through local strategic partnerships. They have been given a power of well-being, for which many in this Chamber and other places have argued for decades. They have now been given the power to do something about it.
The Government are committed to promoting cross-agency working at local level and have given the LSPs the power to promote it and to rationalise partnerships. We have given, or will be giving, greater freedom to borrow, to invest, to trade and to charge for services. These amount to a significant range of changes to the powers and scope of local authorities. There are not as many as some noble Lords would wish, but they go considerably further than has been the case.
We have already ended crude universal capping and we have said that high-performing authorities will never be capped again, whatever level of budget they choose to spend, because they are seen to have a clear relationship with their public and have the right to make those judgments.
We will end things such as council tax benefit subsidy limitation, which sounds wonderful: we will stabilise finances; and we will abolish the SSA system and seek to bring in a fairer and more transparent system. I accept the challenge of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about whether it is possible because one has seen so many attempts to do so. The current aim, which I hope we will meet, is to bring it in by 2003–04. I acknowledge that that is a rapid timetable.
There was some discussion about community leadership. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, referred to the importance of partnerships and the importance of capacity building and skill development. I completely agree with him. In a sequence of serious race riots within local authorities last summer, we saw why community leadership matters. Without saying that those local authorities were singularly to blame for those race riots, clearly massive issues of community leadership arise as regards the integration of diverse communities. Central government cannot possibly do that. They can provide support and the environment, but only local authorities can address such challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is right, the job is about making the area in which one lives always a splendid place to live. Again, that cannot be

303
done by central government. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, made similar remarks about Burnley.
Given the shortage of time, I cannot respond in as much detail as I would like on the issue of finance. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made important points about parishes and I shall have to write to her.
I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, about our attitude towards spending public money. We should treat it as our own—or twice as cautiously—which is why there should be pressure to squeeze what we have initially before we start asking for more money or more taxes. That is one of the messages at the heart of best value, rather than simply piling on more spend.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also raised the issue of funding for schools. The White Paper contains some interesting comments in that respect and it would repay study.
As to partnerships between central government and local government at national level, we have come a long way in recent years. There is a positive relationship between the Government and the Local Government Association. The central/local partnership works well and people want to see it continue as a serious policy dialogue between central and local government.
We have seen a range of initiatives promoted to central government by local government. Local PSAs were promoted by the LGA; best value was promoted to the Labour Party by local government; and the idea of a limited range of priorities was promoted by the LGA. That is the reverse of the simple view of a central government telling local government what to do. We are seeing much more a pattern of central and local government looking together to address some of the significant challenges. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, rightly gave positive credit to the creativity and innovation which is going on in many local authorities and which we should respect.
We need a separate debate on planning and the planning Green Paper. It is impossible to do justice to those issues today. We rebut the implication that things are okay and we can leave them as they are. The process of plan making, particularly in two-tier areas, is much too complicated and overlapping. It works on the basis of cascading planning policy from regional, to county, to district level, and that process cannot be carried out in fewer than 10 years. That is a nonsense given the speed of change in society currently. You cannot have a plan-making process which lags behind the reality of change in society.
No one is saying that counties have done a bad job and no one is saying that they have no role in the future, but, within the terms of a debate that recognises that we have to reduce the tiers of plan-making structures, we have to decide how best to harness the county contribution to a good planning system. The Government are interested in the contributions coming forward from the LGA and elsewhere within the terms I have suggested.
304
Turning to the subject of the regions, do people want change? Is it necessary? Will it happen? A White Paper on the matter will be published before the summer setting out the detail of how it will be addressed. It is clear in the manifesto that a move to regional government will not be forced on areas unless the public in those areas want it. So there is no fear that this is a further structural change without consent.
However, the Government stated clearly in their two previous manifestos that we cannot have a system whereby there is a two-tier structure in shire county areas, with regional government and parishes. That would be vastly too many tiers. Therefore, there will have to be a process—which I am confident will be fair and not pre-judged—which rationalises the two-tier structure into one tier; and whereby the public can gain some understanding of what that option will mean before voting on whether or not to have regional government. In a sense, they will be making a decision as to whether, in two-tier areas, they want regional government and a unitary system at the same time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that we do not need regions, we have counties. The public will have the right to make that judgment rather than central government. I believe that that is right.
I re-emphasise that this is not part of a general plan or view by central government that we need a widespread reorganisation of local government. I am sure that noble Lords will welcome that.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, and others pointed out that it is easier to write White Papers than it is to implement them. Actually making the proposals happen is the crucial issue. The matter that gives me most comfort is that, rather than setting the proposals out on the page, central government have launched a process to examine how these complicated and important issues will be implemented. The Government will shortly publish an implementation plan setting out how they believe the proposals in the White Paper should be brought about.
The Government are also undertaking a major study between the Office of Public Services Reform and the DTLR, examining how government behave towards local government. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right; even if it is not a question of being "Janus-faced", there are tensions as to how one gets government to behave with one voice, particularly one voice which supports the development of local democracy. The study is examining that issue and how central government can and should support local government in achieving its goals as well as the goals of central government. We look forward with considerable interest to the results of the study.
I regret that I have not been able to answer all the points raised—they all deserve an answer. I think noble Lords will understand why, given the scope of our discussions. This has been an important and valuable debate. We must have further serious debates on local government, given that it is responsible for a quarter of all public expenditure. We cannot do justice to the issues in the time allotted.

305
I hope that I clearly conveyed the sense that the Government are committed to supporting effective local government and to supporting it in moving forward, so that it is capable of playing the role which, without exception, speakers in this debate have affirmed as being important and necessary.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for his comments. I am sure that the noble Lord has stimulated further thinking on these matters. I was pleased to hear him say that there should be further debate, particularly on the Green Paper on planning, the White Paper on local government and in relation to the regions. With those thoughts, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
6.4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place earlier this afternoon. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting that took place in Coolum, in Queensland, Australia, from 1st to 4th March. In doing so, I want to pay warm tribute to Prime Minister John Howard and the Australian Government for the excellent arrangements made for the meeting; and to John Howard personally for his patient and skilful chairmanship.
"I also want to record how much the presence of Her Majesty The Queen meant to all the heads of government, in this her jubilee year. It was an opportunity for us all to reflect on her remarkable contribution to the Commonwealth over the past 50 years. I shall be pleased to join Her Majesty for the observance service to celebrate Commonwealth Day on Monday, 11th March.
"The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was due to take place last autumn. It was postponed because of the atrocious terrorist attacks in the United States on 11th September. It was, therefore, entirely fitting that one of the major items of business at this week's meeting was the adoption of a Commonwealth plan of action on terrorism. This focuses on how to help member states, particularly smaller states, fulfil their international obligations in fighting terrorism, including those provided for by UN Security Council Resolution 1373.
"Commonwealth heads of government also adopted the report of the High Level Review Group established at the previous heads of government
306
meeting in Durban in 1999. This broadens the remit of the Commonwealth's ministerial level watchdog, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, beyond the overthrow of democratically elected governments so that it will in future be able to examine crises other than those provoked by a coup d'état; strengthens the good offices role of the Commonwealth Secretary-General; and streamlines the secretariat's structure. Heads also established a High Level Expert Group to report on globalisation to the 2003 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nigeria.
"The high level group report and the plan on terrorism are covered in the Coolum declaration which was agreed by heads of government at the conference. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.
"These are useful developments, which strengthen the Commonwealth as an organisation committed to promoting democracy and good governance, economic development, and tolerance and racial harmony among its members. It is all the more deplorable, therefore, that one of those members, Zimbabwe, should have a president and a government so clearly violating these core Commonwealth values.
"The current crisis in Zimbabwe was extensively discussed. The violence and intimidation unleashed by President Mugabe in his desperation to prevent an opposition victory in next weekend's presidential elections is totally unacceptable. So is the way in which he made it impossible for EU observers to monitor next weekend's elections, obliging them to withdraw from Zimbabwe so that they could not document the abuses of the election campaign. And there is no doubt about those abuses. Those who are witnessing the campaign and who are still in Zimbabwe detail horrific acts of violence and intimidation.
"President Mugabe pretends that the current crisis has been prompted by the issue of land reform rather than by his determination to stay in power whatever the verdict of the electorate. This is nothing more than a pretext. Successive British governments have made clear their commitment to supporting land reform in Zimbabwe. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary repeated this commitment at the Abuja meeting last September. Indeed, since independence, Britain has provided over £40 million specifically for land reform and more than half a billion in development assistance. But our efforts and those of the wider international community—including the UN Development Programme—have been thwarted by the political intransigence and corruption of President Mugabe and his government. Make no mistake,if President Mugabe had wanted an orderly and just land reform programme at any stage in the past few years, we would have been keen to work with him. He did not. Instead, he has used the land reform issue as an excuse for undermining Zimbabwean democracy. And more than this, his actions have now provoked a grave economic crisis

307
in a country which has the potential to be rich and successful. This is a tragedy for all Zimbabwe's people. The victims of Mr Mugabe are not primarily white; they are the ordinary black citizens, fed up with years of decline and corruption.
"President Mugabe's behaviour was denounced by a very large number of Commonwealth countries at Coolum. And let me make clear that this included outspoken and courageous condemnation by African leaders, who understand very well that the damage President Mugabe is doing harms not only Zimbabwe but Africa as a whole. Despite President Mugabe's propaganda, this is not an issue that divides the Commonwealth on racial lines; nor one that divides Africa from the other Commonwealth members.
"Although there was a strong current of criticism running at Coolum, decisions need to be unanimous. In a body representing over 50 separate nations, there was no realistic prospect of a consensus for suspending Zimbabwe from Commonwealth membership in advance of the elections this coming weekend. But we did agree a statement on Zimbabwe that expressed deep concern about the violence surrounding the current election campaign, and called for free and fair elections. This statement makes provision for Zimbabwe's suspension if the report of the Commonwealth observers currently in Zimbabwe is adverse.
"If the observers' report does indeed find widespread evidence of intimidation and violence, the fudging will have to stop. The credibility of the Commonwealth itself is at stake. The procedures laid down in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration and the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme are clear, and action must follow, up to and including suspension. Let me add that it is a remarkable tribute to the strength of democracy in Zimbabwe that the opposition retain a chance of winning these elections at all. Again, let us be clear: if they do win, President Mugabe must accept the result and hand over power.
"The Coolum meeting provided an opportunity for me to meet a number of African leaders to discuss the New Partnership for African Development. We need to work with Africa, through the G8 and through a wide range of international organisations, to grasp this opportunity for a new start and new hope for Africa. On aid, trade and conflict, I believe we have a real chance for progress, with commitment and leadership on both sides. We will continue to make this a major priority of British policy.
"Coolum also allowed me to meet the heads of government of Commonwealth Caribbean countries. We discussed ways of developing the United Kingdom's relations with them and ways of helping them confront the challenges they face, particularly in countering drugs and terrorism, and in the economic and trade fields. There will be a
308
further opportunity to develop this dialogue at the meeting of the UK-Caribbean Forum in Georgetown, Guyana, next month.
"Finally, I co-hosted with John Howard the Commonwealth sports lunch, where we looked forward to the Commonwealth Games in Manchester this summer and then in Melbourne in 2006.
"I wish to conclude with thanks to my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for the work he did in preparing for the Coolum meeting, particularly in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. It was a great sadness that, for personal reasons, he was unable to attend the meeting itself. I wish also to record my thanks to my noble friend Lady Amos for the valuable role she played at Coolum".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made earlier by the Prime Minister in another place. At the outset, I join the noble and learned Lord and the Prime Minister in commending the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. One of the best things to come out of the CHOGM was to see a Member of this House doing so well.
I also join the Prime Minister in saying how deeply moving it was to see the affection and respect with which Her Majesty the Queen is held by the leaders of 51 very diverse countries. It was right and appropriate that they dedicated their opening ceremony to thanking Her Majesty for 50 years of service to the Commonwealth.
The critical issue of the conference was to address the rapidly deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. In that, as the Prime Minister has admitted, the conference was a failure for British diplomacy. Is it not regrettable that the Commonwealth, which has established a much respected reputation lately as a guardian of human rights, has in this instance failed? I sense in the Statement an air of complacency about the causes of that failure. To relieve the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe, quiet and persistent diplomacy was needed over a long period to isolate Mugabe, while leaving him in no doubt of the consequences of breaking the rule of law. We have not pursued that diplomatic course. Despite repeated requests from all sides in this House, we have sent false signals to the Mugabe regime by remaining engaged with it long after we should have slammed shut the door on him and all his coterie.
This House, which was forced to endure the absurdity of a government boycott of the democratically elected Government of Austria, has been made to go along with the policy of appeasement of Mugabe, which has completely failed, as the appeasement of a dictator always will. Is not the story of our action—or rather, our lack of action—on Zimbabwe a clear case of too little, too late? Is it not

309
deeply depressing that, by rushing to the barricades at the last minute, we have failed to carry the support even of close allies in the Commonwealth?
Fortunately, in a few minutes, thanks to the Conservative Party, this House has an opportunity to debate the issue—and what could well be an impending disaster in that country—in detail, so I shall say no more, save for one thing. In view of the disturbing reports this morning that white residents in Zimbabwe, many of whom are British citizens, are making contingency plans to flee the country in the event of a Mugabe victory, could the noble and learned Lord tell the House what the Government are doing to address that potential refugee problem and to safeguard British citizens?
I very much welcome the CHOGM declaration on terrorism and congratulate those Commonwealth governments who are actively involved in the fight against it in Afghanistan. In that context, did the Prime Minister raise the continuing plague of terrorism in Northern Ireland and seek assurances from other governments that they will forbid the funding of terrorist organisations in other Commonwealth countries?
What discussion was there at CHOGM of the strong stance taken by President Musharraf of Pakistan against terrorism? I note the decision of CHOGM to maintain Pakistan's suspension from the Commonwealth. Was any message of gratitude or support sent to the president for his stand in this critical battle? In view of the acknowledgement of the improved security situation in Sierra Leone, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House when British troops will finally be withdrawn from that country?
Regrettably, I found no reference in the communiquéé to multilateral trade issues or the question of steel. Did the Prime Minister raise the question of steel at the conference, given the significant Asian production of steel? If not, why not? If he failed to do so, has that not become all the more serious given the success of Mr Mittal's lobbying against British steel exports in the United States?
Finally, is the noble and learned Lord aware—I do not think that he will be—that I consulted the Prime Minister's website this morning and found more information on it about the clothes that he wore than about the Commonwealth conference? In passing, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord knows the opinion of his predecessor as Leader of the House—the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, whom I see in her place—of the Prime Minister's taste in shirt cuffs.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I shall not pursue the fashion note of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I am perhaps one of the least suitable people in the House to do so. I add my thanks to the Leader of the House and I commend very warmly the immense contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, whom everyone in the House recognises as an outstanding advocate of her department and of
310
the cause of overseas development. The Commonwealth was lucky to have such a Minister present.
We on these Benches are not among those who would be only too happy to see the Commonwealth disappear. We believe that it has a central importance, as one of the very few global organisations—perhaps almost the only one apart from the United Nations—that links together nations with very different levels of income and wealth and very different racial compositions and unites them in an effort to try to create a better, more prosperous and just world. We would regret any serious damage that was done to the Commonwealth either by itself or by some member states trying to use it as a scapegoat.
I shall come to the issue of Zimbabwe in a moment; first, I have one or two other questions. The Leader of the House said that there was a ringing statement from the Commonwealth about terrorism. At this critical moment in our affairs, I simply wish to draw out the significance of having some clear evidence that Iraq is part of a smoking gun if military action is to be considered against that country—evidence either that it is related to Al'Qaeda or that it has resumed the development of weapons of mass destruction. We on these Benches feel passionately that every possible effort must be made to try to resume inspection. We wish the Secretary-General of the United Nations—who, I understand, is meeting Mr Saddam Hussein today—well in his efforts to try to get that extremely difficult and unhelpful state to again accept its obligations under the United Nations.
On multilateral trade, there is a certain contradiction between what was achieved and stated in the Commonwealth heads of government declaration and what happened only yesterday in respect of US steel import restrictions. It would helpful if the Leader of the House could say whether that matter was discussed at Coolum or whether it was too soon to do so.
As to Sierra Leone, I pay tribute to the Government because it looks as though some kind of rule of law has been re-established in at least part of that country. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can describe the position not only with the withdrawal of troops but how fast Sierra Leone is moving towards becoming a reasonably viable country that is able to resist pressures from some of its neighbours.
We share the Leader of the Opposition's view that Pakistan's president is making a real effort to deal with terrorism and has committed himself to a return to democratic process. Can the Leader of the House say anything about the efforts being made by Pakistan to deal with terrorist organisations in its own country, which clearly threaten peace in Afghanistan and elsewhere?
Can the noble and learned Lord say a word or two about the Commonwealth's position on smaller member states—particularly in respect of the effect of global warming on its most recent member, Tuvalu, which may survive only briefly as a Commonwealth

311
member before it is swallowed up by the waves? What is the Commonwealth trying to do about global warming?
The situation in Zimbabwe is of desperate urgency. We strongly urge the Government to take steps to protect British passport holders, which is obviously the first priority. We would deeply regret it if steps were not also taken to protect some of the extraordinarily brave and courageous men and women in Zimbabwe who have consistently fought for democracy and the rule of law. The only way that they can be protected is if the British Government, with other Commonwealth governments, are willing to press for the opening of the borders with neighbouring countries—Zambia, Botswana, Namibia, Mozambique and others—so that people in Zimbabwe can flee to safety. Part of that has to be a commitment by the United Kingdom to spend the money that never went to land reform to ensure that refugees can be cared for and supported until they can return to the country of their birth and upbringing.
It is absolutely vital that the British Government commit themselves to making money available to protect British passport holders and courageous warriors for democracy, should Mr. Mugabe succeed—or, should his opponent succeed, then be threatened or overthrown as the army has suggested. The army has said some extremely troubling things about his belief in the right of an elected government to govern in a free and democratic country.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness about my noble friend and colleague Lady Amos. She has been in post for only a short period but it is plain to us all how effectively my noble friend has been discharging her duties. I know how pleased she was to have responsibility for Africa as part of her portfolio.
The noble Lord said that the conference was a failure hut I do not agree. The Prime Minister stated unambiguously that he was deeply disappointed at the failure in part to have Zimbabwe suspended. I do not regard the outcome of the conference as a failure. That would be too gloomy. To concede that the conference was a failure would be to do a significant disservice—not least to the ordinary citizens of Zimbabwe.
The noble Lord spoke of complacency and said that we should have been engaged in diplomacy for a long time. We have been. I know myself of the efforts that have been made. It is easy to be an armchair general, sitting safely in this House, without necessarily taking into account the wishes of the MDC and—to echo words of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—its extraordinarily courageous leader. It would be foolish and irresponsible not to pay careful attention to the MDC's past or current views.
I reiterate the Prime Minister's statement that there is still a prospect that the will of the people of Zimbabwe will be freely heard. One wants to be extremely careful—I re-emphasise this without
312
wishing to be offensive—sitting in the comfort that we do, about running risks with loose language and other people's lives, wellbeing and happiness.
The noble Lord asked about British citizens. There is a civil contingency plan but it would be foolish o go into detail. I am perfectly happy, as always, to discuss matters privately with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
As far as I am aware, there was no discussion of the funding of the Northern Ireland political or other parties.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about President Masharif. I am happy to repeat what the Prime Minister has said publicly on many occasions. President Masharif has been doing remarkable work and taking quite extraordinary personal and political risks. We believe that he is intent on the restoration of full democracy in Pakistan.
As to the question about the president's efforts to deal with terrorism, his record speaks for itself. President Masharif is governing a country that has a significant and strong view about Afghanistan. Large sections of Pakistan opinion seem to be at variance with what President Musharrat is doing and we should commend him for the courage and resolution with which he has been discharging his duties.
Sierra Leone, which was mentioned by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, is a remarkable success story for British diplomacy—more importantly, for the British Armed Forces. They are small in number but extremely professional and have brought about an improvement in that unhappy country that none of us would have been able to contemplate even a short while ago. Sierra Leone is a country where political activity once involved chopping off the limbs of small children.
I refuse to speculate on when our troops might be withdrawn. We hope that elections will come about in the reasonably near future. We must continue to give all appropriate support to Sierra Leone in its quest to recover any sort of internal stability.
I know of no distinct discussion about steel. I would not necessarily have expected there to have been such a discussion. There was of course discussion about global development generally.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, does in the mornings. I dare say that he does play with his computer. I am resisting any temptation to undo my cuff. That is all froth. It was amusing and enjoyable but in the context of the seriousness of the occasion, I wonder sometimes about the sense of proportion of my friends in the press. The noble Lord mischievously just encourages them.
The noble Baroness asked about Iraq. She said that before any steps are taken, she would look for some clear evidence. I repeat the Prime Minister's statement in the other place this afternoon that if there were any decisions to be made about Iraq—and I stress and repeat the Prime Minister's remark that no decision has been made—plainly Parliament would properly

313
look for the opportunity to reflect on any decisions that might be made. I repeat my right honourable friend's commitment to that.
Trade was of course discussed. I can confirm particularly that there was a very full discussion about the smaller Commonwealth states. The specific small state which is subject to the consequences of global warming and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred was a particular area of discussion.
I round off in this way, if I may, because I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, who has conscientiously and deliberately pursued these issues for a long time, has a full debate and I do not want to trespass on issues that will be developed and expanded. The meeting was not a failure; it was a disappointment. However, if one is in a co-operative club comprising more than 50 nations, one is never in a position to insist on one's own way on every occasion.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way, and I hope that he will forgive me for intervening. The point that I raised about the refugees and the opening of boundaries could be crucial to so many thousands of lives. I wonder whether he can say anything more about that before he concludes his reply.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was just coming to that issue, which is extremely important but also extremely delicate. The UNHCR has, obviously, a keen interest in the issue. On this occasion, I would prefer to say no more publicly about it than that. It is of course true that the neighbouring states have suffered quite grievously. Not only the citizens of Zimbabwe have suffered; South Africa also has suffered. I do not think that the recent catastrophic drop in the rand—which has partly recovered—was coincidental.
Such behaviour is monstrously irresponsible of a president of Zimbabwe who has had every opportunity of generous outside help, which has been offered time and again by governments of both parties in this country, to resolve the land problem and deal with internal problems. It is monstrously irresponsible of the president of a country that was a net exporter of maize but now has to look, scrabble around and beg for food for its own population. His irresponsibility is not confined to Zimbabwe. He has the potential to damage all the efforts which have been made so laboriously and so generously by the new Government in South Africa to try to create a country in which all are treated fairly.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that, if the Commonwealth is to have influence, it must act unanimously and after careful consideration? Will he perhaps point out to the shadow Leader of the House and to the Leader of the Opposition that the days of Britain acting alone and sending a gunboat up the Zambezi—or of summoning President Mugabe and telling him to do as he is told—
314
are long since passed? If we are to have any influence, it will only be by diplomacy and by working with the other countries of southern Africa.
Will my noble and learned friend also resist the temptation to fall for the line which is peddled at every election that, if President Mugabe wins, there will be a mass exodus of whites? Nothing can do more damage to the future of white Zimbabweans than stories that Britain is preparing for a mass exodus of refugees. The thought could be father to the wish. This is an extremely difficult situation, and to repeat rumours about a mass exodus, as has been done today, will do no one any good.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend speaks with enormous authority and experience, as he can say—he never does, but I shall—that for very many years he fought against apartheid in South Africa. So he does know what he is talking about. I agree with him that we cannot be the dictator in a co-operative club. If one tried to do that, it would be worse than a crime, it would be a blunder, because it would be wholly counterproductive. There has been diplomacy, and there is going to be—as the Prime Minister has announced, and repeated in Australia—the prospect of a new partnership of equals with Africa, so that we can properly contribute what we feel we ought generously to do.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, as one who has had the good fortune through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to meet several Zimbabwean Members of Parliament since 1982, may I ask the Leader of the House to confirm what I think he has already said—that an absolutely essential test of membership of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is to have, and to be seen to have, a properly and fairly elected democratic government? I fully note his comment that the elections in Zimbabwe have not yet happened, and I agree that no conclusions should be drawn until they have, but if their result is that Zimbabwe no longer meets that test, we should immediately call for its suspension from the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. If we do not, I believe that it will bring the Commonwealth's quality and purpose seriously into question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the fundamental principle that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has expressed—not forgetting, of course, that one cannot really have a free election without a free press. I would not want this occasion to pass without paying very full and very genuine tribute to the press in Zimbabwe, which has had its printing presses blown up and its editors and reporters attacked and threatened. Yet it has continued, in circumstances of such difficulty, danger and fear that we can hardly imagine, to play its part in what is or ought to have been a new democracy.
The mechanism has been established. I agree with the noble Lord that we ought to wait for the results of the election and collate such reports as are available

315
and we can rely on. I think that your Lordships know that President Mbeki, President Obasanjo and Prime Minister Howard are tasked to reach a view on the elections after they have happened. I stress, however—this is not the voice of complacency, weakness or lack of spine—that we need to be very cautious indeed about what we say at the moment. The risk that comes from loose language is not a risk that falls on us.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Statement mentioned help for the Caribbean countries in combating drugs and terrorism. Is the noble and learned Lord aware—I am sure that he is—that a statement was made today on the enormous increase in the number of people in our prisons, and that part of that growth is accounted for by the drug smugglers who are apprehended at Heathrow? I should perhaps add that smugglers are particularly well represented in the increase in the female prison population. Will the noble and learned Lord say a little more about how we intend to help Caribbean countries to combat the practice of smuggling drugs from their territories, and whether we could provide them with particular help based on our expertise in detecting drugs by the use of dogs and other technologies?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes, it was agreed that there should be a regional initiative in the Caribbean area. That is not new; when I was Attorney-General, I had close contact with the Attorneys-General in the Caribbean countries. We are always ready to offer expertise. I agree with the noble Lord that the key to the problem is not at Heathrow but is long before that. It is partly economic development and partly expertise in criminal investigation. It is also, significantly, expertise in money laundering. Thereafter, if there are convictions, it is asset seizure.
I found no difficulty at all in having very productive conversations with my opposite numbers in those countries. My noble friend Lady Amos tells me that her experience is exactly the same. I believe that we have to think laterally and get back to the heart of the problem. There is also very significant co-operation with both Canada and the United States in that area as they have particular interests for obvious reasons.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, if the Prime Minister was disappointed at the Commonwealth summit about Zimbabwe, was he nevertheless enthusiastic about the New Partnership for Africa's Development? If this initiative is to succeed, it must have the Commonwealth's full support. In my view, it is a typical Commonwealth project.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that question—that is the initiative to which I referred earlier, although rather too briefly, bearing in mind that there is going to be a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker. The noble Earl is quite right that this opportunity could be extremely significant. In a curious way—because of the disparate nature, history and origins of the Commonwealth countries—we have this opportunity
316
as an organisation distinct from the United Nations, though plainly in partnership with it, to bring about very significant change. The levels of poverty, deprivation, lack of education, poor health and HIV/ AIDS are disastrous. That is something to which the Prime Minister is personally committed, as your Lordships know.
It is interesting when one talks about the disparate nature of the Commonwealth to remind ourselves that Mozambique joined only recently. We have not had a similar historical connection with that country a s we have had with others, such as South Africa, Nigeria or Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe
6.40 p.m.
Lord Blakerrose to call attention to the present situation in Zimbabwe; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel very privileged to have the opportunity to open the debate. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for what he said about my interest in Zimbabwe.
We have had several debates on this subject in recent times, but none has been more timely than this one. The Commonwealth, as we would all agree, faces an extremely serious crisis that goes to its credibility, value and influence, all of which are at risk. The crisis has been developing for at least two years since the referendum which Mr Mugabe lost. That was followed by elections in 2000 that were marked by violence, intimidation and fraud, in which 35 members of the opposition were killed. That election was attended by several teams of international observers, all of whom returned critical reports.
That was followed by a visit from the International Bar Association, which sent an extremely high powered delegation of senior judges and lawyers, all of whom came from the Commonwealth except one who was from the United States. In their judgment the rule of law had been breached and democracy itself was in danger.
It is unfortunate that no country took any action to show the world's disapproval, apart from the United Kingdom, which withdrew the British military training team, although I do not think that that amounted to much more than a slap on the wrist in Mr Mugabe's view. In view of that inaction, is it surprising that the violence and intimidation in 2000 has turned into a real reign of terror, directed at all people of all races in Zimbabwe who are not supporters of ZANU-PF?
We are familiar with the sad litany of tortures, rapes, beatings and murders. There have been 150 murders of supporters of the MDC in the past two years—31 this year, which is one almost every second day. That is accompanied, naturally, by economic disaster, which has already been referred to, mass unemployment, inflation of more than 100 per cent, falling GDP and even shortages of food.

317
Mr Mugabe has at times promised free elections and then intensified the terror. He has said that observers can come freely from any source, but he now says that some cannot come. The Abuja agreement, to which his government agreed, he treated with contempt within a couple of weeks.
It is inconceivable that the elections can be free and fair. The whole state machine is directed to ensuring that they are not free and fair and the electoral system is being turned round for that purpose even this week. Yesterday Mr Mugabe issued an edict to reinstate laws to make vote rigging easier and to restrict scrutiny by election monitors of voting and the counting of votes. The law that he reinstated by edict was struck out last week by the Supreme Court because it had been rushed through Parliament illegally.
Postal votes are available only to the army and the police. Mr Mugabe's henchmen are seizing the identity cards from people who are not supporters of ZANU-PF and, of course, without such cards they cannot vote. The army, which has its hands on the diamonds and the timber of the Congo, along with Mr Mugabe himself, has said that it will not accept the result unless Mr Mugabe is declared the winner. It has the support of the Registrar General, curiously enough, the returning officer for the election, who said something similar. The object of all this is that were Mr Mugabe to lose the election he would at least win the vote.
On 7th March last year—coincidentally almost exactly a year ago—we on this side of the House complained about the Government's lack of action. We had complained before, but we made a particular point of it in that debate. The lack of action continued almost to the end of 2001. Late in the year, the Government proposed smart sanctions and it was only on 8th January this year that the Foreign Secretary talked about suspension. For two years the Government have shown a striking lack of grip on this problem. They have woken up almost two years too late, and the delay has helped to lead to the crisis that we are now facing. It has allowed Mr Mugabe to think that he could step up the campaign of terror with impunity.
There has also been an extraordinary failure on the part of the Commonwealth to take action under the declaration on terrorism. It was first made not at Coolum but on 25th October last year. It says that any country that has anything to do with terrorism, including instigating terrorism,
"should have no place in the Commonwealth".
If what is happening in Zimbabwe is not terrorism, what is it?
I was interested in the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who I am sorry to say is not in her place, on 13th February. She asked whether the Minister was aware,
"as I understand from sources about which I have informed the Foreign Secretary—that President Mugabe's government now regard the threats from the EU and the Commonwealth as empty hot air".—[Official Report, 13/2/02; col. 1096.]
318
It is puzzling why the Government have remained inactive for so long and until very recently. Did they persuade themselves that for the United Kingdom to speak out or to act would give Mr Mugabe the opportunity to attack us for trying to reimpose colonialism? The reality is that Mr Mugabe was attacking us anyway, even when we were doing nothing about which he could reasonably complain. The Government have had the worst of both worlds. My information is that Zimbabweans in general do not take Mr Mugabe's allegations about this country's post-colonial activities or intentions at all seriously. If Her Majesty's Government had rallied the European Union to act earlier and with us, is it not possible that that might have reduced the number of beatings, rapes, murders and torture that has occurred? It might possibly even have discouraged such blatant rigging of the election, at least to some extent. I wonder whether the Government's hesitancy is due to the party's post-colonial guilt.
It is a great sadness that Mr Thabo Mbeki, who could have had a decisive influence in this matter, has not exercised it as he might have done. South Africa's hand is on the jugular of Zimbabwe, by reasons of geography. Mr Mbeki has expressed criticism from time to time but then in the next breath he criticises those who criticise Mr Mugabe. I find his lukewarm attitude a puzzle. As has already been said, the situation is doing enormous damage to South Africa's economy. The rand has plunged; investment is slumping; and there are millions of refugees from Zimbabwe in South Africa. Those problems are hitting the whole of southern Africa. It is a puzzle why Mr Mbeki does not condemn the man who has dealt a serious blow to the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which Mr Mbeki himself did so much to promote.
The Government's main proposal at Coolum was the suspension of Zimbabwe. That suspension, as we know, was not accepted. I suspect that that was partly because some of the heads of government were reluctant to vote against a man whom they regard as an African hero of the liberation struggle—I mean Mr Mugabe. That is how they would express it. Could some of their reluctance be due to nervousness of setting a precedent which might be relevant in other areas? It is interesting that the principal African spokesmen who have spoken out against Mr Mugabe are Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Tutu, who rather charmingly described Mr Mugabe as "bonkers", and Kofi Annan, whom such a precedent would not affect.
There is no doubt that the Government got their timing wrong as regards the proposal for suspension. Mr Mugabe had cleverly arranged for the election to be held just after the heads of government meeting. It is clear that significant numbers of the heads of government felt that it was inappropriate to suspend a member country a few days before an election to be observed by teams of observers including Commonwealth observers. If you say that the accused is guilty before the trial, why do you need a trial?

319
I believe that the Government could have usefully proposed something like the Canadian proposal—I believe that is where it came from—that the three heads of government should form a committee after the election results have been judged by the observers and decide what steps should be taken. Or, could not the Government have put a proposal to the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group which now has power to suspend or reinstate countries? Could they not have chosen some more appropriate time than the week before an election to make their proposal?
Noble Lords will wish the noble Baroness who is to reply to say—I too congratulate her on the role she has played—what teams of observers, so far as she can tell, are expected to be in Zimbabwe, how many Mr Mugabe has agreed to accept, how long they will be there and where they will come from. I hope that she will say something more about the composition and the timetable of the Commonwealth observer team on whose report the three heads of government will make their decision.
The principles of the Commonwealth as stated in the Harare Declaration of 1991 include the following words:
"The individual's inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which he or she lives".
It further states that the principles include,
"the rule of law and independence of the judiciary … fundamental human rights including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief".
Zimbabwe is miles away from approaching those principles. If Mr Mugabe is declared to have won and the election is not free and fair, and the Commonwealth does not take firm action, I pose the following questions. First, what will be the prospects for the New Partnership for Africa's Development, to which so many governments rightly attach importance? Walter Kansteiner, the assistant Secretary of State at the State Department in Washington, recently said—I believe rightly—
"The road to NePAD lies through Harare".
That is worth thinking through. Secondly, in the situation I have described, what will the Commonwealth be worth? I beg to move for Papers.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, on raising this topic. However, I have to say that I did not agree with him when he said that the debate was timely. I had looked forward to hearing what he had to say, especially as regards the future. However, I regret that what I heard was a rehash of every debate we have had on Zimbabwe over the past 18 months to two years; that is, comments on sanctions on Zimbabwe and expelling Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth full stop.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition in this House, complained that we had spent too much time trying to influence the position by discussion and debate. How else are we to influence what happens in Zimbabwe? I happen to think that the
320
situation in Zimbabwe is extremely dangerous and is likely to become more so. I do not think that anything we say in advance of the weekend's elections will make one wit of difference to the outcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said again that he wanted sanctions. At every meeting I have attended with the Movement for Democratic Change—as have many other noble Lords—and with the most recent delegations from Zimbabwe of what I believe is called the civil crisis committee, every member of those delegations has said, "Please, we do not want sanctions. What we want are discussions and the opportunity to go ahead and win the election". We cannot act unilaterally against the wishes of those people in Zimbabwe. We either believe that the Movement for Democratic Change is a valid organisation, that the crisis committee, which represents the civic organisations of Zimbabwe, is telling us the truth or we simply say, "Look, we in London know best. We do not care what you say. We know best". There is a hint of that running through our discussions.
In discussion on the Statement there was mention of a mass flight of white refugees from Zimbabwe. I was in Zimbabwe at the time of the independence celebrations. At that time you could not get a flight out of Zimbabwe for three months. They were solidly booked for three months. I went to the airport, having pulled every string to get back to the House of Commons for a three-line Whip and having been told that there was no possibility of getting a flight as they were solidly booked. There was a huge waiting list and I was 420th on the list for a flight out of Harare. However, I got on the plane and discovered that it was one-third full. People naturally in those circumstances will hedge their bets. To blow the matter out of proportion does no one any good.
The situation is clear. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe and that every attempt has been made to achieve a particular result. One reads in the press that no one knows how many polling stations there will he or who is on the electoral roll. Of course, that situation is serious. Still the MDC believes that it has an opportunity to win the election. We are in grave danger of reaching a position where we have decided that we know what the result of the election will be and we shall not accept it. We shall not accept the result of the election in Zimbabwe unless Morgan Tsvangirai wins it. What shall we do if the observers in Zimbabwe say, "Yes, there was violence. Yes, there was intimidation. Mr Mugabe has won the election, but despite all the defects in the election it is a valid result"? What shall we do then? Shall we send in a gunboat?
The Leader of the Opposition in the Commons got close to saying that the Americans, the European Union and Britain should take all necessary steps to sort out the situation in Zimbabwe. What does he mean? Does he mean sending in troops? Is that what he has in mind? If that is the position which is to be espoused, either overtly or tacitly, how on earth do we expect the countries in the region to listen to us and to take positive action?

321
If the election is "won"—I put that in inverted commas—by President Mugabe, and if something has to be done to get him to accept the result, I believe that the only people who can bring that about are the countries close to hand—the people of South Africa, the people of Namibia and the people of Mozambique. Sam Nujoma, the President of Namibia and Thabo Mbeki go back a long way as regards the liberation struggle, but we have to get them on our side. We have to get them to work with us. I detect that the whole issue of Zimbabwe, serious though it is, is being grossly magnified. I say "grossly magnified" in the following sense. I understand that people who appear on television and in radio programmes are pushed into taking stances and are not really certain of what they have said. For example, the foreign affairs spokesperson of the MDC has said that if President Mugabe steals that body's election win there will be a bloodbath.
One of the senior MDC spokesmen in Harare was recently reported in The Times as having said,
"If President Mugabe steals our election win, we cannot hold back the people".
I hope that is not the case. Africa is littered with the bodies of innocents who have suffered because election results have not been accepted. It would be extremely dangerous for us to paint a picture of absolute chaos and mayhem on an extravagant scale.
I certainly have no optimism as to what the future may hold. However, I say that President Mugabe has an awesome responsibility, especially if he loses the election, to accept the result. It may be that steps will need to be taken in discussions to put in place some sort of transitional government to bring about a change. Whatever the outcome of the election, it is certain that Zimbabwe will need an enormous amount of help. In that regard, there is perhaps a case to be made for a carrot and stick.
Instead of being wholly condemnatory of ZANU-PF and instead of saying that everything is black and white, that there will never be an acceptable result and that we are bound to have confusion and army rule, we should perhaps use carefully-chosen words to indicate that we are dealing with a volatile situation and are prepared to act with the people of Zimbabwe and the people of South Africa to bring about the change that is necessary and an acceptance of the result, whatever it may be. Otherwise, I fear that we would be excluded from influence, and that would be the most dangerous position of all.
7.2 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that it would be a very sad position for Britain to lose its influence. However, I found the rest of his speech very much at odds with the words already spoken by the Prime Minister and with the Statement repeated earlier today. The Prime Minister struck a very much more robust tone about Mr Mugabe than did the noble Lord. I again declare my interest, having a member of my family in Zimbabwe.
322
I begin with a note of criticism of the noble Baroness. Although she has done an amazing amount of hard work, when her feet return to the ground in this country, will she please provide Written Answers to some of the questions that I have posed? It is almost impossible to prepare for a debate such as today's without having those answers.
I speak with sadness for the people of Zimbabwe, some of whom have been incredibly courageous and have put their lives on the line in order to make a stand for democracy.
Let us consider briefly the rural workers. The Commercial Farmers' Union has conducted a survey of 1,862 farms, which indicates that permanent workers employed by its members on 1st January 2001 and 31st December 2001 totalled 119,304 and 105,164 respectively. During the year the total number of that category of workers decreased by nearly 12 per cent. Farmers employ seasonal workers who usually reside in close proximity to the farms. The survey indicated an 18.5 per cent reduction in the number employed in that category, 21,240 people having been affected. The number of workers retrenched over the same period totalled 23,951. The survey revealed that the number of workers forced off respondents' farms amounted to 12,027. It was also interesting to note that the number of workers allocated resettlement plots on respondents' properties totalled 2,601, which is roughly two per cent of the permanent labour force. The remainder have been disenfranchised, and yesterday's decrees imposed by President Mugabe only create a greater number of people without votes. My noble friend Lord Blaker and I believe that that confirms what we had already surmised—that the election is rigged to the best of Mr Mugabe's ability.
I turn to the young children of Zimbabwe and give an example of a recent event at Lilfordia School, when it staged its annual Three Woods cross-country meeting. The 650 mixed-rate athletes were in their running kits when the mob turned up. They were disturbed by the number of adults. There was a mini-invasion force comprising elements of the police, the army, the CIO and the War Veterans' Association. They came to the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the cross-country meeting of those young children had been an elaborate cover for a political rally. They further added that the cricket and tennis matches that had been played that morning had also been a ploy to disguise another such meeting. A lady spokesperson for the War Veterans' Association told the school that the local police must be forewarned of any functions taking place at Lilfordia, which would be likely to attract adult attendance, and that all visitors to the school must be specifically directed not to wave with open hands to people on the roadside during the course of their journey. What a terrible example to set for young children.
It is not surprising that some young children who have been subjected to that sort of interference in their education have turned out to be youths for whom, with unemployment at 60 per cent, inflation at 116 per cent and roughly 500,000 people at risk of starvation, joining a terror team and meting out extortion,

323
intimidation and violence against anyone one chooses could be an attractive option in life. There appears to he nothing to lose. There can be no doubt that Mugabe has engendered a climate of fear and terror. It has happened previously; in the mid-1980s he murdered over 10,000 of the Ndebele tribe. There has been terror at every election, but this one is worse than usual.
Even if Morgan Tsvangirai wins, the future is bleak. The economy is in tatters, debt is mounting, and the armed forces seem loyal to Mugabe. If he wins, Morgan Tsvangirai will have much to prove. Let us not forget history. Frederick Chibula of Zambia, another charismatic Labour leader, like Mr Tsvangirai, promised a liberal economy and democracy but was breathtakingly corrupt when he came to power. If Mugabe wins, may we expect another Tiananmen Square? I fear that Mr Mugabe has led us all a merry dance for far too long.
We cannot dictate what he should do, and we are in no position to do so. The European Union has finally invoked smart sanctions, advocated by some of us for many months before the Government finally realised that that was the right step to take. Will the noble Baroness say how much has been seized in this country? Has Mr Mugabe's property, a house in London and, allegedly, an estate in Scotland been seized? How much money has left the United Kingdom from those being targeted with those smart sanctions since the announcement?
I turn briefly to the Commonwealth conference. It was a real disaster that the Commonwealth did not act. I understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Blaker that the timing of the election this weekend made it very difficult for some. However, it appears that the Commonwealth is prepared to take action against every non-African country but fudges the issue so far as Africa is concerned. As a result, it has lost much credibility, and, unless the troika act, if Mr Mugabe wins and the observers say that there has been unfair intimidation, it will lose all credibility. When will the troika of the three wise men meet, will they have to report to the heads of government, and when will action be taken?
I turn briefly to the media. Will the noble Baroness tell us what support the Government are giving to SW Radio Africa, which, in the few weeks it has been on air, has received much commendation for its impartial and precise service?
These are difficult times for the Zimbabweans. Our hearts go out to them this coming weekend. They are under huge pressure from a bully, a thug, who has used intimidation, terror and violence mercilessly to try to achieve his own ends. We have no European Union observers there; we have to wait for the reports of other people. Let us hope for better times for Zimbabwe.
7.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in expressing real fellow feeling for and sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in view of the danger of his family being immediately involved in the crisis.
324
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, to whom I am grateful for initiating this debate, quoted the American diplomat who asked: will the future of NePAD need to go through Harare? Whether or not it goes through Harare, it will certainly have to go beyond Harare. What do I mean?
As has already been mentioned in the Statement repeated by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and as mentioned by other noble Lords, last month—this is well known from the press— the British Prime Minister visited west Africa in order to support a document known as the New Partnership for Africa's Development, or NePAD. I understand that that deal has emerged slowly over the past two years. I also understand that it was with discreet British help that South Africa took the lead in drafting that document. Nigeria and Algeria supported it and, last year, the deal was presented—I gather with success—to the African Union. That new partnership for African development commits African leaders to better governance, stopping the continent's wars, spending less on guns, spending more on education and health, allowing the free market and private enterprise to flourish, fighting corruption, inspecting human rights and holding free and fair elections.
In an important article that recently appeared in the Tablet, the writer points out that those commitments have now become African commitments, signed up to by some 16 governments. The further message that the Prime Minister took to Africa, in the context of that document, was that if those commitments are carried out in future—and in the present—he will seek to persuade the other leaders of the G8 countries to give Africa a better deal on aid, debt relief and access to markets.
I am trying to look beyond Harare, not simply at it. The same writer in the Tablet also wrote:
"The best thing about Blair's vision for Africa is that it leaves Africa's destiny in Africa's hands".
There has been very welcome talk not so much about aid to Africa as about investment in Africa. The writer then added the punchline:
"But if Mugabe wins, solidarity among Africa's rulers will have prevailed over democracy and human rights. Mr Blair will be left looking foolish and humiliated by his African allies"
Dare I briefly offer a different conclusion? Whatever the outcome of the present crisis in Zimbabwe, I urge the Government, with respect, to continue to hold fast to the kind of vision that NePAD represents—a New Partnership for Africa's Development, which already involves 16 African nations. That is why I am encouraged by the fact that today's newspapers report that the Prime Minister is still saying, even in the face of this crisis, "I am passionate about helping Africa".
More than 20 years ago, I witnessed some of Uganda's darkest hours. I lived there. I have just returned from a Uganda in which primary school enrolment is up from 2.9 million to 6.5 million, in which clinics and health centres are steadily expanding into rural areas—I visited one in Mitiyana—and in which there has been, for two years now, a steady and consistent drop in the number of recorded AIDS

325
infections. Dare I say, both to the British and French Governments, who are behind NePAD, "Go on being passionate about helping Africa"? Take heart. If Uganda can emerge from chaos, so even can Zimbabwe. I offer an old African proverb, which—I translate—puts the matter this way:
"The person who perseveres slowly will win the prize".
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for initiating this important debate. I, too, declare an interest: I have family in Zimbabwe. I also have many friends, black and white—the black ones date back to the days of resistance.
Time is running out. We are about to be faced, in Zimbabwe, with one of two equally critical and dangerous situations. In one, Mugabe, having disqualified voters, rigged the ballot and terrorised the population, will win or will claim to have done so. There are no EU observers and, for reasons of face, the African members of the Commonwealth will probably recognise his victory. No one will wait for the Commonwealth observers—still pitifully few—to report whatever they find. The ZANU-PF strategy has all along been to rig the election and then negotiate with the international community for recognition. But it will also feel free to destroy what remains of the opposition, who will be left to its mercy, and the people of Zimbabwe know that. They remember the 11,000 people—his political rivals—who Mugabe slaughtered in Matabeleland after he came to power, using the notorious North Korean trained Fifth Brigade. The world did nothing then. The people may feel, with justice, that unless they challenge Mugabe at once they are lost. They can expect nothing but a tightening of the chains. There may therefore be a serious deterioration in the security situation, if not outright civil war.
The other possibility—miracles do happen—is that the MDC wins. In that case, however, Mugabe, having bought the army, may declare martial law. The military leaders have already said that they will not accept anything but a verdict for Mugabe. Either way, I fear that we must expect some degree of serious disorder, civil disturbances and—certainly—social and economic collapse. The country is only just holding on. There will be refugees and there will be famine, and that will immediately affect the stability of at least five other African countries. There is now a widespread famine in Malawi, attributed largely to the fact that no maize is coming from Zimbabwe, which was hitherto the breadbasket of the area, and which itself will soon be starving because the regime's brave young veterans have been for the past year burning the maize crops and forbidding farmers to plant. The press is at last reporting on the true situation and is leaving us in no doubt of the monstrous nature of Mugabe's regime. That is killing for good, I hope, the comforting notion, so long held by many in this country, that this is all about a handful of white farmers sitting on land, and therefore something which, for fear of seeming
326
colonialist, we can ignore and treat—in the famous phrase of a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, speaking of paramilitary violence against their own community—as "a little domestic housekeeping". What is happening in Zimbabwe is far more like Hitler's unchecked proceedings in Europe—unchecked because everyone so badly wanted to believe him when he said that each awful act was to be the last. Abuja was Mugabe's Munich—and ours.
The British Government have, at long last—thanks to the courage and the clear-sighted approach of the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth conference, which I welcome most warmly—recognised publicly that there is a terrible and immediate threat to the whole of southern Africa and that there must be action. He will have realised through his recent travels in Africa that the continent is a seamless robe. The fate of the DRC, with its boundless riches, its chaotic violence and its power to destabilise, is linked to Angola and Zimbabwe as well as to the Great Lakes and Uganda. Many of the international crooks, diamond smugglers and money launderers who work for Kabila and Mugabe also work for Al'Qaeda. The same arms dealers work for Zimbabwe and the Taliban. Mugabe's pillage of his country's assets has been on a far greater scale than that of Milosevic.
One of the most powerful figures in Africa today is President Gaddafi of Libya. Only too many African heads of state have been subsidised by him. He has a considerable voice in the OAU and calls himself the head of the so-called African Union. It is he who has made Mugabe significant loans to buy fuel, has sent him Libyan advisers and has been given land, control of various Zimbabwean enterprises and, not least, substantial numbers of Zimbabwean passports. Gaddafi's influence on South African policy also cannot be discounted. The ANC has a debt of honour to Libya for support and training in the days of its exile. Libya was the first country that President Mandela visited. Perhaps it is not too late for Gaddafi to be discreetly enlisted as the one man who could influence Mugabe to settle for a peaceful withdrawal: after all, we have given him plenty of time to move his money and evade the so-called "smart sanctions".
The world must act now. I am not asking for sanctions. I say that it is useless to wait for a supine Commonwealth, whose only test for membership appears to be free and fair elections, to declare that perhaps all was not quite right but go on to say that, as there is now a new elected government in Zimbabwe, we should all do business with it. If we end up with Mugabe and his cronies back in power, it will be relatively pointless to curtail their shopping trips and close a few doors to a few individuals.
Under Mugabe, this is, and will be, a terrorist regime, which brings in the North Koreans and the Libyans to help them to murder and to plunder their own citizens. But it is not only that. By its destruction of one of the few viable and flourishing economies in the area, by its extensive illegal international fiscal and economic operations, by its destabilisation of the whole of southern Africa, with repercussions northwards as far as Malawi, the DRC and Angola, it

327
can bring down most of the continent. The country that will suffer most and which holds out, with Zimbabwe until recently, the best hope of prosperity and stability for so many, is South Africa. We must work with the Americans now, with the EU and with the World Bank to bring the African countries, especially South Africa, to understand the danger and see Mugabe not simply as a fellow African leader but as a serious threat to their own survival. They have not yet understood this, and they are sticking their heads in the sand. I fear that we should not consider them only as representatives of their peoples; they are also representatives of their own personal interests.
I urge the Government to think not only of the impending humanitarian crisis, for which I am sure they are well prepared, but of the need to prevent the economic collapse of much of the continent. We cannot wait for the Commonwealth and the EU and there has been a loud silence from the UN, apart from Kofi Annan, despite the UNDP's active part in the donors' conference of 1998. It is vital that we give heart now to the MDC to show it that Zimbabwe is not going to be abandoned the day after the election, whichever way it goes. This is a country which, apart from Mugabe, has long forgotten race. They are all Zimbabweans, as the Prime Minister has recognised. They have the common aim of restoring their country to peace and prosperity. That will include some land reform, but with the aim of enabling more black Zimbabweans to operate commercially viable farms rather than subsistence farming. This has long been the policy of the farmers themselves. Mugabe has preferred looting and destruction.
I repeat that we must act now before the election, not after it, to build a coalition of the willing with the African states so that Zimbabwe can regain its freedom. We must persuade them that it is in their best interests to recognise that the economic collapse of a neighbour will also destroy them in the end. Moreover, state terrorism has a habit of spilling over frontiers. Not least, we must be seen to offer sanctuary, especially in the first dangerous days. We must not send Zimbabwe citizens back. I hope that the Minister will give the House an assurance on that.
7.23 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for introducing this most topical debate appropriately between the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and the forthcoming presidential election this weekend. Rather than repeat the many points that I and other noble Lords made during the previous debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth.. I should like to share some of my observations after a recent trip to South Africa, from which I returned last week.
I was fortunate enough to meet a number of Zimbabwean businessmen, trade union leaders and politicians, including several previous Ministers of President Mugabe's cabinet, as well as a number of farmers. In addition, I was able to meet a number of leading journalists in South Africa. As the noble Lord,
328
Lord Hughes, said, I believe that it is vital that the future of Zimbabwe is to a large degree dictated by the countries in southern Africa.
I should like to eat my words as regards one of the comments I made in my previous speech. I said then that, in my opinion, this forthcoming election would be a non-event and that, if President Mugabe were re-elected, there would inevitably be civil war in Zimbabwe. I do not believe that to be the case. I should like to outline some of the reasons why I have reached that conclusion. Clearly, the elections will neither be free nor fair. It is inevitable that they will be rigged and, as much as possible, rigged to favour President Mugabe being re-elected.
I turn to the opinion of many very-informed insiders both in South Africa and in Zimbabwe, including Dennis Norman, who is known by several noble Lords. He was the Minister responsible for agriculture in President Mugabe's cabinet just seven years ago. He believes that the MDC will win. Further, in his view, the MDC will get over 75 per cent of the vote. He says that it is highly unlikely that Morgan Tsvangirai will be declared the winner. He believes that the best result from a rigged election would be a government of national unity in which he believes the natural heir apparent is Simba Makoni, the current Minister of Finance—or, perhaps I should say the current Minister without Finance—in Zimbabwe. In his opinion, President Mugabe will be phased out within a three to six-month period.
The problem is not just about President Mugabe; it is more about his so-called "cronies", who head up the military, the police and the civil service. For decades, they have been plundering and pillaging the country's rich resources. They are scared of having the many skeletons in the cupboard exposed. Moreover, the problem is not just about land reform—I was pleased to note that, in his Statement on the Commonwealth Head of Government meeting, the Prime Minister confirmed that Her Majesty's Government are committed to land reform in Zimbabwe—it is more a matter of corruption and misinformation.
The real problem is food. Whoever wins the forthcoming election will be faced with a massive food crisis, which is unlikely to be alleviated within a 12 to 18-month period, even in the best case scenario. Despite the Zimbabwe Government's assurances, the country is almost out of food. When I say "food", I mean that there is no milk, no sugar and certainly no eggs. If Mugabe loses and declares himself to be a winner, I say that there will be a double crisis. However, if the MDC wins, Zimbabwe will be less politically stable and still faced with a food crisis.
President Thabo Mbeki's preferred option is similar to that of Dennis Norman; namely, a government of national unity. Even though Mbeki has been more outspoken over the past few months, there is no doubt that South Africa's policy of quiet diplomacy has not worked. But South Africa needs a stable neighbour and certainly fears a massive influx of Zimbabweans into the country. It is estimated—this is an arguable figure—that there are almost 2 to 3 million

329
Zimbabweans in South Africa today. That equates to almost 15 per cent of the Zimbabwe electorate. Most of those people would naturally vote MDC, and almost all of them have been disqualified from voting in the forthcoming election.
Of the eight recognised election observer missions, two are from South Africa—one representing the business community and the other representing politicians from all political parties. There are also two missions from SADC, including a representation of the Church missions. It is well known that these observer missions are almost powerless: they came too late, and, to a large degree, are now being obstructed by government officials and youth brigades from effectively monitoring the run-up to this weekend's elections.
In my opinion Mugabe is gripped by paranoia. He knows that he is likely to lose and I believe that he is looking for an escape route. His trumped-up charges of treason against Morgan Tsvangirai and senior members of the MDC are farcical. Furthermore, his claims that the MDC stands for recolonising Zimbabwe backed by Britain and the US are equally ludicrous. He thought that he would have enough food and, through intimidation, would bribe and force the people of Zimbabwe to vote ZANU-PF. That has backfired on him. The reality is that he is in panic mode.
However, apart from the state-sponsored violence, what concerns me is that the state-controlled television and radio are the only source of news for most of the rural population and are presenting Mr Mugabe as a liberation hero and Mr Tsvangirai as a terrorist and a tea boy for the country's whites and for European powers.
I have always advocated African solutions for African problems. There is no doubt that the recently-announced EU smart sanctions have been effective and a smart move, in that they have managed to split much of the Zimbabwe cabinet. What is critical now is that the international community, not just the Commonwealth, needs a co-ordinated action plan against Zimbabwe if the elections are proven not to have been free and fair.
I was not surprised that there were no sanctions imposed at the recent Commonwealth meeting. Southern Africa is going through momentous times, the big issues being Zimbabwe, Angola, the DRC and AIDS. With the recent death of Jonas Savimbi in Angola, this may be the catalyst for ending the 27-year stalemate in Angola. I sincerely believe that now Mr Mugabe's 22-year rule is coming to an end. We live in hope.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Blaker that it is inconceivable that the Zimbabwe elections can be free and fair. Despite the presence of foreign observers—not nearly enough—Mr Mugabe is blatantly rigging the electoral process using the police, the army, the judicial system
330
and the national press. Horrific human rights abuses continue to be perpetrated against members of the opposition, with Mugabe's thugs roaming the countryside, beating and torturing anyone whose allegiance to the 78 year-old despot is in question. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, it is a volatile situation.
Some Commonwealth governments have behaved strangely, to say the least, during these awful events. I believe that the Commonwealth will now have to ask itself a number of difficult questions. Sadly, the perception is that Commonwealth leaders, particularly some African statesmen, are condoning these heinous crimes. We witnessed their support of President Mugabe at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Australia. Do they really believe in democracy? What kind of message is that sending to Mr Mugabe? Why is a statesman such as President Obasanjo of Nigeria failing to speak out against President Mugabe when he, himself, was incarcerated in his own country by a despotic regime which was renowned for its human rights atrocities? As my noble friend Lord Blaker said, it is a puzzle that President Mbeki of South Africa chose to remain silent on the crimes being committed in Zimbabwe when he knows that it is his country which will pay the highest price for siding with Mr Mugabe. What will he do with thousands of starving Zimbabwean refugees flooding over the border into South Africa? What will he say to his electorate when Zimbabweans take South African jobs?
I welcome the Minister back from Australia and congratulate her on her important role. From her experiences there, can she give the House any insight into why some African statesmen club together to oppose the pressure from democratic countries in the West when they question Zimbabwe's good governance record?
Those statesmen happily propose Africa joining the global economy by asking for support for initiatives such as the NePAD, led primarily by Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo. Do they not see that in order for the West to support those kind of initiatives, it is necessary to adhere to good governance and democratic principles?
In January, SADC's heads of state in Malawi also issued a statement of solidarity with the Zimbabwean president; a man who is responsible for the terrible killings in Matabeleland in the 1980s, let alone the killing of hundreds of opposition supporters in the run-up to this election. They want African problems to be resolved by Africans, as Jonathan Moyo, Zimbabwe's infamous Minister of Information, reminded us in Australia where he also told our Prime Minister to "shut up".
That is the same man who is being investigated by the FBI for fraud after he misappropriated funds belonging to the Ford Foundation in Kenya. He not only had to leave Nairobi in a hurry, but soon after also Johannesburg, where he had been accused of similar misdemeanours when working at a university.

331
He then sought the refuge of Mugabe's patronage and turned from being one of his fiercest critics into one of his most loyal lieutenants.
Mr Moyo is also responsible for the draconian Access to Information Bill, which he recently tried to bulldoze through the Zimbabwean Parliament to block independent and foreign journalists from witnessing the horrific violence being perpetrated on the ground. The Act was an attempt to play out his personal vendetta with the independent media, in particular those papers which have highlighted his fraudulent activity, such as the Daily News and the Zimbabwe Standard. For all his efforts in destroying press freedom in Zimbabwe, Mr Moyo has now been given a huge property in the Eastern Highlands, one of the country's leading tourist areas.
I mention that because here is a perfect illustration of genuine African problems: corruption and a general disregard for democratic principles. If Africa wants to become part of the global economy, it must show the same respect for the principles that govern other countries in the global village. Walter Kansteiner, US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, understood the regional consequences of the meltdown of Zimbabwe when he pointed out that the road to NePAD is through Harare.
The way in which Mr Mugabe's regime has toyed with international opinion and organisations leads me, I am afraid, to the conclusion that the ability to provide financial aid and support is one of the few remaining bargaining chips we have with governments of that ilk. We must now make it clear that the kind of aid anticipated by NePAD is dependent on recipient governments demonstrating a return to good governance and an acceptance of the will of democracy. Clearly, we must ensure as much as possible that aid reaches those innocent people most in need without being commandeered by government militia.
It is imperative that we send the strongest possible signal to the SADC countries that they should take action against the man who threatens to plunge the entire region into a catastrophic economic and political meltdown. All democratic nations have a responsibility to try and preserve democracy wherever it is threatened.
7.40 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, who has done us a service in persistently raising this issue. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord St John for alerting Cross-Bench Peers in particular last week to this very worrying aspect of the crisis; namely, the food shortages that he has already mentioned.
It is well known that food shortages are becoming so critical that the word "famine" is no longer being used casually. The UN has estimated that over half a million face severe hunger as food stocks are exhausted. Months of drought have left parched fields in many areas, especially in Matabeleland.
332
This crisis affects the entire southern African region, although South Africa still has surpluses. The World Food Programme says that it is currently feeding 2.4 million in the region as a whole, more than half of them in Zambia, and the numbers could easily rise if the April harvest is as poor as forecast.
Since the World Food Programme was stepped up in Zimbabwe in October, the general food supply situation has worsened considerably, with many families unable to purchase maize, cooking oil, sugar, beans and other basic commodities. To date, the WFP has not received the level of financial assistance required to run its operation. It has been able to source only some 25 per cent of what it asked for. I hope that the Minister will comment not only on the UK contribution to the World Food Programme, but the extent to which she believes that the international community outside Zimbabwe is aware of the impending crisis.
Currently maize stocks are dangerously low. I understand that Zimbabwe has a national requirement of between 150,000 and 200,000 tonnes of maize a month but that the Government have so far purchased only 20,000 tonnes for the coming month. Lack of transport and foreign exchange and other demands on South Africa make it unlikely that regional capacity can match either this schedule or the expected demand.
Food shortages have also had a negative impact on the work of the NGOs, such as the Save the Children Fund. Its interventions often depend on people's ability to purchase food which is now unavailable. Meanwhile, the price of maize has doubled from 22 Zimbabwean dollars per kilo last October to 44 Zimbabwean dollars in February, forcing thousands more into emergency feeding programmes.
Two weeks ago the WFP and World Vision began distributing one month's ration of maize meal in Gwanda district, which is one of the worse hit areas of Matabeleland. However, this and other distributions have been suspended during the election period because of the obvious risks of violence and political interference. Food has already been an insidious weapon for the Government, as we know. Relief workers with Christian Care, which is Christian Aid's main partner in Zimbabwe, have been attacked simply for not carrying ZANU-PF cards. There were similar attacks in Bulawayo this week. The vicious tactics of the war veterans, in particular in the Chinhoyi area north of Harare, are reported in today's Guardian.
Whatever people's views on the land issue, few believe that the drought is the main cause of food shortages when the economy, as we have heard, is in ruins, inflation is over 100 per cent and so much havoc has been wrought among commercial farms. One tragedy, in my view, of Zimbabwe's redistribution land programme—which is an issue for a separate debate—is that there was never any provision to enable the farmers who had been resettled to grow feed on that land. Many of those who have been assisted by the white farmers are branded as collaborators.
The farm workers on commercial estates are often left out of account. One area of concern to NGOs in relation to the list of beneficiaries from the UN is that

333
the commercial farm workers, despite their vulnerability and marginalisation, have not been included as recipients of food aid. A recent survey estimated that 70,000 farm workers, or one-quarter of the total employed, have been displaced by attacks on the farms. Many of these will have been further harassed by ZANU-PF, not surprisingly, for attending MDC rallies or sympathising with the opposition. I was horrified to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said on that subject.
A recent e-mail from Cathy Buckle, one of the victims of the land seizures two years ago, paints in the scene in Maschonaland East, which is a contested area east of Harare. She said:
"This entire week there has been no cooking oil, milk or refined maize meal in Marondera. The queue outside our town's Grain Marketing Depot was 250 strong on Monday morning. It took two of my friends 5 hours to get to the front of the line where they had to fill in a form with all their personal details before they were allowed to buy a 50kg bag of unground maize.
A couple of days later there was no queue as the grain had completely run out and the government helicopters clattered overhead, taking the President to political rallies in Manicaland".
Some aid agencies are concerned that the country, let alone being able to recover its lost food surpluses, no longer has the capacity to mount the kind of relief operation which was carried out, for example, during the drought of 1992–93. There is an urgent need to begin planning for such a contingency.
The logistics, procurement and distribution mechanisms have still not been worked out. The NGOs, the UN and other donors, local authorities and relevant government departments need to come together now if Zimbabwe is to avoid widespread starvation later this year. Can the noble Baroness say to what extent her department is prepared and has begun to plan for such a calamity?
Children are of course especially at risk. I know that the DfID is already in close contact with the specialised NGOs and is supporting a supplementary feeding programme. Can the noble Baroness give an assurance that targeted sanctions will in no way impede the work of NGOs or the process of food distribution?
I am sorry about my cough, but I have sought to present a picture of the impending food crisis, regardless of the political outcome, since it will be a major concern over the coming months at the very least. It is, of course, a supreme irony, as my noble friend has already said, that if Mr Mugabe does not win, his successors will be landed with a crisis they may be unable to manage; while if he does win, the Government's present inability to cope will simply be compounded.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, on his persistence in raising this matter over the last few months and on the timing of the debate, even though,
334
as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has pointed out to us, nothing we say in this debate will alter the outcome of the elections on Saturday and Sunday.
Before turning to the elections, I wish to take up one of the themes which has run through the debate; that of NePAD which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Blaker and Lord Astor, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. It is surely important that we do not abandon NePAD on the basis of the dictum, quoted by several of your Lordships, that the road to NePAD leads through Harare. The operative word is surely "through". If Harare is a road block on the way to NePAD it should not be allowed to derail it altogether.
It becomes even more important that we use NePAD because of the formula, quoted by the Leader of the House in repeating the Statement from the Prime Minister in another place, that the essence of NePAD is the promotion of good governance and good governance comes with the whole package. So, rather than abandon NePAD, we should reinforce it as a result of the tragic experience of the people of Zimbabwe in the election period that we are talking about today.
The other theme I wish to discuss is the disastrous effects of Mr Mugabe's agricultural policy; first, the destruction of Zimbabwe's agricultural potential, and, secondly, the throwing out of work of 70,000 rural workers made destitute as a result of that policy. There is also the disenfranchisement of those workers. They will no longer be living in their constituencies and, under the rules that Mugabe has made to suit himself, they will not be allowed to vote. It is important that we give support to those workers and ensure that they are not the victims of the exercise being conducted this weekend. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and other noble Lords that it is a great mistake to assume that we can tell whether an election is free and fair only after the poll is closed.
It is obvious in the case of Zimbabwe, as it already was when we discussed the matter last December, that the conditions for free and fair elections do not exist. I must reiterate the regret I expressed then that the Commonwealth failed to undertake a preliminary assessment of the conditions or to send a signal to Mugabe of the consequences of his failure to adhere to the Harare Declaration. In that regard, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that we did not sufficiently lay on the line to Mr Mugabe how we felt about the issue and what we thought about the preparations already being made at that time.
Non-governmental organisations could have made such an assessment if we felt that we could not do so ourselves. I fully recognise that it would have been difficult for ourselves, as the former colonial power, to have made and published an assessment of the conditions under which the elections were to be held. That would probably have been counter-productive. It would have lent credence to Mr Mugabe's frequently reiterated claim that we were trying to manipulate the politics of the elections. But the assessment could have

335
been carried out by an NGO—plenty of which were capable of doing so in the absence of the political will of the international community to act.
Irrespective of that, we have enough evidence to conclude that whatever may be the situation next week, the people cannot exercise their choice freely in the mephitic atmosphere of hatred and fear that has been created by ZANU-PF, the Central Intelligence Organisation and the so-called war veterans. The signs are extremely ominous. We have already heard that hundreds of potential voters have been struck off the register, that the electoral supervisory commission is headed by an army officer and that, although the army commander has said that he will not accept an opposition victory, the polling stations are to be run by military personnel as well as ZANU-PF loyalists and war veterans recruited by the commission. There is no pretence of impartiality.
No local monitors have yet appeared to witness the crescendo of violence in the townships and rural areas. Civil society groups are to be prohibited from monitoring the election independently under the General Laws Amendment Act, which has been mentioned, even though it was rejected as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court last week. The law has now been enacted by presidential decree, showing the extent to which the rule of law has been undermined in Zimbabwe.
The Supreme Court also ruled that voters can only vote where they are registered. As noble Lords have already said, that has disenfranchised tens if not hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes by state-sponsored violence in known opposition strongholds. The head of the SADC observer mission has already condemned the violence, and members of his own team have been attacked, as were members of the South African team the week before.
In the face of all that evidence, the decision of the CHOGM to take no action until its observer mission reports in several weeks' time was incomprehensible. It did not even say that if the observer group finds that the election was not free and fair, Zimbabwe would be suspended from membership of the Commonwealth automatically, but left the matter to the unfettered discretion of its troika. The reasoning behind that bizarre decision can only be that when the observer group finds—as it must—that the election was not free and fair, the troika may nevertheless tolerate Zimbabwe's continued membership of the Commonwealth.
Mr Mugabe's attacks on business, agriculture and the media may have been designed to secure votes, but in fact, as has been said, the people know the score. They rightly blame Mugabe for the food shortages, 117 per cent inflation, dropping incomes, zooming unemployment and lack of investment in education and health. Zimbabwe was a relatively prosperous country but due to extreme mismanagement during the 22 years of one-party rule by Mugabe since independence it has fallen into an abyss of economic decline.
336
The voters now seem determined to seize the only chance that they will get of removing Mugabe and ZANU-PF from power. According to opinion polls, as many as 70 per cent of voters will support Mr Morgan Tsvangirai. The latest poll, by the University of Zimbabwe, shows that 60 per cent of those asked were too afraid to disclose even in confidence how they intended to vote, but of those who were prepared to say, almost two thirds said they would support the MDC and only one third Mr Mugabe. Obviously, the silent majority was likely to be even more in favour of the opposition, because those were the voters whose intentions, if revealed, would get them into trouble.
Will the observers from SADC, the Commonwealth and Norway be enough to deter ZANU-PF from engaging in the massive electoral fraud necessary to overturn such a majority? Let us be under no illusions. The regime will be unscrupulous in using whatever methods are to hand to hang on to power. Violence is likely to be used to obstruct voters in areas of known opposition support, as it has been regularly and persistently throughout the campaign. With every aspect of the poll itself in the hands of ZANU-PF, its private militias and the army there are bound to be gross and flagrant irregularities, some of which are bound to come to the notice of the observers.
Let us suppose that despite what is known about people's voting intentions, the electoral supervisory commission declares Mugabe the winner. What would be the response of the international community? Generally, we take the easy way out and accept the outcome of blatantly unfair and rigged elections, as we did with Fujimori in Peru in 2000 and as it now seems likely that we shall do with the elections on 27th December in Zambia. Will the scenario be the same in Zimbabwe, with procrastination being the thief of democracy? Will the situation be like that of Madagascar, which has had two presidents since 25th January because, even though the count was a shambles, the opposition candidate had clearly won?
The question is not whether the voters will have the courage and determination to turn up to vote on Saturday and Sunday. They have already demonstrated their spirit in the face of oppression that has reached a climax in these weeks before the presidential election, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, observed. I believe that they will do their part in ridding their country of a dictator, his terrorist supporters and his embezzling cronies. But then it will be for us—for SADC, the Organisation of African Unity, the Commonwealth, the EU and the UN—to act in support of the will of the people.
If we fail, the repercussions will be felt throughout the region, as many noble Lords have said. The result will be the starvation of millions of people not just in Zimbabwe itself but in places such as Malawi, as we saw on the "Ten o'clock News" last night. The recovery of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the health of South Africa's economy and the refugee situation in the neighbourhood and as far afield as Britain will all be adversely affected if the will of the people of Zimbabwe is subverted. We have not yet

337
been able to persuade our friends and allies of the gravity of the situation, but we must redouble our efforts for the sake of Africa as a whole.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we all warmly thank my noble friend Lord Blaker for bringing this issue before your Lordships' House once again and for arguing his views so eloquently in opening the debate.
I come to this issue with a mixture of sadness and anger, as I suspect do many of your Lordships. I feel sadness because we have seen a once fertile nation, full of prospects and promise, in effect destroyed. As we have heard in harrowing examples given by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, it is now reduced to starvation, pitiful queues and deprivation and destitution on a mass scale. That alone is a matter for deep sadness and wonder as to what we could have done earlier to prevent this unfolding tragedy.
I also feel sadness because I fear that the problem has dealt a terrible, immensely damaging blow to the reputation of the Commonwealth as a promoter of good governance and democracy. That is a great pity. I have always been a—I shall not overuse the word "passionate", for politicians do that too much—strong supporter of the potential of the Commonwealth. As a trans-regional network, it is very suitable for the 21st century, and it is an ideal channel through which this country—not the richest in the Commonwealth, but rich compared with many countries—could contribute effectively to the development of the poorer member states. It also provides an ideal network through which this country could develop its own interests and project its own influence in the world. There is no harm in our saying that we would like to do that.
I shall add one comment to those made during the discussion on the Statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, including the comments of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Luckily, the Commonwealth is about more than governments. Actually, the governments have made a poor fist of the whole affair, particularly in recent weeks and at Coolum. The Commonwealth is a bigger thing than mere governments; it is a massive network of non-governmental, semi-governmental and private agencies and links that run right across the world from Her Majesty the Queen down to the keenest, most eager young boy scout, girl guide or voluntary worker. It means a lot to millions of people, far more than some of the heads of state and Ministers appeared to understand, as they sat there at Brisbane, arguing about the details of trading communiqués and coming to their feeble conclusions.
I want to address three questions that have arisen from the debate. In a sense, it has been a harrowing affair, as we heard of the horrors that are going on. First, will Mugabe succeed? We shall know some of the answers to that this time next week. What we know now and have known for months—it is absurd to
338
pretend that we do not—is that the elections will not be free and fair. Morgan Tsvangirai himself has said that the conditions do not exist in which there can be free and fair elections. We should put aside any absurd suggestion that, somehow, the elections will become free and fair over the weekend, regardless of who wins. The repressive decrees, the condoning of constitutional manoeuvrings and of violence by the forces of the state, the murders, the new devices for preventing people from voting and the absurdity, described by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of having the military, which is deeply hostile to the opposition, guarding the polling stations are all clear proof that the concept of free and fair elections has gone out the window. The pretence that it has not is merely delay and cover-up of the kind that has led us to the present situation.
If, by some miracle, the MDC wins and if, as I hope, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and others who have come back with that message of hope, are right, we must hear from the Government about the most elaborate and speedy programme of help. I hope that we and the rest of the world have already considered such a programme in anticipation of such a result so that we can help Mr Tsvangirai and the MDC with their economic plans and help them with the difficulties that they must overcome. We must see further dismantling of tariffs so that the agriculture sector can revive. We must not turn a blind eye to the sinister ZANU-PF declarations that we have already heard that they will carry on a third liberation war against the winner, if it is not Mugabe. I hope that we would be strong in our support of Mr Tsvangirai if that were to happen.
If Mr Mugabe wins—which, I fear, looks a bit more likely, whatever we have been told—what can we do? I understand the Prime Minister's disappointment. He is now calling for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, but, of course, it is much too late. That was urged months, if not years, ago. The calls for suspension came from people such as my right honourable friend Francis Maude, when he spoke on foreign affairs for my party in another place. He visited Zimbabwe frequently, at great personal risk. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House is not here, but I would say to him that one must be cautious about condemning as armchair critics people who have physically involved themselves in the situation in Zimbabwe for some time. I would counsel caution in using that line of criticism of people who invested a lot in trying to help Zimbabwe before it slid into disaster.
We need a decisive coalition of forces to take action, as they should have done much sooner. The Prime Minister said this afternoon that he felt that the Government's position had been clear throughout. I think that even the Prime Minister's best friends would say that that was a little over the top. The truth is that the quiet dialogue policy was tried, and it failed. Half a billion pounds, said the Prime Minister, has been poured into Zimbabwe, with little result except the starvation about which we have heard. The European Union's efforts were humiliated; the Commonwealth's disapproval, expressed at Coolum, is extremely feeble

339
and provides no guarantee that, if there is further intimidation and terror after the election, Zimbabwe will be removed from the Commonwealth; and the benchmarks set out by the Southern African Development Community, which, we all said, must be obeyed, have been completely ignored. None of the policies—clear or unclear— has worked; they have all failed.
An international coalition must be formed. If the Commonwealth cannot do it, if the EU cannot do it and if SADC is having difficulties, a coalition of all countries—not just western nations or richer countries— that value democracy, which is the vast majority, must be sewn together to put a ring around Mr Mugabe, if he wins, and see that he is, somehow, brought to face the fact that he must stop the ruination of his country.
Those are the immediate issues. We are having our debate right under the shadow of forthcoming events. I shall reflect a little on the geo-political aspects. There are those who say that what happens in Zimbabwe or in southern Africa generally is not mainstream to global stability and peace and that it is not in the same league as what is happening in, for example, Afghanistan. That is a short-sighted view. What has happened in Zimbabwe, in the context of the humanitarian concerns and moral standards of today's world, matters very much. The long list of murders; the endless denial of the rule of law; the harassment; the hatred; all the details that fill our e-mails day after day of the pitiful horrors of what is going on—all that is important.
Beyond that, there is the potential destabilisation of the region. The movement of refugees and immigrants will undermine the neighbouring economies. As my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth reminded us, with her usual accuracy, the economic climate has already been fatally affected. Not only has the rand fallen but investment in southern Africa has simply dried up, with disastrous results. That is a miserable starting position for NePAD. I salute the optimism of those who say that, somehow, we should make NePAD even more important, but the truth is that foreign private investment, which is crucial to the development of southern Africa, has been deterred and will not revive as long as Mr Mugabe is in power.
If, as we hope, there is victory for Mr Tsvangirai, it will not be a victory for outside governments, least of all this Government. It will be victory for the superhuman courage of Morgan Tsvangirai and his colleagues and for the very brave people of Zimbabwe. I pray to God that that bravery will be rewarded, but we shall live in doubt until we see the result.
8.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, this debate comes at a propitious moment. Zimbabwe is on the eve of its most critical election since independence. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for initiating this important debate.
340
As many noble Lords have said, I have just returned with the Prime Minister from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Zimbabwe was discussed extensively and I should like to thank noble Lords for their positive comments on my role in that Commonwealth meeting.
This weekend's presidential election in Zimbabwe is a matter of intense international interest. Several noble Lords have discussed how the international community should respond if the result and process is flawed or if it reflects the will of the Zimbabwean people. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if at this stage I do not engage in speculation on likely outcomes. Noble Lords will know the clear position taken by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on the need for free and fair elections. That call has been echoed across the international community.
Zimbabwe is now at a crossroads. For too many years it has suffered corruption, economic mismanagement, human rights abuses and political misrule. After an appalling period of prolonged and unnecessary political violence, Zimbabwe now stands at the brink. This weekend, it is the people of Zimbabwe themselves who have to decide which way they want to go, and they must not be denied this opportunity.
The people of Zimbabwe hear much propaganda about UK government policy towards their country. Zimbabwe's state-controlled media tell them that we want to re-colonise Zimbabwe, that we want to deprive the people of their independence. They are even told that we fund and support the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. These allegations are not only malicious, they are mischievous. Britain helped Zimbabwe to its independence. We will not and have not shied away from speaking up for ordinary Zimbabweans, now or in the future.
I have said repeatedly, and I do so again this evening, that this Government have not been "inactive", a term that I believe was used by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker. We have held numerous debates in this House on Zimbabwe and the Government's policy has been outlined in detail. We have worked with all our international partners, but I must remind the House again that we are dealing with an independent, sovereign nation. I cannot speak on behalf of other Commonwealth countries—for example, South Africa, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Blaker and Lord Astor of Hever, or other countries in the region. Different countries have different interests and they come to their deliberations on the issues in Zimbabwe from different starting points and with different histories. Certainly in the time that I spent not only in Coolum but also during the time that I have spent as the Minister with responsibility for Africa, discussing these issues with African colleagues, with Commonwealth colleagues, with colleagues from other countries in the European Union, with colleagues from the United States and other parts of the world, I have been struck by the fact that

341
sometimes the analysis is shared, but that we differ vastly in terms of what we think about tactics and next steps.
For example, the Southern African Development Community has discussed this issue on many occasions, but it is important that we all recognise that the people of Zimbabwe must have their say. It is ordinary Zimbabweans who have borne the brunt of misrule. A country that was once capable of feeding the whole of the southern African region now faces food shortages. The economy has imploded. Zimbabweans are concerned about lack of employment and access to basic services such as health and education. And, of course, there is the issue of land reform. We have made it absolutely clear that we think that the issue is important and that it requires reform, but reform in a way that is transparent and just.
On all those issues, the international community has long sought a constructive dialogue with the government of Zimbabwe, not one side dictating to the other, but frank, open and honest discussion. Sadly, the current regime in Zimbabwe has taken the opposite course. Instead of a mature partnership, it looks for phantom enemies in the international community. It uses important issues like land reform to cover up its own failures and economic and political mismanagement. It makes false allegations about the UK's adherence to the terms of Lancaster House.
Zimbabwe was the host of the 1991 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting where leaders agreed the Commonwealth fundamental principles. These included respect for human rights and the rule of law. It is ironic and tragic that over recent years those principles have been systematically ignored by the government of Zimbabwe. That is why we argued strongly at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth. There was robust and widespread criticism of the government of Zimbabwe at CHOGM, but we must remember that the Commonwealth is a body of 54 countries representing over 1.7 billion people of diverse cultures and views. That diversity is the Commonwealth's strength, but there are perceptions that it is also the Commonwealth's weakness, because its decisions are unanimous. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his Statement made in another place this afternoon, there was no realistic prospect of a consensus to suspend Zimbabwe this close to the elections next weekend.
I do not agree that we could have achieved Zimbabwe's expulsion from the Commonwealth, for example, one or two years ago. Noble Lords are not looking at this issue realistically if they think that we could have achieved Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth at an earlier moment.
However, the Commonwealth heads of government did agree a statement on Zimbabwe which expressed deep concern about the violence surrounding the election campaign and called for free and fair elections. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about the process following receipt of the observers' report.
342
Commonwealth heads mandated South Africa, Australia and Nigeria to reach a decision on the conduct of the election on their behalf once the Commonwealth election observers' report is received. Suspension remains very much on the agenda should the observers conclude that the elections were not satisfactory.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the troika empowered to make the final decision on suspension or will it have to refer the matter back to a superior authority?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the troika has the power to make the decision. That is precisely why the troika was agreed; that is, so that the decision will not have to be taken back to all the Commonwealth heads of government.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that the Commonwealth acted on other countries, but not African ones. Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl that Nigeria was suspended from the Commonwealth, and that Sierra Leone and Gambia have only recently been on the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group agenda.
A number of noble Lords have argued strongly that Zimbabwe's elections cannot possibly be free and fair. That is difficult for any reasonable person to dispute. The fact that the Opposition could still win despite that is a tribute to the strength of democracy in Zimbabwe, a sentiment expressed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place this afternoon, and by my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside in his powerful speech to this House.
However, there is also evidence that the widespread violence and intimidation, sanctioned by ZANU-PF, is having an effect. As many noble Lords have pointed out in the debate, an election is not just about the polling day. The campaign in Zimbabwe began as far back as early last year, when the attacks on the judiciary and the independent media began.
When we come to make our own assessment of the election, the Government will be guided by the conclusions of the 28th January European Union General Affairs Council, negotiated by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. Those conclusions echoed the Southern Africa Development Community Parliamentary Forum's own election norms and standards. Those are: that Zimbabwean voters should be free to choose whom they will support, without intimidation or fear of recrimination; that political parties should be free to form and seek support through campaigning, without restriction or intimidation; that the independent media should be free to gather and impart information; and that reporting in state-controlled media should contain a fair balance of parties' views. Other important norms include impartial electoral administration, the early accreditation of independent monitors and observers, adequate equipment and ballots, and the prompt transfer of power to the winners.
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, asked specifically about the numbers of observers to be deployed. The Commonwealth deployed 59 observers, the Southern

343
African Development Community 37 observers, and South Africa 57 observers and a 20 strong parliamentary delegation. In addition, there are other observers from countries such as Nigeria and I am aware that the OAU has also sent observers. But have no information about those individual, bilateral observers.
The Government understand the deep anxiety of ordinary Zimbabweans and the concerns of those here who care about Zimbabwe. We have taken a strong, consistent line on the government of Zimbabwe's abuses of power. We have worked with our African, European, Commonwealth, North American and other partners to exert maximum influence on the regime. We have taken action. Once it became clear that the Zimbabwean Government would not allow a credible observation effort, the EU moved to targeted sanctions on 18th February and the US imposed a travel ban on 23rd February.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, suggested that we should be engaged in dialogue with South Africa and other African countries about the impact of the situation in Zimbabwe on the continent and the region. We have been engaged in such discussions. In fact, I recall that I have been criticised in this House by noble Lords on the Benches opposite for doing precisely that.
The noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso and Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, all mentioned the humanitarian situation and food shortages. Zimbabwe is indeed facing critical food shortages. Many thousands of Zimbabweans are now short of food, cooking oil and other basic goods. A deeper crisis is now certain whatever the election may bring. The projected figure for the 2002 harvest is 1 million tonnes. This is only half of the country's needs for the coming year. The causes of this crisis in production are complex but inter-related—the disruption to farming activities due to the fast-track land seizures; natural causes such as the prolonged mid-season drought; and, of course, the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
I am aware that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has been waiting for replies to his PQs on food aid. I apologise unreservedly to him for the delay in getting responses to him. I shall of course chase them up immediately.
In response to the widespread shortages, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development authorised in September last year £4 million support for a supplementary feeding programme targeting more than 300,000 people, mainly schoolchildren. This is being run through non-governmental channels. The UN World Food Programme also began targeted feeding at the end of February, but recently halted operations for the period around the election. It plans to reinstate its programme with full-scale implementation after the election. We have contributed £3.5 million towards this programme and pledged further support. Further support for food inputs in Zimbabwe is part of the DfID contingency plans.
344
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked specifically about targeted sanctions. I can confirm that they will not have an impact on the work of NGOs or on the supply and delivery of food aid.
A free and independent press is a vital element in the maintenance of democracy, human rights and respect for the rule of law in any country. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about SW Radio Africa. SW Radio Africa operates independently with its own sources of funding, and that is how it should be.
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, asked about the prospects for the New Partnership for Africa's Development and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield referred to its importance. This is an African-led process and contains within it an important recognition of the need for political and economic governance, a point raised specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever.
The right reverend Prelate also referred to Uganda, one of the countries where we have an important development relationship. Primary education is one of our key areas, so I am pleased that the right reverend Prelate was able to see the success of our policy on the ground.
Africa remains a major priority of British policy. We are engaged in it for the long term. The international community's response to the New Partnership for Africa's Development will involve not only G8 action—and the G8 action plan on Africa is clue to be considered in June this year—but will also involve the response from other financial institutions, he EU, the UN and others.
Zimbabwe has been like a cloud hanging over the New Partnership for Africa's Development—it was a key part of the discussions at the last G8 planning meeting in Cape Town, for example—but it is important to remind noble Lords that NePAD is a process, one in which we will continue to be engaged. We want to see a strong mature partnership with African countries based on leadership and mutual accountability.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that good governance is an essential element of that partnership, but there are other key issues. We are focused today on Zimbabwe—and in many of the discussions we have had recently on Africa we have talked about Zimbabwe—but other major issues need to be addressed in Africa. There are conflicts in countries the size of DRC and Sudan—both of which are independently larger than Western Europe—and a long-term conflict in Angola, which finally has the possibility of being resolved with the recent death of Savimbi.
In major areas such as economic growth, trade and investment, Africa accounts for only 1 per cent of world FDI. These are the kinds of issues that we can address successfully through the New Partnership for Africa's Development. I hope that we will be able to secure agreement all round the House for the work that we are doing to make that partnership a reality.

345
I know that many noble Lords share the frustrations of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who described feelings of sadness and anger in speaking about Zimbabwe. No one should doubt the Government's commitment to the people of Zimbabwe. We will wholeheartedly support a truly democratic and inclusive Zimbabwe. But we must also recognise that Zimbabwe is an independent country. The ultimate responsibility for a change in direction lies with the Zimbabwean people themselves. It is up to them now to go out and vote and to ensure that their voice is heard. They must be allowed to do so.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a useful and important debate. We have agreed in general on the analysis although there have been some—but not very many—disagreements about the way ahead.
We have, in addition, agreed on four points. We can all see the potential for disaster and human suffering if things go wrong; it is difficult to be optimistic about how things will look in a month's time, although the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso shed a little light by his reference to a united government; we have faith in the ordinary people of Zimbabwe; and we see the enormous importance of a successful outcome for NePAD and for the Commonwealth. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.28 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Dean of Harptree) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Persons deemed to be disabled]:
Lord Braggmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, at end insert "—
( ) in paragraph 1(1) omit "only if the illness is a clinically well-recognised illness","
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and Lady Darcy de Knayth. In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
346
The purpose of the amendment is to remove any unnecessary qualification from the definition of disability: that any mental impairment relied on to meet the definition must be "clinically well recognised".
The requirement is discriminatory. It reinforces a widely held, but erroneous, view that mental impairments are of an entirely different category to physical impairments. A disabled person who has been partially paralysed by polio does not have to prove that polio is a "clinically well-recognised" impairment. It imposes an extra legal hurdle on people with mental health problems that is not applied to those with physical impairments, which may be difficult to overcome because of medical disagreements.
Preoccupation with correct labelling distracts the court from the real issue: has this person an impairment which substantially limits normal day-to-day activities? The court may tend to feel that if this cannot be diagnosed, it cannot be serious. However, the NHS recently asserted the 40 to 60 per cent of medical symptoms cannot be explained medically, and of the 10 most commonly presented symptoms in general practice, only 15 per cent will have a clearly attributed physical cause after one year.
Secondly, despite a move towards court-appointed medical advisers, there is the problem of the cost of medical reports—which affects many disabled applicants. For people with mental health difficulties, the burden of producing expensive medical reports— for which applicants may have to pay £2,000 or more—already screens out many meritorious applications and contributes to making the legal process extremely intimidating.
I entirely support the notion that tribunals may need to be assisted in interpreting a "mental impairment", but the better approach is to reserve this for statutory guidance, with reference to expert material where appropriate. Adopting a diagnostic approach would stop the present position whereby, in the absence of medical reports, lawyers may be forced to act as doctors and to argue whether a particular set of symptoms was a "clinically well-recognised illness". Instead, they would have a legal duty to follow the guidance and turn to the World Health Organisation Classification of Diseases where there was any uncertainty.
I turn to Amendment No. 2. Its purpose is to give people with short-term but severe depression the protection of the DDA through broadening the definition of "disability".
To qualify as disabled for the purposes of the DDA, the claimant must have an "impairment" with,
"long-term adverse effect on normal day to day activities".
"Long-term" is defined to be a past period of at least 12 months or the likelihood that the period will be 12 months.
While some people with depression have a recurrent condition and gain the protection of the Act, others find that they fall outside it because the depression has not lasted 12 months; or because, although it has lasted 12 months, its effect on normal day-to-day activities

347
has not been substantial for 12 months; or because the person cannot prove that there is an underlying recurrent condition.
One person in 20 will suffer some level of depression at some time in their life, but it is still not fully understood. The problem of "short-term" depression may often fall into the category known to lay people as a "nervous breakdown". It is characterised by a chemical imbalance in the brain, which in some cases can be accentuated by life events (as in post-natal depression). This type of depression can often react quite quickly to medical treatment, perhaps in two or three months; corrective medication can thus result in a smooth and expeditious return to work. It is estimated that 20 per cent of people who have a first episode of manic depression do not get another; over 30 per cent of those with depression have no further episodes. These people would not, therefore, be covered by the provision in the definition for recurrent conditions.
The reasons for disability discrimination legislation to cover people with short-term depression are: first, discrimination against them is commonplace; and, secondly, proof that will bring them within either the 12 months or the recurrent conditions rules is particularly difficult.
If a person suffers any impairment such as a stroke or a heart attack for a short term, and apparently recovers to full health, he or she is much less likely to suffer discrimination than the person with a period of mental illness on his or her record.
There is a precedent for a pragmatic approach to the definition. The Government have accepted the task force recommendation to amend the definition so as to include cancer and asymptomatic HIV because there is evidence that people with these conditions face stigma and discrimination. They should be similarly concerned for the discrimination faced by people with mental problems.
Reports from the employment tribunals also show this to be a consistent problem. In one recent case the applicant took five months' sick leave for depression and was on medication for over a year, but the tribunal was still not satisfied that,
"the effect of the applicant's impairment had a long term effect as it had not lasted at least 12 [consecutive] months".
If the substantial adverse effect has not lasted for 12 months but is likely to recur, the person will also be covered. The aim of this provision was to cover impairments whose effect on day-to-day activities fluctuate. For instance, with epilepsy or multiple sclerosis the underlying condition remains but the adverse effects are variable. When the Disability Discrimination Bill was before this House in 1995, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, welcomed the provision for recurrent conditions because it would cover illnesses such as depression. However, that may have been too sanguine a hope, as recent cases demonstrate.
In singling out a specific aspect of mental health for this amendment, there is no intention to make a special plea for one disability over another; the intention is to highlight and to target a serious and well-documented problem.
348
I turn finally to Amendment No. 3. The purpose of the amendment is to improve the coverage of mental health conditions within the definition of disability by including activities which are most likely to be severely affected for people with eating disorders, depression, anxiety disorders and schizophrenia.
Discrimination against people with mental health problems, in employment, in access to goods and services and in access to education, sadly, remains endemic in our society. However, several aspects of mental ill-health do not fit well into the DDA category of "day-to-day activities" and people can discover that they are denied the protection of the Act when on a commonsense view they should be covered.
The list of day-to-day activities was framed with physical impairments in mind and contains six physical activities and only two mental ones. The list of activities specifies speech; hearing; eyesight; continence; ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects; mobility; manual dexterity; physical co-ordination and continence; memory; ability to concentrate, learn or understand; and perception of the risk of danger.
The most relevant activities for people with mental health problems are "memory or ability to concentrate". This is amplified in guidance issued under the Act which states:
"Account should be taken of the person's ability to remember, organise her thoughts, plan a course of action and carry it out, take in new knowledge or understand spoken or written instructions".
During the passage of the DDA through Parliament in 1995, the view that the list of day-to-day activities was too narrow was raised in this House. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for the government, explained that there should be no problem for this group because no doubt their speech and mobility would be affected by their impairment if not their ability to concentrate. However, the problem is that one of these activities must be substantially affected and this might not be so, as has been amply demonstrated in cases involving schizophrenia.
The essence of that condition lies in the disordered perception of reality rather than inability to concentrate. The case leaves the legal status of schizophrenia as a disability profoundly doubtful. At least 250,000 people have been diagnosed as having schizophrenia—that is a large number of people who potentially face serious levels of discrimination in our society and may find it difficult to prove that they are covered.
Another category of cases involves people who suffer from anorexia nervosa or other eating disorders. It is both their ability to care for themselves and their perception of reality that is disordered, rather than an inability to concentrate or learn.
While "failure to perceive danger" is covered under Schedule 1(4)(1)(h), it is often tragically the case that people with severe mental health disorders are only too aware of the physical dangers to which they expose themselves; they do so to cause themselves harm or in

349
some cases to end their lives. It is not their perceptions that are disordered, but their will to live, to care for themselves and to interact.
Likewise, depression does not necessarily fit into the list of day-to-day activities. People who have a severe depressive condition may exhibit a variety of symptoms. Disruption to normal sleep patterns, withdrawal from social life, loss of appetite, intermittent panic attacks, and a persistent pattern of self-harming may all be characteristic of a diagnosis of severe depression. None of these is satisfactorily encapsulated in normal day-to-day activities.
It might be possible to overcome the problems I have outlined through another form of words. It might also be possible for the Act to be amended by regulations. However, the best solution to end the bias in the definition against people with a mental health impairment would be the amendment proposed. Perhaps I may add that the Disability Rights Commission shares my concern in this area.
Finally, are the Government aware of the strength of concern indicated by these amendments? Will the Minister tell the Committee what they intend to do? I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I am a signatory to these important amendments and warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Bragg on having tabled them.
Regrettably, I was unable to attend the debate on the Bill's Second Reading, a lapse noted with kindliness in speeches from both sides of your Lordships' House. Without knowing why I was not here, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that he was sure I would soon be joining the fray. In fact I was on, as it were, sabbatical leave on Capitol Hill, having been co-opted by the US House of Representatives on to a congressional committee of inquiry into the still undiagnosed illnesses of many thousands of now severely disabled veterans of the Gulf War.
My good and noble friend Lord Ashley referred at Second Reading to my having introduced 33 years ago, as a Private Member's Bill, what became the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. My noble friend himself had a distinguished role in that enactment and will recall the care with which we worked to ensure that the Act's definition of disability embraced people with learning disabilities and mental health problems just as explicitly as it did people with physical and sensory disabilities. Indeed, such was our concern that, in Section 28 of the Act, a duty was imposed on Ministers to act to remove any misunderstanding that might arise on this crucially important aspect of the legislation.
The Act that these three amendments seek to improve—the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—is often described as a lineal descendant of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act; but, as my noble friend Lord Bragg has made clear, that claim is marred by the DDA's badly flawed definition of disability.
350
Of course, no fault lies with the Disability Rights Commission. It will see, as clearly as the supporters of these amendments, that for a statutory agency created to end discrimination against disabled people to be made to discriminate between one group of disabled people and another is both palpably wrong and patently absurd. That diminishes and demeans the Disability Rights Commission and the law as it stands needs amending.
How can it credibly be said that people afflicted by schizophrenia are not disabled? And who can say that it would "open the floodgates" to afford them the protection of the DRC? Speaking as a serial floodgate saboteur for over three decades now, I would not include the carrying of these amendments in that class of parliamentary activity.
I conclude with just one further point. In a country where 70 per cent of recorded suicides are among people with serious mental health problems, to lag behind other countries in protecting them from discrimination is a disturbing indictment of the way we live now. Yet a recent comparative survey of the disability discrimination laws of 11 countries shows that our Disability Discrimination Act is the most disadvantageous for people with mental health problems.
I hope very much to see these amendments approved and again I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bragg on his humane initiative in tabling them.
Baroness Wilkins: I speak in strong support of the amendments, which cover the concerns I raised on Second Reading. The current definition of disability in the DDA provides inadequate protection for those with mental health problems—in particular, as my noble friend Lord Bragg pointed out, people with depression, eating disorders and schizophrenia. My noble friend has covered matters so ably and comprehensively that I have little to add. I hope that the amendments will receive the Minister's support and that my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke will accept them as part of his Bill.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I give very warm support to the amendments, to which I have added my name. The severity of the discrimination was brought home to me most strongly when David Grayson, who was the chairman of the National Disability Council—the predecessor of the DRC—told the All-Party Disability Group that some people left gaps in their CV unexplained, preferring that an employer should assume that they had been in prison rather than revealing that they had been in hospital with a mental illness.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: As I said on Second Reading, we on these Benches have a great deal of sympathy with the objectives of the amendments for people who suffer genuine mental illness. The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, spoke to the amendments with great ability.

351
The amendments would extend the coverage of specific listed conditions. Is it the aspiration of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, should his Private Member's Bill fail, that all conditions deemed to constitute disability should be written directly on the face of any legislation that the Government bring forward? I understand that the Disability Rights Commission is currently considering revisions to the definition of disability to be published in October. Clearly, that will be too late for this Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): I rise only because of the comments of my noble friend Lady Wilkins, who asked whether the amendments would attract the Minister's support. None of the amendments will attract either the Minister's support or the Minister's failure to support. They are not amendments to the Minister's Bill. As I tried to make clear on Second Reading, my position is to keep a watching brief. If I can be helpful in giving information-based responses to particular questions, I am very happy to do so, but the origin of the Bill is my noble friend Lord Ashley and it is for him to decide how he wishes to respond to the views of my noble friend.
I have a couple of points to make to clarify the position, but I am neither endorsing nor failing to endorse any of the amendments. I shall probably not even seek to contribute on many of them. I shall intervene only if I think that I may be able to take the discussion forward.
The reason for the original terminology on clinically recognised illnesses is to prevent diagnoses of conditions that we have never heard of before, such as when two Californian psychiatrists diagnose fame addiction as a reason for a star going in for recurrent shoplifting. The aim was to winnow out the self-described, which has no serious impact.
On the second point, my noble friend may be brigading together two issues that we try to keep separate—the difference between disability, which is a long-term issue, and illness, which is not. In that sense, someone who suffers from mental health problems is not treated in any way differently under existing legislation from someone who has a stroke or a heart attack. I accept that it may be arguable that the long-term consequences of a short-term mental health illness may have discriminatory effects in a way that a short-term physical illness may not. However, the reason for the current provision is that we are trying to distinguish between illness and long-term disability that results in continued impairment.
It is worth emphasising that the DDA already covers 8.5 million people.
Lord Addington: Will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Mills of Heigham: Perhaps the noble Lord would like to come in after me. I am not replying for anybody. I am simply adding some comments.
Lord Addington: I have a question for the Minister.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister is not answering. It is for the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to answer questions, if I may say so.
352
I do not expect any government to seek to bring within the scope of the legislation not just the 8.5 million who are currently covered by the DDA, but anybody who has ever suffered an illness for any sustained period. That would involve a very large swathe of the population.
It may be worth correcting a misunderstanding over how the DDA deals with mental health. On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Bragg said that mental health does not fit readily into the list of respects into which effects on normal day-to-day activities fall into the DDA and that any substantial effect as required under the definition must be in one of those respects. I am sure that he recalls making that argument. That means that a person with a mental health problem could not rely on there being a cumulative substantial adverse effect across a number of limited respects in Schedule 1 to the DDA, such as mobility or ability to concentrate, learn or understand.
I am not arguing the merits or demerits of the amendments; I am simply seeking to be helpful to the Committee on points of clarification. The Act does not limit the effects of the impairment to only one of those respects. Where an impairment does not have a substantial adverse effect on a person in one of the respects listed, the effects of more than one can be taken together to result in a substantial effect in carrying out normal day-to-day activities.
Lord Addington: I am sorry to put the Minister in this position. I appreciate that she is trying to prevent balls going out of court, as opposed to answering questions. It seems that the Disability Rights Commission believes that it is best-qualified to deal with discrimination against people with mental illness. Would not expansion there make sense?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is already the case that the DRC can review the situation.
Lord Astor of Hever: Can the Minister put us all out of our agony? If the Bill fails, will the Government come forward at an early stage with a disability Bill to tie up all the loose ends that will no doubt be debated later tonight?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. I will do no such thing. This is a Private Member's Bill, not a government Bill. My noble friend has already held discussions with the Minister with responsibilities for disabled people. We agree that certain issues associated with disability need clarifying independently and beyond the effects of the European directive coming into play with British legislation. If and when legislative time permits, the Government may seek to intervene on those issues. It is not the case

353
that the Government have any view on or support my noble friend's Bill—which must take its chances in the other place, as with all private Members' legislation.
Lord Astor of Hever: With respect, that was not my question. If the Bill fails, do the Government have an aspiration to come forward ….
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. The Government accept that there are issues—not necessarily those raised by the Bill, debated tonight or covered by amendments. The Government may wish to revisit aspects of the 1995 Act in light of concerns that have emerged since and of European legislation. It is for the Government to decide whether that is an appropriate priority. My noble friend's Bill is a private activity. I am here to keep a watching brief. If it helps the Committee to provide information, I shall seek to do so—but in no sense will I offer a view on whether or not I support a particular amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The debate has come down to a tango. I will comment briefly on the three amendments, which are some of the most important.
Of course I hope that any future Bill would incorporate a comprehensive listing, to avoid the many misunderstandings of the past. I extend the greatest understanding, as always, to my noble friend Lady Hollis, but she seems anxious to distance herself from the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: While I understand that she must, as a Minister, avoid giving a specific commitment, I am sure that when Members of the Committee raise points with her, she will be as forthcoming and comprehensive as possible.
After the detailed and comprehensive explanation given by my noble friend Lord Bragg, anything that I add may be superfluous. He more or less said it all. Nevertheless, one should bear in mind my noble friend's comment at Second Reading that mental illness is not regarded as equal to physical illness. There is a great deal of public confusion about mental illness—particularly the definition of a clinically well-recognised mental illness, with which Amendment No. 1 is concerned. The problems range from personal idiosyncrasies to severe schizophrenia—and the boundaries at different stages are hazy. The amendment would amend the Act's existing requirement for a mental illness to be clinically well recognised, which is unfortunate and irrelevant and should go. This admirable amendment is the best instrument.
Amendment No. 2 also deserves the support of the Committee, given that the 1995 Act was aimed primarily at physical disability. The Act's requirement that a disability must have a long-term adverse effect rules out anyone with acute depression that does not last 12 months, which is clearly absurd. As my noble friend Lord Bragg said, the definition of long term is
354
some 12 months. Although that may be reasonable for physical disability, it should not debar people with mental illness from enjoying the protection of the Act. No one can deny that many people with severe but short-lived mental illness are likely to suffer discrimination in years ahead. They deserve and need the Act's protection.
Amendment No. 3 deals with another anomaly in the 1995 Act—its preoccupation with physical disability. The Act lists day-to-day activities that have to be affected for the person to qualify. Most are physical. The amendment properly inserts provisions that are relevant to individuals with mental illness and thereby makes the Act a vehicle for helping mentally ill people and a more rounded whole. I accept the three amendments.
Lord Bragg: I am warmed by the welcome given to the amendments and the support that they have received in all parts of the Committee. I know that many people who suffer from mental disability will also be warmed, because they have high hopes for the Bill. I hope that no one feels that I am being too selective by particularly thanking my noble friend Lord Ashley for his Bill and for the opportunity to table and speak to the amendments.
My thanks go also to my noble friend the Minister for taking questions and a wonderful display of shadow boxing, which I greatly enjoyed. I would appreciate a detailed letter covering some of the points that were raised. I was speaking strictly to the notion of mental disability. It would be interesting to study in some detail the challenges brought against my arguments. I reiterate my thanks to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Braggmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 5, at end insert "—
( ) at the end of paragraph 2(1) insert"; or
(d) if the mental impairment consists of or results from depression, it has lasted or is likely to last at least three months","
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Braggmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 5, at end insert "—
( ) at the end of paragraph 4(1) insert—
"(i) ability to care for oneself;
(j) ability to communicate and interact with other people; or
(k) ability to perceive reality","
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Baroness Wilkinsmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
"7B (1) A person who has been certified by a consultant ophthalmologist as blind or partially sighted is to be deemed to have a disability and hence to be a disabled person.

355
(2) A copy of a record of examination to certify a person as blind or partially sighted or a record of registration as such with a local authority shall be conclusive evidence, in relation to the person to whom it was issued, of the matters certified.
(3) Unless the contrary is shown, any document purporting to be a record of examination or registration shall be taken to be such a record and to have been validly issued.""
The noble Baroness said: I should like to express my appreciation to Caroline Ellis of the RNIB for her advice on this matter.
The purpose of Amendment No. 4 is to ensure that those who are certified as blind or partially sighted are automatically counted as disabled for the purpose of the DDA. It should be an uncontroversial amendment as it falls in line with the Disability Rights Task Force recommendation and the Government's proposal in Towards Inclusion—their final response to the DRTF recommendations.
As the DRTF and the Government both acknowledged, all visually impaired people, and certainly those certified or certifiable as blind or partially sighted, ought to meet the definition of disability under the DDA. They further acknowledged that, in practice, employers and service providers have sought to challenge this even when someone has been registered. That has been very distressing and stressful and has led to at least one person becoming clinically depressed. Visually impaired people have also been faced with an uphill struggle in establishing before a tribunal that they are disabled people for the purposes of the Act.
Being certified as blind or partially sighted is traumatic enough without further being required to prove one's impairment or being forced to go into endless details about its impact on one's life. The amendment proposes that people should be able to use either registration with a local authority or certification by a consultant ophthalmologist as proof of being blind or partially sighted because documentary evidence of one may sometimes be more easily available than the other. There is often considerable delay between certification and registration.
I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke will accept this amendment as it would assist the applicant in discrimination cases, provide certainty to the respondent, and allow the tribunal to move to the substance of the case and address the discrimination that may have occurred. Currently, more time is being spent arguing over whether someone is "disabled" under the tortuous criteria set out in the Act and guidance than addressing discrimination. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: The amendment promotes a very sensible principle: in legislation dealing with certain types of disability, we should not have to provide endless definitions; one definition should be acceptable. There have been cases involving disabilities other than blindness in which it has been questioned whether a condition actually constitutes a disability. Surely we should be able to agree on definitions that are established and agreed by
356
professionals. If we can do so in relation to one disability, we should be able to set the standard by which other disabilities are considered. I support the amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: This amendment would bring much-needed clarification to a confused and confusing situation. Although it is stating the obvious, I remind the Committee that blind and partially sighted people see nothing or very little. They surely have a profound disability. It seems wrong to me that people certified as blind or partially sighted are not regarded as disabled. But that is what happens. This amendment would give them a guarantee that their certification is accepted as proof of disability and that they will accordingly be entitled to the protection of the DDA. I accept the amendment.
Baroness Wilkins: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Wilkinsmoved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"EFFECT OF COPING AND AVOIDANCE STRATEGIES
(2) In Schedule 1 to the 1995 Act, after paragraph 6, insert—
"6A (1) An impairment which would be likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities, but for the fact that the person concerned has unreasonably modified his behaviour to prevent or reduce the effects of the impairment to a minor level, is to be treated as having that effect.
(2) The person concerned shall be taken to have unreasonably modified his behaviour if he has developed coping or avoidance strategies which significantly restrict his range of activities or ability to undertake them, even if the person accepts that level of restriction and therefore underplays the effects of his impairment.""
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to ensure that coping or avoidance strategies are taken into account when determining whether someone has a disability for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act so that the true effects of an impairment are considered.
Currently, the statutory guidance on the DDA definition suggests that if a person can reasonably be expected to modify his behaviour to prevent or reduce the effects of an impairment to a minor level, then that person may not meet the definition of disability. However, this is irrelevant in terms of any discrimination which he experiences since, whatever he does, he may still face discrimination because he has an impairment.
Many disabled people, like everyone else, will avoid activities or situations that lead to difficulties. They may stop watching television, stop reading the newspaper or stop going out for walks because they do not feel able or confident in doing so and they do not receive adequate support. They may also employ coping strategies that they regard, after many years, as unexceptional, such as appearing to follow a

357
conversation that they cannot hear properly. At tribunal, many people underplay the effects of their impairment and consequently risk being denied their rights under the DDA.
That was the situation in the case of Wright v. Discount Cards and Stationery Limited in which a woman with cataracts was working for a greeting cards company. Her job required photocopying, which generally took her longer to complete as she had to hold the material closer to her eyes than others would. She was consequently dismissed. At the employment tribunal hearing, she significantly underplayed the impact of her visual impairment and the hearing found against her, saying that she was not disabled for the purposes of the DDA.
The Disability Rights Task Force argued that the statutory guidance should make it clear that unreasonable coping strategies should be disregarded by tribunals and courts, including those that significantly restrict the person's range of activities or ability to undertake them, even if the person accepts that level of restriction. However, in their response in Towards Inclusion, the Government argued that subsequent case law has clarified this issue. When deciding whether someone is disabled, tribunals must now focus on the things that an applicant cannot do, or can do only with difficulty, rather than the things that the person can do.
The RNIB and other organisations argue that the 1995 Act itself and not just the guidance should be amended to reflect that understanding. Case law is not as accessible as provisions on the face of legislation, and revisions to statutory guidance can be quickly superseded. This amendment to Schedule 1 would give the greatest level of clarity possible. When the DDA was passed, the effects of medical treatment were seen to warrant inclusion in Schedule 1 of the Act; that being the case, so should the effects of coping and avoidance strategies. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I wish to say simply that this is a sensible amendment. If people with disabilities are to function, their coping strategies are by definition a part of them. If they do not have such strategies, they will not be in employment in the first place because their disabilities will overpower them. They are an essential part of the person and should be included.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: In any walk of life it would be unacceptable to penalise people for trying to solve or cope with personal problems. It is particularly wrong that blind and partially sighted people should lose out by trying to overcome their disability and cope effectively with it. I accept the amendment.
Baroness Wilkins: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his comments and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for accepting my amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Extension of the 1995 Act to police etc]:
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 7, leave out "to (8)" and insert ", (6) and (8)"
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 6, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
The first duty of any elected government is defence of the realm. That is surely an accepted and unambiguous view of those on all sides of the House.
The Disability Rights Task Force report of December 1999, From Exclusion to Inclusion, stated that the employment provisions of any civil rights legislation should cover the Armed Forces while recognising the need for adequate safeguards to maintain operational effectiveness. The Government in their March 2000 response to the report—Towards Inclusion on civil rights for disabled people—did not accept that the current exemption of the Armed Forces from legislation prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of disability should be dropped.
In a speech to the United Services Institute on 19th December 2000, General Sir Charles Guthrie, the former chief of staff, now the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, said that the demands of the disabled to serve in the Armed Forces were "ill-conceived" and would cause untold damage to their combat effectiveness.
The then shadow Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Iain Duncan Smith, responded:
"We are in agreement with General Sir Charles Guthrie. The issue is not about the disabled, it is about the Armed Forces being able to make decisions from a practical standpoint on the basis of what works".
The Bill does not seek to instil any of the inadequate safeguards that the Disability Rights Task Force deemed necessary. The deep concern that we have with this aspect of the Bill is that it creates a situation in which serving members of the Armed Forces could put themselves and others at unnecessary risk. The overriding consideration must be operational effectiveness. Like my noble and gallant friend, as a former Army officer with some experience of active service, I can attest to the very difficult and dangerous situations in which members of the Armed Forces can find themselves.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said that the Army is a massive industry and that its tail is enormous. The Armed Forces has out-sourced many of the non-combatant jobs to civilians. To give just a few examples: civilians act as driving instructors; they train tank crews; and they man base repair maintenance workshops. Civilians do much of the administrative work of the Armed Forces. Static establishments have civilian catering firms and they carry out military guard force duties. Undoubtedly some of these civilians are disabled.
We oppose this aspect of the Bill for reasons of pragmatism, not discrimination. The Armed Forces are clearly concerned and we on these Benches support the Government's very sensible position.

359
I know that my remarks will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for whom I have the greatest respect. However, I assure him of my very real desire to fight whenever I call for the interests and aspirations of all disabled people. I beg to move.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is waiting for me to speak and then he can fire all his ammunition after I have done so. That is a typical soldier's tactic.
The provision in my Bill merely seeks to extend the protection of the DDA to disabled service personnel. But as the whole question of the role of service personnel has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, perhaps I can respond briefly.
It has been claimed that everyone in the services should be capable of fighting. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said at Second Reading that even butchers in the services should be able to fight. In raising this relic of the past, he may have thought that they could butcher the enemy with knives and choppers, but as modern wars are fought largely with computerised equipment and communications, the British Army would be in a sorry state if it had to call on butchers to operate those computers.
I see nothing ignoble in extending the DDA to protecting disabled service personnel from discrimination. To claim that making that discrimination unlawful will affect the fighting ability of the splendid British Army, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, will put disabled people and others at risk, is absolute nonsense. That is tantamount to saying that the British Army is effective only when it discriminates against some of its troops. That is obvious moonshine. No one can really go along with that kind of theory.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, said, that demands for disabled people to serve in the Armed Forces were misguided. I am not sure of the exact words that he used. The fact is that disabled personnel are kept on in the Army and other services when they become disabled during service. That is fine and I fully agree with it, but it contradicts the principle put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and, on Second Reading, by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. If it is wrong to have disabled people in the Armed Forces, why are disabled people retained when they become disabled during service? As I say, I warmly welcome the fact that those people are retained, but the noble Lords' arguments are illogical.
The disabled service personnel in the Army today are those who have become disabled in the course of their service. So, denying them the protection of the Disability Discrimination Act means denying reasonable protection to people who are injured while fighting to protect their country, or training to do so. Where is the sense in denying them protection just because they have become disabled in the service of their country? That does not make sense or add up. Despite the kind words that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said about myself, I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I greatly admire the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. Earlier he sprang to his feet thinking I had indicated that he should speak. However, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, wanted to speak and I indicated that she should speak before me.
The noble Lord and the Committee know that I have spent the past 20 years in this House fighting for disabled people. I shall continue to fight for disabled people. However, I shall not continue to fight for them to be put into a position where they risk a greater chance of being killed because of their disability than an able-bodied person, or for them to be put in a position where they stand a strong chance of having their disability made even worse because of enemy action.
The briefing I have received from the Disability Rights Commission refers to a policy in the past of dismissing servicewomen who became pregnant. Pregnant women are now retained in the services as those who were dismissed won substantial damages. However, what the briefing does not state is that the Armed Services, particularly the Army, are now considering carefully the physical ability of women to carry the loads and to take the physical stress involved in combat units. It is well known that female recruits often suffer much in the way of injury during their normal recruitment training due to the physical work that they have to do. That position is changing.
I used a bad example at Second Reading when I said that a soldier could be a butcher. If you have ever seen a carcass being butchered, you will know that it requires a considerable degree of fitness and force. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, knows, fighting nowadays is often done on a computer in brigade or divisional headquarters. You need mechanics to service and maintain the vehicles. You need clerks to do the paperwork and to make certain that orders go out. You need people to maintain and operate radios. They can often carry out those tasks it' they are disabled. I do not deny that. The noble Lord said, if I understood him correctly, that the Armed Forces retained servicemen who became disabled in the course of their service. We know that; that has been done for years and for generations. However, they have not retained servicemen who have been disabled to the extent that they cannot operate effectively.
It has been said recently that most warfare today is carried on from 30,000 or 35,000 feet. However, the Kosovo campaign would probably have ended a great deal faster if we had put troops on the ground at the same time as the aerial bombing took place. You still need to be able to put troops on the ground who are capable of physically fighting the enemy and holding that ground once they have captured it.
The noble Lord, the promoter of this Bill, will know that the exploits of the Long Range Desert Group and the Special Air Service, now a very fine regiment, in the 1939–1945 war in North Africa operated far behind enemy lines, attacking their supply lines and their headquarters in order to deal them very severe blows. The same could happen to us in action.

361
Since that time, other nations have developed similar forces and are quite prepared to use them against us. We now have an escalating terrorist situation. There has been one in Northern Ireland for over a generation, but it has now become a world-wide problem. Our headquarters, our tail, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, is very large, can be attacked. The soldiers in that tail, whether butchers, bakers, candlestick-makers, computer operators or wireless maintenance individuals, will have been trained as soldiers before they take on those tasks. They, as any other servicemen, have to be prepared to fight in exactly the same way as those in the front line.
Although I appreciate the noble Lord's desire to improve the lot of people with disabilities, I believe that in this instance he is making a mistake. I hope that he will take that on board and accept this amendment.
Lord Addington: I am in danger of trying to wave a white flag of truce between two embattled sides, and I promise that that will be my last pun. What the noble Lord said about the Army's defensive strategy is accepted. It is true that many troops go through basic training and even through wars without handling guns, but it is accepted that they may have to. That is part of military thinking.
However, what concerns me is not so much the fact that disability may prevent people from fulfilling basic infantry functions—the primary point to which I think the noble Lord was referring—but the suggestion that if one has a disability, one can be removed by means of a blanket ban. I again use the example of dyslexics—we have reached Clause 4 of this Bill without my mentioning them by name, so I have not done too badly—who have undoubtedly formed a part of Her Majesty's forces, and still do. Indeed, I have known several people with dyslexia, albeit perhaps not in its severest form, who have held commissions.
The current provisions of this Bill could result in a perfectly effective soldier, seaman or airman being removed from the job because someone decides that he does not like the idea of dealing with slightly incorrect spelling on a report form. That example should possibly be borne in mind when consideration is given to the issue of a blanket ban.
In an attempt to reach agreement on this matter, I should like to make a suggestion for consideration by both sides involved in this argument. The Bill contains many good provisions. However, there is room for compromise. At present everyone appears to be running frightened and screaming about this matter, but it would not be worth while to allow the argument to wreck the Bill.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: Having read my Bill very carefully—I have read it three times—while the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was speaking, I can find no reference in the provisions to pregnant women. I therefore do not intend to detain the House on that subject.
362
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has conceded that disabled people are able to operate computers. He then spoke about the SAS and the Long Range Desert Group. Having been in the Army, the noble Lord should know that it is extremely difficult, even for some of the fittest men and women, to obtain membership of the SAS or the LRDS.. They are unique regiments. It is therefore clearly preposterous to refer to the activities of the SAS and the Long Range Desert Group in terms of the whole Army, Navy and Air Force being involved. He simply used "scare" phrases, which do not really cut any ice. A butcher could not operate with the Long Range Desert Group because he may not have the relevant skills. The noble Lord chose the wrong example.
The noble Lord overlooked another matter. By objecting to this element of the Bill, he is defending discrimination in the armed services. However, there is no justification for doing so. We all know that he has done splendid work for disabled people and that he always makes distinguished contributions to such debates. His approach is not in question, except in relation to the armed services. It is completely wrong to deny the defence of the DDA to disabled service personnel—Army, Navy or Air Force.
I am sorry that I am unable to agree to the amendment, but at least we hav`e had a good exchange of views.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for his support—he set out the case very clearly. I am sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that I fear that there is no ground for compromise on these Benches. I also hope that the Government will not compromise on this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, referred to our not defending discrimination. We are not defending discrimination in the Armed Forces, but we could be discriminating against able-bodied servicemen if the proposal were agreed to. I fear that we must disagree on this matter. I believe that the Government are absolutely right. It would be inappropriate to divide the Committee at this point but if there is a vote on this matter at any other stage, we shall support the Government. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord Addingtonmoved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"DISCRIMINATION AGAINST VOLUNTARY WORKERS
(1) The 1995 Act is amended as follows.
(2) After section 9, insert—
"9A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST VOLUNTARY WORKERS

363
(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the provisions of this Part apply to work sought or carried out by a disabled person on an unpaid, voluntary basis as if he was an employee or an applicant for the employment concerned with such modifications as are specified in the order.
(2) Before making any order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall conduct a review.
(3) Unless he has already begun or completed a review under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall begin to conduct a review immediately after the first anniversary and if no order is subsequently made under subsection (1) he shall conduct a further review after the third anniversary.
(4) Any review shall be completed within nine months.
(5) In conducting any review, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such organisations representing the interests of disabled persons in voluntary work or seeking voluntary work as he considers appropriate; and

(b) such organisations representing the interests of employers as he considers appropriate.

(6) If, on completing a review, the Secretary of State decides not to make an order, he shall no later than one year after the commencement of the review lay before Parliament a report—

(a) summarising the results of the review; and

(b) giving the reasons for his decision.

(7) Any report made by the Secretary of State under subsection (6) shall include a summary of the views expressed to him in his consultations.
(8) In this section—
"anniversary" means the anniversary of the coming into force of this section; and
"review" means an assessment of the effects of extending the scope of Part 2 to disabled persons who seek or undertake unpaid voluntary work and what modifications to the provisions of Part 2 may be required in respect of voluntary workers.""
The noble Lord said: The amendment would bring voluntary workers within the scope of the Bill. There is much agreement among those concerned—indeed, the Government, agreed—that a voluntary code should cover voluntary workers. The Disability Rights Task Force issued a recommendation, which stated:
"In principle, voluntary workers should be covered by civil rights legislation. However, in recognition of the diversity of voluntary workers and organisations that engage them, a good practice approach should be adopted. Organisations engaging volunteers should be consulted on the preparation of guidance and a power taken in civil rights legislation to bring volunteers into coverage through regulations".
The Government said that they prefer the voluntary approach, but such approaches take time. One could still be trying to reach an agreement 20 or 30 years down the line. People often decide not to agree because the relevant matter does not bother them. That is 'why we have to legislate in this regard. If everyone was a reasonable man, we should never have to pass any legislation. That is why the amendment is necessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support the amendment. It is important for disabled people to be able to give something without discrimination. Volunteering is useful not only because it builds one's confidence and provides some form of employment
364
but also because it is important to be able to contribute something to society when one is so often on the receiving end.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: It is one of the little oddities of life that voluntary workers are not usually taken as seriously as those who are paid, and their efforts are often not sufficiently appreciated. The amendment goes a considerable way towards redressing the balance.
The Government said that they will take the power to bring a range of voluntary workers into the DDA when legislative time allows, and that they will use the power if necessary. I assume that this amendment, which covers the necessary point, will be uncontroversial.
There is a quote from Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in the admirable briefing from the Disability Rights Commission saying, in another context, that leaving matters to a voluntary approach would mean taking 20 years to secure the necessary changes and that setting new legal standards will bring them forward by a generation. I hope that the Government take that message on board. I accept the amendment.
Lord Addington: I thank the noble Lord for that response, and the noble Baroness for her support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Addingtonmoved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS TO QUALIFYING BODIES
(1) In the 1995 Act, after section 15, insert—
"15A DISCRIMINATION BY QUALIFYING BODIES
(1) It is unlawful for an authority or body which can confer an authorisation or qualification which is needed for, or facilitates, engagement in a particular profession or trade (a "qualifying body") to discriminate against a disabled person—

(a) in the terms on which it is prepared to confer on him that authorisation or qualification;

(b) by refusing, or deliberately omitting to grant, his application for it;

(c) by withdrawing it from him or varying the terms on which he holds it;

(d) in the way it affords him access to any relevant services or facilities provided in connection with the conferment of an authorisation or qualification or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him access to them; or

(e) by subjecting him to any other detriment.

(2) In this section—

(a) "authorisation or qualification" includes recognition, registration, enrolment, approval and certification;

(b) "confer" includes renew or extend;

(c) "relevant services or facilities" includes the means of course delivery and assessment.

(3) In the case of an act which constitutes discrimination by virtue of section 55, this section also applies to discrimination against a person who is not disabled.

365
(4) Sections 15A to 15C do not apply to the extent that a qualifying body is already subject to any provision in sections 28R to 28T."
(2) In the 1995 Act, after section 15, insert—
"15B MEANING OF "DISCRIMINATION" IN RELATION TO QUALIFYING BODIES
(1) For the purposes of section 15A, a qualifying body discriminates against a disabled person if—

(a) for a reason which relates to his disability, it treats him less favourably than it treats, or would treat, others to whom that reason does not, or would not, apply; and

(b) it cannot show that the treatment in question is justified.

(2) For the purposes of section I 5A, a qualifying body also discriminates against a disabled person if—

(a) it fails, to his detriment, to comply with section 15C; and

(b) it cannot show that its failure to comply is justified.

(3) The taking of a particular step by a qualifying body in relation to a person does not amount to less favourable treatment if it shows that at the time in question it did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that he was disabled.
(4) Subsections (5) to (7) apply in determining whether, for the purposes of this section—

(a) less favourable treatment of a person, or

(b) failure to comply with section 15C, is justified.

(5) Less favourable treatment of a person is justified if it is necessary in order to maintain necessary and appropriate professional or trade standards.
(6) Otherwise less favourable treatment, or a failure to comply with section 15C, is justified only if the reason for it is both material to the circumstances of the particular case and substantial.
(7) If, in a case falling within subsection (1)—

(a) the responsible body is under a duty imposed by section 15C in relation to the disabled person, but

(b) fails without justification to comply with that duty, its treatment of that person cannot be justified under subsection (6) unless that treatment would have been justified even if it had complied with that duty."

(3) In the 1995 Act, after section 15, insert—
"15C DUTY OF QUALIFYING BODY TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS
(1) A qualifying body must take such steps as it is reasonable for it to have to take to ensure that—

(a) in relation to the terms on which it is prepared to confer authorisation or qualification, disabled persons are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled; and

(b) in relation to any relevant services and facilities provided in connection with the conferment of an authorisation or qualification, disabled persons are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled.

(2) In considering whether it is reasonable for it to have to take a particular step in order to comply with its duty under subsection (1), a qualifying or awarding body must have regard to any relevant provisions of a code of practice issued under section 53.
(3) This section imposes duties only for the purpose of determining whether a qualifying body has discriminated against a disabled person; and accordingly a breach of any such duty is not actionable as such.""
The noble Lord said: I saw this amendment initially while I was going through the wording with those who helped me with the drafting. At that time I was appalled by its length, but not by its content. "Qualifying bodies" are one of those groups that are
366
on the increase in our society because everyone wants his own professional qualification. Those bodies that are traditionally qualified, or going through the mainstream part of the university structure, are increasingly bringing them in.
By historical accident and also by not being traditionally a part of legislation, those bodies have, thus far, been outside the cover of most mainstream legislation. The Disability Rights Task Force recommended that they should be brought in under such legislation; and, indeed, there is a requirement under an EU directive that such bodies should be brought under the same type of legal framework as applies to other forms of qualification.
If you cannot get the qualification, you cannot get the job. It is that simple. So, if we can remove any possibility of discrimination in this respect, we shall be enabling many people. It is totally in keeping with the original Bill, which dealt with employment, goods and services. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I should like to express my support for the noble Lord's amendment, and speak also to Amendment No. 9, which is tabled in my name. The noble Lord's amendment deals with "qualifying bodies" and would implement the requirements of the EU directive. It is quite wrong that disabled students should be denied the choice of studying in order to pursue a profession that they could perfectly well practise if they could get over the hurdle erected by some professional bodies. Discrimination would be justifiable only if it were a question of maintaining professional or trade standards.
Amendment No. 9 is, I fear, of similar length and wording to the noble Lord's amendment. I wish only that my speech could be as short as the noble Lord's introduction. However, not having his ability to paraphrase and to do wonderful things with words, I am afraid that the Committee may have to put up with a little more by way of delivery. My amendment seeks"to ensure that disabled students will be protected against discrimination by employers while on various forms of work placement and work training programmes, and that they enjoy equal opportunities with their non-disabled peers. The EU directive covers access to all types and all levels of vocational guidance training and retraining, including practical work experience.
My amendment would ensure that, in addition to schools and FE and HE institutions having duties not to discriminate against disabled learners in arranging work placements, the employers would also be obliged not to discriminate against the person concerned and to make reasonable adjustments. Comparable provisions exist in the Race Relations and Sex Discrimination Acts. No such obligation with regard to people with disabilities exists at present. Indeed, employers can even refuse them a placement.
I moved a similar amendment with the same aim, though it was much shorter, during the proceedings on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act but

367
it was resisted by the Government. Work experience is becoming increasingly important not only in further and higher education but also in secondary education. Further, the actual experience of work is particularly important to the student with a disability—indeed, probably more so than with the ordinary able-bodied student—because he can then judge whether he is capable of pursuing the career that he has in mind, and work out how to do things and find ways around his problems.
I am pleased to note that the Disability Rights Commission is in favour of the amendment. Indeed, on 4th February, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, wrote to me following Second Reading saying that, as she mentioned in the debate,
"the Government will be considering the next steps in legislating to amend the DDA in the light of the outcome of the Article 13 Directive which is currently underway. This includes changes that might be needed in relation to practical work experience".
I understand the reluctance some people feel about imposing a duty on employers which may be expensive and may be for a short time if the accommodation is specific to the individual. If we are to make it work, work placements and work-based training will have to be backed up by funding to ensure that the employers get a fair deal.
As part of the new 14–19 reforms, additional resources are being made available, including £25 million in 2002–03 for the development of education/business links, including opportunities for work experience, and increased levels of investment are promised in future years. But as yet there is no consistent funding stream of support for disabled pupils and students while they are undertaking work experience and work-based learning. In the case of disabled pupils in schools, they would not be funded by the LSC, nor would any support specified in their statement of SEN necessarily carry over into a work placement.
Will the disabled students' allowance be increased to cover the cost of some kinds of reasonable adjustments to the workplace, or could employers be reimbursed by an extension to the access to work programme? It would have to be ring-fenced to ensure that it followed the student on the work placement. It would he illogical for the funding plans not to include funding for employers to make reasonable adjustments to allow disabled pupils and students to benefit fully from work experience and work-based training.
I wonder whether I can entice the Minister into commenting briefly on the question of funding. That may be unfair as I have not warned her. However, if we are able to give encouragement to employers, that would be useful. I look forward to hearing whether the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, feels that he can accept the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: Amendment No. 9 also appears in my name. I do not propose to say a great deal on it because all that needs to be said has probably been said already. However, there is the question of reasonable adjustment. A number of people will say that for
368
disabled people who are volunteers or on work placements the cost would be far too great and therefore would be unreasonable. However, we must not forget that the length of time that the individual will be in post will be taken into account when deciding whether or not any adjustments are reasonable. Therefore, I am sure that unreasonably expensive adjustments for short use will not be permissible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may be of assistance to the Committee. Clearly, there is a question of who counts as an employee in those circumstances. Where someone is an employee, the employer has a responsibility under the DDA, given reasonable expense, to make physical adjustments. With a placement scheme, factors such as whether a person comes from a school or a voluntary organisation, and the length of the placement, constitute a grey area. I have taken advice on the matter. However, where Members of the Committee seek information on this matter and on other matters which have arisen during tonight's debate as to the current state of the law and its application, perhaps I may write to them. I shall ensure that my noble friend has copies of all the correspondence. That may be helpful. It would not be easy to give a "yes" or "no" answer to the noble Baroness on this question. At what point the employer is required to make reasonable adjustments, and if so who pays, would depend on the circumstances.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank the Minister for that reply, which is helpful. As she mentioned that she would have to implement the directive, I threw out the thought as to how we would give a sweetener to the employers.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The response by the Minister was helpful. I welcome the fact that in tabling Amendment No. 8 the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seeks to bring qualifying bodies within the orbit of Part II of the DDA. The amendment would implement a recommendation of the task force and would bring our policy into line with the EU employment directive. I understand that it has largely been accepted by the Government.
The amendment is important because it would substantially enhance the employment opportunities of disabled students. Qualifying bodies are gateways to entry for a large number of professions, occupations or trades. It cannot be right that sex and race legislation covers these bodies yet the DDA does not; and in consequence it would be perfectly lawful for them to discriminate against disabled students. I accept the amendment.
Regarding Amendment No. 9, put forward so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, I am sure that the Committee will recognise that when people become disabled at an early age, they face greater difficulties than those disabled later in life when they have had valuable experience and perhaps training.

369
At one time it was virtually impossible for young disabled people to obtain training. Although it is a little better today, many gaps remain. The amendment closes an important one. As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has pointed out, work placements and work-based training is an essential part of the qualification needed for many jobs. If it is missing, it is like a ladder with some steps knocked out. Schools and higher education institutions already have non-discrimination duties, but until employers offering training programmes have similar duties, the whole process resembles a faulty and hence a useless ladder.
It has already been said that the EU Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment requires the UK by 2006 to implement provisions similar to that proposed by this amendment. But why should we wait until then? Why not move now? If the Bill is accepted, that means early movement. I am happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Addington: I thank the noble Baroness for supporting my amendment, if only very briefly. I apologise for not supporting her amendment. The issue has a long history. I know that the noble Baroness has battered away at the problem for a long time. She has spotted a hole in the problem which is as important in practical terms as the one that I have brought forward. There is no point in getting through a course and passing a professional body's exam in order to become whatever it is, if one is then denied the essential practical experience. So they are two branches certainly of the same tree.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Darcy de Knaythmoved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS TO EMPLOYERS PROVIDING VOCATIONAL TRAINING
(1) In the 1995 Act, after section 15, insert—
"15D DISCRIMINATION BY EMPLOYERS IN THE PROVISION OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING
(1) It is unlawful for an employer who provides vocational training services or facilities to discriminate against a disabled person seeking or undergoing such training—

(a) in the terms on which he affords him access to those services or facilities;

(b) in the manner in which he affords him access to those services or facilities;

(c) by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him such access; or

(d) by terminating his training or subjecting him to any other detriment.

(2) In this section "vocational training" means any work-related education or training including work-experience placements and work-based learning programmes for disabled persons in secondary, further or higher education by whomsoever arranged.
(3) In the case of an act which constitutes discrimination by virtue of section 55, this section also applies to discrimination against a person who is not disabled."
370
(2) In the 1995 Act, after section 15, insert—
"15E MEANING OF DISCRIMINATION IN SECTION 15D
(1) For the purposes of section 15D, an employer discriminates against a disabled person if—

(a) for a reason which relates to the employee's disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and

(b) he cannot show that the treatment in question is justified.

(2) For the purposes of section 15D, an employer also discriminates against a disabled person if—

(a) he fails, to the employee's detriment, to comply with section 15F; and

(b) he cannot show that his failure to comply is justified.

(3) The taking of a particular step by an employer in relation to a person does not amount to less favourable treatment if he shows that at the time in question he did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the employee was disabled.
(4) Less favourable treatment, or a failure to comply with section 15F, is justified only if the reason for it is both material to the circumstances of the particular case and substantial.
(5) If, in a case falling within subsection (1)—

(a) an employer is under a duty imposed by section 15F in relation to the disabled person, but

(b) fails without justification to comply with that duty,

his treatment of that person cannot be justified under subsection (4) unless that treatment would have been justified even if he had complied with that duty."
(3) In the 1995 Act, after section 15, insert—
"15F DUTY TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS
(1) Where—

(a) any arrangements made by or on behalf of an employer, or

(b) any physical feature of premises occupied by the employer,

place the disabled person concerned at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled, it is the duty of the employer to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to prevent the arrangements or feature having that effect.
(2) Subsection (1)(a) applies to—

(a) arrangements for determining to whom work-related education or training should be offered, and

(b) any term, condition or arrangements on which work-related education or training services are offered or afforded.

(3) In considering whether it is reasonable for him to have to take a particular step in order to comply with his duty under subsection (1), an employer must have regard to any relevant provisions of a code of practice issued under section 53A.
(4) In this section "the disabled person concerned" means—

(a) in the case of arrangements for determining to whom work-related education and training should be offered, any disabled person who is, or has notified the employer that he may be, seeking such education and training; and

(b) in any other case, a disabled person who is undergoing such education and training.

(5) This section imposes duties only for the purpose of determining whether an employer has discriminated against a disabled person; and accordingly a breach of any such duty is not actionable as such.""
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken at huge length to Amendment No. 9. I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Addington—

371
somewhat late but extremely helpful as always—for supporting the amendment. There was a very helpful intervention from the Minister and a great deal of support from the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I am delighted that the noble Lord accepts the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Baroness Darcy de Knaythmoved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"APPLICATION OF ACCESS TO GOODS AND SERVICES PROVISIONS TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
(1) The 1995 Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section l9(5A) after "provision of a service" insert "to disabled pupils or students".
(3) In section 19(5A) at end insert "but this Part does apply in respect of services provided by an educational institution to disabled persons who are not pupils or students".
(4) In this section—
"disabled pupils" has the same meaning as in section 28Q (2) and (3); and
"disabled students" has the same meaning as in section 31 A (2) and (3)."
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 10 is to ensure that vital services provided by schools, FE and HE institutions to disabled people who are not pupils or students, such as careers services, access to school or college facilities, continue to be covered by Part III of the DDA.
This is an important issue. It needs to be sorted very soon as the provision involved comes into force in September of this year. SKILL, which is the national bureau for students with disabilities—of which I should declare that I am the president—has picked up a damaging anomaly introduced by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. SENDA amended the Disability Discrimination Act by inserting new rights for disabled pupils and students in education, which is Part IV of the DDA. In introducing the new rights, the Government amended Part III of the DDA so as to remove the exemption of education but also to provide that no services covered by the new Part IV could also come under the goods and services provisions of Part III. A new subsection (5A) was added to Section 19 of the DDA. It states:
"Nothing in this part applies to the provision of a service in relation to which discrimination is made unlawful by section 28A, 28F or 28R".
That would not be a problem if all it meant was that disabled pupils and students enrolled at the institutions concerned could not bring a case about the same service under Part III as well as Part IV.
However, its effect is much wider than that. The subsection effectively excludes any services covered by Part IV from the ambit of Part III. The definition of services to which the new schools and HE and FE provisions apply is wide. For example, in relation to schools it includes not just educational but associated services, which includes access to school facilities. In relation to HE and FE institutions, it includes careers
372
services and catering and leisure services provided wholly or mainly for students. So disabled people who are not pupils or students would no longer be covered by Part III when they use such services. That will have particularly devastating consequences for access to careers services at a time when, following the Harris report, much emphasis is placed on their importance to people after they have graduated.
Obviously, some adjustments put in place for disabled students will also be of benefit to disabled ex-students—for example, the installation of a lift. But other types of support are specific to the individual—such as a sign language interpreter for an interview. That type of provision is likely to be under threat when the law changes. Disabled parents would lose the right to reasonable adjustments to enable them to attend parents evenings, school plays, fetes, and so on, because access to schools facilities is part of the associated services covered by Part IV.
The Education Bill envisages a greater role for schools in providing community services and facilities, but, unless this Bill is amended, disabled people will be denied the same opportunity to enjoy those services as the rest of the community. I am sure that that is a mistake. I cannot believe that the Government intended to create this loophole. I mint ask the Minister to give us her view. It may be that Skill has misread it; it may be that she can set our minds at rest. Does the Bill need amending—and before September—if we are to plug this loophole? I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, who I hope will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again, I have been invited to comment on the situation. As I understand it, university and HE careers services are not at present required to continue to make provision for graduates once they have left the institution for study, irrespective of whether the students are disabled. It has been recommended that higher education institutions should do so, and obviously some do. In that sense, no act of discrimination is taking place because it is a matter for the individual institution whether or not it continues to make services available. I speak from experience of my university. As I understand it, a continuing careers service is not currently a requirement of university provision for any students. The issue therefore does not arise.
Obviously, it would be deeply unacceptable if universities made provision for non-disabled students but failed to give the same service to disabled students. My understanding is that at present they are treated in the same way: neither group of students has an automatic entitlement to a continuing service once they have left university.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall ask for some advice. I shall see what

373
Skill say about that. I find it rather alarming; I should say that disabled graduates probably need advice even more than non-disabled graduates.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not arguing about whether disabled graduates need advice; I am certainly not arguing that they should not be covered in a way that non-disabled students would take for granted. All that I am saying is that my understanding of the law as it stands—I shall write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong—is that no graduates of a university are automatically entitled to continuing careers advice once they have left the institution.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask her what she feels about the community use of schools by parents and siblings of schoolchildren who are disabled.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is a different issue. We are talking there about physical access to premises and whether that counts as a service and therefore falls within the 2004 remit. That is a very different point. If I may say so, the noble Baroness is brigading together two important but rather different issues.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank the Minister, but I would welcome her writing to me if there is anything further. We will have a communication outside the Chamber.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The Minister has again been very helpful to our debate. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has raised this important issue. It is rare for legislation to achieve perfection in the eyes of its beneficiaries when it comes to implementing new laws. Anomalies and loopholes are bound to appear.
There is some controversy about the issue. At least, we will get full clarification at a later date. I am happy to accept the amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. We need to clarify things, and I will continue a dialogue with the Minister outside the Chamber, with the help of SKILL and the DRC.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addingtonmoved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"EXAMINATION, TEST AND ASSESSMENT SERVICES
(1) The 1995 Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 19 after subsection (3)(h) insert—.
"(i) the provision of examination, test and assessment services in relation to education and training by an awarding or other body."
374
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
"( ) In subsection (3)(i)—
"awarding body" means any body involved in awarding general, vocational or other qualifications not directly linked to entry to a particular trade or profession and which is not a responsible body for the purposes of Part 4;
"other body" includes bodies such as the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for England which provide statutory assessment test papers for disabled learners.""
The noble Lord said: This amendment would ensure that awarding and examining bodies had a clear duty under the DDA to strengthen the rights of disabled learners in respect of tests and examinations in education and training.
The position of such people in respect of testing has been strengthened by recent legislation. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 has done much to help and has brought most people taking examinations under Part III of the DDA. However, there is one area in which there may be a loophole, and the Minister may be required to answer on this issue. Whether an awarding body is caught by Part III will depend on whether it is deemed to be providing a service to the public or a section of the public. SKILL and the RNIB believe that the service provided by awarding bodies is the award itself, which is a service to students.
If that means that certain sections and certain qualifications are not covered, we must examine it again. If the Minister can assure me that I am wrong, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, as there is no point in using the Bill to insert useless wording. If the Minister is in some doubt, we should have it in to guard ourselves. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There seems to be an assumption that this is a government Bill and that I am responsible for deciding on the desirability of amendments. I have tried to make it clear that I am happy to provide information, but I am at arm's length from the Bill. It is not reasonable for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to say that, if I can give a satisfactory answer, he will withdraw the amendment and, if not, he will press it. That is not my responsibility; that is about his relationship to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke.
Awarding bodies will be covered by Part III of the DDA where they provide a service to the public. Whether they are doing so in a particular instance is determined case by case.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: It is because the Minister is so popular that we want to hear from her on every subject. That is why we keep asking her questions. I thought that she would be willing to give the clarification asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but, of course, we recognise her situation.

375
The amendment would give duties to awarding and examining bodies under the DDA. It would strengthen disabled learners' rights regarding tests and exams. People should not be penalised because of irrelevant disabilities. I am happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Addington: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for his acceptance. I am sorry that the Minister felt that she was bounced into that question; it was a purely technical point. The answer that she gave was that the matter would be considered case by case. That should not be so. If there is an examination open to all and someone has to take it, those running the examination should make sure that some form of reasonable adjustment is made.
The noble Baroness has been very helpful. According to my logic, she has proved that there is a need for the amendment. In thanking her for the technical information, I hope that the Committee will feel able to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Baroness Wilkinsmoved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
"EXTENSION OF THE 1995 ACT TO POLLING STATIONS AND ELECTORAL SERVICES
(1) The 1995 Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 19, after subsection (3)(h) insert—
"(i) access to and use of electoral services and facilities".
(3) After section 21, insert—
"21B ELECTIONS ACCESSIBILITY STRATEGY
(1) It is the duty of each local authority to prepare and implement an elections accessibility strategy.
(2) An elections accessibility strategy is a strategy for, over a prescribed period, ensuring that disabled voters are able to participate fully and equally in all aspects of the registration system and electoral procedures and facilities for parliamentary, local government and European parliamentary elections by—

(a) ensuring the physical accessibility of polling stations for disabled voters;

(b) ensuring the accessibility of electoral registration and electoral procedures for disabled voters;

(c) ensuring the accessibility of postal voting information and procedures for disabled people;

(d) ensuring the delivery to disabled voters—

(i) within a reasonable time, and

(ii) in ways which are determined after taking into account their disabilities and any preferences expressed by them, of information about electoral services, procedures and facilities which is provided to non-disabled voters or which concerns arrangements for securing their access to electoral services, procedures and facilities; and

(e) taking steps to ensure any pilot schemes including arrangements for e-voting are fully accessible to disabled voters.

(3) An elections accessibility strategy must be in writing.
(4) Each local authority must keep their elections accessibility strategy under review during the period to which it relates and, if necessary, revise it.
376
(5) In preparing and revising their elections accessibility strategy a local authority must consult—

(a) disabled people in the local authority area, and

(b) organisations representing disabled people in the area.

(6) A local authority must have regard to any guidance issued as to compliance with the requirements of this section.
(7) In preparing their elections accessibility strategy, a local authority must have regard to—

(a) the need to allocate adequate resources for implementing the strategy; and

(b) any guidance issued as to—

(i) the content of an accessibility strategy;

(ii) the form in which it is to be produced; and

(iii) persons who must be sent copies of the strategy.

(8) As soon as practicable after any occasion when they prepare a new strategy or alter their strategy, the local authority must—

(a) publish the strategy or the strategy as altered in such manner as they think fit; and

(b) send a copy of it to the Secretary of State (in the case of an authority whose area is in England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in the case of an authority whose area is in Wales) and to such other persons (if any) as may be specified in guidance.

(9) The authority must also—

(a) cause a copy of their elections accessibility plan to be made available for inspection (at all reasonable hours) at such places as they think fit;

(b) give notice, by such means as they think expedient for bringing it to the attention of the public, as to the places at which a copy of it may be inspected; and

(c) supply a copy of it (or any part of it) to any person on request, either free of charge or at a charge representing no more than the cost of providing the copy.

(10) Guidance under this section may be issued—

(a) for England, by the Secretary of State; and

(b) for Wales, by the National Assembly.

(11) In this section—
"prescribed" in relation to Wales means prescribed in regulations made by the National Assembly;
"disabled voter" means a disabled person who is entitled to vote as an elector at parliamentary, local government or European parliamentary elections.""
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, for which I am indebted to Ruth Scott and Jonah Grunsell of Scope, and to Caroline Ellis of the RNIB, for their help.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that electoral services are included on the face of the DDA as services to the public, subject to the duties under Part 3 of the Act. It would also require local authorities to prepare and implement a comprehensive elections accessibility strategy so as to ensure equal access to the whole electoral process for disabled voters.
Over the last three general elections, Scope has conducted the Polls Apart campaign, amassing evidence of the discrimination which disabled people face in the election process. It revealed that in the 1997 general election, 94 per cent of polling stations were inaccessible and discrimination against disabled voters was widespread. For instance, many disabled people

377
had to vote in the street, had their ballot paper marked by someone else or had to go home without voting at all.
This was one disabled voter's experience in Chichester: "I had to shout from outside two sets of doors to try and get someone to help. Eventually another voter asked someone to come out and help me. There was no provision at all for disabled people. I had to vote in a car park and pass my vote to a stranger to put in the ballot box. I hope that they did. To top it all, it was raining and I had to wait outside during all this".
The Representation of the People Act 2000 introduced a number of measures to remedy this situation, but as the Polls Apart report of the 2001 general election revealed, while a significant amount of work had been done by the Government and returning officers, 69 per cent of polling stations could still be inaccessible. Some 38 per cent did not have a large print notice of the ballot paper on display, and 49 per cent had no tactile template available for blind and partially sighted people—both legal requirements of the Representation of the People Act. The RNIB concludes that for visually impaired people, the right to vote independently and in secret is for the most part still a right denied.
The current legal position is that no one can say with certainty whether electoral services and polling stations are covered under the DDA, and if so, in what ways. If it was clear that electoral services and facilities were subject to Part III of the DDA, with guidance to local authorities and disabled people explaining how the duties apply, then local authorities would give the matter the priority it needs and disabled people would know their rights and be in a position to challenge unacceptable provision.
Amendments to electoral law as recommended in the Disability Rights Task Force report would not provide the necessary protection against disability discrimination. It would not provide an avenue for redress if a disabled person was treated in a worse manner than non disabled voters or in a discriminatory way by polling staff.
Consequently, this amendment seeks to ensure that polling stations and electoral services are specifically included under Part III of the DDA in order to guarantee disabled voters' rights to vote in secret and with dignity.
The second part of the amendment addresses the clear need revealed by the Polls Apart campaign that local authorities be required to create a comprehensive strategy for improving access in the long term. Such a strategy should be regularly reviewed in consultation with disabled voters and local disability groups. It should specify a detailed time-scale for improvements and ensure that adequate resources are allocated to fund the strategy.
Due to the lateness of the hour I will not argue this in detail, but at a time when there is widespread concern about voter apathy, it seems utterly foolish to allow barriers to remain in place for one group of voters who are desperate to vote. Now more than ever, as we begin
378
to debate different ways of voting—by post, telephone or over the Internet—we need to reassert the primacy of guaranteeing a secret ballot and accessible electoral procedures to all disabled people. If we do not, there is a real danger that new systems will further exclude disabled people from the voting process rather than empower them.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept that much more needs to be done to honour the civil and human rights of disabled people to participate in this democratic life—I do not expect her to reply—and the amendment seeks to ensure this. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support the amendment because it relates to an issue I have long been pursuing. The new e-mail voting and other measures will be extremely useful because they should be very accessible. It is extremely important that that should be so. It has always been a question of accessible polling booths. My local polling station—the local school—has been accessible for a long time. The importance of that was brought home to me because I am allowed to vote in European elections. I changed my mind three days before polling day and I would have been furious to think that my vote was inexorably winging its way towards the wrong target.
Lord Swinfen: There have been numerous complaints about the difficulties experienced by people with disabilities in voting in both parliamentary and local elections for many years. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will accept the amendment and that when the Bill becomes law the Government will ensure that the proposed new clause is put into action very quickly indeed.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My noble friend Lord Bassam and I, having spent many years in local government, have sympathy with the thrust of the amendment. Clearly, under the Representation of the People Act, it is desirable to have full access to polling stations. Obviously, that issue is being pursued. However, sometimes balances need to be taken between the convenience of a location, which may be a local school as opposed to somewhere much further away.
My noble friend Lady Wilkins did not mention postal voting; the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, did. She said that she hated to think that her vote, cast three days before, would have winged on its way. I was appalled at the thought that she was a last-minute floating voter who would seek to change her mind in the last two or three days on major issues affecting the well-being of this country. If that is what being a Cross-Bencher consists of, I am not at all sure that it is a wise use of their powers.
It is clear that the Electoral Commission will probe this issue.
Lord Swinfen: The Minister is doing the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth a great disservice.

379
She had obviously taken a long time to think very seriously about the matter and given it a great deal more thought than a lot of voters who automatically vote for one party or another.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sure that she had. It was the thought that she may have wanted to change her mind in the last 48 hours that dismayed me. It was a tease.
Coming back to the more substantive point, I have been doing some work on postal ballots and the use of e-mail, mobile polling stations and a range of voting hours in which one can express one's vote. The Committee may be interested to know that my own local authority—I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Bassam has had the same experience—was one of the pilot authorities for all postal ballots. In two of the wards in the City of Norwich, the only way one could vote was by postal ballot. Far from this being stigmatised, the result in those two wards was that the voting rate went up by more than 50 per cent.
It is an example, following the question that we debated the other day, that if you provide physical access for disabled people a whole swathe of other people benefit in consequence. Here was a case clearly where many people had regarded themselves as debarred from voting for whatever reason—they might have children, caring responsibilities or whatever—and were able to enjoy the much more appropriately generous provisions of the new postal ballot system, which does not require the "medicalisation" of a form in order to achieve access to a postal vote. As a result, the voting rate in those two wards went up by 50 per cent.
I am sure my noble friend Lady Wilkins will agree that what matters is the access to the service and not necessarily to the building. Of course it is desirable that there should be access to buildings but, ultimately, what really counts is access to the service. I hope that she will join with me in recognising that there are important moves afoot which will benefit a very wide range of the community.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I intervene because I cannot resist the bait thrown to me by the Minister. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for his defence of me.
I have always argued with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has always said that a postal vote is perfectly satisfactory. But the point is that a huge number of able-bodied members of the public do not make a voting decision until the last few days before an election. This Cross-Bencher would like a vote on what the noble Baroness may consider to be an important matter; namely, the euro.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, not because I agree with him—in this particular controversy I tend to support my noble
380
friend—but because he is so perceptive. He used the phrase, "when the Bill becomes law". He did not say "if" it becomes law, but "when" it becomes law. I give the noble Lord full marks for perception. I am glad that the Minister has heard those words.
The exclusion of disabled people from polling stations, and indeed from much of the electoral process, never seemed to bother the general public years ago. But it did bother disabled people. It troubles them even more today, now that, fortunately, they are discarding their former passivity and are very properly calling for full human rights. This amendment will help to resolve the problem and I accept it.
Baroness Wilkins: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I, too, want to defend my noble friend Lady Darcy in regard to her wise decisions. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for accepting the amendment. I commend it to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
"CARRYING OF GUIDE DOGS, HEARING DOGS, AND OTHER ASSISTANCE DOGS
(1) The 1995 Act is amended as follows.
(2) In Part V, after section 37, insert—
"37A CARRYING OF GUIDE DOGS, HEARING DOGS AND OTHER ASSISTANCE DOGS
(1) This section imposes duties on the driver of a private hire vehicle which has been hired—

(a) by or for a disabled person who is accompanied by his guide dog, hearing dog or other assistance dog, or

(b) by a person who wishes such a disabled person to accompany him in the private hire vehicle.

(2) The disabled person is referred to in this section as "the passenger".
(3) The duties are—

(a) to carry the passenger's dog and allow it to remain with the passenger; and

(b) not to make any additional charge for doing so.

(4) A driver of a private hire vehicle who fails to comply with any duty imposed on him by this section is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not, exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(5) If the licensing authority is satisfied that it is appropriate on medical grounds to exempt a person from the duties imposed by this section it shall issue him with a certificate of exemption.
(6) In determining whether to issue a certificate of exemption, the licensing authority shall, in particular, have regard to the physical characteristics of the private hire vehicle which the applicant drives or those of any kind of private hire vehicle in relation to which he requires the certificate.
(7) A certificate of exemption shall be issued—

(a) with respect to a specified private hire vehicle or a specified kind of private hire vehicle; and

(b) for such period as may be specified in the certificate.

(8) The driver of a private hire vehicle is exempt from the duties imposed by this section if—

(a) a certificate of exemption issued to him under this section is in force with respect to the private hire vehicle; and

381

(b) the prescribed notice of his exemption is exhibited on the private hire vehicle in the prescribed manner.

(9) In this section—
"guide dog" means a dog which has been trained to guide a blind person;
"hearing dog" means a dog which has been trained to assist a deaf person;
"assistance dog" means a dog which—

(a) is trained by a specified charity to assist a disabled person with a physical impairment for the purpose of section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which—

(i) consists of epilepsy; or

(ii) otherwise affects his mobility, manual dexterity, physical co-ordination or ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects; and

(b) at the time that the disabled person whom it is assisting hires a private hire vehicle, is wearing a yellow jacket inscribed with the name of a specified charity.

"Specified charity" means any charity specified by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument."
(3) In section 38(1) of the 1995 Act, for "section 36 or 37" there is substituted "section 36, 37 or 37A."
(4) Section 49 of the 1995 Act is amended as follows—

(a) In subsection (1)(a) at end there is inserted "or 37A".

(b) In subsection (1)(b) at end there is inserted "or 37A (8)(b)".

(5) Section 68 of the 1995 Act (interpretation) is amended as follows—

(a) In the definition of "licensing authority", at end there is inserted, "(c) for the purposes of section 37A, the authority responsible for licensing private hire vehicles in any area of England and Wales."

(b) After the definition of "prescribed" there is inserted—

""private hire vehicle" means a vehicle constructed or adapted to seat fewer than nine passengers which is made available with a driver to the public for hire for the purpose of carrying passengers, other than a licensed taxi or a public service vehicle;"."
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands also in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. It places new duties on minicabs to carry guide dogs and assistance dogs. This mirrors the duties already in force for licensed taxis, which include exemptions for drivers on valid medical grounds only.
Guide dog owners rely on reliable and accessible taxi and minicab services. However, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (GDBA) and the RNIB have heard from countless guide dog owners who have been refused carriage in minicabs because drivers have not wanted dogs in their cars. Objections have ranged from "Dogs will distract the driver" to "Don't want dog hairs on the seats", or "Dogs always have muddy paws and bring dirt in with them".
Over the past 18 months, the GDBA has persuaded 85 per cent of local authorities in England and Wales to require minicabs to carry assistance dogs as part of the licence conditions. However, 66 local authorities
382
have not changed their conditions and it seems unlikely that further authorities will change them without being required to do so.
Although the Bill covers the means of transport, the GDBA and the RNIB feel that this amendment is needed so that guide dog owners are not subject to the vagaries of case law determining whether the carriage of guide dogs is a reasonable adjustment. Without the amendment, private hire operators and drivers could, for example, try to use cost as an argument for not accepting guide dogs. I very much hope that, this time, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I support the amendment, to which I have added my name. It is eminently sensible. Guide and assistance dogs are essential for those who need them. Minicab and other drivers are perfectly happy to take into their vehicle someone out of the pouring rain whose clothing is shedding water left, right and centre, with streams of muddy water coming down from their umbrella. However, at the same time, some of them would object to a guide dog being put in the car, even if it had shaken itself thoroughly and would put less moisture into the car than one would get from a very wet umbrella.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am speaking in an entirely personal capacity. I am rather baffled by the need for the amendment. I entirely sympathise with the intention behind it. Licensed private hire vehicles—I think that that is the correct term—should be required to take guide dogs. However, almost the first Bill that I was involved with when I joined your Lordships' House back in 1990–91 was a transport Bill, on which I persuaded the then government to require all minicabs outside London to be regulated and licensed by local authorities. In other words, the power is already there for every local authority in this country to make what we are asking a condition of its licensing law.
If some local authorities are failing to do that, there is nothing to stop local access groups, local MPs, the local press, local disability organisations and the Local Government Association holding those local authorities to account for their failure to put into the local laws by which they license private hire vehicles the provisions that your Lordships require. There is a means to make the provision stick now if local organisations are prepared to go down that path.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: Again, the Minister has thrown a bit of a spanner in the wheels. She mentioned just minicabs, but we are dealing with all forms of—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that the noble Lord will find that we are talking about minicabs, which are private hire vehicles. To be able to perform, private hire vehicles outside London have to be licensed by the local authority. The standard required

383
is inferior to that for hackney carriages. For example, drivers do not have to pass the knowledge test. However, their vehicles have to be more regularly inspected and they have higher insurance charges. Police tests are run and there are other conditions for acquiring a licence. The main difference between them and what we call black taxis are that they are not allowed to ply for hire and the drivers are not required to pass a knowledge test.
The problem is London, where local authorities do not license black cabs as they do outside London. That is done by the police and the vehicle licensing authority. That is why London is peculiar. Outside London, local authorities regulate both sorts of vehicle and there is nothing under the sun to stop them doing what all of us in the Committee would like.
Lord Addington: Even if the amendment would cover only the population of London, I still think that it is probably worthwhile.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Maidenhead has a very powerful access group. I should have checked before I came here, but I do not think that it has succeeded in pushing the local authority to do all that it would have liked.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I somehow thought that the Minister's response would be along those lines, but that was only my first point. Despite her valiant effort to protect people using minicabs and similar vehicles, which is much appreciated, it is possible that the legislation was not as perfect as we would want. In any case, there is no harm in double locks. If the other legislation is not well known, this new legislation will be brought to the attention of various authorities. This is a valuable double check. There is no doubt that many people with sensory impairments have been surprised to find that it is perfectly legal for private hire vehicle drivers to discriminate against them by refusing assistance dogs. If that is not the case, at least the amendment would go some way towards double checking the existing law.
I am grateful to the Minister for her intervention, but I am even more grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for tabling the amendment, which I gladly accept.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting the amendment. Private hire vehicles—mini cabs—should be treated the same as licensed taxis. I appreciate the Minister's point but her solution would be more complicated than accepting the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I take the opportunity to clarify an issue that arose on Second Reading about the status of certain services provided by public authorities—in particular, footpaths, towpaths and bridges. I mentioned those on Second Reading on 23rd January, at col. 1544 of the Official Report. My declaration of interest as being president of the Disabled Ramblers somehow got into Hansard as being president of the Ramblers' Association. I apologise to the president of the Ramblers' Association for that confusion and I have corrected the Official Report for the Bound Volume
At cols. 1555–1556, the Minister said that she would expect towpaths, footpaths and bridges to be covered by the word "facilities". She suggested that I write to her, saying that she would obtain expert advice. The DRC wrote to the Minister on 5th February saying that in its view and that of the Disability Rights Task Force certain service functions carried out by public authorities may not be covered by Part III of the 1995 Act and that it was likely that the functions of the highway authorities—including paving, footpaths and possibly bridges—would fall under that exclusion. That view was reached by the code of practice working group, which had Department for the Environment lawyers among its number.
The DRC ended by saying that naturally it would be delighted were footpaths to be explicitly covered by Part III of the Bill. We would all be delighted. Bridges are my particular interest.
Since then, the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, Maria Eagle, replied to the DRC in a letter to Bert Massie on 28th February:
"The issue of whether footpaths and towpaths are covered by the DDA is complicated. There are two key issues to consider, firstly is whether footpaths and towpaths arc facilities in terms of the DDA and secondly, if they are, whether the provision of this facility is a service to the public or a function of a public authority.
Our legal advice confirms what was said in the debate that since courts tend to give a generous interpretation to the term 'facility' we would expect footpaths to be covered where they are part of a public footpath.
However, this still leaves the issue of whether the provision of a footpath in any particular case is a service to the public or a function of a public authority and this would ultimately be for a court to decide. As you rightly say, certain functions carried out by public authorities are not covered by the DDA but we cannot say precisely what these functions are since no DDA case law has yet been established. I understand that this is the reason why the revised Code of Practice on Part III was drafted so as to avoid being categorical on a number of matters (including the issue of footpaths). Though there is uncertainty about whether Highways Authorities are covered by the DDA, I have been told that many act as if they are.
As you know, the Government is committed to extending the scope of the DDA to include most functions of public authorities when legislative time allows and this ought 10 make the position clearer".
That is a helpful reply.

385
One cannot have a test case until 2004 because it will not be law, but it would be helpful if the legislation were in place now so that the public authorities would be aware of what they have to do. I consulted Bert Massie this afternoon and he said that that is precisely why there cannot be a test case yet.
I am sorry to plague the Minister again but will she confirm that the Government are committed to extending the DDA's scope to cover most functions of local authorities when legislative time allows? A nod will do if that is all she can face.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is what the Government hope and expect to do.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I am most grateful to the Minister.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past ten o'clock.

  Payments to Witnesses and Pre-trial Publicity
  Payments to Witnesses and Pre-trial Publicity
  Marriage and Relationship Support
  Marriage and Relationship Support
  Curling: Lottery Funding
  Curling: Lottery Funding
  Defence Exports
  Defence Exports
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Local Bus Services
  Local Bus Services
  Lower Air Space Radar Service
  Lower Air Space Radar Service
  Mode S Transponders: Swanwick Centre
  Mode S Transponders: Swanwick Centre
  National Private Pilots Licences
  National Private Pilots Licences
  National Air Traffic Services
  National Air Traffic Services
  A303 Stonehenge Improvement Scheme
  A303 Stonehenge Improvement Scheme
  A11 Trunk Road: Litter Clearing
  A11 Trunk Road: Litter Clearing
  Housing: One-person Households
  Housing: One-person Households
  Battle of Trafalgar Bicentenary
  Battle of Trafalgar Bicentenary
  BSE
  BSE
  Food Poisoning
  Food Poisoning
  Care Standards
  Care Standards
  NHS: Patient Records
  NHS: Patient Records
  NHS: Access
  NHS: Access
  Negative and Affirmative Instruments
  Negative and Affirmative Instruments
  Northern Ireland: Republican Terrorist Murders
  Northern Ireland: Republican Terrorist Murders
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland