Sitting of 7 March 2002

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
  Order for further consideration, as amend, read.
  To be further considered on Thursday 14 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Recycling
    Andrew Selous: If she will make a statement regarding the implementation of European recycling directives. [37991]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The United Kingdom has participated fully in the negotiation and implementation of European Community measures to increase recycling.
    Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State explain why other European countries, such as Germany, were able to prepare in advance for the ozone depleting regulations, with the result that they did not incur the expenses that the UK has incurred? My county council, Bedfordshire, has had to spend £810,000 this year to store fridges, as no UK treatment facilities are available. Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that the Government will not be caught unawares in relation to any future European recycling directives?
    Margaret Beckett: First, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that three other member states had made preparations that allowed them to handle fridges in the way that he suggested, but of course they did not do so without incurring expense. Twelve member states, including the United Kingdom, were awaiting further guidance from the Commission.
    I share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is important that we get clear acceptance and understanding not only of the wording of legislation and regulations, but of what they mean—what the implications are. I assure him that we are more than eager to engage in such discussions in order to clarify all these issues before regulations are made or legislation implemented. That has not always
    400
    been the case under previous Governments, but this Government engage at a stage when planning and discussion are under way.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: As my right hon. Friend is aware, there are very few companies throughout the European Union that provide the machinery for removing refrigerants from refrigerators, and there was a backlog of orders for such machines from companies throughout the EU, including Britain, wanting to take advantage of the opportunities of recycling. Will the procedure require licensing in Britain, and how will that affect companies trying to set up facilities in the UK to recycle fridges?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right; the recycling does require licensing, but there are procedures in place, handled by the Environment Agency, to deal with that. My hon. Friend and the House may like to know that, as of this week, we are expecting the arrival of the first mobile facility for carrying out this type of recycling, and we have every reason to hope that other plant will be in place by June.
    Andrew George: Although we accept the Minister's sincerity, does she accept that her Department faces an even worse crisis? A new wave of European legislation to which Britain has signed up is fast coming along, and her Department is as unprepared for that as it was for the directive that resulted in 250,000 fridges being stockpiled. Her Department seems equally unprepared for the hazardous liquid waste directive, which must be implemented in four months, and it is doubtful that the Department will be prepared for forthcoming directives on abandoned cars, waste from ships, hazardous waste, electronic and electric goods and many others. Does she accept that her Department does not have the capacity to cope, and that Britain runs the risk of being seen as the laggard in Europe in respect of waste management and recycling?
    Margaret Beckett: No, I do not accept that; it is completely unjustified. The hon. Gentleman rolled into his observations a number of different sets of regulations that are all at different stages of discussion and implementation. For example, the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive is still under discussion in the European Parliament, so we are some distance away from that. I entirely share his view that it is right that we take on board the implications of these issues and prepare for them as thoroughly as we can.
    The end of life vehicles directive is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that extensive discussions and consultations are under way to make sure that we implement properly and proportionately the legislation and the regulations to which we have agreed. I can also assure him that there is no truth whatever in the suggestion that the UK is a laggard in these matters. Every member state has the same concerns and frequently the same difficulties as people experience in this country.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the delay in implementing the European directives was the responsibility of the former Tory

    401
    Government, who delayed the introduction of any such regulations for three years? Will WRAP, the waste and resources action programme, have some influence in determining the markets for recycled materials, which is one of the main problems that the Government face?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right that WRAP is a very important organisation that was set up by the Government exactly in order to work on and develop the market for recycled products. One of the things that people often leave out when they discuss this issue is that it is all very well to talk about recycling and finding new markets, but it must happen in reality. He is right that the programme is an important and useful initiative that has been taken by the Government. He is also right to say—I realise that this was not popular with everyone in the House—that, with regard to the implications of European legislation in many fields, we have had to grapple with the knock-on effects of delay and the previous Government's inability to engage in negotiation. That is not a course of action that we intend to follow.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am delighted that the Secretary of State has come here to answer questions on fridges; we are used to the dithering performance of the Minister for the Environment. Perhaps she can clear something up for us. The Minister has blamed the European Commission for failing to keep him informed of the consequences of the directive on the recycling of fridges. As she will know, the Commission has vehemently denied that and blames the Government for the fridge mountain. As they cannot both be telling the truth, which one of them is not doing so?
    Margaret Beckett: I see that it is my right hon. Friend's turn to be abused by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. It is the first time that I have heard anybody call my right hon. Friend dithering, and I have certainly never seen any evidence to suggest that he has such a problem—forthright and determined, yes, but dithering, no. On the handling of the fridges legislation, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a very clear difference of opinion between ourselves and the Commission. I remind him that, as I said, 12 member states had not taken action to implement the directive, while 12 clearly had concerns about precisely what it meant.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I am sorry, but that answer is hopelessly inadequate. There is a very serious problem with fridges, which are potentially hazardous, not least because they contain CFCs, and the Government are doing absolutely nothing about it. These days, one is about as likely to see a field full of fridges as one full of sheep. Given that, as we have heard, there are new directives in the pipeline dealing with televisions, personal computers and cars, is not there a real danger that the fridge mountain could turn into a whole mountain range of discarded possessions?
    Margaret Beckett: No, there is no evidence of a huge build-up of difficulties in respect of fridges. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are doing nothing, but I am sure that he is aware that we have already made some £6 million available to local authorities—
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Piffling.
    Margaret Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman's party is committed to cutting public expenditure, I am not quite sure how much he would make available.
    The money is intended to deal with the issue up to the end of March, and we will discuss the matter further with local authorities. There is no evidence of a vast and growing problem or of great difficulty. It is a pity that Opposition Members are trying to create such a problem when one does not exist.

    Energy
    Joan Ruddock: If she will make a statement on the energy review published by the performance and innovation unit. [37994]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I welcome the review as a valuable contribution to the debate on how best to help the UK move towards a low-carbon economy in response to our internationally agreed climate change goals. It is too early for the Government to have reached a view on all the review's many recommendations, but we will consider them very carefully. As has been announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we will hold a full public consultation leading to the publication of a White Paper later this year.
    Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. As Government investment in renewables is running at about £100 million a year and in energy conservation at about £200 million year, and as her estimates of the costs of cleaning up nuclear waste from the nuclear programme suggest that they will be £85 billion, will she tell her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry that greater political will and more investment in energy conservation and renewables could enable us to meet any perceived energy gap, and that the environmental imperative is to say no to any new nuclear capacity?
    Margaret Beckett: As my hon. Friend rightly says, the Government are committed to making much more substantial investment in renewables than in the past and to investment in energy conservation. We fully recognise the enormous contribution that those steps can make towards helping us to meet our climate change obligations. My Department has instigated a thorough consultation on the handling and treatment of radioactive waste. The Government are alive to the importance of these difficult and different issues and keen to stimulate public consultation and debate.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The Secretary of State will be aware of the potential benefits to UK agriculture of renewable energy crops, but the problem is that power stations capable of using those crops are few and far between. What negotiations is her Department conducting with generators to increase the number of those units, and

    403
    what input is she having into the rewriting of electricity trading arrangements to favour electricity generation from such sources?
    Margaret Beckett: Electricity trading arrangements are the subject of wider discussions with my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. Fuel crops offer considerable potential and they will be considered as part of the Government's discussions on our forward strategy for agriculture as a whole.
    Dr. Jack Cunningham: Is not it odd that on the very day that the Government's chief scientific adviser has called for a nuclear power building programme, and given that the Government are not only failing to meet their CO2 reduction objectives under Kyoto, but will have no chance of doing so if we remove the contribution to electricity generation that is made by nuclear power—
    Joan Ruddock: I am not suggesting removing existing nuclear power.
    Dr. Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend stop making sedentary interventions and keep quiet for a moment?
    As the performance and innovation unit report makes it clear that we should keep the nuclear option open, does my right hon. Friend accept that it is about time we faced the reality that however big the renewables programme—I support a big programme—we will not be able to provide the electricity for an advanced industrial economy without a contribution from nuclear power?
    Margaret Beckett: My right hon. Friend is correct to say that the review suggests that we should keep open the option on nuclear power, although it did not make concrete proposals about the steps that we should take. The Government are carefully considering the recommendations in the review and will make proposals for consultation in the near future.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State answer the question put by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? Does she agree with Professor David King that the UK needs to reinvest in nuclear power, with the backing of a substantial Government financial package?
    Margaret Beckett: I have not had the opportunity to study what Professor King is reported to have said, and I would wish to do so before I commented on it. All I can say is that the review recommended that the Government keep an open mind on the future use of nuclear power. As chief scientific adviser, Professor King is of course free to make his views known.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: If we are fully to develop renewable sources of energy, will my right hon. Friend tell the environmental and other groups that come to see her not to oppose offshore wind farms? Although they want renewable energy, many of those groups have blocked wind farms in the countryside. As the windiest
    404
    country in Europe, it would be a disaster if our huge potential for developing offshore wind power were to be thwarted by the activities of those groups.
    Margaret Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend shares the view of many in the House that many of those groups make a useful contribution to the debate, but he is also right to say that there can be a worrying tendency to a degree of inconsistency among them when it comes to concrete proposals. Everyone who wishes to see the greater development of a programme for renewables—I think that includes most hon. Members—must recognise that none of these issues is problem free.

    Shellfish
    Richard Younger-Ross: What representations she has received regarding shellfish extraction from rivers; and if she will make a statement. [37995]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(Mr. Elliot Morley): I have received no recent representations about extraction of riverine shellfish.
    Richard Younger-Ross: The Ministry has received a number of representations over the years asking the UK to re-examine the way in which it interprets European Union legislation. In the past, the Government have neither listened nor taken the opportunity to talk to the industry. An EU mission will consider the issue in May. Will the Minister ensure that it is given the facilities and the ability to talk to the Environment Agency, the sea fisheries committee and, especially, representatives of the industry? Will he, in particular, ensure that the mission comes to Devon, where there is a crisis?
    Mr. Morley: I am not aware of a crisis in Devon. There has certainly been an issue relating to the classification of the water quality of a number of estuaries, and we understand that that is a serious problem. Substantial investment is being made in relation to the waste water directive and other directives to improve the classification of estuaries, so that we meet at least a category B standard around our coasts. We will certainly co-operate with the mission, and we have close links with the various organisations involved with shellfish, because this is a matter of mutual concern. Our concern is to ensure that the water quality of our estuaries is improved, for the benefit not only of shellfish but of the estuary environment.
    Bob Spink: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that proposals for dredging at Shellhaven in the Thames estuary could wipe out the shellfish stocks in the area, and that the proposals for repeat dredging would prevent the recovery of stocks? That would put my local fishermen out of work and severely damage biodiversity in the region. Will the Minister consider those proposals carefully, so that he can protect the interests of the fishermen of the Thames estuary?
    Mr. Morley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take into account the interests of the fishing industry when considering dredging proposals. There is a distinction

    405
    between ongoing dredging management of existing river channels and new dredging proposals for new developments. In the case of new developments, we insist on an environmental impact assessment being carried out, in which we take into account the possible impact on sea fishing and the wider marine environment.

    Waste Management
    Mr. David Chaytor: What progress she has made in her plans for the management of radioactive waste. [37996]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Government and the devolved Administrations published the consultation paper "Managing radioactive waste safely" on 12 September. We propose a programme of national debate and research, leading to scientifically sound decisions on the long-term management of radioactive waste that will inspire public confidence across the UK. The consultation period ends on 12 March.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he think that it would be appropriate for a new nuclear power station to be constructed before a solution had been identified to the problem of our existing stockpiles of radioactive waste? Will he confirm that Government policy would be to charge the full cost of waste disposal to any new operator? Does he think that the chief scientific adviser would have issued his statement this morning if a hijacked aircraft had flown into Sellafield rather than the World Trade Centre?
    Mr. Meacher: On my hon. Friend's first point, it has already been stated that the PIU energy report does not foreclose on the nuclear option. It does not propose new nuclear build, but, equally, it does not foreclose on the nuclear option in the interests of the nation's security of supply. There is no presumption on the part of the Government either for or against nuclear power. Significantly, however, the White Paper states that even if no new nuclear plant were built, and even if reprocessing were to come to an end with the phasing out of the Magnox reactors, there would still be 500,000 tonnes of radioactive waste in this country that would have to be managed over the next 100 years.
    My hon. Friend asked whether any consideration of nuclear build should involve the cost of disposal. The answer to that is, frankly, yes.
    The exposure of nuclear plants is obviously a major security issue given the events of 11 September, and it is kept firmly under review by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. Security measures have been tightened in the light of that event.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Minister is right to talk about a major issue at Sellafield, because the amount of highly radioactive caesium 137s stored there in steel tanks that are almost 50 years old is approximately 100 times the quantity released at Chernobyl. Will he confirm that a passenger jet would take about 30 seconds to traverse the air exclusion zone around Sellafield and hit the tanks? Does he agree that, dependent on weather conditions, that would render all land within 400 miles of Sellafield uninhabitable? Will he
    406
    recognise the urgent need for the imposition of new security measures, perhaps involving precautions as basic as barrage balloons, to deal with that threat until safer storage of fissile material is achieved?
    Mr. Meacher: Even if what the hon. Gentleman said were correct—I certainly do not confirm that it is correct—it is extraordinary and pretty irresponsible for an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to advertise in Parliament and draw attention to the exposure of a major nuclear plant. These matters have of course been the subject of intense discussion, and there has been intense examination of all the options. It is not my place to say publicly in Parliament exactly what precautionary measures we have put in place. I would expect such measures to be handled through the usual consultative channels, not openly broadcast. The hon. Gentleman can certainly be assured that the Government are acutely aware of the problems, and are doing everything possible to deal with them. However, I do not confirm the accuracy of what he said.

    Youth Hostels (Foot and Mouth)
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What progress her Department is making to help the Youth Hostels Association to recover from the effects of the foot and mouth epidemic. [37997]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): We promoted the re-opening of rights of way as soon as it was safe to do so, and 99.5 per cent. of England's rights of way are now open. We are giving strong support to the "your countryside, you're welcome" campaign. I recently announced the countryside access recovery fund for not-for profit organisations, such as the YHA, that promote access and understanding of the countryside.
    To help recovery, the YHA has received £500,000 from the Countryside Agency, £200,000 from the business recovery fund and £300,000 from the National Assembly for Wales, as well as interest-free deferment of tax and other payments.
    Mr. O'Brien: As the Minister will be well aware, like many rural businesses in my constituency the YHA has suffered £6 million of financial loss on just £30 million of annual turnover as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic, which might not have happened had the Government got a grip at the outset and paid heed to the lessons of the Northumberland report on the 1967 outbreak that devastated my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). Despite the warmly spun words of the Minister in a letter to me on 29 November last year, why have the Government decided to reject the request to match the money raised by members of the YHA in an emergency appeal, which is forcing the YHA to consider selling its hostels, many of which are historic buildings, given that to their eternal shame the Government were happy to spend £1 billion on the dome?
    Alun Michael: That was a muddled contribution—not so much a question as a rant. I have had discussions with the YHA, especially when the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and I met its representatives at St. Braviels hostel. It is accelerating a process that was

    407
    already under way. It has recognised the challenges that it faces in modernising its network of hostels, which it is doing in partnership with the Government. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman the YHA's own newspaper, the front page of which described the act of the Secretary of State in re-opening Hartington hall, and the strong co-operation between the YHA and the Department in recent months.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State realise that, despite the problems with clearing the correspondence backlog, her Department has a one-man rapid response unit in her Department? Last Friday, I faxed my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs about the problems of the youth hostel in Teesdale. My right hon. Friend spoke in person to me about the matter on Monday, I spoke to the chief executive of the YHA on Wednesday, and a solution was proposed on Thursday. May I thank my right hon. Friend for his activity?
    Alun Michael: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. His approach contrasts with that of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who asked the original question. My right hon. Friend looked for a solution to the challenge facing the hostel in his constituency. He engaged in discussion, and I am pleased that we were able to facilitate the constructive talks between my right hon. Friend and the YHA chief executive. That is the way forward—partnership, co-operation and action.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: If there is a rapid response unit at the Department, I hope that it will extend the same courtesy to Opposition Members. We have waited nine months for answers to letters.
    When YHA members visit the glorious parish of Oakford in my constituency in Devon, they find that foot and mouth still leaves a huge scar on the landscape. The area looks like terminal 5, and the Minister will know that a holding pit was constructed there during the foot and mouth crisis. The Department did not obtain a proper, formal leasing agreement from the landowner, so there is no obvious sign of the restoration of the land to a greenfield site. I hope that the Minister will intervene personally to ensure that that restoration happens.
    Alun Michael: I hear w hat the hon. Lady says. It has nothing to do with the question, but I shall pass on the points that she makes. The Department has certainly experienced a massive problem with correspondence, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acknowledged. We discovered that thousands of letters were outstanding up to November, and we have been working hard to clear them.
    The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) suggested that Government and Opposition Members are treated differently. The Department's ministerial team is trying to deal quickly with correspondence from hon. Members of all parties, but we face a challenge. For instance, I signed a letter to a right hon. Conservative Member this morning, the time scale of response for which is the same as that mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland
    408
    (Mr. Foster). We are very fair: we are trying to accelerate response times and improve the quality available to hon. Members of all parties.
    John Mann: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister has visited youth hostels, and stayed in them. With my children and nephews, I will visit four youth hostels over the Easter break. I encourage the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien)—and perhaps some of his family—to join me in contributing to that organisation. Will my right hon. Friend look at what further assistance might be given over the next year to the YHA? It is vital for rural areas, and for young people in inner cities, such as those in my constituency, who are at risk from drug abuse and other social evils. When youth workers take them to youth hostels, those young people can enhance the quality of their lives, and learn basic skills, such as cooking and independence.
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right. I pay tribute to the way in which he has made representations on behalf of the YHA over recent months. I shall visit a youth hostel next week with the specific aim of discussing, examining and promoting the work undertaken with inner-city youngsters, some of whom are the most disadvantaged in society. We recognise that that is a vital part of the YHA's work, and that is why we are working with the association to ensure that it has as much success in the future as it has had in the past.

    Fishing
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If she will make a statement on recent changes to total allowable catches; and if she will make a statement. [37998]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Commission originally proposed large cuts for a wide range of total allowable catches, in many cases going further than science would justify. At the December Fisheries Council, after lengthy negotiations we achieved an outcome that closely followed the scientific advice but did not avoid the taking of tough measures where they were justified.
    Mr. Carmichael: The Minister's answer illustrates rather well the inflexibility of the current system of total allowable catches and quotas, and the problems caused by that inflexibility. Does he agree that the dumping of perfectly marketable fish to which the system often leads brings the common fisheries policy, as currently constructed, into disrepute? Does that not make the case for the inclusion in the new CFP of multi-annual and multi-species quotas? What progress is the Minister making with our European partners in that regard?
    Mr. Morley: I support the introduction of multi-annual quotas, and we are making good progress. There is support for such quotas in the Council of Ministers, and the Commission has flagged them up in a discussion paper on reform of the common fisheries policy.

    409
    The problem with multi-annual quotas, however, is that stocks need to be in reasonable shape before they can be applied. Many of our commercial stocks are below their safe biological limit. Strict limits must be placed on what can be taken out of the sea. There is a rough and ready mechanism—I accept that it is not perfect—involving discards once fishermen have exceeded their allowable catch. Without such a system, how could we deal with people who were deliberately targeting fish, as opposed to those who had caught them by accident as part of their normal fishing operations? It is an intractable problem to which no one in the industry has suggested a solution apart from the multi-annual approach, but we must secure stock recovery before applying it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will apply It where we can.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: I know that the Minister is as concerned as United Kingdom fishermen and others, including me, about the number of dolphins being caught and killed in nets—mainly, it seems, in the winter bass fisheries. It has been suggested that separated grids might solve the problem, but research in America shows that naval and commercial sonar can damage cetacean sensor systems. That may explain why dolphins are entering nets and becoming trapped. What co-operation is taking place between British and American authorities to find a way of ending this needless slaughter as soon as possible?
    Mr. Morley: It is a serious problem, which we are trying to resolve. We have instituted a three-year research programme to monitor different fisheries and to try to establish where the problem has been occurring. Unfortunately, it is difficult to persuade people to admit where it has been happening. We know that it is happening in the winter bass fisheries, however, and we are getting the support of the pelagic fishermen, without which we could not do the work.
    I know that research has been conducted into acoustic noise and potential disturbance to small cetaceans. The sea mammal research unit is studying such issues. This problem, however, is a seasonal one in a particular fishery involving, potentially, a particular kind of net. We expect to give a trial to a new net this month, financed through the Department. It has been used in New Zealand, where it has been 95 per cent. successful in reducing the by-catch of sea lions. We are optimistic, but if that does not work we will consider other solutions.

    Food Standards Agency
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If she will make a statement on the relationship between her Department and the Food Standards Agency. [37999]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): My Department and the Food Standards Agency have a good working relationship at all levels.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but it does not go very far. Is it not the case that the agency has much better formalised arrangements, known as concordats, with other Departments? Does the right hon. Lady share the concern of the National Farmers Union, which has been running a campaign since the
    410
    autumn on the dangers of illegal meat imports? Measures to counter that dangerous activity will not be optimised until the Department has a proper concordat with the agency.
    Margaret Beckett: I am of course aware of concern about illegal imports. I was not particularly aware of the view that a concordat is the best way of solving the problem. My Department is already undertaking a number of actions, and is having discussions with the FSA and others. That will continue. I intend, in the next week or so, to convene a high-level group to assess what more can be done. There is no need for a more formalised structure; considerable and ongoing contacts exist at all levels—official and ministerial—to solve that problem and others.
    Mr. Russell Brown: Much has been said about illegal meat imports, and rightly so, but there are stories of meat carcases with specified risk material attached being illegally imported into this country. Does my right hon. Friend envisage a tougher role for the FSA? For example, will it visit premises suspected of receiving such carcases and take tough action—such as requiring immediate closure—if they are indeed found?
    Margaret Beckett: As my hon. Friend says, such carcases have been identified. They are inspected and dealt with, and a range of organisations and agencies are involved in that work, of which the FSA is one. I can assure him that the goal of everyone involved in such scrutiny and the application of precautions is to ensure that we pursue the matter as vigorously as possible.

    Livestock Markets
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: What plans her Department has to ensure the continuing viability of livestock markets. [38000]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): It has been necessary for livestock markets to remain closed for much of the past year, and a need remains for disease control measures. Nevertheless, new biosecurity rules have allowed many markets to reopen in recent weeks, and I expect more to open in the coming weeks.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the Minister accept that many of the regulations introduced after foot and mouth are threatening the viability of livestock markets? Does he further accept that livestock markets play an absolutely vital role in setting base prices for livestock transactions? Will he undertake as a matter of urgency to review those rules—particularly the 20-day movement restriction and some of the rules affecting transport—to establish whether they can safely be modified, so that we can maintain a vibrant and successful livestock market sector?
    Mr. Morley: It is absolutely essential that markets operate with good biosecurity and that proper livestock movement controls are in place. In that respect, and as markets recognise, the situation will not be the same

    411
    post-FMD as pre-FMD. Even with those restrictions, markets are opening and functioning, but a small risk remains of the disease breaking out and of sheep being stressed during the lambing period. For those reasons, we must have movement controls, but we have amended them to take into account the legitimate needs of the livestock sector and the way it functions. Most important, we must ensure that measures are in place to prevent the spread of disease.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: Has my hon. Friend considered funding a project to establish whether a virtual livestock market, through which stock could be bought and sold, might supplement the traditional livestock market in Britain? Such a market would entail less stock movement, less stock stress and less exploitation by purchasers of marketplace suppliers.
    Mr. Morley: Yes, we have. Indeed, many markets found alternative ways of operating during the period of closure, and we provided support for that. In fact, the Department grant-aided the Hexham market for Internet sales and diversification on the premises. That provides benefits in terms of the social function and connections within the industry to enable the setting of prices. As I understand it, the Hexham market has obtained a licence for marriage ceremonies to be performed there—that really is diversification.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: The Minister will be aware that one of the greatest threats to the continuing viability of livestock markets is the fact that foot and mouth disease valuation payments to certain businesses remain outstanding. When can those businesses expect to be paid?
    Mr. Morley: My information is that just about all valuations of compensation for animals killed in the outbreak have been paid. Some cases have gone to arbitration, but they are a matter for the arbiters. A very small minority of cases remain outstanding.
    Phil Sawford: While we all welcome the reopening of the livestock markets and recognise the valuable contribution that they make in our communities, will my hon. Friend please ensure that every effort will be made to reduce the possibility of cross-contamination at markets? Will he also consider carefully the traceability of animals that pass through markets in out-of-ring deals?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that the independent inquiry will consider issues relating to the spread of disease. The fact is, however, that moving animals around the country is a risk, and that is recognised by everyone, including the livestock industry. A range of measures must be taken to reduce that risk, and biosecurity at markets, movement controls on animals and traceability are all important elements.

    Flood Defences
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If she will make a statement on her flood defence consultation paper. [38001]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The consultation document seeks views on the recommendations and conclusions in the report of the steering group that carried out a review of flood and coastal defence funding mechanisms. Both documents were published on 13 February and provide an opportunity to consider provision of the flood and coastal defence service, including a range of options for additional funding.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he agree that the recommendation that developers should be taxed for building on floodplains is rather ridiculous when the Government's policy is that there should be no building on floodplains? Does he agree also that it would be rather unfair to expect residents who live on floodplains to pay extra tax, when they already pay council tax, national taxes and higher insurance premiums, if they can find insurance? Does he not think that as flooding is caused largely by acts of God or national disasters, the national taxpayer should finance flood defences?
    Mr. Morley: The review stated clearly that the majority of flood and coastal defence funding should come from the Exchequer, as it does now. Of course, responsibility for tackling flooding has always been shared between national and local government, and there has always been an element of local funding. The report considers that position and a range of options. It is a consultative report, and people are free to express their views on it. These are not Government proposals, as Liberal Democrat councillors on York City council thought—they seem incapable of understanding a consultative report.
    No one has said that there should never, in any circumstances, be development on floodplains. The whole city of Hull is built on a floodplain. Through PPG25, we have asked planners to consider plans more carefully and, in some cases, to turn down applications. In cases where appropriate development is possible, it is not unreasonable to expect a contribution from the developer towards new and existing flood defences or the enumeration of any potential impact downstream of further development upstream.
    Mr. John Grogan: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is considerable merit in the consultation paper's proposal that the Environment Agency should take responsibility for flood prevention not only on main rivers but on all watercourses that are subject to flood risk? If that were done, it would avoid the confusion that has occurred, most recently in the village of Bolton Percy in my constituency, about exactly who is in charge of flood prevention—the drainage authorities, the Environment Agency or the local council.
    Mr. Morley: The issue of main and non-main river courses has been raised by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I know that there is potential confusion. The reports suggests that the anomaly is rectified by the Environment Agency taking over responsibility for critical non-main watercourses. Of

    413
    course, that has financial implications for the agency, and those are the issues that we have to consider as part of the report and the consultation.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister is aware of my long-standing interest in floods, and I hope that he will take this opportunity to join me in congratulating the members of Rawcliffe parish council for agreeing to act as voluntary wardens in the event of future flooding. I hope that other parish councils, or at least those that remain after the Government's reforms, will follow suit.
    One overriding concern pervades the flood consultation: under the present law a house owner is expected to be aware of any imminent flood. That is impossible. People may already own a house on a floodplain, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said, flooding is often caused by an act of God so it is impossible to know when it will occur. Will the Minister seek to amend that law?
    Mr. Morley: We will consider all these aspects. I warmly congratulate Rawcliffe parish council on its self-help. We are keen to encourage that. The Environment Agency has produced flood risk maps, which give people an idea of whether they live in a flood-risk area. The agency has also leafleted all homes considered to be in flood-risk areas, so people are aware of that risk. Individual house owners can opt to go on to the automatic voice messaging system, which rings them, even on their mobile phone if they want, if there is a flood warning. I appreciate the fact that sometimes drains overflow or ditches get blocked, and it is difficult to predict where that will happen. That is why we can never guarantee that floods will never happen. We can, however, reduce risk and we are making good progress on that.

    Rural Economy
    Helen Jackson: What steps she is taking to strengthen the economy in rural communities. [38002]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): We are driving forward a wide range of measures to strengthen rural economies in partnership with a number of Government Departments and agencies, including regional development agencies.
    Annexe 1 of the rural White Paper "Our Countryside: the future, a fair deal for rural England" gives an extensive list of sources of funding, together with advice for rural businesses and communities.
    Helen Jackson: I thank the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that South Yorkshire and my constituency are part of an objective 1 area that suffers from poverty. Hill farmers in the area have experienced difficulties arising from the BSE and foot and mouth crises. The help that they require must be cross-departmental. We are grateful for the support in respect of the rural bus community grant that we have recently received. Will my right hon. Friend, as Minister
    414
    for Rural Affairs, look into the objective 1 funding stream in South Yorkshire to ensure that the rural elements in the area are getting a fair deal?
    Alun Michael: I am happy to do so. If my hon. Friend wishes to draw any specific, detailed information or concerns to my attention, I shall be happy to discuss them with colleagues across government. As she says, the objective I programme is important. It promotes the development and structural adjustments of regions whose development is lagging behind. That includes a number of rural areas in South Yorkshire and places such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. There are 23 million euros available to South Yorkshire through that scheme, matched by an equivalent amount of Government money. I am certainly happy to look at any issues relating to the practical application of that scheme to rural areas.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that livestock markets play a vital role in the economy of rural areas? Chelford market in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), which serves my constituency, the whole of Cheshire and elsewhere, is a large employer, not only through its livestock activities but through its associated activities. Will the Minister therefore ensure that there is the minimum additional cost to livestock markets so that they are able to continue to play their part in the rural economy? Will he also seek to minimise the additional costs that will be imposed on agricultural shows, which play a valuable part in the rural economy? I refer to the Poynton show in my constituency, which is important to that village and the surrounding area.
    Alun Michael: In answer to an earlier question, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary emphasised the importance that we place on markets and the assistance being given to them to get back to business, provided that safety and biosecurity are properly observed. The same arises with the shows: we recognise the importance of agricultural shows to the local community and often to a wider region. We are certainly consulting on how they can be helped to undertake their work. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, in encouraging that activity, we need to be careful that we do not take risks which could lead to another outbreak of foot and mouth disease and problems right across the farming industry.
    Mr. John Burnett: It would strengthen the rural economy if we could export our beef to France. What steps are the Government taking to impress on the European Commission and France that France should open its markets to British beef?
    Alun Michael: We are pressing that point. Colleagues have taken the issue up directly and indirectly, and the matter shall be addressed. We want our beef to be exported and our beef industry to recover in markets that it needs to enjoy in the future as it did in the past.

    Countryside Access (Foot and Mouth)
    Mr. Peter Pike: What controls remain on access to the countryside and footpaths following the foot and mouth epidemic. [38004]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): The only remaining controls on access to public rights of way are where they pass through the farmyards of premises that are still subject to veterinary restrictions. Those are premises where foot and mouth disease was confirmed or strongly suspected and where final cleansing and disinfection procedures are being carried out before restocking can be permitted.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he recognise that, although it is extremely good that footpaths and the countryside have been opened up for access again following the foot and mouth epidemic, specific areas remain closed? If information about that is not publicly available from his Department or the county council, major problems could result. Is he satisfied that his Department and the county councils are making sure that people know exactly where they cannot go at present?
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We are encouraging local authorities to publish accurate information for the public on where remaining closed rights of way are located to assist in planning visits to the countryside. As I have indicated, a small number of premises are involved, and many local authorities—I discussed this with Lancashire county council only yesterday morning—recognise the importance of rights of way in the recovery of the rural economy and tourism. We are encouraging them to make that a priority and are working with them wherever possible.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that parish councils have a pivotal role in disseminating important information about rights of way? Is he aware, however, that his Department is systematically undermining those parish councils by labelling many parishes as sleeping or barely active? In my constituency, vibrant parishes such as Great Massingham, Roydon and North Wootton have been labelled as barely active. Does he understand the anger of those parish councils at being slighted in this way? Is this not yet another attack by this Government on rural Britain?
    Alun Michael: No, it is not. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to refute the scurrilous Conservative central office handout that some Opposition Members have taken up. The handout labelled as "secret" information that had been published in Hansard and placed in the House of Commons Library. That is the level to which Opposition Members have sunk in seeking to undermine the role of parish and town councils. This Government have recognised the importance of that level of local government more than any previous Government. We are working with parish councils, and they are working with us—a large number
    416
    of people turned out in Lancashire the night before last to discuss the future of parish and town councils. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for leading with his chin.

    Slaughter Premium
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If she will make a statement on the payment of the slaughter premium where livestock was culled during the foot and mouth outbreak. [38005]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The payment of the slaughter premium subsidy depends on criteria that were not met by animals culled due to foot and mouth disease. However, we understand that compensation was based on the market value of the animal, including any expectation of its subsidy potential.
    Mr. Edwards: I remind my hon. Friend that several farmers in the Grosmont area of Monmouthshire had their livestock culled. The valuers indicated that the slaughter premium would be added, and answers to parliamentary questions confirm that it should have been added. Will my hon. Friend consider this matter? If those farmers are entitled to the slaughter premium, it should be paid to them.
    Mr. Morley: Since my hon. Friend raised this issue, we have had significant discussions with the valuers association. The situation is a lot more complicated than it would at first appear. To provide my hon. Friend with a rough guide, from 22 March we introduced a standard valuation. Farmers had the choice of taking the standard valuation or opting for individual valuation. That standard valuation for cattle included the slaughter premium, and was used as a base line in relation to valuation, including the slaughter premium. Valuation should therefore also have included the slaughter premium. Having said that, there are some difficult cases, and we are taking advice. Generally, however, it should have been reflected in the compensation, although the rate of compensation for cattle could be regarded as generous.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I declare my agricultural interest. The Minister will be aware that I have corresponded with him and tabled written parliamentary questions about the associated issue of movement restrictions that prevented farmers from being able to get the over-30-months scheme premium during the foot and mouth outbreak. It is wholly unreasonable that, after the Government imposed movement restrictions, farmers could not then benefit from the OTMS premium. Should not the Government consider that as an associated cost of foot and mouth and pay the premium?
    Mr. Morley: We have considered all the issues and examined that point closely. I repeat the point that farmers who were affected by foot and mouth of course went through a dreadful time but, throughout the outbreak, the livestock sector regarded the compensation provided as fair and generous. The compensation reflects many of the issues involved rather than the current market rate for animals.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 11 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No.2) Bill.
TUESDAY 12 MARCH—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on "The Quality of Life in London and the South East" arising on an Opposition motion.
I understand that it will be a full day's debate, but the right hon. Gentleman might confirm that shortly.
WEDNESDAY 13 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 14 MARCH—Debate on women and equality on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 15 MARCH—Private Members Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 18 MARCH—Debate on hunting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that it has received so much consensus in the House.
TUESDAY 19 MARCH—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 20 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Adoption and Children Bill.
THURSDAY 21 MARCH—There will be a debate on education: 14 to 19-year-olds on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 22 MARCH—The House will not be sitting.
The House may wish to be reminded that subject to the progress of business the House will rise for the Easter recess at the end of business on Tuesday 26 March and return on Tuesday 9 April.
The House will wish to know that on Monday 18 March 2002 there will be a debate relating to enlargement in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Monday 18 March 2002:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: 14117/01 and Addenda 1–13, The European Commission strategy paper on enlargement and reports on progress by applicants; 5745/02, Common Financial Framework 2004–2006 for Accession Negotiations. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-xv and HC 152-xx (2001–02).]
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for providing us with the forthcoming business.
418
The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that at 11 o'clock this morning the Transport Committee produced its latest report, HC 680, on the public-private partnership for the London Underground. Extraordinarily, one of its conclusions is:
"The decision of the Secretary of State to proceed with the PPP on the back of such a vapid concluding statement from his independent advisers, Ernst & Young, must be questioned."
A Select Committee with a Labour majority—all Select Committees have such a majority—has questioned the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions. Members of the Committee are not the first persons to question his decisions, and they certainly will not be the last. The Committee then adds:
"It is essential that the Government allows Members a debate and vote in the House of Commons on a substantive motion on the future of the London Underground and the PPP.
Given the enormous respect that the Leader of the House has for Select Committees and his stated desire greatly to enhance their role, I am sure that he will be only too eager to confirm that there will not only be an early debate on this very important report, but that it will be on a substantive motion. I hope that he will be able to do that.
One of today's newspapers contains the headline, "Railtrack fiasco has shattered Blair's credibility in the City". It refers to the pronouncement by top fund managers in the City that said that the recent decision on Railtrack
"has shattered business trust in the Government."
The report adds that
"future private investment in public projects would be more expensive because of the perception of increased risk.
The surcharge has been dubbed 'the Byers premium'".
Another newspaper quotes the Secretary of State for Transport as undaunted by all that and reports:
"Mr. Byers claimed that the fund managers had fundamentally misunderstood the situation. Railtrack was a wholly private company".
That was not the impression that Labour Back Benchers had last week when they were only too eager to support the beleaguered Secretary of State when he appeared in the House. So will the Leader of the House tell us now or make arrangements to confirm later whether, as the Secretary of State claimed to the City, Railtrack is private or whether the Secretary of State wishes his colleagues to think that it is not private? May we have confirmation one way or another?
Today's edition of the Daily Mail has the headline, "Mittal: it gets worse". May we have a debate entitled, "How many Government Departments can you buy for £125,000"? We know, do we not, that No. 10 Downing street can be bought. We know that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can be bought. Now it would appear that the Home Office can also be bought for that same £125,000. Has the Leader of the House been briefed to reply to the question whether this story about the Home Office and Mittal is true? In a friendly gesture, I would just sound a slight health warning for the Leader of the House, reminding him to be careful what he might say about any briefing that he has had. The truth is, is it not—it is now perfectly obvious—that the Government have been bought again? I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to clarify this latest story about the rather ghastly Mr. Mittal.

419
Yesterday, Richard Balfe, the most senior Labour Member of the European Parliament, joined the Conservative party. It is interesting that—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: You can have him.
Mr. Forth: I hear the hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Skinner: He is in favour of the euro.
Mr. Forth: When giving his reasons for joining the Conservative party, Mr. Balfe accused the Prime Minister of ruling Labour by fear, and then he said, as reported in The Daily Telegraph, that
"the Tory party under lain Duncan Smith is a tolerant party that accepts differing opinions and encourages debate."
It is just as well; otherwise some of us might not survive very long.
I introduce the subject of Mr. Balfe because he obviously feels that there is no scope within the Labour party for any sort of debate or difference of view, and I remind the Leader of the House that recently, at this Dispatch Box, I had to defend his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) from a vicious attack by none other than the Foreign Secretary. Now I find that I must try to defend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), who has been viciously attacked by his supposed hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). At column 88WH—I cannot imagine what that stands for—of yesterday's Hansard, the junior Minister said about his alleged hon. Friend that he was
"an apologist…a mouthpiece, for the Iraqi regime over many years."
That then gave rise to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin saying:
"The Minister is a liar"
and
"The Minister told a lie about me."—[Official Report, 6 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 88WH.]
Will the Leader of the House take his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary aside and give him some quiet advice on how Ministers should stop abusing Labour Back Benchers to such an extent, otherwise they will all leave his party and join mine?
Mr. Cook: The Conservative party must be more desperate for members than we imagined if the right hon. Gentleman really hopes that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) will defect to it. My hon. Friend is making a personal statement later this afternoon. I shall listen to it with interest, but I do not anticipate that the climax of that will be his joining the tolerant party of the right hon. Gentleman.
As for Mr. Richard Balfe, I am trying to come to terms with his departure with all the equanimity that I can muster, and the right hon. Gentleman will need all the equanimity that he can muster to work with him as a colleague, particularly on the euro.
I will, of course, study with care the Transport Committee's report, but I remind the House and the right hon. Gentleman—this seems to have slipped his mind—
420
that the conclusion of the Ernst and Young study was that the analysis on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport spoke was robust. I will, of course, consider whether we should hold a further debate on that matter. The House has considered the issue on a number of occasions, and I am sure that it will do so again.
On the City and the funding of public-private partnerships, may I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, despite the alarmism that he seeks to spread further, since last summer there have been 44 new PPPs signed with City firms without any problem about their coming forward and offering the funding. Indeed, the Chiltern line, which will be known to several of his hon. Friends given that, on the whole, it serves areas that managed to survive their debacles at the last two general elections, has just attracted £370 million of private finance without anyone complaining about additional risk premium or the risk of that funding.
Of course, a fundamental question remains, which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are for ever failing to answer. If they had found themselves in the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, are they really saying that they would have paid out the money to Railtrack and left it in the hands not just of a private legal company, but one with private shareholders whom it repeatedly put before the travelling public, who are glad to see the back of it?
The right hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to hear that I can help him on Mr. Mittal and the newspaper story. First, the correspondence began with a request from the Belgian authorities, not with any request from Mr. Mittal. Secondly, Mr. Mittal is not under any investigation by the Belgian authorities; on the contrary, they were seeking evidence from him as a witness against one of his competitors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Corns."] [Laughter.] I honestly do not understand what Opposition Members find in any way amusing about our seeking perfectly properly to assist another European country with a legal investigation that it is carrying out.
I heard the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) say this morning that such things never happened during his time at the Home Office. It may therefore help him if I say that the organisation that handles and processes such correspondence—the UK central authority for mutual legal assistance—was set up in 1990 by the Conservative party. Every year, it deals with some 4,000 items of correspondence from other judicial authorities. When the right hon. and learned Member was Home Secretary it undoubtedly processed many thousands of identical requests. I suppose that we should be grateful to him for having made it clear that he had no idea whatever what was being done by the Home Office while he was Home Secretary. If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would like to debate that further, I would welcome it.
As we are on the topic of Mr. Mittal, I would welcome a debate in which we could explore from where came the £43 million in donations that the Conservative party received in its last year in office. Conservative Members

421
have never come clean as to who they received that money from or what they did for them, but we know one or two of the donors.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Asil Nadir.
Mr. Cook: They received £400,000 from Asil Nadir, as my hon. Friend cries out, on the basis of his fraudulent company in northern Cyprus. They promised that they would return that money, but they never did so. I understand that they have just received several million from Lord Ashcroft, who, when he was appointed as a peer, said that he would like to be known as Lord Ashcroft of Belize. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to explore those matters further in a debate, we would be delighted to do so, and we would like to hear some answers.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the "What the Papers Say" script that we have just heard from the shadow Leader of the House, he was certainly right about one thing: the greater tolerance of the current leader of the Conservative party, who showed himself tolerant enough to appoint the right hon. Gentleman as shadow Leader of the House?
May I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming the debate on hunting in the provisional business for 18 March? Will he confirm to me—as a Labour Member who, when in government, used the Parliament Act to obtain the enactment of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977—that there is no obstacle whatever to using the Parliament Act to enact a new Bill passed by this House in this Parliament? Will he therefore assure me that, if the will of the House makes it very clear that it wishes a complete ban on hunting with hounds, the Government will ensure that such a Bill is passed, using the Parliament Act if necessary?
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I said in response to questions last week that we will have a vote on hunting on 18 March and, indeed, so will the other place. Thereafter, the Minister for Rural Affairs will be seeking to find a way forward and will make proposals before the Easter recess. That will involve legislation at some stage, but it is a bit premature to speculate about a point which, on that timetable, is not likely to arise for at least another 18 months.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I assure the Leader of the House that we, too, would support a debate on the failed privatisation of Railtrack and its relevance to the part-privatisation of the tube, if only because we could then establish whether the Conservative party was still in favour of privatisation, having botched it the first time around?
May I ask that we have a debate as early as possible on the private purchase of politicians? The Leader of the House may recall that, a few weeks ago, he gave a dismissive reply to my request for such a debate on its relevance to the future funding of democracy in this country. Today it is reported that his right hon. Friend the chairman of the Labour party has been having secret talks with the chairman of the Conservative party on the subject
422
of state funding for the political parties and the political process. I do not know whether this is a private fight, or whether anyone can join in.
May I suggest that that debate should take place in this House and not behind the scenes between the representatives of the two dinosaur parties? There is genuine public concern about the extent to which successive Governments—the Leader of the House referred to this just now—have been dependent on private donations. We need to establish once and for all what those poor, benighted creatures were doing in making those contributions and whether they got value for money.
May we have a statement before Easter on the subject of Lords reform? The Leader of the House said that he was seeking a centre of gravity. The excellent and unanimous report by the Select Committee on Public Administration offers him an opportunity to create precisely that consensus and centre of gravity. Can I suggest that now the consultation period is long over, and that his White Paper—[Interruption.] Not the Leader of the House's White Paper; the Lord Chancellor's White Paper—I am sorry to have maligned the right hon. Gentleman in that way. Now that the Lord Chancellor's White Paper has been thoroughly discussed, it is time for the House to move on.
Mr. Cook: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his characterisation of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and me as members of the dinosaur parties. In fairness to my colleagues, I am entitled to point out that the party of Gladstone is somewhat older than the party that I represent. The hon. Gentleman might wish to reflect on where the tag of "the oldest party" should be attached.
May I deal with the point about political parties by stepping back and looking at it a little more widely than I am afraid the media do? Our parliamentary democracy cannot function without political parties; that is the nature of democracy. We require political parties to be in good health and to have some source of funding. If it is the case that the media and some hon. Members are moving to the view that private donations are unacceptable, there has to be an acceptance of alternative ways in which political parties are funded. That is why it is entirely legitimate for members of both parties to have discussions and to explore and debate whether there should be state funding. There is no commitment to that on the part of the Government and I think that the chairman of the Conservative party might have some difficulty in carrying all the members of the Conservative Front Bench on this question.
Mr. Forth indicated assent.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful for that confirmation.
On the issue of House of Lords reform and the hon. Gentleman's point about the Public Administration Committee, I welcome one general point about the report, which is that it proves that it is possible for those who want reform of the second Chamber to reach agreement on what should be the shape of that reform. What has repeatedly worried me—I have expressed this to the House—is that, for decades, we have failed to proceed with root and branch reform of the second Chamber because those who are in favour of reform have been

423
unable to agree on the shape of it. The Select Committee has done us a service by proving unanimously and without division that those in favour of reform are able to reach agreement. I am encouraged by that to continue with the search for a centre of gravity. I am also encouraged to recognise that doing nothing need not be an option.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In yesterday's Hansard, the Prime Minister replied to me:
"When decisions do have to be taken on Iraq, of course we will come and consult the House properly as we should."—[Official Report, 6 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 297.]
Could it be confirmed next week that such consultation will take place before there is a commitment to military action, and not after?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristically helpful question. May I gently point out to him that the Prime Minister said that no decision has been taken, and no one anticipates one being taken in the near or medium future? Indeed, there is no timetable or process by which such a decision could be taken. It would therefore be ludicrously premature for me as Leader of the House to commit myself to what the House may do in the event of a hypothetical outcome that is not expected for many months.
In any event, the Government have demonstrated, with the recent crisis in Afghanistan, a willingness, enthusiasm and keenness to hear from the House. We have had five separate full-day debates on that issue in which, if I remember rightly, my hon. Friend was careful to give his views at length, as I am sure he will do when we debate it again.
Mr. Charles Hendry: May we have a statement on the Government's relations with industry and trade unions? Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister said that the concerns of City fund managers about the financing of public-private projects were motivated by self-interest. Today we read on the front page of The Times that he is crawling back to them by reneging on pledges on workers' rights that he has made to trade unions. Can the Prime Minister make a clear statement to the House on where he stands? Now that we all know the way in which the Government operate, can we be told how much more money the unions would have to pay the Government to get a change of policy?
Mr. Cook: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to correct the statements in this morning's press. We issued a consultation document last September on the preservation of pension rights. It listed a number of options that have been out for consultation. They are being discussed in the Government and no decision has been made.
Mr. Bill Tynan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable disquiet in companies up and down the country because of the demise of final salary occupational pension schemes? Will he make time for a debate on the Floor of the House on that important issue to reassure the many people who are worried and to see what can be done to support them?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a profound and serious issue for the nation. Many of us are going to live
424
longer than before, so it is all the more important to ensure that there are adequate pension schemes to take people through what will also be a longer period of retirement. I very much regret the decline in the number of final year pension schemes. I note that some of the companies that have started the process of erosion of those schemes have not shown any erosion in the pensions they award to their senior executives. I will convey my hon. Friend's observations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I assure him that the Government will follow the issue closely.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the general concern about Iraq? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to arrange an early debate on the Floor of the House, led by the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister, on Iraq? Will he consider publishing at an early date a document that sets out and identifies the chief areas of concern in the context of Iraq? In the event of the Government deciding to take or to support action, including military action, outside what goes on in the no-fly zones, will he seek the support of the House on a substantive motion, even if that authority has to be given retrospectively, which is where I slightly depart from the views of the hon. Member for Linlithgow?
Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has floated an alternative option to that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The request is ludicrously premature in terms of what may, or may not, be happening. No decision has been taken, and none may ever be taken. The fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend have produced two different approaches shows that we need to consider the matter carefully before we commit ourselves to one or other way of proceeding.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's other point related to the grounds of concern about Iraq. At the present time I do not think that there would be any difficulty for the Government putting in the public domain a response to the areas of concern to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded, but those issues are well known and unarguable. The fact is that the Iraqi regime has several thousands of unaccounted litres of toxic chemicals that would be appropriate to use in a chemical weapon; it has made considerable investment in developing biological germ agents that could be used in biological weapons; and has proceeded intensively—and appears to be continuing to do so—with medium-range missiles that could deliver such warheads. In addition, of course, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in his attack on an innocent village of Kurds, wiping out 5,000 women, children and elderly men with mustard gas.
Given that history and the present record, it is entirely proper that the world should take action through every available channel, starting with the United Nations, to ensure that Saddam Hussein accepts what the rest of the world accepts: no regime should have access to weapons of mass destruction unless it fully participates in international regimes to control proliferation.
Mr. Colin Challen: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a report of the

425
European Parliament on relations between the European Parliament and national Parliaments on European integration? It refers to
"the growing disaffection, disappointment and distrust regarding the development of the Union",
and goes on to talk about
"a fear of helplessness in the face of imposed decisions which cannot be influenced or controlled".
In the light of the fact that constitutional convention is considering many of the issues developing in the Union, what arrangements will be made for debates in this House—as the convention proceeds, and not just at the end of it—and what arrangements might be made to help Members promote the debate outside the House, since our colleagues in the European Parliament receive large amounts of money to promote their arguments?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend will be aware that this House is represented directly by two Members—one from our party, who has been elected to the collective presidency of the convention and is therefore well placed to monitor its proceedings and agenda, and one who represents the Opposition, who no doubt also represents their strong views against Europe and will be making his own strong commitment to it and reporting to us at great length.
I anticipate that, as the convention proceeds, it will be a matter of repeated discussion in the House. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will be frequently before the House giving an account of it. We have had discussions on the process by which Members of the House and of the convention can report to Committees of the House, but I very much share my hon. Friend's concern that the debate should not simply be one within the convention or, indeed, between the convention and national Parliaments. The debate must also embrace the wider population and the civic community of Europe. I very much hope that high on the convention's agenda is the means of ensuring that it carries out exercises in listening to that civic community.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will the Leader of the House think carefully about the comment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) and bear in mind the tradition of consensus across the House when discussing pension legislation and the future of pensions? Although there is much discussion at the moment in the House on legislation affecting second pensions, pension plus and stakeholder pensions, there has not been an opportunity to discuss the serious, long-term and deep effects on security in retirement. Will he therefore look favourably on the possibility of an Adjournment debate in which we can consider such issues and subject them to the measured and informed discussion that they badly need?
Mr. Cook: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that when dealing with the question of our citizens' income over a prolonged period—that might be two or three decades in retirement—it is important that we provide them with the stability and confidence of a cross-party approach, which is why many of us on the Labour Benches regretted that one of the Conservative Government's first acts after
426
election in 1979 was to scrap the new pension scheme that the Labour Government had introduced. Had that been honoured by the Conservative party, the hon. Gentleman's appeal for a cross-party approach might have more resonance. However, I agree that we should try again to build that consensus, and I am sure that there will be opportunities to debate it in the months ahead.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I failed narrowly to get in my question to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers, so may I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to urge his colleagues in that Department to make a statement in the House on organophosphates? He will know that organophosphate sheep dips were withdrawn from the market a few years, but reintroduced in October 2000. However, this month, a significant research report has been published in The Lancet by Professor Nicola Cherry, who tells us that the results of her research
"suggest that organophosphates contribute to the reported ill health of people who dip sheep."
The issue is a huge one in farming communities, and it is worthy of a Minister coming to the House urgently to tell us what the Government's position is.
Mr. Cook: I can only express my deep regret that my hon. Friend did not have a chance to put that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs rather than to me, but I shall make a point of writing to my right hon. Friend this afternoon so that honour is served.
Sir George Young: May I press the Leader of the House on the issue of Lords reform? Has he had time to read a perceptive piece by Hugo Young—no relation—in The Guardian today? He says of the Government's proposals:
"Tranquillity beckons. Relief from a project too few of them really want…Deliverance into comfortable inertia."
Will the right hon. Gentleman dispel those allegations by promising an early debate on the Government's forthcoming response to the Public Administration Committee report, in which the Government's proposals will be set out clearly?
Mr. Cook: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I begin every Thursday by reading The Guardian; it ensures that I come to the House in a suitably combative mood.
As the House knows, we are currently considering the responses to our consultation exercise. We received about 1,000 responses, many of a thoughtful and serious character. We shall at some stage publish an analysis of the responses, and respond to the PAC within two months. Obviously, the matter will have to return to the House at some stage, but I think it appropriate that we take time to get it right before it does so.
David Hamilton: In December last year, the Minister for Industry and Energy made a welcome statement that, after 17 years, he was to right a wrong done to sacked miners throughout the country, several hundred of whom were sacked during the miners' strike. To date, nothing further has been said. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made in the near future?
Mr. Cook: I know that strong feelings attach to that issue and that it is important to a large number of people

427
in my hon. Friend's constituency. I shall make sure that his comments are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as soon as possible.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House may have picked up vibrations in the press about the Government's undoubted generosity in granting accommodation to Members who are absent from the House and their staff when sitting Members who attend regularly still do not have adequate accommodation. Is he in a position to offer guidance on the steps that would be taken to discipline a party that is not yet prepared to support the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and whose defeated candidate in the Belfast, South constituency at the last election—a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly—joined others to intimidate people by putting up posters urging them not to join the police service, while at the same time encouraging their own form of restorative justice, a do-it-yourself kangaroo court?
Mr. Cook: I am sure that the whole House joins the hon. Gentleman in deprecating such activity, but the House has no mechanism to discipline its Members for activities undertaken outside the Chamber or the House—nor should it. Many hon. Members motivated by perfectly bona fide commitments and beliefs of their own carry out activities that the House would neither endorse nor be drawn to condemn.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we debated the matter before Christmas considerable concern was expressed that Members are required to register only on taking the Oath, rather than on being elected. I am pleased that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges has made a recommendation to the effect that registration should be required of all Members on the point of election or within three months of election. I hope to introduce a motion giving effect to that recommendation before Easter.
Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the all-party group on children in Wales agreed last week to support in principle the aims of 'Sdim Curo Plant!—the Welsh campaign to ban the physical punishment of children and to give children the same protection as adults under the law of assault? I am sure that he is aware that the Scottish Executive propose to ban the physical punishment of all children under three. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this important subject so that we can consider how it affects children in England and Wales and raise the important issues associated with it?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a subject of considerable debate. She is aware that strong and different views are held on both sides of the fence, which is why the Government have sought to make sure that they find the right balance between the protection of the child and the rights and responsibilities of the parent. As a Scottish MP, I fully support and welcome what is being done in the Scottish Parliament, but the principle of devolution is the right of each side to take whatever action it regards as appropriate for its side of the border.
Mr. John Butterfill: When the right hon. Gentleman was replying to my right hon. Friend
428
the shadow Leader on concerns about PPP, he pointed out that there have been a number of successful PPPs in the recent past. He will, however, have heard a succession of leaders of the financial community on the "Today" programme this morning and elsewhere saying that a risk premium would undoubtedly be imposed for future PPPs as a result of the actions of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. That is a matter for real concern, as the Government's credibility is in considerable danger. Will the right hon. Gentleman set in place methods to monitor the future rates of return from PPP submissions, if indeed he can get anybody to do it at all, so that we can see whether those fears are justified? Can those figures be published, unlike the unpublished figures relating to London Transport, and if there is cause for concern, can we have a debate on the matter?
Mr. Cook: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every PPP is subject to tests of value for money, which require an analysis of what the future costs will be and how that compares with public sector traditional funding. No PPP will proceed unless it passes that value for money test. As I told the House, more than 40 such schemes have passed that test since it became clear that Railtrack could no longer continue. What would the hon. Gentleman and all his hon. Friends who raise the issue have done in the circumstances in which my right hon. Friend found himself last autumn? Are they saying that they would have volunteered £5 billion, the sum that would have been required to keep Railtrack afloat, in the full knowledge that the company had given hundreds of millions to its shareholders while skimping on investment for the travelling public?
Helen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the closure of Smurfit Corrugated in my constituency, with the loss of 94 jobs? Does he agree that a company which fails properly to consult its workers, which fails to give adequate reasons for choosing the Warrington plant for closure and which, it is suspected, will take the savings from that closure to invest abroad, should be held to account on the Floor of the House? Should we not have the opportunity to debate not just that closure, but the chances of providing better protection for British workers caught up in such situations?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend rightly and properly raises a matter of anxiety for her constituents and an issue that must be of serious concern in her constituency. There are ways in which she can ventilate that through the House. It is important that we make sure that we get the right balance of rights in the workplace, and the Government have taken action to ensure that there are fair rights at the workplace. We must get the right balance between the provision of skilled flexible labour that will attract investment, and the decent protection of that labour from unemployment.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: As the Leader of the House was present in the Chamber yesterday to hear Northern Ireland's First Minister tell the Prime Minister clearly how much it would undermine him and others who supported the Belfast agreement if the Government went ahead with an amnesty for terrorists on the run, can he

429
give us an assurance today that no such amnesty will be granted? I see the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. As he clearly does not intend to give us such an assurance, will he at the very least say that the suggestions in the press that the amnesty will occur over Easter are quite wrong, and that the House should be allowed to debate the matter before a decision is taken?
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would be rather startled if I were to rule out or rule in what he must do. I have always made it perfectly plain that we want to ensure that the peace process succeeds. If time is required in the House to ensure that that happens, I shall, as Leader of the House, ensure that it is made available.
Jim Knight: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the membership of Select Committees? In particular, does he share my concern about the continued inclusion on the Defence Committee of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who remains a member of that Committee despite his recent appointment to the Opposition Front Bench as a defence spokesman? He is indeed a very honourable man; I get on with him well and I congratulate him on his appointment. However, I feel that his membership dilutes the independence of the Committee and threatens its ability to achieve cross-party consensus.
Mr. Cook: I understand that this matter was raised in the Liaison Committee this morning, and I shall be very happy to discuss it with the Chairman of that Committee so that I can understand and reflect the collective views of the Select Committee Chairmen. It would be generally held to be desirable for Select Committees, which carry out scrutiny and seek to find cross-party agreements on their reports wherever possible, not to include Front Benchers from either side of the Chamber. However, I say to my hon. Friend that we must also be understanding of the fact that the official Opposition are so small they might need Front Benchers to be included.
Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the Leader of the House find an opportunity to debate in Government time the latest privatisation in the Ministry of Defence? The privatisation of fleet support services affects 4,000 jobs in Rosyth, Portsmouth, Devonport and Faslane. Will he give the House a proper chance to scrutinise the way in which the process has operated? We need to give some confidence to the work force that the 1,000-odd projected redundancies will be considered properly, and the House needs to be satisfied that the MOD has properly gone through all the processes for considering the bids for the work. There is currently widespread dissatisfaction about the way in which the matter has been handled and a resistance on the part of the MOD to come to the House to justify the position that it has taken.
Mr. Cook: This sounds like exactly the sort of issue that the Defence Select Committee could pursue if it were minded to do so. None the less, I shall certainly convey

430
the hon. Gentleman's observations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and invite my right hon. Friend to write to him.
Andy Burnham: I support the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) for a debate on the manufacturing industry and employee protection. Problems in the industry are hitting towns such as Leigh especially hard. Leigh has lost thousands of jobs in recent years in coal mining and textiles, and we now face the injustice of 220 people being made redundant from Volex on terms that are by far inferior to those applying to counterparts in the Republic of Ireland who work for the same company. Will my right hon. Friend find time soon for a debate on the process of redundancy, how it is hurting families and how we might do more to protect employees who are being made redundant?
Mr. Cook: In recent weeks, a number of colleagues have requested a debate on manufacturing industry. I am acutely aware of those demands and keep them very much in mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will open a debate in the House next week in pursuit of one of her other responsibilities, but I am conscious of the wish on both sides of the House for a debate on this matter. I shall see whether we can accommodate some way of ventilating these issues if time is available.
Mr. John Hayes: In calling for urgent clarification from the Leader of the House, I seek to draw to the House's attention a matter that will concern Opposition, Government and minor party Members. On 30 January, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister about worsening waiting times in accident and emergency departments. The Prime Minister replied—I refer to column 281 of Hansard —that the method of measuring such things had changed. Indeed, he said that it had changed under this Government. Given that ministerial replies from both this Government and the previous one make it absolutely clear that these figures are collated and collected centrally only by the Audit Commission, I was surprised to receive a note from the Library saying:
"The Audit Commission has used the same indicators since 1996".
The note also said:
"If Mr. Blair's response suggests that measurement methods have changed and that therefore the figures quoted by Mr. Duncan Smith are incomparable, it appears to be misplaced."
That is a serious matter. Given the Prime Minister's scrupulous regard for straightforwardness and accuracy—if only Hansard could measure irony—he will want to make an urgent statement to the House about the source of his information and the basis on which he made the claim. If it is inaccurate, he will want to apologise to hon. Members, for it is inconceivable that he would deliberately mislead the House.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises an important, highly detailed and technical point. He will forgive me if I say that I do not believe that it would assist me or hon. Members if I attempted to answer it without either notice

431
or considering the facts. However, I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Health responds to the hon. Gentleman to clarify the issue.
Mr. Iain Luke: The Leader of the House may be aware of early-day motion 943, which looks forward to the celebrations for Europe day on 9 May, the anniversary of the date on which Robert Schuman presented his proposals for creating a European Community.
[That this House looks forward to the opportunity for the United Kingdom to celebrate Europe Day on 9th May; recognises that 9th May marks the day in 1950 that Robert Schuman presented his proposal for the creation of the European Union; notes that the European Union has been central to the maintenance of peaceful relations and coexistence on this continent ever since; welcomes the opportunity for the UK to join in this annual celebration of the diversity of cultures that exist within Europe; and celebrates the UK's membership of the European Union.]
Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on Thursday 9 May to mark Britain's continued, positive involvement in Europe?
Mr. Cook: I am tempted to agree to such a debate if only to enable Mr. Richard Balfe to tell us his views on Conservative European policy.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate or statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the disposal of surplus national health service accommodation? A group of people in Wirksworth in my constituency would like the NHS care centre that was closed recently to be converted into accommodation for elderly people. That service is desperately needed in the town. A similar arrangement to that in Buxton, whereby the property was sold at a lower cost to local residents, could solve the problem.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has been able to raise an issue of concern to his constituency. However, I am not sure that the best way to proceed is through centrally imposed guidelines or requirements. Obviously, when appropriate and effective alternative uses that meet other social care or health needs can be found for NHS premises, the local health authority should provide for that. However, there is an alternative. In the case of large, commercially profitable sites—there is an example in my constituency—ploughing the money back into other parts of the health service is frankly best for the community. However, decisions should be made case by case, not centrally.
Mr. James Wray: In view of the Chancellor's actions to eradicate child poverty and the new Child Poverty Action Group report, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the subject in the Chamber? Britain has a population of 55 million, but the report states that Glasgow, with a small population of 600,000, has four of the 10 most deprived areas. It has suffered high infant mortality, horrendous housing problems and unemployment. I would like the Government to eradicate the poverty that the previous Government left behind them, especially in Glasgow.
Mr. Cook: We will hold the Budget debate next month. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will
432
refer to child poverty and the action that we are taking to tackle and, over a period of time, to eradicate it. Like my hon. Friend, I heard the Chancellor speak on the matter yesterday, and I was impressed by the progress that we are making. We inherited a legacy of rapidly rising child poverty from the Conservative Government and we are taking action to decrease it rapidly. That is the right priority for the nation and the Government.
Pete Wishart: On Tuesday, we spent three hours debating whether final planning consent for new nuclear power stations lay with the House or the Scottish Parliament. Although we did not get an answer to a clear question, we got the strong impression that final consent lay with the House. Meanwhile, the Minister for Energy and Industry, who should have responded to the debate, made a speech in Scotland that strongly suggested that the decision lay with the Scottish Parliament. What can the Leader of the House do to protect hon. Members from Ministers' contradictory statements? When can we have an early statement to clarify the issue?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has just had a three-hour debate on the topic of his choice. He cannot really expect that to be followed by a statement in the House. It is rich for the Scottish National party to complain when Ministers go to Scotland. I should have thought that they would welcome every possible visit to Scotland by the appropriate Ministers. As I said last week, this matter has to be dealt with in partnership, whatever the legal niceties, and that is the way in which we shall proceed with the Administration in Edinburgh. [Interruption.] I should like to know whether the Conservative party—if it ever got into power—could offer the same kind of partnership with the Scottish Executive that we can.
John Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on mobile telecommunications masts, an issue that probably affects every constituency in the country? There has been a recent proposal in my constituency for a mast between, and very close to, two primary schools, which flies in the face of the recommendation in the Stewart report—a Government report—that masts should not be located near such schools. The problem is that although PPG8 has been strengthened—for which I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government—it did not go far enough in incorporating some of the Stewart report's recommendations, particularly the recommendation that such masts should be kept well away from primary schools. May we have a debate, or at least a statement, on that issue?
Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the conclusion of the Stewart report, based on the available scientific evidence, was that there is no general health risk from mobile telecommunications masts. However, I fully understand why parents are particularly anxious when they see such masts being located near schools—and, sometimes, on schools—having had experience of this in my constituency. I shall certainly convey to the Department my hon. Friend's concern that that recommendation in the Stewart report should be acted on.
Angela Watkinson: Bearing in mind the interest of the Leader of the House in strengthening the

433
role of Select Committees as part of the modernisation of the House, does he agree that the announcement on the declassification of cannabis by the Home Secretary at a meeting of the Home Affairs Committee just two weeks before the Committee commenced an investigation into drugs policy, and the announcement in the media today by the drugs Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth)—on how to make it easier and safer for people to take dance drugs in night clubs, undermine the role of the Select Committee?
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Lady's concern that the Home Secretary's making a statement to the Select Committee somehow undermines it. Personally, I welcome that innovation, and I am sure that many of my right hon. Friends will consider making further such use of Select Committees. If we want Select Committees to carry out their functions properly, and to have a proper status in this place, it is entirely right that they should occasionally receive new announcements from the appropriate Secretary of State.
John Robertson: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the good work carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) on asbestosis in respect of the Chester Street insurance company. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that the companies that agreed to pay compensation to asbestosis sufferers—and any future sufferers—are now reneging on the deal? They will not pay out any money, even to those who have received letters stating that their compensation has been granted, which means that the compensation has been printed out on paper but is not worth the paper that it is printed on. Will he arrange a debate on this serious issue, so that we can name and shame those companies?
Mr. Cook: I fully share my hon. Friend's deep regret at behaviour that appears to be deplorable. I am sure that many hon. Members will share the sense of outrage that his constituents no doubt feel. On the facts as stated, I would be surprised if there were no legal remedy available to those who are most affected, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to pursue the matter and make full use of the facilities of the House to do so.
Mr. John Wilkinson: On the day on which the Office of Public Services Reform at the Cabinet Office is issuing no fewer than 10,000 pamphlets to the public services, and on which Mr. Ian Jones, the head of news at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, remains suspended without charge, may I ask for a debate in Government time on the operation and management of the civil and public services, the criteria for the maintenance of standards, and the accountability and responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers?
Mr. Cook: I have no intention of saying anything on the question of the civil servant who has been suspended pending an investigation. It is a matter for the permanent secretary to announce the conclusion of that investigation
434
and it would not help either the individual concerned or the permanent secretary for the rest of us to get drawn into a political debate on it in the meantime.
On the publication today of the pamphlet that has been delivered to up to 10,000 senior officials in the public service, it is proper and right that the Government should try to ensure that those who work in the public service understand the extent to which their contribution is valued and the broad strategy to which they are working. It would be the act of a bad employer and an inefficient manager not to ensure that that message is understood throughout the service. I notice that the Conservative party is calling for the decentralisation of the health service, which it highly centralised, so the hon. Gentleman should be pleased to hear that one of the four main themes of the pamphlet is flexibility through the decentralisation of power and resources to those in the front line.
Paul Flynn: Can we destroy at birth the self-serving fantasy promulgated by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) that there has been a political consensus on pension policy in recent years? There was no consensus in 1980 for the cut in the link with earnings, or for the salami cuts over the following 17 years. There was no consensus in 1985 on the partial destruction of the state earnings-related pension scheme, which has done great damage. There was certainly no consensus on the policy in the late 1980s, when many people were tempted by the then Government to leave their good-value occupational schemes and go into atrocious-value personal pensions. We should have a good debate on this issue, but we must ensure that the blame is laid firmly where it belongs, which is not with the Government, because we opposed every one of those dangerous changes that have seriously impoverished today's pensioners and will impoverish tomorrow's pensioners.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend and I were members of the same team in opposition on social security and pensions, and he was an excellent shadow spokesman on pensions.
Mr. Forth: Those were the days.
Mr. Cook: I prefer these days, and I suspect that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) also preferred it when he was on the Government side. My hon. Friend has had slightly longer to work on it, but he has given a much better reply than I did, and I commend him on it.
Brian Cotter: Can the Leader of the House help with a serious question that I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of the small business community? I asked her to give a response to the Competition Commission's report on banking that was presented in October last year, and she said that she would publish the report as soon as practicable. That is an extraordinary, off-hand and cavalier response to a question that relates back to the Cruickshank report on

435
banking, which was published two years ago this month. Can the Leader of the House help us to obtain a response to the report?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman said that he asked my right hon. Friend to publish the report, but I think that he meant publish the Government's response to it.
Brian Cotter: Yes.
Mr. Cook: It is important for the Government to ensure that the response is well thought through and consulted on, because it is not a matter of one Department reaching a view. It is important that time is taken to get it right, rather than rushing it. The time frame that the hon. Gentleman referred to is not unusual, but I am sure that the Department will be well aware of his anxiety to see the response.
Mr. David Chaytor: Following a week in which a Manchester United footballer signed a contract to earn £90.000 a week with the prospect of others being paid even more, in which ITV Digital announced that it was forced to renegotiate its contract with the Football League because it could not afford to pay the original price for television rights, and in which Bury football club in my constituency became the latest club in the lower divisions to go into receivership, does my right hon. Friend agree that the globalisation of football is having serious consequences for small clubs in the lower divisions, which many thousands of people support? Does he agree that those clubs have a vital role to play in their communities, as well as contributing to our national sporting life? May we have an early debate on the future of small professional football clubs?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is correct about the importance of football clubs to local communities and local identity, which is why I am delighted that Livingston football club is currently beaten in the Scottish league only by Rangers and Celtic. That has done wonders for
436
identity and pride in the city for the people of Livingston and the residents of West Lothian. That shows the success that can be achieved by a small club that only six years ago was in the third division. I recognise that it is important that we have a proper range of football clubs in the various communities of Britain, and that we do not end up with only mega-clubs.
These are choppy waters. I think that I have managed to build consensus in the House by avoiding controversy, but this matter is of such deep controversy outside it that although I shall report my hon. Friend's observations to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, I am not inclined to go further at the present time.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House be good enough to inquire now about the availability of Ministers to respond to urgent matters raised during the Easter Adjournment debate? I have used—and will continue to use—every opportunity to raise the urgent matter of the proposed demolition of important world war two buildings at the Dunkeswell airfield in my constituency. If I raise the matter in the Adjournment debate, it will be because I understand that Defence Estates has set a deadline of 1 April for the demolition of buildings that Defence Ministers previously have helped to preserve and that English Heritage has commended. If I do not get a positive response, I may end up spending my Easter recess chained to the control tower. I therefore hope that the Leader of the House will come to my rescue, and to the rescue of a very important world war two memorial site.
Mr. Cook: I feel under a very strong compulsion to try to find a way to avert that fate for the hon. Lady, and to prevent her from spending her Easter recess in that way. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be grateful for the advance notice of what the hon. Lady will raise in the Easter Adjournment debate, and I think that he is open to hearing other advance bids. I hope that the hon. Lady secures an outcome that is satisfactory for her constituents, but I am sure that we all look forward to hearing what she has to say in the debate.

Kyoto
1.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the UK ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
Following agreement at the European Community Environment Council on Monday, I am very pleased to announce that the Government have today laid the Kyoto protocol before both Houses of Parliament. This significant step begins the formal process of UK ratification of what is a hugely important protocol.
This House is aware of the leading role that the Government have always played in the fight against climate change and, in particular, of the pivotal role played by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment in the original negotiations on the protocol in Kyoto. We have maintained that lead in subsequent negotiations, and we are making strong progress with implementing a strategic and innovative programme of action to reduce the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. I firmly believe that the UK, as well as the rest of world, has much to gain from meeting the challenge of climate change head-on.
The deal that I helped to secure, first in Bonn and then in Marrakesh last year, was the latest in a series of major political achievements, and it paved the way for ratification. Since then, the EU has set an aim for the Kyoto protocol to enter into force in time for the world summit on sustainable development at the end of August. That summit marks the 10th anniversary of the Rio earth summit, which set up the UN framework convention on climate change in the first place. Although we do not expect or wish climate change, as such, to feature prominently on the summit's agenda, entry into force of the protocol before the summit takes place will demonstrate beyond doubt the world's commitment to taking its environmental responsibilities seriously.
The Environment Council's agreement on Monday to the Council decision on European Community ratification and to the EU "bubble" was a significant milestone. This needed to happen first, so that the reduction targets agreed politically by each member state in 1998 became legally fixed. I was delighted with the outcome of the Council meeting, which followed some detailed and, at times, sensitive negotiations. It means that all member states can now complete their own national ratification procedures, and that the EU and its member states will be the first of the key developed countries to ratify the protocol.
This Government are wasting no time in ensuring that the UK ratifies the protocol as soon as possible. Today's event marks the start of our process. The protocol will be before Parliament for the next 21 sitting days. At the end of that period, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will sign the UK's instrument of ratification. For legal and presentational reasons, the UK will deposit its instrument with the UN depository at the same time as the European Community and other member states. We aim to do that by June at the latest.
UK ratification of the Kyoto protocol sends an important message to the world that we are committed to tackling climate change. It reaffirms the Government's pledge to meet our environmental objectives, and it meets our manifesto commitment to provide leadership abroad and work for international agreement on climate change.
438
I hope very much that countries not yet committed to ratifying will follow the EU's lead. The House will know that the United States recently announced proposals for domestic action to tackle climate change. We welcome President Bush's acceptance that climate change is a serious problem and his increased support for climate science and climate-friendly innovation, but our analysis of his proposals suggests that US greenhouse gas emissions will be about 25 per cent. higher in 2010 than in 1990. That contrasts starkly with the 7 per cent. reduction to which the US had originally agreed under Kyoto.
We continue to believe that the Kyoto protocol represents the only workable option allowing the international community to proceed with serious action on climate change, and we hope that the US will re-engage with the process. It is of course extremely important that we maintain a constructive dialogue with the Americans on climate change, and we will seek to establish a process through which that can be achieved.
UK ratification will mean that we become legally bound by the target to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. Our climate change programme sets out a range of policies that could reduce emissions by 23 per cent. by 2010, which is well in excess of our Kyoto target and stands us in good stead for future reductions. The programme therefore also addresses the Government's ambitious domestic goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.
Our climate change programme is providing a strategic focus for action. It is stimulating positive action by UK businesses, local government and other organisations. It is encouraging longer-term changes and a move towards a low-carbon economy, and it is implementing a series of innovative and creative policies to ensure that the UK cuts its emissions in a flexible and cost-effective way.
Let me highlight the key policies. We have established the world's first economy-wide emissions trading scheme, backed by a Government incentive of £215 million over five years. The scheme is due to go live early next month, and is one of our major priorities. Emissions trading is a cost-effective way of making a low-carbon future a reality. In pioneering the scheme, we hope and intend that the City of London will become the world centre for emissions trading.
We have set a target to provide 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2010, backed by Government funding of at least £250 million over the next three years. We aim to double, at least, the UK capacity of combined heat and power by 2010. We will publish our draft CHP strategy shortly, along with a range of measures intended to achieve the target.
We have introduced a climate change levy package that will help to fund measures to promote better energy efficiency in business; and we have established the Carbon Trust, which will recycle around £100 million of climate change levy receipts to boost the take-up of cost-effective low-carbon technologies. There are also a range of programmes and schemes to promote better energy efficiency in the domestic sector.
At European Union level, we have secured voluntary agreements with car manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency by at least 25 per cent., backed up by changes in vehicle excise duty and company car tax to encourage

439
more fuel-efficient low-emission cars. Our 10-year plan for transport will address projected emissions growth in that key sector.
The programme takes account of what we might need to do to adapt to the effects of climate change in the UK. The Government are taking early action to identify adaptation priorities, and supporting the introduction of adaptation strategies on the ground through the UK climate impacts programme.
Our programme also begins to establish policies to reduce emissions in the longer term, beyond 2012. We know that Kyoto, while important in itself, is only a first step, and that much deeper cuts in emissions will be needed if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. The Government are determined to continue towards a low-carbon economy in a way that benefits both the environment and UK industry. This is one reason why we commissioned the recent performance and innovation unit energy report, which we are now considering and to which we will respond later this year.
I would like to finish by restating the Government's belief that meeting climate change targets will not only be good for the environment, but present new opportunities for businesses to improve energy efficiency, cut costs and get ahead of their international competitors by developing cleaner technologies and moving into new markets. It will present new job opportunities for people living and working in the UK, and will offer more choice for the consumer. We want to ensure that the UK makes the most that it possibly can of those opportunities, as well as making a strong and determined contribution to the global fight against climate change. Ratifying the Kyoto protocol is one of the most important steps on that road.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for her courtesy in providing—on this occasion—timely notice of its content.
The Opposition welcome the EU's progress towards ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Whatever the uncertainties about the science of climate change, most of us share an instinctive feeling that we will come to no good by pushing billions of tonnes of chemicals into the atmosphere. One does not have to be a scientist to work that out. Reconciling the material needs of today with the quality of life that we pass on to our children and grandchildren is one of the greatest tasks facing this generation of politicians across the world. We hold the earth in trust, and we must not fail generations to come.
The Secretary of State rightly said that, although welcome, the Kyoto protocol is only an initial step. Is not its significance more symbolic than practical? Is it not an acknowledgement of the challenge that climate change presents rather than a blueprint for meeting it? Given that ratification will involve the Government's taking binding decisions that affect future policy, will she ensure that Parliament can have a full debate on the implications of ratification before taking further irrevocable steps towards binding commitments?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the treaty will not acquire full legal status until countries that account for 55 per cent. of global emissions have signed up? In the light of the United States' regrettable decision to opt out of the process for the time being, what threat does its
440
absence pose to the project's eventual success? Does she agree that it is essential to make greater efforts to persuade Governments in the developing world that signing up to Kyoto is in the interests of their people and their future? A better global environment will mean a more secure world.
None of that will happen without a cost. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the possible cost to the United Kingdom economy of complying with the provisions of the protocol? Will she guarantee that the Government will not use the emissions trading arrangements to do a deal with a country such as Russia or Ukraine to avoid taking effective domestic action to reduce harmful emissions?
The Kyoto protocol builds on the success of the Rio earth summit in 1992, and I hope that the Secretary of State will pay tribute to the leading role played by John Major in laying the foundations of an international agreement to tackle climate change. I note with some amusement that she paid tribute to the role of the Deputy Prime Minister, but did he not nearly derail the entire process in The Hague in November 2000, causing the French Environment Minister to say—if I recall rightly—that he lost his nerve, lost his cool and was a male chauvinist pig?
Will the Secretary of State also acknowledge that Conservative energy policies of the 1990s have made the most substantial contribution to date to reducing UK greenhouse emissions? Is it not because of those policies that we have met, and even exceeded, early targets for reducing harmful emissions? Looking ahead, however, the picture is less rosy. Has she seen the report issued in January by Cambridge Econometrics that predicts that carbon emissions will fall by only 6.4 per cent. between 1990 and 2010—well short of the 20 per cent. target? Is she aware that, last month, the World Economic Forum branded the UK one of the dirtiest countries in the world?
The Prime Minister is given to delivering pious sermons on the importance of environmental protection to the developing world. Will the right hon. Lady remind him that the 2002 environmental sustainability index ranks the UK 98th out of 142 countries? Among EU countries, only Belgium fares worse. When it comes to waste and recycling, the UK has just about the worst record on the planet. People who live in greenhouses should not throw stones. The issue of climate change is bigger and more important than domestic party politics, but is it not time that the Government recognised that there is a glaring disparity between their lofty election promises and statements made at international conferences and their performance at home?
Is it not the case that while Switzerland, Germany and Austria have recycling rates of about 50 per cent., we achieve a mere 11 per cent., and that there is no realistic chance of most local authorities meeting the Government's target of 25 per cent. by 2005? Does the right hon. Lady accept that ill-targeted and bureaucratic taxes such as the climate change levy have, predictably, done nothing to reduce carbon emissions while piling costs on manufacturing?
Who are this Government to lecture the world about being green, when as we speak, as a direct result of their incompetence, fridges containing highly damaging chlorofluorocarbons litter pavements, municipal sites, open spaces and fields throughout the country? Why,

441
when the Government talk so enthusiastically about energy conservation, did the Minister for the Environment table wrecking amendments to the Home Energy Conservation Bill and then suffer the humiliation of having them voted down in Committee?
The Secretary of State mentioned combined heat and power. Is she aware that the CHP industry is in crisis, that the Government's strategy is running four years late, that staff are being laid off because orders have dried up and that since the introduction of the new electricity trading arrangements last April, CHP output has dropped by 60 per cent.?
The Secretary of State referred to the PIU report on energy, which after much delay was produced earlier this year. Is she aware that the energy industry is fed up with dithering and uncertainty, and needs clarity and leadership from the Government? There is a real danger that a great opportunity to put Britain at the forefront of developing new clean renewable technologies will pass us by if the Government continue to sit on their hands, bringing them out only to wring them hopelessly over the future of nuclear power.
The right hon. Lady talked about the launch of the Government's emissions trading scheme due on 1 April. We support that in principle but are concerned by reports that only half the anticipated number of companies have signed up for it. How many companies have now committed themselves to participation? Can the Secretary of State confirm that the UK scheme is compatible with that being developed by the European Union?
As in so many areas, the Government promised so much on the environment but they have not delivered. Given their performance to date, it is hard to understand why the right hon. Lady's entire statement had a strong flavour of self-congratulation. There is a great deal left to achieve; indeed, the task of delivering a cleaner environment is only just beginning. The Government will be judged not by the protocols and treaties that they sign or by the rhetoric that they use but by what they achieve for us, our children and our grandchildren.
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman began with what sounded like a high-minded welcome for progress—although, as he rightly said, it is only a start—but he ended up, as he usually does, whingeing on irrelevantly and not altogether pleasantly. Much of what he said was not relevant to the Kyoto protocol. I accept that we ought to seek a debate on the subject. It is not for me to set the agenda for the House, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I hope that if we do have a debate, it will be a debate about the Kyoto protocol and not a general rant about all the things that the hon. Gentleman thought of to throw in, most of which were highly inaccurate. I shall try to pick up on at least some of the issues that he raised.
I am aware of the recent studies by Cambridge Econometrics. There is concern that there has been a slight increase in emissions in the last year, but we remain of the view that in the longer term we are on course to reach the targets that are being set.
Towards the end of his remarks the hon. Gentleman asked about the emissions trading scheme. I am not aware
442
of any suggestion that there is a smaller number of potential companies wishing to participate than we had anticipated. In fact, we are rather encouraged by the number, which was of the order of 40 to 45 when I last checked. Certainly there is no truth in the suggestion that it is half the number that we had anticipated.
As for compatibility with the European Union scheme, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Commission has made some preliminary proposals for a trading scheme. It is different in scope from our own in that it is mandatory, not voluntary. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that our scheme was designed in consultation with the private sector precisely to identify what would be most attractive. The Commission's mandatory scheme does not deal with all greenhouse gases, treats energy suppliers differently from our proposals and is not for an economy-wide set of proposals. The Commission's proposals are at the most preliminary stage. It does not even suggest that its scheme would come into force before 2005.
Many other member states have some reservations and prefer some of the features of our scheme, so we have every hope that through constructive discussion we can reach a degree of compatibility. Certainly, we are extremely keen both that the whole European Union has experience in this important field, which has potential advantages for the future, and to ensure that there is enough flexibility in what is ultimately proposed for everyone to be able to participate.

The hon. Gentleman asked about costs. I do not recall ever having seen a monetary figure. It has consistently been suggested that the cost of complying with the Kyoto protocol is somewhere between 0.1 and 1 per cent. of gross domestic product anticipated in developed countries over the commitment period, at a time when it is anticipated that growth will be of the order of 25 per cent. There is no suggestion, therefore, that the figure should be particularly difficult to meet.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the agreement was more symbolic than practical. No, there is huge symbolism and huge importance in having got a legally binding agreement with 177 countries participating. We are all sorry that the United States is not one of them. Even without its participation the reductions in emissions will be between 2 and 9 per cent., depending on one's assessment. That is certainly a worthwhile first step, particularly considering that we are talking about a legally binding first step.
The hon. Gentleman was uncharitable—characteristically, I fear—about my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister who, indeed, made a considerable contribution to the agreement. I am happy to accept that the former Member for Huntingdon and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is with us today, made a contribution. It is admirable that Members from all parties have been instrumental in moving the debate and agreement forward.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the developing world. The Kyoto protocol encourages states in the developing world to take their own actions and to report what action they are taking. I share the view that that is necessary and desirable. I am also strongly of the view that there is justice in the argument that many of these problems have

443
originated in the developed world and that it is for us to show that we are taking steps and then to encourage others to join us in doing the same.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I strongly support my right hon. Friends in their hard and sustained work on addressing these difficult problems? Could something more be said about the Carbon Trust and the recycling of £100 million of climate change levy receipts? Does my right hon. Friend have any sympathy with the view that targets will not be met without Sizewell C, Hunterston C and possibly Hinkley C?
Margaret Beckett: First, the Carbon Trust is doing interesting work with the business community. My hon. Friend may be aware that it believes that increased energy efficiency can make a massive contribution to meeting our targets, even without totally new technological developments of a kind that we cannot yet foresee. Indeed, it believes that we can meet our targets without further substantial change, although we all hope that innovation and new technology will come. There may he a misunderstanding. Although the performance and innovation unit energy review indicated that we should not close our minds to the future use of nuclear power, we do not require the fresh use and development of nuclear power to meet by 2012 the targets to which we signed up in the Kyoto protocol.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the Secretary of State for her courtesy in giving me early sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the decision to ratify the Kyoto protocol. It is, in association with our European Union partners, an important symbolic step across the world that shows our determination to tackle climate change.
I was also very pleased by the positive way in which the Secretary of State set out her statement, and by her acknowledgment of the work done on both sides of the House over a long period. She seems to accept that Kyoto can only be a first and comparatively small step in a long-term operation to slow down and stop global climate change. Liberal Democrats share that view. Will she agree that behind the words and the bold statement there are some gaps and fudges? I want to press her on some of those points.
The reality is that the United Kingdom's Kyoto targets will be met more or less by accident, or willy-nilly. It was interesting to hear the shadow Secretary of State claim the credit for putting in place the policies that would achieve Kyoto. In fact, those policies were not put in place to achieve Kyoto but for entirely different reasons, and without regard for carbon dioxide emissions at the time. Does the Secretary of State agree that setting longer-term targets beyond Kyoto will be the test of United Kingdom policy for the future? Little progress has been made by the Government in setting those longer-term targets.
Later today, the House will be asked to approve the renewables obligation that was debated in Committee yesterday. As the Secretary of State will agree, that obligation is for only 10 per cent. of the energy available to the electricity sector, even in 2027. Therefore, although it sets targets for 2010, it does not advance them beyond that. What targets and policies do the Government have to achieve energy saving and energy conservation? Her statement is short on that, as, I would submit, is Government policy.
444
I am sure that the Secretary of State is only too well aware that the development of a carbon-free economy provides many opportunities for exports and growth in jobs in the United Kingdom. Will she confirm that those exports and jobs must be based on a strong home market? How will the United Kingdom develop that strong market?
The Secretary of State's report referred to the energy review, and the Minister for the Environment said at Question Time that the Government were neither for nor against nuclear power. When will she give the House a clear commitment to move forward with renewable energy and abandon the nuclear option?
We welcome the Secretary of State's words about engaging the United States in the fight against climate change. Clearly, its participation is vital to the long-term project. Will she assure the House that the Government will remain robust in their dialogue with the United States to try to persuade the world's largest contributor to man-made global climate change to mend its ways?
Finally, I assure the Secretary of State that Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of the Kyoto protocol being brought into effect across the world. We look forward eagerly to the steps beyond Kyoto, and we will encourage the Government to take those steps.
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the statement. I accept fully that signing the Kyoto protocol is very much the first step.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there were gaps in the scheme and whether it had been met by accident. I note that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), claimed credit for the reductions that resulted from the devastation of the coal mining industry. However, he did not mention the fact that that did not occur cost free. Indeed, Conservative Members have been critical of the Government's handling of the coal industry since 1997. However, it is our estimate that the "dash for gas" will be responsible for only about 30 per cent. of the reductions that we anticipate will take place by 2010. Although that is not an insignificant contribution, it certainly does not mean, in the phrase of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), that we have met our targets by accident. The course of action that the Government have pursued will lead us to meet the targets.
The hon. Gentleman pressed me on setting longer-term targets, but it is a little premature to do that. Certainly, work is beginning on the next Kyoto period and on what are practical and sensible targets for people to aim for in making a contribution to tackling global warming. The targets will have to be assessed against the new information that is becoming available over a steady period from the scientific work on the impact of climate change. It is a little bit of a moving feast in that respect. However, we shall come forward—perhaps in response to the PIU energy review and certainly over time—with further proposals and longer-term targets.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me specifically about the renewables obligation and about whether we should set a more demanding target for that. It is important that we have the right balance between setting demanding targets and setting targets that we have practical means of meeting. One of the things that I found most encouraging from my exchange with the Father of the House, my hon.

445
Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), is the degree to which we can meet the targets that we are currently setting without there being a giant expectation of a leap in the dark or of undiscovered science that has not yet been foreseen. It is important that we encourage and support innovation and that we set challenging targets while ensuring that they are not just pie in the sky. We must have practical means of achieving them.
Mr. David Miliband: I am delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend's strong efforts to take forward this important agenda. Kyoto is the key test for those of us who think that an interdependent world requires multilateral engagement.
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the technical and political work that is being done inside her Department on the so-called contraction and conversion approach to global pollution reduction? Many people believe that it is an innovative and equitable approach to tackling global climate change, and I would very much welcome her thoughts on its potential contribution.
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. There is no question but that the contraction and convergence model is a serious proposal. My Department is considering it along with a range of other models. There is a strong case to be made for such a proposal, and it has a certain appealing, simple logic. However, it has serious implications for what is required of different nations so, in that sense, it must be weighed against the wish to get everyone moving in the same direction.
Mr. John Gummer: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the achievement of a process that has gone on for a long time under both Governments. Both sides of the House should emphasise the commonality of interest in achieving these ends.
Does the Secretary of State not agree that one of the highlights of the process was the agreement, under the previous Government, and its support, under this Government, of the European bubble and the European bubble principle in which those nations most able to do more achieve more so that the least-able nations do not have to reach the targets that would otherwise be set for them? Does that not set an admirable example to the rest of the world and, particularly, in respect of the future incorporation of developing countries? Should we not say that the European Union has proved its worth enormously on this issue as on so many others?
Margaret Beckett: I am happy to pay tribute to the decision to establish the EU "bubble". The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct; it was key to agreement within the EU. He is also right to say that the role that the EU played as a united group in the negotiations was absolutely key. There is no question about that.
The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) accused me earlier of self-praise, but this is not self-praise. Other Ministers who participated in the negotiations in Bonn and Marrakesh have said forcefully that the united role that the EU played enabled us to act as broker to agreement, first, politically in Bonn and then to the legal text in Marrakesh. That was crucial.
446
The right hon. Gentleman has heard me say this on a public platform recently, but I freely say again, as someone who campaigned against our remaining in the European Community as it was in 1975, that the behaviour of the EU as a group in the negotiations has been a model of everything everyone ever hoped for from that agreement.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I add to the congratulations to my right hon. Friend and her colleagues on reaching the accord and on the work that supports it. Given the significant potential job opportunities in renewable technologies, in manufacturing and in rural economies that might result from support of the Kyoto accord, does she not think that, with the benefit of hindsight, the decision of the Conservative party to cut various renewable energy funding streams appears short-sighted? By contrast, will she tell the House what further support she is lobbying the Treasury to provide under the comprehensive spending review for renewable energy technologies?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the implications of some of the mistakes that were made earlier in cutting funding for renewables. He is also right to draw attention to the considerable job and trading opportunities that the agreement creates. Indeed, one of the schemes that the Government are pursuing—the home energy efficiency scheme—was delayed because there were insufficient people with the right skills and training to carry it out. That is another aspect of achieving agreement to practical and deliverable steps.
My hon. Friend is right to say that there are huge opportunities for Britain and for the EU in the agreement. We hope to take advantage of them.
Mr. Simon Thomas: On behalf of the Plaid Cymru-SNP group, I welcome the Government's action in ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Although there is cross-party agreement on the issue, may I invite the Secretary of State to condemn certain political parties who mouth pious words in the House about renewables but who oppose all exciting wind farm projects, such as that in my constituency?
On the opportunities provided for renewables in the domestic agenda, does the Secretary of State agree that, if we were to double the target from 10 to 20 per cent.—that is completely feasible—we would produce 80 TWh a year from renewables, which equates very closely to the 88 TWh produced from nuclear power at the moment? Not only do we not need nuclear to meet the present Kyoto protocol, but we do not need it to meet the forthcoming 2050 targets. We can meet them with a combination of renewables and low-carbon technology.
Finally, will the Secretary of State tell us what the Prime Minister did on his recent visit to Australia? Did he discuss these matters with the Australian Prime Minister, because it is important to get Australia, which is a key Asiatic economy, on board as well?
Margaret Beckett: Yes, indeed. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did discuss these issues with the Australian Government, as he does assiduously at all his international talks. He is very interested and engaged in that area of policy.

447
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for his support. I note what he said about what I take to be the Liberal Democrats, and I do of course share the concern of those who say that it is important not only to be in favour of the principle of some of these issues but to be prepared to take and to back some of the practical decisions, even though they are not always easy.
The hon. Gentleman will know, I hope, that the PIU report did recommend that we double our target for renewables to 20 per cent. The Government obviously take that recommendation very seriously. It is one of the issues that we must consider and discuss when we contemplate our response to that report. I would only say to the hon. Gentleman that although it is desirable to increase renewables, it is also important, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), that we ensure that the targets that we set are practical and that we believe that we can achieve them, although the hon. Gentleman is certainly right to say that we can have a much more substantial contribution from renewables than we have had hitherto.
Jeremy Corbyn: The Secretary of State will recall that at the Rio summit 10 years ago there was a very clear requirement on all signatory nations to establish local sustainability groups. In this country, many hundreds of such groups have been established and have often worked with great effort and vigour towards sustainable transport plans, a sustainable built environment and sustainable employment practices locally.
What will be done to ensure that the work is better co-ordinated; that those groups are better empowered to have influence on local planning and other decisions, and above all that those people, who are putting enormous effort into this area, feel that their views are being listened to and feel that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is able to take on board many of their suggestions so that, when we reach Rio plus 10, there will be some recognition of the great work that has been done locally? At the end of the day, only local pressure will ensure that sustainable development plans actually bear fruit.
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is correct. As he said, a great deal is happening in local communities, with local community plans and development. Certainly it is part of the focus of my Department, as we work towards the world summit in September, to encourage schoolchildren in particular to become involved in working through plans for their area and focusing on what can be done locally. I share my hon. Friend's view that this is a very important contribution. I am also mindful of the fact that, on some issues where there are difficult choices to be made, such as waste management, it is where local communities have become engaged and have had those discussions that there is the greatest agreement and support for practical proposals to solve those issues. I therefore share his view that such participation is important and we shall continue to try to work with such local groups.
Mr. Nick Gibb: In the answer that the right hon. Lady gave to the important question asked by the Father of the House, she was very careful to limit her answer to periods up to 2012. What
448
will happen to British CO2 emissions after 2012, assuming that the decommissioned Magnox power stations are not replaced by new nuclear build?
Margaret Beckett: I limited my remarks to the period up to 2012 because that is the Kyoto commitment period, as the hon. Gentleman clearly understands. There is a danger that after 2012, unless we take further action, there will be an increase in emissions, and it is for all of us to consider how best we can tackle that. The PIU report suggested that we should keep open the option of nuclear energy for that reason, but there are others who argue, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) did a minute ago, that we can meet that challenge by using renewables or other means. It is an issue that we must all consider and address, but the hon. Gentleman probably knows that at present any new proposals for any development or continuation of nuclear power would have to come from the industry, and at the moment there are no such proposals.
Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and everyone else responsible for today's immensely important statement. Will my right hon. Friend consider how we can involve individuals in this process? It is the actions of individuals as well as those of Government that will bring about real change with respect to Kyoto. Will she consider how her Department could inform the British public and others about what the Kyoto climate change movement means, and what action they can take as individuals to bring about that worthwhile change? It is my view that as a country, as a world, as a planet, we are sleepwalking to disaster if we cannot bring about very real change in our individual behaviour as well as the behaviour of Governments.
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point and he will know that the Government already have various programmes in place. Through the Energy Saving Trust, for example, we offer people advice about what they can do personally to increase energy efficiency, which both lowers their costs and is beneficial from the point of view of climate change. My hon. Friend knows that at present a PIU review study is taking place on the handling of waste, and there is little doubt in my mind that when that report is published it will have something to say about how we minimise our creation of waste as well as how we deal with it. My hon. Friend is quite right that, in all these areas, there are actions that individuals as well as communities not only can take but will need to take if we are to tackle these problems. My Department will be taking forward that work and publishing further research in the developing science of the impact of climate change.
Mr. Gregory Barker: May I join others in welcoming the announcement and the Secretary of State's commitment to meeting the challenge of climate change head-on? However, I share the unease of my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that the fine rhetoric does not match the Secretary of State's record. Is she aware of the submission that the Sustainable Development Commission—a commission set up by the Prime Minister in October 2000—made last week to the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, which stated:
"Looking beyond 2010, the public policy levers which would be needed to ratchet down production of greenhouse gas emissions have not been put into place. The UK's current performance on

449
renewables is poor, and the current target that 10 per cent. of electricity should be supplied by renewables will not be met unless institutional barriers like the new electricity trading arrangements are addressed"?
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we are discussing how those barriers can be overcome, and that we have said several times that we have every intention of overcoming them. We anticipate publishing the new combined heat and power strategy in the near future. As for the commitment to renewables, a substantial programme of investment is planned, as there is in a range of energy efficiency and other programmes. While none of us would argue that enough is being done, a substantial amount is being done, and rather more than was being done when the party that the hon. Gentleman supports was last in power.
Paul Flynn: In congratulating my right hon. Friend, may I urge her to pay more attention to a neglected form of power that is almost eternally renewable, is British and can offer a huge source of power—the tidal range in the Severn estuary, where there is the highest rise and fall of tide in the world, very near to centres of population? Should we not regard that as a clean, environmentally friendly source of power that can eliminate altogether more development in the unpopular and expensive nuclear industry?
Margaret Beckett: Indeed, I share, as I believe do many in the House, my hon. Friend's concern that we do more to exploit the natural advantages of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend knows that there is a substantial programme of investment in research into such subjects and the Government will continue to support and advance it.
Mr. Colin Challen: In congratulating the Front-Bench team on getting us to this marvellous announcement today, and especially congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister on almost singlehandedly saving the Kyoto process a few years ago, may I ask my right hon. Friend to pay special regard to the potential cost to this nation of now ratifying the treaty? Sometimes treaties of this nature can have a competitive cost to a country, placing it at a disadvantage to those countries that are not prepared to sign up to these proposals. In that regard, will we robustly argue with the United States that it must sign up, and that if it does not, we will robustly defend our competitive position?
Margaret Beckett: First, I rather suspect that one of the things that will ultimately have an effect in the United States is that it will realise that it is missing out on employment and trading opportunities as a result of not being engaged in the process. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are obviously costs and implications, as well as those opportunities, but I am confident that the overall balance is to the United Kingdom's advantage and will continue to be so. I simply remind him of the simple, but evocative phrase that companies saving carbon are companies saving money.

Personal Statements
2.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement. During the heat of debate, strong feelings are expressed on both sides of the House. I hope that, in my time here, I have always shown proper respect for the occupant of the Chair and observed his or her rulings. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, I was not asked by the Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall yesterday to withdraw my remarks when they were made. However, on reflection, I accept that it would have been better if I had not used the phrase that I applied to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), and I am sorry for the offence that was caused.
2.21 pm
Mr. George Galloway: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement. In the debate in Westminster Hall yesterday, exchanges became frank to the point of being unacceptable, and I should like to apologise to the Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for my part in that. The issues under discussion were of grave urgency and importance, and they mean a very great deal to me. Exchanges on both sides of the argument were decidedly robust. None the less, I should like to say that I am sorry for stepping out of parliamentary order and for my failure to withdraw my remarks when asked to do so by the Deputy Speaker and now to withdraw them.

ESTIMATES DAY
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
ESTIMATES DAY
  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2001–02

    Environmental Audit
    Considered pursuant to Resolution [5 February] and Standing Order No.145 (Liaison Committee) [Relevant documents: Second Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2001–02, on Pre-Budget Report 2001: A New Agenda? HC 363-I; and The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments: Annual Report 2001, Cm 5116.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That further resources, not exceeding £3,020,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a sum, not exceeding £3,020,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2002 for expenditure by HM Treasury.—[Mr. Woolas]
    2.22 pm
    Mr. John Horam: I should like to thank all my colleagues on the Environmental Audit Committee and the staff and advisers to the Committee for the work that they have done. As evidence of the Committee's hard work, I refer to the fact that, this week alone, we have taken evidence from the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for International Development and the chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, Jonathon Porritt, as well as participating in this debate—several of my colleagues are here today. Last week, we spent three days in Germany investigating renewable energy. As one of my colleagues remarked, I am sure that we would qualify for a charter mark for activity if they were awarded to Select Committees.
    The debate today is billed as being about environmental taxation policy. That is a rather narrow and, in many ways, unhelpful overall title. It is narrow because, as our report on the Chancellor's pre-Budget report makes clear, we considered the whole gamut of ways in which Treasury policy can affect the environment: taxation, subsidies, investment, incentives, negotiated self-regulation, trading systems and so on. So the issue is not just about taxation. It is unhelpful because talk of environmental taxation inevitably invites the suspicion that this is another Treasury stealth tax by a different name.
    I believe that concern for the environment is part of the natural evolution of a civilised, modern society that has come to understand that the quality of life is not just a matter of the standard of living It is about time that the Treasury wholeheartedly and intelligently joined in that debate; it is essential that it does so if we are to make progress. That is why I rather like the concept of sustainable development, which is occasionally rather well defined as treating the world as though we intended to stay. That concept contains the idea of a balance between all three important elements: economic, social and environmental issues.
    The fact is that we can benefit economically from good environmental ideas. There is the possibility of a win-win situation. Indeed, given how other countries—Germany
    452
    and Denmark, for example—handle waste treatment, renewable energy, fuel cell technology and so on, I am becoming concerned that the United Kingdom may fall behind economically because it does not give enough priority to environmental technology. I am afraid that the opposite of win-win is lose-lose, and we must not get ourselves into that situation.
    I received for Christmas from a well-meaning friend a now famous book, by Bjorn Lomberg, called "The Sceptical Environmentalist". It is a fairly heavy academic tome, and I would not recommend it as bedtime reading. It certainly provides a healthy corrective to the more apocalyptic notions that sometimes hold sway in environmental quarters, but nothing in it denies the need for a sensible and precautionary approach to sustainable development.
    When I visit local schools—as I did last Friday, to talk about globalisation and development—I am struck by the fact that many young people understand the relevance of concern for the environment, based on their knowledge of science and geography as taught in school. In Westminster Hall, only yesterday, we debated the participation of young people in politics. If politicians seriously want to capture the enthusiasms of the young, we would do well to talk more about the environment and the problems and challenges of globalisation than we do at the moment. That is particularly true in a year when the world summit on sustainable development will take place in Johannesburg.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the students of Rooks Heath high school in my constituency on today being awarded a certificate for their successful activities in increasing the school's use of renewable energy and energy-saving materials? Will he also join me in congratulating the continued, excellent judgment of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in taking the time, while preparing for today's debate, to visit that school this morning to present that certificate?
    Mr. Horam: That is an example of thinking locally and acting globally.
    The Johannesburg meeting on world sustainable development will take place, by design, 10 years after the Rio summit and, by accident, nearly a year after the terrible events that took place in New York last September. Although we have, rightly, had to tackle terrorism by military means, a proper commitment to sustainable development is part of the answer to tackling the causes of terrorism.
    Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that both events should remind the United States of the fact that it is impossible for any nation to act in isolation, that all of us depend on global solutions to global problems and that none of us ought to opt out?
    Mr. Horam: I profoundly agree with my right hon. Friend. Just because the United States is so powerful, it should not forget that we live in an interdependent world. I hope therefore that the Financial Secretary will convey to the Prime Minister my desire that he persuade George Bush to go to Johannesburg, just as Mrs. Thatcher persuaded his father to go to Rio. If that were to happen,

    453
    it would send a positive signal about US intentions, which would help to repair the damage caused by its initial reaction to the Kyoto protocol, which we discussed earlier today. I hope that the Government will take that on board.
    Our verdict on the Chancellor's November statement was that it was a serious disappointment. In the last Parliament—indeed, in his first Budget—the Chancellor issued a statement of intent on environmental taxation. It was an admirable statement and many people hoped that, at the beginning of the second Parliament of the Labour Government, he would take the opportunity to reaffirm those objectives and re-commit himself to those goals.
    Unfortunately, the Chancellor did nothing of the kind. The pre-Budget statement contained only one paragraph on environmental issues, the substance of which was that the Government were consulting from today—the day of the pre-Budget statement—on a total of 10 new environmental measures.
    On page 11 of our report, hon. Members will see that we have analysed those 10 measures one by one, which is precisely the careful scrutiny that a Committee of our kind should undertake. We discovered that only one of the 10 measures could be characterised as new. In only three of the 10 was consultation beginning on that day. If one defines "today" so as to include "tomorrow", it becomes four but, none the less, it is clearly not 10. Wherever this comes in the hierarchy of spin, I suggest that it is a considerable exaggeration of what the Government are doing in this area.
    I am not accusing the Government of doing nothing at all. Indeed the Committee rightly praised many of the measures in the last Parliament that were taken with the considerable support of the Treasury; I am glad to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his place. We should say also that the Government have succeeded in setting up the right kind of machinery inside government for developing policies on sustainable development in a coherent way. However, at some stage, process must produce delivery and that is where the Government have been so disappointing.
    I contrast the situation in the UK with what we found in Germany last week. In Germany, there is a strong energy policy, with substantial environmental investment by the Government who were already having the spin-off of creating a large number of new jobs, as well as important export opportunities for German business. Here we have simply the performance and innovation unit report; a worthy document, but one which comes to no clear conclusions. We are just talking; in Germany, they are acting.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we could compare and contrast the problems with the new electricity trading arrangements that we have in this country, and the combined heat and power access within that, with the decision of the German Government to change their electricity metering law to allow ordinary household users to use photovoltaic cells and import directly into the grid? That cannot be done here.
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman was present in Germany and is right. Another advantage of Select
    454
    Committee-type scrutiny is that we can analyse Government figures carefully. I noted that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said in her statement on Kyoto that the Government were putting £250 million behind renewable energy. We have analysed the figures carefully in the document. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury looks at it, he will find that, in cash terms, the figure is much smaller if one takes out the double counting. Indeed, it will fall to £135 million next year.
    As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) has just said, there are considerable problems as a consequence of the measure in the renewable energies industry. CHP companies are packing up the investment that they had taken previously. The Government's rhetoric, in terms of the Prime Minister's statement before the last election, was admirable. Their delivery has been extremely poor.
    It does seem that we are over-cautious in our approach and, perhaps because of the power of the Treasury, too finance-oriented. The German approach seems to be a matter of trying to devise a strategy and then worrying about the necessary finance later. Our approach seems to be exactly the contrary; to worry about the money and then to come up with a rather limited approach, which simply does not do the business.
    Mr. Colin Challen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the attitude of the German economic ministry is to subsidise and support a nascent environmental industry, so that it can stand on its own two legs and compete in the wider world, having created a new technology? Does he agree that to support such an industry is the right approach?
    Mr. Horam: I agree emphatically with the hon. Gentleman and that is why I said that this is a debate about investment—and precautionary investment of the kind that he is talking about—just as much as it is about moving taxation from "goods" to "bads". There will be all-party support for a coherent approach.
    Finally, I shall mention three specific areas where I think that the Government should take action as a result of the report. The first is to reform VAT to remove the present tax disincentive that works in favour of greenfield development and against brownfield development. In the present circumstances, that is an anachronism.
    Secondly, on waste disposal, there is now consensus across political parties and among the various interests that the landfill tax should be substantially increased. I have never heard of a situation before in which a Chancellor is being urged to increase tax by almost everybody and yet does not do it. Something must have happened to the normal Treasury reactions.
    Finally, the Government must sort out their energy policy. We have commented on this previously and I feel that here is an opportunity that this country should not miss. The report is vigorous and critical, but, I believe, fair. I believe that the Government should act upon it.
    2.36 pm
    Jane Griffiths: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who has a long and distinguished record on all environmental matters. I am grateful for the opportunity to make a couple of points on environmental taxation.

    455
    The Government's policy of shifting taxation from environmental "goods" to environmental "bads" is working. The reduced burden of taxation on road fuel gases has been put in place in recognition of their excellent emissions profile. When liquefied petroleum gas burns, virtually all that is produced is carbon dioxide and water, and even the carbon dioxide that is emitted is significantly less than that emitted by conventionally fuelled cars.
    The result of this "greening" taxation has been to stimulate and grow a market of 50,000 vehicles to date running on LPG. That is a growth from virtually nil only a few years ago. It is certainly going in the right direction. The London congestion charge will also, I suspect, be a stimulus because most LPG cars will be exempt.
    The potential market for LPG vehicles is far from being reached. In Japan, which has specific congestion and pollution problems, virtually all the taxis run on LPG and the country is one of the highest users of LPG in the world. Italy has the highest number of vehicles running on the fuel, with around 1.2 million, followed by South Korea and Australia.
    Her Majesty's Treasury, I have noted, takes a rather cautious approach to shifting the burden of taxation, probably rightly. It has a natural horror of deadweight expenditure. The result is that environmental benefits—many of them now quantifiable in cash terms and lives saved—are sometimes slower to be delivered than they might otherwise be.
    A good example of that is the company car tax regime, which is being gradually reshaped to bear down on the gas-guzzlers and the heavy carbon emitters. It is an area that could do with some joined-up policy thinking. It reflects a current separation between the climate change anti-carbon policy and the air quality anti-pollution policy. Company car taxation addresses carbon but does not yet adequately address pollutants. The importance of this is that it is among company fleets that the most dramatic gain can be produced, by choosing LPG over traditional fuels. A greater recognition of the desirability of LPG over petrol and diesel should be built into the car tax regime.
    For instance, the fuel scale charges and VAT charges are at present not only heavy on the use of LPG, but unfair, since consumption of LPG is taxed as if it cost the same as petrol or diesel, despite the fact that it is only half the price.
    Environmental taxation has not been deployed to refrigerants. Most fridges and cooling systems in the United Kingdom run on hydroflurocarbons, which are recognised as highly damaging by contributing to global warming. The trouble is that HFCs leak at a rate of 30 per cent. a year on distributed systems. The UK has to an extent relied on voluntary actions to improve the leakage, and that approach is given solemn lip service. Far be it from me to suggest that manufacturers have a vested interest in selling as much top-up HFC as they can.
    The UK policy is delineated in the climate change UK programme, which states:
    "HFCs should only be used where other safe, technically feasible, cost-effective and more environmentally acceptable alternatives do not exist…HFCs are not sustainable in the long term".
    So we rely on exhortation to produce change in the private sector. When we examine the pattern of procurement in the public sector, we find that the record is—if I am to
    456
    be generous—patchy. If ever there was a case for a new economic instrument, this is it. I plead with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to consider that.
    2.41 pm
    Matthew Taylor: The Environmental Audit Committee is an innovation for which we argued, and it is most welcome. It is a pity, however, that it did not get the powers that the Labour party in opposition envisaged for it. The idea was that it would be similar to the Public Accounts Committee, with the back-up and resources to do detailed work. All Select Committees suffer from a lack of resources. Although that applies to the Environmental Audit Committee, it has done some extremely good work nevertheless. The Minister needs to reflect carefully on its report. It makes a well argued and strong indictment against the state of environmental tax reform some five years into the Government's term in office.
    As with any policy development, we need proper research and analysis of the problems to design effective environmental taxes. If we are not clear about the damage that is being done or the policy tools that are being used to address it, we are not going to be effective. Research and analysis do not take place as they should in government in general. There are far too few trials and too little analysis of whether Government policies are effective after they have been implemented. I have criticised the Chancellor before for introducing endless bureaucratic targeted schemes, few of which, if any, are properly analysed for their effectiveness subsequently in either cost or policy terms. The Select Committee report makes it clear that that is undoubtedly true of the Government's policies on environmental taxation.
    The Committee criticises Treasury research as "inadequate". It states that:
    "the Treasury is failing to provide adequate leadership and co-ordination".
    It highlights the appalling, although typical, refusal by the Treasury to publish key information. It not only calls on the Government to make reports on sustainable development available to it, but points out that if the Treasury continues to keep secrets, the reports must, at the very least, be released to the National Audit Office because they are—or should be—a crucial part of the comprehensive spending review process.
    The Committee also rightly criticises the lack of joined-up thinking across Government. The Government talk about that a great deal, but too often they fail to deliver on it. If the sustainable development unit is a cross-government resource, it needs to be involved in evaluating the sustainable development reports. If it is not, a suitable body needs to be created to do that.
    The Treasury's worst record is on allowing public evaluation of its policies, which applies across the board, not just to environmental taxation. The House and the general public lack the opportunity to see the conclusions of audits of policies that are implemented by the Treasury and other Departments that it encourages to act in the same way. The reports have to be made public or their value becomes diminished. I support the Committee's call to have a unit within the Treasury which is responsible

    457
    for environmental taxes, developing resource productivity indicators, monitoring the adequacy of environmental appraisal and co-ordinating a more strategic approach.
    Mr. Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman has probably seen the press release that the Environmental Audit Committee issued to accompany its report. Following his important point on access to departmental sustainable development reports, is he aware that the press release says:
    "It is particularly outrageous that the Treasury is proposing to keep secret sustainable development reports submitted as part of spending review 2002. This will make it impossible for Parliament to hold Departments properly to account"?
    Matthew Taylor: Not only am I aware of that comment, but I strongly welcome it. We could understand the Treasury not making the reports public when it draws up the review, but it is a different matter when it keeps them secret thereafter, because that makes proper scrutiny of Government policy impossible. Sadly, it is not just environmental issues to which that applies. It is a long-running failure on the part of the Treasury, and it is getting worse year by year, as any hon. Member who has tabled parliamentary questions to the Treasury knows because they are stonewalled time and time again.
    The Minister needs to recognise just how strong the report is. It has been produced by a cross-party Committee with a majority of Labour Members, and concludes:
    "We strongly regret the refusal of the Treasury to provide us with the Spending Review main Guidance".
    It comments that that
    "vividly demonstrates that the Treasury will only share what it does not value or consider important."
    That is a pretty good summary of the position that this Government at least have managed to get into with regard to making information available.
    It is even more worrying that when we cross-question the Government, as the Committee and hon. Members have done, on their evaluation of implemented policy—policies on which money has already been spent—the answer is frequently that there is no systematic evaluation of their effectiveness. I strongly welcome the report's request that the Government should fulfil their commitment to incorporate systematic ex post appraisals in future pre-Budget reports. However, Committee members should be aware that the appraisals often do not appear because they do not exist, even in the Treasury. The Committee also says:
    "We find it difficult to understand how the Government can decide what is the most appropriate policy mechanism, if it is not able to assess the effect of different policy instruments. We urge the Government to clarify how it proposes to develop appraisal and monitoring systems on a more comprehensive basis."
    An overriding conclusion of what this and other Governments have done on environmental tax is that too often they have grabbed the green mantle in a way that simply hides the fact that the Treasury takes decisions that largely suit it. For example, the decision to opt for the climate change levy rather than a carbon tax was politically driven; it had nothing to do with best environmental practice. As a result, not only did that decision put huge administrative burdens on business in particular and, incidentally, on the Government, but the
    458
    Government have been forced almost ever since to go through an endless process of rejigging the climate change levy in a desperate effort to make it work either environmentally or administratively.
    Mr. Gummer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have admitted that the reduction of emissions annually as a result of the climate change levy is less than the increase in emissions caused by the moratorium on gas-fired power stations? The fact that the Government at the time said that such an increase was immaterial shows just how small an effect such an enormously complicated system has on the environment.
    Matthew Taylor: One great problem with the climate change levy is that it is not terribly effective in changing the way in which businesses operate. The whole point of adopting a carbon tax would be to tackle carbon use, which the levy fails to do. Although various efforts have been made to get round that problem, the situation is still far from ideal. In addition, the levy was introduced in one big block. A carbon tax could be phased in gradually in order to affect the real decision-making process of long-term capital investment, rather than penalise companies for past investment, as the levy has done, long after they are able to change those decisions. So, although the levy may be a stick of sorts, it provided little carrot and flogged a dead horse, since most investment decisions that it penalises have long since been taken.
    Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he would support the introduction of a carbon tax that applied to individual consumers as well as business?
    Matthew Taylor: My view on that matter has been consistent, and was presented in our manifesto in 1997, when the Government were first considering the matter. A carbon tax is the only way to address the matter successfully. By its very nature, it must apply to all fuels and therefore to all users on the basis of carbon use, but revenues could be directly used to compensate users. If they used more carbon energy, they would pay more; if they used less, they would pay less. However, ordinary people could be compensated from the revenue raised. I shall touch on that issue a little more in a moment.
    It was precisely because the Government were not prepared even to countenance the possibility that households would be hit that they ended up with such an ungainly and relatively ineffective tax. You pays your money and you takes your choice, but it is rather unfortunate to end up with a system that is administratively highly expensive yet does not deliver the goods terribly well.
    I want briefly to raise three issues. The first is landfill tax and the waste stream. Government policy on waste is in a mess; many Members represent constituencies that are in the process of trying to sort out that mess. Landfill is becoming expensive and less viable, but the Government are giving no clear steer on the approach that local authorities should take, and some decisions are having perverse financial effects. I am one of those who believes that incineration should be included in a levy system, but we need a comprehensive strategy for waste. The lack of such a strategy is a failing of the Government's approach to environmental taxation. They have taken on odd, individual items rather than providing a joined-up, overall strategy.

    459
    I have worked hard in Cornwall to move the county away from a proposal for an incinerator. I think that we have succeeded. Cornwall Environmental Services—the company that deals with waste in the county—has withdrawn its proposals and is looking for other, better, more environmental solutions. Until the Government either take the decision on their public finance initiative bid for investment in recycling facilities close to homes, so that recycling makes environmental sense, or sort out their approach to incineration and its alternatives, it will be very difficult for any local authority to give a coherent lead. We need a lead from the Government.
    Similarly, the development of the countryside is a huge issue—in my part of the country and in the constituencies of many Members. The Government say that they want more brownfield rather than greenfield development, but as the EAC report accurately states, at the moment there are perverse incentives to develop greenfield land. As a result, previously developed areas, particularly in inner-city areas, are being allowed to run down. The re-development of such brownfield sites is subject to a huge VAT burden that does not apply to greenfield development. That cannot make sense. In several Budgets, I have expected the Government to announce some action on the matter, but they have failed to do so.
    In a country where there is a shortage of land, the value of development land is dictated by the amount that people are prepared to pay for the properties that are eventually built on it. So, not levying VAT on greenfield development affects not the eventual price of properties built but the price of land sold for development—a windfall gain for the owners of the land and an incentive for developers to find such land. The system needs urgent restructuring, and I welcome the fact that the report highlights that.
    Nobody should feel—I hope—that I do not believe that environmental taxes could play a crucial part in how we address the environmental issues that we face. The biggest of those is catastrophic climate change, although we also see the destruction of our countryside. I shall give one other example of importance—the aggregates tax. I have always believed that the aggregates tax could play a major, beneficial role in encouraging re-use of waste material rather than raw extraction in many of the most beautiful parts of the UK countryside. I welcome the fact that the Government have gone down that route, but it might be helpful to touch on how positive an impact a well-designed environmental tax can have.
    I have in my constituency the largest area of opencast china clay mining anywhere in Europe. The china clay industry tipped more waste material in my small part of Cornwall than the coal industry's entire output when it operated on a large scale in the early 1980s. Therefore, there is a huge waste issue in our part of the country. For 250 years, that waste material has successfully been used in road building in the county of Cornwall. Therefore, there is no doubt that such waste material can be used successfully as an aggregate. Indeed, I notice in reports on the state of Cornwall's roads that despite very low investment we have among the best roads in the country primarily because they were built using an awful lot of aggregate material and they tend not to break up as much as roads in other parts of the country.
    In 1999, 500,000 tonnes of china clay waste material was used locally. Just 2,000 tonnes was taken out of the county by sea in an experiment to find out whether there
    460
    was a market for such material in the Thames area. In 2000, 890,000 tonnes were used locally as Cornwall county council in particular followed a policy of using such waste material as much as possible. As part of the same experiment, 19,000 tonnes left the county in that year—mainly for the south coast but even to Germany.
    By 2001, as the company began to gear up in the knowledge of the aggregates tax and to build up facilities for using the material, it managed to make use of 1.3 million tonnes of waste material-53,000 tonnes going out by sea. The dramatic change as a result of the aggregates tax is that, this year, the company expects to reach a figure of 1.6 million tonnes, with at least 200,000 tonnes leaving from Par docks. However, it is being told by the people whom they supply that, once the aggregates levy comes through, it can expect much higher levels of demand, which could add another 300,000 tonnes to the total. Therefore, as much as 500,000 tonnes will go out by sea this year in comparison with just 2,000 in 1999. Therefore, no one should be in any doubt that such measures can make a difference.
    Incidentally, such good news can be set against the gradual reduction in the number of jobs in the china clay industry, as there has been an announcement today that another 300 local jobs are to be lost.
    Yesterday, I understand that there was a meeting at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on the bid that has been put together by the Strategic Rail Authority, those administering objective 1 money in the county, Imerys—the main china clay company—and the DLTR for a major rail upgrade of clay rail routes and two new berths at Par. I hope that Treasury Ministers will get behind the bid. The project is set to cost more than £20 million, but it is believed that it will raise the tonnage of waste material to between 5 million and 7 million tonnes. With other local re-use, that means that all the waste from the china clay industry that can be used will be used, making substantial savings for the environment, not just locally but in other parts of the country, as well as protecting jobs.
    It is worth bearing in mind that environmental measures can be effective. In my part of the world, the aggregates levy is doing exactly what it was designed to do. There is one problem, which affects the small, family-owned, traditional quarries that used to supply those services within Cornwall. The Government failed to offer them any alternative route for their businesses, and many of them fear that without some sort of invested support for new avenues of business, they will face sudden collapse through no fault of their own. We should consider giving them more of the resources that will come in to help them cope with the change. When they approach me, I tell them that change is the point of the policy, but I agree that they need help with the process of change.
    The flaws are larger than the successes. On the whole, the measures have been badly targeted. Taxation of carbon has been wholly inconsistent, ranging from high rates on vehicle fuels to nothing on aviation fuel. The climate change levy is a muddle. The systems that have been adopted were adopted largely because they were simple for the Treasury, at the expense of environmental effectiveness and administrative cost.

    Worse still, there is no clear medium-term strategy. As the Environmental Audit Committee points out, a rush of enthusiasm in 1997 has become, as far as anyone can tell,

    461
    almost no enthusiasm and only a bit of spin doctoring in 2001–02, yet a medium-term strategy and a clear vision of the Government's direction are crucial if the policies are to be truly effective. Environmental taxation policy is all about changing people's decisions—above all, decisions on capital investment. If the householder deciding whether to invest in a low-energy hot water and central heating system or the business making major capital investment decisions cannot see where the policy is going, and if the Treasury gives no clear plan showing where environmental taxes are going, not only can we in Parliament assume that reforms are unlikely to happen, but, more important, people outside will assume either that they will not happen, or that they are so unpredictable that there is no point in making investments in preparation. A greener Treasury would be more open, because being more open is all about being more effective.
    One reason why the Government are so unwilling to develop their environmental tax proposals is that they, like their Conservative predecessors, have been stung by complaints from the public about some of their major environmental tax initiatives—the road fuel protests under the current Government, and the campaign against VAT on fuel under the last Government. The public had a point in both those instances, because the Government, under the guise of environmental taxation, were raising the tax burden. My party and I have consistently argued, and we have consistently set out policies showing how it can be done, that the argument for environmental taxation will be won only when people see it as a process of reform of the tax system so that "bads" rather than "goods" are taxed, not as a means by which more tax is taken from people behind their back while claiming that it is all in the cause of good environmentalism.
    The overall tax burden is not the issue: it is how we tax, not how much we tax. When the Government confuse the two, it inevitably causes the cynicism highlighted in the University of Surrey's recent report on public attitudes to environmental taxation in the UK, which said that people believe that such taxation is not about the environment, but all about stealth taxes, so they naturally oppose it.
    3.4 pm
    Mr. Alan Simpson: I begin with three comments of praise. First, I praise and thank the Select Committee on Environmental Audit for its report and the context in which it set the report. It is important that the Committee acts as a conscience and a critic of where we as a Government have got to, and sets out ways in which we can get to where we want to be. The whole House should thank the Committee, especially for the way in which it has set out the carrots and sticks involved in the process of reaching our goals.
    Secondly, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the statement she made prior to this debate on the UK's commitment to signing the Kyoto treaty. She set out with firm commitment the Government's intention to deliver on the reduction of carbon emissions in our society and to change to an economy that gives people a serious prospect of surviving through the century. I do not use the latter phrase lightly.
    462
    Thirdly, perhaps unusually, I thank the Prime Minister. In an important speech made a year ago, he pledged to create a low-carbon, low-waste economy in Britain and to green the agriculture sector and the common agricultural policy. Such statements are welcome, but they will not be realised unless they fit into a comprehensive green fiscal strategy, which should he put in place quickly. The question of how to put such a strategy in place quickly focuses our attention on the coming Budget, and it is right that we examine that.
    From the report and our many debates in the Chamber emerge four principles around which environmental taxation should be structured and four types of measurable outcome that the House and the Government must take seriously. Taking the principles first, it is right to say that if environmental taxation is to command public support, it has to be clear and honest. Secondly, it must be based on a process that rewards the virtuous while penalising the villainous. There must be a sense of environmental justice in our policies.
    Thirdly, there must be a direct connection between environmental taxation and environmental gain. The public will not object to environmental taxation if they can see that the payback directly enhances the quality of life that they, their children and their communities enjoy. Only when the money dissipates in the mist and nothing about the quality of their local environment changes do they begin to be deeply and legitimately sceptical about the purposes of that taxation.
    John McDonnell: Has my hon. Friend heard that this week the Republic of Ireland introduced a 15 per cent. levy on plastic bags, of which each person in that country gets 325 a year? The levy will bring in £120 million to use for promoting green issues and environmental projects. Should we introduce that sort of thing in this country?
    Mr. Simpson: We certainly should. I had not heard of that initiative, which I welcome, although I was aware of a similar one introduced in Greece not only to change the culture in Greek society as a whole, but to target specifically and encourage the re-use of shopping bags by the large number of people who visit Greece as tourists, whose lasting legacy appears to be the polythene bags they leave behind. We should consider such measures as practical applications of the principles I am outlining.
    The fourth principle is perhaps the most contentious. We need to be unafraid of saying that if we are to deliver a sustainable low-carbon economy, we have to change the nature of market rules so that markets favour the sustainable rather than the polluting. The practical application of that principle will probably be the most contentious area that any Government have to tackle.
    Where does that lead us? On the principle of clarity, and in terms of the specifics that I hope the Chancellor will consider in his contemplation of the coming Budget, the House and the country understand that we should adopt a clear position on the case for a pesticides tax and a fertiliser tax.
    I hope that the Chancellor will also consider aviation fuel and the enormous damage that it does through ozone pollution and depletion. It is a mechanism through which suppliers can externalise pollution. The stripping of productive processes out of the United Kingdom to locate

    463
    them in another country with lower environmental standards is not a global environmental gain. The connectedness of pollution issues means that we cannot consider in isolation what happens in one country. Rules must be set that apply across an international agenda.
    On domestic initiatives, I welcome the Government's introduction of the energy efficiency contribution that is required of the energy supply industry to meet energy efficiency initiatives in domestic energy consumption and changes in the technology for environmental sustainability in the industry.
    I also praise in advance the support that I am confident will be forthcoming from the Cabinet for the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), the Home Energy Conservation Bill. I know that it has slight financial implications, but in budgetary terms they are little more than the cost of a can of paint, and it would be tragic if the Government missed the opportunity of making changes that would be of enormous benefit to the fuel-poor and to those who are forced to be the most polluting energy consumers.
    In terms of rewards and gains, I shall suggest a number of measures that I hope the Chancellor will consider. To promote energy efficiency in the home, we could make considerable mileage from offering rebates on stamp duty for properties that met high energy efficiency standards. That will become more straightforward when we introduce seller's packs that make available surveys of all homes, but we could it introduce before then.
    An energy survey of a home would cost about £150. Even on the cheapest property that would be affected by stamp duty—one that cost £60,000—that would offer a potential saving of about £450, which could be used towards improvements in energy efficiency. Once in place, the measure could be widened to encourage households to undertake other improvements such as the recycling of water and the use of low-impact materials. The rebate is the sort of carrot that we ought to have in mind when we discuss environmental gain.
    We should introduce flexibility for local authorities to vary council tax on properties that are already energy efficient or which we want to induce to become energy efficient. That would have the advantage of extending the payback period for improvements, reducing the cost to those undertaking the improvements, and saving money on their fuel bills and council tax. Large numbers of households around the country would welcome such a measure.
    We could extend the measure to the business community by allowing variation in business rate rebates which would allow cheaper rates for businesses that employ local people, cut their traffic impact and implement green transport schemes for workers and energy efficient premises. My authority in Nottingham is beginning to move in that direction by discussing the introduction of a company car parking levy. Exactly such rebates are being offered to companies that sign up to local green transport schemes.
    All these proposals involve hypothecation and the identification of a payback where the return of taxation to virtuous ends binds people in as net gainers from the process. That could be extended to arrangements for recycling in every home. I know that the landfill tax is contentious, but if householders saw its proceeds
    464
    manifesting themselves in the setting-up costs of recycling schemes, it would allow them to make choices about being environmentally virtuous. Virtue will strongly influence where public pressure takes us in the years ahead.
    We must allow the public to make important ethical choices that are also environmental choices. We must allow companies tax breaks to deliver the next generation of renewable energy technologies. We should examine ways of offering similar tax breaks to farmers and households for applying renewable technologies and using them in the daily process of their work and lives.
    We should consider how regulation can offer consumers the choice that they want. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) made a powerful case for liquefied petroleum gas—LPG. It is a wonderful example. About a year ago, I was fortunate to be allowed to test drive an LPG vehicle for a week. It was an enjoyable experience, with one exception: I went into a state of panic when the fuel started to run low and I had to work out where to fill the thing up. I remember real anxiety and pulling into petrol stations to ask where I could get LPG. The attendants would scratch their heads. I even stopped the police to ask them. They said that they knew of a place in Southampton—I was going south—and suggested that I go into the centre of Southampton and ask there.
    We must contrast that with the experience in France where, by regulation, the terms of franchises for petrol stations were changed. It is an obligation that one out of every six pumps must offer an alternative fuel, such as LPG or biodiesel. There is an important and legitimate argument to be had about which alternative fuel, but the key fact is that when one pulls into a forecourt, one knows that one can make an ethical choice. One is not offered the Hobson's choice of the polluting technologies that we are seeking to move away from. The introduction of alternative fuels makes it possible for motorists to fill up virtuously. I am certain that huge numbers—even greater than those cited by my hon. Friend—would make that change if they could go about their daily lives without panic or confusion.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman repeated the experience of trying to find LPG in rural mid-Wales, he would run out of fuel long before finding the right filling station. LPG is an important option, but does he agree that the potential offered by biodiesel—because the vegetable oil could be produced in this country and the vast majority of diesel cars on the road could easily be adapted to biodiesel without retro-fitting—puts an onus on the Government to enhance the tax incentive for it?
    Mr. Simpson: I accept that. I was giving an example of the Government's responsibility to make choice available to consumers.
    Without discussing in detail the Home Energy Conservation Bill, we could make a regulatory change that would allow the public to act virtuously if we signed up to the commitments that require the licensing of houses in multiple occupation and the raising or setting of minimum housing standards. Those are not tax issues, but requirement issues, in much the same way as the Clean Air Act 1956.
    My final and probably most contentious point relates to markets. I shall make two points. First, there are huge environmental gains to be made by changing our

    465
    perception of food markets. Some 60 per cent. of the food that this country imports could be grown here. A fantastic report by the campaign group Sustain on EU food markets showed that the largest part of those markets is food swaps. The report was called "Eating Oil", which well describes what is happening. Huge costs, congestion and pollution go into shipping the same goods back and forth from one part of Europe to another. We should consider ways in which the Government can tax that favour the localisation of food markets. Indeed, that would also strengthen the public's demand for shorter and tighter lines of food accountability.
    My final point is the one with which I suspect very few hon. Members will agree. Like a number of my colleagues, I have been in the habit of roundly denouncing President Bush as a right-wing, reactionary, belligerent old warmonger, but in the past couple of days I have been forced to consider whether I need to rethink that view. There may be a case for suggesting that the decision of the President of the United States to impose a levy on steel imports is environmentally right. In most major sectors of the global economy, there are huge product surpluses. We must ask what the point is of destroying jobs and production processes so that we can offload products made in the most polluting way in parts of the world where people, as well as the environment, are exploited and where the need for infrastructure programmes must come second because the only purchasing capacity is in the north. I wonder whether President Bush has now appointed himself as honorary leader of the globalised resistance movement. If he has, many of us would welcome it and say that in areas of product surpluses, the issue is not about taxation, but about whether we should hypothecate the tariffs that are imposed and whether they should be automatically transferred to ensure that the developing world can use resources for itself in ways that reduce their part of the pollution equation. I realise that that may be some steps ahead of the Environmental Audit Committee report, but I am sure that we are moving in the same direction.
    I do not believe for a moment that by asking for such changes, we will make them happen. However, if we lack the courage to make the case, they will never happen.
    3.22 pm
    Mr. John Gummer: I am not sure whether the Prime Minister or President Bush would be more embarrassed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson).
    I should declare an interest, as I help a number of companies in doing their environmental good on certain issues. On many of those issues, one can hardly mention the environment without referring to those companies. I am also chairman of the not-for-profit organisation, Valpak, which deals with the obligations of companies in the packaging world.
    I am very pleased that we are having this debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) on the way in which he introduced it. I also congratulate the Environmental Audit Committee on the way in which it considered the issues. Positive signals are very important. I put it to the Minister as delicately as I can that it would be very good if, on occasion, the
    466
    Chancellor himself felt able to come to the Chamber on days such as this to hear directly the strong feelings that are held. I make that remark not least because he has a reputation—I am sure that he would like to counter this impression—of not really being personally terribly keen on these matters with the sort of fire that is necessary. If he wished to counter such views, coming here and listening would be a first step. I think that that is the only controversial remark that I shall make, but I hope very much that it will make a point.
    Ian Lucas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gummer: On that point, I think not, but perhaps I shall do so a little later.
    Before we turn to taxation, there is a serious issue in respect of how we encourage people to act in an environmentally friendly way. The first part of that is to make it easier to be good than bad. Man cannot be made good by an Act of Parliament, but one can make it easier to be good. For example, all of us have stayed in hotels where it has taken us some time to find all the switches to turn on the lights. Some are high up and some are low down; they can he anywhere. By the time we have turned them all on and it is time to leave the room, we say to ourselves, "Well, I'm damned if I'm going to turn them off again—after all, I'm paying so much a night that the hotel should be able to pay for the extra electricity." Of course, that is an improper reaction. It would be better if there were a system in which one switch would turn all the lights off, or better still, in which the room card turned the lights on and one had to turn them off as one left the room. Such a system would make it possible to save and do the right thing without causing people any inconvenience.
    I know that some hair-shirted people would prefer us to be inconvenienced. I am not a person of that kind; I am not a puritan either politically or religiously, and I much prefer it to be easier to do good. That means that the Government themselves have a role to play. I think that that role is fourfold and might be called "CERT". "C" stands for counsel. The Government must say what is best in their opinion. Very often, they are good at doing that. The hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) made that point in respect of HFCs, on which the Government have made a perfectly proper statement.
    However, counsel must be followed by example. The hon. Lady rightly said that the Government did not follow their own example. There are far too many examples at this moment of Departments that are directly procuring the very HFC equipment that the Government say is not the answer. If one cannot set an example, one does not have much right to deal either with regulation or taxation. One must say what one believes and then carry it out. Much could be done by public authorities to set the sort of example that we would like to see.
    Regulation is another very important part of what happens. Whether it is based on a voluntary agreement such as that of the car industry to make motor cars more efficient, or whether it requires people to meet standards, depends on the circumstances. However, I believe that the Government could do a great deal more. For example, if we were to hasten the phasing out of that little red eye in the corner that can mean that every sort of electronic equipment is using almost half the electricity that it would

    467
    use if it were fully switched on and replace it with equipment and technology that are already available, we could save at least two major power stations in this country. A huge difference could be made throughout the world. The European Union provides us with the means of agreeing a much faster phase-out than we have at the moment. If every dishwasher washed with as little water as the best, we would make a huge difference in terms of the energy needed not only to heat the water, but to pump it in the home.
    If we were prepared to look more closely at the planning regulations, we could achieve a great deal. In that regard, I must tell the Minister that one of the scandals of the recent past is the almost total lack of input from DEFRA into the Government's Green Paper on planning. That is the first casualty of a reorganisation of government that I believe to be wrong. There was no proper environmental concern and a number of the proposals in the Green Paper will make it more and not less difficult to ensure that we plan for a more sustainable future. Frankly, I have yet to discern a single occasion on which the Minister for Housing, Planning and Regeneration has spoken about his proposals in a way that suggests that they will advance sustainable development or improve our opportunity to live in an environmentally friendly way.
    I turn now to taxation, on which I think that the Government have not been willing to do as much as the public would be prepared to follow. Unusually, I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman, although I find it difficult to take from him any uplifting views on environmental taxation. With the benefit of hindsight we are rewriting our attitude to VAT on fuel, but I remember what actually happened. There was a by-election in which the Liberals wanted to get a vote or two, and suddenly their policy turned around. We should not be surprised about that, for if there is hypocrisy around we know on which Benches it is bound to alight. There is nothing more ready to move than a Liberal faced with a floating vote. As Liberals speak of high-mindedness, the other parties remember where the kick is landed at election time. The dirtiest fighters with the cleanest language—that sums them up. Although I agree with them on this matter, let no one think that I have much time for their normal activities.
    The Liberals are right to say that environmental taxation cannot work unless people can see that the money that it raises does not increase total taxation and is used directly for environmental purposes. Thus hypothecation—the horrid word that I hope that the Minister is brave enough to use in the Treasury—becomes central to the success of environmental taxation.
    When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) introduced the landfill tax—I was part and parcel of that battle—his biggest argument was with the Treasury, which saw it as that dangerous thing: using taxation specifically. We should increase the tax on landfill and recycle all that is raised through Entrust, not pinch the whole lot for the Treasury, as happened last time—a disgraceful example of non-environmental taxation that was never explained by Treasury Ministers.
    We must change the wholly unacceptable way in which taxation works in relation to car commuters and public transport commuters. That cannot generally be left to local authorities, because where city centres are in competition—for example, in Nottingham, Derby and
    468
    Leicester—nothing will be done, although some kind of local taxation may be organised in areas where there is no competition. It should be a taxable perk to have a car-parking space and a non-taxable perk to be helped to use public transport. I see no reason why that change cannot be made, and I am sorry that the Government have not yet done so.
    The climate change levy was, from the beginning, seen for what it was. For many months, we were given only the figure for how much the Chancellor would raise from it, not the figure for how many tonnes of carbon it would cut. That is because it was a taxation move that emanated from the Treasury, not from the Department responsible for the environment.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)indicated dissent.
    Mr. Gummer: The Minister may shake his head, but it is a matter of fact. The measure was proposed by the Treasury and comments were canvassed from the Department responsible for the environment. It is not surprising that the Treasury announced how much it would raise before anyone knew how many tonnes of carbon it would cut. Nor is it surprising that the changes that took place were intended not to improve the environmental outcome, but to buy the odd vote or two from people who thought that they were being over-pressed by the climate change levy. We have ended up with a huge operation that will do little good and was aimed largely at trying to do something on the margin for coal producers.
    The truth is that the climate change levy will not contribute anything like enough to reducing emissions, but it will make us less competitive in many markets. That cannot be a good thing. I suggest to the Minister that it is unfair to put people like me in the position of having to be antagonistic towards a levy that I would instinctively support. It is called the climate change levy, so the Government should ensure that it is an environmental tax, not twist the words and make it difficult for us to support it.
    Similarly, the aggregates tax will not deliver even as much as the industry offered in advance of it. I shall not say too much about that, as I do quite a bit of work with the industry. The Government have not proved the case for the tax. They have not explained how they will ensure that it is not translated into longer journeys by lorries carrying reconstituted material. They have not explained why so little of it will be used directly in the sustainability fund, nor what the sustainability fund will do. They did not even explain, before the tax was introduced, what it would do and how it would do it. That is not good for the environment because it does not look competent. Environmentalists must look competent because we are always being accused of not being so. The Government should at least have ensured that the tax was introduced comprehensibly and comprehensively.
    HFCs and combined heat and power are very different things but they both suffer from the same problem—namely, that the Government have not made it easier for people to move from dangerous ozone-depleting refrigerants to forms of refrigeration and air conditioning that do not lead to global warming. We should be able to move from CFCs to benign alternatives. I try to encourage

    469
    people to do that, for the good reason that I believe that it is right, and so should the Government. On CHP, the Government were warned for months about what their legislation and regulations were doing to the industry, yet they did nothing.
    How can we achieve our ends? We can do so by using the market to which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) rather cack-handedly referred. That market is a powerful mechanism; all we need to do is to give it the fourth dimension of time. If we make it recognise what it does over time and put a price on that we will be able to make it a powerful driver of environmental change. We can do that because we are part of the European Union. If we were in a market on our own we would not be powerful enough to make those changes: the competitive position would make it impossible. But because we are part of the largest trading community in the world, we have the means not only to change market conditions for this nation and for our colleagues in the EU, but to affect the global scene by driving those changes in the United States and beyond. In environmental terms, the EU gives us a large enough base not only to change ourselves without competitive disadvantage, but to change the world through others having to come to terms with the EU's environmental demands.
    Not for the first time, I remind the House of the centrality of the European Union in ensuring that we have sensible environmental policies. The Chancellor can act effectively on taxation and regulation only if we are properly linked to the common decisions of the EU, which alone makes it possible for us to reclaim sovereignty over our environment. That is why the European Union is so crucial and why, without it, we lose sovereignty.
    3.39 pm
    Mr. Colin Challen: I want to focus on an issue that is affecting my constituency particularly badly, and which I imagine many urban hinterland seats face: the development of greenfield sites for housing. The pre-Budget report states on page 118:
    "A derelict and under-developed physical environment has a detrimental impact on the social and economic fabric of communities. Population movement out of urban areas makes it difficult to sustain good services and leads to pressure for new development in the countryside. If 45 per cent of new homes continue to be built on greenfield land, within 20 years an area the size of Exmoor would be built over and the quality of life in both urban and rural areas would suffer".
    That is absolutely right. I do not know the relative size of Exmoor compared with my constituency, but I know that there is a feeling in Morley and Rothwell that the quality of life is beginning to suffer rather badly, due to the amount of new house building going on.
    The pre-Budget report contains some excellent moves against new housing on greenfield sites to re-balance the demand for regeneration, but there is, as the Environmental Audit Committee says at paragraph 31 of its report, a great concern
    "that the Government has still not addressed the fundamental perverse VAT incentives between greenfield and brownfield development which still exist. The Government has admittedly introduced some concessions in VAT rates for development on polluted brownfield sites, and for the conversion of buildings for residential occupancy. However, it is still the case that new build on greenfield sites is zero VAT rated."
    470
    The Committee, on which I sit, goes on to call for urgent research
    "on the impact of removing the perverse fiscal incentive to build on greenfield sites."
    Urgent is indeed the word.
    There is a massive demand for building land, as evidenced by a report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, cited in Monday's Yorkshire Post, which claimed that new build must rise by 60 per cent. and stay at that level for the next 14 years. All that house builders want to do is get their hands on as much greenfield land as they possibly can, and cover it with bricks and mortar. Also in Monday's Yorkshire Post, the chief executive of Persimmon Homes, Britain's biggest house building company, said that all the house builders want to do is buy land, build houses and sell them at a profit. I understand that; there is a demand and those companies make the product to fulfil that demand, but they do not get too worked up about greenfield sites. In fact, they even advertise for greenfield sites, with or without planning permission.
    The Treasury's response to the Environmental Audit Committee's question about the perverse VAT incentive was rather bland, and certainly lacked any sense of urgency. That is a great shame because, as more houses go up, a curtain of finality drops on our countryside, which is now at its weakest point of resistance to these estates of identikit houses on the edges of our cities and towns. Everywhere we look, regiments of bland dwellings are crowding along the boundaries of the urban landscape, like some great invading encirclement in a mediaeval siege, seeking to ensure that whatever is left of the unique heritage of our towns and cities is made to conform to the uniform master plan of the chief executive of Persimmon Homes.
    Incentives need to focus much more on how we can reclaim city centres, brownfield sites and old industrial buildings. We are told that, nationally, 760,000 houses are empty on a long-term basis. In Morley, there is a rich architectural heritage, dating from the town's great industrial days, which needs an injection of capital to restore it to modern use. Old buildings need nourishing, and as there is clearly a need for residential buildings, the measures covered in the pre-Budget report for revitalising such buildings need far greater emphasis. As long as it is so much cheaper to build on a nice greenfield site, however, the incentive is not there, and what is achieved in the older urban areas is still far too weak in many of them to achieve a pure market-driven momentum. That is the case in Morley, and I ask the Treasury to give special attention to the recommendation on removing the perverse incentive contained in the Environmental Audit Committee's report.
    3.44 pm
    Mr. Mark Francois: I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate as a member of the Environmental Audit Select Committee, whose report forms the basis for this afternoon's discourse. On a personal level, I am also pleased to be doing so with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), in the Chamber. I fought my first parliamentary seat in Brent, East against Ken Livingstone in 1997, and I have fond memories of participating in a number of borough-wide debates during

    471
    that general election, including some with the right hon. Gentleman, so it is a pleasure to be here, debating with him again, five years on.
    I would like to concentrate on the role of the Treasury as highlighted in the Committee's report. The Treasury is the Department primarily responsible for taxation policy, including environmental taxation. As such, it bears an important responsibility for the practical effect of such taxation on promoting—or otherwise—the concept of sustainable development. As part of our inquiry, we took evidence from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as well as from a number of other interested organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Green Alliance, the Institute for Public Policy Research and Friends of the Earth.
    Despite the Government's statement of intent on environmental taxation that accompanied the 1997 Budget, our witnesses expressed some scepticism about the Government's continuing commitment to using environmental taxation as an instrument of environmental policy rather than as a cover for raising additional taxation revenue, for the primary benefit of the Exchequer rather than for specific objectives of promoting sustainable development.
    The Committee reported in paragraph 12 of its conclusions and recommendations:
    "We regret that the Treasury has retreated from a strategic commitment to environmental tax reform, by diluting the language used in the original Statement of Intent. Together with other factors discussed below, it suggests that the Treasury's approach is indeed ad hoc."
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am surprised by that part of the Select Committee's report. Rather than agreeing that the Treasury has withdrawn from a commitment to environmental taxation, I think that it is merely pausing for breath, having been very radical. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a green tax commission, which was supported by the Environmental Audit Committee when I was lucky enough to serve on it, might be the way to provide additional support to the Treasury while it considers what further green tax initiatives are needed?
    Mr. Francois: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. As I understand it, the Committee is continuing to push the concept of a green tax commission, and it is for the Treasury to decide whether it wishes to take up the suggestion. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there had been a pause; I would say that it has actually been quite a long pause, and leave it at that.
    Another theme that emerged from our inquiry was that if the Government are serious about seeking to derive environmental, as well as purely financial, benefits from so-called environmental taxation, they need to organise themselves accordingly. Specifically, the Treasury needs properly to resource a specialist unit within its ranks to deal with environmental taxation and related sustainable development issues. The Committee made the point that such a unit could also specialise in examining individual departmental sustainable development reports. That subject was touched on earlier and I would like to return to it.
    There is also an important issue relating to access to these reports. Departments were expected to produce reports on their sustainable development strategies as part
    472
    of their submissions for the Treasury's spending review 2002. Our Committee was particularly vexed by the refusal of the Treasury to make available copies of those departmental reports for subsequent examination by the EAC. We argued in paragraph 20 of our conclusions and recommendations:
    "We expect to receive copies of the sustainable development reports submitted by departments as part of Spending Review 2002, so as to be able to audit them in line with our remit from the House."
    From a sustainable development viewpoint, the reports are obviously of considerable importance, as they lay out the commitment to sustainable development of each individual Department. Taken as a whole, they provide an important illustration of the commitment to sustainable development across government, and are thus key source documents.
    As a compromise, the Committee has suggested that the Treasury could make these reports available at least to the National Audit Office, and allow it to audit those documents and report its results to the Committee, which could take a view on its analysis.
    Access to these reports is an issue not just for us. Yesterday morning, as part of the Committee's inquiry into the forthcoming world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg, it took evidence from Sir Jonathon Porritt, who is chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission. The SDC was appointed to advise the Prime Minister and the Government on sustainable development issues, including environmental taxation. In his evidence to the Committee yesterday, Sir Jonathon also raised the matter of access to these departmental reports, and he supported the Committee's desire to be allowed to examine them. As he has the Prime Minister's ear, Treasury Ministers may like to pay some heed to his opinion.
    I confess that it was principally the Labour party that argued for the establishment of the Environmental Audit Committee, but that gives it an added responsibility to allow the Committee to do its job. I remind the Minister of the Committee's remit:
    "Consider to what extent the programmes and policies of Government Departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty's Ministers; and to report thereon to the House."
    To perform that role effectively, it should have access to departmental plans for sustainable development so that it can examine them. I urge the Treasury to drop its opposition to making that information available to the Committee and to allow us to perform the task for which we were originally constituted by the House.
    I shall conclude my remarks in the hope that other hon. Members on the Committee will be able to speak. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to what I have said.
    3.52 pm
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I have long thought that our party's future lay partly in strengthening our environmental credo. We should aspire to be a modern, left-of-centre party delivering year-on-year improvements in public services, and if we are to stay committed to the interests of the many and not the few we need to embrace the environmental agenda more

    473
    rigorously than we have so far. I believe that new, bold steps in environmental taxation would be a positive move in that process.
    I was lucky enough to serve on the Select Committee on Environmental Audit in the last Parliament, and I congratulate its Chair and members on their continued detailed scrutiny of environmental taxation. I apologise to the House, but I have to chair a meeting with the Minister for Industry and Energy to consider how to implement the recommendations of the energy review, so I shall not be able to hear the Financial Secretary's summing up.
    By contrast with the mealy-mouthed attitude of some Opposition Members, the Treasury has been responsible for some significantly radical steps on environmental taxation, either through the climate change levy or the incentives to encourage alternative, cleaner fuels. Those steps are making a significant difference to market expectations and to the interest of business in developing environmentally friendly technologies.
    However, we need to go much further on energy, transport and waste policy. We should be bolder in our use of environmental taxes and the revenues that they generate, and in our advocacy of taxation across national boundaries to help to solve some of our environmental problems. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) made about the urgency of the challenge to deal with pollution, particularly carbon emissions from aviation, is an important example.
    There is also an urgency about the need for new consideration of environmental taxes, partly because of the concern raised by the recent report of Cambridge Econometrics about the rise in carbon emissions last year and this year. It is concerned that, despite our ambition of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2010 on 1990 levels, if its analysis is right, on current trends we will achieve only a 6.5 per cent. reduction. That is a reason to consider afresh the case for a green tax commission. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands already have such a commission.
    A green tax commission could consider carefully how we encourage and give incentives to households to reduce unnecessary energy usage. The Cambridge Econometrics report shows that, if no further action is taken, on current trends there will be a 19 per cent. increase in CO2 from households by 2010 on 1990 levels. The cut in energy conservation materials that the Treasury initiated—down from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent.—is a useful step in the right direction. The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South about stamp duty rebates for households with high levels of energy efficiency is an interesting suggestion that such a commission could explore. In the Netherlands, domestic energy is taxed, but there is a tax-free allowance of 800 kilowatt hours per month for all households, so as not to penalise essential energy use. Households in the Netherlands are also required to meet much higher insulation standards.
    I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell the House what further tax incentives the Treasury is considering to encourage the development of renewable energy. There is a huge challenge for us to take forward the recommendations of the recent performance and
    474
    innovation unit report on energy. It highlighted the fact that, if we are to achieve our 10 per cent. target and the equally realistic target of 20 per cent. energy from renewable sources by 2020, onshore and offshore windfarms will have to be installed and operate at the rate of 1 GW to 2 GW per year in the period 2010 to 2020. Given Britain's current record on renewable energy generation, that is a huge challenge, but it has already been achieved in Germany, Spain and Denmark. Perhaps there is a case for further tax breaks to help to generate new investment in onshore and offshore windfarms, and wave and solar power.
    I want to flag up the specific recommendation of the PIU report, endorsed by the chief scientific adviser, that there is a huge need for further funding for low carbon and energy research. I hope that significant action will be taken in that respect under the comprehensive spending review. In the Netherlands, an interesting scheme, supported by tax breaks, has been established to generate private sector investment through green funds, which are regulated by the central bank. The projects that they fund must be approved by the Dutch Ministry of Environment. I encourage my right hon. Friend to explore those points and the possibility of a green tax commission.
    There has been a huge rise in the level of litter in the past 10 years. Litter is not the sexiest subject that the House must consider, but there is huge potential for the taxation system to help to solve the litter problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) flagged up the plastic bags tax in Ireland, which shows the potential of the taxation system for exploring these issues. Another PIU report is being prepared in that area, and I hope that my right hon. Friend is closely engaged in the consideration of the taxation measures that could help to solve some of our litter problems.
    I look forward to reading my right hon. Friend's comments in Hansard tomorrow.
    4 pm
    Mr. Simon Thomas: It has been my pleasure and delight to be a member of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit since I came to the House in February 2000. The Committee does a sterling job in holding the Government to account on a wide range of issues. The Environmental Audit Committee's title is a misnomer, as the Committee acts as the House's Select Committee on sustainable development. No other Committee examines the Government's activity in that respect, or holds them to account on those matters.
    Increasingly, the Government are adopting the sustainable approach. It is not always perfect, of course, which is why the EAC's scrutiny and reports are needed. However, the EAC's resources are stretched in accomplishing its task. If the Committee, in its role as sustainable development Committee, is going to be fully able to hold the Government to account on these matters, we need the openness referred to by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). In addition, the Committee must have the auditing powers and access to research that it lacks at present.
    The EAC has proposed a Bill on those matters, which has been taken up as a private Member's Bill by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). I hope that the Government will consider the Bill's merits, as it would be

    475
    better if they took the initiative. In that way, occasional accusations that the Government are sliding away from some of their commitment to sustainability can be countermanded.
    As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) said at the start of the debate, there is more to sustainable development and its promotion by the Government than environmental taxation. Although I shall confine my remarks to the issue of environmental taxation so as to he as brief as possible, I believe that the phrase "environmental taxation" is itself misleading. A better phrase would be "taxation for sustainable development", and it should cover everything that the United Kingdom must try to do.
    The first thing to say is that the Government have retreated from their pretty radical and welcome position on environmental taxation. The June 1997 statement of intent on environmental taxation encompassed many things. It stated:
    "Over time, the Government will aim to reform the tax system"—
    that is, the whole system, not just environmental taxation—
    "to increase incentives to reduce environmental damage. That will shift the burden of tax from 'goods' to 'bads'; encourage innovation in meeting high environmental standards; and deliver a more dynamic economy and a cleaner environment, to the benefit of everyone."
    That final phrase—
    "to the benefit of everyone"—
    is what made me consider the statement to be more about sustainable development. It recognised that the environment, social justice and the economy go hand in hand.
    Unfortunately, the current statement of intent does not recognise that. The 1999 pre-Budget report said merely that the Government would consider using the tax system on a case-by-case basis. That is a real weakening of the Government's intent with regard to promoting sustainable development through the taxation system.
    It was suggested earlier that the Government are merely pausing or taking a breath before moving on to a more radical phase. I do not see where more radical proposals are going to come from, although, of course, I hope that they do appear. The Government are prepared to scatter a few carrots around to encourage and incentivise the "goods", but they seem very wary about using the big stick on the "bads".
    The background to the matter is public reaction, such as the protests that greeted the abolition of the fuel duty escalator. If the Government are to lead on these matters, they must explain them to the public.
    The Government are to he congratulated on what they have done with regard to Kyoto, for example. They have taken an international leadership role on that matter, and the statement earlier today was worthy. However, the Government have not led the domestic agenda in the same way. If they want to be remembered as the Government who instituted sustainable development and incorporated it fully into the fabric of the UK, they must do much more.
    David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that another hon. Member had said that the Government were drawing breath, but does he agree that they have approached the matter of the
    476
    aggregates levy like a bull at a gate? The levy is due to be introduced in three weeks, but no detailed regulation covering its implementation and enforcement has been published. Have not the Government been over hasty in some areas of environmental taxation?
    Mr. Thomas: I agree, and I shall deal with the aggregates levy in a while.
    The energy review that has just been published recommends that the Government should create economic instruments to bring home the cost of carbon emissions. There is therefore another incentive to take such matters further.
    The Government must address four principles when they consider environmental taxation. Although not all the principles must always be observed in environmental taxation, accusations that such taxation is a stealth tax can be circumvented if one or more of them are used to underpin the tax. Moreover, the Government must make it clear that the principles are used to underpin the tax. They could do that by means of an independent green tax commission, which the EAC has proposed in the past. I hope that such a commission will be established, but for the moment I shall concentrate on the four principles.
    The first is the polluter pays principle. It is well known and widely understood, but it implies ring fencing and hypothecation. The Treasury, under all Governments, has been reluctant to consider that in the past, but increasingly it is seen as a valuable way to put the principle into effect.
    The second principle is that the tax burden should be switched away from income and employment, and on to the consumption of resources. That is very important. The hon. Member for Orpington said that sustainable development meant treating the world as though we intended to stay. That is by far the most concise definition that I have heard, but we must switch the tax burden in the way that I described if we are to make that a reality. The difficulty is that we must also bear in mind a commitment to social justice in the matter—after all, the poor should consume in the same way as the rich. The redistribution of resources requires social justice in the tax system.
    The third principle is the internalising principle—that the cost of producing goods should reflect real costs rather than actual costs. In other words, the external costs of production should be present in the final price of goods. The obvious example of an UK industry in which that does not happen is nuclear energy, but adherence to the principle can be difficult. For example, in a globalised market, how do we work out external costs? What are the external costs of what Bush has done with steel in the US? Does fuel consumption in this country have external costs in respect of global warming, climate change or the floods in Mozambique? The principle has its difficulties, but I believe that it must be taken into account when any environmental taxation is considered.
    The fourth principle is that environmental taxation can be used as a practical policy tool in achieving certain objectives. In other words, the theoretical cost is sometimes less important than whether we use taxation to incentivise a "good" or penalise a "bad". The obvious measure to which the fourth principle applies is the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. That may entail imposing for a time a certain amount of penalising taxation, as we will be trying to change people's behaviour.

    477
    Taxation in such circumstances does not always work, as the Government's change of mind on fuel duties shows. When the fuel duty escalator was introduced in the 1993 Budget, the then Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), said that it was also about achieving a cut in carbon emissions. However, one of the problems for the public was that there was no evidence that the levy would work in that way. Subsequent Governments have produced very little evidence in support of the contention.
    More to the point, when the fuel duty escalator was frozen in the 2000 Budget, no evidence was produced about how that would affect traffic congestion, carbon dioxide emissions, or anything else. The Government were very remiss—and very ungreen, if I can put it that way—in not producing that evidence, and they were criticised for that failure by a short, sharp report from the EAC.
    Issues relating to, for instance, fuel taxation demonstrate the potential complexity and difficulty of environmental taxation. In fact, the one thing that did stop carbon dioxide emissions from transport and reduce traffic congestion by—I think—5 per cent. was the fuel duty protest. That week in September achieved something that taxation has not been able to achieve.
    The problem with transport costs is that the point at which taxation really bites and starts to reduce road transport is the point at which, by definition, it, becomes unacceptable to the public. There must be alternative incentives, perhaps involving road pricing or public transport.
    We must also ensure equality of choice throughout the country. At present, environmental taxes such as fuel taxes penalise the poorest rather than the richest The hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) gave a good example relating to liquefied petroleum gas. There is not a choice in rural areas such as mine. There are only 93 fuel stations in Wales providing LPG, which means that it would be difficult to travel around Wales using LPG alone. I think that there are only five such stations in my county.
    The hon. Lady said that 50,000 vehicles were running on LPG. As she may well know, the official registered figure is 26,694. Until the infrastructure is in place, whether for LPG or for biodiesel, people will not make the choice. Sometimes an incentive is needed. The power shift programme, which helps people to convert their vehicles, applies only to new vehicles. The vast majority of my constituents live in rural areas and drive older vehicles.
    Government policy in this respect has not been a complete failure, as is demonstrated in the Environmental Audit Committee report. I was disappointed, however, that the idea of a pesticide tax had been shelved. I feel that that should be looked at again, and that more research should be conducted into how voluntary regulation is working.
    Landfill tax presents a clear example of our failure. It should be given a much higher priority. I think it was the Environmental Audit Committee that suggested a rate of £25 per tonne. I am particularly worried about the fact that the tax is still only £2 a tonne for inert wastes. There
    478
    is a mismatch between the landfill tax and the aggregates tax, which, we have been told, is intended to reduce primary extraction and encourage the use of secondary materials. Given a tax of only £2 a tonne on inert wastes, I do not see how the landfill tax can work hand in hand with the aggregates levy.
    As the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said earlier, some of us were in the House within a month of the implementation of the aggregates levy. Many of us who claim to be environmentalists have found ourselves wrestling with the question of how we can support the levy in its present form. My particular worry is that the way it is currently being implemented may lead to the closure of the smaller quarries. For instance, a quarry in Ystradmeurig in my constituency supplies the road stone for my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. If it closed, there would surely be more road transport because of the need to transport the material, and more carbon dioxide emissions.
    Mr. Gummer: Is it not also true that the sheer business of getting out stone that is necessary leaves behind a good deal of waste that will be classified as virgin material and will therefore cause real defacement and trouble in such beautiful parts of the countryside as the hon. Gentleman's constituency?
    Mr. Thomas: That may well be so. I am given to understand that the maximum amount of hard waste that could be recycled would be only 1 or 2 per cent. of virgin aggregates.
    Imports also give rise to concern. Although imported aggregates will be taxed, by-products will not, although they are taxed in this country. I fear that the market will be flooded by imports, which will need to be transported for long distances.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the most disastrous impact of the aggregates levy will be experienced in Northern Ireland? It will necessitate the relocation of jobs in the Irish Republic, where there are nearly 300 miles of border and 400 crossing points. We know of the problems with tobacco and oil smuggling; now there must be a new incentive for dodging tax on aggregates. Surely the Government should conduct research into all the implications, including the human hardship that would be caused, and—even at this late stage—defer the imposition of the tax on 1 April until further consideration has been given. I hope that would also avoid the embarrassment that may result—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is wandering into a speech rather than making an intervention.
    Mr. Beggs: I understand that there is to be a judicial review.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comprehensive intervention. I too understand that a judicial review is to be initiated soon. I also understand

    479
    that the aggregates tax is to be phased in Northern Ireland. The issues have not been resolved, however, and they need to be resolved if there is only a month to go.
    David Taylor: Is it not the case that the proposed level of the tax, £1.60 per tonne, is three to four times the profit margin of typical companies? That, moreover, is based on very poor-quality research by an obscure company that has now gone into liquidation. It consulted only a few people, and only one in 10 said they would be willing to pay anything towards the so-called closure of their local quarries. Should the Government not rethink the tax?
    Mr. Thomas: I agree that a research programme that merely asks how much people would be prepared to pay for the closure of a local quarry is, in fact, no research programme. That underlines the need for a genuinely independent environmental tax—green tax—commission to perform such research and inform Members. That would enable us to hold the Government to account.
    The report also suggests the introduction of an incinerator tax. That has prompted great interest in Wales, where a couple of incinerators are proposed—one in Crumlin Bowers and one in the Wrexham area. The proposal has given the Committee a higher profile in the Welsh media, but I think it should be considered carefully.
    As was mentioned earlier, we recently returned from Germany, where I noted that incineration was counted as a renewable in the energy programme. I do not think we want to consider it as such in this country, and I hope the Government will resist the idea.
    I think we may see some innovative schemes. I am certainly interested in what Ireland has just done about carrier bags. Finding them 15 miles away from the nearest supermarket, on top of a mountain, is not a very pleasurable experience when one is taking a walk. It is obvious that something must be done about packaging. I also think that the points made about an aviation tax are central. It was excluded from the Kyoto protocol, deliberately. The arrangement dates back to, I think, the Copenhagen principles. It is a very old agreement, and it needs to be reviewed. The Government have an opportunity to take the lead.
    We also need to increase the opportunity for biodiesel to be used in this country. A 20p rebate has been announced, but according to information I have received from Cargill plc a further reduction of about 15p is needed,
    "giving an overall rate of 10p per litre",
    which
    "would be sufficient to ensure … a commercially viable … industry".
    That is the important thing. We should not use taxation just to subsidise things; we should use it to help the market and to produce a commercially viable situation.
    The Government have taken some major steps, especially in their first year We have yet to see them do so in their second term. The problem is that some of their steps forward have been followed up by a lack of co-ordination, or a lack of joined-up government, and certainly by a lack of momentum.
    4.19 pm
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I join in the chorus of congratulation to members of the Environmental Audit Committee on producing an excellent report. It is hard-hitting, but, with one slight qualification, it hits the right targets, and I sincerely hope that its recommendations will be reflected in practical policy outcomes sooner rather than later. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend the Minister has to say about the recommendations.
    In a necessarily brief contribution to the debate, I want to highlight three areas in which the need for a more comprehensive use of environmental taxation measures is particularly important, the first of which is waste. I draw the attention of the Minister and the House to early-day motion 851, on sustainable waste strategy, which contains ideas developed by the Socialist Environment and Resources Association and Friends of the Earth. It has the support of some 60 Members across the political parties, and I commend it to Treasury Ministers. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on it.
    Several hon. Members have referred to the second issue that I want to comment on: the lack of a tax on aviation fuel, which must be addressed and cannot be ignored for ever. Air traffic is a major and fast-growing source of noise and pollution. It is true that improvements in technology have reduced noise, but that has been outstripped by the great increase in the number of flights. If the sector grows unchecked, there will be consequences not only for atmospheric pollution but for noise pollution, affecting those unfortunate enough to live close to increasingly busy airports.
    Even 10 years ago, emissions from international aviation accounted for about 3.5 per cent. of man-made global warming. According to the current UK trend, aviation is the fastest-growing area of carbon dioxide emission in this country. As has been pointed out, aviation fuel is exempted from taxation by international agreement. I urge the Government to take international steps—I do not suggest that the problem can be dealt with solely at a UK level—to tackle pollution from aircraft fuel emissions, and the consequences of noise pollution.
    I suggested that we should deal with air travel pollution by taxing aviation fuel, but perhaps that is not the right way to control the growth of air travel. The Institute for Public Policy Research, which is held in high regard by the Treasury, made several recommendations on emissions trading in respect of aviation fuel that are worthy of consideration. It also made some interesting recommendations on regional airports and the need to control air travel in parts of the country where growth is particularly heavy. Expanding airports in the south to provide extra capacity for short-haul air travel is surely the wrong strategy. If we invest in high-speed rail, we could easily achieve a real transfer from air travel to rail travel for journeys of 400 miles or less. That is another example of the way in which environmental policy and transport policy are closely interlinked.
    David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend anticipate as keenly as I do a more coherent and well-directed environmental framework within which regional airports can operate, once the Government's 30-year aviation strategy is eventually announced? It is important that

    481
    regional airports do not expand to take the surplus decanted from London airports without an environmental framework in place to protect their local populations.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It is ironic that much of the increase in air traffic in the UK—at regional and international airports—could be met by a transfer to rail, rather than by simply ratcheting up the increase in domestic air travel.
    The third and final issue that I want to address is the political hot potato of fuel duty on vehicles, which has given rise to much political opportunism over the years. Although I am in no sense criticising the Environmental Audit Committee, I note with interest that, despite its otherwise bold recommendations, this is one area in which it was somewhat coy. It said that the Government must
    "consider all options for containing the growth of road traffic",
    without exploring in much detail the available options. I know that the Committee had already discussed the matter, but I hope that it will return to it in due course.
    There are important issues associated with tax on vehicle fuel that cannot be ignored or dumped. Road transport produces one quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions in this country. Making motoring more expensive in real terms must be one of the methods used to bring down that pollution. Other methods—persuading motorists to use lower emission fuel, and investing in alternative forms of transport—are also important, but if we are really to tackle the problem we must use all those methods, including a rise in real terms of vehicle fuel taxation.
    After all, the likelihood is that the cost of motoring will fall in real terms in the next 10 years, for a number of reasons. In the UK in particular, car prices are likely to fall in real terms. Perversely, if fuel duty stays the same as fuel efficiency increases, motorists will be encouraged to use their cars more, instead of switching to public transport, thus bringing no benefit to atmospheric pollution. Traffic congestion would also increase.
    Likely falls in the cost of motoring contrast with the cost of bus and rail travel, which, according to current trends, is at best likely to remain static, and may increase in real terms. Set against the cost of public transport, a reduction in the cost of private motoring will do nothing to encourage people to use public transport, but cause big problems in the delivery of the Government's 10-year transport plan.
    I realise that these issues are difficult to discuss in the climate since the fuel protest, but a steady, real-terms increase in fuel duty is necessary to keep the cost of motoring stable, encourage more people off the roads and on to bus and rail, and create a level playing field. Many environmental organisations, such as Friends of the Earth, have made detailed and comprehensive proposals about vehicle fuel taxation, and I urge the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take account of them in the forthcoming Budget proposals.
    The Government have made a very good start by using environmental taxation as an important weapon in their armoury to promote environmental sustainability in this country. As we have discovered in today's debate, it is easy in theory to call for environmental taxation measures,
    482
    but specific measures often give rise to considerable opposition on both sides of the House, because of their possible impact on individual constituencies. I praise the Government for so far resisting calls to draw back from environmental taxation measures, and I urge them to be consistent by taking forward that policy and building on the Environmental Audit Committee's excellent proposals.
    4.29 pm
    Sue Doughty: I will be brief as I know that time is running short. As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I pay tribute to our Chairman, who drove us hard but with a lot of kindness to get us where we are today, and to the people who support the Committee, who did a tremendous amount of work.
    I was surprised by some of the comments about changing policies on tax because the Select Committee report says that we need to keep reviewing what works and what does not. That is a strong theme throughout the report. The Government started very well in 1997, and we were all pleased to see the work to set up an environmental taxation regime. We look forward to further developments. It would be easy to be rude about the Government, but their heart is in the right place; they have simply slowed down a little too much for comfort.
    We need to use the opportunities presented to us in the Treasury approach to see what changes can be made. As other hon. Members have said, the Treasury needs an internal unit for sustainable development to look at not only fiscal development but the outcomes and effects of fiscal work. We need research and promotion of environmental tax policies. We need resource productivity indicators. I saw examples of those in Germany last week; we need them here so that we can find out whether we are on the right track.
    We need to monitor the adequacy of environmental appraisal in new policy proposals and the impact of existing environmental tax policies. It is important that we co-ordinate the work of other Departments in which the Treasury is taking a lead, and we must ensure that Departments submit their sustainable development reports. We need to consider exciting changes. We have been talking about biofuels, which are wonderful. Our rural industries are ailing, and biofuels provide opportunities for rural regeneration.
    We are concerned about home energy conservation. We do not seem to be doing enough for the fuel-poor, and we should do more to encourage the fuel-rich to use devices such as energy-saving light bulbs. Could we not give tax breaks on such items to encourage people who leave their lights on all day to do so much more cheaply? It is not the fuel-poor but the fuel-rich who burn excess fuel, and we are doing nothing to encourage them to use energy much more efficiently. Home energy conservation measures target the fuel-poor, but the fuel-rich are important if we are to achieve sustainability.
    There is much more to be done, and I hope that the Budget includes major increases in landfill and incineration taxes. Many Members on both sides of the House, including the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not present, and me, have deep concerns about sustainable

    483
    waste management. We look to the Treasury to support us in encouraging councils to take a new approach to achieving sustainable development.
    Mr. Bruce George: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been sitting here for 20 minutes enthralled by this truly important subject. As Chairman of the Defence Committee, I point out that we have an equally important subject, terrorism, to discuss. I know that this is not strictly within your terms of reference, but may I, through you, implore my colleagues to take note that, if equity is to be taken into account, this debate should terminate at 4.40 pm, after which my colleagues and I will become a little irritated. I plead with you to invite our colleagues to finish the debate no later than that.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is correct: that is not a point for the Chair.
    4.34 pm
    Ms Joan Walley: I am sure that everyone will be relieved to hear that I will be as brief as possible.
    Whatever has been said about the urgency with which we need to proceed to the next debate, the whole point of the Environmental Audit Committee is to talk about putting environmental issues at the heart of Government. We want not only annual reports to Parliament but Ministers in all Departments considering the detail of the Committee's work. Those proposals have been on our agenda for a long time. We want to make sure that Ministers leave Parliament today ready to implement our recommendations.
    We have had a thorough debate, and It falls to me, as vice-Chairman of the Committee, to impress on the Minister the urgency with which he should address the points that have been made. Our Committee is cross-cutting, and in many areas of policy the Government have, thankfully, recognised the importance of cross-cutting reviews and working parties. It is essential that environmental issues are at the heart of what the Treasury does. That means that we will get the right forms of environmental taxation. It falls to the Minister to tell us how the Treasury will implement our recommendations.
    Many points have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) has introduced a private Member's Bill that, if successful, would mean that the Committee had resources on the scale that is available to the Public Accounts Committee. The proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) are even ahead of those of the Environmental Audit Committee. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) said that the sustainable development reports that are available to the Treasury need to be made fully transparent and they must be available to Parliament through the Select Committee. Will the Minister tell us what he is going to do about that?
    We are still mystified about what happened to the pesticides tax. If ever there was a case of wanting to put the polluter pays principle at the heart of policy, the pesticides tax is it. I urge the Minister to look at that again. We have not had a satisfactory response, and we need to keep a close watch on the arrangements whereby the water companies have to pay for the clean-up mechanism.
    484
    These issues are at the same time both local and global. I urge the Minister to consider urban development and the nonsensical situation of having zero-rated VAT on greenfield site development. We have heard about the recycling of brownfield sites—what happened to that proposal? [Interruption.] Whatever conversation he may be having at the moment, will the Minister, when he winds up the debate, tell the House why the Government have not even carried out the research that would enable us to make proposals to encourage investment in the recycled brownfield sites that are so badly needed? I want to congratulate the Government on what they have done, but will the Minister tell us, even if he cannot provide the information to Parliament this afternoon, how we can deal with state aid rules and how we can find money to match the concessions that have been made on environmental issues?
    We heard much about the climate change levy. I say to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that the ceramics industry has shown that the levy can work and make a real difference. Today the Government have ratified the Kyoto protocol, and we can now proceed with emissions trading.
    Many issues have been raised, and there is no time to deal with them now. The recommendation for a green tax commission has been before the Government for five years. Does the Minister understand that if we are to avoid another conflict over fuel, we need a green tax commission to raise public awareness and to encourage as many people to engage in the environmental debate as took part in the "Pop Idol" debate on television a short time ago?
    I hope that we can have more debates on environmental issues because many hon. Members, including those who are not on the Select Committee, have a great interest in the subject. It is now incumbent on Parliament to see how more time can be made available, so that the Government can respond without undue haste and the threat of the clock ticking away, as it is this afternoon.
    4.39 pm
    Mr. David Lidington: I congratulate all members of the Environmental Audit Select Committee and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) on their report, which is an important and wide-ranging piece of work. I note that today my hon. Friend is celebrating his birthday. He will regard the opportunity of this debate as the icing on his cake.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and other hon. Members from all sides pointed out that the debate and the report cut across Whitehall departmental boundaries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) in particular noted that it brings us into debate about European and international policy, not just policy that is the sole responsibility of those of us who legislate at Westminster. Emissions trading, for example, is covered by a British scheme, a European scheme and, at some stage in the not too distant future, a global scheme. We shall have to make all three work and mutually compatible.
    I am aware of the point made by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), so I will concentrate on a few key aspects of the report rather than do justice to

    485
    its entire contents. It is a trenchant report and I hope that the Minister will take seriously the criticisms made by a Committee that spans the party membership of the House. The Committee talks of a desperate need for greater clarity in the presentation of figures to do with environmental measures; and of the Treasury
    "failing to provide adequate leadership and coordination across central Government."
    The report calls for much greater use of specialist expertise, both within the Treasury and Whitehall more generally to track the practical effectiveness of environmental measures, including environmental taxes once they have been legislated for.
    I want to focus in particular on the aggregates levy and the climate change levy. As the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) pointed out, the aggregates levy already appears to be having a beneficial effect on the prospects for the use of china clay waste in Cornwall. I have read that the same is true of slate quarry waste from parts of Wales. But it is undoubtedly true also that there are serious worries in other parts of the quarrying and aggregates industry about the impact of the levy on its ability to compete, particularly with overseas rivals. The point was made strongly by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) when he drew our attention to the particular difficulties of the Province. I read, for example, that in Scotland a £20 million project to increase trade at Peterhead bay harbour is under threat because the impact of the aggregates levy will be to impose an additional £1.5 million on the cost of that project, putting 500 actual or prospective jobs in that hard-pressed area at risk.
    Whatever the arguments about the principle of having an aggregates levy or the shape which the Government have chosen for that tax, there can be no excuse for the botched way in which the Government are seeking to introduce it. As the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) pointed out in an intervention, we are now about three weeks away from the date when the levy comes into force and firms start having to pay it, yet businesses do not have available the detailed regulations which will govern the implementation of that new tax. Worse still, the Government announced on 28 November last year that they were going to amend the Finance Act 2001 on which the aggregates levy is based.
    The Government are proposing no fewer than 10 changes, which presumably will have to be legislated for in this year's Finance Bill. We are unlikely to know its contents before May. I imagine that those changes will be imposed retrospectively. It is hugely unfair on businesses to leave them trying to cope in this state of limbo. The Government, as I hope the Financial Secretary will have the grace to concede, have breached seriously their guidelines for giving businesses a minimum of 12 weeks between the publication of new regulations with which they are expected to comply and the date at which those regulations come into force. I do not believe that there is an adequate excuse for treating businesses in that way.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal pointed out, when one looks at what the climate change levy is likely to deliver in terms of reduced carbon
    486
    emissions, it is small beer in terms of what the country has signed up to under Kyoto and other international agreements. It will bear heavily on particular sectors of industry. In practice it will transfer money away from manufacturing at a time when manufacturing is in recession and away from small service businesses employing part-time or low-paid workers, to service businesses employing a lot of people. Banks, for example, will probably benefit from the way in which the Government have chosen to introduce the levy.
    The Financial Secretary will be familiar with the criticisms made by the Engineering Employers Federation on behalf of its members over many months, but other industrial representatives are making similar criticisms. The British Rubber Manufacturers Association says that the levy will add 1 to 2 per cent. to its production costs. Representatives of firms making industrial gases through to the trade associations for convenience stores and for high street launderettes, each from their different perspective, are making comparable criticisms of the disproportionate impact that the levy is likely to have on them, with them paying far more out than they will receive in national insurance rebates, and of the complexity of the levy for small businesses in particular having to deal with the paperwork that it entails.
    The National Farmers Union estimates that the agricultural sector will pay out some £25 million in climate change levy and receive only about £9 million back in national insurance rebates. It is a badly designed tax. As the Secretary General of the United Kingdom Aluminium Federation said last year:

    "If ever a group sat down to design a racehorse and finished designing a camel, it was those Government Departments responsible for the climate change levy."
    Part of the problem arises from the fact that the Government have decided to link eligibility to enter a climate change agreement with the integrated pollution prevention and control regulations part A. The problem is that the IPPC is a system designed to capture the biggest polluters, not necessarily the biggest users of energy, so some big users of energy are excluded from the whole system of climate change agreements. The makers of industrial gases account for about 1 per cent. of the UK's entire consumption of electricity, yet they are ineligible to enter a climate change agreement. That sector faces an annual tax bill of perhaps £13 million in the first year and is likely to get rebates of perhaps £500,000 in national insurance contributions. The Cold Storage and Distribution Federation says that its members too are big energy users but are ineligible under the IPPC, yet for these companies up to 10 per cent. of total costs can be in electricity alone.
    The climate change levy will distort markets and put some British industries at a competitive disadvantage with their rivals elsewhere. British glassmakers have a climate change agreement, but their German competitors—who account for a quarter of the entire EU glass output—are exempt from such a tax altogether.
    The levy will even have some perverse environmental effects. In the steel industry, if a company uses acid to remove oxide scales—known as "pickling" in the industry—it can join a climate change agreement. However, if it uses a better, more environmentally friendly process—mechanical descaling—it falls outwith the IPPC regulations, and so is barred from entering the climate change agreement. Perversely, therefore, it will

    487
    face a bigger bill from the levy as a result of having introduced a more environmentally friendly industrial practice.
    As other hon. Members have said, a complex system of administration has presented small businesses in particular with difficulties. The British Printing Industries Federation pointed out that
    "a printing company will not only be expected to spend a considerable amount of time filling in the necessary forms but will then have to calculate how much of its energy is used in the printing process as opposed to warehousing, offices and dispatch, which are not eligible for the discount."
    It concludes that
    "many companies just give up at this point."
    There are many other subjects on which I would wish to press the Minister, such as the Curry report's reference to the need for more incentives for biofuels and the Government's timetable for consultation on the landfill tax credit scheme. Why have the Government chosen to reject, according to a written answer on 4 March, the idea of a tax on incinerators?
    I want to conclude with another theme that has come through strongly from the Select Committee report: the need for much greater openness on the part of the Government in general and the Treasury in particular about how they research and track the effectiveness of their environmental policies. Paragraph 39 of the report states that
    "there is very little public knowledge of what research the Treasury is in fact carrying out."
    It quote Friends of the Earth as saying:
    "We are not always clear about what research they are doing".
    In paragraph 41, the Select Committee calls for a detailed environmental appraisal to be published as a supporting document for every future pre-Budget report. In paragraph 52, it again calls on the Government to make sustainable development reports from Departments subject to scrutiny and audit.
    I understand the Government's argument that the sustainable development reports are part of the process in Government for considering plans for a Budget document or public spending decisions, and that they should be kept confidential until those decisions are made and announced. However, I cannot for the life of me understand the case for keeping those reports and analyses secret even after the decisions have been made and announced. It will make for better parliamentary scrutiny and, even more important, better policy-making in the interests of our country and its people if the Government are prepared to be more open about the criteria that they use to introduce and design environmental taxes than they have chosen to be hitherto.
    4.54 pm
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): This has been an excellent debate. The number and quality of the contributions are a credit to the Committee, its Chairman and the seriousness of the subject matter. I exempt from those opening remarks the contribution of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) who—characteristically, I am afraid—is not in his place. Their contributions were hackneyed, ill-informed, partisan and grudging in the
    488
    extreme about the Government's undoubted achievements in this field. However, this has been a welcome opportunity for the House to consider these matters. I share the view of some right hon. and hon. Members that the House does not spend as much time as it ought in considering environmental matters, so this debate is all the more welcome.
    The Government's central economic objectives include the promotion of high and sustainable levels of growth and high levels of employment—growth must be stable and environmentally sustainable. Quality of growth matters, not just quantity. Delivering sustainable growth is a task that falls across Government. It is a core feature of economic policy under this Administration. The Treasury is committed to that goal. How and what we tax sends clear signals about the economic activities that we believe should be encouraged or discouraged, and the values that we wish to entrench in society. Just as work should be encouraged through the tax system, environmental pollution should be discouraged.
    To that end, the Government have implemented a range of policies across the tax system to deliver environmental objectives. That is an ongoing and incremental programme. Over time, the Government will aim to reform the tax system and increase incentives to reduce environmental damage. That will shift the burden of tax from "goods" to "bads", encourage innovation in meeting high environmental standards and deliver a more dynamic economy and a cleaner environment to everyone's benefit.
    I therefore take exception to the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that this Government, and the Chancellor in particular, do not have much interest in environmental matters. He bemoaned the fact that the Chancellor was not present this afternoon. At the same time, he suggested, Janus-like, that somehow the Treasury had no business introducing the climate change levy because it is not an environmental Department. He cannot have it both ways. [HON. MEMBERS: "Janus-like?"] That means looking both ways.
    The Chancellor has put environmental considerations at the heart of the Treasury. To suggest otherwise is to try it on; the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal knows better than that. I know that in some quarters he is regarded as a saintly figure in relation to the environment. My view is that his role is more impish than saintly, although I am prepared to accept that he is at least a candidate for beatification. That is to be welcomed, but I am a little sceptical about the evidence. Be that as it may, he ought to give some recognition to what the Government have achieved. I hope that he will take advantage of future opportunities to do that.
    Of course, environmental taxation must meet the general tests of good taxation. It must be well designed and meet objectives without undesirable side effects. It must keep deadweight compliance costs to a minimum. Yes, we must be concerned about such costs and ensure that the distributional impact is acceptable. Care must be taken of the implications for international competitiveness, and that is our role in relation to the climate change levy. Far from accepting the strictures of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, I would argue that we have done just that. Where environmental taxes meet the tests, the Government have used them and will continue to do so.

    489
    The launch of our statement of intent on environmental taxation in 1997 gave a clear indication of what the Government were determined to achieve. We have taken crucial steps forward, but we are the first to accept that there is more to do. However, credit should be given for the steps that we have taken. Indeed, credit has been given by independent, objective observers.
    I note the contribution of the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I well remember him in his previous incarnation as the Conservative candidate in Brent, East. He showed all the necessary characteristics of a Conservative candidate in the borough of Brent. He was of brave heart and also demonstrated remarkable fleetness of foot. Both characteristics are necessary for someone who champions the Conservative cause in a borough such as mine. I am delighted that he has found a happy billet in Rayleigh and, no doubt, he has made and will make a distinguished contribution to the Committee on which he serves.
    The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that our commitment has lessened, that the pace of reform has slowed or that there is insufficient leadership from the Treasury. Over the next year, we will deliver on a number of important commitments, with the introduction of the new company car tax system and a new levy on aggregate extraction. I know that the Environmental Audit Committee has supported many aspects of these policies as we have demonstrated their efficacy.
    Developing new tax systems has taken time. Much consultation with business, environmental groups and others has been required. I am sure that hon. Members will acknowledge and support the principle that consultation should be built into the policy process. Of course, we could move more quickly by implementing policies that had not been developed in that way, but that would be a false economy and, ultimately, would slow the pace of the reform that the overwhelming majority of those who have spoken in the debate want to happen. We have taken time to get our proposals right and to ensure that, as we protect the environment, we avoid adversely affecting either the businesses that drive economic growth or progress against our wider social objectives.
    We have also been making new proposals. I should like to draw the House's attention to several recent announcements, mainly because they demonstrate the importance of sustainable development to Government strategy and because they effectively challenge some of the conclusions of the Environmental Audit Committee's report.
    The Committee argues that we are not taking our strategy forward, yet we have made important progress on cleaner fuels and the pre-Budget report contains important new proposals on the green technology challenge. The Committee claims that we are not consulting stakeholders on new proposals, yet we are regularly meeting green non-governmental organisations and discussing new ideas with other Departments.
    The Committee asserts that there is insufficient appraisal of the impact of Budget measures, yet the pre-Budget report appraisal contained for the first time a link with the sustainability indicators of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Surely, the Committee should welcome that. The Committee opines
    490
    that the Treasury is showing insufficient leadership, yet we have published guidance on sustainable development, required Departments to produce reports alongside their spending proposals and have agreed testing public service agreements on environmental targets. That must be, and is, good news.
    Let us turn to our new proposals. The Government have published the "Powering Future Vehicles" draft strategy, which is an important document considering the road vehicles of the future and the engines and the fuels needed to power them. The Treasury is a co-signatory to the document, which is an expression of our commitment to the environmental challenge. In the pre-Budget report, we confirmed that we will support this strategy with further tax incentives to be considered in the run-up to the Budget.
    The pre-Budget Report also confirmed that the Government will seek to introduce further tax incentives to support environmentally friendly investment in three important areas. The green technology challenge envisages enhanced capital allowances for a further range of energy-saving technologies, for cleaner fuels and vehicles and for minimising water use and improving water quality. That is not the sign of a Government who have lost their way or who are pausing to gather breath; it is the sign of a Government who are committed to new initiatives, to the consultative process and to ensuring that stakeholders are with us on the changes that are necessary. We are moving forward.
    I want to say a word about stakeholders, because we have made it absolutely clear that they had to be central to the development of new measures. That is why the climate change levy was preceded by Lord Marshall's taskforce on economic instruments and the business use of energy. That is why the aggregates levy was the subject of extensive discussion with the industry, including detailed consideration of the industry's proposals for a voluntary package, which we were not prepared to accept. Furthermore, our treatment of the issue of pesticides should not give anyone cause to believe for one moment that, if the voluntary approach does not work, we will hesitate to legislate. Make no bones about it: we will. We are determined to give the voluntary route a chance, but if it fails, no one should be in any doubt as to the determined action that will be taken.
    The non-governmental organisations are with us on this. Chris Hewett, senior research fellow of the Institute for Public Policy Research, said in an article in New Economy that
    "there is no doubt that Labour has been the greenest government Britain has ever seen".
    Norman Glass, of the National Centre for Social Research, said:
    "What has been particularly striking has been the role of the Treasury in achieving this."
    Far be it from Treasury Ministers to blow the trumpet of the Treasury—that would never do—but to suggest that the Treasury has been holding back progress does not give credit where credit is due.
    However, it is important that, as we propose new tax measures, we should have that vital dialogue with other relevant Government Departments—the Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and of Trade and Industry. We are still very much in the market for new

    491
    environmental tax measures, where a good case is made and the conditions set out in the statement of intent are satisfied.
    On appraisal, it is absolutely vital that even policies designed and implemented with the support of stakeholders should pass their reality check. That is why we are committed to a full and frank system of appraisal. We are committed to an evaluation of the environmental impact of all Budget measures. That was not a characteristic of the Government of which the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal was a member. They never issued clear guidance to all Departments on how to undertake environmental appraisals. They never ensured that the links between Budget measures and sustainability were made clear. All these measures will have a significant impact on the environment, and will serve an environmental purpose, so I absolutely reject the charge that the pre-Budget report fails to capture comprehensively the environmental impact of Budget measures; it does.
    On leadership, no one should doubt our determination. Departments with a public service agreement have been requested to produce a sustainable development report, to be submitted alongside the analysis of resources in spring 2002. We do not discourage the establishment of PSAs with sustainability impacts. Many PSAs have a direct impact on the achievement of our sustainable development targets. Merely adding the words "sustainable development" to PSA targets would not increase that impact. We are determined, however, to ensure that they do make a difference.
    It is perfectly true that sustainable development reports will not be published. Why not? Because they are internal documents, intended to clarify Departments' thinking about the implications of their policies. That is what they are for. They are not meant to be glossy brochures where the by-product is yet another reduction in our stock of timber. They are working documents, designed to achieve a specific result, and we are determined that they should do so.
    Let us have no illusions about what would happen if the Treasury announced an intention to allow other bodies—the Environmental Audit Committee or the National Audit Office—to audit the Departments' efforts. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) knows very well the way of Departments. He has served as a Minister. He knows the disciplines of preparation for a spending round and he knows that the awareness of a forthcoming
    492
    audit would inhibit the analysis of Departments, because they would have an eye on what would subsequently be made public.
    We are serious; we want the output of those Departments in the process to add value to the work. We do not want it to be a box-ticking exercise. Nevertheless, in the aftermath of this process I would be happy to consider with the hon. Gentleman and the Committee how best we can ensure that it is demonstrably a real process, which has made a real difference, and we are only too happy to receive any ideas that he and the Committee have about how best we can do that, subject to the caveats that I have given.
    I challenge the notion that the Treasury is not offering sufficient leadership. PSAs, sustainable development guidance, sustainable development reports and the integration of sustainable development into the spending review all suggest otherwise.
    I do not accept that the policy is too complex. It is a complex world; the environmental challenge is complicated and our policy response must capture that complexity, not superimpose an artificial simplicity that would be bad for business, society and, ultimately, the environment.
    Time marches on, and I am aware that another important subject will be debated this afternoon. However, I want to ensure that right hon. and hon. Members understand the seriousness with which we take this subject. I will seek to address in correspondence a number of the other points that have been made by right hon. and hon. Members. In conclusion, I would argue that we have done a lot, but that there is still more to do. We are grateful to the Committee—and its distinguished Chairman, the hon. Member for Orpington—for the commitment and determination that it displays in its work in challenging the Government to do yet more. I do not believe that the House or future generations, to whom we are ultimately accountable, will find us wanting in that respect.
    5.11 pm
    Mr. Horam: I waive my right to reply in view of the immense frustration felt by my fellow Select Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George).
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
    Question deferred, pursuant to paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates &c.) and Order [20 November 2000].

  Terrorism
  [Relevant documents: Second Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2001–02, on the Threat from Terrorism, HC 348-I, and the Government's response thereto, HC 667; and The Ministry of Defence: Annual Report 2001, Cm 5109.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That further resources, not exceeding £2,058.352,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a sum, not exceeding £1,636,556,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2002 for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: I very much welcome this short debate, which will be far shorter than I had expected. When the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and I decided who would go first, in the time-honoured way of tossing a coin, I had no idea that the Environmental Audit Committee would get almost three hours and the Defence Committee would get an hour and a half.
  I am sorry to begin my speech on a sour note, but I certainly want to avoid any other Committee that spends a great deal of time producing a good report being pushed into a time corner because of some ridiculous procedures in the House. This place continues to baffle, bemuse and anger me. We have just listened to an important debate, but the time constraints on us are truly unfair given what we are now discussing, although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's fine gesture in forgoing his winding-up speech.
  I should certainly like to thank the Liaison Committee for agreeing to this snippet of a debate on the threat from terrorism. We in the Defence Committee have produced an excellent report, which deserves to be considered in a much longer debate. The events of 11 September shocked the world, and the effects of those atrocities were felt around the globe and will continue to resonate for years to come.
  Al-Qaeda seemed to turn a new page in the long and bloody history of terrorism, presenting us with a new threat that is global in reach and ruthless in scale and horror. Its ambition and technology are unsophisticated, yet sophisticated; it is able to adapt to new circumstances, and I am not certain whether we will be able to adapt to new circumstances as effectively. As we say in our report, there is now a danger that a new benchmark in horror has been set.
  In the course of our inquiry, we took evidence from a number of experts in the field; from the MOD, the Secretary of State and officials. We are grateful to them and to our advisers for their contribution. In my remarks, I will address two principal issues. The first is the nature of the new threat. In fact, is it new? How is it qualitatively different from those that we have faced in the past? Secondly, I want to look briefly at what steps we—and particularly the MOD and the Government—might take in response.
  I see myself being ever more like Victor Meldrew as I go on, but, before I talk about the issues, I would like to comment on the Government's reply, which was excellent. However, we published our report on 18 December last year and we might have expected a
  494
  reply by 15 February. In fact, the Defence Committee received the reply on the late afternoon of the day before yesterday. We published it this morning, before our Committee has had a chance to read it properly and, I presume, before hon. Members on both sides of the House would have read it. I ask the Minister, with due deference, to try to persuade his Department to produce responses in the time allotted and certainly to give the Government's response prior to a debate on the report, to allow hon. Members a chance to read it.
  The threat is the substance of today's debate. The first question to be posed is how we face this new and qualitatively different threat from a new breed of terrorist. This is the question we ought to answer. The attacks of 11 September were not al-Qaeda's first terrorist outrage. There were several previously; in Saudi Arabia, at US embassies in east Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Many people forget that there was a dummy run at the World Trade Centre by al-Qaeda in 1993, when a van packed with explosives was detonated in an underground car park—six people were killed and hundreds injured—in an attempt to topple one tower on to the other with massive casualties.
  The events of 11 September stand out as unique in their appalling nature. Having examined all the previous attacks, our conclusion was that
  "a threshold has been crossed in terms of scale and level of casualties."
  We were concerned that it is not only al-Qaeda that is a threat; other terrorist organisations would try to exceed the carnage of 11 September.
  The Committee pointed out the dangers from weapons of mass destruction, and we looked into this in detail. The Government's response was that there was a risk of such attacks on the UK, but that it "remains low". That may be so. It may be a low risk, but if there were an attack using weapons of mass destruction, God forbid, the consequences could be catastrophic. One only has to imagine what would happen if an aeroplane were crashed into Sellafield, or if a biological agent were released on the tube, or if a chemical tanker were blown up in an urban centre. The Committee has received evidence and information on each of those scenarios and others, and they were, frankly, terrifying.
  The Committee and the Government need to think seriously about how we plan against such threats, which are deemed to he "low risk" but which, if they did occur, would have overwhelming and potentially catastrophic consequences. Such threats are the hallmark of asymmetric warfare. We need to prepare much better. To put it simply, in the past we have graded threats by combining an assessment of their potential severity with an assessment of their likelihood. We would expect to take action where a threat scored highly under each assessment.
  Now, with new asymmetric threats—especially where they involve unconventional weapons such as chemical, biological or radiological weapons—they may not score highly in terms of likelihood, but that must not be used as an excuse for inaction.
  The second theme is countering the threat. How can we do it? The threat seems to be amorphous and ill-defined and, even after the recent events in Afghanistan, we must not underestimate the continuing capabilities of those who would choose to attack us. The threat comes not just from

  495
  al-Qaeda, which has a presence in 60 countries, but from other militant Islamic groups and states that sponsor terrorism. In addition, there may be other threats of which we are unaware. I do not want to be over-alarmist, but we have to think long and hard—indeed, short and hard—about the problem. The Americans do not underestimate the threat. It established an Office of Homeland Security and, as we all know, increased its defence budget by $48 billion for 2003, which puts the figures in our spring supplementary estimates into perspective.
  The Government are working on a new chapter to the strategic defence review and will publish their findings, I presume in July or thereabouts. We hope that resources will match any new threats that emerge. The Select Committee is closely monitoring that and will report on it.
  The Committee is examining the defence and security of the United Kingdom, which goes beyond its traditional scope. It is important to bring together the work of the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury, the Cabinet Office, the intelligence services, the private sector and the governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All those must be calibrated to produce an efficient response.
  No doubt my colleagues will want to give their impressions of our major inquiry so far. I am not at liberty to disclose the details of the work that we have done on the substantive issues, but there is an urgency to it.
  Resources are not an issue in the United States in its war against terrorism. We asked a senior official about that, who replied, with a shrug of his shoulders, "We're a rich country." We are not a poor country, and money must be spent. The protection of our citizens must be one of the first priorities—if not the first priority—of any Government. The spring supplementary estimates show that the Government have not shirked their responsibilities. Our report on the threat of terrorism demonstrates that the commitment must not be short term. That report, which we published in December, said:
  "Whatever the outcome of the present action in Afghanistan or the fate of Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, we cannot expect to neutralize the new threats easily or quickly. The campaign against terrorism has been described as three-pronged in that it includes military, diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives. This three-pronged campaign must be pursued both legitimately and relentlessly. We must not lose our sense of the urgency and importance of this task in the months ahead. We must not hesitate to take the necessary steps to protect the UK and our interests overseas."
  5.22 pm
  Mr. David Laws: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and his Committee colleagues on the excellent contribution that their report of last year makes to our deliberations. I shall endeavour to follow his lead by being brief so that others can speak.
  It is clear from the context of the atrocious terrorist outrage on 11 September that we could vastly increase our defence expenditure on military forces and still not protect ourselves from similar terrorist attacks. It is notable that that attack took place in a country that spends a greater proportion of its gross national product on the military than any other. It is clear that in the United States and the United Kingdom alone there are thousands of high-profile targets, including public buildings, military establishments and individuals, all of which could be the
  496
  target of a terrorist attack. It would be impossible to provide an increase in military presence that would afford them all protection, even if we could find the resources.
  The Committee's report puts the problems in context. It asks how we can tackle the causes of terrorism, disrupt terrorist networks in the short term and ensure that they cannot carry on their work, and, in particular, avoid running the risk of a catastrophic terrorist event as highlighted in the report. I should like to draw out a couple of points from the Select Committee report and raise a number of issues with the Minister on those specific subjects.
  Following 11 September, how is the Ministry of Defence working with other parts of government with security responsibilities, particularly MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, to identify terrorist threats worldwide and disrupt such activities? I know that that is not the Minister's direct responsibility but we understand from the newspapers that there has been an increase in their resourcing since 11 September, and it would be interesting to know how the MOD is working with those agencies to disrupt terrorist networks. If those agencies are to be increasingly important in dealing with the threat of terrorism, there should be more visibility and more accountability to this place for their expenditure.
  The right hon. Member for Walsall, South mentioned the catastrophic threats identified in the Select Committee report. Although it would be impossible to defend ourselves against the wealth of risks to our country by increasing protection of all our key sites, it is clear that investment in protection of the UK and our allies from nuclear, biological and chemical attacks is immensely important. We would be grateful to hear from the Government today what action they are taking to remove from circulation the stockpiles of such weapons around the world and reduce the risk that terrorists might use such deadly weapons against civilian and military populations, with catastrophic effects.
  On those specific threats, the Committee report considers how the MOD integrates with the civil contingency agencies that have a prime role in leading our response to certain events. It is understandable, as the Committee said, that civil agencies should lead the response to flooding, foot and mouth and riots, for example, but, importantly, it noted that it might be appropriate for the MOD to play a clearer role in responding to the more serious threats—nuclear, chemical and biological—that we might face from terrorist organisations.
  It would be inappropriate to end without saying something about Iraq, which is very much on the agenda at the moment and which the US Administration have portrayed as part of their continuing battle against the threat of international terrorism. I shall not repeat, particularly in this short debate, the comments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made yesterday in the Westminster Hall debate that attracted considerable public and press attention. Suffice it to say that he laid down clearly and precisely our party's concern about the noises coming out of the US Administration.
  The Government must be well aware of the risks of mounting a serious attack on Iraq, especially the risk to the coalition against terrorism. Although I understand why they are keen to continue the close alliance with the United

  497
  States, which has existed not just since 11 September but, fortunately, over many decades, they have a responsibility to use their special position to convey to the US Administration some of the concerns expressed in this place, and no doubt among members of the Government as well as on the Government Benches. In that way, we may avoid the worst excesses that could be possible if some of those in the US Administration get their way.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). It should be read. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are great qualms in the United States itself about the proposed course of action?
  Mr. Laws: The Father of the House is right to point out that there is concern in the United States as well as in Parliament. Let us hope that the time available before serious military activity is contemplated is sufficient to enable wise heads to prevail. The Government have an important part to play in that respect.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Saddam Hussein has for some years defied the requirements of the international community that he open his territory for inspection, and that the reason for those requirements is the belief that he is trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction? Is he saying that it is Liberal Democrat policy that if adequate evidence emerges that Saddam Hussein is acquiring weapons of mass destruction, we should do nothing to stop it?
  Mr. Laws: On terrorism, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that no information available so far links Iraq to the 11 September events. My party takes extremely seriously the prospects of all countries that do not currently have nuclear weapons acquiring them, and we hope that the current situation can be used to give us the leverage necessary to get inspectors back into Iraq, so that we can find out whether such weapons are being accumulated. That would be our preference over short-term measures that use military action without first going down those paths.
  Because of the short time available, I shall not speak much longer, but let me say that although it would be naive in the extreme to pretend that the short-term threat from terrorism can be dealt with through longer-term measures to deal with poverty and injustice throughout the world, or that such measures would have any great effect in the short term, I hope that in the spirit of that appalling and overused phrase "joined-up government" the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development will work far more closely together to deal with the sources of discontent that lie in poverty and injustice. That, in the longer term, offers us the hope of dealing with international terrorism at source.
  Although the Government are to be praised for the progress made since their election in 1997 to put overseas development assistance back on the political agenda, I ask the Minister, even though it is not his responsibility, to pay heed to the large number of Members of Parliament
  498
  who now want the Government to set a time scale on the delivery of the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product going to overseas aid. I hope that that and some of the other measures in the Select Committee report will enable us to tackle the causes of international terrorism, and remove and destroy the seeds of future terrorism.
  5.32 pm
  Dr. Gavin Strang: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) will understand why I do not take time to respond to his remarks.
  I welcome this opportunity to discuss how we deploy our resources in the light of the threat of international terrorism. Our requirements of our armed forces since the end of the cold war have changed immeasurably. On taking office, the Government launched the strategic defence review, the conclusions of which were published in 1998. It made it clear that the Government wanted this country to be a force for good in the world.
  The Government are to be congratulated on recognising the need for a strategic overhaul of our defence capabilities to ensure that we could meet the challenges of the new environment following the end of the cold war. However, no one could have predicted our armed forces becoming involved in the many and diverse actions in which they have become involved, including those in East Timor, Sierra Leone and Kosovo. It is a long time since our armed forces conducted so many concurrent activities abroad.
  The events of 11 September mean that we need to refocus our military policies and capabilities. The Government are right to draw up what they call "The Strategic Defence Review: A New Chapter". I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has launched a public discussion paper to influence the work and the final conclusions.
  The world changed on 11 September 2001. The attacks raise important issues, such as weapons of mass destruction, a subject touched on by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) I pay tribute to the work done by him and his Committee. There is no doubt in my mind that if the terrorists responsible for those atrocities had had the capability to use weapons of mass destruction, they would have done so. I have no doubt that they will do so if they ever acquire the materials and the skills necessary. We must urgently address the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
  As I have said before, it is no secret that the international measures to contain the development of weapons of mass destruction leave a lot to be desired. Indeed, the Select Committee report identifies some of the weaknesses in that regard. We must step up our efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We do not want to regret not having done so.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Ministry of Defence on the discussion paper, which is open for public responses until the end of next week, and the proposed new chapter.
  There are additional or enhanced roles for our reserve forces, both in home defence and security and in overseas operations, but because of the pressure of time, I shall not set out the arguments for them.

  499
  Equally briefly, I welcome the announcement—there is one press report to this effect, which I trust is accurate—that the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, DERA, will not be floated on the stock market. I hope that the Government will put the privatisation option behind them and that we can move forward. We can discuss that later, on the basis of defence research being carried out in the public sector.
  Angus Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should also reconsider the prospective privatisation of the defence fire service?
  Dr. Strang: I certainly do.
  In the light of 11 September, we must take another look at the resources that we devote to our defence. What military resources are we talking about? I shall consider intelligence. Signal and human intelligence will play a crucial role in our fight against terrorism. Unlike two armies lining up against each other, a terrorist threat is not in the public domain. The Government are providing additional money for intelligence.
  Co-operation with other countries, especially the United States, will be extremely important, but because of our colonial past some European countries have a particular relationship with communities and countries that are relevant to the fight against terrorism. The United Kingdom and France in particular come to mind. As a result, there are circumstances in which we may be in a better position than the US to get intelligence.
  Once we have acquired and analysed the intelligence, we must respond. If military action is required, we need the most modern equipment practical and the highest calibre personnel available, with all the back-up that they require.
  I understand that the finances announced alongside the strategic defence review were tight, but adequate and that defence chiefs and Ministers thought that they could just get by, but no more, on the amounts allocated. That is appropriate: the Labour Government had other key priorities and there was no scope for giving defence more than was justified. I think that it was Aneurin Bevan, the architect of the national health service and the Minister for Health in the 1945 Labour Government who said that government was the language of priorities.
  Since the publication of the strategic defence review, our armed forces have had to do far more than we could ever have expected, and to their credit, they have done it. We must adequately fund our military to enable them to do what is required of them. To put it starkly, if we do not, our service men and women will be killed and we will lose.
  When the strategic defence review was published, the judgment was that Britain no longer faced a significant direct external threat to its security. That assessment may no longer hold. With the new challenges before us, we must give our military increased resources to enable them to do what we ask of them, or change what we ask. It is not fair on our service people to do otherwise.
  We need more money to fund our service people and ongoing associated costs, but a range of vital procurement programmes must also be adequately resourced. We must ensure that they are not delayed for financial reasons. That would affect not only our capability in terms of military hardware, but the morale of our service people.
  500
  We all understand why the defence budget has gone down as much as it has—by 29 per cent. in real terms since 1989–90. There was a consensus among all parties that the end of the cold war justified a peace dividend. That is another way of saying that we have cut our armed forces significantly under both parties.
  Historically, we are not an isolationist country. Most hon. Members supported the Government's aim of being a force for good and their commitment to deploying military resources to that end. We are rightly proud of the achievements of our armed forces, including, for example, the ongoing operation in Sierra Leone. We must now recognise that if we are serious about rising to the challenge of 11 September, we must provide significant additional resources. As the Select Committee said:
  "If we are to add a new chapter to the SDR, we must add the money to pay for it."
  5.40 pm
  Sir John Stanley: I applaud the report of the Select Committee on Defence and join the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) in criticising the way in which this debate has been truncated. It is perhaps still open to the Leader of the House to come to the Chamber and table a business motion restoring to the debate the three hours that had been envisaged for it.
  Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I want to refer in particular to the implications here in the home base of the United Kingdom of the threat from terrorists. Before dealing with the United Kingdom, however, I should like to highlight a particular overseas deployment from which there are some valuable lessons to be learned. I refer to that which has occurred since 11 September to Tampa, Florida, where United States Central Command—CENTCOM—and United States Special Operations Command—SOCOM—are located. I visited Tampa last month as a member of the Defence Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. There is little doubt that the success that British and American forces have had in working together co-operatively—they have done so with a remarkable degree of success on the ground in Afghanistan—was materially aided by the rapid and effective tri-service deployment to CENTCOM after 11 September.
  There is a very valuable lesson to be learned from what happened. The ambit around the world of US Central Command's territorial command by no means includes all countries that might be future sources of al-Qaeda terrorist activity. I hope that the Ministry of Defence is now preparing for the possibility of making similar deployments should they become necessary at any time to US Pacific Command, which has responsibility for most of the far east and part of the Indian subcontinent, and also to US European Command, which is responsible for a number of the African states. There are very valuable lessons to be learned from the success of the deployment to US Central Command.
  The Ministry of Defence made an astute judgment in choosing to position as the senior British officer in CENTCOM a three-star general who has a strong background in special forces operations and ranks equally to the American deputy commander of CENTCOM—the deputy to General Tommy Franks. That, too, was a very good judgment by the Ministry of Defence.

  501
  There is no doubt that the war against terrorism will be very protracted. I suspect that it will continue for years rather than months and involve a considerable number of countries. We know that the United States has already identified the countries that are dubbed "the axis of terror", but perhaps even more significant is the action that it has taken—rightly, in my view—to identify friendly Governments who face terrorist threats inside their own countries, as well as seeking to reinforce those Governments' ability to deal with such threats.
  I was struck by a report in Tuesday's Evening Standard, which said:
  "Money, arms and US advisers are earmarked for Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Nepal, Jordan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgystan".
  As chairman of the Nepal all-party group, I welcome the inclusion of Nepal in the list. That young, genuinely free multiparty democracy faces a serious threat from Maoist terrorists. As hon. Members know, in the past two or three weeks, the worst murderous Maoist attack has occurred in western Nepal. In it, 129 people were killed, including 76 police officers and 48 members of the Royal Nepalese armed forces.
  It is perhaps a pity that the Nepalese look to the United States for support in their war against terrorism, given our long and close military connection with Nepal and the enormous sacrifices that Gurkha soldiers made in two world wars and most recently in the Balkans. It is therefore disappointing that the British armed forces are perhaps too stretched to give material help to Nepal in its hour of need. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will reflect on that.
  Mr. Dalyell: As vice-chairman of the Nepal group, I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's comments.
  Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and vice-chairman of the group.
  Let us consider the United Kingdom. The Government made two significant statements in the immediate aftermath of 11 September. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) echoed one of them. The first was the Prime Minister's statement on 14 September. When he spoke of the al-Qaeda terrorists, he said:
  "We know, that they would, if they could, go further and use chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction."—[Official Report, 14 September 2001; Vol. 372, c. 606.]
  The second statement was contained in the paper, "Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States, 11 September 2001", which the Government placed in the Library on 4 October. It states:
  "The clear conclusions reached by the government are: … the United Kingdom, and United Kingdom nationals are potential targets".
  I do not believe that there is ground for revising either statement in the light of subsequent events in Afghanistan. Indeed, we would be seriously deluded if we believed that the overthrow of the Taliban regime has diminished the threat from al-Qaeda to the United Kingdom, the United States and possibly other countries. That organisation remains intact in many countries; as we have witnessed in recent days, it is far from finished even in Afghanistan.
  502
  We do not know whether Osama bin Laden is still alive and operating, but if he is not, there is little doubt that he will have a successor.
  The threat remains, and we must take it seriously. I am worried about whether we are doing that. The United States takes it extremely seriously; the Secretary of Health and Human Services has announced that his Department will procure sufficient smallpox vaccine to immunise the entire American population in the event of a smallpox attack. When I was in the United States at the end of last year, coast-to-coast television broadcast a full-scale exercise in one state, showing the civil and the military emergency services—the National Guard—responding to an anthrax attack.
  In this country, so far as I am aware, we have had no statement whatever from the Secretary of State for Health on the availability of smallpox vaccine, or any others. To the best of my knowledge, no exercises involving military and civilian personnel have taken place in any part of the United Kingdom—on the ground, as opposed to paper exercises in offices—to ascertain how we would respond for real in dealing with an attack on this country using weapons of mass destruction.
  I appreciate that the Ministry of Defence is not in the lead on civil contingency planning, but there is one question that has to be asked of the Ministry, and answered by it. It is simply this: in the event of an attack on the United Kingdom using weapons of mass destruction—particularly chemical or biological weapons—and a request being made by the civil power for military assistance from the Ministry of Defence, probably in hour one of day one of such an attack, will the Ministry be able to give an adequate response to that call for assistance? That is the key question, and one which, I trust, lies in the in-tray of the Secretary of State for Defence. I have a strong feeling that, if that question were asked today in such circumstances, the answer would be, "We are wholly inadequately resourced to supply the degree of military assistance that would be required."
  The threat—and the effect of the threat—is widely known and has been well publicised by the Ministry. In 1999, the Ministry published a document entitled "Defending against the threat from biological and chemical weapons", which has lain largely uncommented on and unreported in the Library of the House of Commons. To my knowledge, no previous Government had ever published such a document, and I believe that the Conservatives would have done well to publish one when we were in government.
  Much of this debate is conducted in general terms, and I can see why, because I understand the public's sensitivities. Occasionally, however, it is necessary to get into specifics, and I want to give just one illustration from the Ministry of Defence's document. It describes the various chemical and biological agents that might be used, and gives details of the effects. I shall refer to one, the biological agent of plague, which I imagine we all remember distantly from our history lessons at school. The document describes the effects of plague thus:
  "Following 2–3 days of incubation, fever, coma and respiratory failure occur, leading to death in 48 hours."
  That, by and large, would be the impact of a biological weapon attack on any population centre.
  In those circumstances, there will be two absolute imperatives. The first will be to bring such medical help as can be made available to those who have been caught

  503
  in the infected area and who have the infection. The second imperative will be to try to contain movement so as to prevent the infection being spread more widely—conceivably, right across the country. That will be the critical role for the Ministry of Defence. I have to ask the Minister whether anyone believes that the resources of the police will he sufficient on their own to prevent the movement of large numbers of very frightened people. That is a real question that the Ministry of Defence has to face and to answer, because that will be the nature of the military assistance that will be required.
  I want to put three proposals to the Minister. First, I hope that the Government will now update and revise this public document. It needs revision post 11 September, and it needs addition in the key area for the Ministry of Defence to which I have referred.
  Remarkably, when the document reaches the section that is euphemistically headed "Managing the Consequences"—the consequences of a chemical or biological weapon attack on this country—the role of the MOD is described in just six words:
  "The Armed Forces assist as required."
  That is a wholly unsatisfactory and insufficient response to the situation. It begs fundamental questions about that response. How many members of our armed forces will be required and on what time scale—I suggest that the answer to that is instantly—which units and which formation will those forces come from, how sufficiently will they be trained and how adequately will that training be exercised? Those are among the key questions, which I hope the Defence Committee will pursue on behalf of the House, getting access to whatever classified information is required.
  Mr. Eric Joyce: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is making a long speech, and quite a lot of Members want to speak.
  Sir John Stanley: I shall conclude my remarks.
  The second proposal that I want to put to the Minister is that the MOD's contingency planning in this area should be updated and implemented fully. Thirdly, contrary to what is said in the Government's response to the Defence Committee's report, I believe that it is imperative that they reverse the serious reduction in the Territorial Army that has taken place since they came to power.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. David Crausby: The decent people of the world were horrified by the events of 11 September, not because they were in sympathy with the United States Government, but because they felt for the American people. The atrocity carried out on that shameful day involved the murder of members of the general public. We must remember that it was an act aimed not at the Government or the military, but at everyday people from countries throughout the world who were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were firefighters, office staff, cleaners, maintenance people, tourists and even small children sat on their parent's knee.
  I am not convinced that the world changed completely on 11 September, because the threat from terrorism had been growing for decades. The asymmetric threat had developed alongside the possibility of nuclear, chemical
  504
  and biological weapons becoming increasingly available to unscrupulous and even unhinged political and religious extremists. What changed on that day was that al-Qaeda, clearly supported by the Taliban regime, showed its readiness to commit such an act without fear of the consequences. Until then it was assumed that no one would be mad enough to detonate a nuclear weapon in one of our cities because of the consequences for their own cities.
  What was also very different was that there were no negotiable demands: it was an act based in hatred and evil. When faced with such anger, the Americans had little choice but to respond with all their considerable might. What also changed was that the Americans felt justified in their determination to take conclusive action, not just in revenge but to defend themselves and to ensure that there would be no repeat of the events in New York, Washington and Pittsburgh.
  The long-term reality of the effectiveness of defence may, of course, be different. There can never be complete and absolute protection for our homeland from that type of attack. When suicide extremists are involved, and have the support of one or more state regimes, defence becomes an entirely different and much more dangerous business. The Americans are entitled to do their best to protect themselves at home. That is their duty, just as it is ours to increase security in an increasingly pluralist world.
  However, it cannot be possible to cover every eventuality. The nature of our enemies' tactics will be to attack what we do not cover. What happened last September in America shows that they will have no scruples about who they kill, or where or how they do it.
  The harsh and unpleasant truth is that if we do not deal with the source of the infection, we are doomed to failure. That is why an attack on Afghanistan after a period of negotiation with the Taliban was fully justified. The Americans considered their action, and took their time. They were right to do what they had to do, and the British Government were right to support them.
  The Americans recently increased their defence budget by $48 billion. That is nearly one and a half times the total of our defence budget, and it puts in perspective the increases proposed in the estimates today. Clearly, we must provide our forces with the resources that they need.
  It gives me no pleasure to speak in favour of war, but we cannot and must not allow individuals and organisations freely to prepare for the destruction of our entire way of life. It is critical that we do what is necessary as peacefully and responsibly as possible.
  Patrick Mercer: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking in favour of war, or in favour of a wholly rational defence?
  Mr. Crausby: I hesitate to speak in favour of war, but I accept that war is the last resort in defence. I therefore agree with the implication in the hon. Gentleman's question.
  However, we must involve the rest of the democratic world in what needs to be achieved. We have seen what has happened in the middle east when a policy that is based exclusively on an attempt to crush the opposition is employed. Questions of poverty, freedom and equality will inevitably play a part in the resolution of the world's differences, as will the way in which we deal with the trade in drugs.

  505
  Terrorism feeds on poverty, and is very often funded by the illegal drugs trade. Our efforts to eradicate world poverty and end the trade in heroin, for example, must be at the forefront of what we do. However, in the end, we must deter those who consider action against our people, and we must be prepared to take pre-emptive strikes against those who threaten us. To achieve that, the roles of the Royal Marines, the Parachute Regiment and special forces should be enhanced in any future strategic defence review.
  The threat facing us is entirely different from the threat posed during the cold war. Attacks on our nation will no longer come across the English channel. We need to plan the location and nature of our defences with that in mind.
  One of the most important challenges involves the development of ballistic missiles by hostile regimes.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of exercising our right to mounting a pre-emptive strike. Before we put people in harm's way, is he satisfied that the intelligence agencies of this country and our allies are co-ordinating their approach? Are they prepared to share all available information at the appropriate time to safeguard the deployment of our troops?
  Mr. Crausby: I think it is naive to expect that the intelligence services would share information with everyone concerned, but I am happy enough that the country has a sufficiently good relationship with America for that to be possible. Whether it would extend to other nations is for them to deal with.
  The problem of missiles must be tackled before it is too late, and we witness, for example, the destruction of a European city. If that happened to London or Manchester, many of our constituents would demand the most vicious revenge. They would expect the most extreme action to be taken against the perpetrators. The Government have a serious responsibility to prevent such a scenario, by whatever means, and they are entirely justified in taking whatever action is needed in the cause of sustainable peace and security.
  6.6 pm
  Hugh Robertson: I am advised by the Registrar that I should start by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I am a member of the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, and of the regimental council of my old regiment.
  I want to register, also, my dissatisfaction at the fact that such an important debate has been confined to such a short period at the end of the parliamentary day—I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree about that. I have sat here for nearly eight hours, and after sitting through two debates I have been asked to limit my speech to five minutes. I will certainly do that so that others can speak, but it is not very satisfactory when such an important matter is being discussed.
  It is appropriate to pay tribute to the Chairman and members of the Select Committee for their excellent report, and—as in any debate of this nature—to our
  506
  excellent armed forces, both those deployed in the fight against terrorism and those performing other tasks throughout the world. They are the best possible advertisement for the United Kingdom, and they deserve our thanks, support and admiration.
  I think that it is fair to pay tribute to the Government, both for their decision to deploy resources in the war against terrorism and for the success of what has been done so far. Much has been achieved, although, as I am sure Ministers will be the first to admit, a great deal remains to be done.
  I had intended to mention some of the things that I thought had worked well in the war against terrorism, and some that had worked less well, but because of the time constraints I will simply identify a few equipment issues that I think the Ministry should address. It is probably unsurprising that these gaps have appeared, given the new and immediate nature of the threat we now face.
  The first equipment issue relates to ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance. It is crucial, for two reasons—the need to target terrorists accurately, and the need to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties. Much has been achieved since the strategic defence review, but much more needs to be done if Europe and the United Kingdom are to match United States capabilities. Those who want a practical example need only consider the success of the United States Predator unmanned spy plane, and the technology gap between that and our equivalent, the Phoenix.
  Strategic air transport also gives cause for concern. The United Kingdom's long-range heavy-transport aircraft are currently leased from the United States, while the Airbus 400M is bogged down in political difficulties. Those difficulties must be resolved.
  Our lack of a deep-strike capability is also important. It is important not just to the expeditionary warfare in which we are currently engaged, but to the sustaining of humanitarian operations away from the UK base. It is, in fact, a large, secure floating base for our troops. I welcome the decision to order two new aircraft carriers —60,000 tonnes rather than 20,000—but we must recognise that there is a gap in our order of battle until they arrive.
  Following 11 September, it is also important that we address the deeply worrying lack of an integrated, land-based air defence system in the UK homeland. Without such a system, our country has no means of enforcing air exclusion zones around key points such as nuclear power stations, the City of London and transport hubs. In the short term, we clearly need to redeploy fighter aircraft to protect those points, but the issue must still be addressed.
  The other lesson that immediately emerges from 11 September is the need to broaden the scope of defence policy. If the war against terrorism is to be successfully prosecuted, military, humanitarian, political, diplomatic, financial and legal resources must be provided. Afghanistan is a particularly good example. If we had deployed timely economic aid after the Soviet invasion, there is a good chance that the current conflict would have been prevented.
  What are the lessons for the future? We must increase defence expenditure. The question is one of credibility. The Government tell us that the threat is very real, and I wholly believe them. If the UK is to meet that threat in

  507
  concert with the United States, more money must be spent. The United States has recognised that fact—its defence spending has risen by 14 per cent. There are also signs that it may turn inwards, which would increase the burden on Europe. The European rapid reaction force has identified 150 basic defence capabilities, 40 of which—a considerable number—will remain outstanding by the end of next year. It is now a matter of record that our Prime Minister has ambitions for Africa. They will inevitably cost money, and troops will be required to carry them out. We must he honest: meeting this threat—if we are serious about it—will simply cost us more money.
  It is also important to tackle overstretch. We in this House argue about the exact figures, but we agree that overstretch exists. It is vital that sufficient numbers of troops be ready for immediate deployment, and that they have time to train and to recover. That can be achieved in two ways: through recruitment and retention—my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) has much to say on that, and I urge the Government to listen—and through reducing our commitments elsewhere. A role clearly exists for other European countries in that regard, particularly in the Balkans.
  It is vital to reorganise the Territorial Army to meet the extra commitment of homeland defence. I shall not go into the details, but the TA is ideally suited to the task, and we should look to the example of the national guard in the United States.
  It is also crucial to remember the importance of conventional warfare. The Gulf is a good example of how such warfare can arise rapidly, particularly in this era. Conventional warfare is also the best preparation for our troops taking part in expeditionary warfare. Expeditionary warfare situations are broadly similar to those associated with conventional warfare, and conventional equipment—particularly tanks and helicopters—can also be used in the war against terrorism.
  As I have said in previous such debates, it is easy to start a war but difficult to bring it to a successful conclusion. The Government and our armed forces have made a good start in tackling the threat of terrorism, but many more challenges lie ahead. We in the United Kingdom are lucky to have the finest armed forces in the world. It is surely incumbent on us as politicians to ensure that they are deployed as effectively as possible to meet this new threat.
  6.13 pm
  Jim Knight: Given the time, I shall restrict my comments to the resourcing of the armed forces. There is no doubt that, in defence as much as anywhere else, one gets what one pays for. The events of 11 September had an enormous impact, and as others have said, the reverberations will be felt long into the future. On that day, the strategic defence review's omission to treat seriously the asymmetric threat was exposed as a fundamental flaw, and I support the Government in committing to a new chapter for the SDR. I would strongly argue, however, that a new chapter requires a new tranche of money.
  In September, the Prime Minister spoke of a three-pronged approach—humanitarian, diplomatic and military, as the Chairman of the Select Committee reminded us—in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States. It is highly appropriate to continue that approach. Our diplomatic efforts are assisted by the stick of the military and the carrot of development assistance.
  508
  Indeed, the ability of our armed forces in peacekeeping and peacemaking is unrivalled in the world. They are currently deployed in 80 different countries, including in some substantial peacekeeping roles. That is certainly placing a considerable strain on them and it is not sustainable indefinitely.
  I am a strong advocate of the United Kingdom fulfilling its international responsibilities to the full. I support the Prime Minister's lead, but if it is to continue, it needs more resources. One use of such resources—apart from expanding capability, which I shall come to briefly at the end—would be an expansion of the reserve forces, as others have mentioned, not to recreate the home guard, but to give some slack to the armed forces and to enable them to perform some specific tasks which more knowledgeable people than I would want to specify. I am particularly attracted to giving the Territorial Army, with its military command and control skills, the expertise and equipment to support the civil power in dealing with nuclear, biological and chemical attack threats in the United Kingdom homeland.
  We also need more resources to increase capability. We cannot hope to catch up with the United States' capability and in many ways it would not be appropriate, but there is a real question over the future development of NATO. It would appear that the experience of action in Kosovo has led the United States to become increasingly wary of joint action. The invoking of article 5 was significant, but it was not followed by significant NATO action in Afghanistan.
  There is no time now to rehearse the arguments around the expansion of NATO or the European security and defence policy, but, clearly, efforts towards capability improvement by the NATO capability conference and the European Union's Helsinki goals have to succeed. We do not want or need a European army to rival the United States, but we need more burden sharing and more coalition action, particularly in Europe's backyard. It would also help to alleviate the strain on UK armed forces if our European allies were sharing our burden. In turn, if we improve our contribution in NATO, I would hope that we could gain more leverage in persuading the United States to increase its development aid and peacekeeping commitment and capability. Recently, when in the United States with the Committee, I consistently raised the point with politicians and others that they should increase their role in terms of international development. I am afraid that I did not come away desperately reassured.
  In summary, there is no greater duty on Government than to ensure the defence of their citizens. In the post-11 September world, it is a much more uncertain environment in terms of homeland and international security. Therefore, we need more resources for our military: for an expansion of the reserves, for a better co-ordinated capability and for the use of the military in harmony with our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I am delighted that we are having the opportunity of this debate, but we are all disappointed that it has been cut short. With the modernisation of the House, we should have a Standing Order that allows the House to suspend its Standing Orders to extend a debate for an hour on a night like this, to allow hon. Members to speak.

  509
  The inability of the managers here to contemplate what would happen is mind-boggling incompetence of the worst order. I am delighted to speak and I will respect the time.
  Many hon. Members have spoken about the events of 11 September and how things have changed and will possibly never be the same again. The real change was that for the first time America's homeland was hit and Americans in real horror faced what many countries have been facing for decades. It brought to the attention of the American people the fact that nowhere was safe from people who will make a determined effort and will respect no one and nothing, least of all their own lives, but will get the greatest satisfaction only from killing as many people as possible in the most horrific circumstances.
  The American response was predictable and natural for most human beings. They had to respond as they did and they have committed us all to a war on terrorism. It has to be a worldwide war on terrorism, not just against those who threaten the American homeland. Terrorists are active right across the world. This war will never end until we respect the democratic and human rights of human beings everywhere. Nations arid individuals have a right to play a part in that.
  Many members of the Select Committee on Defence have listened with great interest over the past seven months to what will be done and what has already been done. In all honesty, some of us are disappointed that more has not been achieved in those seven months. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley)—sadly, he has left the Chamber—spoke about several great threats that most reasonable people would say it is impossible to defend ourselves against. All we can do is hope that the country would have enough of the machinery of its infrastructure left to respond to them. Unfortunately, we would not be in a position to do that at the moment.
  The Defence Committee report exposed clearly that not enough finances are earmarked for the defence of this country and to support the original concept of the strategic defence review, let alone to meet the financial implications of this new chapter. The Government must tell us where they intend to find the money that is needed, and over what period. Great issues are involved, and the consequences of inaction will be grave for the whole nation.
  One other thing occurred on 11 September—a new benchmark in terror was set, as our report readily identifies. Sadly, when benchmarks are set, others will aspire to top them or compete with them. We must look beyond the threat of out-of-control—or much-controlled but out-of-contact—planes crashing into places such as central London or other European capitals. Many of those who gave evidence to the Defence Committee said that we must start to think like the terrorists. Not many rational people can think like terrorists. Nobody in the House would conceive of doing away with their own lives and taking several thousand others with them. It is very difficult to put oneself in the mind of a terrorist and thus to understand one's opponent. It is not comparable with fighting an opposing army who might be subject to the same disciplines as we are.
  510
  We do not even know about these terrorists—their organisations are still in the building stage. However, we know that they have an ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction. Whatever weapons those might be—they are on the shelf in some instances—those involved are just months, if not weeks, away from being able to put them together. Some of those who gave evidence to the Committee stressed how easy it would be to make a cheap, low-grade nuclear weapon. Chemical weapons could easily be deployed once people had the materials to put together the mechanics. We must be eternally vigilant.
  When the Select Committee visited the United States, it was obvious that one of the big deficiencies that allowed its back door to open was that the intelligence agencies were not talking to each other effectively. They all claimed some sort of knowledge but it was not universally shared. There was no real co-ordination of the material being gathered. It is no good saying, after the event, "He over there knew a bit, she over there knew a bit, and somebody in another country was putting together parts of the jigsaw."
  We must be relentless in focusing on those issues on which we can deliver. As many hon. Members have said, we must have armed forces of whom we can be proud, but they are over-stretched, and they need further financial and human resources. Intelligence services need to be beefed up and have more money spent on them, but we must make sure that they are not so jealous of the resources at their disposal that they are not prepared to share them early enough to allow a properly measured reaction. As at least one hon. Member has suggested, on some occasions the best form of defence is the pre-emptive strike. Sadly, I am sure that in the next decade or so we will, as a nation, have to come face to face with the fear and the consequences of having to take those decisions.
  Harry Cohen: When a pre-emptive strike is made against another country, it implies an absolute disregard for international law. Is the hon. Gentleman in agreement with such a disregard?
  Mr. Hancock: No; I am not, but there comes a time when it can be necessary to make a pre-emptive strike, as a measure of last resort. If it had been possible to prevent the attacks on New York because intelligence told us that a group of individuals were prepared to carry out those attacks and were being shielded by another nation, there is a legitimate argument that they could and should have been taken out before they could unleash their doom and gloom on the whole world.
  We must appreciate that we in this place have a duty to protect our nation, and that that protection has a cost: a human cost and a resource cost. The Government owe it, not just to the Defence Committee and its report, but to the nation, to ensure that the defence of the nation is properly financed and resourced over a period sufficient to allow us all to have confidence that we shall not ask the men and women who defend our country to do it on the cheap.
  6.26 pm
  Rachel Squire: I shall simply mention three subjects; the first is homeland defence.
  The Defence Committee said in its report on the strategic defence review that it was worried that the review might be too foreign-policy-led, which could lead

  511
  to a neglect of the level of insurance needed for home defence. The events of 11 September have made us all think again about that statement, without wishing to arouse undue public concern. However, it is clear, from the report that we are debating tonight and the evidence that we have heard, that more needs to be done, and that although it would be wrong to rush ahead and engage in all sorts of measures of homeland defence without debating and considering them properly, there is a concern that some aspects have not been given sufficient priority in the months since 11 September.
  Remaining on the subject of homeland defence, much has been said about reserves and the national guard. I admit to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) that I have still to be persuaded that we should take the national guard route. I prefer to be more traditional, and to consider and debate instead how we may increase the size and role of the reserves. I believe that many hon. Members, especially Labour Members, recognise that with hindsight the strategic defence review should not have made its recommendations to reduce the reserves, and I would or will welcome far more debate on the exact role that they can play.
  Mr. Mark Francois: I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving way. I shall be brief. The SDR took away many Territorial Army infantry battalions. I speak as an ex-TA infantry officer. Does the hon. Lady think that what happened on 11 September gives the Government a legitimate reason to revise that mistake and to restore the number of those TA infantry battalions that could be optimised for home defence?
  Rachel Squire: I certainly think that it gives, and should give, the Government the opportunity to revise the conclusions that they reached in the strategic defence review, but I will not commit myself by saying how many additional battalions there should be. I do not know enough to do so.
  Secondly, like other hon. Members I welcome the additional money that has been set aside in the spring supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Defence, but I fervently hope that it will not be the last. During the Defence Committee's visit to the United States recently, we were continually reminded that the US defence budget increase was bigger than our entire Budget. I believe that we all recognise that it is crucial to the future of NATO that the European allies increase their financial commitments to that organisation, and that it is crucial to the standing and role of our armed forces that we give them the necessary resources.
  The third issue, which I shall touch on briefly, is the current discussion about Iraq, which goes to the heart of the strategic issue of how the United Kingdom can and should support the United States and how we can contribute most effectively to the fight against terrorism. The Select Committee has been very clear in our view that terrorism cannot be defeated by force alone. Reference has already been made to Iraq, and I shall not go into the possibilities on this occasion, but I want to refer to my concern about our armed forces' existing operational commitments.
  Frankly, we should not consider committing our armed forces to any additional operation unless we consider reducing their existing commitments. Many hon.
  512
  Members share the concern that they are already stretched, and it does not seem as though they will be able to hand over the lead of the interim force in Afghanistan in three months' time. It has become clear this week, with the deaths of members of the American armed forces, that the situation in Afghanistan is far from stable.
  We are also concerned about Macedonia and whether it, too, could turn into a tinder box. We should remember what the Chief of the Defence Staff said in a lecture at the Royal United Services Institute in December:
  "Quite simply, we cannot be *all seeing' all the time—we simply do not have the resources."
  I look forward to fuller and more regular debates on the many issues that we need to address.
  6.31 pm
  Patrick Mercer: May I start by declaring my interest as a member of the Regular Army Reserve of Officers and a trustee of my former regiment's association? I shall be as brief as I possibly can and will try not to iterate the strategic points that have been made by so many hon. Members before me. The whole thing comes down to a question of money. However, it is not a question of just increasing the amount of money dedicated; it is a question of spending that money cleverly and in a wise and measured fashion.
  I draw the Minister's attention to an excellent organisation that used to exist—the Home Service Force. In many ways, it was laughed at and called, "Dad's Army", but it was extremely cheap, extremely effective and perfectly organised for key-point protection. The Territorial Army may not want to undertake that task. If we were to consider arming the Home Service Force with weapons such as Rapier or Blowpipe, perhaps it could become a real force multiplier. Before I am laughed out of court on that point in terms of technology, hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that Yeomanry soldiers are expected to man the Challenger 2 fleet, so there is no reason why the Home Service Force should not take up the role that I suggest.
  I shall make the point again about the very welcome introduction, or conversion, of 2 and 52 Brigades and draw attention to the excellent points made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) about the training of our conventional regiments to the same standards as those that we have come to expect from the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment. Our conventional regiments are fine and excellent organisations and changing 2 and 52 Brigades to infantry brigades makes that point entirely. I urge the Minister to look hard at equipping those brigades with a proper headquarters, and with organic artillery and sappers, to make them deployable so that they, too, can take their place in the order of battle in the field.
  I shall move on quickly to the use of intelligence. We have seen how the 3rd Military Intelligence Battalion has played its part in this battle, but I ask the Minister to consider the flexibility of our intelligence reservists.
  Last and perhaps most contentiously, I should like to draw attention to the activities of our Special Air Service—a handful of men whose activities are rarely talked about. I do not intend to intrude into their modus operandi or exactly what they have been achieving in Afghanistan. I would say this, however; currently, some of the hardest fighting of the Afghanistan campaign is

  513
  going on. As far as I am aware, there are no British forces involved at the cutting edge of this campaign at the moment. Without letting too many cats out of the bag, I strongly suspect that that is because the tiny numbers of our special forces involved over there are exhausted.
  I draw the Minister's attention to the operations of R Squadron of 22 SAS and the flexibility that that organisation provides. I would like him to look also at the operations of 21 and 23 SAS, the two Territorial regiments that support 22 SAS. It is entirely feasible that we should expand both the Territorial and reserve base of the SAS. There are any number of ex-Territorial soldiers of regular battalions, the parachute regiments or even the Royal Marine Reserve who are ready and willing to serve in an expanded Territorial or reserve capacity inside the SAS.
  I would also suggest—I may be preaching the unpreachable—that we expand the SAS. "It is not possible," I hear the Army cry. It has been done—most effectively, for the campaign in Northern Ireland, where an adjunct was added to the SAS precisely for that campaign. The laurels of that organisation are very infrequently polished but, by golly, they are there for all to see.
  The SAS, rightly, has high standards, as anyone who saw the programme recently that asked "Are you tough enough for the SAS?" will know. I strongly suspect that I am not, but there we are. The fact remains that there are lots of people who are willing to give it a go. If the mentality of "many are called but few are chosen" can be expanded, and if flexibility can be given to the Army's style of recruiting its select and best soldiers, I believe that it would be more than possible to expand the SAS, perhaps by 100 per cent. I urge the Minister to look at that idea in some detail.
  Our forces are, without doubt, the best in the world and I pay tribute to them, just as every other right hon. and hon. Member in the Chamber today has done. But the fact remains that, nearly six months after 11 September, we have seen the United States gird its loins for war, motivate and mobilise its reserve and dedicate $48 billion to expanded defence spending. Nearly six months on, this country has—a discussion document. Discussion documents do not stop bullets; discussion documents do not stop terrorists. We need deeds, not words.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Eric Joyce: I want to say something about a man who was born and educated in Britain, who attended a British public school and the London School of Economics and who is, as I understand it, still a British citizen. He stands accused of complicity in cutting the throat of and beheading a journalist and videoing the whole process for posterity. The individual, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, has not been tried and found guilty, I should stress—I suppose. But he has shown a marked reluctance to dissociate himself from the slaughter.
  We also know, or suspect, that there are other individuals who live in the UK, or who have at times done so, who have, or may have, similar tendencies. There are no Scottish National party Members present, but I should point out that an incident in the past few weeks has shown that there are people at the low end of that spectrum who have a pretty low tolerance, too.
  514
  Sometimes a debate in the Chamber—not today, I hasten to add—reflects a reluctance on the part of some people to recognise the nature of the threat and the need to take decisive action to counter that kind of threat, not only in the UK but across the world. Sometimes questions raised, and the manner in which they are raised in the Chamber, are characterised by an unhealthy anti-Americanism. They suggest at times that people do not engage fully with the reality of the brutal mindset that characterises those who are prepared to engage in most horrible murder for their own aggrandisement, either on this earth or elsewhere.
  That tendency, when it expresses itself, has the potential to miseducate people into thinking that it is possible to intervene in human rights abuses or violent breaches of security but always to do so bloodlessly. Well, it is not. The overwhelming majority of people in this country and, indeed, in the House, including Labour Members, support the Government's determination not to act precipitately on international terrorism and on threats to our security. We want them instead to act decisively when and if the situation merits it.
  Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) referred to Mr. Sheikh in Pakistan. I want to put it on the record that he and his parents are my constituents. The key consideration is that he get a fair trial.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter of debate, not a point of order.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. James Gray: I begin by paying tribute to what the men and women of our armed services have done in the war against terrorism. They have carried out their roles well and we have perhaps not praised them enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) speaks from experience. He reminded us that everyone will be thinking of the troops in action at Gardez, and we offer our profound sympathies to the families of the Americans lost in the shootings at Kabul and of the Germans and Danes killed on bomb disposal duties yesterday.
  The debate has been of a high quality despite, or perhaps because of, its truncated nature. As always, I greatly enjoyed the Victor Meldrew of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). I also enjoyed the contributions of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley). They all spoke with great knowledge of and passion for defence.
  The debate comes at a crucial moment. Defence budgets are giving every sign of being stretched to, or possibly beyond, their limits. That has been the underlying theme of the debate. It was interesting to see how many Labour Members spoke about overstretched troops, underspending and people doing too much for too little. The hon. Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) and for South Dorset (Jim Knight) in particular mentioned those problems. The reality is that we appear to be doing too much with too little. That

  515
  cannot go on for ever. I hope that the Minister listened carefully to the many Labour Back Benchers who made that point passionately.
  Will the Minister clarify one or two technical details on the accounts? What was the out-turn of last year's spending? I understood that there was an underspend of £72 million, and was surprised to see a report in The Independent this week, with the headline "Brown calls in auditors to scrutinise spending", which said that the underspend was £500 million.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Wrong.
  Mr. Gray: If the Minister is right perhaps that is another example of the Chancellor briefing the newspapers in a certain way to win a particular battle. The Independent goes on to quote sources within the Ministry of Defence as saying that the Chancellor
  "is squaring up for a battle with … the Defence Secretary."
  The article says that the Chancellor
  "is deeply sceptical about MoD demands for extra funds to meet the new threat of international terrorism".
  The Minister says that the report is inaccurate, so he must tell us where it came from and assure us that the Chancellor is as enthusiastic as he is to spend the money necessary to win the war against terrorism.
  There is another element to defence finances. In November, the Chancellor announced new money to pay for the campaign in Afghanistan. He said:
  "I can report that for new equipment and immediate operational requirements an additional 1E00 million has been made available to the Ministry of Defence."—[Official Report, 27 November 2001: Vol. 375, c. 834.]
  In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), dated 26 February, he said that there was a further £55 million, making a total of £155 million. Is that new money or does it partly come from the previous year's underspend, in which case it is another blatant example of new Labour's double counting?
  What does the Minister intend to do replace the £250 million capital receipt that he may not now get from the botched privatisation of QinetiQ announced in that most embarrassing U-turn yesterday? Has the Treasury agreed to take the hit, or will the money have to come out of defence budgets? Is he planning to write off the staggering £15 million that he wasted on consultants on the botched privatisation? Guess who advised him on it? It was none other than new Labour's close friends, Arthur Andersen, to which the Ministry of Defence has paid £7 million so far. Is the money coming from our front-line capabilities?
  The confusion over where the money to pay for the Afghanistan campaign is to come from is compounded by a letter from the Minister to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence dated 27 February in which he says:
  "we estimate the total extra cost in relation to Afghanistan in Financial Year 2001–2002 to be some £261 million."
  If that is so, will the Minister tell us how he has paid for it? Has it come from the previous year's underspend or the Chancellor's £155 million—if that is indeed new money—or has it perhaps been found by moving money from capital to current accounts? The spring estimates seem to confirm the latter.
  516
  There is a muddle, and the Minister needs to tell us today in words of one syllable how much has so far been spent on the war in Afghanistan, precisely how that has been funded, how much he intends to spend in the year ahead and how he will pay for that. The Opposition suspect that all this accountancy fudging is designed to cover up the reality of some deep and damaging cuts in defence expenditure in general. One or two worrying examples of that have been announced in the past few weeks.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) talked about deep cuts in the Territorial Army as a result of the strategic defence review. I am proud to be wearing the tie of the Honourable Artillery Company today. On top of that cut, we have seen the moth-balling of 5 squadron of the Tornados and of the 32 Sea Harriers, and the decimation of the Fleet Air Arm.
  A statutory instrument was sneaked through the House the other day under the guise of giving the Army base repair organisation greater freedom to operate commercially, whereas in fact it meant the cutting of 700 jobs in that organisation. We heard today—I hope that the Minister is listening and will answer this point—of the premature withdrawal of HMS Fearless, our last Royal Navy assault vessel. Let us hope that we do not need it in the troubles that lie ahead.
  What is more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) said, the long-feared "procurement bow-wave" in the MOD seems to be becoming ever more a reality, as evidenced by delays in the deployment of new equipment such as the A400M and the Nimrod MRA4. They are the latest examples, but there are of course many others. If, as it appears, Ministers cannot fund current operations without deep and damaging cuts in our defence capabilities, what hope have we of funding the challenges that might lie ahead?
  In contrast to the hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and their party, the Conservative Opposition are proud of the fact that we have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government in their fight against terrorism so far, and shoulder to shoulder with the United States Government in their war against terrorism—and we intend to continue to do so. If we are to do so—my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing warned us about this—and if challenges lie ahead, we need to know how the Government can say that they intend to do all kinds of things but appear, first, not to be funding them properly, and secondly and even worse, to be making some deep and damaging cuts in our defence capabilities. That simply will not do. They cannot have it both ways.
  I was not the least encouraged by the Secretary of State's recent comment that
  "I shall certainly be putting my case to the Chancellor, but I recognise it will have to sit alongside equally vigorous cases presented by my colleagues in health, education, public transport and so on."
  Unnamed defence sources have said:
  "We are in the middle of a battle royal with the Treasury."
  Rumours abounded last year that the Chancellor was seeking up to £1.5 billion of cuts in the defence budget. The Minister owes it to the House to make it clear this evening that that is not what is about to happen.

  517
  This debate is the Minister's opportunity to reassure us that he and, perhaps more importantly, the Chancellor are resolutely determined to fund our excellent armed forces properly in the ever more challenging tasks that lie ahead. If we are to defeat international terrorism—we are as determined as the Minister to do so—the effort in that direction must be properly funded.
  6.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr.Lewis Moonie): One of the misfortunes of defence debates is that, irrespective of their title, we always seem to cover all defence matters. I shall do my best to reply to all the points that have been raised.
  This debate takes place against a background of continuing activity and danger for our armed forces in Afghanistan. The Taliban and the al-Qaeda terrorists whom they harbour have been reduced to scattered remnants, but that is not to say that they are no longer a threat, as we see from current operations against Gardez. Like the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the courage of all coalition soldiers fighting there, and to offer my condolences to the families of those—American and Afghan—who have died fighting to free Afghanistan and the world from the threat of terrorism.
  On the subject of time, let me point out that we have at least four more days of defence debates in which hon. Members will be able to speak about anything they fancy. Defence gets a fairly generous allocation of time: we have had at least three full days, perhaps four, on the war against terrorism since it started. We have adequate time to debate defence issues. Although it is disappointing that we did not get our full time today, the environment is considered equally important by many hon. Members, and it does not get the same amount of time as defence.
  As for the timing of our reply, I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for the time it took. A balance has to be struck between speed and helpfulness, and we tried to make our reply as helpful as possible on this occasion.
  As this is an estimates day, I had better say something about the estimates, if only to correct the misapprehensions of Opposition Front Benchers. In the current financial year, we shall incur £261 million in additional costs through our operations in Afghanistan. The bulk of that—some £115 million—is attributable to Operation Veritas, our contribution to the global coalition's operations against international terrorism. That figure covers operating costs—fuel, transport, stores and so on—that we would not otherwise have faced. We also expect to generate another £80 million in similar costs for Operation Fingal, the United Kingdom's element of the international security assistance force that we currently lead in Kabul. The bulk of the remainder—some £57 million—represents capital costs for urgent operational requirements. The final £9 million represents "non-cash costs". That is all new money.
  In addition to that, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced on 26 February that the Treasury had agreed to add a further £55 million to the £100 million already made available for capital costs arising from urgent operational requirements. That gives a total of
  518
  £155 million in new money of which, as I have said, we have so far spent £57 million on capital costs. The subject is complicated, but I assure the House that the money involved is new money.
  Turning to the privatisation of QinetiQ, I was involved in that issue yesterday, and despite my best efforts some of the newspapers appear to have picked up my remarks wrongly. Only an idiot would have proposed that we continue on the preferred course of a stock market placing, even though, at the time that it was made, the proposal was perfectly reasonable. Although—with apologies to hon. Members from the minority parties—I can imagine a few idiots on the Opposition Benches continuing blindly on that course, we could not do so. We have decided to go for a trade placement instead, which is by far the safest course of action. We will get the money that we require from the sale, and QinetiQ will get the freedom that it needs to grow and to develop its business.
  I cannot go into detail in response to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), save to say that extensive work is being done on co-operation among our security forces. I shall discuss the action we are taking on CBN—chemical, biological and nuclear—risks later. Active civil contingency links exist and are being strengthened. It has been possible to do quite a lot along those lines.
  Conflict prevention is at the centre of our efforts, especially in Africa. We are already working cross-departmentally. The three Departments that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development—are doing a great deal of work on conflict prevention and resolution in that continent. In addition, extensive work is being done in eastern Europe and central Asia. We are very active in that respect.
  As for the calls to increase reserve forces, we have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to bring our reserve forces much closer to the front line. I do not want that effort to be diluted by attempts to add roles that are well beneath the capabilities in which we now train our reserves to participate. We are using our reserves and integrating them into our forces. To be frank, that is by far the most cost-effective way in which to provide surge capability in many of our units. The House will be aware that in a parliamentary answer today I pointed out that a further compulsory call-out of 49 Royal Auxiliary Air Force personal will be made to assist air transport movements in support of our ongoing work in Afghanistan.
  I shall try in the limited time available to respond to the specific points made without repeating myself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South was right in his introductory remarks. The same point was made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) and others. The risks from many chemical and biological threats are low, but the consequences are indeed terrible.
  The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing might be interested to know that, as a specialist in public health, I have independently come to the conclusion that plague is an exceptionally dangerous organism, as he might well have expected. However, there are two positive aspects. One is that we are developing what appears to be a very effective vaccine, which will be available in the next two years. That will be the first time

  519
  that a reliable vaccine has been available. Secondly, plague is an exceptionally difficult organism to grow and certainly to deliver. Therefore I would assess that the threat still involves a combination of opportunity and means, and as the product of the two is so difficult to achieve, the threat of plague remains very low, compared with other biologically active agents.
  We have decided that Fearless will be stood down at the end of its current engagement, instead of going on until January or February next year. Any Department must make decisions about the most cost-effective way to use its resources, and it would not have been cost-effective, in my opinion and that of my colleagues, and according to the advice of our senior staff, to have continued a 37-year-old vessel, excellent though its service has been, for the next six months, given the extra resources that would be required. Fearless is our last steam-powered ship, and I am sorry to see her go. Her service and that of her crew has been sterling, and the crew will give us further good service on Albion and Bulwark when they come into service in 2003
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) spoke cogently about the language of priorities and of the need to fund the level of activity that we wish to carry out. I agree with him. I cannot predict the outcome of discussions on the Budget, much as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire might wish me to second-guess the process. It is still going on and we will defend our corner vigorously, but there must be an exact match between the commitments that we give and the resources that we offer up to meet them.
  In passing, I should point out that we are partly the victims of our own success. Smart procurement has worked. Programmes are now on time and the slack in the system, which was available in the MOD budget year after year, sadly—or perhaps gladly—is no longer with us. That makes things much more difficult.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: With reference to the new chapter of SDR, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that finances are not an obstacle to our doing what is necessary to fight the war against terrorism?
  Dr. Moonie: I entirely agree that resources must be made available to meet any new commitments, unless those commitments turn out to be substitutes for things that we do at present and we find that they are not necessary. I am not trying to suggest that we have yet been able to find anything like that, but any rational being must admit that there is at least a logical possibility that we would be able to do so. Should major new requirements come along, we will have to consider the matter closely.
  I am interested in the possibility of the home defence service being re-activated, with considerably greater numbers of teeth than it ever had or were ever envisaged for it. If we think that static guarding is the answer for certain installations—I remain to be convinced of that—we will have to find some way of implementing it.
  The right hon. Member for 'Tonbridge and Mailing was the only person whom I have heard in any of the debates so far mention the effectiveness of our co-ordinating officers in Tampa, Florida. That has proved itself, just as the permanent joint headquarters in the UK has done. It has shown how effective it is to co-ordinate on the
  520
  ground, right at the centre of operations. Its value has been proved time and again, and I pay tribute to the officers who serve there. We shall have to do that in future, although rather than regularise it we will probably have to do it on an ad hoc basis.
  There were other thoughtful contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), who made a good point about ISTAR. We are identifying ways of identifying friend and foe, and we will continue to do so as quickly as possible.
  It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Question relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates).
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That further resources, not exceeding £3,020,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a sum, not exceeding £3,020,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2002 for expenditure by HM Treasury.
  It being after Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant paragraphs (1) and (3) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) and Order [20 November 2000].

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Resolved,
That further resources, not exceeding £2,058,352,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a sum, not exceeding £1,636,556,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2002 for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence.

ESTIMATES, 2002–03 (NAVY) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 2003 a number not exceeding 46,025 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service, a number not exceeding 17,340 for service in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces, and a number not exceeding 250 for service as Special Members of the Reserve Naval Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

ESTIMATES, 2002–03 (ARMY) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 2003 a number not exceeding 128,195 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 84,000 for service in the Reserve Land Forces, and a number not exceeding 6,000 for service as Special Members of the Reserve Land Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

ESTIMATES, 2002–03 (AIR) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 2003 a number not exceeding 57,415 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 23,050 for service in the Reserve Air Forces, and a number not exceeding 550 for service as Special Members of the Reserve Air Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2000–01
Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,097,059.33, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for defence and civil services for the year ended on 31st March 2001, as set out in HC 635.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2001–02
Resolved,
That further resources, not exceeding £4,531,170,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a further sum, not exceeding £3,727,881,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the cost of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, as set out in HC 636.
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and Mr. Paul Boateng do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
Mr. Paul Boateng accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 2001 and 2002: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 March, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 65].
John Austin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope not to delay the House too long. My point of order is further to that which was raised last night by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), to whom I have given notice of my intention of raising this matter tonight. I do not question the ruling given by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I believe was wholly appropriate to the narrow point that the hon. Lady raised, but the matter has wider implications concerning the jurisdiction of the courts and the rights and privileges of hon. Members.
The hon. Lady referred to an injunction that prevented local newspapers from identifying an individual and a hospital, but she went on to identify that hospital, which was formerly situated in my constituency and is now located in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), and is the main district general hospital serving his constituency and mine, and Eltham. As far as I can ascertain, the hon. Lady made no attempt to give prior notice to my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) or I of her intention to raise the issue. I believe that that was a discourtesy.
A newspaper carried a story in all its 12 editions, rather than only the local and Greenwich and Woolwich editions, because as it said,
"publishing the story in just one edition and identifying the area would have contravened the judge's court order".
I make no comment on the wisdom or otherwise of the injunction or of the trust in seeking it, but the identification of the hospital on the Floor of the House has clearly breached the injunction, as local and national newspapers may now publish what the hon. Lady said and the name of the hospital.
I recognise the importance of the right of MPs to freedom of speech and the importance of parliamentary privilege, and I recognise and support the intentions of
522
article 9 of the Bill of Rights, but that should be seen in the light of rules surrounding sub judice matters and the courts. Although this issue is not technically sub judice because the courts have already made a decision, there is an important principle that courts should not seek to prevent Members from expressing their views, but that neither should Members subvert decisions of the courts.
I would not expect a substantive answer tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am aware that there is currently a case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, but I should be grateful if you could give the matter your careful consideration and advise hon. Members accordingly on the use or abuse of privilege in this context.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) for giving me notice that he would be raising that point of order. I can in fact give him a fairly definitive answer in terms that may not be wholly unexpected. As the hon. Gentleman recognises, hon. Members enjoy freedom of speech in this House, and I can therefore advise him that nothing disorderly has occurred. However, it is always hoped that hon. Members will be mindful of the consequences of remarks that they make about such cases.

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

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

ELECTRICITY
That the draft Renewables Obligation Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Angela Smith.]
Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  New Park Campsite
  7.7 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: The villagers of Brockenhurst in the New Forest, East constituency are overwhelmingly against the principle of the creation of a campsite at New Park, Brockenhurst. Under the auspices of the parish council, no fewer than 1,719 out of 2,652 people on the electoral roll have signed this petition. Ninety-five per cent. of those contacted signed it and

  523
  65 per cent. of the electorate as a whole have therefore expressed support for the petition of residents of Brockenhurst, which states:
  That the Forestry Commission proposes to close the existing campsite at Hollands Wood and to open a new campsite at New Park, that the proposed new campsite will be detrimental to the surrounding environment, and that they oppose the principle of the Forestry Commission's proposals.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Forestry Commission not to proceed with its proposal to open a campsite at New Park.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Secondary School, Sittingbourne
7.8 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: The petition of the residents of Sittingbourne declares:
That there is an urgent need to build a new secondary school on the north side of Sittingbourne to meet the needs of young people in north Sittingboume, Milton Regis, Kemsley and the villages of Iwade and Lower Halstow. Such a development is necessary to guarantee parental choice, to develop community awareness and to avoid transport chaos in the centre of Sittingboume.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Department for Education and Skills and Kent county council to consider as a matter of urgency the planning and siting of a new secondary school in north Sittingboume.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Dronfield School
7.9 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: The petition that I am presenting seeks to put in place arrangements to turn the split-site school at Dronfield, where my own children went to school, into a single-site school, because the Gosforth site building is dropping to bits and was recently closed due to wind and rain. The petition of residents of Dronfield and district, which I support as the rational alternative, declares:
That the teachers, staff and governors of the Dronfield school help provide an excellent education for the young people of Dronfield; that the performance of the Dronfield school will improve now it has recently become a technology college; that standards at the Dronfield school will be further assisted if the existing two-site facility can be brought together on a single site; that spending £1.5 million on maintaining the Gosforth site over the next five years, as part of a split-site school, does not represent good value for money; and that a failure to move to a single site would he an enormous lost opportunity.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to approve the proposals submitted by Derbyshire county council for a scheme to consolidate the Dronfield school on a single site.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Kent and Canterbury Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]
7.10 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise once again the future of Kent and Canterbury hospital and of acute health services in east Kent. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), for coming to support me here.
Since my last Adjournment debate, four formal options have been put forward and the consultation period has just closed. The crisis in our hospitals has worsened. I believe that all four options put out to consultation are dangerous, and that the formulation of those options—the process before consultation—was hopelessly flawed.
Time restricts me to describing just four factors this evening. The first is the failure of East Kent health authority and the East Kent Hospitals Trust to relate the issue of capacity to that of affordability. The second is their failure to include cancer. The third is the lack of support for, and consultation with, the medical and nursing staff, and the fourth is the issue of access.
Let us start with capacity and cost. Last year, 81 consultants—almost half of those in all three sites in east Kent—supported a motion stating that the quality of patient care was being undermined by a shortage of capacity. More than four fifths of junior doctors across the three sites signed a letter making a similar point. Since then the position has worsened. Individual cases, such as those of 97-year-old Connie Jones and 82-year-old Arnhem veteran Bill Holman, both of whom were left for two nights on trolleys in our accident and emergency unit, are sad examples of the worsening crisis. The queues outside the casualty departments at all three east Kent hospitals continue to grow. On some nights recently, we have had as many as 50 trolleys in the Kent and Canterbury hospital casualty department. Colin Baker, the distinguished ITN war correspondent making a programme for Trevor MacDonald, said that the situation was as bad as a Balkan battle zone. He should know; he was wounded in one.
Elective surgery has been disrupted to the extent that operating theatres are under-utilised due to a lack of beds. I shall give one example from the many. Yesterday I received a pitiful letter from a constituent who has had her hysterectomy operation—needed because of desperate bleeding—cancelled for the fourth time. Surely the most important issue for the consultation should have been to show how the revenue costs of each capital option would allow room for the extra beds that we so desperately need. Instead, all the options have been presented without any capital costing. There are no financial figures. Instead, the management continue to promise that their plans will allow for 175 extra beds. Asked about funding, they simply say that that is a matter for their political masters.
It will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to the lady Minister, whom I welcome to her place, to hear that it is not my job to defend a Labour Government. It would, however, place an unreasonable demand on any Minister of any Government if the management were simply to say that they were going to engage in a

525
programme of colossal capital spending—with all the revenue implications that that entails—and that the funding consequences were a matter for Ministers.
Estimates for a less radical option A—the so-called Dobson option—have risen from £102 million to £150 million. The average overrun for larger private finance initiatives has been about 30 per cent., which would raise £150 million to £200 million. However, that would fall a long way short of the cost of the most radical option, option D. A typical annual PFI costs about 10 per cent. At a time when the south eastern NHS budget is desperately overstretched, can such a burden be afforded, even without adding any of the extra beds that we desperately need now?
My second point is that the cancer centre has not been included in the consultation process, although the document includes an appendix on cancer and Professor James, the director of cancer services in Kent, appeared at all the consultation meetings. He said again and again that he was determined to keep a full cancer centre in East Kent. He further told us that all three oncologists at Kent and Canterbury hospital—he referred to them by name—fully supported him and the plans in the document. Above all, he stressed that, with an oncologist post vacant, they could keep the oncology centre going with its new linear accelerator only if a positive atmosphere was generated to attract new blood to Canterbury, and we all agreed on that last point.
Unfortunately, the truth is that two of the three consultants to whom Professor James referred had already put their vehement opposition to the proposals in writing in public letters some weeks before, and the Minister has those letters. They pointed out the clinical dangers in the approach. I understand that the third oncologist has now denounced Professor James for misleading the public about her views.
The national cancer director, following a visit to the Canterbury oncology centre, has also refused to endorse the concept. He said in his letter only that "It might work". In fact, the text rules out keeping a cancer centre under two of the four options, and even says:
"For the longer term it is not possible to guarantee the continuous medical support … that is required for safe inpatient radiotherapy and chemotherapy services in Canterbury."
Is that the positive language that will help to recruit a new oncologist to East Kent's cancer centre? Crucially, the Maidstone and Tonbridge Wells Healthcare Trust, which is responsible for cancer services in Kent, was not a signatory to the document.
The third issue is the exclusion of so many doctors and nursing staff in the formulation of the four options. No proposal is likely to work unless those that have to deliver it feel committed to the outcome. Obviously, that does not mean total consensus. However, everyone must feel that they had the opportunity to put their point of view, and a reasonably large majority of the doctors and nurses involved must agree with the broad outline of the outcome.
Mr. McNee is a urology consultant who is based not at the Kent and Canterbury but in Ashford. He said:
"I am extremely angry about the consultation document. I first came across it at llth January 02. My clinical director Robert Insali had not seen it until I showed him.… At no point has there been any discussion with the body of urology consultants."
526
Another Ashford doctor, John Sewell, who for 21 years has been a consultant physician in emergency care, has condemned the proposal on eight grounds ranging from cost to the risk of service collapse. He sent a confidential letter, then courageously scrubbed out the word "confidential" and made it public.
The pattern among consultants is repeated among the junior doctors. All three East Kent branches of the Royal College of Nursing, Canterbury, Thanet and south eastern, have come out against the proposals in a joint document, which states that
"the RCN believes that the proposals could fundamentally undermine future quality of care for patients in East Kent, particularly older people".
They also condemn the failure of the document to cover community services. It seems absurd to do such a radical reappraisal of acute services without covering community services.
Is this the way to treat dedicated professionals? They are the very people who will have to deliver the quality health care that we need in East Kent in the future. Is that the way options should be formulated?
Finally, I turn to the question of access. Canterbury is the centre of east Kent, the hub of the bus and rail system. Canterbury and Faversham GPs belong to by far the largest primary care group in east Kent. They have voiced their opposition to the proposals in the strongest possible way. Both Dover and Shemk ay district councils faxed their replies to me this afternoon, rejecting all four options. One council calls for an independent review, and the other uses similar language. I understand that all the councils in Kent, apart from Ashford, have demanded that the cancer centre be kept in east Kent, and in practice that has to mean that it be kept at Canterbury.
The independent hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) has asked me to pass on to the House his apologies, as his broken arm prevents him from attending this debate. He is organising a rally for 25 March to get new thinking into emergency provision, based on ideas from the Royal College of Physicians. I hope that Ministers will listen to him.
In summary, the formulation of the proposals is deeply flawed. Many of the crucial people—the doctors and nurses who have to deliver the services—appear not to have been consulted. The cancer centre was excluded from the process, and its needs were pushed in a cowardly and unsound manner into the back of the document. Issues of access were simply glossed over.
Above all, the desperate and growing capacity crisis has been simply ignored. A fig leaf of nominal extra beds has been produced, while the authors of the proposals have ducked away from considering whether the proposals will allow us to fund even the existing number of beds, let alone some extra beds.
When the proposals come before the Minister and the Secretary of State, I urge that they be sent back to East Kent health authority, which will dissolve at the end of the month. I hope that the Minister will ask its successor authority, the new Kent and Medway strategic health authority, to start again with properly formulated proposals based on consultation with the doctors and nurses who will have to implement them.
7.21 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I0for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on securing this Adjournment debate. I almost want to call him my hon. Friend, as he has been outstanding in keeping me informed about everything that has happened in this matter. Cross-party support in the matter has been evident for four years, and the hon. Gentleman and I have gone together to see Secretaries of State. We have displayed our anger together, and sometimes we have found it impossible to understand the answers that we have been given.
At this late stage, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider seriously the points made about cancer by the hon. Member for Canterbury. That is the health service's top priority, and I honestly do not feel that we will have a centre for cancer in east Kent of which we can be proud.
I also want to draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to the fact that the Kent and Canterbury's accident and emergency department is a disgrace. She must recognise that immediately—that is, now. I do not believe that we can he proud of something that is so bad. Are not there hit squads that can be sent in to improve matters, or is no extra funding available? Are there no mobile rooms that we can use to help matters? There must be a way to take people off the trolleys. The A and E provision is demeaning, degrading, disgusting and awful. I ask my hon. Friend to reflect seriously on the urgent answer to the problem. We need that answer tomorrow, not in three or four weeks.
Finally, is it possible for my hon. Friend the Minister—or the Secretary of State, or another health Minister—to make an unannounced visit to Kent and Canterbury hospital? In that way, the state of the A and E department can be seen. It beggars belief.
7.23 pm
Hugh Robertson: I want to make three key points on behalf of my constituents in Faversham—a town of 18,000 people that was not even mentioned in the consultation document.
The first point has to do with transport. The transport links to Ashford and Margate are atrocious. There is little or no public transport, and Faversham has many elderly or disadvantaged people. Both groups tend to be heavy users of the health service, but in effect they are being disfranchised by the process.
The second point is that there is no funding to build up local cottage hospitals, such as the Faversham cottage hospital. That hospital could not take over from the Kent and Canterbury, but it could help.
The third point has to do with cancer care. The out-patient model proposed by East Kent health authority is unproven anywhere in the UK. It has been rejected by all consultants, and by the Royal College of Radiologists. The Maidstone hospital—to which all inpatients would transfer, under the proposals—is already overstretched. The proposed model simply could not cope.
I shall end by quoting a letter that appeared today in the Faversham Times. It was written by the chairman of the Faversham branch of the Labour party. He said simply this:
"To people living in Faversham, it is hard to understand why our services appear to be getting worse".
528
I could not have put it better myself.
7.25 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on securing a debate on an issue that he has raised many times. I know that he did so in a debate that was replied to by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears).
As the hon. Gentleman said, East Kent health authority published a consultation document on 5 December on the modernisation of health services in east Kent. It set out four options for acute-service reconfiguration. As the hon. Gentleman also said, the three-month consultation period ended last week, and the responses are now being considered in the health authority.
All the options enable the hospital to treat the majority of patients whom it currently sees in its accident and emergency department, and to have a 24-hour nurse-led minor injuries unit as well as providing day surgery and out-patient services, orthopaedic services for older people, community assessment and intermediate care. The options also include provision of a day-care hospital, out-patient clinics, midwifery-led low-risk maternity services and cancer services.
East Kent will also benefit from an increase in bed numbers as a result of all four options. Each option would involve an increase of at least 175 beds throughout the trust.
There has been intense consultation, arousing passions and strong views in all parts of the health community and the local community in general. I am advised that staff at Kent and Canterbury hospital were consulted extensively on the shortlisted options between March and August last year, and that staff consultation included one-to-one with consultant staff to review the case for change and the shortlisted options.
I am also advised that four workshops were held and were well attended by consultant, nursing and therapy staff. Four seminars also took place across east Kent to involve staff in the evaluation of the shortlisted options. All consultant staff, senior nurses, therapists and managers were invited. Three workshops were apparently held in January to review the "network of care" arrangements in east Kent. Members of the clinical policy board and three other lead clinicians, two of them from Canterbury, have worked to specify the relationship between east Kent's hospitals. At the last of the workshops, specialist services were discussed in depth.
I am advised that the consultation gave all involved an opportunity to comment and express their views. I am also advised that the community health councils were content with the consultation process.
The exercise was carried out by a joint sub-committee of East Kent health authority and East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust hoards, which draws its membership from across the health community. The sub-committee set up a reference group to examine the processes of the consultation to ensure that it had been robust and inclusive, and had allowed all interested groups to have their opinions heard.
Mr. Brazier: I hope the Minister realises that I am not criticising the consultation process. I am criticising the

529
formulation of the four options that were presented. The Department has had all the letters I referred to for weeks. How does the Minister—who has sensibly used the phrase "I am advised that"—reconcile the letters with the picture she paints of the putting together of the proposals?
Yvette Cooper: I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. Clearly many of them concern the options themselves, and must therefore be taken into account by the health authority when it considers its responses to the consultation. I am also advised, however, that there were extensive consultations on the shortlisted options before the period between March and August last year, and I understand that the community health councils are content that the consultation process has been robust and proper.
The process from here on in is that a joint sub-committee of the trust and health authority boards is responsible for considering all responses and making recommendations to both boards by around the end of March. The two boards will then decide how to proceed, and a recommendation will be passed to the new strategic health authority, the Kent and Medway, which will make recommendations to Ministers. It is the boards' responsibility to base their decision on the consultation responses. If community health councils object to the recommendations, they will be referred to Ministers.
The hon. Gentleman will therefore understand that if we are to ensure that those processes are properly carried out, it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt not only the boards' decisions but those that Ministers may have to make if the recommendations are referred to them. However, I will attempt to respond to some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members during the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) asked if Ministers could visit Kent and Canterbury hospital. I can tell him that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, intends to visit the hospital in the coming weeks and will have the chance to listen to views at that time.
Hon. Members also raised issues of capacity in the area. I can tell them that there has been considerable extra investment in east Kent. I agree that capacity in the area needs to increase, and that East Kent health authority continues to need additional investment, as does the NHS throughout the country. Next year, East Kent health authority will receive an increase of 9.85 per cent. in cash terms, which is an increase of 7.17 per cent. in real terms. The Government are determined to continue those increases in funding because clearly we are dealing with issues of long-term underfunding and lack of capacity throughout the health service. We will continue to address those issues.
In addition, the Government are providing £845,000 from the modernisation fund to improve patient access schemes in east Kent; £935,000 to help the move to six-day working for day surgery; additional money for dermatology and orthopaedics; £2.1 million to help to ease Kent-wide problems associated with delayed transfers of care; and £250,000 to streamline accident and emergency services and provide support for rapid access to therapies, diagnostics, pharmacies and porters.
530
Hon. Members referred to accident and emergency services. The Government have acknowledged the severe pressures on A and E, particularly during the winter months. The trust has acknowledged that Kent and Canterbury hospital has faced considerable pressures, particularly in the A and E department. The Department of Health's winter and emergency services team visited the trust recently. It recognised the excellent work being done by staff at the trust, but identified some areas that must benefit from improvement, and made several recommendations.
An intensive support team of six people has been identified to work with the trust over the coming months. That team, comprising experienced doctors, nurses and health care professionals, will help to develop plans to modernise the A and E department with emphasis on the clinical governance agenda. It is important to be clear that the issues are not simply additional capacity and investment. We need reform and modernisation to make sure that care is provided in the best possible way and using the most up-to-date methods.
Hon. Members also referred to cancer services and I can assure them that their points have been heard by Ministers. If community health councils refer these issues to Ministers, they will certainly be considered.
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, but I seek clarification on a further point. The outcome of this will have a profound effect on cancer services, but they are not part of the consultation process and Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells trust was not among the consultees and did not sign the document. Do the community health councils have the legal power to refer those matters to the Secretary of State?
Yvette Cooper: If the matters under consideration as part of that consultation are referred to Ministers by the community health council, Ministers will take account of the points that hon. Members have made in this House about cancer and related issues when they come to consider those subjects.
The Kent cancer network has looked at the national cancer plan in order to determine the future vision for the delivery of cancer services in Kent. It is clear that cancer services will continue to be provided at a number of hospitals, including the Kent and Canterbury. I am advised that the vast majority of patients requiring cancer services will continue to be treated in Canterbury under each of the four options. The few patients in Kent who need specialist cancer services will continue to be treated in centres that are able to provide the specialist care that they require. That is entirely appropriate and follows good practice and is the most effective means of offering access to high-quality care for all patients.
Cancer services at Kent and Canterbury hospital are part of the Kent cancer network and it is important that they remain so as part of the national cancer plan, the standards of which ensure high-quality care.
The cancer strategy for Kent is currently being developed. It will set out the current arrangements and the priorities for future investment. The East Kent Hospitals Trust is working effectively with the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells trust and the cancer network towards this aim.

531
I am advised that in none of the options is it stated that Canterbury will lose its ability to care for cancer patients. The consultation document has given East Kent residents the undertaking that the majority of cancer patients who currently receive treatment there will continue to do so.
Hugh Robertson: Is not the crucial point that even by the trust's own estimates ambulatory or out-patient treatment will account for only 80 per cent. of those currently treated at the Kent and Canterbury? That leaves a significant 20 per cent. of in-patients who will have to go all the way to Maidstone or to other hospitals in London for specialist treatment. That is a significant proportion of patients who will be worse off under this plan at a time when Maidstone, at the other end of my constituency, is telling me that it cannot cope.
Yvette Cooper: Again, I have to say that the issues around the options need to be taken into account first and foremost by the local boards. They must make their decision. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt that process.
When it comes to cancer patients and cancer care people want to be sure that they are getting the highest quality care, especially for life-threatening conditions. We need to consider issues around access, but also issues around the quality of care. That in the end is what the
532
national cancer plan and the discussion of cancer networks was all about. Those factors need to be taken into account.
Whatever option in the re-configuration is chosen, the adoption of the national cancer plan will continue to influence and improve the final pattern of services to be delivered. As part of the cancer plan we need more nurses, doctors, radiographers and equipment, and we need to ensure that new drugs are available to those who can benefit from them and that people suffering from cancer get the highest possible quality of care.
Although many views on reconfiguration issues are being discussed in east Kent, I understand that there is agreement that the issues must be fully discussed and in an informed way. All parties recognise the important need for modernisation and for investment in the area. It is important that the debate has been aired widely and fully, and I know that the hon. Member for Canterbury has striven to do that at every possible opportunity.
I assure the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and other hon. Members that Ministers do not take the turbulence that the different views have created lightly. We consider it seriously and—
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Heritage Attractions
Motion made, and Question proposed. That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): I welcome the opportunity to debate the important role of the historic environment in our cultural life. It is one of our great national treasures and the backbone of our tourism industry, and we plan to make it accessible to everyone.
In recognition of the importance of our historic environment, in December 2001 my Department and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions jointly published "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future", which, following a wide-ranging review, is the first statement of Government policy on heritage for a generation. It is far-sighted, and is about more than maintaining our historic buildings and places or learning from the past. It stresses that the historic environment can improve the quality of life for all of us through the regeneration of our towns, cities and countryside, and by encouraging a greater sense of community and prosperity.
We set ourselves five specific tasks with which to achieve our aims: to provide leadership, to realise educational potential, to include and involve people, to protect and sustain the historic environment and to optimise its economic potential.
"A Force for Our Future" contains commitments to continue public funding for the care of the historic environment and to maintain an effective framework of statutory protection. It looks in detail at what can be done to develop the potential of the historic environment sector through funding, legislation, policy guidance and delivery mechanisms. For example, it recommends ways in which organisations can work together more closely and resources can be better deployed. It sets a challenge for everyone in the sector, and we are now working to turn our vision into reality.
The historic environment has huge potential as a learning resource in all areas of education—in schools, further education and later life. Historic sites constitute a learning experience in their own right and as a tool for other disciplines. They can also play a role in developing a sense of active citizenship, encouraging people to feel a greater sense of belonging and engagement. Great strides have been made in realising the educational potential historic sites—especially for schoolchildren—and in developing a more inclusive approach to their presentation.
Nevertheless, we realise that much more can and must be done to reach new audiences and increase popular awareness and appreciation of the local historical environment. We want teachers to recognise the
134WH
relevance of historic attractions as a resource for a wide range of subjects and we want to increase opportunities for people of all ages to develop their interests.
On 1 December 2001, free entry to our national museums and galleries became a reality for everyone. Visitor numbers at the Victoria and Albert museum, for example, rose from 42,623 in December 2000 to 174, 249 in December 2001. Similarly, the number of visitors to the natural history museum rose from 89,000 to 163,000 over the same period. We intend to build on that success.
In consultation with all the relevant bodies, we are considering ways in which to provide free access to the historic environment for children. That proposal, which was announced in "A Force for Our Future", has attracted great interest. Although particular sensitivities must be taken into account—for example, we must not deprive sites of essential funds—we are confident that it has the potential to strengthen our collective efforts to raise public awareness and the enjoyment of our rich heritage.
Similarly, the highly successful annual heritage open days gave the public an opportunity to experience some of England's hidden architectural treasures. In 2000, nearly 1 million people visited more than 3,000 properties in England—an astounding figure. That is a great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), who had a great deal to do with it.
Other events, such as national archaeology days, an architecture week and a museums and galleries month, have helped to promote public awareness. We are exploring with English Heritage how best to develop those initiatives and whether that approach might now be extended to the historic environment as a whole, in the form of an annual historic environment week.
As well as making the historic environment accessible to everyone, we want to ensure that it is something with which the whole of society can identify. English Heritage's report entitled "Power of Place" rightly laid emphasis on the fundamental issue of whether the heritage is indeed a common inheritance. That emerged as a key issue in the consultation process and the MORI survey that informed "Power of Place". We must take seriously the implications of the survey's finding that many members of the black and other minority ethnic populations find the historic environment of little relevance or interest. A shared sense of heritage should surely bind society, so that it becomes the heritage of all our people. We are working with our partners on developing a social inclusion policy for the built heritage. That will be published shortly, and public comments will be invited during the summer.
Our concept of what constitutes the heritage continues to evolve. We have moved beyond the traditional chocolate box image of the past, and are now responding to people's wish to broaden the definition of what should be valued.
We are now looking at ways in which people of all ages can become more involved in the historic environment, through education programmes and the greater use of volunteers. Central to that process has been the heritage lottery fund's focus on community involvement. Lottery funding for heritage projects during 2000 topped £300 million. Parks, historic landscapes, museums, galleries, and blighted towns and

135WH
villages have all benefited. Four years ago, the focus was very much on funding for individual buildings, with a narrow definition of heritage. Work is now much more likely to embrace the wider community, and applications to the fund now need to demonstrate how projects have been developed with local involvement.
Over the past decade, issues relating to physical access have rightly been high on everyone's agenda. Following the Government's acceptance of the key recommendations made by the disability rights taskforce, we will publish "Planning and Accessibility: A Good Practice Guide" to help local authorities, developers and others achieve a more consistent approach to access for people with disabilities.
I was lucky enough to be in Canada recently. Although the temperature there was 10 deg below freezing, I did not want to miss the opportunity to go up into the Rockies, and I walked up through the famous canyon known as Johnson's canyon. Everything was frozen, but I was able to walk up the first kilometre of that canyon without once having to use steps or climb over a lump of rock; it was entirely wheelchair accessible. Ramps were bolted to the canyon walls, people in wheelchairs were given places to pass, with boards telling them about the geology and the surrounding environment. That is taking accessibility seriously, in one of the great tourist attractions of that part of the Rockies. Things have a symbiotic reciprocity. If we can extend accessibility we can also make places much more attractive to visitors.
English Heritage will update its publication "Easy Access to Historic Properties" to take account of the duties that will be introduced in 2004 under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It will give advice to owners and local authorities on the application to listed buildings.
Visiting historic attractions is the most popular activity for holidaymakers in Britain. That is a significant fact. A recent report by the English Tourism Council and English Heritage shows that more than 54 million people visited heritage sites in 2000, spending around £280 million. Britain is a land packed with outstanding heritage and cultural sites, and it is essential that tourist boards feature those stunning assets in their promotional and marketing activities.
Working in partnership with the tourism industry, the Government have launched several campaigns and initiatives to guide visitors back to the UK and to provide a strong message of reassurance after the tragic events of 11 September and the great trauma of foot and mouth disease. The problem is extraordinarily serious. I know that it is unfashionable to talk about balance of payments deficits these days, but our deficit is about £14 billion a year. If we could recover just a small part of that through British tourists taking holidays or short breaks in this country, it would be an enormous boost to the tourism industry in general, and especially to the upkeep of the historic places in question.
On 23 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched UKOK to promote Britain in seven key overseas markets—the USA, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium and France—which together account for 60 per cent. of visitors to the UK.
136WH
The campaign offers millions of dollars' worth of great travel and accommodation incentives from more than 1.000 UK tourism businesses, to make a holiday in Britain better value than ever before. The UKOK campaign provides a strong message of reassurance to guide visitors back to Britain's four key strengths, one of which is, of course, our great heritage.
Last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that the Government will make available up to £20 million of additional public funds to promote Britain abroad as a tourist destination. The "million visitor" campaign is the biggest tourism marketing initiative ever funded by the British Government and it underscores our commitment to the UK's tourism industries, including the historic attractions sector.
The tourism industry is joining forces with us to promote our excellent tourism product. The industry has already committed £5 million in cash and we will match industry funds pound for pound. This is the first time the Government have created such a powerful public-private coalition with industry organisations. That is the result of the great traumas of 2001. First there was the downturn in the American economy, which affected the numbers of tourists flying in from the United States—the biggest spenders by far among our tourists. Secondly, there were the terrible events of the foot and mouth outbreak. Thirdly, there was the terrorism of 11 September. If we have not learned from those events, and if we do not fundamentally change our approach to the industry, we will suffer in the future. However, I am confident that we have learned from what has happened.
The new campaign will target our seven key markets. Its aim is to attract 1 million extra visitors to Britain this year, and at least £500 million in spending. At its core will be a massive TV-led advertising campaign, focusing primarily on our great heritage, countryside and cities. A particular focus will be on royal heritage and the Queen's golden jubilee celebrations.
On 5 March, to promote the golden jubilee, the British Tourist Authority launched a royal heritage map. It is published by the Department, and I am very proud of it. I have a copy with me, and I am sure that many more will be in circulation soon. I believe that a text was sent to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to sign, but he quite properly junked it and wrote his own. The text used was written by his own fair hand. We have designed the map to provide tourists with a way round Britain, so that they can see the great sites of our royal heritage. It ranges from the site of the battle of Culloden near Inverness to many sites on the south coast and in Cornwall. It is very attractive, and it will be a great resource.
A further initiative, the Great British heritage pass, not only gives admission to nearly 600 historic castles, houses and gardens, but allows visitors substantial discounts. Thousands of overseas visitors have used and enjoyed the scheme, and the historic environment has benefited greatly.
The combination of heritage and landscape has a huge appeal for tourists. We launched a campaign called "Your Countryside, You're Welcome" yesterday—well, it seems like yesterday, but in fact it was a few weeks ago. The campaign will encourage people to rediscover the

137WH
countryside after foot and mouth disease. Needless to say, the historic environment has a big role to play in rural development.
I should pay tribute to the owners of the many private historic houses in the United Kingdom. They have often kept those properties in marvellous condition through thick and thin. They have had difficult times, and they have not enjoyed many of the benefits that have accrued to houses owned by English Heritage and the National Trust. I am looking hard at what we can do to help private owners and their representative association.
We must always be aware of the fact that inadequately managed sites—especially those with high visitor levels—risk being damaged, as well as losing their appeal. They must be managed sustainably, and we said in "A Force for Our Future" that we aim to have management plans for England's world heritage sites in place by the end of this year. Those plans will be based on sustainable development principles, and we hope that other historic visitor attractions will follow our lead. My Department and its sponsored bodies will be happy to offer advice.
Perhaps the most important step that we can take is to move visitors to a much wider range of attractions, which we have generally failed to do. London is the great honeypot, the great icon of British tourism. In 2000, there were 25 million inbound visitors to London, which is a phenomenal number. Of those, only 1 million went to Wales and 1.7 million went to Scotland. One imagines that places in between may have done slightly better or slightly worse. Those are serious statistics, and we can certainly improve on them.
I am interested in studying countries abroad that are good at drawing people to the generic product—to use marketing speak—and ensuring sure that they then move out from the honeypots to places that they did not even know existed. That is a challenge not only for the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourism Council, but for regions that may not be marketing their wonderful hidden treasures in the right way. I want to help regions to market those treasures from the centre, and to use imagination and resources to market them in the regions, too.
We are working with English Heritage to establish an historic attractions advisory unit, which will draw together best practice and advice from across the sector on issues such as management skills, marketing, visitor management, customer care and conservation. Those are central to guaranteeing success.
Our historic attractions are a great source of pleasure and stand as a record of artistic and technical achievement. We do not often consider them, but they are an inspiration for creativity in our own age and for the future. We can regard them as a library, or a great quarry, from which we can draw inspiration. The building that we are in now is a world heritage site, I think. Everyone is nodding, so I seem to be right. I have been in the House for 13 years, but still walk around and look in amazement at some of the craftsmanship and wonderful design, especially in the great hall outside this Chamber, which is a work of art by any definition.
"The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future" sets an ambitious agenda. If we are successful, our vision will help to deliver a society that recognises the historic environment as a resource for all, regardless of social
138WH
status or background, and in which its importance as an economic asset, attracting millions of visitors a year and generating about 5 per cent. of the nation's gross domestic product, is harnessed skilfully and productively.
2.51 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome you back to another debate on culture, media and sport, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I congratulate the Minister on making such a sterling contribution after five hours' effort on the subject of Ofcom in the Chamber yesterday.
On behalf of the official Opposition, I, like the Minister, am delighted to acknowledge the magnificent contribution that our first-class heritage attractions make to tourism, the economy locally and nationally, and to employment in leisure and ancillary activities. I shall pose several questions to the Minister about the cost of the increased free access, how it will be resourced and what impact it will have on other attractions that continue to charge, such as National Trust houses.
I am providing some breathing space for the Minister, in which he can look at the map and identify the two entries on it for the Vale of York. I am delighted that there are 32 English Heritage sites and 90 National Trust properties in Yorkshire, so Yorkshire should figure disproportionately on the map that is the Minister's pride and joy. The Vale of York itself has English Heritage's Roman site at Aldborough, which must be one of the oldest such sites in Britain, and the National Trust's Beningborough hall and gardens. I urge the Minister to consider the impact and expense of free admission for children, pensioners and students to some attractions. It should be properly thought through, especially in terms of its implications for other attractions.
I congratulate the Minister on extolling so eloquently the virtues of two Conservative achievements. I appreciated that. The first was the contribution made to national heritage by the heritage lottery fund, which was set up by the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon, John Major. The Conservative party takes disabled access to all public buildings seriously, and I welcome the fact that in the run-up to 2004, the Government will fully implement the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, introduced by my parliamentary neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), when he was Minister for Social Security and Disabled People in the Major Administration.
The Minister mentioned the Budget and the new scheme that the Government have proposed, which we warmly welcome, although we will take time to consider its impact. I urge him again to seek the support of his colleagues in the Treasury to ensure that the English Tourism Council has a proper marketing role. That would be entirely consistent with the Government programme that the Minister described, whether in relation to a Great British heritage pass, the royal heritage and the Queen's jubilee, or museum week. I have embraced the idea of that week, and have received an invitation to be a patron of the local museum at Thirsk, which I accepted with warm enthusiasm. I realise that the Government have

139WH
identified seven markets and hope to attract 1 million extra visitors, but can I ask the Minister how they expect to achieve that without a proper and complementary marketing role for the English Tourism Council?
In addition to the documents to which the Minister referred, I would add his Department's annual report for 2001. The Department states that it wants to increase access to, and participation in, the cultural and sporting life of the nation, while maintaining the quality of the experience that it offers. It also wants people to have the opportunity to develop their potential and enrich their lives and those of their communities through cultural and sporting activity. Therefore, it works with others inside and outside the Government to create greater opportunity and to increase the extent to which it is taken up. Moreover, as the Minister explained in his opening remarks, the Department believes that its policy on access contributes to the promotion of learning, employment and social inclusion.
In July 1998, when the Government made a commitment, through the Department, to introduce free access for children from 1999 and for pensioners from 2000, and universal free entry to museums in 2001, the British public found the idea attractive. My concern is that the Government failed to realise all the implications and ramifications. The policy will have an impact on regional museums and will cost national museums revenue and increased VAT charges. That is not the Minister's direct responsibility, but I urge him to make representations to his colleagues. What better time to do so than now, before Budget day?
The museums that do not charge cannot reclaim VAT on services because they are not businesses, whereas I understand that museums that do charge, can. The Government announced in early April 2001 that they were planning to share a £7.1 million grant among five national museums to enable them to charge just £1. So long as they charged even that, they would have been able to reclaim VAT. In the 2001 Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a U-turn: all the main national museums that allowed free admission would in future be refunded the VAT that they incurred on purchases. The Government appear to have got themselves into a mess over their policies on admission to museums and galleries.
In January I was contacted by a constituent, John Rathmell, who runs the Clearstory railway museum from his home. He said that visitors were to be charged for entry to York's national railway museum—during a two-week Thomas the Tank Engine event in February—only two months after admission prices were scrapped by the Government. I believe that we are still awaiting a response from the Secretary of State about that. I urge the Minister to use his good offices, through his Department, to seek an early reply my constituent.
Where national museums are not charging, the implications for local museums are great. In December, the Evening Press in York published a reader's letter on the subject:
"While I am respectful of the contribution of the National Railway Museum to the tourism industry of York and the preservation of railway heritage in general, I must make an observation in the light of the article … of December 6. This pointed out the apparent anomaly of the charges to be made for the return
140WH
of the Thomas The Tank Engine event in the light of the much-heralded ending of admission charges, paid for by government subsidy … There is a further anomaly in the fact that the museum charges £4 for parking in the visitor car park. Therefore, visits are only 'free' for those visiting by public transport or on foot."
To some extent, the Minister and his Department have stirred up a hornets' nest with their policy on charging.
The questions that I want to put to the Minister are about the fact that nothing is free. There is no such thing as a free lunch, because at the end of the day, someone picks up the bill. Where there is to be more free access, how will that be resourced and at whose expense? Has the Minister considered that extending free access to some attractions could harm neighbouring attractions that charge? In that context, I have already referred to the railway museum in York.
I understand the Minister's desire to attract foreign tourists. That aim is also close to my heart. I wish to declare an interest in that my husband works for an American airline company, which obviously operates a two-way business, not only transporting tourists and those who work for British businesses to the United States, but, we hope, transporting even more people from north America to the United Kingdom.
Has the Minister considered that we could be subsidising foreigners to visit our attractions? As many hon. Members will appreciate, when one lives next to an attraction, one often takes it for granted and does not take the opportunity to visit, whether or not there is a charge. What is the Government's estimate of the annual cost to the Treasury of allowing free access to English Heritage sites for those under 16 and students, pensioners, and all visitors? I have a high regard for the Minister, and although it might be difficult for him to give me that information at short notice, a written response by Monday would be most welcome.
Dr. Howells: I can give the hon. Lady that information immediately. I am afraid that I cannot tell her the cost of free access for under-16s, but I can tell her about under-15s, although the figures are only preliminary estimates. They are as follows: Government properties, £4 million; National Trust properties, £4 million; local authority properties, £1.5 million; and private properties, £7 million.
Miss McIntosh: While I am assimilating that information, will the Minister confirm that that is the cost to each of those bodies?
Dr. Howells: Yes, it is.
Miss McIntosh: For how long do the Government propose that the policy will apply? Is it a permanent policy or is it a temporary policy, which, like so many Government policies, will be kept under review? What assessment have the Government made of the possible impact of VAT law on free access for visitors to English Heritage sites? Moving close to home again—my constituency is within one mile of York minster—what assessment have the Government made of the possible impact of free access to English Heritage sites on other attractions such as churches? I am sure that he will be aware that York minster is seriously considering raising funds through charges because the upkeep of that fine building is tremendously expensive. What evidence do

141WH
the Government have that such a policy would appeal to those who run English Heritage sites or to the general public? Have visitor numbers risen in proportion to the additional costs?
Why have the Government chosen to debate this matter in Government time, rather than sport, tourism or other more pressing concerns? Is there an especially important announcement that we are awaiting so eagerly today? Which heritage attractions are to be free, and by what criteria will they be selected? Will the Government compensate such attractions should they suffer loss of earnings?
On a wider point, what are the Government doing, in addition to the measures that the Minister has already mentioned, to attract not only foreign tourists but vital domestic tourism? I welcome the UKOK campaign, but the Minister must accept that it does not address that point. The York tourism board, for example, would be keen to attract tourists from other regions of Britain to our heritage sites, countryside and sporting sites. Will the Minister address that matter?
In response to the foot and mouth crisis, to which the Minister referred, the Government announced funding of £18 million for the marketing of British tourism. I understand that £14 million is destined for the British Tourist Authority and £4 million for the English Tourism Council. Those sums are grossly inadequate. The English Tourism Council's urgent pleas for realistic help should be respected.
Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Lady was busy preparing her speech when I made the announcement, but we are currently conducting a £5 million campaign—UKOK—and a further £20 million campaign, which will be matched by £20 million of private sector funding. The British tourism industry has never known such funding. Surely she must welcome that.
Miss McIntosh: The Minister will, I am sure, have a response to my question about how much of the funding will go to the English Tourism Council to enable it to undertake a tourism marketing role. The council will have a dual role in attracting both incoming visitors to the country and visitors resident in the United Kingdom to different English regions. A breakdown of the funding from the Government would be welcome. If the Minister wants to help tourism, why does he not agree, today, to give the English Tourism Council a marketing role, particularly as he has said that the Government might be minded to do so in the future?
As luck would have it, while the Minister was speaking, I received, by hand, a letter from someone concerned with one of the historic houses to which he was kind enough to refer. The letter is from Mr. Bagot of Levens hall in Kendal, Cumbria, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). Mr. Bagot wrote to my hon. Friend, who has forwarded his briefing to me, to say that
"Levens Hall is a major tourist attraction in the Lake District, comprising as it does an historic estate with a magnificent Grade 1 Listed house, with world-renowned Grade 1 Listed Topiary Gardens."
I will have to visit to find out what a topiary garden is.
Dr. Howells: Topiary is at its most visible when somebody spends many years cutting their privet hedge
142WH
into the shape of a beast or a heraldic emblem. Topiary gardens are huge versions of that. The garden referred to in the letter is almost unequalled in western Europe.
Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful for that explanation; the Minister whets my appetite even more. He may or may not realise that the first parliamentary seat that I fought as a Conservative candidate was Workington in Cumbria, which is next to my hon. Friend's constituency.
I have a useful briefing here from the Historic Houses Association, which refers to the colossal cost of preserving privately owned houses. The Minister will appreciate that without constant maintenance, decay and collapse occur with alarming speed. Once lost, such precious assets are gone forever. The briefing continues:
"The private owner has long been recognised as the most cost-effective guardian of heritage properties and funds their preservation out of taxed income, at no cost to the state. This situation should be compared with the maintenance of similar properties owned by the National Trust, which enjoys benevolent tax status, and properties in the care of English Heritage and Local Authorities, which are maintained out of public funds."
It ends with a plea, which I shall take the opportunity to pass on to the Minister:
"It is the HHA's challenge, working with other heritage bodies"
to decide how to preserve impressive and valuable pieces of our national heritage for future generations. It is the association's fervent hope that the Government will support
"better fiscal relief for the maintenance of our historic buildings"—
that is imperative, in the view of the Historic Houses Association and those who visit such houses each year—
"if this important aspect of the heritage of our country is to be preserved."
After the debate, and once my papers have been returned, I shall pass that plea on to the Minister through my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale.
Mr. Andrew Love: The hon. Lady will be aware that English Heritage makes available grants to historic buildings and heritage sites in return for making access available. In the context of the comments in the letter, does she agree that if we are to make tax relief or grants available to historic sites, we should be assured that access is allowed? According to a recent National Audit Office report, access is not always available even when grants have been made.
Miss McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman leads me down a dangerous path, as I am only a shadow spokesman, not a Minister. In a personal capacity, I believe that one must be take care to ensure that access is allowed when at all possible, but also that it does not endanger the property. One can imagine the practical problems that might be caused if too many people visited a property in a short time, given how brief the tourist season is in this country. We could take as an example the number of feet that have trodden up the steps of Westminster Hall.
I shall now raise a serious matter that is mentioned in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. I take this opportunity to make a personal plea to the Minister, who always listens with care and attention to his

143WH
parliamentary colleagues, and I urge him to make the speediest and most eloquent representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the point I am about to mention.
The headline reads, "The Chancellor to sell the family silver after all", and the article tells us:
"The Treasury is to press ahead with the sale of its collection of rare 17th-century silverware despite protests. Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, withdrew the items from auction in October after an outcry and promised to rethink his plans. But the Treasury has now disclosed that it is trying to sell the silver to 'institutions willing to display the items to the UK public.'"
This is a serious matter, which represents a U-turn by the Government, who said last October that they would not sell the nation's silverware. The Treasury is now saying that this will take place, thus enabling the silverware to be placed in the public domain—but it is already in the public domain. The Treasury is assuming that the V & A, which is another national treasure, will want to pay a considerable sum to purchase that national silverware and put it on display.
I urge the Minister to make every conceivable representation to ensure that that perverse situation will not be allowed. The silverware is, and should remain, in the nation's keeping. I gather that Mr. Barrie, director of the National Art Collections Fund, said that if the sale went ahead it would open the floodgates for Government Departments under pressure from the Treasury to sell more paintings, furniture and silver.
It has emerged that the Silver Trust, a charity established to commission and then lend to No. 10 Downing street a 65-place silver service for banquets, might rethink its long-term plan to give the service to the nation. I strongly urge the Minister to ensure that the Government do not raid the larder for the nation's silverware, and that the silverware is kept in safe custody and on display with public access, without any requirement for other bodies to purchase it.
I welcome today's announcement by the Government. I urge the Minister to confirm that his Department envisages a marketing role for the English Tourism Council and to explain what, in his personal view and in the view of his Department, the implications will be for regional museums, churches and other parties, such as York minster, that are under pressure to charge to recover their costs. Will he explain also how the National Trust—a private organisation, in contrast to English Heritage, which is a Government agency—will be affected by the Government's proposal?
3.17 pm
Jim Knight: I am pleased to contribute to the debate on access to heritage attractions. I want to broaden the scope slightly, given that I represent South Dorset, which is part of the newly designated world heritage site, the Jurassic coast. UNESCO made the announcement in December, and it was a great delight to us in Dorset and Devon to receive that status. I know that you have visited the area, Mr. Pike, because I remember you coming to dinner about five years ago. I also know that you are familiar with the place and appreciate what a pleasure it is to visitors.
144WH
The world heritage site begins at Old Harry rocks just off Swanage. The coast continues through my constituency, including Lulworth cove and Durdle Door, and it includes ranges on which the Army unfortunately seems to want to fire shells. That is a side issue that I may have to raise with other Ministers, but perhaps the firing may expose some nice fossils. The coast continues to Weymouth, Portland, Chesil beach, the Fleet and beyond. It is a treasure and the first site in England—and I think Wales, too—to achieve world heritage status as a natural environment.
My impression of the comments of the Minister and the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) is that they have focused on the built environment and architectural heritage, but the Jurassic coast is clearly more a matter of natural heritage. For those who are not familiar with the area, what is celebrated there, apart from the beautiful coastline, is a precise and accurate timeline for the Jurassic period. Evidence can be seen, such as excellent fossil remains, including fossil forests by Lulworth cove and dinosaur remains at Lyme Regis. The area is a treasure educationally and for geomorphologists, but also for walkers. We look forward to the benefits that world heritage status will bring.
The Minister talked about built heritage and how many sites are artistic and technical monuments, providing inspiration, but natural monuments exist too, such as those I have named from my area. He also referred to the built environment as a quarry for artistic inspiration, but there are real quarries at the world heritage site in my area. If he visits quarries on Portland or in the Purbecks, he will see a timeline of the Jurassic age, which became exposed as the stone was exploited. We see much Portland stone at other world heritage sites around us in London, now that the process has gone full circle.
I was particularly pleased to see the sculptured landscape at West Wears on Portland last Friday. The work is by John Maine, who designed an important sculpture that is over on the south bank. Marvellous terraced steps look out over the sea and Chesil beach. The artist used the various rock strata and capped each step with a wave. The work is quite remarkable, and it is a peaceful place from which to view the landscape. I would recommend any hon. Member to see it, and I would be delighted to buy them a cup of tea after the experience.
World heritage status does not, however, come without challenges, as I am sure all hon. Members will testify. In particular, I am pleased that I can discuss access problems. The access barriers in my area do not relate to cost, because people are not charged to walk the coastal path or to see the sea and the cliffs. Rather, they relate to providing transport, disabled access and the right accommodation, which would allow us to attract the full range of visitors and to benefit in economic development terms.
There is also the issue of managing visitors and channelling them in the right direction, which is why transport is crucial to exploiting the potential of our world heritage status. The railways in Dorset are not too bad, as railways go these days, and I am delighted that the Strategic Rail Authority recently announced that the line between Wareham and Corfe Castle is to be restored. The heritage railway that runs from Corfe

145WH
down to Swanage can join the main line, and other services can be generated to enhance access to the start of the heritage coast. Services into Devon simply do no exist, and the railway is not a realistic option for those who want to exploit the full potential of our heritage coast.
Buses are erratic. More subsidised buses have come on stream in the past few years, although too many for my liking seem to be subsidised to run empty. Some are very large and cause problems in Corfe Castle. The potential for buses to use liquid petroleum gas and other forms of environmentally friendly fuel is being explored, and work is being done with firms such as BP, which exploits oil in Poole harbour on the world heritage coast and brings it onshore at Wych Farm in my constituency. Essentially, however, buses will not solve our transport problems.
There are also difficulties with our roads, particularly in Weymouth, and we are campaigning hard for a relief road. All those activities are designed to sort out a transport infrastructure and to give people gateway points to access the coast without destroying it. I appreciate what the Minister said about making access sustainable so that we do not damage the very jewels that people come to see.
We must find a way to work across authorities. We get assistance from the regional development agency, but I would welcome further Government help. That will ensure that the Department works with us and looks critically at the management plan that it wants us to put in place by the end of the year. It will then be able to ensure that we have a realistic transport plan, so that access to our coast can become a reality.
My next point is on disability. I was enchanted by the Minister's story about his trip to the Rockies and walking a mile into the snow-covered mountains. I was reminded of the path from Lulworth cove to Durdle Door. The Weld estate, in conjunction with the county council, has recently spent a lot of money improving it, because it was being quickly eroded—more than 250,000 people visit the area each year. Unfortunately, it is a stepped path, and I know that the Weld family are worried that they will have to find a way to improve it yet again to enhance disabled access.
The natural environment, especially the cliff paths on the Dorset coastal path, which extends to the south-west, presents a particular challenge to those who want to give people with mobility problems proper access to our tremendous natural heritage, which the rest of us can access so happily. I do so most weekends with my dog, and even with my wife and family.
Accommodation is a real challenge. We now have world heritage status, but were we to experience a great influx of visitors, particularly from overseas, I am not sure whether they would recommend the area if we were judged on the quality of the full range of accommodation. The fear is that visitors will stay further along the coast and come to the area only on day trips, because we do not have the range of high-quality accommodation to enable us to benefit economically. If we do not benefit economically, local residents might start to resent the traffic generated by day trippers who do not stay and spend money locally.
We need support from the Department and we must work with it on improving our accommodation. Funding has been made available for upgrades.
146WH
Recently, I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), a newly elected Welsh Member, who lectured on tourism. He mentioned measures taken to help proprietors of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, guest houses and so on to make the investment necessary to upgrade their properties. I would love to see that happen in my area.
In Dorset, and over the border in Devon, we are acutely aware that world heritage status has no cash attached. However, it is a great marketing tool. For instance, Weymouth and Portland borough council, Purbeck district council and Dorset county council are all putting world heritage status at the top of their economic development plans. It is seen as a great driver, lifting our economies and allowing us to strike a balance between the quality of life that we all enjoy as a result of our beautiful natural environment and getting economic benefit from it.
The regional development agency is being helpful, as it is paying for a consultancy to enable us to harness that economic development potential. We are talking to the natural history museum about the possibility of it developing the site, because it has hundreds of fossil specimens from Dorset that are not displayed. We have the potential to offer the museum a tremendous facility in the area. I am working also with hon. Members who represent neighbouring coastal constituencies, but we need more support.
The Minister talked about what could be done in terms of the built environment. I interpret that to mean historic houses and so on. He also talked about the Department showing leadership in developing educational potential and sustaining the environment. I request that such support be extended to the natural environment and heritage, and that we be able to access the heritage lottery fund fully. Some sites receive subsidies through schemes such as the Great British heritage pass, and we should not be denied such public money because our site is free at the point of access.
I got excited when the Minister mentioned his new map of heritage sites, which was published last week, but I was disappointed when I looked at it, although, I hasten to add, not because it is entitled "Britain's Royal Heritage". That heritage is obviously to be celebrated, especially in this jubilee year, but I am disappointed that we are not on it, given our world heritage status and that Weymouth has royal connections. George III began the tradition of seaside holidays there. Some places on the map have slightly tenuous links with royalty.
Dr. Howells: I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing the world heritage site off the map. We would come close to some dangerous rocks if we started to talk about fossils and royalty, but I assure him that I have urged the regional development agencies and tourist boards to construct regional maps on the basis of that map. The idea is that we bring people into the regions, and then the regions take over.
Jim Knight: I thank the Minister, and I look forward to the region featuring the world heritage coast prominently on its regional map. I hope that working within the Department but across regions might help to provide a signpost for those who visit the New forest, for example, so that they move out of the south-east and

147WH
into the south-west to visit our marvellous heritage coast. Obviously, I shall look carefully at any future prints of the map, or maps that follow it, to ensure that the mistakes are not made a second time.
I welcome the debate. We in Dorset and Devon are trying to tackle problems, so we realise the full potential of the world heritage status that our coast has recently received. I plead with the Minister and the Department: we should not be forgotten in future, natural heritage should be kept in mind and heritage sites must relate to more than the built environment.
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): The hon. Gentleman has reminded the Chair, who represents a constituency in the Duchy of Lancaster, of the need to consider such matters closely.
3.33 pm
Nick Harvey: In welcoming the debate, I congratulate those who, over a long period, have done much to protect our heritage and offer access to it. I also welcome the initiatives mentioned by the Minister and express the hope that they improve access to heritage sites over time. I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that a decent marketing budget for the English Tourism Council would probably improve the take-up of opportunities, but that is largely a debate for another day.
In June, the nation will celebrate the Queen's golden jubilee. Modern Britain is much more diverse than the Britain of 50 years ago, and with that diversity comes a range of ways to perceive our heritage and highlight our history. This summer, people will celebrate in many ways. People in different parts of the community have different hopes and expectations of what the country's heritage can offer them. Heritage should not be forced on people. If access exists without quality, there is little point in offering access. The key to encouraging people to take up opportunities is access to quality projects.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) made a good point about heritage meaning not just built heritage, but the natural environment. As we all seem to be giving broadcasts on behalf of our constituencies, I should say that my constituency of North Devon has a stretch of heritage coast and a lot of National Trust properties. We have good take-up among people who come to visit those attractions, although my constituents might shudder in disapproval if I argued for a huge increase, particularly at peak times of the year. Clearly, the nation's heritage comes in different shapes and forms. Those all benefit national and local identity, local communities and their fabric, and the economy. Successful projects provide essential jobs and create wealth.
If we consider some of the country's obvious tourist attractions, such as Bath, Oxford and York, we can see the economic value and the international cultural value of working to preserve the heritage in those places. About 11 million visits a year are made to English Heritage sites alone. Our historic environment is dear to the hearts of those who visit such sites and to the 2.7 million National Trust members.
148WH
One or two hon. Members have referred to access and access for the disabled. An estimated 8 to 9 per cent. of visitors to English Heritage sites have disabilities. Although it is often by definition difficult to make some sites accessible to the disabled, not least because it is an essential part of the job of English Heritage and the other bodies that look after them to preserve their original fabric, there is still more that we can do to improve access to parts of sites that may sensibly be made accessible.
Only 40 sites offer audio tours with hearing loops and even fewer have taped tours adapted to basic language. There is a lot to do, and the heritage lottery fund has a role to play in encouraging organisations that apply for grants to ensure that reasonable access for people with disabilities is provided.
We should also concentrate on access for children. I welcome many proposals in "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future", especially the recommendation that children should be allowed free admission to sites of cultural and historical importance. The Secretary of State has proclaimed free admission to national museums and galleries to be a spectacular success and says that charges were clearly restraining many people, particularly families. I hope that our historical environment will now be democratised, as some of the nation's other treasures have been through the introduction of free admission to more and more sites.
I also welcome proposals to extend the blue plaque scheme across the country. Those plaques provide a useful insight to the lives of those who have contributed to our heritage. Funded by the heritage lottery fund, English Heritage is collating for its website a collection of photographs of all England's listed buildings. That is a step towards making our historically important homes and buildings accessible. Some homeowners are concerned that the record will be abused by housebreakers and the like, but those concerns can be overcome by tightening the website's security. English Heritage is also considering an exemption scheme for cases in which it may be proven that inclusion could cause unwarranted or substantial damage or distress.
Overall, we should encourage access to more homes of historical significance. Many artworks and historical artefacts that such homes contain are exempt from inheritance tax in exchange for reasonable public access. Where that is the case, homeowners should be obliged to include their properties on the website.
There should also be a stricter definition of what constitutes "reasonable access" to ensure that taxpayers get value for money from the exemption. Two thirds of the UK's built and natural heritage is maintained, as the Minister said, by private owners. Keeping those properties in a condition that meets visitor expectations and conserving them at current levels can be expensive. The Historic Houses Association estimates that the annual cost of maintaining the privately owned homes is about £80 million. If we intend to open more such homes to the public, more investment is needed.
We cannot expect vast amounts of public money to be invested in those homes, but we can try to encourage additional private investment by examining further the VAT regime. I must put on record an interest, in that my home is a listed building. However, as I do not intend to

149WH
offer public access to it, I do not wish to avail myself of any special tax concessions. There is an anomaly in the respective treatment of older buildings and new builds. I know that the Government have considered the issue and I hope that they remedy it.
The heritage lottery fund has an important part to play in guaranteeing access to sites. Its strategic plan for 1999–2002 cited education and access as one of four strategic priorities. Up to March 2001, 69 per cent. of the projects that it funded achieved enhanced access to heritage. That is good, but there is more work to do to ensure that the other 31 per cent. begin to achieve it as well. It is all very well spending large sums on preservation and conservation, but if the sites are inaccessible to the public, the money is not well spent.
I have been lobbied, as I imagine others have been, about the case of Hatchmere lake in Cheshire, where heritage lottery fund grants mean that significant parts of the lake, which used to be accessible to the public, no longer are. That should be the exception, not the rule. There may, on occasion, be a heritage case for limiting access. If so, a clear public statement of that need must be made. Extending access also means reflecting what is required in different regions. We recently debated the unequal distribution of lottery funds. That is as true for heritage as for any other lottery work.
We need to take a wide view of what constitutes our heritage. Only this week, it was revealed how quickly our records become obsolete. A multimedia version of the Domesday book created by the BBC in 1986 is now unreadable. A collection of images and sounds compiled to record the state of the nation in 1986, including images of Maradonna's hand of God goal, hill farmers struggling to cope with the fallout of Chernobyl, Michael Heseltine storming out over the Westland affair and thousands of other records of everyday life, was recorded on 12 inch video discs, which now cannot be read. By contrast, the original 11th-century Domesday book is in good condition at the Public Record Office and accessible to anyone who can make a reasonable case and has the right credentials to read it.
Despite such setbacks, computers hold the key to preserving much of our heritage that we do not have the resources or facilities to display, as they provide access for people who are unable to stroll around heritage sites. The work of Turner gives an example of how modern technology can be used to display our cultural heritage. Turner's bequest was that his work should be preserved for the nation and displayed for all to see. Although it is disappointing that no dedicated gallery has been built to display those 30,000 works, the entire Turner bequest went online last week on the Tate gallery's website. Many are probably viewed better that way than with the naked eye.
For many people, interactivity and the internet will be how they experience the UK's heritage. Although strides are being made to provide for that in schools and universities, there is much more that we can do to improve access. The internet has immense potential for opening up opportunities for students and it gives a taste of what the UK has to offer to visitors from overseas. As a medium, it is unsurpassed as a way to improve access to the many cultural and historical artefacts that cannot be displayed.
150WH
The work carried out by the British museum in collating its collections is much to be admired, and a great deal of work goes on in many nooks and crannies to preserve our heritage, although much more can be done to improve access to it. We should be proud of what has been done and proud of our heritage, but we must remain vigilant and diligent in ensuring that more and more people experience it, especially through giving such opportunities to overseas visitors. We are moving in the right direction. I commend the document to which the Minister referred and hope that access to heritage improves in years to come.
3.45 pm
Mr. Bob Laxton: In this life, they say that time flies when you are having fun. I have obviously been enjoying myself to such an extent that I have difficulty recalling when I first became involved, in my previous capacity as leader of Derby city council, with what is now the Derwent Valley Mills world heritage site. Seven or eight years ago, the then officer for tourism on Derby city council, Marion Nixon, an officer called Reg Whitworth from the adjacent authority of Amber Valley and I were considering the pressure placed on the Peak District national park, the first national park in the United Kingdom. The park receives huge numbers of visitors, totalling several million each year. In many places, the park is grossly over-walked and over-cycled. Of the millions of visitors, many come into the county for only a day or a few days.
We looked at the possibility of trying to draw people into south Derbyshire and guide them up the Derwent valley to look at a real gem of industrial archaeology, including superb country houses, such as Chatsworth and Kedleston hall. There they could also see the superb pumping station that pumps water from the Derwent into Cromford canal, take in sheep pastures and do a hill climb in an area where they could ride railway wagons down to the Cromford canal. There is a series of mills along the Derwent valley and the total distance is perhaps 15 or 16 miles.
Things have moved on since that time seven or eight years ago and the Derwent valley mills are now designated as a world heritage site. I am delighted about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) says, "Hear, hear" loudly and clearly. Of course, we were delighted when he was able to visit the mills in the Derwent valley to see the site for himself when he was a Minister at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
As I said, things have moved on, although difficulties will always remain. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) has referred to issues of access, a matter that greatly exercised our minds. If mills are spread along a 15 or 16-mile stretch of river, there are real problems with access. Much of the land between sites is privately owned, so gaining access to such places would be a long-term project.
Some of the mills are very old. The silk mill in my constituency of Derby, North was the site of probably the first major industrial dispute in this country. In the great silk mill lockout, workers were locked out and starved back to work. In Derby, we remember that on or around May day every year. Boar's Head mill at Darley

151WH
abbey, also in my constituency, is privately owned and dates back to an interesting period of history when undershot turbines ran all the machinery and, latterly, generated electricity for the mill. At Peckwash mill, little of the mill now remains. I refer to the mills at Millford and the great Strutt mills at Belper, one of which was the forerunner of the new factory processes at the time and was built to be fireproof, as the dust and material flying around mills made them a fire risk. The mill was designed with a floor built on ceramic pots to prevent the risk of fire. I refer, too, to the very old mills, such as the Arkwright mills at Cromford and the Masson mill a little further up the road at Matlock Bath.
The site has the potential to be a superb heritage site. We should be able to exploit such sites for tourism, which would be of great benefit to the area economically, historically and educationally. We hope that those who come to visit will remain in the area longer than they would otherwise do.
There are concerns, however, one of which is about the status and management of inscribed and proposed world heritage sites. Local authorities have been involved in establishing a local authorities-world heritage forum. In August 2000, the body submitted observations to English Heritage on the Government's review of policies relating to the historic environment, which contained the statement:
"The Government should give greater recognition to the importance of World Heritage Sites, either in primary legislation or at least in policy guidance. Such a policy document should set out those measures Government intends undertaking to discharge its obligations under the World Heritage Convention of 1972 to identify, protect, conserve and present World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom."
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East, in a speech to the local authorities-world heritage forum in Portcullis House on 13 March 2001, acknowledged:
"Much remains to be done to safeguard the UK sites that have already been inscribed … indeed, inscription on the World Heritage List is only the beginning."
I could not agree more with that statement.
I return to the issue of the current status and the measures for protection of the sites. Some member sites are under direct Government control, but in this country there are many sites in private or multiple ownership whose protection depends on co-operation between Government, national and regional agencies, local authorities and owners, and on a wide variety of statutory and non-statutory measures.
I have a copy of some planning policy guidance notes—PPG15, published by the former Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions. It applies to England alone, although there are similar circulars and guidance notes for the Welsh Office. The key points made in PPG15 are that
"no additional statutory controls follow from inscription … inclusion in the World Heritage List is a 'key material consideration' in determining planning applications and listed building consent applications … each local authority concerned should formulate specific planning policies for protecting the sites and include them in their development plans … environmental assessment is needed for 'significant development proposals' … local planning authorities are encouraged to work with owners, managers of sites and other agencies to ensure that the comprehensive management plans are in place."
152WH
Paragraph 6.35 of PPG15 refers specifically to the world heritage convention:
"The Convention provides for the identification, protection, conservation and presentation of cultural and natural sites … Individual governments are responsible for the nomination of sites, and for ensuring the protection of sites inscribed on the List."
Most of the sites have elements of statutory protection within them such as listed buildings, ancient monuments, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest. A number of cultural sites have protection through the designation of conservation areas.
The Government have an obligation under the world heritage convention. Responsibility for world heritage matters is exercised by several Departments, with the DCMS taking the lead. The First Ministers for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland and the Foreign and Home Secretaries are also involved. A wide range of Departments is involved in the process. It can be seen that the responsibility is given and/or accepted by a wide variety of governmental and quasi-governmental agencies. The various Ministers of State regularly communicate with each other on these matters. There are well-established mechanisms for communication between national heritage bodies, and that includes the local authorities-world heritage forum.
Nevertheless, mechanisms are needed to ensure consistency on recognition of the status of sites, on guidance to site managers in the widest sense, on the content and coverage of management plans and on both the theoretical and actual protection of sites. The need for consistency is paramount.
Mr. Hugo Swire: I agree with a large amount of what the hon. Gentleman says. World heritage site status has just been granted along the coast between Dorset and Devon in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for South Dorset, who unfortunately has had to leave. I agree that there should be some consistency, but these sites are very different. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the information bureaux and the gateway towns should all reflect the individual nature of the world heritage sites in their area? There should not be unanimity across the board.
Mr. Laxton: Had the hon. Gentleman been here to listen to the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset he would have heard him argue that the natural heritage of that site was perhaps unique and therefore different from the site I am describing. I am arguing for consistency of approach, not for uniformity or standardisation. Each site is different and has its own strengths and weaknesses. Every site has its merits. There needs to be a consistent governmental approach to dealing with these sites. That certainly does not mean uniformity of approach or an identikit position on them. I was not arguing that in any way, shape or form and I hope that most hon. Members understood that.
Consistency of approach becomes more important because we have almost reached critical mass in terms of the cultural, historic and natural sites that have been inscribed. Although there is no statutory recognition of the sites at present, more effective protection would flow from proactive recognition of the status of these sites in

153WH
legislation or statutory instruments. There is a lack of recognition of the distinctiveness of not just world heritage sites but the buffer zones surrounding them. In contrast, many buildings, monuments and sites fall within existing statutory designations. However, although they have merit in themselves, some will never aspire to the description of "outstanding universal value".
The number of sites that have been inscribed has reached a critical mass. Talking as I have about the consistency of the Government's approach and the way in which they can support, nurture, improve and preserve the sites, I should like the Government to produce a statement on how they will co-ordinate the discharge of their obligations under the world heritage convention to identify and protect United Kingdom world heritage sites, particularly with the agencies involved and the devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom.
4.1 pm
David Wright: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton), who raised several issues about world heritage sites, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight). We are having a little world heritage site jamboree this afternoon and I do not want to break with that tradition. I welcome the debate, and especially the Minister's opening remarks. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to them; they covered a wide area of tourism policy throughout the country.
The debate is especially significant for my constituency, which contains the Ironbridge Gorge world heritage site. The importance of that site will not be lost on hon. Members: in 1709, Abraham Darby first smelted iron and coke there, and inspired the industrial revolution. The symbol that most people identify with the area is the iron bridge built between 1777 and 1781. The gorge was designated a world heritage site in 1986; it was the first industrial archaeology-based world heritage site so declared, a distinction of which we are proud. It met the UNESCO criteria for designation, the most striking of which is that Ironbridge represents a masterpiece of human genius. If hon. Members ever walk along the gorge and see the fantastic bridge, they will indeed see such a marvel.

People live in the gorge. We must acknowledge that world heritage sites are not dusty old museums that display exhibits, but living communities. Ironbridge has some 4,000 residents who have jobs, shops and houses and use the area as a living environment. We must balance the activities of preserving world heritage sites with the needs of the local communities.
It is also important that we consider the significance of world heritage sites for United Kingdom tourism. Last year, 600,000 people visited the gorge. Having heard about national figures, I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a phenomenal number of visitors in one location in Shropshire. The local authority estimates that £76 million of expenditure spins off from the site each year, purely in Telford and Wrekin. The site provides important investment by attracting other visitors to Shropshire to visit Shrewsbury, Ludlow and adjoining towns. It is a honeypot site for tourism in Shropshire: 2,500 jobs in Telford and Wrekin are dependent on its success.
154WH
I was interested in the Minister's comments about the need to produce a management plan. I can proudly brandish the plan that was produced for the site this year. Obviously, I am pleased to report that we are a bit ahead of the game. I pay tribute to the organisations that have drawn up that management plan, and to Councillor Phil Davis in particular. He has been active locally on the subject of world heritage for many years and is a good friend of mine. He puts an enormous amount of work into preserving the environment of Ironbridge and into moving the debate about world heritage forward.
I am pleased that the heritage plan mentions conserving and improving sites in the gorge. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North said, world heritage sites often cover a large geographical area. The gorge is no different. A range of museum sites runs along the span of the gorge along the banks of the River Severn in my constituency. The plan mentions future development, which must be sustainable in order to ensure that not only are museums in the area successful, but so too are the local economy and the environment for jobs and residential purposes.
The plan also refers to improving access. The gorge, by its very nature, is a constricted site. The Minister talked about his interesting adventure in the Canadian Rockies. I would like to walk him up Jiggers bank one day. He would find that it is even steeper than some of the mountains in the Rockies. At times, it is difficult to gain access to the gorge. It still has several industrial uses, so the road network is heavily used by industrial traffic. Tourism and industry are juxtaposed in the gorge—now, as historically. The management plan identifies that as a key issue and considers how to manage visitor throughput and topics such as park-and-ride and transport system management in the area.
Much good local work has been done over many years in improving access. The Ironbridge Gorge museum trust runs a very successful passport scheme for admission to the museums. Visitors pay about £10.50 and can then visit all the sites in the gorge that are in the trust's ownership. It is a non-time-limited pass. Those who purchases a pass in a museum site can return in two, three or four years' time and use it to visit the other sites, too. That is a positive way of handling access and trying to encourage repeat visits to attractions such as the gorge. That is perhaps a tip for other locations and world heritage sites.
There are excellent services in the gorge for people with disabilities. I have already mentioned inter-site transport networks. Tourists arrive at parking sites and then use rolling public transport links to travel between museums. The partnership has done excellent work on the world heritage site management plan and on the management of the gorge. However, the Government should consider three issues on the subject of the ongoing support of world heritage sites, and the gorge in particular.
First, there must be local infrastructure investment. The level of visitor throughput and its significance for the local economy means that there is a large footfall of visitors in a small geographical area. That area needs to be well maintained, attractive and easily accessible, so there are significant pressures on local authority budgets. Local authorities that have world heritage sites in their area receive little recognition of that fact in the

155WH
budget settlements calculated by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. We must consider the impact of world heritage status on local authority budgets. Although world heritage sites are major generators of local income, they also place pressure on local taxpayers, who have to provide servicing for those areas.
Secondly, we need investment from the Environment Agency for England and Wales, particularly in the Ironbridge gorge. No one can get to the sites in the gorge if it is under water, as it quite often is these days. It has a significant flooding problem, which affects tourist business in the area. No one can get into a museum if it is under 6 ft of water. Obviously, associated cleaning, repair and maintenance costs follow from that problem. That is a major disruption to the tourism industry's activities throughout Shropshire. The Minister will know about the problems in Shrewsbury and further down the river towards Bewdley. The gorge is hit especially hard, as the level of the river can rise quickly to damaging levels. Significant recovery expenditure is required for the area, and investment by the Environment Agency for England and Wales is important. Joined-up Government action is required, as other hon. Members have mentioned.
The third issue concerns the potential expansion of subsidised entry for world heritage site facilities throughout the United Kingdom—we have heard from the Minister about that. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset said that that may not be important or applicable in some circumstances. However, I would welcome support for subsidised entry to sites such as the Ironbridge gorge, which is one of Shropshire's centrepiece tourist attractions.
I was impressed by the Minister's response to a parliamentary question that I tabled the other day. He said that there has been a 76 per cent. increase in the average number of visitors to the museums and galleries in London that previously charged admission. We as a Government should take credit for that. I am proud of that achievement in respect of our national collections. However, many people find it difficult to access those museums in London because they do not get the chance to come down here. Often, a day out to museums in their region is equally important. We must consider locations other than London.
Ironbridge gorge makes a major contribution to Shropshire's economy. It is an engine house for that economy, as the figures that I mentioned show. With support and assistance, we can make the gorge even more successful and it will continue to be a driving engine behind the local economy to make our area successful well into the future.
4.11 pm
Alan Howarth: It is a great pleasure to join other hon. Members, and especially my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting. I congratulate him on getting a share of the portfolio of the Minister for the Arts. After all, being a Minister for the Arts is as great a privilege as any other in the Government. My hon. Friend brings his characteristic no-nonsense approach to politics and policy and his evident personal enthusiasm to his responsibility.
156WH
I congratulate the Government on the publication of their policy document, "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future". I know that the document spent a little time in gestation—I had some part in its paternity. I am delighted to see it as a strapping infant.
The Government have made that statement with the benefit of advice that the sector offered in "Power of Place", which was a response to the challenge that I gave it during a speech that I made to the English Historic Towns Forum conference in Hereford in November 1999. I invited the sector to join the Government in a comprehensive review of heritage policy, because it was more than time that that took place. The findings of the process have been extremely instructive, and the process itself had the utmost value, because a variety of organisations, bodies and interests joined in throughout the country. It was educative, and developed public awareness of crucial issues for the heritage in a way that can only be for the good.
I thank English Heritage for the part that it played in leading the process, and the other major participants: the heritage lottery fund, the National Trust, the Historic Houses Association, the National Amenity Societies, the Civic Trust and many others.
In my speech in Hereford, I tried to put my finger on why heritage matters. I said:
"The contribution of the historic environment to contemporary life is as wide-ranging as it is profound. Historic buildings and other survivals of the past are a source of sustained pleasure, whether we are consciously studying them or simply allowing them to serve as the backdrop to our daily lives. They stand as a record of artistic and technical achievement in every conceivable medium and an inspiration to creativity in our own age and for the future. They are a potent educational tool, providing insight into virtually every aspect of our long history. And, at a still deeper level, they are a focus of our identity as a nation, an expression of continuity and stability to sustain us as we respond to the challenge of a new millennium. We cannot move forward into the future with assurance unless we know who we are and from where we have come. To be aware of the significance of the heritage and acknowledge our responsibility for protecting it is evidence of our maturity as a society."
We have in Britain a national love affair with the heritage, with all the confused emotions that are liable to play their part in a love affair. There is something of a boom in nostalgia. We sometimes seem to have become a nation of genealogists and metal detectorists. We have an insatiable enthusiasm for Merchant Ivory films and flea markets. For 20 years I lived just off the Portobello road and watched the growth of that extraordinary phenomenon. It was almost a compulsion on the part of increasingly more people to pay increasingly crazier prices for a piece of the past. It seems that the more intensive the processes and experience of change for us in the modern world, the more urgently we feel the need to connect with the past. I take nothing but pleasure in the remarkable public response to the opportunity afforded by heritage open days.
I sometimes worry, however, about what is almost a caricature vision of England, of herbaceous borders and warm beer—George Orwell treated the warm beer with irony, but I believe that John Major really liked the stuff—Batsford books, the jury system, the House of Lords; perhaps I had better not go too far down that track. Nostalgia and escapism are innocent, but every now and again there is a touch of the neurotic in the

157WH
national discussion about heritage. We note the panic of the dispossessed when Radio 4 schedules are altered or the format of The Times is changed.
I deprecate experts who browbeat the public and pedants whose learning is tinged with paranoia—a poor substitute for the scholarship, authenticity and craftsmanship that should inform our approach to the heritage. There is sometimes a danger that attitudes to the heritage can be divisive and that the vision can be differentiated too much by class and involve possessive manipulation of the national identity. The challenge for my right hon. and hon. Friends is to support the development of a heritage for everyone, to enable us to be a one heritage nation.
My speech at Hereford concluded with a challenge to the sector, asking how we could do more to ensure that a new generation of young people will claim the heritage as their own. An important poll that English Heritage commissioned in the context of the "Power of Place" exercise found some disturbing information. Three in four people surveyed thought that the contribution that black and Asian people had made to our national heritage was not adequately represented in the conventional presentation of the heritage. The proportion of black and Asian people who held that view was considerably higher. Our engagement with the heritage should enable us all to recollect and become better integrated as a society and should help regeneration in not merely physical and economic but cultural and social terms. The heritage should point us as much to the future as to the past.
I applaud the Government's statement in "A Force for Our Future", and I applaud the Minister's speech. The tone of both was generous and the range comprehensive. Of course there are details to be filled out, but it is encouraging that the document has been produced with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in the lead on behalf of the Government as a whole. Important elements of the document have been contributed by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and other Departments that have a part to play in meeting the Government's heritage responsibilities, such as the Ministry of Defence.
I am pleased that the document confirms that the Government will continue their innovation that there should be ministerial champions in Departments across Whitehall—champions with responsibility not only for architecture and design within their individual Departments, but with extended responsibility that takes account of the heritage and the green environment. That is a commitment on behalf of the whole of Government, with Ministers across a wide range of Departments tasked to meet their heritage responsibilities.
In the document, the past is not opposed to the present. It pleases me that English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment are working well together. Together, they have a role to play in promoting a high-quality national debate, in improving our national education with regard to the heritage and in encouraging our people to insist on the very best.
158WH
I hope that the work of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment will assist our generation in creating a new heritage that future generations will take great pride in. When we were establishing the commission, I inquired about the public sector's annual spend on building. Two years or so ago, it was £24 billion. That is an enormous sum, and it offers a huge opportunity for good—or for bad.
The document and my hon. Friend's speech make clear the Government's commitment, in the context of the heritage, to education, social inclusion and the promotion of the creative economy. It is pleasing that the document puts such great emphasis on the educational work of heritage bodies—after all, education should be intellectual access to the heritage.
English Heritage is enabling more than 500,000 school children a year to visit its properties free of charge on curriculum-based trips. It is also playing its part on the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. The National Trust tells us that 600,000 or more children visit its properties. I also commend the educational work of the Royal Parks Agency and the Historic Houses Association, among other bodies.
The Government rightly take pride in their commitment to the creative partnerships programme: a substantial investment of £40 million is being made in 16 disadvantaged areas of the country to enable all the different cultural organisations and presences to make a better contribution to educational opportunity for people in those areas. I also hope that culture online will become a reality, because the use of new technology provides us with important opportunities—as the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) has reminded us.
On social inclusion, I am pleased that the document states that a further document is to be produced by the Department on the built and historic environment, following its excellent publications on libraries and museums and social inclusion.
I also join the Government in paying tribute to the work of voluntary organisations in the heritage sector. Without the work of volunteers, we would have very little access to the heritage. It is pleasing that, as a development from the work of those involved in "Power of Place", a heritage link—a network of voluntary organisations—is being developed.
Several hon. Members have spoken about the importance of access to the heritage for disabled people. The disability rights taskforce—which I had the good fortune to be able to set up in 1997—and the Disability Rights Commission are attaching great importance to that. Heritage institutions and organisations need not be nervous about the requirements that they are expected to meet by 2004. The example that my hon. Friend the Minister gave of his trip up Johnson's canyon shows what one can do if one tries, using a little imagination, energy and skill.
The lottery distributors have been an extremely beneficial force. Since the beginning of their history, they have rightly insisted that it should be a condition of lottery funding that the projects that benefit from it provide access for disabled people.
Miss McIntosh: The right hon. Gentleman is in the unique position of having had experience on both sides

159WH
of the House. I am sure that he will join me in recognising that that was a Conservative contribution, the importance of which the Minister has admitted.
Alan Howarth: Absolutely. That is on the historical record, and the hon. Lady is entitled to draw our attention to it.
Can the Minister say whether English Heritage has picked up on my suggestion that it might be a good idea to offer prizes for the design of the physical aspects of access to heritage properties? There has been nervousness because it is seen as difficult to provide physical access in a style consistent with the heritage character or aesthetic quality of the property in question. I think that that fear is misplaced, but it would be helpful for English Heritage to offer examples of good practice, as I am sure it is doing, and encourage the development of good practice by offering prizes or some other recognition. Perhaps we might see something about that in the updated version of "Easy Access to Historic Properties". I congratulate the Historic Houses Association on its disability grant scheme. I am pleased that it is a member of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport's social inclusion working party.
Inhibitions on what my right hon. and hon. Friends at the DCMS are able to do derive mainly from the historic limitations on the Department's remit and budget. Several colleagues have mentioned this afternoon the Government's achievement in enabling free entry to the national museums and galleries. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) seemed to be a touch grudging on that subject. It was a civilised move, which has started to work very well. It was a passion of the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He deserves to be remembered as a great Secretary of State, but perhaps would want to be remembered for that achievement, above all.
I would like to praise others by name in connection with free entry to the national museums and galleries, including Sir Denis Mahon, a passionate campaigner for that and one of the country's great benefactors in his promise to donate pictures to the nation. The National Art Collections Fund campaigned vigorously for free entry and fully supported what we sought to do. It, too, during 100 years of history, has been an extraordinarily important benefactor to the nation. I also single out for special praise Ms Helen Donoghue, our adviser. She devised the technical scheme that, after many rigours, we were finally able to persuade the Treasury was acceptable and would work by way of modification of the value added tax regime. I should be delighted if, as the document suggests might be possible, free entry could be achieved to English Heritage properties, but such things are expensive.
I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends who are already thinking and negotiating hard over the new comprehensive spending review that it is the turn of the heritage and our museums and galleries to get a good crack of the whip. We have done very well for the arts and we must build on what has been achieved there. However, I would dearly love to see us do more in real terms to improve public funding for the heritage, museums and galleries.
160WH
Parts of the heritage have not traditionally been the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and it has not been funded to support them. What I want to say is in no sense a criticism of the Department but rather a statement of a problem. I think that we have yet to develop convincing policy on how local government can have better capacity to carry out its cultural responsibilities, which is crucial. We initiated local authority cultural strategies, and my memory may play me false, but I think that there is little, if anything, on that subject in "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future". Local authority cultural strategies will enable a better cohesion and integration of effort by local authorities in areas of policy that have an important bearing on culture, but they will still need to be funded.
Meanwhile, we have an important study, "Renaissance in the Regions: A New Vision for England's Museums", produced by Lord Evans of Temple Guiting and a group of colleagues commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. It is a new vision for England's museums. It is a pretty gritty and in many respects cheerless document, but it is an extremely important statement. I wanted that exercise carried out. Throughout my time at the Department, I was concerned about the relative impoverishment of local authorities, and their inadequate ability to provide the support that they needed and wanted to provide for their own museums and galleries.
"Renaissance in the Regions" notes that there are 1,860 registered museums in this country—I am not speaking of the national museums and galleries. Some are quite brilliant and have been splendidly supported by their local authorities. Some have been enabled by the lottery to achieve some exciting developments. Some are already proving to be catalysts for regeneration in their communities. The new gallery at Walsall has become legendary in that regard, and what Peter Jenkinson and the local authority in Walsall have done—as Councillor George Gill has done in Gateshead—shows what can be achieved where there is real vision, determination and ingenuity.
However, local authorities are experiencing great difficulty in doing what they would like to do. The Department was able to give some support in the regions. The designation challenge fund for museums was established in 1999, to provide £15 million over three years and has supported 62 collections throughout the country. Some very fruitful programmes have been funded by the Department for Education and Employment—now the Department for Education and Skills—achieving a great deal on the basis of good value for money. It is a caricature to contrast metropolitan brilliance with regional dinginess. Heaven knows, some of the metropolitan, national museums and galleries are still not finding life easy, and there have been brilliant achievements in the regions. However, there is an element of truth in that caricature.
"Renaissance in the Regions" reports that total core revenue funding provided by local authorities to museums and galleries in 1999–2000 was £118 million. That was the same in real terms as in 1995–96. According to the study, the total contribution by local authorities in 2000–01 was £219 million. That is not insignificant funding, but it is not nearly enough. "Renaissance in the

161WH
Regions" states the problems of the sector. There is fragmentation of effort and good practice is not being sustained. Because of the miserable salaries of staff in museums and galleries, it is difficult to sustain expertise and scholarship. There is no money for collecting, and there is all too little money for information and communication technology.
"Renaissance in the Regions" proposes the creation of a network of regional hubs: museums identified to become regional centres. It calls for investment via Resource for three years to enable those hubs to develop their capacity and strategic plans. The report proposes that the strategy should be supported by the lottery, foundations and the private sector. It says that the total sum that is required to fulfil the strategy is £267.2 million, not all from central Government. On top of that, additional money would be needed to give better support to area museums councils, for designated collections, to national museums and galleries to enable them to do more in partnership with regional museums and galleries, and to local authorities.
How, then, are we to fund local authorities to enable them better to undertake their responsibilities in the cultural dimension? They are under implacable pressure to spend more on social services, schools and police. Politically, it is practically impossible to raise council tax to find extra money for other projects, because of the gearing effect. Of course, shrewd local authorities invest where they can, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) said, but how can we strengthen their position?
Some people have proposed that there should be a standard spending assessment for culture. However, my friends in local government tell me that that is not a good idea: if local authorities are expected to spend an indicative amount on culture, those few authorities that are spending at a high level, perhaps more than indicated by the SSA, would come under pressure to spend down to the SSA, but the system would not compel authorities that are spending less to spend up. Should we introduce a statutory obligation on local authorities to support their museums and galleries in the way that they are required to support their libraries, as some have suggested? That is tempting, but as the history of our public library system during the past 30 or 40 years shows, the existence of a statutory obligation by no means guarantees spending on a sufficient scale.
The Department has been a victim of Treasury brutalism. To put it crudely, when we raised the issue, we were told that money for the DCMS would have to be cut if we wanted money for local authorities to support culture in their areas. It is a tragedy that the Treasury has operated a vendetta against local authority spending for so many years—since the mid-1970s, certainly. I do not believe that there would be any inflationary consequences in allowing local authorities, which are accountable to their electors, to make judgments about what they spend. As a principle of democracy, they should have that freedom.
In the main, the libraries and museums in our regional towns and cities were the product of the great age of municipal government pre-1914, when central Government did not presume to dictate to local government what it might or might not do. Be that as it
162WH
may, we are in the situation that we are in—but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will find a way to crack the problem.
To assist local authorities to take better care of the built heritage in their areas, I proposed that a fund should be created to which local authorities would submit bids for money to support heritage maintenance work—heritage housekeeping—all over the country, not only in the famous heritage towns and cities such as York, Bath and Winchester. They are wonderful places, but fine historic urban fabric in many other towns and cities as well is becoming tatty and is decaying because it is not possible for local authorities to provide grants to support refurbishment, and because private owners do not see that such work is necessary or sufficiently in their interest.
I believe that local authorities are eligible to bid for money from a £50 million fund provided for environmental projects from the new opportunities fund. My hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if that is wrong. That is a pathetically small sum, if we consider the number of local authorities in the country and the other calls on the fund. I do not think that it is referred to in "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future" but I should like to encourage my hon. Friend to secure a large increase in funding either from the new opportunities fund or from elsewhere.
In the document, the Government exhort local authorities to spend. They commend "character assessment", and they strongly commend the development of management plans for historic visitor attractions. My hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset, for Telford (David Wright) and for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) have spoken eloquently of the needs of the world heritage sites that they are proud to have in their areas. Developing those management plans is not cost free, and their implementation is certainly not cost free.
We are told that English Heritage is going to issue advice to local authorities on the care of heritage in their ownership. The heritage lottery fund has similarly noted that local authorities need to make a long-term commitment to the sustainability of heritage attractions. If access is to be maintained and improved there will be revenue consequences. As the heritage lottery fund reminds us, the lottery is not in a position to meet those liabilities, although there is an intriguing reference in "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future" to the heritage lottery fund combining revenue and capital elements in applications. I would be fascinated if the Minister were to tell us more about that.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has many partners. Indeed, its success and effectiveness depend on its collaboration with other Departments, institutions that operate at arm's length, and of course independent institutions. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions planning Green Paper tells us that there will be a review of the case for integrating the present array of planning controls into a single regime. I hope that the DCMS emerges from that process as the continuing champion of heritage. If it is not in the thick of the process, there are risks that other pressures will operate to the detriment of heritage.

163WH
I shall say a brief word about university museums and galleries. "Renaissance in the Regions" notes that the Arts and Humanities Research Board is investing twice as much as the area museum councils, which are short of money for that purpose, in university museums and galleries. That is an area in which we need collective decision making by the Government. The Department for Education and Skills is in the lead because we are discussing university museums and galleries, but I hope that my hon. Friends at the DCMS will do their best to ensure that the necessary assistance is provided. Our universities hold some of the country's great collections, and I should particularly like the VAT concession, which has already been extended to national museums and galleries to enable free entry, to be extended to universities. Technically that would not be difficult, because the schedule could be added to; it is a question of political will.
I shall say a word about our historic houses in private ownership. When I entered the DCMS in 1998, the atmosphere between the Treasury and the Historic Houses Association was edgy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) reminded us, it is a bedrock principle that, where grant or tax relief is provided, the quid pro quo must be access. There have been cases of abuse of conditional exemption by a small number of private owners. In the nether reaches of the Treasury, however, I found that a bit of the old class war was still going on. My hon. Friend the Minister would never countenance anything of this kind, but the Inland Revenue was adopting a crude, counter-productive attitude.
I sought to make the atmosphere more friendly and practical, and I appreciated the tribute that my hon. Friend the Minister paid to the private owners of our historic houses, which are one of the great glories of our heritage, for their architecture, their settings, their contents and their history. They are also a massively important asset to the tourism economy. They are significant employers. We cannot overstate the importance of tourism to the economy. The miserable events of last year underline that. Equally, we cannot overstate the importance of our historic houses to tourism. According to the British Tourist Authority, 73 per cent. of foreign tourists say that they want to visit historic houses. In 1999–2000 there were some 10.5 million visitors to these houses and many more to their grounds and other attractions.
The Historic Houses Association estimates that privately owned historic houses contribute some £1.6 billion to the tourism economy, but the owners face huge problems in maintaining their homes, which must be maintained to the highest standard. I do not know how many hon. Members, perhaps 20 years ago, saw an exhibition at the Victoria and Albert museum called "The Destruction of the English Country House". It told a dreadful story. Our generation must take the necessary steps to ensure that this great national treasure is properly conserved. As it is, some 26 per cent. of major repairs to historic houses are funded from sales of works of art. Only the other day, the Marquis of Bath announced that he would have to sell works of art at Longleat to set up a maintenance fund. That can be done once, twice, and in some houses even three times,
164WH
but what a terrible shame. If we continue down that track we will destroy what it is that tourists come to enjoy.
As we all know from our own household experience, it costs far more to repair and refurbish if a property is allowed to deteriorate. Then one has to rescue it. Because of the difficulties last year with foot and mouth and the American economy, quite a few owners of historic houses have had to defer repairs. We need to address that problem pretty urgently and energetically.
I am sure that it is accepted by both Government and Opposition that the private owner has a special understanding and commitment. He lives in the property. The fact that it is a lived-in house gives it a special character and makes people want to visit it. I wonder whether there is scope for the heritage lottery fund to relax its tough line on support for private owners of historic houses. Something has to be done to help. Grant aid covers only 10 per cent. of major repairs. I am advised that the English Heritage grant scheme has been suspended. One estate election, which was not originally designed for that purpose, but was the principal fiscal relief assisting maintenance, has been removed.
There is, so far, no VAT concession on repairs to secular buildings, but I am pleased to see that in "A Force for Our Future" the Government say that they will carefully consider the recommendation in "Power of Place" that there should be a single VAT rate of 5 per cent. on all building works. I am sure that that is right. It is certainly logical. The DCMS will need to box pretty clever to achieve it, though. It will be difficult politically. "A Force for Our Future" is less explicit on the problems of historic houses than is "Power of Place", but it is good to read that the Government fully endorse the increasing importance attached to the preventive maintenance of historic fabric.
If we accept that there is a public interest in the conservation of our historic houses, it follows that we must find better ways in public policy to support their conservation. Grants from the heritage lottery fund and English Heritage will be important, but the Government must introduce a new tax regime to help owners bear the cost of routine maintenance. That is the pattern that we find across most European countries. We must find a way to preserve these national assets without allowing an inappropriate private gain.
I am encouraged that following "Power of Place" a working group from the sector, the CBI and the Treasury is constructively examining the problem. We have come a long way from the atmosphere that prevailed in 1998 and it would be timely if changes could now be introduced. Because of the difficulties facing tourism, the conservation of our heritage assets is an essential national investment. Even for a capped amount of £10 million, a great deal could be done to transform the position for owners who act as stewards—wonderful stewards—for this part of our national heritage. Much as I applaud the Government's commitment to marketing our heritage to tourists throughout the world, we had better look after what we are marketing.
I have tested the patience of the Chamber, but I must also emphasise that churches and cathedrals are among the glories of our national heritage. I was

165WH
surprised—almost scandalised—to read in The Times of last Saturday that the Archbishop of Canterbury was reported to have said:
"It is scandalous that we"—
the Church of England—
"have to pay so much for buildings we have inherited on behalf of the nation."
Well, they are the property of the Church, and it is treated more favourably than some other owners.
It is fair to recognise that the Government described vividly and poignantly to the European Commission the predicament faced by small congregations when asked to cope with the large costs of restoration of the church fabric. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General wrote to the Commission proposing that there should be a reduction of VAT to 5 per cent. on repair bills to listed places of worship. However, according to The Times, the archbishop seemed to doubt whether that was really a matter for the European Union, and asked
"What is £100 million to the Government?"
That attitude is a little cavalier, given that £100 million is a lot to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as it is to most Departments faced with all the demands for public expenditure on good causes. It may be an error in reporting, but the archbishop was not reported as referring to the charitable relief on donations made by individuals or others to church maintenance funds.
The Times suggested that only as an afterthought did the archbishop acknowledge the Government's interim scheme to return in grant aid the difference in costs between VAT at 17.5 per cent. and VAT at 5 per cent. I note that the Department estimates that that is worth £30 million, while the archbishop said that it is worth only £10 million. Those are estimates, but whatever the amount, such a proposal was a generous and creative initiative by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope that the churches acknowledge it as such.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to quality. How can we ensure that the repairs to our listed churches will be of an adequate standard? In the mid-19th century, funding and enthusiasm for the repair and restoration of churches were relatively abundant, but too many of our Victorian forebears did hideous things. How will the DCMS and English Heritage ensure that, in the rush to get the work done in this window of opportunity from 2001 to 2003, shoddy and inappropriate work is not carried out to the precious fabric of our churches and cathedrals?
In addition to their physical fabric, our churches and cathedrals' musical heritage is precious to many of us and has been extraordinarily fruitful. When I was Minister for the Arts, I discussed the matter with a brace of deans of the Church of England and found that the Arts Council of England needed a little prodding to engage its interest. I believe that prodding is permissible under the arm's length principle and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say that progress has been made or that he will administer a further prod himself.
It is easy for Back Benchers and ex-Ministers to state problems; it is for present Ministers to negotiate solutions. There is a first-rate ministerial team at the Department. I applaud the Government's vision in the
166WH
document, their recognition of the diversity of our heritage, their affirmation of its profound value and their acceptance of their fundamental responsibility to support its perpetuation and to make possible improved access to it.
4.54 pm
Miss McIntosh: I am pleased to sum up on behalf of the Opposition. It is appropriate that this debate is held during the year of the golden jubilee. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), who obviously feels for his departure from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport after contributing so much while he was there.
We heard much about world heritage sites during the debate, and especially the Jurassic coast. I regret that the "Jurassic Park" expert, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), is no longer present.
In the general election campaign, the Conservative party pledged to create a jubilee fund to support churches, and community and village halls. I shall respond to points that were made by the right hon. Member for Newport, East and the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). I am sure that hon. Members and the Minister know about my ongoing campaign in both the European Parliament and the House, where I have persistently questioned the Second Church Estates Commissioner on the vexed question of the VAT rate for new build being different from that for repairs. I am mindful that the Chancellor said in a statement that grants would be given to make up the difference. I am sorry, but that is not good enough, because the situation costs our churches an enormous amount.
An article in The Independent on 14 December 2001 welcomed the publication of "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future", although it stated that a specific question remained. It said:
"the report falls short of a commitment to resolving one of the biggest problems raised by the heritage lobby—the imposition of 17.5 per cent. VAT on repairs to old buildings—from which new building work is exempt."
I stand by the questions that I asked the Minister during my introductory remarks, and I am sure that he will have had time to show me where the Vale of York entries are on the map.
I am sure that the House will be interested by the charges for entry to churches and cathedrals. At present, no church in the north charges for admission. However, as I said earlier, York minster is considering charging. Canterbury cathedral charges £3.50 for adults and £2.50 for children and concessions. St. Paul's cathedral charges £5.50 for adults, £4.50 for concessions and £2.50 for children. Westminster abbey charges £6 for adults, although concessionaries and children may enter for free. I urge the Minister to make urgent representations to the Chancellor on my point.
Of course, we have not heard from the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) this afternoon, although he made an interesting contribution during our debate on the Line of Route. He said:
"The reason why we believe in free access to museums is the same as the reason why we believe in free access to information and knowledge: museums and galleries are there to inform. The

167WH
same principle has never been applied to heritage sites … There is a difference in principle."—[Official Report, 31 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 508.]
Will the Minister confirm that there has been a substantial change of policy since that debate?
I have enjoyed our debate. The Jurassic coast expert—the hon. Member for South Dorset—referred to BP. I declare an interest, because I served an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship with BP, and I had the pleasure of visiting Poole during that. There is an impressive operation there, and the contribution that companies such as BP make to our heritage and environment should be greatly appreciated. We should recognise the emphasis that we should place on transport and available accommodation.
The access to quality projects was referred to by both the right hon. Member for Newport, East and the hon. Member for North Devon. I endorse their comments wholeheartedly. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) called for a comprehensive management plan, and there is some sense in that. The House will bow to his experience in local government and to his suggestions for opening up heritage sites in that way. The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), who told us that we were having a world heritage site jamboree this afternoon, referred to flooding in the gorge. I sympathise, having had experience of such problems. Most of Vale of York seems to have been built on a flood plain, and all too often we have floods that destroy tourism.
Tourism is big business, as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has said. It employs 2.1 million people in the United Kingdom, and contributes £75 billion to our economy. As the Minister and other hon. Members said, and as I am painfully aware from the experience of my husband's business, the events of 11 September, the flooding of November 2000, the foot and mouth crisis and—in my part of the world—the two disasters on the railways on the east coast have had a mega-impact on attracting foreign visitors. I hope that any initiative that the Government take will help to restore our confidence, which has been damaged. Graphic pictures were shown in our media and then fed to foreign media, and that alone showed the lack of confidence in the industry. Anything that can be done to restore confidence is welcome, and the British Tourist Authority is making tremendous efforts in that regard.
The right hon. Member for Newport, East paid tribute to the work of owners of private houses and country homes. The Minister and I both sat on the Committee that debated a statutory instrument on the future of Apsley house. During today's debate, it came to my attention that Mr. Compton, the new owner of Newby hall in my constituency, would also add his weight to my plea for representations to be made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give historic buildings the fiscal relief that we all recognise is so urgently needed for their maintenance.
No one is asking the Government to intervene in circumstances such as those of Mr. Compton, but private house owners are the caretakers of our national heritage for the future. It is not just the Historic Houses Association and private owners but, as hon. Members have said, English Heritage, the National Trust and many other organisations that keep our national heritage for future generations.
168WH
I referred earlier to the Thomas the Tank Engine exhibition at York's national railway museum. I hope that the Minister understands the anomaly in that case; the museum felt moved to introduce charges two months after admission prices were scrapped because Thomas the Tank Engine was a major, costly exhibition and was going to cost £250,000. The museum had to cater for the sheer volume of visitors and the extra cleaning, maintenance and staffing involved. It recognised that, generally, loss of income from adult tickets would be compensated by the Government, but it was allowed to charge on that occasion.
I should like to join in congratulating those responsible for working towards opening up our heritage to visitors. I leave the Minister with the thought that there will be an impact on sites that would be made free to certain categories—children and others—under his proposals. In particular, we must ponder the future of our churches and other magnificent buildings which future generations should enjoy.
5.3 pm
Dr. Howells: We have had an excellent and informative debate, which was much longer than I thought it would be. I have learned a great deal. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, Baroness Blackstone, as the issues under discussion are her ministerial responsibilities. She took over from my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), who was Minister for the Arts until June 2001, and, shortly, I will try to deal with some of the issues that he raised.
The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) was grudging about the effect of free entry to museums. I was going to read her a long official response to that, but I have decided not to do so. Instead, I will say that I came from a town that did not possess a museum or an art gallery, but I was passionately interested in art, and I discovered and developed that interest because I could walk to the national museum of Wales—which was 22 miles south of where I lived—to see one of the greatest collections of impressionist paintings in the world, the Gwendoline Davies bequest. That inspired me, and it must also have inspired thousands of kids like me.
I am sure that all the hon. Members who are present could tell similar stories. Such exposure to something that is different and fine and lasting—that is an example of creative excellence—is an invaluable lesson to all of us. It adds richness to our lives in a way that hardly anything else can.
We can deal with the technicalities of cost, and we can discuss whether we can persuade the Treasury—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East urges us to do—that experiences such as that which I described are food for the soul. As he said, when we look back and try to understand what we have inherited, that which we deem to be valuable is often a result of pursuits that were not highly regarded at the time they were produced.
I have been appalled at some of the things that my Government have done—and that they did even when I was a Minister in the Department—with regard to stressing the need for utilitarianism in the way we educate our children. I do not agree that, somehow, maths is more important than art, or English is more

169WH
important than dramatic expression or dance or music. Often, we measure past societies with regard to their artistic achievements—and we consider them to be at least as important as their scientific or engineering achievements.
Miss McIntosh: I did not wish the Minister or his right hon. Friend to think that I am being grudging. The tone of my comments can be put down to my being a canny, cautious Scot who, at the end of the day, wants to know what the bottom line is.
I was brought up 25 miles from Darlington, where Stephenson's Rocket was on display, as Darlington to Stockton was its original route, and I was greatly disappointed when it was moved to the national railway museum in York—even though that is closer to where I am now based.
Dr. Howells: Absolutely; I agree with the hon. Lady's sentiments.
I return to some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East—he made so many of them that I have about eight pages of notes.
I have forgotten how my right hon. Friend described the sense of preciousness, but I will try to remember. He called it a kind of paranoia. He described our paranoia about change as a touch of the neurotic. That is true, but it is curious that that sense of paranoia also has a valuable edge.
The hon. Member for Vale of York talked about railways. I was born and raised nearby the world's first industrial railway.
Miss McIntosh: Darlington to Stockton was the first.
Dr. Howells: No. That is yet another English imperialist fib. The first industrial railway ran from Abercynon to Merthyr Tydfil. It was built by a Cornishman—Richard Trevithick. He brought the iron down from the blast furnaces of Merthyr to Abercynon, from where it was carried by canal to Cardiff.
My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) and I could have a row about where the first industrial site in the world was. I suspect that it was probably on the outskirts of Cairo, or whatever it was called in those days. As far as Britain is concerned, it was probably Merthyr. He will not agree with me, of course.
I appreciate what the hon. Member for Vale of York says. Whatever we do about free entry, we must ensure that it is sustainable. The worst thing in the world would be for us to take it away now that it has been introduced. She is right. We must measure it and prove that it is having a big effect on the numbers of people who visit museums. If it encourages people from the parts of our society who at the moment do not visit museums and galleries, we must consider that carefully, because I am worried about that.
This afternoon we heard some wonderful contributions, in particular about the natural and the built industrial environment. Historic tramways have been tarmacked over in my own patch. What I received as a result of what my parents, grandparents and great-grandparents told me about the significance of piles of
170WH
stones and rocks is gone or going from collective memory, because of philistinism. We have great people in local government, but we have others who cannot understand why we should pay any attention to such matters. As a result, such places have become not sites of heritage but places to dump stolen, burnt-out cars and to fly-tip, and the piles of stones have no historic significance. That is an enormous tragedy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East drew attention to the exhibition at the V and A that took place at least 20 years ago. We are both a bit long in the tooth now, but I remember it well. It was about a great tragedy, and it opened my eyes to the way in which, from the 1890s onwards, Americans came over, bought our heritage and took it back with them, because their economy was booming. As the excellent representatives of the Historic Houses Association explained to me yesterday, they did so because of the drop in farm prices, which is interesting, considering current circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) has gone to speak in the debate on environmental taxation, which is important, as I am sure his neighbour, the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), would agree. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset referred to ensuring access to the natural historical environment, and he is right. He drew to our attention important points about the need for transportation systems that do not damage the environment that we are trying to protect. He also made some interesting comments about how it might be possible to raise the standard of accommodation, something that troubles me greatly. We have some of the best hotels in the world in this country, but we also have a long tail of underperformers. We are about to spend a huge amount on marketing Britain abroad, and England inside Britain. We cannot afford to persuade people to come here, and British people to spend a weekend at a hotel, perhaps somewhere near Ironbridge, and for them to get a bad deal. That would be squandering money. They are used to asking the travel agent for a four-star hotel in Lanzarote, and more or less knowing what they are going to get.
As ever, the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) made a thoughtful contribution. As he knows, I believe that north Devon is one of the most wonderful parts of Europe. It has the most marvellous scenery. To go somewhere such as Lundy—I do not know whether he represents Lundy—which has a very nice boozer and some good heritage beer is to go to a place that is full of history. It is an extraordinary spot, where much good work has gone on. The hon. Gentleman has properly talked, as did other hon. Members, about the Historic Houses Association. He might like to know that DCM S is now in the process of appointing the Earl of Leicester to the English Heritage Commission. To ensure that the voice of the Historic Houses Association is heard first-hand in the agencies and chambers where decisions are made is one way of moving forward.
The hon. Member for North Devon drew our attention to something very important: the increasing access afforded by putting some of our great collections online. That is terrific and it is tremendous to see so many museums, agencies and galleries doing it. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with me—I increasingly sound like a raving reactionary, the older I get—if I say that there is something wonderful about standing in

171WH
front of the real thing. I went to see the American Sublime exhibition at Tate Britain. To stand in front of a painting 12 ft wide by 5 ft high is something else. It is not the same thing even to have a 6 ft flat screen. However, I know what the hon. Gentleman means, and it will be great for young people, schools, colleges, researchers and those who cannot get to galleries to have collections online.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) gave a wonderful description of the Derwent Valley Mills world heritage site. It is a wonderful area, superb for anyone interested in industrial archaeology and architecture. I know the importance of the lobbying work that he and so many others did on that.
My hon. Friend made an eloquent plea for co-ordinating a consistent approach across Government Departments in ensuring, albeit on a site-by-site basis, access to and protection of heritage sites, both built and natural. He was quite right about that and I shall ensure that his contribution in today's debate is brought to the attention of colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and other relevant Departments. As he asks, we take very seriously the discharge of our obligations, and the world heritage site status that means that the UK is answerable internationally for the preservation of our sites. He is right to raise that matter, but we do not take the responsibility lightly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Telford mentioned the Ironbridge Gorge world heritage site, which I think was the first in Britain. That was a great achievement. The iron bridge is a masterpiece of human genius. I think that it is as wonderful a bridge as has ever been built anywhere in the world. It laid the way to the excellence in design that was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East and has inspired generations of designers, architects and engineers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East mentioned the large numbers of visitors coming to our sites and the need for a proper, sustainable approach in developing and protecting them. Unlike anyone else in the debate, he spoke about the problems of living on such a site. What I found most attractive about Ironbridge is the fact that people live there. It is very much a living environment, as is the Dorset coast. In a sense, the conflict between ensuring that people can lead productive lives and ensuring that somehow they can have a relationship with the environment that does not endanger it is a tension that is to be welcomed and not held back. I would hate to see the depopulation of those areas. The hon. Member for Vale of York and my right hon. Friend reminded us of the dangers of flooding. We must think about that when we work out revenue requirements to ensure that protection is sustained.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East brought his great experience as Minister for the Arts to the debate, and he was as thoughtful and incisive as ever. He challenged us to think about many issues, none of which was more important than a comment that he threw out at the beginning of his contribution. He said that we should have ministerial champions for architecture and design, and that such champions
172WH
should roam across Departments challenging whether what we are doing enhances British, and world, design and architecture. He is absolutely right. All of us in the Chamber are debating the excellence of bygone ages, which is the truth of the matter.
Look at our lifetimes—I am probably older than my right hon. Friend, judging by the look of his hair—and see the dreadful mess that we have made of some of our urban centres. That was driven by the most awful kind of utilitarianism and notions that assumed that somehow society would take care of itself. The great debates about quality of life in society dropped away, along with architectural and design criteria such as excellence, beauty, the sublime and architecture and design's relationship with the environment within which they exist. Those ideas became so unfashionable for such a long time that the philistines triumphed, but their triumph has not been permanent.
We have seen real changes in the past 15 years. I remember being castigated 13 years ago for standing up in the House and saying that I hoped that Wales would not end up looking like Reading, West. Every time I had driven up from south Wales along the M4, I had seen an ever spreading red presence of what looked like Noddy architecture. The next thing I knew I was summoned to Reading by Reading city council, which sharply informed me that it was Labour controlled. It asked whether I had ever set foot in Reading. It took me around and showed me what it was doing with the canalsides and riversides, and how it was desperately trying to ensure that Reading became a good place to live. It has done some great things there. That taught me never to judge a town from the motorway.
I hoped that my comments would spark a great debate about not only what we have done to our town centres but how we design our suburbs and communities. We have a long way to go, and we are probably still driven by a utilitarian desire to build the most for the least amount of money, rather than concentrating on the quality of people's lives.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East mentioned a staggering figure, which I did not know, saying that the Government spend £24 billion a year on building.
Miss McIntosh: May I momentarily drag the Minister back from Reading to respond to the point that several right hon. and hon. Members have raised about the Historic Houses Association and the vexed question of tax?
Dr. Howells: I am sorry if I have been rambling. I was starting to enjoy the debate. It reminded me of the days when I was in opposition and we used to talk things out.
Just before I come to that, I wish to comment on the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East that English Heritage should offer prizes for designs to improve access to heritage properties. That is an excellent idea. I have not heard anything about it, nor have I been advised that the Department knows about it, but I will certainly follow it up. It sounds like a very good scheme. He also paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for the sterling work that he did, such as ensuring free access to museums.

173WH
On historic houses—I have to jump past several pages of notes that I took during the debate—I understand that the heritage lottery fund has been consulting about that and other issues in preparing a new strategic plan for 2002–07, which will be laid before Parliament at the end of April. We look forward to seeing the heritage lottery fund trustees' responses in the new plan, but I cannot give the hon. Member for Vale of York or my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East any news beyond that. However, I shall undertake to speak to my noble Friend the Minister for the Arts to ensure that the response is given the publicity that it requires.
I would like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. In the couple of minutes that are left, I would like to respond to a question about churches and listed places of worship. As several speakers made clear, our cathedrals and churches are a very important part of the nation's heritage, and many are especially important to local communities. I am sure that others in this Chamber have visited Suffolk, as I have. It has wonderful churches but
174WH
nothing whatever to support them as great tourist attractions. That is a shame. Together with the Church, we must think hard about how we can offer support.
The listed places of worship grant scheme has come into effect. It allows eligible repairs to listed places of worship to benefit from the equivalent of a reduced rate of VAT. It will have clear community benefits and has been welcomed by those who are responsible for such buildings. It will constitute a substantial increase in support for the historic environment: current estimates suggest that about £30 million a year of new money could go to listed places of worship.
That will be a big help, but much more is needed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East urged, I hope that we can convince the Treasury that the cause is absolutely vital, not only to protect our heritage but to encourage the creativity, good design and excellence that we need from our young people now and in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Five o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Non-Governmental Organisations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [39184]

  Clare Short
  We have offered funding support to the following organisations in the south-west during the financial year 2001–02.

  Contract

  £

  Capita RAS

  Recruitment consultants for Pillar IV of United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo

  180,000

  Open recruitment exercise for DFID

  15,101

  Capital Business Service

  Ethiopia police development assistance programme

  1,204,616

  Capita Grosvenor Ltd.

  Assistance with resource accounting and budgeting overview training

  34,377

  Efficiency scrutiny of accounts department

  34,050

  Angola
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Angola, with particular respect to children; and if she will make a statement. [39610]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian consequences of the continuing conflict in Angola are appalling. The forced displacement of people by both sides continues, with children and other vulnerable groups bearing the brunt of the suffering. The death of Jonas Savimbi may provide a chance for the Government and UNITA to make a lasting peace and we urge both sides to respond to this opportunity. The UK has contributed £2.5 million in the last year to the humanitarian relief effort through UN agencies and NGOs, as well as our contribution through the EU.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people were employed in a press or public relations function in her Department on 1 January in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [39942]

  Clare Short
  We currently employ four press officers, and this number of posts has remained the same since January 1997. We also have small teams working
  466W

  £

  Action on Disability and Development

  422,908

  Action for Conservation through Tourism

  83,030

  African Initiatives

  62,695

  Motivation

  28,815

  Resources Project

  34,330

  Development Education in Dorset

  95,005

  GLADE Global and Development Education

  16,095

  Gloucestershire Development Education Centre

  105,333

  Cornish Association for Development Education

  4,875

  Somerset Goes Global, county council

  99,120

  Gloucestershire county council

  17,000

  Gloucester Development Education Centre

  31,674

  The total amount of funding offered for 2001–02 is £1,011,086.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Department. [39346]

  Clare Short
  The information requested is in the table.

  to raise awareness and understanding of international development issues through educational work, publications, policy forums and other related activities.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many press releases were issued by her Department(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b)in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40036]

  Clare Short
  The number of press releases issued is as follows:

  Number issued

  19971

  47

  1998

  74

  1999

  82

  2000

  29

  2001

  38

  1 May to December

  South Africa
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with Ministers in the South African Government with regard to the HIV/AIDS situation in South Africa. [40662]
  467W
  Clare Short
  During my last visit to South Africa in October 2001, I met Deputy President Jacob Zuma, who heads the South African National AIDS Council (SANAC) to discuss the HIV/AIDS situation in South Africa. I also discussed the situation with former President Nelson Mandela.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to provide support and assistance to the Nations Trust in South Africa. [40661]

  Clare Short
  My Department has no plans to provide support and assistance to the Nations Trust in South Africa.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent meetings her Department(a) has had and (b) proposes to have with the Nations Trust in South Africa. [40660]

  Clare Short
  My Department has had no meetings with the Nations Trust in South Africa. No such meetings are planned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Breast-Feeding
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if she will make a statement about breast-feeding facilities in the House. [41788]

  Mrs. Roe
  The Administration Committee recommended to Mr. Speaker that the House should give a lead to the country in promoting breast-feeding by allowing mothers to feed their babies wherever it is appropriate to them in the Palace of Westminster and associated buildings; that suitable, non-toilet facilities should be made available for feeding babies; and that staff should be provided with information in order that they can answer queries from breast-feeding mothers about available facilities.

  On the Speaker's instructions the Serjeant at Arms has undertaken a comprehensive study with a view to improving the facilities that are available in the House for nursing mothers. The study has identified a number of improvements. I will ask the Administration Committee to examine these at its next meeting with a view to recommending early implementation.

  Mr. Speaker has informed the Committee that, after undertaking broadly-based consultations within the House, he has decided to make no change to the current regulations under which breast-feeding is not permitted in the Chamber, in Committees or in the public galleries.

  A copy of Mr. Speaker's letter and details of the improvements identified by the Sergeant at Arms have been placed in the Library.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many days were added to the pay of the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards after 1 January. [40199]
  468W
  Mr. Kirkwood
  Details of pay for any individual employed by the House of Commons Commission are confidential. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous reply to him, 27 January 2002,Official Report, column 1277W.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on how and when the Commission first had the information that the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was not being paid for every day she was working. [39629]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 2 May 2001,Official Report, columns 640–41W. The House as a good employer would always wish to ensure that work done is properly remunerated. Arrangements to reimburse the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards were made administratively following claims submitted by her, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) informed the House on 13 February 2002, Official Report, column 267.

TREASURY

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the expenditure of the excess surplus in the National Insurance Fund for each of the past four years. [41278]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Any balance in the Fund is invested. Estimates of the income from investments in specific years are given in the Government Actuary's annual report on the level of the Fund.

  Taxation
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the tax burden was in real terms at the end of financial years(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2000–01. [40833]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Historical series of net taxes and social security contributions as a per cent. of GDP are available in table B22 of the November 2001 pre-Budget report.

  Euro
  David Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value of euro-based transactions in the United Kingdom since the introduction of the currency. [41421]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have not made any estimate of the value of euro-based transactions in the UK.

  It is entirely a commercial decision for UK business to determine whether or not they wish to accept the euro or any other foreign currency.

  Guaranteed Equity Bond
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the accounting arrangements are for National Savings and Investments' Guaranteed Equity Bond [41860]
  469W
  Ruth Kelly
  As with most other National Savings and Investments instruments, the Guaranteed Equity Bond is a liability of the National Loans Fund (NLF). In order to avoid exposing the Exchequer to movements in equity prices, a matching equity index swap is being executed on the Debt Management Account (DMA) and managed by the debt management office.

  Both NLF and DMA accounting officers are content that appropriate risk management processes are in place and that, overall, the GEB will provide cost-effective financing for the Government that is consistent with National Savings and Investments' primary role.

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether capital expenditure on London Underground by means of(a) private sector companies and (b) bond funding raised by London Underground falls within the general Government financial deficit; whether such capital expenditure is included in the public sector borrowing requirement; and if he will make a statement. [34901]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Capital expenditure by London Underground Ltd. (LUL), financed by its own borrowing, would increase public sector net borrowing. It would not increase general Government net borrowing because LUL is a public corporation: these are outside general Government but inside the public sector.

  In accordance with generally accepted accounting practice, capital invested in London Underground (LUL) by the private sector would not count as public expenditure, and would not be included in the public sector net borrowing, if LUL's accountants and auditors judged that the assets should be off LUL's balance sheet. If the accountants judged it was on balance sheet then it would count as public expenditure and be included in public sector net borrowing. The PPP saves £2 billion of public money over the first 15 years of the contracts, in comparison to funding the same projects through conventional public investment. The plans will mean £16 billion of investment over the next 15 years.

  Advertising
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the expenditure was per campaign for the five most expensive media advertising campaigns his Department undertook in the past five parliamentary Sessions including the current parliamentary Session in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland; and for the last two parliamentary Sessions and the current Session, when each advertising campaign (i) began and (ii) ended in (A) Scotland, (B) England, (C) Wales and (D) Northern Ireland; [37400]

  (2) what the cost was of media advertising in each of the past five parliamentary Sessions including the current Session, for his Department in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland; and for the last two parliamentary Sessions and the current parliamentary Session, what the media advertising expenditure was per month in (i) England, (ii) Wales and (iii) Northern Ireland. [37412]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 423W, and also to the answer given to the then hon. Member for
  470W
  Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) on 18 May 2000, Official Report, column 258W, by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

  As to further breakdown of expenditure, such figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Lakshmi Mittal
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason(a) Mr. Lakshmi Mittal and (b) LNM Holdings do not pay tax in the United Kingdom. [38399]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Under Section 182 of the Finance Act 1989 the Inland Revenue cannot comment on the tax position of particular individuals or companies.

  Foreign Nationals (Tax Status)
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will implement his plan to end non-domiciled tax status for foreign nationals resident in the UK. [38772]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor keeps all aspects of the tax system under review.

  Staff Promotion
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the criteria are for the promotion of staff in HM Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland who have served less than one year in their previous job band. [40402]

  Mr. Boateng
  The criteria for the promotion of staff in HM Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland vary depending on the specific job requirements, as defined in the role profile for each job, and the business requirements which the vacancy seeks to address.

  Staff serving less than one year in their current job band may apply for a post in a higher job band providing they meet the criteria for the post and their conduct, performance and attendance clearly meet the required standards. In a promotional situation no time in band restriction applies.

  Smaller Quoted Companies
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the barriers to institutional and retail investment in smaller quoted companies. [40247]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A number of assessments have been made. The Government commissioned the Myners Review in 2000 to look at factors that may be distorting the investment decision-making of institutions. The Review reported in March 2001 and found weaknesses in the investment process that affected all quoted companies, including smaller quoted companies. In addition, a working group on smaller quoted companies was set up in August 1998 and reported to the Treasury in October 1998. The Department of Trade and Industry also participated in two tranches of work dealing with SQC issues with findings from both published in 1999.
  471W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a platform to encourage a wider shareholder base actively interested in investing in smaller quoted companies has been established. [40254]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 1995 the London stock exchange created the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). This has helped to create a focus to encourage investor interest in smaller quoted companies with growth potential. Over 850 companies have used AIM since it was created. The Government have taken further steps to encourage investment in smaller quoted companies by introducing attractive capital gains tax taper relief for investors investing in AIM.

  Tax Losses
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax losses due to tax-free non-domicile status in each of the last three full financial years, distinguishing between the general categories of taxation. [40562]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Individuals who are not domiciled here are liable on UK income and gains as they arise and on overseas income and gains which are remitted or brought to this country.

  Any estimate of comparative tax yield would depend on what it was assumed would apply in place of the current rules.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in his Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40437]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury officials' travel is carried out in accordance with Paragraph 8.2.1. of the 'Civil Service Management Code'.

  Pensioners
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total cost to the Exchequer of NIC rebates for those contracting out of the state earnings related pension scheme; and if he will provide separate estimates for(a) employees and (b) employers, identifying within each subtotal the rebates applicable in the case of (i) salary-related schemes and (ii) money-purchase schemes. [40766]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is contained in the "Report by the Government Actuary on the Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 2002 and the Social Security Contributions Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments 2002" (Cm 5383).

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent of the gender pay gap among staff in his Department. [40990]

  Ruth Kelly
  In response to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) task force "Just Pay" report, the Government have committed Departments and agencies to review their pay systems by April 2003 and prepare action plans to close any equal pay gaps. The Cabinet 472W
  Office issued comprehensive guidance in January 2002 to assist Departments and agencies in carrying out these reviews. All Departments and agencies have until April 2003 to complete an equal pay review and prepare the necessary action plans to close any equal pay gaps.

  The Inland Revenue has begun analysing its pay systems with a view to identifying any gender pay gaps. HM Treasury will shortly be developing their strategy for carrying out the review. HM Customs and Excise will be carrying out an equal pay audit during 2002.

  Inflation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the basket of items used to calculate inflation was last reviewed; and what changes were made. [40941]

  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. John Bercow, dated 7 March 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking when the basket of items used to calculate inflation was last reviewed; and what changes were made. I am replying in his absence.
  The Retail Prices Index (RPI) is the main domestic measure of inflation in the UK. In order to keep the RPI basket representative of consumer spending patterns it is reviewed and updated annually.
  The RPI basket was last updated in February 2001. The changes were published in a News Release on 19th March 2001, the day before the publication of the February 2001 RPI figures. I enclose a copy of this News Release, which is also available on the National Statistics website.
  The next changes to the basket will be announced in a News Release on the 18th March 2002, one day before the publication of the February 2002 RPI figures. The News Release will be available on the ONS website at www.statistics.gov.uk.

  Open Market Annuity Options
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publicise open market annuity options to savers and financial advisers. [40890]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA already draw the attention of annuitants to the advantages of the open market option in their explanatory material for those buying a pension annuity.

  In addition, the FSA has consulted recently on proposals that firms should be obliged to tell their personal pensions customers, at an appropriate time before their retirement, that their annuities can be bought from a different provider firm. This proposal is designed to ensure that consumers are made aware of their right to shop around to get the best annuity deal on offer to suit their circumstances.

  The FSA's consultation process (which started in August 2001) recently closed. The FSA plans to publish the results of the exercise, with its decisions on next steps, shortly.
  473W
  The Association of British Insurers (ABI) issued, also in August 2001, a "Statement of Good Practice for Pension Maturities".

  The ABI standards give further detail about how in practice provider firms offering pension saving and income products should communicate with their customers. The guidelines should ensure that customers are more aware of the choices available to them when they begin their retirement, and are thus able to make more educated choices.

  The Modernising Annuities consultation paper published by the Inland Revenue and Department for Work and Pensions in February 2002 also explains how exercising the open market option can help pensioners get better value from their pension savings. It discusses how those benefits might be more widely understood, and whether there are any further steps that might be taken to encourage people to use the open market option. The Government are keen that those with an interest think creatively about this and other ways that the annuities market might be made to work better, and would encourage those with views to submit responses to the consultation.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the availability of staff at the Contributions Agency to people calling by telephone; and if he will make a statement. [41280]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the time taken by the Contributions Agency to provide information; and if he will make a statement. [41281]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to page 112 of the Inland Revenue's annual report for the year ending 31 March 2001, which was presented to Parliament by the Paymaster General in December 2001.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the accuracy and consistency of information provided by the Contributions Agency; and if he will make a statement. [41279]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to pages 111 and 112 of the Inland Revenue's annual report for the year ending 31 March 2001, which was presented to Parliament by the Paymaster General in December 2001.

  Spirits Frauds
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies he has commissioned into the experience of other countries in using tax stamps to deter and prevent spirits frauds. [40860]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise are considering a wide range of issues as part of their on-going consultation on the costs, benefits and practicalities of introducing a tax stamps system, including the experience of other countries.

DEFENCE

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans a further call-out of members of the reserve forces; and if he will make a statement. [41787]

  Dr. Moonie
  In order to sustain military operations against terrorism, up to 49 members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force will be called out compulsorily next month under the call-out order made on 11 October 2001 and Section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. The majority of those called out will undertake aircraft movements duties at the air transport main operating bases in the UK.

  In addition, a new call-out order has been made under Section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to continue to be called out to support operations in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This took effect from 2 March 2002, the date the previous order expired. Only reservists who volunteer will be called out under this order.

  We continue to call out members of the reserve forces to support operations in the Balkans and the no-fly zones in the region of Iraq; overall they make a very valuable contribution to our operational requirements.

  HMS Fearless
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his plans are for HMS Fearless; and if he will make a statement. [41862]

  Mr. Ingram
  After over 36 years, HMS Fearless, the last steam-driven surface ship in the Royal Navy, will be withdrawn from service upon her return from a successful deployment on operations in support of the campaign against international terrorism later this month.

  Her replacement HMS Albion will commence sea trials later in the year, before entering service in January 2003. HMS Albion and her sister ship HMS Bulwark, which on current plans will enter service towards the end of 2003, will be significantly more capable than their predecessors HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid.

  The new vessels represent a major step forward in the modernisation of our amphibious shipping called for the strategic defence review. They will be equipped with vastly more sophisticated command, control and communication systems. They will also be able to deploy embarked forces much more quickly—by air and sea—and will use landing craft with 20 per cent. more landing capability and a Ro-Ro type configuration for rapid embarkation of vehicles.

  Plans for the disposal of HMS Fearless are currently under review.

  Chemical/Biological Weapons
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much expenditure he has incurred in the(a) dismantling, (b) management and (c) verification of (i) chemical and (ii) biological weapons in the states of the former Soviet Union since 1996. [40574]
  475W
  Mr. Hoon
  As part of Spending Review 2000, the Government decided to make available up to £12 million over the three years 2001–02 to 2003–04 for assistance to Russia with chemical weapon demilitarisation and biological non-proliferation projects. We have given priority to assistance with chemical weapons destruction, where we plan to support the provision of infrastructure which is needed for the construction and operation of the major chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuch'ye. An essential pre-requisite to allow this work to proceed was negotiation of a legally-binding agreement with the Russian Federation. Following extensive negotiations, I signed the agreement in London on 20 December on behalf of the Government. Dr. Pak, Director-General of the Russian Munitions Agency, signed on behalf of the Russian Federation. We hope to conclude negotiations shortly on the necessary Implementation Arrangement which will allow our first project to proceed in the near future, subject to agreement of contract. Our first project will be to provide a water supply for the destruction facility, which will also benefit the local population. As a result of the need first to complete these sets of negotiations, it has not yet been possible to start implementation of assistance projects. Expenditure of some £250K has been incurred to date on setting up the assistance programme.

  Verification of the destruction of chemical weapons in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention is the responsibility of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in the Hague. There are no agreed provisions for the verification of biological weapons.

  The Ministry of Defence monitors the biological and chemical weapons capabilities of all relevant states. The costs of such monitoring in relation to the states of the former Soviet Union can not be separately identified.

  War Graves (Somme)
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the French Government regarding the impact on war graves of the revised proposals to build an international airport on the Somme. [41457]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 166W to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson).

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many answers to parliamentary questions have not been answered by his Department under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in each year since 1994. [29417]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 January 2002): Records are not kept of the number of occasions on which Defence Ministers have not been able to answer parliamentary questions wholly or in part on grounds of commercial confidentiality. This information could be extracted from the thousands of answers given in a typical year only at disproportionate cost.

  European Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many uniformed staff will be allocated full-time to duties connected with the European rapid reaction force. [38944]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no standing European rapid reaction force. EU member states have identified a pool of forces from which units could be drawn as necessary for EU-led operations. Forces would be assembled only for the duration of any mission.

  Non-Governmental Organisations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list non-governmental 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. [39190]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am therefore unable to provide a substantive answer under the terms of Exemption 9 (voluminous and vexatious requests) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Defence Projects
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is(a) the estimated total project cost, (b) the total expenditure to date and (c) the planned expenditure in each of the next three years on (i) the Conventionally Armed Stand-Off Missile project, (ii) the Hercules C130J project, (iii) the Spearfish Heavyweight Torpedo project, (iv) the Astute Class Submarine project, (v) the Nimrod Maritime Reconnaissance and Attack MK4 project, (vi) the Attack Helicopter project, (vii) the Merlin HM MK1 Maritime Helicopter project and (viii) the Eurofighter project; [41268]

  (2) what is (a) the estimated total project cost, (b) the total expenditure to date and (c) the planned expenditure for each of the next three years on the (i) Sting Ray Lightweight Torpedo Life Extension project, (ii) Seawolf Mid-Life Update project, (iii) Swiftsure and Trafalgar Class Submarine Update project, (iv) Merlin MK 3 Helicopter project, (v) Loading Platform Dock (Replacement) project, (vi) Extended Range Ordnance/Modular Change System project, (vii) Airborne Stand-off Radar project, (viii) Advanced Shortrange air-to-air missile project, (ix) High Velocity Missile project and (x) Tornado Mid-Life Update project. [41193]

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

  Departmental Underspends
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by how much his Department underspent its expenditure limits in the financial year 2000–01. [40829]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence underspend against the Departmental Expenditure Limit in financial year 2000–01 was £73 million, less than 0.4 per cent. of the budget for the year. This outcome reflects sound forecasting and management action in the year.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Recycling
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she has made an assessment of the cost of implementing the Government's recycling strategy. [38003]

  Mr. Meacher
  Regulatory impact assessments are developed by the Department to assess the costs and benefits of proposed measures to increase recycling. These RIAs are published in consultation documents and are available on the DEFRA website http://www.defra.gov.uk/.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contribution she expects the commercial composting of household waste to make in reaching recycling targets. [38018]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government and the National Assembly have set challenging targets in "Waste Strategy 2000" to recycle or compost at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005. We hope that composting will play a major role in helping local authorities reach these targets.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received regarding the implementation of the EU directive on the recycling of refrigerators. [38023]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have received a number of representations about the EC regulation on substances that deplete the ozone layer. The representations have mostly been from local authorities regarding funding; from retailers about take-back on delivery systems; and from the waste management industry about technical and environmental standards for storage and treatment of refrigerators.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to prepare for implementation of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. [38024]

  Mr. Meacher
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy has the lead responsibility for negotiating the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. However, Ministers and officials in both Departments have been working together closely. An initial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) was placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 7 December 2000. A revised RIA is likely to be ready later this month. Both Departments have had significant dialogue with business throughout the negotiation of the directive and will continue this process during the remaining stages of negotiation and while devising implementing regulations.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost of implementing the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. [38025]

  Mr. Meacher
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy has the lead responsibility for negotiating the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. However, Ministers and officials in both Departments have been working together closely. An initial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) was placed 478W
  in the Libraries of both Houses on 7 December 2000. A revised RIA is likely to be ready later this month. Both Departments have had significant dialogue with business throughout the negotiation of the directive and will continue this process during the remaining stages of negotiation and while devising implementing regulations. Based on the principle of producer responsibility, these directives provide that producers will be responsible for financing the costs which arise.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the plans for recycling plants for refrigerators will be finalised and local authorities informed. [R] [38028]

  Mr. Meacher
  Plans for recycling plants for refrigerators are a matter for industry. However, a mobile treatment plant is expected in the country within a week or two and further static treatment plants should be operational by the end of June. The Local Government Association is being kept informed of the progress.

  Hazardous Chemicals (Exposure)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to reduce the exposure of farmers to hazardous chemicals. [38007]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government take safety of users of chemicals seriously, and in doing so strictly regulate and enforce the use of chemicals on farms. This is on the basis of scientific advice. Regulation includes an assessment of the risk from exposure of the user to the chemicals, and clear instructions on the personal protective clothing and equipment that must be worn when using specific chemical products.

  Livestock Movements
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to make a decision on the control of sheep movement; and if she will make a statement. [38009]

  Mr. Morley
  Controls on the movement of sheep continue. They were relaxed from 11 February 2002 and may be further relaxed after the lambing period.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the licensing scheme for the movement of livestock. [38013]

  Mr. Morley
  In view of the continued improvement in the disease situation, relaxations in the rules governing animal movement controls were introduced from 11 February 2002.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the resumption of beef exports to France. [38011]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have made it clear that we expect France to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Justice and lift its ban on British beef exports as soon as possible. The Secretary of State has
  479W
  discussed this issue with Commissioner Byrne and we are confident that the Commission will take further action in the court as necessary.

  EU Environmental Directives
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's role in the implementation of European directives on the environment at present under consideration. [38014]

  Mr. Meacher
  DEFRA has responsibility in the main for ensuring that the UK meets its obligations to implement EU legislation on the environment, and particular responsibility in respect of legislation where we have the policy lead.

  IACS
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the delays of the delivery of integrated control and administration system cheques to farmers. [38015]

  Mr. Morley
  IACS payments were not made as early as in previous years and our target of paying at least 96 per cent. of payments was not met by the regulatory deadline of 31 January. This was the result of industrial action in the autumn and winter months. The unions however suspended industrial action on the 11 January and through overtime and some redeployment of staff we succeeded in paying 94 per cent. of AAPS claims by the end of the payment window.

  Energy Crops
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's plans to promote the growing of energy crops. [38016]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have welcomed the publication of the Energy Review by the Performance and Innovation Unit, which draws attention to the key role of renewable energy sources, including energy crops, in moving to a low carbon economy. The Government plan a public consultation on the key recommendations of the report leading to a White Paper in the autumn. This Department has allocated support of £29 million to solid biomass crops through the energy crops scheme, part of the England Rural Development Programme. The Renewables Obligation will permit the co-firing of energy crops with fossil fuels. We are working with other Departments to put in place further schemes with funding of £70 million which will develop markets for biomass, including purpose grown energy crops and material from forests, in heat, combined heat and power and electricity generation.

  Rio Plus Ten Conference
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what preparations are being made for the Rio Plus Ten conference. [38017]

  Mr. Meacher
  A Cabinet Committee (MISC 18), chaired by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, has been established to coordinate, develop and 480W
  deliver the Government's strategy for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). DEFRA, working closely with other Departments, is leading on UK preparations. At official level DEFRA chairs a High Level Steering Group, and an Inter-Departmental Group to discuss WSSD. My officials are fully involved in the international preparations for the summit.

  A communications strategy to raise awareness of the summit has also been agreed. We are working closely with local authorities, NGOs, business and other organisations to ensure that we engage a wide range of stakeholders. A key element of our communications strategy is the development of the Government sustainable development website www.sustainable-development.gov.uk, to include information on WSSD.

  Water Framework Directive
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the benefits to the UK of the water framework directive. [38019]

  Mr. Meacher
  It is difficult to place a financial value on many of the benefits of the Water Framework Directive which include: improvements in the quality and availability of raw water; protection and enhancement of aquatic wildlife; more coherent management of river basins; better targeting of water protection measure; and accountability and transparency in the river basin management planning process.

  A study undertaken in 1998 by consultants on behalf of DETR and the National Assembly for Wales made a preliminary assessment of the value of some of the tangible benefits the directive will bring in informal recreation, angling, general amenity, non-use values and low flow alleviation. On this basis, benefits for England and Wales were estimated at between £1.6 billion and £6.2 billion.

  Implementation of the directive and the assessment of its benefits in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and with respect to the devolved functions in Wales are matters for the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Executive and the National Assembly for Wales. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, implementation of the Directive and the assessment of its benefits are being managed wholly by the Scottish Executive the Northern Ireland Executive.

  Livestock Markets
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement regarding the impact of the regulations governing animal movements on the viability of livestock markets. [38020]

  Mr. Morley
  I am pleased to say that a number of livestock markets have met the new bio-security rules introduced on 11 February and have now re-opened. I expect more to do so as the disease situation continues to improve. Livestock markets have an important role to play in the marketing of farm animals between the various stages of production and some are developing a broadened range of services to farmers. We will be considering carefully the recommendations from the Policy Commission on future developments in livestock marketing.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she next expects to meet representatives of the livestock sector to discuss policies to combat further outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [R] [38021]

  Mr. Morley
  My ministerial colleagues and I meet industry representatives on a regular basis to discuss a range of disease control arrangements.

  The next meeting of the foot and mouth disease stakeholder group will be held on 14 March.

  A high-level imports forum will be held in March to consider the next steps for intensifying our efforts to reduce the risks posed by illegal imports of meat and other animal products, and to agree further priorities and action.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many people have been(a) prosecuted and (b) convicted of deliberately infecting livestock since 20 February 2001; [37796]

  (2) how many people have been (a) prosecuted and (b) found guilty of obstructing Government culls of livestock since 20 February 2001; [37797]

  (3) how many people have been (a) prosecuted and (b) found guilty of obstructing Government inspections of farm premises since 20 February 2001. [37798]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: There is no specific offence of deliberately infecting livestock at present, although the Animal Health Bill, currently being considered by Parliament, would create such an offence.

  Responsibility for the enforcement of animal health legislation lies with my Department and the local authorities. My Department has taken one prosecution for obstructing a Government inspection of a farm premises. The defendant was found guilty.

  There is currently no complete record of local authority prosecutions taken during the foot and mouth outbreak. However, we are not aware of any local authority prosecution for the above offences. My Department is liaising with the Local Authority Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards (LACOTS) to a compile a complete record of local authority prosecutions.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what figures she has collated on the origin of those animals destined for re-stocking of UK farms following foot and mouth culls. [38639]

  Mr. Morley
  All animals used for controlled restocking must come from farms which are free from any animal healths restrictions including foot and mouth disease. No figures are collected on the geographical origin of animals used for restocking.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of animals known to have the foot-and-mouth antibody there have been since 30 September 2001. [38524]
  482W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Antibody to foot and mouth disease virus has been detected in 177 animals on 18 farms since 30 September last. All cases were thoroughly investigated and no evidence of foot and mouth virus was found in any of these animals.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what dates since 30 September 2001(a) tests have been carried out for foot and mouth disease, (b) the diagnosis of those tests has been received and (c) those animals tested and found to be dangerous contacts have been slaughtered. [38659]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: Since 30 September, and before, samples have been taken from premises to investigate the presence of foot and mouth virus on a daily basis. Sample types may include the following material; epithelium from the feet and mouth, blood and probang samples. Results from initial tests on epithelium are usually returned within 24 hours of receipt. Results from the completion of final virology and serology tests, if negative, usually take up to four days, sometimes longer.

  There have been 18 cases (farm premises) since 30 September where foot and mouth antibodies have been detected in animals and these animals were slaughtered as dangerous contacts on the dates set out as follows:

  All of these cases were thoroughly investigated and no evidence of foot and mouth virus was found.

  13 October 2001: 1 case

  17 October 2001: 1 case

  24 October 2001: 1 case

  26 October 2001: 1 case

  27 October 2001: 1 case

  31 October 2001: 1 case

  10 November 2001: 3 cases

  13 November 2001: 1 case

  20 November 2001: 1 case

  27 November 2001: 2 cases

  10 December 2001: 1 case

  22 December 2001: 1 case

  9 January 2002: 1 case

  24 January 2002: 1 case

  22 February 2002: 1 case.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she was informed(a) of the suspected outbreak of foot and mouth on St. Agnes Farm at Hawnby and (b) that veterinary tests proved negative; and what the average time was between testing and negative result during last year's outbreak. [40308]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]I was notified by my officials of the suspected outbreak of foot and mouth disease on St. Agnes Farm, Hawnby at around 5.00 pm on 26 February and was informed at around 7.00 am the following day, 27 February, that initial tests had returned negative results. Results of the final set of tests were received on 3 March.

  During last year's outbreak, results from initial tests on epithelium were usually returned within 24 hours of receipt. Results from the completion of final virology and

  483W
  serology tests usually took up to four days, although it was not uncommon for a longer period to pass in some circumstances.

  Fishing
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she is making in negotiating a derogation for the UK inshore fishing fleet, from this year's increase in fixed-net mesh sizes. [38022]

  Mr. Morley
  Norway and the EU agreed last year to increase mesh sizes in fixed fishing gear from 1 January 2002. We have drawn the Commission's attention to the fact that Norway seems to have exempted its inshore fleet from this requirement. The Commission have raised this with the Norwegian authorities and are awaiting their response.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on recent changes to total allowable catches. [38029]

  Mr. Morley
  The Commission originally proposed large cuts for a wide range of total allowable catches, in many cases going further than science would justify. At the December Fisheries Council, after lengthy negotiations, we achieved an outcome which closely followed the scientific advice. This did not avoid severe measures where they were justified but met the UK's criticisms of what the Commission had proposed.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the future of low impact fishing methods. [38010]

  Mr. Morley
  The review of the Common Fisheries Policy provides an opportunity to recognise the role of fishermen using selective and environmentally friendly fishing techniques. We raised this issue in our public response to the European Commission's Green Paper on the future of the CFP. We will look to support ways of encouraging low impact fishing in negotiations on the future of the CFP this year.

  Flood Defences
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects adequate flood defences to be in place to protect Lewes. [38026]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 803W. I understand that the Environment Agency plans to consult on a preferred option for improved flood alleviation measure for Lewes in May. Subject to relevant consents and funding, the Agency hopes that work will commence in Lewes within 18 months.

  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on plans to improve flood prevention in the vicinity of the River Roding. [38030]

  Mr. Morley
  Operational responsibility rests with the Environment Agency and the London Borough of Redbridge as far as the River Roding catchment is 484W
  concerned. I understand that, since flooding occurred in October 2000, the Agency has repaired a bank that was overtopped and drawn the attention of Thames Water Utilities to concerns about surface water drains. The Agency has also commissioned consultants to prepare a flood defence strategy for the Roding catchment with a view to identifying sustainable defence options.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to improve protection against flooding; and what assistance she is giving to those affected by recent floods. [38006]

  Mr. Morley
  The flood and coastal defence operating authorities have major programmes of work throughout the country to reduce flood risk, supported by ever increasing Government funding. DEFRA support for flood and coastal defence will increase by over 70 per cent. from £66 million in 2000–01 to £114 million in 2003–04. The overall annual expenditure on flood and coastal defence in England now exceeds £400 million.

  Air Pollution
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the rate of progress in achieving the Government's targets on air pollution. [38027]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are broadly on track to meet our policy objectives for carbon monoxide, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, lead and sulphur dioxide, but we will need to do more to meet our targets for nitrogen dioxide, particles and ozone. Emissions of most pollutants have fallen over the last decade, and levels of air pollution are falling steadily in most urban areas of the UK. The headline air quality indicator, which gives the total number of days of poor air quality recorded each year through our national monitoring network, shows a steady reduction in the total number of days of poor urban air quality from 59 days in 1993 (when the dataset began) to 21 days in 2001. The pattern in rural areas is less clear since the main pollutant in rural areas is ozone, which is strongly influenced by the weather and by emissions of ozone precursors in continental Europe.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department is taking to combat fuel poverty among people in rural areas. [37992]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, published in November last year, set out the Government's goal to seek and end to fuel poverty, with the first target to ensure that by 2010, no vulnerable household need risk ill health due to a cold home.

  The strategy's aim is to improve the energy efficiency of fuel poor households, to maintain the downward pressure on fuel bills, to tackle poverty and social exclusion.

  The fuel poor in rural areas will benefit from these measures and from a number of pilot projects to help homes that are off the mains gas network and pilot the use of micro Combined Heat and Power.

  Slaughtered Farm Animals
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farm animals have been slaughtered since 30 September 2001; and what the reasons for their slaughter were. [38640]

  Mr. Morley
  In total 6,113 animals have been slaughtered since the last case of foot and mouth disease on 30 September 2001. These animals have been slaughtered as either dangerous contacts as a result of sero-positive blood samples or as slaughter on suspicion cases.

  Source: DEFRA's disease control system database as at 4 March 2002. Figures may be subject to revision as more data becomes available and as DEFRA's data cleansing exercise is carried out.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Gander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many public speeches on agriculture she has given since her appointment; and how many of them were made to audiences of farmers and those working in agriculture. [20000]

  Margaret Beckett
  Since my appointment in June I have made three major speeches on agriculture, all to farming audiences. In addition I have made six other speeches, for example while on regional visits or on visits abroad, in which agricultural issues have been addressed. The audience for some of those speeches included farmers. I have also attended six Agriculture Councils and spoke at last December's EU conference on FMD in Brussels.

  Aquatic Pursuits
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will consider making Environment Agency funding to improve angling opportunities dependent on improving access for non-powered craft to the same waters. [39478]

  Alun Michael
  It is difficult to see how this would work. The Government provide grant-in-aid to meet the general duty of maintaining, improving and developing fisheries rather than to improve angling opportunities specifically. There is no specific requirement to improve angling opportunities when doing recreation or navigation work that benefits non-powered craft.

  Plastic Sheeting
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason the scheme that provided a free collection service of plastic sheeting for farmers was stopped; and what the cost of the scheme was in its last 12 months. [39563]

  Mr. Meacher
  A self-financing voluntary scheme for the collection of farm plastics operated between 1994 and 1997. The scheme operated by charging producers of farm plastics a levy of £100 per tonne. I understand that the scheme collapsed because some importers of this material refused to participate. Collection of farm plastics is still carried out by a small number of local voluntary schemes.

  Toxic Substances
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what environmental inspections are made of(a) contaminated, (b) radiated and (c) toxic material associated with the Ministry of Defence and defence equipment plants. [40572]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is the policy of the Ministry of Defence to comply with all environmental legislation and only to invoke exemptions from such legislation where compliance would adversely affect military operations. Issues of pollution prevention and control, including those related to contaminated, radioactive and toxic material, are addressed within the framework of the Department's overarching safety management system.

  Guidance on the management of safety and environmental protection in the Ministry of Defence, including liaison with pollution control authorities and other regulatory bodies on inspections of our sites, and any activities which may impact on the environment, is published in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 418 (the Environment Manual). JSP 392 (Instructions for Radiation Protection) an JSP 375 (the MOD Health and Safety Handbook) also contain guidance and information on these issues. Copies of these three publications are in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Committees
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Prime Minister what the membership is of each Cabinet Committee. [41942]

  The Prime Minister
  Since the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 10 July 2001,Official Report, column 452W, 1 have established six new Cabinet Committees and made a number of minor changes to the membership and terms of reference of existing Cabinet Committees. I have placed a copy of the current list of Cabinet Committees, their membership and terms of reference in the Library of the House. Details will also be updated on the Cabinet Office website.

  Public Services
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's strategy for the reform of the public services. [41287]

  The Prime Minister
  I am today publishing a pamphlet, entitled "Reforming Public Services: Principles into Practice", which sets out the Government's strategy. Copies of this document have been placed in the Libraries of the House today.

  Volunteers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2001,Official Report, column 701W, on voluntary work, how many members of staff he had in (a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [39548]
  487W
  The Prime Minister
  For figures for 2001 I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 5 November 2001,Official Report, column 8W. As of 1 September 2000 170 staff were on the No. 10 payroll.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants reported within his office ultimately to a special adviser on 1 January and in(a) 1998, (b) 2000 and (c) 2002; and what proportion they represented of all civil servants at No. 10 Downing Street. [40717]

  The Prime Minister
  The Order in Council in 1997 provides for my Chief of Staff and my Director of Communications and Strategy to manage civil servants. No other special advisers in No. 10 manage civil servants directly. I also refer the hon. Gentleman to the No. 10 organogram, a copy of which is in the House Library.

  Jo Moore
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister what evidence he has collated of civil servants in the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions undermining the credibility of Jo Moore. [41275]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the detailed statements made by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and his permanent secretary.

  Chief Press Officer
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister when his officials were informed that exchanges involving the Chief Press Officer of the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, about announcements on Friday 15 February, were not as suggested at his spokesman's lobby briefing the previous morning; when he informed the President of the Council of this; and who was responsible for the inaccuracy. [41276]

  The Prime Minister
  The PMOS has fully explained the position in the lobby. Copies of the lobby notes are available on the Number 10 website. The President of the Council has made his position clear and I refer the hon. Member to his personal statement on 28 February 2002,Official Report, column 842.

  Steel Imports
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Bush about the possible imposition of tariffs on steel imports by the United States; and if he will make a statement. [41091]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) in the House on 6 March 2002,Official Report, columns 281–82.

  Privacy and Data Sharing Report
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Prime Minister when the PIU will issue its privacy and data sharing report. [40862]
  488W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 204W.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from her Department in each of the last four years. [27997]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry's log of missing items is a mix of lost, stolen or misplaced items belonging to the Department or its workforce. In the majority of cases the value of items is not recorded and it is not possible to answer this question in detail without incurring disproportionate cost. However, I refer the hon. Member to parliamentary questions answered on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 847W and on 24 January 2002, Official Report, column 1071W.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to ensure the universal postal delivery service in rural areas since the publication of the Postcomm report on competition in postal services. [40713]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1125W.

  Postcomm's document "Proposals for effective competition in UK postal services", published on Thursday 31 January, is a public consultation and we would expect concerns about the universal service obligation to be thoroughly considered as part of the consultation process.

  Postcodes
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what means the Post Office enables the public to consult a list of alpha-numeric postcode suffixes matched to a word-based local descriptor; and if she will place such a list covering Northern Ireland postcodes in the Library. [38297]

  Mr. Alexander
  I am informed by Consignia that postcode information is available from a number of sources; online at www.postcodes.royalmail.com and through a telephone helpline charged at local rates. Postal address books are available at public libraries. Postal address books for local postcodes are available to businesses free of charge and to members of the public for a small fee.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's plans to encourage the use of renewable energy. [37993]
  489W
  Brian Wilson
  The Government are providing substantial support to industry to encourage the use of renewable energy.

  Introducing the new renewables obligation, exempting renewables from the climate change levy and protecting existing non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) contracts will together create a long-term market incentive for renewables worth over £1 billion per year by 2010.

  We are underpinning the obligation with direct Government funding for renewables worth over £260 million between 2001 and 04. We are setting up extensive capital grants programmes, in particular for offshore wind and energy crops projects, initiating a major photovoltaics demonstration programme, and boosting research and development.

  We recently introduced an order to allow locational flexibility for NFFO 3, 4 and 5 projects that have not yet been commissioned. This will allow more appropriate locations to be found in order to overcome problems in securing planning permission.

  We have initiated studies of each UK region's capacity to generate electricity from renewable sources. Once all these assessments are completed, it is expected that specific regional targets for renewable energy will be adopted across the UK. We are also publishing an overview of those regional assessments.

  The Government are also exploring the scope for upgrading the electricity distribution system to enable the UK's huge renewable energy resources to be exploited to the full. For example, an initial study of the feasibility of an underwater cable to connect parts of the western seaboard of the UK directly to the national grid has recently been completed. We shall be moving to a more detailed study of all the options and their costs.

  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 Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 1 March; and what information is being provided by her Department to guarantee effective pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [40318]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: I represented the UK at the Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism Council on 1 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. The Department provides information to Scottish Executive officials as part of that process.

  Print Industry
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to implement the 490W
  seven aims of the UK print industry contained in the recent report 'Print 21: Coming of Age'. (40287]

  Mr. Alexander
  The seven aims contained in the report "Print 21; Coming of Age" are addressed not to Government, but to the printing industry itself. The industry has formed a steering group to take forward the seven aims and I am pleased to say that the Department is part-funding a project proposed by the group to draw up a strategy to achieve this.

  Exchange Direct
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports her Department has produced on Exchange Direct during the last year; and if she will make them available to the police investigation into the company. [39998]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The Department has produced no reports on Exchange Direct plc.

  A winding up order was made against the company on 23 January 2002 and the Official Receiver is now responsible for investigating the reasons for the company's failure and the conduct of its directors. The Official Receiver is aware of the police investigation and will provide assistance as appropriate.

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many bankruptcies there were in each of the last 20 years. [40359]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of bankruptcy orders made in each of the last twenty years is as follows:

  Bankruptcies

  Year

  Number

  1982

  5,319

  1983

  6,576

  1984

  7,726

  1985

  6,730

  1986

  7,093

  1987

  6,994

  1988

  7,717

  1989

  8,138

  1990

  12,058

  1991

  22,632

  1992

  32,106

  1993

  31,016

  1994

  25,634

  1995

  21,933

  1996

  21,803

  1997

  19,892

  1998

  19,647

  1999

  21,611

  2000

  21,550

  2001

  23,477

  491W
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average time was for a bankrupt to be discharged in each of the last five years. [40363)

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Bankrupts are discharged under the terms of the section 279 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Bankrupts are generally discharged three years after the commencement of the bankruptcy except in the following circumstances:Where the court has issued a certificate for summary administration of the bankrupt's estate (and that has not been revoked before discharge), the bankrupt will be discharged two years after the commencement of the bankruptcy.
  Where an individual has been an undischarged bankrupt at any time in the period 15 years ending with the commencement of the bankruptcy or where an individual is subject to a criminal bankruptcy order, an application for discharge has to be made to the court, but not until at least five years after the commencement of the bankruptcy.
  The court can suspend these discharge provisions where it is satisfied that an undercharged bankrupt is failing to co-operate with his trustee and/or the official receiver.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average time taken was by the Official Receiver to complete his inquiries into bankrupts in each of the last five years. [40364]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Insolvency Service does not hold statistics on the amount of time taken to complete inquires; this is largely dependent on the complexity of the case. The Insolvency Service has set targets for the percentage of reports to creditors to be issued within certain time limits. During the last five years The Service has issued of reports to creditors within 8 weeks and 12 weeks of the bankruptcy order respectively as follows:

  Per cent.

  Year ended

  Eight weeks

  12Weeks

  31 March 2001

  99.3

  99.6

  31 March 2000

  98.7

  99.8

  31 March 1999

  98.2

  99.7

  31 March 1998

  98.1

  99.5

  31 March 1997

  98.3

  99.6

  Insolvency Practitioners
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many insolvency practitioners are in practice in England and Wales. [40275]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A total of 1,623 individuals are currently authorised to act as insolvency practitioners by the Secretary of State and by the recognised professional bodies in England and Wales. Of this number some 1,020 are currently bonded to take appointments as office-holders in insolvencies.

  Small Business Banking
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to publish the Competition Commission report into small business banking. [41094]

  Ms Hewitt
  The supply of banking services by clearing banks to small and medium-sized enterprises was referred to the Competition Commission for investigation by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor and I will publish the report as soon as practicable.

  Vehicle Speed Limiters
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will bring forward plans to introduce speed-limiters in motorised road vehicles. [40545]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  In Great Britain, there are already legal requirements to fit top-speed limiters to goods vehicles, buses and coaches weighing more than 7.5 tonnes maximum permitted weight. These measures are more extensive than is currently required by existing European Union law. A proposal currently under consideration by the European Parliament and the Council Ministers would extend the European requirement to buses and coaches with more than eight passenger seats irrespective of weight, and to goods vehicles of over 3.5 tonnes maximum permitted weight. We are not convinced that the safety and environmental consequences of fitting limiters to lighter vehicles would be beneficial—bunching of vehicles could cause added congestion and create safety hazards—and voted against the proposal when it was considered by the Transport Council in December last. The proposal is, however, likely to be adopted later this year.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the Financial Services Authority proposals regarding polarisation in the provision of financial services; if she will ask the Social Exclusion Unit to assess the report in terms of its impact on people on low incomes; and if she will make a statement. [40712]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The proposals in CP121 to reform the polarisation regime for the distribution of financial service products are a matter for the FSA. They are subject to consultation and the government would encourage all those with views to look at the consultation paper and supporting research reports, and let the FSA have their views by 19 April. Any proposals the FSA brings forward following consultation will be subject to detailed cost benefit analysis.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Departmental Policies (Bristol, East)
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bristol, East constituency, the effects on Bristol of her Department's policies and actions(a) from 5 May 1994 to 2 May 1997, (b) from 2 May 1997 to 7 May 1998, and (c) since 7 May 1998. [35595]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the Regional Co-ordination Unit have provided data and I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 80W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [37445]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The correspondence standard in the Department for Education and Skills is to reply to 95 per cent. of all correspondence within 15 working days of receipt. Figures reflecting our performance on all departmental correspondence are shown at Tables 1a and 2a. These were published, in the annual service standards report, by Cabinet Office each year up until 2001 to show performance against the correspondence standard which is one of the six Whitehall standards set for central Government on 1 April 1997.

  For the period from April 2000, when we introduced an electronic case tracking system (Correspondence Handling System), we are able to provide more detailed information on performance as shown in Tables 1b, 2b and 2c. This covers most correspondence but not emails sent direct from Ministers' offices.

  Ministerial correspondence (calendar years)

  Table 1a

  Target for responses (working days)

  Total volume

  Percentage of response within target

  20011

  15

  18,237

  76

  2000

  15

  22,318

  72

  1999

  15

  21,196

  75

  1998

  15

  19,766

  70

  1997

  15

  22,460

  71

  1 The figures on this table are the figures reported to Cabinet Office. They will differ from that of the Correspondence Handling System as they include correspondence not handled via this system, i.e. emails sent direct from Ministers' offices.

  494W

  Table 1b—Ministerial correspondence figures taken from Correspondence Handling System on 22 February 2002 to show performance from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  Final reply sent

  Number

  Percentage

  Less than 15 days (within target)

  9,364

  67.98

  Between 16 and 30 days

  3,672

  26.66

  31 days and over

  738

  5.36

  Total

  13,774

  100.00

  Departmental correspondence answered by officials (Financial Years)

  Table 2a—Figures reported to Cabinet Office for performance relating to the periods prior to the introduction of the Correspondence Handling System

  Operational year

  Response target (working days)

  Total volume

  Percentage of responses within target

  April 1999—March 2000

  15

  96,009

  90

  April 1998—March 1999

  15

  108,000

  89

  April 1997—March 1998

  15

  116,417

  88

  Table 2b—Figures taken from Correspondence Handling System on 22 February 2002 to show performance from 1 April 2001 to 22 February 2002

  Final reply sent

  Number

  Percentage

  15 days or less (within target)

  47,065

  93.39

  Between 16 and 30 days

  2,520

  5.00

  31 days and over

  812

  1.61

  Total

  50,397

  100.00

  Table 2c—Figures taken from Correspondence Handling System on 22 February 2002 to show performance from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  Final reply sent

  Number

  Percentage

  15 days or less (within target)

  73,954

  93.36

  Between 16 and 30 days

  3,481

  4.39

  31 days and over

  1,782

  2.25

  Total1

  79,217

  100.00

  1 Total volume of correspondence reported to Cabinet Office and published in the annual report for this period was 85.929. This figure included residual cases not input on to the new Correspondence Handling System.

  Financial Literacy
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if there are plans to require(a) further education colleges and (b) schools to include financial literacy courses in their curricula. [38791]

  John Healey
  There are no plans for financial literacy activity to be a mandatory part of further education provision. But we have developed and tested financial literacy learning materials and guidance for tutors and these will be available to further education colleges when they are launched later this year.
  495W
  Personal finance education is already covered in the national curriculum as part of the Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) framework. The framework has been in place since September 2000 for pupils aged five to 16 and was introduced to support the personal and social development of young people, including the development of financial capability, in today's complex and changing world.

  Guidance for teachers, "Financial Capability through Personal Financial Education", was published in April 2000.

  Rapid Response Funding
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many bids there have been; what sums have been allocated; what the budget is for Rapid Response funding in 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [39421]

  John Healey
  To date in 2001–02, 79 bids for Rapid Response funding have been approved providing a total of £5.1 million of additional support for people involved in large-scale redundancies. The following table sets out the sums allocated for each bid. The budget for the Rapid Response Fund in 2001–02 is £7 million. From April 2002, the administration of the Rapid Response Fund will transfer to Jobcentre Plus. I am making this change so that the fund can be run alongside the Job Transition Service. This should result in an effective and co-ordinated response to redundancies which will be in the interests of both employers and individuals.

  £

  Project title

  RRF funds approved 2001–02

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Rawmarsh foods

  44,799

  Acordis

  56,500

  Crosrol Ltd.

  44,100

  Transbus International

  159,565

  Pace

  36,500

  Ericson—Scunthorpe

  92,079

  SSL International

  70,030

  Fishers Frozen Foods

  60,000

  South West

  The Link Group

  87,938

  Cuprinol

  3,000

  Nortel

  254,454

  Motorola

  410,999

  Kruger Tissue

  37,376

  North Devon Foods

  27,730

  Sifam Fibre Optics

  16,873

  KTH & Aram Engineering

  69,035

  TISSP UK Ltd.

  29,750

  Spur Shelving

  30,650

  North Devon Meats Ltd.

  9,000

  Aardman Animation

  18,674

  Renault Swindon

  42,668

  Watts, Blake & Bearne

  18,621

  Mann Fee Dartingtin Tech

  Marconi

  32,143

  UK Safety Group Ltd.

  21,200

  Xerox

  89,014

  SCA Packaging

  12,585

  Rolls Royce

  90,696

  Wincanton Logistics

  23,451

  Devon Training for Skills

  13,900

  New Zealand Milk

  44,100

  Agusta Westlands

  135,975

  496W

  £

  Project title

  RRF funds approved 2001–02

  Devon Desserts

  79,800

  North East

  Via Systems

  58,000

  Gill Aviation

  £25,000

  Air Normandy

  Sanyo

  3,750

  Akzo Noble

  29,400

  East of England

  Vauxhall

  104,056

  East Midlands

  Dema Glass

  24,000

  Baker Refractories

  143,262

  Ericcson

  427,239

  Cinch Connectors Ltd

  44,860

  Airflow Streamlines

  51,040

  British Timken

  53,767

  Rolls Royce

  150,794

  West Midlands

  HP Hydraulics

  20,700

  Akso Noble

  3,300

  Barton Engineering

  28,500

  Sterling Tubes

  31,500

  Chubb

  48,000

  KTH

  75,000

  Dowdeswell End Co. Ltd.

  32,250

  Ceramics:

  50,000

  Staffordshire

  Royal Doulton

  Churchill China

  H&R Johnson Tiles

  IMI Norgren

  21,800

  SAI

  9,500

  Breed Steering Systems

  148,400

  Sun Valley Foods

  105,000

  Collins & Aikman Plastics Ltd.

  23,855

  Goodyear

  16,000

  Stratford Foods

  21,000

  Rolls Royce

  29,250

  IHW Engineering

  12,850

  Fujitsu—Solihull

  107,480

  Ceramics 3

  39,600

  Dana Su Automotive

  25,800

  Richmond Frozen Confectionery

  21,250

  Celestica—Telsford

  35,270

  Celestica—Kidsgrove and Bradwell Wood

  102,600

  Accident Assistance

  16,440

  KTH Nuneaton Ltd.

  14,500

  Dunn & Bradstreet Ltd.

  13,500

  Novern

  10,600

  Goodyear 2

  19,000

  Leisure Consumer Products

  13,500

  North West

  Harris Bacon

  131,100

  The Ravenhead Company

  171,881

  Ineos Chlor

  Diversey Lever

  103,615

  Bush Boake Allen

  BAE Systems

  50,000

  Roily Royce

  103,950

  Cammel Laird

  201,500

  Note

  The amounts represent RRF funding approved for 2001–02. Many of the projects will continue in 2002–03. Additional funds for these bids have already been secured but are not shown in the table.

  EMTA Labour Market Survey
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the proportion of engineering and manufacturing establishments examined in the 1999 EMTA labour market survey which reported a shortage of technical engineering skills. [39709]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: per cent. of engineering and manufacturing establishments examined in the 1999 EMTA labour market survey reported a technical engineering skills gap. This figure is based on responses from 591 of the 2000 establishments surveyed.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria are used in determining an application for disposal of school playing fields, as to whether playing field provision and curriculum requirements at the school and other schools in the area will be met. [40299]

  John Healey
  Applications to the Secretary of State to dispose of school playing fields are assessed against three main criteria. These are:

  (i) schools' needs: that playing field provision and curriculum requirements at the school making the disposal, and at other schools in the local area, will be met;

  (ii) community needs: that community use of school playing fields is taken into account, with alternative facilities made available if necessary; and

  Use of proceeds for approved applications to sell school sports pitch areas

  Local education authority

  School

  Closed or closing

  Estimated proceeds (£)

  Use of proceeds

  Barnet

  Ashmole

  No

  8,650,000

  Teaching accommodation; all-weather pitch

  Bedfordshire

  Ashton St. Peter VA

  No

  100,000

  School consolidation

  Bedfordshire

  Silver Jubilee middle

  Yes

  72,000

  Teaching accommodation

  Birmingham

  Broadway

  No

  900,000

  Improve pitches; new clubhouse and changing facilities

  Bolton

  St. James's CE

  No

  800,000

  Sports facilities

  Bristol

  Monks Park secondary

  No

  2,200,000

  Sports hall, all-weather pitch. Capital works at other schools

  Buckinghamshire

  Bellfield first and middle

  Yes

  468,000

  Education capital programme

  Buckinghamshire

  Downley middle

  Yes

  2,500,000

  Education capital programme

  Buckinghamshire

  Heights first

  Yes

  1,350,000

  Education capital programme

  Buckinghamshire

  Terriers county first

  Yes

  650,000

  Education capital programme

  Calderdale

  Brooksbank

  No

  1,038,000

  Sports hall

  Cheshire

  Brookside county infant

  Yes

  83,000

  School amalgamation

  Cheshire

  Colshaw CP

  No

  75,000

  Nursery accommodation

  Cheshire

  Manor Park infant

  Yes

  225,000

  School consolidation

  Cheshire

  St. James CE junior

  No

  Payment in kind

  Teaching accommodation

  Cheshire

  Westlands high

  Yes

  3,100,000

  Teaching accommodation; pitches

  Croydon

  Haling Manor high

  No

  3,000,000

  Teaching accommodation

  Derbyshire

  Noel Baker community

  No

  18,000

  Changing facilities

  Derbyshire

  Pingle

  No

  363,000

  Improve pitches

  Derbyshire

  Western Mere

  Yes

  200,000

  Education capital programme

  Devon

  Highweek primary

  No

  150,000

  Teaching accommodation; pitches

  Dorset

  Fosters

  Yes

  1,500,000

  Improve pitches; new schools

  Durham

  The Avenue comprehensive

  Yes

  32,600

  Education capital programme

  Durham

  Westwood primary

  Yes

  6,520

  Education capital programme

  Essex

  Moulsham high

  No

  1,000,000

  Improve pitches; teaching accommodation

  Essex

  Oakview special

  No

  1,000,000

  Teaching accommodation

  Essex

  Tabor high

  No

  3,000,000

  School consolidation

  Essex

  The Stanway

  No

  7,500,000

  Improve sports facilities; teaching accommodation

  Gloucestershire

  The Catholic school of St. Gregory the Great

  No

  900,000

  All-weather pitch; teaching accommodation

  Halton

  Ashley special

  No

  50,000

  Sleeping accommodation for adults with learning difficulties

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Gibbs Green special

  No

  400,000

  All-weather pitch

  Havering

  Frances Bardsley for girls

  No

  6,850,000

  Sports hall; all-weather pitch; consolidate school sites

  498W

  (iii) finance: that any sale proceeds are re-invested to provide new or improved sports facilities at schools, or are used otherwise to help raise standards by providing better educational facilities.

  The criteria are set out in the Department's Guidance 0580/2001: "The Protection of School Playing Fields and Land for City Academies". The criteria enable the Secretary of State to take into account the team game playing field provision at other local schools. This is to ensure that where there are surplus fields at one school, other local schools are given the opportunity to use those surplus fields. As part of the schools' needs criterion, applicants are asked to say what impact the proposed disposal will have on the curriculum, and to demonstrate clearly how the curriculum will continue to be met if consent is given.

  The School Playing Fields Advisory Panel provides advice on the extent to which applications meet the published criteria.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answers of 25 February 2002,Official Report, columns 730–34W and 27 February 2002, Official Report, column 1298w, what the proceeds of sale were for each playing field development application approved by the Secretary of State since 1998; and what (a) sports and (b) education facilities those proceeds were used to finance. [40382]

  John Healey
  The information requested in respect of the proceeds arising from the sale of school sports pitches is shown in the table.
  499W

  Use of proceeds for approved applications to sell school sports pitch areas

  Local education authority

  School

  Closed or closing

  Estimated proceeds (£)

  Use of proceeds

  Kent

  Allhallows first

  Yes

  75,000

  Education capital programme

  Kent

  St. Thomas' special

  Yes

  480,000

  Education capital programme

  Lancashire

  Baines high

  No

  315,000

  Sports hall

  Lancashire

  St. Richards RC high

  Yes

  1,000,000

  Sports hall; education capital programme

  Lancashire

  St. Thomas Aquinas RC high

  Yes

  225,000

  Education capital programme

  Leeds

  Oakwood primary

  No

  Payment in kind

  Teaching accommodation

  Leeds

  Wetherby high

  No

  720,000

  All-weather pitch; sports hall

  Liverpool

  Childwall comprehensive

  No

  2,500,000

  New school; sports hall; improve pitches

  Milton Keynes

  Castles first

  Yes

  480,000

  Consolidate school sites

  Milton Keynes

  Denbigh

  Yes

  5,000,000

  Education capital programme

  Norfolk

  Redgate middle

  No

  175,000

  Sports hall; teaching accommodation

  North Tyneside

  St. Mary's Roman Catholic

  No

  95,000

  Grass playing fields; playground

  North Yorkshire

  Settle CE primary

  No

  Payment in kind

  New school

  Northamptonshire

  John Lea secondary

  Yes

  4,000,000

  Education capital programme

  Northumberland

  Gallowhill Hall special

  Yes

  5,850

  Teaching accommodation

  Northumberland

  St. Benet Biscop RC aided high

  No

  1,350,018

  Teaching accommodation; improve pitches

  Nottinghamshire

  Manor comprehensive

  No

  140,000

  Sports hall

  Oxfordshire

  Wallingford

  No

  3,700,000

  School consolidation

  Peterborough

  The King's

  No

  1,000,000

  Sports hall; all-weather pitch

  Rochdale

  Middleton technology

  No

  400,000

  Sports hall

  Rochdale

  Spring Hill high

  No

  300,000

  Sports hall

  Shropshire

  Lower Grove

  Yes

  600,000

  School amalgamation

  Staffordshire

  Sir Graham Balfour high

  No

  1,700,000

  New school; sports hall; improve pitches

  Surrey

  Banstead county junior and

  No

  40,000

  Education capital programme

  St. Anne's RC primary

  Surrey

  Boxgrove primary

  No

  Payment in kind

  School consolidation

  Surrey

  Merland Rise CP

  No

  1,608,000

  Education capital programme

  Surrey

  Okewood C of E

  Yes

  10,000

  Education capital programme

  Surrey

  Park Mead junior

  No

  550,000

  Grass pitches;teaching accommodation

  Surrey

  Rosebery

  No

  1,400,000

  All-weather pitch; sports hall

  Tameside

  Egerton Park high

  No

  Payment in kind

  Sports hall

  Telford and Wrekin

  Blessed Robert Johnson

  No

  300,000

  Sports hall

  Wakefield

  Kinsley first

  Yes

  55,000

  Education capital programme

  Wakefield

  South Elmsall middle

  Yes

  50,000

  Education capital programme

  Walsall

  Beacon

  Yes

  2,000,000

  Teaching accommodation

  Walsall

  St. Thomas More Catholiccomprehensive

  No

  3,100,000

  School consolidation

  Warwickshire

  Attleborough first

  Yes

  245,000

  Consolidate school sites

  Warwickshire

  Binley Woods first

  Yes

  800,000

  Consolidate school sites

  Warwickshire

  Exhall first

  Yes

  300,000

  Consolidate school sites

  Warwickshire

  Marie Corelli

  Yes

  2,000,000

  New school

  Warwickshire

  Stratford-upon-Avon high

  Yes

  1,000,000

  New school

  West Sussex

  Hazelwick

  No

  2,945,000

  Teaching accommodation; all-weather pitch

  Wigan

  Hindley Borsdane Brookspecial

  Yes

  500,000

  Consolidate school sites

  Wigan

  Orrell Holgate primary

  No

  600,000

  Education capital programme

  Wigan

  Rose Hill special

  Yes

  500,000

  Consolidate school sites

  Wigan

  Tyldesley Highfield special

  Yes

  380,000

  Consolidate school sites

  Wiltshire

  Castle Combe primary

  Yes

  10,000

  Education capital programme

  Wolverhampton

  Aldersley

  No

  2,387,500

  Teaching accommodation

  Worcestershire

  Callowbrook first

  Yes

  2,000

  Education capital programme

  Notes:

  1. 'Sports pitch' means areas of open grassed land which are equal to, or larger than, the Football Association's recommended area for games played by under-10s, that is 2,000m2, and which have a configuration making them suitable for sports pitches (whether they are so laid out or not).

  2. The table excludes applications withdrawn by the applicant and applications where schools would retain the same, or a better, level of access to the same sports pitch or to an equivalent sports pitch.

  3. The table includes applications in respect of foundation and voluntary schools considered under Schedule 22 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 since 1 September 1999.

  4. Prior to July 2001, local authorities were not required to specify what sports or education facilities were to be financed from proceeds of sale. It was sufficient for them to give an undertaking that any proceeds of sale would be allocated to their schools' capital programme. A requirement to provide details of the sports or education projects to be funded from sale proceeds was introduced by the revised guidance published in July 2001.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in respect of each application for disposal of a school sports pitch since July 2001, if the application was supported(a) by the representative of (i) the National Playing Fields Association, (ii) the Central Council of Physical Recreation, (iii) Learning Through Landscapes, (iv) the National Association of Head Teachers and
  500W
  (v) the Local Government Association on the School Playing Fields Advisory Panel and (b) by the School Playing Fields Advisory Panel as a whole. [40475]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The advice of the School Playing Fields Advisory Panel is presented as the collective view of the Panel. Of the applications to dispose of school sports pitches received

  501W
  by the Department since 16 July 2001, the Panel has expressed collective support for the eight applications that have been approved.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations her Department has received from the National Playing Fields Association relating to the sale of school playing fields. [40476]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The Department has not received any recent representations from the National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) relating to the sale of school playing fields. The NPFA is, however, a member of the School Playing Fields Advisory Panel which advises the Department on the extent to which individual applications to dispose of school playing fields comply with the published criteria.

  Connexions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information obtained by the swipecards of children registered with Connexions may be passed to other businesses and agencies(a) with and (b) without the agreement of the data subject. [40895]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Connexions Card is only available to young people aged 16 to 19. Registration for the Connexions Card is separate and independent from any registration with the Connexions Service.

  In order for the Connexions Card scheme to run effectively a young person's details, such as their name and date of birth, may be shared with Connexions Services, LEAs, Learning Centres and commercial partners. The specific information provided will depend on the nature of the arrangement but any such agreement is subject to the approval of my Department. The arrangements governing the sharing of the information comply with the Data Protection Act and Section 114 of the Learning and Skills Act.

  The Privacy Statement distributed to all young people when they register as Card members provides them with an opportunity to choose whether or not they are content for information about them to be passed to commercial partners. This permission can be altered at any time via the Connexions Card website.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the reward card for young people involves an element of(a) product endorsement and (b) commercial risk to her Department; and if she will make a statement on progress in distributing it. [40891]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Rewards, discounts and other commercial arrangements offered as part of the Connexions Card initiative are negotiated by our private sector partner, Capita, under the terms set out in the Connexions Card contract and involve no product endorsement. The management of risk in the project is subject to formal contract controls and is handled by my Department. The Card has been successfully trialled in a number of schools in the north-east. It is currently being rolled out in the East Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside, north-west and south-west regions.

  Class Supervision
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will issue guidance as to the circumstances in which staff other than qualified teachers or those seeking qualified teacher status should be placed in sole charge of school classes. [41202]

  Mr. Timms
  Possible roles for support staff in schools are being considered by a working party, which includes representatives of teachers and support staff, the local government employers and other government bodies. The Education Bill currently before Parliament provides for there to be regulations specifying the conditions under which staff other than qualified teachers may be allowed to teach.

  Vocational GCSEs
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funds she proposes to make available for the introduction of vocational GCSEs; and if specific provision will be made for the cost of training teachers in the new subject areas. [41205]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department will fund a £38 million programme over 2002–04 to expand vocational opportunities at key stage 4—including support for the introduction of the new GCSEs in vocational subjects in September 2002. A programme of training and support for teachers in each of the new GCSEs' subject areas is already under way and will continue into the new academic year.

  Teachers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional resources she proposes to assist schools to reduce teacher workload in the next school year. [41206]

  Mr. Timms
  On 4 January 2002 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced that some £4 million would be made available to fund School Workforce Pathfinder Projects. The projects will explore innovative ways of working to tackle workload so that teachers can concentrate more on teaching and raising standards. Lessons learned from these projects will be shared with all schools. We have also asked the STRB for recommendations by the end of April on how to address workload issues. We will consider those recommendations in the summer.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the Learning and Skills Council will announce its revised sixth form funding allocations for 2002–03. [41943]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Learning and Skills Council is announcing its revised sixth form funding allocations for 2002–03 today. For LEAs with allocations which have been increased compared with those announced previously, LSC grant will be increased commensurately. For LEAs with reduced allocations, LSC grant will be reduced but the Department will pay post-16 budget support grant equal to the reduction, so that no LEA will lose money.

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many staff in her 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; [36217]

  (2) when she intends to answer the question of 13 February from the hon. Member for Buckingham regarding staff involvement in union duties. [41576]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis: The information requested is as follows:

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Staff numbers

  18

  18

  18

  18

  Number of days

  495

  495

  495

  495

  Costs (£)

  40,378

  41,202

  42,043

  42,883

  These figures represent the maximum leave allowance of 25 days (40 days for members of Trade Union National Executive Committees and Councils) which may be granted in each year for individuals engaged in trade union business in DFES and its predecessor DfEE.

  There are no members of National Executive Committees or Councils in NDPBs for which DfES is responsible.

  This compares to an average figure of 23 staff, with average costs of £45,788 per annum, in the four years prior to 1998.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nova Hut Steelworks
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts have taken place between HM Ambassador to the Czech Republic and the Czech Government about the future of the Nova Hut steelworks. [39669]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: The restructuring of the Czech steel industry is an important part of the EU enlargement negotiations. The Ambassador and her staff do discuss the state of the Czech steel industry and Nova Hut steelworks with the Czech Government, but have made no representations

  Prisoners of War (Far East)
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made in the last six months to Japan about the compensation paid to British POWs held in Japanese prisoner of war camps during World War II. [40612]

  Mr. MacShane
  Following the Prime Minister's initiative to make an ex-gratia payment no further representations have been made to the Japanese Government. I continue to meet representatives of the former Far Eastern Prisoners of War groups to discuss other issues.

  British Prisoners (Guantanamo Bay)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visits have been made by(a) his officials and (b) officials of Government state agencies to British nationals detained at Camp X Ray. [40570]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement in the House on 21 January 2002,Official Report, columns 623–32, and to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on 4 March 2002, Official Report, column 69W.

  EU Meetings (Scottish Scrutiny)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason a devolved Administration Minister did not attend the 2409 European Union Council of Ministers meeting (General Affairs) on 18–19 February; which particular suggestions or matters of concern from the Scottish Executive were raised in their absence by the UK Government delegation; and what information or evidence is being provided by his Department to guarantee effective post-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [40323]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: Decisions on Ministerial attendance at Council meetings are taken on a case-by-case basis by the lead UK Minister. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I attended this meeting, representing all parts of the UK.

  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. This Department provides information to Scottish Executive officials as part of that process.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that there will be no joint authority with Spain over Gibraltar. [40667]

  Peter Hain
  The Government stand by the commitment set out in the preamble to the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution that we will not enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar will pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the exchange rates used by the British Embassy in Harare for fees paid by British citizens with joint Zimbabwe citizenship wishing to waive their British citizenship. [40480]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have received a small number of letters on this topic from Members representing their constituents.
  505W
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been made for the funding of an emergency air-lift of British citizens from Zimbabwe. [40482]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: No funding arrangements have been made for an emergency air-lift of British citizens from Zimbabwe. We have a Civil Contingency Plan in place for Zimbabwe, as we do for many other countries. This is kept under constant review given the rise in tension in the country.

  Israel
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the designation of Israel as a nuclear weapon state; and if he will make a statement. [40795]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to encourage Israel to resolve international concerns about its nuclear status by acceding to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state, and concluding a fullscope safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. We also support the creation of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, as demonstrated by our consistent support for relevant United Nations resolutions.

  Middle East
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will investigate the circumstances in which Israeli troops have delayed the return to Ramallah of Palestinian teachers from the Friends School who were on the visit to Birmingham between 22 February and 2 March organised by the British Council; and if he will make a statement. [41207]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Officials at the British Council have informed me that the teachers have returned to their school in Ramallah. Their journey was difficult because of problems they encountered crossing Israeli Defence Force checkpoints

  Settlement applications

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Country

  Receive

  Issued

  Refused

  Received

  Issued

  Refused

  Received

  Issued

  Refused

  Albania

  23

  17

  3

  90

  70

  20

  137

  163

  26

  Algeria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Angola

  5

  5

  0

  10

  6

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Argentina

  49

  47

  2

  77

  76

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Armenia

  6

  6

  0

  12

  12

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Ascension Island

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Australia

  5,329

  5,201

  1

  5,353

  5,149

  3

  2,076

  3,896

  1

  Austria

  6

  6

  0

  8

  7

  1

  5

  241

  0

  Azerbaijan

  55

  47

  3

  29

  32

  0

  14

  27

  3

  Bahamas

  30

  30

  0

  26

  26

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Bahrain

  26

  26

  0

  74

  72

  1

  71

  131

  0

  Bangladesh

  4,769

  3,289

  1,293

  5,127

  4,941

  1,729

  3,626

  4,793

  1,466

  Barbados

  128

  109

  7

  181

  178

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Belarus

  38

  33

  0

  50

  57

  3

  43

  70

  1

  Belgium

  34

  33

  0

  17

  16

  3

  15

  26

  0

  Belize

  6

  6

  0

  11

  11

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Bermuda

  16

  16

  0

  15

  15

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Bolivia

  10

  10

  0

  5

  5

  0

  —

  —

  Bosnia Herzegovina

  20

  19

  1

  26

  25

  1

  22

  30

  0

  Botswana

  17

  18

  0

  34

  34

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Brazil

  236

  227

  10

  179

  165

  14

  0

  0

  0

  Brunei

  33

  33

  0

  47

  47

  0

  —

  —

  —

  506W
  I am deeply concerned about the humanitarian and economic impact of closures. Sustained closures continue to restrict the free movement of people and essential supplies between the Occupied Territories and Israel and other countries, as well as within the Occupied Territories. The suffocation of the Palestinian economy, growing unemployment and the disruption of public service and normal social activity in the territories can only fuel hatred and violence. The lifting of closures form part of the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee report. We have expressed our serious concerns to the Israeli Government on political, legal and humanitarian grounds, and will continue to do so.

  Immigration
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications have been received to enter and reside in the UK on the basis of(a) being married to a UK citizen and (b) intending to marry a UK citizen; and if he will list by the country of applicants the number of (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful applications in each category in each of the last three years. [40640]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We do not maintain centrally statistics on the number of applications received to enter and reside in the UK on the basis of either being married to or intending to marry a UK citizen.

  Such applicants are recorded under the general category of settlement. The figures within this category include dependants and those seeking to reside in the UK on the basis of marriage to someone already resident in the UK but not necessarily a British citizen to differentiate between these type of applications, we would need to ask all posts to conduct a manual check of all applications.

  Figures for total number of settlement applications received, issued and refused in 1999, 2000 and 2001 are attached. Those for 1999 and 2000 are already in the House Library; those for 2001 are based on monthly statistical returns from the largest 110 entry clearance posts handling 98 per cent. of all visa applications.
  507W

  Settlement applications

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Country

  Receive

  Issued

  Refused

  Received

  Issued

  Refused

  Received

  Issued

  Refused

  Bulgaria

  177

  0

  0

  180

  165

  0

  67

  153

  10

  Burma

  10

  10

  1

  18

  12

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Cameroon

  37

  14

  10

  41

  33

  15

  143

  35

  16

  Canada

  1,404

  1,359

  2

  1,312

  1,263

  5

  303

  1,225

  10

  Chile

  54

  54

  0

  23

  23

  0

  —

  —

  —

  China

  1,111

  817

  70

  1,069

  782

  55

  1,037

  968

  68

  Colombia

  198

  182

  16

  160

  140

  8

  82

  120

  18

  Costa Rica

  8

  8

  0

  9

  9

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Croatia

  74

  73

  I

  55

  55

  0

  47

  64

  7

  Cuba

  102

  103

  7

  97

  78

  7

  66

  99

  3

  Cyprus

  410

  389

  9

  371

  348

  5

  156

  310

  5

  Czech Republic

  320

  2

  2

  2,039

  1,862

  44

  226

  311

  0

  Democratic Republic Congo

  81

  16

  5

  119

  49

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Denmark

  16

  15

  1

  3

  3

  0

  2

  9

  2

  Ecuador

  45

  44

  0

  48

  38

  10

  18

  69

  13

  Egypt

  188

  194

  35

  174

  152

  11

  97

  152

  38

  El Salvador

  4

  4

  0

  7

  6

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Estonia

  37

  37

  0

  37

  37

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  334

  156

  26

  200

  274

  147

  669

  597

  528

  Falkland Islands

  2

  1

  0

  304

  298

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Fiji

  22

  20

  2

  42

  42

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Finland

  5

  6

  0

  2

  4

  0

  —

  —

  —

  France

  73

  6

  16

  96

  87

  2

  65

  79

  1

  Georgia

  17

  17

  0

  17

  17

  0

  10

  17

  0

  Germany

  122

  114

  12

  89

  83

  6

  61

  87

  18

  Ghana

  851

  739

  109

  1,049

  671

  247

  768

  978

  936

  Gibraltar

  3

  3

  0

  6

  6

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Greece

  52

  48

  0

  44

  45

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Guatemala

  23

  23

  0

  16

  16

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Guyana

  73

  83

  8

  115

  116

  3

  59

  102

  13

  Honduras

  5

  5

  0

  4

  4

  0

  —

  Hungary

  180

  165

  1

  127

  126

  8

  103

  149

  0

  Iceland

  5

  5

  0

  1

  1

  0

  —

  —

  —

  India

  5,613

  5,290

  1,118

  5,039

  4,665

  1,000

  3,406

  4,988

  1,072

  Indonesia

  169

  136

  3

  135

  129

  6

  36

  177

  6

  Iran

  397

  385

  0

  380

  379

  0

  336

  446

  62

  Ireland

  134

  120

  0

  126

  95

  7

  33

  41

  17

  Israel

  210

  209

  1

  196

  186

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Italy

  54

  52

  3

  59

  55

  5

  35

  50

  1

  Ivory Coast

  67

  50

  30

  38

  31

  4

  1

  78

  8

  Jamaica

  348

  305

  86

  328

  351

  94

  205

  296

  50

  Japan

  454

  416

  17

  441

  423

  15

  180

  255

  111

  Jerusalem

  57

  50

  2

  76

  39

  1

  5

  13

  0

  Jordan

  188

  173

  15

  253

  199

  20

  104

  182

  34

  Kazakhstan

  61

  57

  4

  36

  31

  5

  11

  73

  1

  Kenya

  1,419

  1,229

  36

  1,437

  1,063

  30

  727

  1,574

  158

  Korea

  57

  56

  1

  62

  60

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Kuwait

  138

  63

  3

  87

  73

  6

  25

  27

  11

  Latvia

  53

  52

  1

  50

  47

  2

  37

  65

  3

  Lebanon

  115

  101

  3

  147

  135

  12

  69

  95

  7

  Lesotho

  11

  10

  0

  4

  3

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Libya

  113

  115

  0

  107

  106

  1

  21

  23

  7

  Lithuania

  75

  68

  2

  78

  76

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Luxembourg

  12

  12

  0

  16

  16

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Macedonian

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  49

  59

  13

  Madagascar

  7

  4

  3

  7

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Malawi

  66

  57

  0

  89

  79

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Malaysia

  525

  532

  9

  328

  512

  8

  242

  444

  12

  Malta

  161

  161

  0

  164

  148

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Mauritius

  182

  164

  15

  138

  118

  5

  80

  78

  23

  Mexico

  80

  80

  0

  86

  85

  0

  54

  104

  1

  Mongolia

  6

  6

  0

  4

  4

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Morocco

  343

  291

  20

  368

  351

  24

  307

  404

  45

  Morocco

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Morocco

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Mozambique

  15

  15

  0

  12

  13

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Namibia

  20

  18

  2

  10

  9

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Nepal

  74

  59

  7

  100

  94

  3

  86

  75

  22

  Netherlands

  128

  119

  8

  115

  Ill

  2

  73

  115

  0

  New Zealand

  1,989

  1,922

  2

  2,075

  1,918

  4

  698

  1,836

  1

  Nicaragua

  1

  1

  0

  2

  2

  0

  —

  —

  —

  508W 509W

  Settlement applications

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Country

  Receive

  Issued

  Refused

  Received

  Issued

  Refused

  Received

  Issued

  Refused

  Nigeria

  165

  126

  9

  125

  96

  19

  87

  146

  67

  Nigeria

  1,379

  667

  366

  1,108

  1,228

  248

  629

  1,077

  348

  Norway

  8

  0

  0

  14

  14

  0

  2

  4

  0

  Oman

  70

  70

  0

  57

  55

  1

  7

  12

  1

  Pakistan

  10,840

  6,649

  2,643

  10,515

  12,042

  2,094

  6,564

  9,753

  3,579

  Panama

  6

  6

  0

  6

  6

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Papua New Guinea

  15

  14

  0

  93

  94

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Peru

  61

  59

  1

  72

  67

  3

  31

  55

  0

  Philippines

  808

  737

  44

  879

  647

  42

  525

  732

  71

  Poland

  307

  299

  6

  309

  292

  109

  203

  298

  2

  Portugal

  36

  34

  I

  27

  27

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Qatar

  11

  9

  1

  16

  15

  2

  4

  16

  0

  Romania

  194

  180

  8

  244

  173

  35

  180

  251

  36

  Russia

  707

  643

  30

  822

  775

  42

  419

  790

  28

  Rwanda

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Saudi Arabia

  232

  214

  10

  163

  134

  10

  73

  123

  28

  Senegal

  48

  27

  21

  29

  26

  0

  14

  17

  3

  Seychelles

  22

  22

  0

  26

  26

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  0

  0

  0

  164

  101

  25

  —

  —

  —

  Singapore

  290

  289

  0

  287

  280

  1

  79

  134

  0

  Slovak Republic

  254

  254

  3

  238

  225

  3

  75

  173

  4

  Solomon Islands

  3

  3

  0

  5

  5

  0

  —

  —

  —

  South Africa

  2,236

  2,214

  23

  15

  15

  0

  1,381

  2,160

  43

  Spain

  55

  55

  0

  46

  46

  0

  16

  32

  0

  Sri Lanka

  683

  541

  80

  878

  843

  35

  1,032

  921

  189

  Sudan

  22

  22

  0

  96

  94

  27

  63

  80

  39

  Swaziland

  7

  7

  0

  9

  9

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Sweden

  20

  20

  0

  11

  9

  0

  8

  6

  0

  Switzerland

  143

  131

  2

  129

  127

  1

  47

  86

  5

  Syria

  170

  129

  12

  142

  73

  14

  361

  185

  45

  Taiwan

  54

  54

  0

  61

  61

  0

  37

  52

  9

  Tanzania

  148

  118

  12

  169

  134

  23

  43

  130

  19

  Thailand

  1,190

  997

  63

  1,557

  1,471

  98

  1,014

  1,894

  248

  The Gambia

  305

  245

  23

  313

  239

  26

  214

  290

  57

  to Domingo

  39

  27

  4

  30

  42

  2

  26

  36

  4

  Tonga

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Trinidad and Tobago

  138

  139

  4

  0

  0

  0

  56

  86

  5

  Tunisia

  244

  219

  25

  250

  227

  32

  226

  282

  58

  Turkey

  1,052

  754

  128

  1,325

  836

  39

  556

  941

  78

  Turkmenistan

  5

  5

  0

  10

  10

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Uganda

  108

  86

  15

  254

  170

  40

  314

  388

  135

  Ukraine

  171

  157

  5

  336

  327

  6

  256

  373

  27

  United Arab Emirates

  219

  184

  7

  205

  177

  18

  90

  156

  25

  United States of America

  2,793

  2,688

  17

  2,722

  2,637

  4

  1,298

  2,321

  9

  Uruguay

  7

  7

  0

  3

  3

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Uzbekistan

  36

  33

  4

  23

  23

  0

  3

  40

  3

  Vanuatu

  5

  5

  0

  4

  4

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Venezuela

  41

  40

  1

  48

  48

  0

  235

  347

  50

  Vietnam

  72

  49

  20

  128

  109

  7

  56

  109

  17

  Yemen

  309

  197

  54

  317

  289

  92

  205

  345

  74

  Yugoslavia

  23

  22

  1

  110

  100

  0

  41

  58

  3

  Zambia

  123

  76

  1

  123

  102

  15

  45

  70

  5

  Zimbabwe

  448

  447

  1

  861

  853

  8

  337

  635

  3

  Total

  79,469

  63,819

  10,734

  79,342

  77,105

  10,033

  47,165

  72,131

  14,531

  Overseas Representatives (Business Promotion)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who initiated, and on what date, the draft letter for the Prime Minister submitted by the British Ambassador to Romania in support of the acquisition of Sidex by Mr. Lakshmi Mittal's company. [39716]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 610–11W.

  Romania
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings were held between Romanian officials and Ministers and British Ministers and officials during the Romanian Government's visit to Britain in November 2001. [39052]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The Romanian Prime Minister met my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the Secretary of State for International Development. Mr. Nastase was accompanied

  511W
  by his Ministers and officials and British Ministers were accompanied by officials. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), and I had separate meetings with the Romanian Foreign Minister. There were further meetings in the margins of the visit between officials and members of the Romanian delegation, as is our usual practice. The main topics for discussion included EU enlargement and Romania's progress with her application, including political and economic reforms.

SCOTLAND

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Government are taking to allow local authorities to make the electoral register available for commercial purposes. [31217]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, on 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 450W.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total cost to her Department was of the use of external Consultants in each of the last four years. [35028]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  In 2000–01 the Department spent £on external Consultants and in the current year spending to date is £17,484.

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in her Department; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work-related stress, and at what cost; what

  SI reference

  SI title

  SI 2001/1399

  The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) Order 2001 (Amends SI 1999/783)

  SI 2001/1400

  The Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2001

  SI 2001/1456

  The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2001

  SI 2001/1748

  The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2001

  SI 2001/1750

  The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2001

  SI 2001/2478

  The Scotland Act 1998 (Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001) Order 2001

  SI 2001/2748

  The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 (Conditions attached to PSV Operator's Licence and Competition Test for Exercise of Bus Functions) Order 2001

  SI 2001/3504

  The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No. 2) Order 2001

  SI 2001/497

  Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001

  SI 2001/1749

  Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2001

  SI 2001/2817

  Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Scotland) Regulations 2001

  The purpose of each instrument is described in its explanatory note.

  There are no separately identifiable costs for the following statutory instruments to public funds, businesses or individuals, but I expect it to be minimal in each case:

  SI 2001/1400

  SI 2001/1456

  512W
  procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress, and at what cost, in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [35941]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  No cases of work-related stress have been reported in my Department since that date. The Scotland Office is committed to providing a safe and healthy working environment for all its employees. This includes ensuring that work practices are safe and free from hazards to health and that effective occupational health policies and good health management practices are developed.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total cost of her 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. [36145]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  The cost and number of page impressions for my Department's website is as follows:

  Period

  Cost (£)

  Numbers of page impressions

  1 July 2000 to 31 March 2000

  293.75

  26,092

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  293.75

  194,991

  1 April 2001 to 31 January 2002

  269.75

  356,122

  Statutory Instruments
  Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the statutory instruments issued by her Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [36225]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The following is a list of the statutory instruments made by the Scotland Office in the 12 months to 31 December 2001:

  SI 2001/2478

  SI 2001/2748

  SI 2001/3504

  SI 2001/1748

  SI 2001/1750

  SI 2001/2817.

  513W
  Most of the costs of implementing the remaining instruments are not separately identifiable and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Voting devices for blind voters introduced by SI 2001/497 were provided centrally for the UK parliamentary election in Scotland in 2001 at a cost of £46,300. Other costs incurred by returning officers under SI 2001/497 and SI 2001/1399 can be reclaimed through the relevant Returning Officers' Charges Order. No extra provision has been made within the local government public expenditure plans for electoral registration officers implementing the new measures introduced by SI 2001/497, SI 2001/1749 and SI 2001/1399.

  Ministerial Boxes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what means ministerial boxes are conveyed from private offices in her Department to(a) herself and (b) her fellow Ministers; how frequently and at what expense private courier firms are employed for such a task; and which courier firms have been used for such duties. [36285]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Ministerial boxes originating from my Department are transported to Ministers' homes either by Government car or by a service provided by the Royal Mail, if necessary.

  Ministerial boxes are also transported along with other mail between offices in London, Edinburgh and Glasgow by the inter-office van service. The contract for this service was awarded to Securitas by the former Scottish Office and it is now maintained by the Scottish Executive.

  Health and Safety (Computers)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees in her Department who regularly use computers have taken up the provision of a free eye test; and how this service is advertised to(a) current and (b) new staff. [36695]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My staff are reimbursed for the cost of eyesight tests to ensure full compliance with Health and Safety legislation. Further to this, assistance in the purchase of spectacles or contact lenses to prescribed limits is also available to staff. This scheme is advertised on the departmental intranet site. All staff who regularly use computers have access to this site. Details of the numbers of Scotland Office staff who have taken up this provision of a free eye test are not available.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responsibility she has for planning consent for new nuclear power stations in Scotland. [40460]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Planning law is devolved. In addition, the power to grant authorisations for the construction of new power stations, under section 36 of the Electricity Act, has been executively devolved to the Scottish Ministers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Population
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Home Office in the last 12 months has revised its predictions of the growth in the prison population. [40002]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Statistical bulletins concerning the long term prison population projections are issued every May; the last one was published on 23 May 2001. Short term projections are issued every May and November.

  A copy of the most recent long term projection is kept in the Library. Details of the current short term projection are included in the monthly "Prison Population Brief', which is available on the Home Office website at the following address: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prisonsl.html

  Custody
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when and in what form he intends to publish his proposals in relation to part-time custody. [40004]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Intermittent custody (part time custody) is being worked up as part of the package of sentencing reforms currently being considered by the Government in response to the "Making Punishments Work" report written by John Halliday. My intention is to publish a White Paper later this year.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) independent custody visitors' groups and (b) lay observers' panels published their annual reports in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [40003]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Information about the number of independent (police) custody groups publishing annual reports in the last year is not kept centrally. However, each police authority's annual report should contain a reference to independent custody visiting within the relevant area.

  There are eight (prisoner escort) lay observers panels in England and Wales and all of them have published their annual reports in the last year.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring boards of visitors, lay observers and independent custody visitors under a single umbrella organisation; and if he will make a statement. [40010]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: There are no plans at present.

  Experience Corps
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what senior appointments have been made to the board of Experience Corps; and on what terms. [39803]
  515W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The Experience Corps is an independent company. Its appointments are subject to the memorandum and articles of association of the company. The current list of directors is listed on its website or is available from the company.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been allocated to the Experience Corps; over what period; and how much had been spent by 31 December 2001. [39804]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The Experience Corps company has been allocated a total of £19.9 million pounds for the period until 31 March 2004 to deliver the initiative. The first instalment of grant-in-aid was paid in September 2001. By 31 December 2001, the Home Office had paid a total of £2.8 million in grant-in-aid to the Experience Corps company.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the performance of the Experience Corps to date. [39728]

  Angela Eagle
  The Experience Corps company was established in March 2001 and signed a financial agreement with the Home Office in September 2001. It is organising separate launches in each of the nine government regions of England; the first took place in November 2001 and they will be completed by April 2002. It has the objective of 250,000 volunteers over the lifetime of the initiative. We will receive a report on the first six months' progress by the summer.

  Date Rape
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives police authorities on investigating allegations of date rape involving use of gammahydroxybutyrate. [14288]

  Mr. Denham
  Guidance on good practice in rape investigation is available to the police from the National Crime Faculty, who are able where necessary to draw on expertise elsewhere in the service on the investigation of cases where rape may have been facilitated by the administration of drugs. In addition, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary will shortly be publishing the report of a thematic inspection of rape investigation. The Government have accepted in principle that gammahydroxybutyrate (GHB) should be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and the Home Office published on 4 March 2002 a consultation letter on this proposal.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what monitoring of compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 in young offenders institutions his Department has undertaken; and what resources have been made available for this. [38366]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 March 2002]: All prison service policies have been audited for compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and all prison service activities, both in relation to prisoners and staff, have to comply with the Act. The Prison Service monitors young offender institutions and other establishments by means of some 60 performance standards. Independent Boards of Visitors are present in all establishments, whose
  516W
  members have a right to visit all parts of the establishment at any time of day or night. Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons inspects establishments on a regular cycle and also makes unannounced visits. Prisoners and young offenders may make complaints to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. An operational area manager at Assistant Director level was appointed on 1 April 2001, specifically to oversee the juvenile estate. A unit in Prison Service headquarters disseminates information about the Human Rights Act and monitors challenges under the Act. All these activities take account of human rights among other matters but the costs cannot be separately identified.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what monitoring of compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 in asylum accommodation centres his Department has undertaken; and what resources have been made available for this. [38369]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 6 March 2002]: Trial accommodation centres have not yet been established. However, the process of establishing them will include an assessment of all the relevant factors including compatibility with the Human Rights Act.

  Immigration
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the immigration status of a person who is given permanent leave to remain in the UK because they are marrying a British citizen who divorces that person a number of years later; and if such a person then has a right to a claim on public funds. [41277]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: A person granted indefinite leave to remain on the basis of their marriage to a British Citizen does not forfeit that status if they later divorce. They will retain their settled status and their eligibility for public funds.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of people whose immigration status is irregular in terms of(a) visitors who have overstayed, (b) students who have overstayed, (c). asylum seekers who have exhausted their appeal rights and (d) illegal entrants who have made no attempt to regularise their stay; what information he has on the average length of stay of such people; and what his policy is for regularising their situation. [39493]

  Angela Eagle
  No estimates have been made of the number of persons in the categories requested and information on the average length of stay of such persons is not available. No Government have ever been able to give reliable estimates of this nature. However, the Home Office has commissioned a study which will consider methods of estimating the size and characteristics of the illegal population.

  It remains our policy that overstayers and illegal entrants are liable to removal from the United Kingdom. The Immigration Service seeks to remove from the United Kingdom all persons who no longer have any basis of stay.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of violent crime was in each constituency in Wales in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [32111]

  Mr. Denham
  Recorded crime data are not collected by parliamentary constituency. Information on numbers of certain offences, including violent crime, has been collected centrally at police Basic Command Unit (BCU), and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership level, since 1 April 1999. The Home Office statistical bulletin "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to March 2001", published on 19 July 2001, includes details of recorded crimes in these areas.

  The British Crime Survey has shown that, in England and Wales as a whole, victimisation for the violent crime in the survey which is comparable to recorded crime decreased by 19 per cent. between the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, whereas comparable violent crime recorded by the police increased by 9 per cent. Violent crime recorded by the police may therefore not necessarily be a reflection of real changes in the level of victimisation.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to establish a mandatory central database for registering animal experiments to enable the sharing of results. [40373]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: It is already Home Office policy to encourage the publication of the findings of research licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, which assesses and advises on licence applications made under the 1986 Act, uses a range of resources to keep abreast of developments and results in research. The scientific community also maintains and uses databases to the same end.

  However, the establishment of a mandatory central database for this purpose would be problematic. There would, in particular, be significant difficulties in ensuring the completeness and quality of the data and in ensuring that intellectual or commercial confidentiality were not compromised.

  We believe that there is scope for further reducing the risk of duplication in the use of animals in scientific procedures by encouraging companies to share data. To this end, in August 2000, we announced an interdepartmental concordat on data sharing to enable Government Departments to reduce the duplication of tests on animals. The concordat commits United Kingdom regulatory authorities to help resolve legal and other obstacles and encourage data sharing between clients and thereby reduce animal tests. Progress in implementing the concordat will be reviewed in the next few months.

  Moreover, there are a number of international and national initiatives to encourage data sharing. Most recent European directives under which regulatory work is done provide for the sharing of data. International assessment programmes have well-established and effective methods for data sharing, ensuring mutual acceptance of data and dissemination of information on chemicals. This also extends to dissemination of data to developing countries.
  518W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to promote investment in alternatives to animal experiments; and if he will make a statement. [40372]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The use of alternatives is widely encouraged and the use of animals in regulated procedures is prohibited by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in cases where a scientifically valid non-animal alternative is available. Any lack of progress in research into alternatives is more often due to the limitations of science rather than inadequate funding.

  Most work on alternatives is neither done by Government nor with Government money, as industry spends many millions of pounds each year on the search for and development of alternatives. None the less, every year the Home Office makes available to the Animal Procedures Committee a budget for research aimed at developing or promoting the use of alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used, or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering. Details of completed research projects are published in the annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee, which is available from The Stationery Office. The amount made available to the Committee for 2001–02 for this specific purpose has increased to £280,000.

  This is not the only money spent by the Government on the development of alternatives, as other Departments are also active in this area. Indeed, it is estimated that the total spent by the United Kingdom Government is in the region of £2 million each year. To take this further on an international level, we will continue to support the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) through contributions to the European Union.

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the effect of the working time directive on his Department's employees; how many employees are working in excess of 48 hours per week; what steps he is taking to reduce this number; and if he will make a statement. [35889]

  Angela Eagle
  No formal assessment of the effect of the working time directive has been undertaken but it forms part of the Department's drive to reduce long-hours working by its staff. The Home Office is committed to achieving a proper work life balance for all staff as one part of its plans for greater diversity. Guidance to staff issued in November 2001 highlighted the requirements of the directive and emphasised the importance the Department places upon ensuring that employees are not required to work excessively long hours and the steps that managers should be taking to reduce them. Standard terms and conditions for staff employed by the Home Office are well within the limits set by the Working Time Regulations.

  Centrally held records show that 83 Home Office staff have signed voluntary waivers, indicating that they have agreed to work in excess of 48 hours per week, averaged over a 17 week period. Records of staff signing these

  519W
  waivers in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the Home Office agencies are not currently available centrally though the information is held locally.

  Europol
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the activities of the European Task Force of Police Chiefs, as identified in Council Document 13416/2/01, JAI 133. [39660]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Council Document referred to reports on the achievements of the Tampere action plan, when Heads of State and Government agreed, at Tampere in October 1999, to an ambitious programme of measures, which amplify and supplement the Amsterdam Treaty obligations but serve also to support the Treaty goal of creating an "area of freedom, security and justice". One of the areas for action is the Union-wide fight against international organised crime. The Police Chiefs Task Force (PCTF) was established to redress the problem that there was no forum in which senior police officers could decide to launch police operations against organised crime on the basis of Europol analyses.

  The task force has met on four occasions. Work still needs to be done to ensure that it focuses on the planning and execution of actual law enforcement operations at Union level, though these operations need not involve all member states. We also need to ensure that the task force is adequately supported, and that it has a defined place within the institutional architecture of the European Union. This could mean it having a similar role and status to the existing working groups, such as that on Police Co-operation and Europol. The possibility that Europol, as well as providing intelligence could also provide a secretariat, serving both the Europol Management Board and the PCTF is being examined.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the report to the Justice and Home Affairs Council by the Director of Europol on the coalition against terrorism. [39655]

  Angela Eagle
  The Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA) of 20 September 2001 urged member states' police and intelligence services to ensure that relevant information on terrorist activity be passed to Europol and invited the Director of Europol to report to the JHA Council on 6/7 December 2001 on member states' input. In his report, the Director noted member states' increased willingness to share information with Europol. The Government are committed to enhanced international co-operation against terrorism both within and outside the European union and fully supports Europol's counter-terrorist remit. This commitment is reflected in the Europol Director's recognition of the level of contributions offered by the police and intelligence services, in accordance with the terms of the Europol Convention, to Europol's counter-terrorism effort.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Europol-US agreement. [39654]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  This agreement concluded on 6 December 2001 provides for exchanges of information between Europol and the United States of America, covering strategic information including trends and 520W
  developments in the methods used to commit offences, prevention strategies, threat assessments and crime situation reports. It specifically excludes the transmission of personal data. The Government attach importance to this agreement in the fight against organised crime.

  Laeken Summit
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what programmes are envisaged under paragraph 40 of the Laeken conclusions, combating discrimination and racism. [39638]

  Angela Eagle
  Paragraph 40 of the conclusions of the Laeken Council identifies areas in which further work is needed in order to progress towards a common European Union immigration and asylum policy. It was agreed at the Tampere Council in October 1999 that measures to ensure the fair treatment of third country nationals, including measures to tackle discrimination and racism and xenophobia, should form part of such a policy. Key developments in implementing the Tampere Conclusions in this respect have included the adoption by the Council of two equal treatment directives in June 2000 and November 2000 respectively and the adoption of a Council Decision in November 2000 on a Community Action Programme (2001–06) to support member states' efforts in this area.

  The Community Action Programme will explore practical ways of overcoming the barriers created by discrimination in many areas of everyday life by comparing and contrasting experiences in different parts of the European Union. The programme will work with national, local and regional bodies, social partners, non-governmental organisations, universities and research institutes, national statistical offices and the media on issues such as equality in public administration and the media, equal participation in political, economic and social life; equal access to housing, transport, culture, leisure, sport etc., and the monitoring and mainstreaming of anti-discrimination policies.

  The Council has also recently started to consider a Commission proposal for a Framework Decision on combating racist crime.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards increasing the number of JHA sessions under paragraph 37 of the Laeken conclusions, with reference to an increase in legislation and parliamentary scrutiny requirements. [39636]

  Angela Eagle
  The Laeken European Council concluded that holding more frequent meetings of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Ministers would help to overcome delays in implementing the conclusions of the Tampere European Council of October 1999. The Government attach great importance to the implementation of the Tampere European Council's conclusions and support more frequent meetings of JHA ministers provided that such meetings are focused on resolving obstacles to agreement on key measures in the Tampere programme. We also consider that two-day JHA Council meetings should be the exception rather than the rule.

  The legislative work programme agreed at the Tampere European Council is substantial. Measures under negotiation in the Council are subject to scrutiny by

  521W
  Parliament, and some will require domestic legislation to implement. The increasing volume of justice and home affairs business at European Union level will have implications of our Parliament.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards paragraph 43 of the Laeken conclusions, on the Public Prosecutor. [39640]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Commission Green Paper on Criminal Law protection of financial interests of the Community and the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor was published in December 2001. Its purpose is to launch a wide-ranging public debate about the possible creation of a European Public Prosecutor, responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases of fraud against the Community budget. Member states have been asked to provide responses to the paper by 1 June 2002, and the Commission intends to hold a public hearing for interested parties in 2002.

  A European Public Prosecutor as proposed by the Commission could be created only after amendment of the European Community Treaty. The Government remain unconvinced of the need for a European Public Prosecutor, and sees difficulties of both principle and practice in this proposal. We are preparing a response to the Green Paper, in consultation with interested departments and agencies, including non-governmental organisations.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the purpose of Council Document 11896/01, amending UK participation in the Schengen Agreement. [39658]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Council Document 11896–01 contains a proposal to amend Article 40.1 and 40.7 of the Schengen Convention. It is currently under negotiation within the Justice and Home Affairs Council and has been deposited for scrutiny by the European Scrutiny Committees of both Houses.

  The purpose of the proposed amendments is to remove existing restrictions to the operation of cross-border surveillance between participating member states. The proposal would amend Article 40.1 to allow cross-border surveillance not only of the person suspected of having taken part in an extraditable criminal offence but also of other persons in the context of the criminal investigation. Article 40.7 would be amended to extend the list of extraditable offences for which cross-border surveillance may be carried out. Adoption of the proposal will be subject to unanimity. The United Kingdom (UK) broadly supports the amendment. Implementation in the UK will be subject to the requirements of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and practical operation will be subject to UK police control.

  The terms in which the UK will participate in certain areas of the Schengen Convention are set out in the council decision of 29 May 2000 (2000/365/EC). The UK will participate in Article 40 of the Schengen Convention and under the terms of Article 8 of the decision of 29 May 2000, the UK is participating in the adoption of the
  522W
  amendment. Preparation for UK participation in the specified areas of Schengen are under way, and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what penalties will be imposed by him against those who escaped from Yarl's Wood following the fire but were recaptured; [38670]

  (2) what penalties including loss of asylum rights are available to him to impose on those who are at large following the Yarl's Wood fire who are asylum seekers. [38661]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The Immigration Acts do not at present provide for adverse inferences to be drawn from behaviour such as absconding or escaping from a removal centre. However, in the case of persons who were held pending removal, their removal could of course proceed once they are apprehended. Individuals who have outstanding applications or appeals would be detained pending the outcome of those matters. In the case of individuals who remain at large, the consideration of any outstanding asylum applications would proceed on the basis of the information available and this could well result in refusal. Similarly, appellants who fail to attend the hearing of their appeals would damage their chances at appeal.

  Under the new arrangements set out in the White Paper, "Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain", all asylum seekers will be expected to comply fully with the more managed systems that are being put in place. If they do not do so, it will adversely affect the credibility of their claim for asylum and will increase the chances of their claim being refused.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [37448]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information on public correspondence relates solely to volumes, the number, and proportion of replies sent within the 20 working day target. The information is not held in such a way as to provide the more detailed breakdown requested, and has been collected only since 1999. It does not currently include information on public correspondence received by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

  Table A gives the information available for public correspondence:

  Table A: Letters received from the public through 1999 to 2001

  Volume of letters received

  Performance—percentage answered within 20 working days

  1999

  26,616

  57

  2000

  34,471

  71

  2001

  35,549

  76

  523W
  The following tables give the information requested for MPs' correspondence. Information on letters on immigration and nationality matters, which make up roughly half the postbag, is set out in table C. Non-immigration and nationality correspondence is set out in table B.

  Table B: Letters received from MPs through 1997 to 20011

  Number of replies sent

  Average response time in working days

  Performance—percentage of replies taking more than:

  One calendar month

  Three calendar months

  1997

  8,517

  33

  56

  4

  1998

  11,954

  24

  47

  6

  1999

  11,471

  17

  14

  2

  2000

  11,206

  19

  18

  2

  2001

  8,341

  22

  25

  2

  1 Non-immigration and nationality correspondence

  Table C: Letters received from MPs through 1997 to 20011

  Number of replies sent

  Average response time in working days

  Performance—percentage of replies taking more than:

  One calendar month

  Three calendar months

  1997

  7,423

  32

  64

  5

  1998

  8,167

  34

  53

  10

  1999

  7,501

  40

  75

  13

  2000

  9,596

  51

  67

  24

  2001

  8,954

  43

  60

  16

  1 Immigration and nationality matters

  The Home Department receives large amounts of correspondence from hon. Members, right hon. Friends, hon. Friends and members of the public. We aim to send a substantive reply to all letters as soon as possible. I am determined to achieve a high level of performance in dealing quickly with correspondence and to deliver a greater standard of service to all Members of Parliament and the public.

  We are working with our information technology partners to develop a long term strategy for handling correspondence, e-mails and telephone inquires. In the short term we are implementing a number of organisational and process changes to bring about improvements in the quality and timeliness of replies. I am monitoring the situation closely and am committed to further improvements.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the(a) percentage and number of rail journeys undertaken on first class tickets, (b) average cost of a first class journey by rail and (c) total cost of rail travel in each of the past four years broken down by grade of civil servant. [37505]
  524W
  Dr. John Reid
  As we do not hold the information requested in the format required, an answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 878W, how many plastic baton rounds have been (a) expended and (b) decommissioned at the end of their active lifespan; and what the maximum life is of a plastic baton round. [29943]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable advises me that:(a) During the period 1981 to 21 November 2001 a total of 41,839 baton rounds were discharged by the police.

  (b) No L21 baton rounds have been decommissioned: they are not at the end of their life span. Stock rotation ensures that rounds nearing the expiry of their shelf life are used for training purposes only. The recommended shelf life of the current L21 baton rounds is 1.5 years.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 878W, by what process unspent plastic baton rounds are disposed of; what body carries out this function and at what cost; and what proportion of disposed pbrs leave the armoury in their original container as supplied. [29944]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable advises me that as operational stocks are recycled through training baton rounds are only disposed of when there has been an official change in the specification. In these circumstances the rounds are boxed in metal H83 containers which are inspected and sealed by the Army at no cost to the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

  Baton rounds for disposal leave the Police Service of Northern Ireland in H83 metal ammunition boxes only. When handed over to the Army the rounds are removed from plastic 'outers' and are packed loose in bathes of 25. None of the original containers as supplied leave police premises.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 878W, in what type of containers plastic baton rounds are supplied to the police. [29945]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable advises me that baton rounds are received by the police service of Northern Ireland in UN approved packaging. The packaging is reinforced cardboard boxes, marked UN 4G/Y23/S/99/GB/4031. Each box contains five clear plastic, custom made, carrying bags (GPL SPEC 2757).

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 878W, how and in what condition plastic baton rounds are stored (a) upon supply, (b) following distribution to barracks and (c) following issue to individual officers. [29946]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable advises me that:(a) Upon receipt by the police service of Northern Ireland baton rounds are stored in their original UN approved packaging within a temperature controlled and secure ammunition magazine.
  525W
  (b) In preparation for distribution the baton rounds (still within their individual plastic carrying bags) are repackaged, in batches of 16, into metal ammunition boxes known as 'H83s'. The H83s are UN approved and carry the marking UN 4A1/Y19/S/90/GB/0355. On arrival at police stations it has been customary to remove the plastic outer bag within the H83 box. The boxes are stored in the police station armoury until required.

  (c) Individual officers requiring access to baton rounds outside the police station are supplied with an H83 box for that purpose.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many press releases were issued by his Department(a) between I May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40037]

  Dr. John Reid
  Press releases issued by my Department are as follows:

  Month/year

  Number

  1 May to 31 December 1997

  844

  1998

  1,313

  1999

  1,055

  2000

  231

  2001

  248

  2002 as of 1 March

  60

  Police Injuries
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers were injured in the course of performing their duties in Northern Ireland in 2000. [35338]

  Jane Kennedy
  The table provides details of police officers injured as a result of terrorism or serious public disorder. Statistics on the number of police officers injured by other means (eg RTAs, and assaults while dealing with routine inquires) are not included.

  Security situation statistics 2000

  Police officers injured as a result of the security situation/serious public disorder

  Number

  Regular

  350

  Reserve

  96

  Total

  446

  Consultants
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) 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; [38735]

  (2) 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; [38737]
  526W
  (3) 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. [38736]

  Dr. John Reid
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many contracts the Department has with Capita; and how much they are worth. [38373]

  Dr. John Reid
  None.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Fair Trade
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether fair trade products are sold in his Department. [39824]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department also replies on behalf of its associated offices and the Court Service.

  Within the context of the Department's limited opportunity to buy fair trade goods, we take every opportunity to encourage their purchase in line with Government policy.

  For instance, at our headquarters building, our caterers currently offer fair trade coffee. In addition, our caterers in our courts in the northern, north-eastern and north Wales regions offer both fair trade tea and coffee.

  Both these suppliers have also agreed to promote the Fairtrade Foundation during Fair Trade Fortnight that runs from 4 to 17 March.

  CAFCASS
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on how the recommendations of the Advisory Board on Family Law: Children Act Sub-Committee to the Lord Chancellor on the question of parental contract in cases where there is domestic violence have been adopted by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. [40408]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) have ensured that the Advisory Board on Family Law: Children Act Sub-Committee's guidelines on parental contact where there are allegations of domestic violence have been promulgated to its staff. The Lord Chancellor's Department are monitoring the effectiveness of the guidelines, including their use by CAFCASS. CAFCASS is also a member of the Lord Chancellor's Working Group on Child Contact Centres to improve procedures for referral to contact centres in cases, including those where there has been domestic violence.

  Human Rights
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will review the United Kingdom's position under the various international human rights instruments. [42171]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department will conduct a review with the following terms of reference:"To review the United Kingdom's position on international human rights instruments in the light of experience of the operation of the Human Rights Act, the availability of existing remedies within the UK, and law and practice in other EU member states; and to report by spring 2003".

  The review will consult widely within and outside Government. We hope to report the outcome in about a year's time.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sports Bodies
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 13 February 2002,Official Report, column 409W, on sports clubs, (1) on what evidence base the Government drew up proposals for reforming the system of rate relief for voluntary sports clubs contained in the White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership-Quality Public Services"; [39971]

  (2) whether official figures on rateable values define non-profit making sports bodies as a distinct category; and on what evidence the Government drew up the proposals for reforming the system of rate relief for voluntary sports clubs contained in the White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership-Quality Public Services". [39975]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  Rateable values for all non-domestic properties are published in the rating list for each billing authority in England. These indicate the type of each property, but do not record information about the occupiers of those properties. Sporting properties are identified by a number of categories, including bowling greens, clubhouses, cricket grounds/pitches, pavilions, golf courses, polo grounds, sports grounds, tennis courts/clubs, football grounds, football pitches, rugby union grounds. However, the rating lists do not show whether or not the occupiers of those properties are non-profit making sports bodies.

  The proposals on rate relief for voluntary sports clubs in the White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", follow consultation in the Green Paper, "Modernising Local Government Finances", which was published in September 2000. They are based on discussions with sports representative bodies and representations from many individual sports clubs. The White Paper proposals also take account of the decision of the Charity Commission, announced on 30 November 2001, to recognise community amateur sports clubs for charitable status. Both the White Paper proposals on rates and the Charity Commission announcement took account of evidence proved by the sports bodies and other sports clubs.

  Public Appointments (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people from Warrington, North she has appointed to non-departmental public bodies since 1997. [39451]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 5 March 2002): Since 1997 my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I have made around 280 public appointments to non-departmental public bodies. Our records indicate that, while two of these live in Warrington, none live in the Warrington, North constituency.

WALES

  Secondments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [31772]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In respect of the former Welsh Office (up to June 1999): figures are not available for 1998–99; there was one secondment to the private sector and 30 secondments to the public sector in 1999–2000.

  In respect of the Wales Office (since July 1999): there were no secondments in 1999–2000; there have been two secondments to the public sector in 2001–02.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names of staff who have been seconded to his Department from the private sector since May 1997, indicating(a) the names of the organisation from which each has come, (b) their responsibilities and civil service grades within his Department, (c) the organisation responsible for paying their salary and (d) the start and end dates of their secondment. [35832]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Figures are not available for 1997–98.

  For 1998–99—Nil.

  For 1999–2000 there were three people seconded to the Welsh Office (up to 30 June 1999) from the private sector.

  For 2000–01 and 2001–02 there were no staff seconded to the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales from the private sector.

  Cockle Gathering
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with Secretaries in the National Assembly for Wales on the prohibition on cockle gathering in the Burny Inlet caused by diarrhetic shellfish poisoning. [34532]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I regularly meet Assembly Ministers and cockle gathering is an issue which has been discussed.

  In addition, I recently met representatives of the cockle-gathering industry in the Gower together with the Assembly Member for that constituency, Edwina Hart.

  529W
  I have been made fully aware of the problems that the cockle gatherers are facing, the difficulties caused by the cockle beds being closed for eight months and the impact that that has had on their industry and livelihood.

  Asthma
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authorities in Wales are implementing an asthma policy. [36903]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Cynon Valley
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) job losses have been announced and (b) new jobs have been created in the Cynon Valley for each year since 1997; and what percentage were unemployed in February (i) 2002 and (ii) 1997. [40531]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There is no authoritative record of announced job losses and gains.

  The percentage of unemployed claimants in the Cynon Valley Parliamentary Constituency stood at 7.1 per cent. in January 2002 (the latest available figure). The equivalent figure in January 1997 was 16.1 per cent.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about the use of European structural funds to create employment in the Cynon Valley. [40537]

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

  The Cynon Valley is within the designated Objective 1 area. A key aim of the Objective 1 programme is to promote growth in employment and increase economic activity by developing small and medium sized businesses and encouraging community economic regeneration and rural development.

  Two major projects under the Rhondda Cynon Taff Partnership have been approved. Funding of £2.5 million has been made available for the Glamorgan Centre for Information and £1.4 million for a grant scheme for small to medium sized enterprises.

  It is also appropriate to mention that the Assembly's Wales European Funding Office itself has a significant presence in the Cynon Valley.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding prospects for manufacturing growth through inward investment in the Cynon Valley; [40530]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding prospects for employment growth in areas other than manufacturing through inward investment in the Cynon Valley. [40536]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with the First Minister to discuss a range of issues affecting Wales. The National Assembly and their partners in Team Wales are committed to 530W
  promoting all areas of Wales to potential overseas investors. Their aim is to encourage manufacturing growth alongside service sector developments to ensure a diverse, successful Welsh economy.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about the work of the Welsh Development Agency in(a) Cynon Valley, (b) Rhondda, Cynon, Taff and (c) Wales. [40535]

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

  The Welsh Development Agency has an all-Wales remit to further economic development, promote industrial efficiency and international competitiveness, and to improve the environment. In drawing up its plans and policies, the agency takes account of the balance of need between the regions in Wales, in terms of the amount and nature of the assistance that each requires in order to maximise its potential and that of Wales as a whole.

  The Cynon Valley, and Rhondda Cynon Taff as a whole will benefit from being within the Objective 1 area, giving it priority for economic regeneration.

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in his Department. [41015]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The permanent civil servants in my Department are all secondees from elsewhere and so would ordinarily qualify for (temporary) detached duty terms rather than (permanent) relocation. If ever it became appropriate, however, the Wales Office would pay relocation expenses in accordance with the approach set out in the Terms and Conditions of Service of the National Assembly for Wales.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the statutory instruments issued by his Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [36235]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  From 1 March 2002, explanatory memoranda will be provided for all affirmative instruments as announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, 1 February 2002, Official Report, column 585.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the remuneration of SchlumbergerSema Medical Services under the contract with his Department to assess entitlements to disability benefits is linked with the proportion of claims for disability benefits which are successful. [40789]
  531W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  There is no link between the charges for services provided by SchlumbergerSema, for medical advice and guidance, and the outcome of claims for disability benefits.

  Employer Direct
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the performance of Employer Direct in finding work for unemployed people. [34661]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Employer Direct is a new service that enables employers to notify job vacancies to the Department using a unique telephone number. It provides a more efficient and effective service, available for longer hours than previously when employers notified vacancies through their local jobcentres.

  Employer Direct is still under development. However, evidence from an earlier pilot suggests that it does attract more vacancies and that the information collected about those vacancies is more comprehensive and clear, thus presenting unemployed people with a wider and better choice of job vacancies. The Department began to collect statistics about the number of calls to Employer Direct in March 2001. Since then, over 875,000 calls have been received by this telephone helpline (figures correct to the end of December 2001).

  Benefits Offices (Facilities)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is towards the provision of(a) toilet and (b) child facilities for claimants using benefits offices; and if he will make a statement. [29746]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Public toilets have not traditionally been a feature in Jobcentres and Benefits Agency offices. However staff are sympathetic to the needs of customers, especially those with children, and can and do make staff toilets available where possible. This position has been reviewed with the introduction of the Jobcentre Plus Pathfinder offices, and the generic design includes the provision of toilets for both disabled and able-bodied customers. However, space limitations in the 56 recently completed Pathfinder offices has meant that the provision of toilets has not been possible in most sites.

  The new Jobcentre Plus design and layout is being evaluated and we will endeavour to ensure that the provision of toilets becomes a more prominent and consistent feature.

  The presence of children in Jobcentre/Jobcentre Plus offices has been an increasing consideration in their design over recent years, especially since the introduction of the new deal for lone parents. All public Employment Service offices have acknowledged this presence in the design of furniture components with rounded edges and

  Employment Service

  Benefits Agency

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Unknown

  1997

  —

  —

  —

  73

  6

  8

  13

  1998

  —

  —

  —

  24

  5

  4

  8

  1999

  225

  14

  6

  108

  13

  8

  —

  2000

  222

  7

  4

  142

  10

  12

  —

  2001

  210

  2

  10

  110

  7

  18

  —

  532W
  concealed cable management arrangements. Child facilities have not traditionally been a feature in Benefits Agency offices.

  However the introduction of Jobcentre Plus has allowed for this need to be further addressed. Many of the Pathfinders have children's play tables installed both in waiting areas and adjacent to the parent adviser desks. These allow for parents and guardians to participate in interviews with less distraction while still keeping a close eye on the children. Customer waiting times have been reduced by arranging timed appointments for advisory interviews.

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 150W, what has been the cost to public funds of the publications issued by his Department between 8 June and 26 October 2001. [30121]

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

  Assaults
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures his Department has in place to protect Benefits Agency staff from assault. [31714]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Regular health and safety risk assessments and safety inspections are conducted to ensure the safety of staff in Benefits Agency offices. These assessments are reviewed whenever new services are introduced.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) Benefits Agency and (b) Job Centre staff have been assaulted at their place of work in each of the last seven years in (a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the Uxbridge constituency. [31728]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is in the table. These cases cover all case of physical contact of any kind including throwing of small items or touching of any kind. Data are not held at constituency level and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  In recent years a possible under-reporting of incidents concerned both management and trade unions. An improved reporting form was introduced in April 1999, followed by a campaign by the Public and Commercial Services Union on reporting in 2000. The rise in reported incidents in the years from 1999 reflects this.

  Data from before 1997 in the Benefits Agency and 1999 in the Employment Service are not broken down by country. The Department does not hold information on Northern Ireland as this is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  533W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Benefits Agency staff have been(a) threatened and (b) assaulted in each of the past five years. [32971]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Over 20 million people pass through BA offices every year. Against that background, the table shows the number of cases of physical contact of any kind between a member of staff and a client (which could include spitting, the throwing of small items such as paper clips or rolled up forms, or touching of any kind), and those which did not involve any such contact. The second category includes verbal abuse, threats or incidents where clients damaged equipment.

  In recent years, both management and trade unions became concerned by a possible under-reporting of incidents. An improved reporting form was introduced in April 1999, followed by a PCS campaign on reporting in 2000. As the PCS accepts, in their evidence to the Social Security Select Committee, the rise in reported incidents in the calendar years 2000 and 2001 reflects this.

  Year

  Cases of physical contact

  Cases not involving physical contact

  1997

  100

  3,426

  1998

  41

  3,092

  1999

  129

  3,561

  2000

  164

  5,148

  2001

  134

  4,863

  Notes:

  1. Following further investigation of data held for 1999 and 2000 these figures have been revised.

  2. For 2001 the figures are based on information to date. These figures are based on the reports so far received, other incidents may have occurred but may not yet have been reported.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what discussions he has had with staff representatives about the impact of the introduction of Jobcentre Plus on staffing levels; [33504]

  (2) how many jobs have been lost to date as a result of the introduction of Jobcentre Plus; and how many have been lost from the (a) Benefits Agency and (b) Employment Service; [33503]

  (3) whether job losses will result from the integration of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service; and how many of these will be (a) enforced redundancies, (b) voluntary redundancies and (c) early retirement; [33505]

  (4) how many people employed by the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service will be moving to take up employment in new Jobcentre Plus offices; and what the timetable for such movements is. [33506]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Chief Executives of the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service wrote to all staff on 23 April 2001. They reassured staff that a key aim in developing plans for Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service would be to enable all current staff to have a job in the new organisations or one of the other agencies in the Department.
  534W
  Currently some 112,000 employees work in the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service. In April this year some 90,000 staff will move from the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service to Jobcentre Plus with the remainder moving to the Pension Service and a small number moving to other parts of the Department.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been paid in interim payments to benefit claimants who would otherwise have been affected by the strike in Jobcentre Plus offices; and how many claimants have received interim payments. [35288]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As at 11 February an estimated £3.2 million had been paid in interim payments to customers affected by the industrial action since the dispute began. The number of customers in total that have received interim payments since the start of industrial action is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Around 4,700 customers are currently in receipt of weekly or fortnightly interim payments.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2002 to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb),Official Report, column 688W, on incapacity benefit, what information the Government collect about people who claim incapacity benefit at Jobcentre Plus offices. [35296]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus collect information about people claiming benefits according to which client group they belong to. Information collected about the incapacitated or disabled persons client group, which includes incapacity benefit customers, includes the number of these people:

  Making a claim through Jobcentre Plus;

  Attending work-focused interviews;

  Failing to attend work-focused interviews;

  Having their work-focused interview deferred or waived;

  Attending review meetings;

  Referred to the new deal for disabled people;

  Applying for a job;

  Moving into work;

  Taking a place on training courses; and

  Leaving the system and, where possible, the reasons why.

  Information is collected about the number of claims there are to incapacity benefit and the speed and accuracy of processing these claims. This data are not collected in a way that would allow claims made through Jobcentre Plus pathfinder sites to be disaggregated from those made through normal Benefits Agency offices. In addition to statistical data, personal information is collected from incapacity benefit claimants in order to process their claims.

  Benefits (Single Parents)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what action the Government will take to facilitate the provision of(a) housing and (b) council tax benefit to single mothers who are deemed ineligible for such benefits on the grounds of co-tenanting the same premises with a member of the opposite sex with whom they have no relations [33915]
  535W
  (2) what action the Government will take to ensure that a single parent co-habiting premises with an unassociated member of the opposite sex is placed in the same position for provision of (a) housing and (b) council tax benefit as single parents co-habiting the same premises with a same sex partner. [33916]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Housing benefit and council tax benefit (HB/CTB) are income-related benefits and entitlement is calculated by looking at an individual's circumstances and income. HB/CTB claims from people who are joint tenants are treated in the same way as any other HB/CTB claim. It is a long-standing principle of the benefits system that where a person is a member of a married couple, or of an unmarried couple who are living together as husband and wife, the income and circumstances of their partner are taken into account when considering income-related benefit entitlement.

  We have no current plans to change these arrangements. The benefit treatment of same-sex couples will however be examined in the context of the interdepartmental study of civil partnership registration, announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 28 November 2001, Official Report, column 903W.

  Benefit Appeals
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many appeals have been launched against loss or reduction in(a) disability living allowance, (b) attendance allowance and (c) incapacity benefit; and what percentage were successful in each year since 1996 in the Stroud constituency. [34422]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available on a constituency basis, but only on the basis of the Appeals Service Agency Regional Centre in Cardiff.

  Attendance allowance

  Disability living allowance

  Incapacity benefit

  1998

  Caseload (UK)

  1,241,700

  2,014,200

  2,301,700

  Number lodged at Cardiff Regional Centre

  620

  7,285

  12,750

  Percentage of hearings found in favour

  47.5

  47.3

  33.9

  1999

  Caseload (UK)

  1,266,900

  2,084,000

  2,275,300

  Number lodged

  885

  8,230

  8,115

  Percentage of hearings found in favour

  48.6

  49.9

  35.9

  2000

  Caseload (UK)

  1,270,500

  2,160,300

  2,286,200

  Number lodged

  1,895

  15,560

  6,780

  Percentage of hearings found in favour

  41.6

  48.2

  36.6

  January 2001–end October 2001

  Caseload (UK)

  1,294,300

  2,271,100

  2,337,800

  Number lodged

  1,450

  10,410

  5,800

  Percentage of hearings found in favour

  42.5

  52.5

  40.5

  Notes:

  All figures are subject to change as more up to date data becomes available.

  Caseload figures (UK) are rounded to the nearest 100.

  Lodged figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  All caseload figures used are at 31 August of each year.

  Information prior to 1998 is not available.
  536W
  Source:

  Lodged and percentage of hearing figures: 100 per cent. download of the Generic Appeals Processing System

  Caseload figures: from 5 per cent. samples of the benefit computer systems.

  Carers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the financial assistance given to carers was last reviewed. [38203]

  Maria Eagle
  In autumn 2000 a substantial package of measures to help carers was announced. This amounts to over £500 million of extra support in the first three years covered by the announcement.

  It includes a number of improvements to the main carer benefits aimed in particular at helping older and poorer carers, as well as helping carers to keep in touch with work by making part-time employment more worthwhile financially.

  The package also included measures to remove the barrier that prevents people aged 65 or over from claiming invalid care allowance; ensure entitlement to ICA will continue for up to eight weeks after the death of the disabled person; and rename ICA as "carer's allowance".

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when a draft Bill will be produced on reforming minimum funding requirement arrangements for occupational pension schemes. [38463]

  Maria Eagle
  The Government have consulted widely on the future of the minimum funding requirement (MFR), and has announced their proposals to replace it with a long-term scheme specific funding standard in the context of a regime of transparency and disclosure, with additional measures to strengthen security. We are working closely with the pensions industry, consumer organisations, employers and trades unions to develop the details of our proposals, and will introduce primary legislation to replace the MFR as soon as parliamentary time is available.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many incapacity benefit recipients there were in each financial year since 1997, on a quarterly basis. [39377]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is published in the Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance Quarterly Summary Statistics: August 2001, a copy of which is available in the Library. The information is also available on the Department's website, www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/online.html.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 13 February 2002 to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable),Official Report, column 506W, on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, if he will make available in the Library the

  537W
  research which indicates an increase in awareness levels and changes to the policies and practices of employers and service providers. [39755]

  Maria Eagle
  Through research, the Government are monitoring awareness of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 among a range of groups, including the general public, employers and service providers. We are also seeking to monitor the Act's impact on the policies and practices of employers and service providers. A number of DWP research reports exploring these issues are due to be published in the next few months. All these reports will be available in the House of Commons Library on publication.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the outcome of Government consultation on extending the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to cover the police service, with specific reference to the recruitment and retention to the police of people with diabetes. [40642]

  Maria Eagle
  Last year we issued a proposal for consultation on covering police officers within the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). This year we have proposed a number of other changes to the DDA in a current consultation document called "Towards Equality and Diversity". Some of these changes would have a bearing on the way in which disabled police officers and recruits, including any disabled by diabetes, are protected against discrimination.

HEALTH

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decisions have been made on the future of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham heart and lung transplant unit; and if he will make a statement. [8265]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: 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.

  Our proposals for developing the adult heart and lung transplantation service are set out in the discussion document: National Adult Heart and Lung Transplant Service, published on 21 September 2001. A copy is available in the Library.

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current regulations which do not permit sufferers of motor neurone disease to obtain tissues required for their care by prescription. [26948]
  538W
  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.

  Neither our medical advisers nor the Motor Neurone Disease Association are aware of any particular requirement for tissues to be used to treat patients with motor neurone disease. We shall not, therefore, be making any changes to the regulations.

  Lung Disease
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to establish a national strategy for lung disease. [29357]

  Yvette Cooper
  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.

  We consider the provision of first class services for people with lung disease as very important. We are taking forward a number of initiatives to drive improvements in prevention, access and delivery of services. These include:

  Our £53 million investment in smoking cessation services, which has helped us exceed our "successful quitters" targets by over 50 per cent. in 2000–01–61,500 against a target of 40,000.

  £4.9 million has been spent on asthma projects throughout the United Kingdom through the national research and development programme.

  We have the launched the biggest ever campaign to immunise people against flu with targets to vaccinate 65 per cent. of over 65-year-olds.

  By 2003–04 an additional £570 million will have been invested in cancer care.

  Incidence and mortality rates for lung cancer are falling for men and incidence is falling for women.

  Administrative Forms
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many administrative forms(a) have been and (b) are proposed to be introduced by his Department in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [37375]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the overall numbers of administrative forms is not held centrally. However, the Department's Review of Central Returns Steering Committee (ROCR) Secretariat regulates the numbers of approved central returns from the NHS, and Statistics Division, acting for the Office for National Statistics Survey Control Unit, approves all non-NHS surveys and local authority returns.

  The table shows the number of returns for 2000–01, and 2001–02 to the end of February 2002 (the latest date for which figures are available).

  539W

  Department of Health numbers of information requests by year

  One-off

  On-going

  2000–01

  Statistical and financial NHS

  33

  205

  Personal social services and other surveys

  3

  24

  Total

  36

  229

  2001–021

  Statistical and financial NHS

  7

  215

  Personal social services and other surveys

  2

  24

  Total

  9

  239

  1 To end February 2002

  Notes:

  One-off requests are generally to meet short-term information demands. On-going returns include annual censuses, quarterly performance data and other information for which there is a continuing need.

  Foot Health Care
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence the Department has of the level of satisfaction of patients with chiropody and podiatry treatment. [38218]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have no national collected evidence of patients' levels of satisfaction with chiropody/podiatry treatment.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence the Department has collated of the effect on quality of life that effective foot health care can provide to(a) children, (b) the elderly and (c) other adults. [38219]

  Jacqui Smith
  We recognise the importance of effective delivery of chiropody/podiatry care especially helping older people maintain their mobility and independence. The National Service Framework for older people says that: specialised falls services which are established should include chiropodists/podiatrists; specialist mental health services for older people should have agreed working and referral arrangements with chiropodists and podiatrists; and it sets a performance measure for numbers/rates of people aged 75+ who access chiropody/podiatry services.

  We also recognise the necessity of access to chiropody/podiatry services for other groups including children and others in the adult population.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to issue guidance to(a) PCTs and (b) health authorities regarding (i) the minimum level of chiropody or podiatry service that should be available to patients and (ii) what level of chiropody or podiatry service should be available to patients wherever they live; [38216]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the appropriate level of chiropody and podiatry services that each primary care trust should commission; [38226]

  (3) what guidance he plans to provide to strategic health authorities regarding the appropriate level of chiropody/podiatry services that each primary care trust should commission. [38211]
  540W
  Jacqui Smith
  No guidance has been issued to strategic health authorities (StHAs) or primary care trusts (PCTs) on levels of national health service chiropody/podiatry services to be commissioned, nor has any assessment been done.

  However, the Department has launched a "National Primary and Care Trust programme (NatPaCT)" designed to support PCTs in delivering their key functions which will be:

  Improving the health of the community

  Securing the provision of high quality services

  Integrating health and social care locally.

  As local organisations, PCTs are best placed to understand the needs of their patient populations. This will ensure that the right services are delivered to the right people in the right location at the right time.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information his Department has collated on the extent to which the podiatry and chiropody needs of the population are being met by the NHS; [38217]

  (2) what information the Department has, and what research his Department has assessed, on the need for chiropody and podiatry services among the general population. [38220]

  Jacqui Smith
  We recognise the importance of effective delivery of chiropody/podiatry care especially for older people, who make up approximately 18 per cent. of the general population, to maintain their mobility and independence. Other groups using chiropody/podiatry include children, pregnant women, people with diabetes and those with learning disabilities. Many national health service services are increasingly prioritising to ensure that these high-risk groups are treated and access chiropody/podiatry services before others.

  The Department has part funded, with the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, a research project by University College Northampton "Do 'low risk' older people need podiatry care". The results are awaited.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many foot operations have been undertaken in each of the last five years by(a) orthopaedic surgeons and (b) podiatric surgeons; [38221]

  (2) what the average cost is of a foot operation when undertaken by (a) an orthopaedic surgeon and (b) a podiatric surgeon. [38222]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected in this form.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information his Department has collated on the percentage of the population who have consulted a chiropodist or podiatrist in each of the last five years; and what percentage of the population have ever been treated by a chiropodist or podiatrist; [38215]

  (2) in each of the last five years, how many (a) face to face contacts there were between patients and chiropodists or podiatrists, (b) new courses of treatment were started and (c) individual podiatry patients were treated. [38224]

  Jacqui Smith
  No information on the percentage of the population who have consulted a chiropodist or podiatrist is collected centrally. Information is collected annually on
  541W
  total face to face contacts with chiropody services, the numbers of new episodes of care in the year are contained in the statistical report "Chiropody services, summary information for 2000–01, England". A copy of the report is in the Library and it is also available on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/public/kt230001. The previous five years of this data are also available in the Library.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications for NHS chiropody/podiatry provision of the publication of(a) the NHS policy on older people and (b) the guidelines for the NSF for diabetes. [38213]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national service framework for older people was published on 27 March 2001. It sets new national standards and service models of care across health and social services for all older people whether they live at home, in residential care or are being cared for in hospital. The NSF recognises the role of chiropody/podiatry services in that:chiropody/podiatry is a service which is import to older people as it assists in maintaining mobility and independence. There is concern that ageism/age discrimination may take the form of low overall levels of provision to this care group.
  specialised falls service which are established should include chiropodists/podiatrists.
  specialist mental health services for older people should have agreed working and referral arrangements with chiropody/podiatry and podiatrists.
  and it sets a performance measure for numbers/rates of people aged 75+ who access chiropody/podiatry services.

  We published standards for the diabetes NSF in December 2001. The delivery strategy will follow in summer 2002, with the 10-year implementation programme to begin in April 2003. Milestones for delivery, including workforce, will be based on the available resources. The strategy will be informed by the work of the long-term conditions care group workforce team, which will be taking a national view of the workforce implications of the standards and intervention. The workforce team has a podiatrist in its membership to ensure consideration of chiropody/podiatry requirements and contribute to these care groups.

  Podiatrists have been members of the external reference groups for both these NSFs.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence his Department has of(a) local and (b) regional variations in the provision of NHS chiropody or podiatry treatment. [38225]

  Jacqui Smith
  We acknowledge that there are local and regional variations in national health service chiropody/podiatry services. For example, we know from data collected that trusts have different staffing structures and employ different numbers of staff.

  These variations may result from NHS organisations having to clinically prioritise the services they provide to meet local demand for chiropody/podiatry services. Although local demographics may affect service provision levels, for example high level older people population, many services are prioritising for those most at risk such as older people, children, pregnant women, people with diabetes and those with learning disabilities.

  Long-term Care
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the additional cost of implementing the recommendations of the royal commission on long-term care in full. [37941]

  Jacqui Smith
  In the NHS Plan we announced new investment in intermediate care and associated services rising to £900 million a year by 2003–04. In addition, we shall be targeting additional resources, rising to £360 million a year by 2003–04, to tackle the anomalies and inequities of the present funding system for long-term care. These include free nursing care in nursing homes for current self-funders which was introduced from October 2001. This will benefit around 42,000 people by around £5,000 p.a. A system of deferred payments has been introduced to avoid people having to sell their homes when they first enter residential care. Since April last year, the value of a property has been disregarded for 12 weeks when undertaking the residential care means test. In addition, the Government have established a new independent national body, the National Care Standards Commission, which will regulate social care services, and private and voluntary healthcare from April 2002.

  The Government do not accept the royal commission's recommendation that all personal care should be provided free of charge. It would cost more than £1 billion a year to make all forms of personal care free. Spending money in this way would not help improve the quality and range of services for users of long-term care nor would it help achieve stability for providers, which are our priorities.

  Care Standards
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what means he will monitor and support the application of the national minimum standards and regulations as set out in the Care Standards Act 2000. [38637]

  Jacqui Smith
  The application of the national minimum standards and regulations by registered care providers will be monitored by the National Care Standards Commission. The commission will also have a general duty to encourage improvements in the quality of registered services and will be able to suggest ways in which services can be improved. If any regulations or standards are not complied with on inspection, the commission will agree an action plan and timescale with the provider to achieve compliance. Generally, the commission will work with providers over time to meet the standards.

  The commission is accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and its own performance as an executive non-departmental public body will be monitored by the Department in accordance with the management statement and financial memorandum, which has been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will issue guidance to registered care services on the operation of the national minimum standards and regulations and the National Care Standards Commission. [38636]
  543W
  Jacqui Smith
  Guidance for registered care providers about the National Care Standards Commission and containing information about the registration process will be issued shortly.

  Autism
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's most recent assessment of the causes of autism. [38419]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) published the report of its detailed review of the epidemiology and causes of autism on 13 December 2001. The report, commissioned by the Department in March 2001, provides a clear, authoritative picture of what scientific research has revealed about the occurrence and causes of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). The report accepts that autism is not as rare as previously thought but notes that the apparent increase in prevalence of ASDs is likely to have resulted from better diagnosis and clearer definition as well as increased awareness and makes recommendations on the future research strategy for the United Kingdom.

  The MRC report identifies a strong genetic component in the causation of autism, while acknowledging that most researchers believe autism has a variety of causes, including possible interactions with environmental factors.

  We announced on 14 February that the Government have allocated a further £2.5 million for research into autism. The funds are being given to the MRC to help them to take forward recommendations on research contained in their report on the epidemiology and causes of autism referred to above.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the implementation of the recommendations on physical activity contained in the National Service Framework for coronary heart disease; and if he will make a statement. [39609]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Health Development Agency has recently completed a review of the progress on local programmes of effective policies on increasing physical activity, as required by standard one of the National Service Framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease. The report found programmes at varying levels of development. In light of these findings, the Department has commissioned the agency to develop guidance that will help primary care teams to design effective policies and strategies on physical activity, healthy eating, obesity and tobacco control. It will support the NSF for coronary heart disease, older people and diabetes, and the NHS Plan and Cancer Plan. The guidance will be published later this year.

  Hearing Aids
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to ensure that NHS trusts are fully implementing NICE guidance on hearing aid technology published in July 2000. [39608]
  544W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Commission for Health Improvement incorporates the monitoring of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance in its clinical governance reviews. This is to ensure that national health service trusts have mechanisms in place to implement and comply with all NICE guidance.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts will receive new funding for digital hearing aids. [38420]

  Jacqui Smith
  We invited expressions of interest by 1 March 2002 from all health communities not yet involved in the modernising hearing aid services project. We will make decisions shortly about which sites will be included.

  Waiting Lists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2002,Official Report, column 1121W, on waiting lists, when the results of the regional office reviews of the listed trusts will be (a) completed and (b) published. [38676]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Evaluation of all 13 trusts named in the NAO report "Inappropriate adjustments to NHS waiting lists" is still to be completed by regional offices. We expect these evaluations to be completed soon.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 21 January regarding midwives, ref P0003279. [38455]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]A reply was sent out on 5 March 2002.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will provide a substantive reply to the letter of 7 January from the hon. Member for Totnes, enclosing one from Ms Janet Cross of Kingsbridge, Devon on the Royal Commission report on Long Term Care, which was acknowledged by his Ministerial Correspondence Unit on 11 January. [39335]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]A reply was sent on 6 March.

  Surgery
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of operations were cancelled for non-clinical reasons as a proportion of admissions in Hull and the East Riding in each year since 1997. [40050]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of operations cancelled for non-clinical reasons and the and percentage of operations cancelled for non-clinical reasons as a proportion of admissions in the Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust in each year since 1997 is shown in the table.
  545W

  Year

  Cancelled operations

  Total admissions

  Percentage

  1998–99

  327

  110,114

  0.29

  1999–2000

  382

  111,039

  0.34

  2000–01

  323

  109,739

  0.29

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients died within 30 days of surgery in Hull and the East Riding in each year since 1997. [40045]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of patients who died within 30 days of surgery in Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust in each year since 1997 is shown in the table.

  Total deaths within 30 days of surgery

  Number

  1998–99

  407

  1999–2000

  390

  2000–01

  325

  Hospital Readmissions
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were readmitted to hospital as emergency cases soon after being discharged in Hull and the East Riding between 1997 and 2001. [40047]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of patients re-admitted to hospital as emergency cases soon after being discharged by the Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust between 1997 and 2001 is shown in the table.

  Emergency readmissions

  Number

  1998–99

  7,022

  1999–2000

  7,137

  2000–01

  7,215

  Funeral Arrangements
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 969W, on funeral arrangements, what measures have been taken since 27 October 1997 to (a) ensure and (b) monitor compliance with the guidelines on burial in unmarked graves issued to NHS trusts on that date. [40075]

  Ms Blears
  Since October 1997 NHS Trusts have had explicit guidance that where patients die in NHS hospitals and have a burial arranged by the Trust, the burial plot should be marked by a permanent memorial or marker. Trusts were further reminded of this requirement in April 2001 subsequent to the publication of the report into the Alder Hey Inquiry.

  Compliance with the guidance is not monitored centrally, but if concerns were brought to the attention of the Department of Health they would be investigated.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what criteria he will decide when he has met his pledge to end the existence of mixed-sex wards. [40197]
  546W
  Ms Blears
  Guidance on maintaining privacy and dignity was first issued to the service in 1997 and since then trusts have been working towards clear targets to eliminate mixed sex accommodation in 95 per cent. of NHS trusts by December 2002.

  There are three targets that trusts are working towards. These are:
  Ensuring that appropriate organisational arrangements are in place to secure good standards of privacy and dignity for hospital patients;
  Achieving fully the Patient's Charter standard for segregated washing and toilet facilities across the NHS;
  Providing safe facilities for patients in hospital who are mentally ill which safeguard their privacy and dignity.

  NHS Activity Levels
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the activity levels were in the quarter to(a) December 2000 and (b) December 2001 for (i) new attendances at accident and emergency departments, (ii) first out-patient attendances, (iii) general and acute elective hospital spells and (iv) general and acute non-elective spells. [39958]

  Mr. Hutton
  The activity levels for quarter to(a) December 2000 and (b) December 2001 for (i) new attendances at accident and emergency departments, (ii) first out-patient attendances, (iii) general and acute elective hospital spells and (iv) general and acute non-elective spells are provided in the table.

  Attendance and hospital spells in England

  Thousand

  October to December

  2000

  2001

  Accident and emergency first attendances

  3,181

  3,229

  General and acute out-patient first attendances

  2,844

  2,902

  Hospital spells

  General and acute:

  Total

  2,342

  2,346

  Elective

  1,341

  1,338

  Non elective

  1,000

  1,007

  All estimates are derived from the Department quarterly management information system. Figures for 2000–01 have been adjusted to take account of definitional changes between 2000–01 and 2001–02 to allow direct comparison with 2001–02 figures.

  The estimates relate to activity commissioned using national health service funds by health authorities in England. This includes activity in private hospitals and NHS hospitals outside England, but excludes private patients and patients from outside England treated in English NHS Hospitals. Some activity for the latter may be included through host commissioner services (eg accident and emergency and genito urinary medicine).

  Management data have been used rather than Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data because HES data are not yet available for December 2001–02.

  Children Act
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to review the regulations and guidance associated with the Children Act 1989 following the Utting report. [39957]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 25 February 2002,Official Report, at column 973W.

  NHS Mortuaries
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the combined capacity of designated, permanent mortuaries in the national health service was in each of the past five years. [39956]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Health Inequalities
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from organisations in east London on her Department's cross-cutting review on health inequalities. [39965]

  Yvette cooper
  Representations on a range of issues were received from both local and national organisations based in east London in response to the Department's document "Tackling Health Inequalities: Consultation on a Plan for Delivery", including Barts and London NHS Trust, East London and City HA, and Cancer Black Care. These representations along with feedback from regional workshops, including one in London, are informing the cross-cutting Spending Review on health inequalities.

  Bioterrorism
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to update advice to NHS personnel on how to identify the effects of(a) anthrax, (b) smallpox and (c) sarin; and if he will make a statement. [40278]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department issued guidance on 17 October 2001 to all health authorities and regional directors of public health on the procedures to be followed in the event of a deliberate release of chemicals such as sarin and of biological agents such as anthrax and smallpox. At the same time, guidance for medical and laboratory staff was issued by the public health laboratory service on 17 October 2001 and is subject to continuous updating e.g. clinical evaluation and management of persons with possible inhalation anthrax was last updated on 2 January 2002.

  NHS Security
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent steps he has taken to improve security in(a) hospitals, (b) clinics and (c) GP surgeries; and if he will make a statement. [40276]

  Mr. Hutton
  Security is the responsibility of the individual national health service trust.
  548W
  All hospital, clinic and GP premises have different site and building constraints depending on location. The problems for inner city trusts are significantly different from those in rural areas.

  Security is an important issue in the health service as it contributes to a safe working environment for staff, patients and visitors.

  Guidance on security is provided for designers and users through Health Building Notes, the NHS Security Manual and individual specialist documents including Effective Management of Security in A&E Departments, and Safe and Sound (for maternity units). The revised NHS Security Manual will be published in May 2002.

  Security is achieved through the use of security staff (either in-house or private contractors) and supported by various electronic security systems, including CCTV, personal attack alarm systems and door entry control.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private sector residential care homes for the elderly there were in 2000; and what forecast he has made of the number from April 2002. [39949]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the number of private residential care homes in 2000 and 2001, at 31 March of each year. Forecasts of the future number of homes are not available.

  Number1 of private residential care homes for older people2 in England as at 31 March

  Year

  Number

  2000

  12,050

  2001

  11,480

  1 Rounded numbers

  2 Includes homes for older people who are mentally infirm.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential care homes closed in(a) Eastbourne and (b) East Sussex in each of the last five years. [40361]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  GP Appointments
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP practices have achieved the NHS Plan target for patients to see their GP within 24 hours in(a) Leeds LS28, (b) Pudsey constituency, (c) each of the Leeds primary care groups, (d) West Yorkshire and (e) the UK. [39964]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patient surveys identify ready access to primary care as a key issue and the NHS Plan sets a target that by 2004 all patients will be able to see a primary care professional within 24 hours or a GP within 48 hours if they choose to do so. From September 2001 we have been using quarterly telephone surveys of GP practices to monitor progress towards delivery of this target. The results of these surveys indicate that on a national basis the interim milestone for March 2002 of 60 per cent. compliance will be achieved. Detailed and reliable data
  549W
  are not available in all the formats requested, but surveys to date do also suggest that the milestone will be achieved within the Leeds health area.

  Further progress towards the target will be supported in 2002–03 by an earmarked increase of £83.5 million in the PCT Primary Care Access Fund to £168 million and by expanding the capacity of the National Primary Care Development Team.

  Vulnerable Adults (Guidance)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many local authorities(a) have fully compliant policies and procedures, (b) have draft policies and procedures and (c) are not compliant with the protection of vulnerable adults guidance, "No Secrets", LAC(2000)7; [39304]

  (2) if he will set out for each relevant year and each local authority the level of financial support (a) specific and special grants and (b) SSA provided by his Department to implement the "No Secrets" guidance LAC(2000)7; [39308]

  (3) what plans his Department has to review the implementation of the "No Secrets" guidance; [39307]

  (4) how many local authorities met the deadline set out in SSI circular CI(2001) 9 June 2001; [39313]

  (5) how much each local authority responsible for implementing the "No Secrets" guidance LAC(2000)7 budgeted to spend in 2001–02; and what the actual and budgeted spend was in each of the last three years; [39306]

  (6) what arrangements (a) his Department and (b) local authorities have made to publicise (i) the "No Secrets" guidance and (b) the reporting and referral system established in line with the guidance LAC(2000)7. [39305]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]The guidance "No Secrets" reinforces existing good practice with respect to adult protection. Information on the local costs of implementation is not held centrally.

  72 local councils submitted their local multi-agency codes of practice to the Department of Health by the 31 October 2001 deadline. A further 48 codes of practice have been received since, and the remainder are being actively pursued. These codes of practice are being analysed for their content and compliance with "No Secrets". The analysis will also determine the number of codes of practice that were fully implemented by 31 October 2001.

  The Department has no immediate plans for a formal review of the implementation of the "No Secrets" guidance but the matter will be considered when the findings of the analysis of local codes of practice are available.

  The Department publicised the "No Secrets" guidance through a series of six, one-day workshops in Leeds and London, from November 2000 through to March 2001. The workshops encouraged representatives from all statutory agencies to discuss issues such as reporting and referral systems for inter-agency working. A number of local councils have publicised the launch of their multi-agency codes of practice. "No Secrets" requires
  550W
  local councils to develop local reporting and referral systems for inter-agency working in their codes of practice.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the funding of research into food safety. [38008]

  Yvette Cooper
  Many factors affect the safety of food including chemical, radiological and microbiological contamination. Nutrition and other issues may also affect whether an individual is following a safe diet. Research on food safety is therefore correspondingly diverse both in the nature of the research and its funding. Direct Government funding of the research is through the research councils and the Food Standards Agency while other funds are also available through the academic funding system. In addition, the food industry itself funds food safety research either directly or through industrial levies or in LINK schemes with, for example, DEFRA.

  Private Treatment
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients at Weston General Hospital have been treated by the private sector over the past five years; what the nature of the treatment was; and what the total cost of these treatments was. [40490]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Health Expenditure
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) England and (b) the Avon health authority the expenditure on health per head of the population, expressed in real terms, for each year since 1999. [40491]

  Mr. Hutton
  The expenditure on health by weighted head of population in real terms for Avon health authority area and England for each year since 1999 is shown in the table.

  Expenditure by health authorities and primary care trusts

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon health authority

  747.51

  810.53

  England

  734.19

  770.91

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure is taken from health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year.

  2. Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of health authorities.

  3. The expenditure is the total spent on commissioning healthcare by the health authority and by the primary care trusts within each health authority area. The majority of General Dental Services expenditure is not included in the health authority or primary care trust accounts and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board. An element of drugs expenditure in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority and not by health authorities.
  551W
  4. Health authorities and primary care trusts should account for their expenditure on a gross basis. This results in an element of double counting in 2000–01 where one body acts as the main commissioner and is then reimbursed by other bodies. The effect of this double counting within the answer cannot be identified.

  5. Some health authorities act as lead commissioners for particular specialties which inflates their figures when compared with others and also causes differences between years. Other factors may also distort the figures so the results are therefore not all directly comparable with each other and with answers to similar questions for previous years.

  Source:

  Health authority audited summarisation forms 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01

  Weighted population estimates for 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  GDP deflator at market prices with 2000–01 as the base year

  Day Surgery Patients
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to increase the proportion of day surgery patients being treated in(a) cottage hospitals and (b) GP surgeries. [40856]

  Mr. Hutton
  Professor Ara Darzi has been asked to advise on how day surgery rates can be increased across the national health service as part of his appointment to advise the Department of Health on surgical issues.

  The recent Audit Commission report on day surgery showed that in some trusts minor procedures are often treated in day surgery units while they could be carried out in treatment rooms or out-patient departments. This leads to surgery patients having to wait longer for their operations or having them as in-patients. As part of the day surgery strategy, Professor Darzi will be looking to ensure that day case procedures are undertaken in day surgery units.

  General practitioners already carry out minor procedures in their surgeries, but there is the potential for more to be undertaken. Providing these services in the community gives patients better access to treatment, and reduces the time they would have to wait for the procedure. For these reasons the NHS plan provides that by 2004 there will be up to 1,000 specialist GPs taking referrals from fellow GPs for conditions in certain specialties, such as ophthalmology and dermatology. The Department is working with the Royal College of General Practitioners in developing this initiative.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what he estimates the cost to the NHS will be of the proposed new Health and Safety Executive regulations on asbestos. [39288]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]I have been asked to reply.

  Total costs for the removal of asbestos from NHS hospitals and among all other health care facilities excluding hospitals are shown in the table. These figures have been revised upwards since publication of the consultative document, and include costs arising from the provisions implementing the chemical agents directive.
  552W

  Costs in NHS hospitals and all other health care establishments

  £ million

  Sector

  Costs over 50 years (not discounted)

  Yearly costs averaged over the first 5 years

  Hospitals (NHS)

  36

  4

  Other health care (all)

  31

  4

  Total

  67

  8

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has evaluated that white asbestos is more dangerous than asbestos substitutes. [39290]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]I have been asked to reply.

  The Institute for Environment and Health undertook a study for the Health and Safety Executive in 1998. Copies of the report "Chrysotile and its substitutes: a critical evaluation" is available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The report stated that white asbestos at high enough exposures could cause asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. It also confirmed that this type was often contaminated with other higher risk types such as blue brown asbestos. It judged three substitutes to be less harmful, polyvinyl alcohol, aramid and cellulose. The report recognised that exposure to white asbestos will arise from asbestos-containing materials in buildings. While it indicated that exposure would be lower than in manufacturing, it was a persistent problem that would remain for many years to come. It therefore recommended wherever practicable the safer substitutes should be used.

  Comparative Health Outcomes
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the differences in(a) health outcomes and (b) the effectiveness of health services between England and other developed countries; and if he will make a statement. [10742]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]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.

  Making comparisons between health services in different countries on a like-for-like basis is not straightforward and truly comparable data are often unavailable. However, "The NHS Plan", published last year, contains some assessment of the differences between the United Kingdom and health services in other developed countries.

  This assessment contributed to the programme as set out in "The NHS Plan". The national health service will continue to improve in effectiveness and efficiency as the plan is implemented.

  We have promised the following extra resources to help improve NHS services:
  7,000 extra beds in hospitals and intermediate care
  over 100 new hospitals by 2010 and 500 new one-stop primary care centers

  553W
  over 3,000 general practitioner premises modernised and 250 new scanners
  clean wards—overseen by "modern matrons"—and better hospital food
  modern information technology systems in every hospital and GP surgery and investment in staff:
  7,500 more consultants and 2,000 more GPs
  20,000 extra nurses and 6,500 extra therapists
  1,000 more medical school places
  Child care support for NHS staff with 100 on-site nurseries.

  In addition to extra resources it is essential that investment is accompanied by reform.

  The Department is setting national standards, matched by regular inspection of all local health bodies by the Commission for Health Improvement.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will ensure that cost effective drugs like those for cancer are not dependent on where you live. The NHS Modernisation Agency has been set up to spread best practice.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Mayoral Referendums
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the Government's response is to the Electoral Commission's report on its review of mayoral referendums; and if he will make a statement. [41861]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We welcome the report "Reinvigorating Democracy? Mayoral Referendums in 2001" which the Electoral Commission published on 1 February 2002. We said in the recent Local Government White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" that we would learn from the lessons of the first round of mayoral referendums, in order to refine and improve the process. The Electoral Commission's report is an important contribution to that work.

  The Government share the Commission's view of the importance of electors understanding fully what they are voting on and having unbiased, factual information on the issues surrounding the introduction of executive arrangements involving a directly-elected mayor.

  It was following the recommendations of the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that we made provision in the Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2001, which were approved by Parliament, to prohibit councils from undertaking proactive information campaigns within 28 days of a referendum. We note the Commission's conclusion that this may be preventing full information reaching electors on the issues, in the circumstances of mayoral referendums where often there are no well-defined "yes" or "no" campaign groups.

  Accordingly we will be reviewing with the Electoral Commission and others, whether this prohibition should be relaxed. Any relaxation would need to include safeguards to maintain strict impartiality. The Electoral Commission has suggested that the text of such material be cleared with them in advance. We welcome that the Electoral Commission are considering how they might
  554W
  provide electors in authorities holding mayoral referendums with factual and impartial material, pending the outcome of the review of the 28-day prohibition.

  We believe that the involvement by the Electoral Commission will meet the concerns of some, which were noted in the Commission's report, that the current wording of the referendum question, that Parliament had approved, could not be relied upon to guarantee a result which fairly and accurately reflected local electors' views. Accordingly we see no grounds for Government intervention to seek to postpone any referendum that local authorities are, or will be, planning to hold, including those as a result of a petition by electors.

  We believe that the current question specified in regulations, developed following extensive consultation, is fair and clear. Nevertheless, we are pleased to accept the Electoral Commission's invitation to work with them to see if the text of the referendum question itself can be improved so that all will be satisfied that it is clear and free from any potential bias. We recognise that while we are actively working with the Commission on possible changes to the question and the rules on the provision of information, it may be perceived as wrong for Government to take any decision on whether or not to direct the holding of a referendum. We do not therefore intend to take any more decisions until after we have completed this work. We expect to complete the work by summer 2002.

  We had indicated that the Secretary of State was minded to direct mayoral referendums in Bradford and Birmingham on the grounds that councils in these areas have not had due regard to the outcome of the consultation they have been required to carry out. The Secretary of State remains so minded but has decided to await the outcome of our further work with the Commission before coming to final decisions on whether or not to use his powers of direction in these cases. My Department is writing to these councils setting out in full our position on directing them to hold a referendum, in the light of the representation we have received.

  We also welcome the other suggestions the Electoral Commission makes for councils to improve how referendums are run. My Department will help promulgate these suggestions to councils through the regular contacts it holds with authorities holding mayoral ballots.

  In short, the Commission's report is an important contribution to our refining and improving the process of mayoral elections which are at the heart of our policy that people should be able to choose how they are governed locally.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many affordable housing units in(a) rural districts and (b) extreme rural districts in England have (i) been sold under right to buy and (ii) been newly built, showing for each district the net change, in each year since 1991 to 2001. [35161]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested is presented in a summary table which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average response time was for responding to departmental correspondence; what percentage of letters took longer

  Ministerial correspondence (including MPs' correspondence, invitations and inter-departmental correspondence)

  Number of letters received

  Replies within 15-day target (%)

  Replies within 20-day target (%)

  Replies that took longer than one month after the 15-day target (%)

  Replies that took longer than one after the 15-day target (%)

  1997 (DETR)

  38,059

  51

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1998 (DETR)

  31,798

  58

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1999 (DETR)2

  26,115

  46

  64

  13

  4

  2000 (DETR)

  31,445

  69

  81

  7

  2

  2001 (DETR/DTLR)3

  25,613

  82

  90

  4

  1

  1 Not available.

  2 This relates only to the period from April to December 1999 as the information for the first quarter is not available due to technical difficulties.

  3 For 2001 the figures include correspondence addressed to DETR up until the general election and thereafter to DTLR.

  Non-ministerial correspondence (from previous "Six Service Standards" reports)

  Period

  Total volume received

  Percentage replied to within 15 working days

  1 April 1997–31 March 1998

  672,980

  96

  1 April 1998–31 March 1999

  546,385

  94

  1 April 1999–31 March 2000

  804,404

  95

  1 April 2000–31 March 2001

  1,161,736

  97

  1 April 2001–31 December 2001

  472,083

  99

  Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by his Department in each of the last four years. [38198]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The figures are for DTLR(C) HQ buildings.

  1998–99—in-house canteen and other catering figures are not available.

  1999–2000—in-house canteen £116,613 and other catering services £355,015.

  2000–01—in-house canteen £88,547 and other catering services £396,488.

  2001–02—in-house canteen £49,021 and other catering services £549,842.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on which date the contracts tendered by bidders Metronet and Tube Lines wishing to enter into a public private partnership with London Underground Ltd, were first received by(a) his Department, (b) the Treasury, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) London Underground Ltd., (e) the Mayor of London and Transport for London and (f) the Health and Safety Executive. [38969]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground is responsible for the development of PPP contracts for the modernisation of the Underground's infrastructure. Draft contracts were
  556W
  than one month for a response; and what percentage of letters took longer than three months for a response in each of the last five years. [37439]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The available information, relating to DTLR and its predecessor, is as follows:

  issued with invitations to tender in October 1999 and have since been revised and updated to reflect changes to London Underground's requirements, negotiations with bidders and consultation with the Mayor and Transport for London.

  Throughout the process, revisions of the draft PPP contracts have been shared with DTLR, HM Treasury, the Health and Safety Executive and, since they were established, the Mayor and Transport for London. Ernst and Young were contracted to provide independent advice to the Secretary of State in October 2001. They received the draft contract the same month and were updated as it developed.

  Humber Bridge
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 789W on the Humber Bridge, what the total cost is of the essential maintenance work; what the nature of the work is; and when it will be completed. [38694]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]The essential maintenance work referred to in my answer of 25 February is resurfacing of the carriageway at the Humber Bridge, estimated total cost of £7.36 million. The work is due to be completed in October 2002.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 789W on the Humber Bridge, under what authority capital repayments between 2000 and 2002 were waived. [38692]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]Section 75 of the Humber Bridge Act 1959 as amended by Section 8 of the Humber Bridge Act 1971 states that the Humber Bridge Board shall apply revenues of the Board in the following manner:"first in payment of the working and establishment expenses and cost of maintenance of the undertaking;
  secondly in payment of the interest on moneys advanced by the Secretary of State by way of loan under the provisions of the Humber Bridge Act 1971 and moneys borrowed by the Board

  557W
  under any statutory borrowing power in proportion to the respective amounts borrowed by the Board from the Secretary of State and other than from the Secretary of State as aforesaid;
  thirdly, subject to all interest as aforesaid having been paid in any year in making provision for repayment of moneys borrowed by the Board under any statutory borrowing in proportion to the respective amounts borrowed by the Board from the Secretary of State and other than from the Secretary of State as aforesaid."

  It is our view that the above clearly gives authority to the Humber Bridge Board to defer interest and capital repayments to concentrate revenue for essential maintenance work.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 789W, ref 34782, on the Humber Bridge, when the decision was taken to waive capital repayments between 2000 and 2002; and if he will make a statement. [38693]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]The Humber Bridge Board took the decision (in accordance with Section 75 of the Humber Bridge Act 1959 as amended by the Humber Bridge Act 1971) to concentrate revenue for essential maintenance work and not to make capital repayments in 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  This decision to not make capital repayments for the years mentioned was recognised by paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Humber Bridge (Debts) Order 1998, whereby interest not exceeding £1.4 million in 2000–01 and not exceeding £200,000 (being in each case interest that cannot be paid by applying the revenues of the Humber Bridge Board in accordance with Section 75 of the Humber Bridge Act 1959) ceased to be payable.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total public investment support is to(a) Phase 1 and (b) Phase 2 of CTRL; and in what years it (i) has been and (ii) will be allocated. [39417]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The level of Government investment in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) remains the same as set out in the Development Agreement with London and Continental in 1996.

  The Government are providing grants totalling £778.1 million towards construction costs for section 1 of the CTRL and £1,774.2 million towards construction costs for section 2. These values are in January 1997 prices and are corrected to current values using the Retail Prices Index.

  In both cases the grant will only be paid when expenditure has exceeded 68 per cent. of the target cost for the relevant section. The grants are then made in eight consecutive three-monthly payments provided that a specified construction milestone has been achieved.

  Expenditure on section 1 exceeded the 68 per cent. point in September 2001 and the relevant milestone had by then been achieved. Therefore the first payment was made on 15 November 2001. The second and third milestones have also been achieved and the second payment was made on 15 February 2002.
  558W
  Assuming that these conditions continue to be met according to the project plan, the grants will be paid as follows:

  In current values (£)

  Section 1

  Section 2

  2001–02

  221.91

  —

  2002–03

  458.61

  —

  2003–04

  234.44

  —

  2004–05

  —

  280.43

  2005–06

  —

  1,142.68

  2006–07

  —

  879.45

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions with the Scottish Executive have taken place concerning the restrictions of rail freight through the Channel tunnel that began on 7 November 2001 and its impact on Scotland; when such discussions took place; who took part; what the outcome was; and if he will place a copy of the minutes in the Library. [38675]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have regular discussions with the Scottish Executive concerning a variety of issues. The content of these discussions is confidential.

  The Government are aware of, and have passed on, the particular concerns over the impact of restrictions on international rail freight services from Scotland. The Government are pressing the French Government at the highest levels to provide adequate policing resources at Fréthun to support the anti-intrusion measures already being installed by SNCF in order to address the disruption to Channel tunnel services caused by would-be illegal immigrants.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written twice to the French Prime Minister, and also spoke to him at a recent summit in Stockholm. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions have followed up the Prime Minister's letters with the French Interior Minister and Transport Minister respectively.

  Rail Engineering
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with colleagues at DfES to encourage a higher academic status for rail engineering and rail engineers. [39439]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]The Minister for adult skills and I jointly hosted a transport skills seminar on 14 February as part of the continuing commitment of Government to promote better training and skills development to support delivery of the 10-Year Transport Plan.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement about the reasons for the closure of
  559W
  the Severn Bridge on(a) 12 February and (b) 27 February; and what the recorded wind speeds were on each occasion; [39660]

  (2) if he will list the dates on which the Severn Bridge has been closed in the past four weeks; and the reasons for the closure in each case. [39961]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Huw Edwards, dated 7 March 2002:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about recent closures of the Severn Bridge.
  In the last 4 weeks, the Severn Bridge was closed on the following dates:

  Closed

  Re-opened

  Reason for closure

  February 1 (10.00 hrs)

  February 2 (13.45 hrs)

  High winds

  February 4 (12.00 hrs)

  February 6 (01.00 hrs)

  High winds

  February 11 (15.30 hrs)

  February 12 (10.45 hrs)

  High winds

  February 19 (20.00 hrs)

  February 20 (19.30 hrs)

  High winds

  February 26 (01.00 hrs)

  February 27 (12.15 hrs)

  High winds

  Severn Bridge is closed by the Police when they are concerned about high winds affecting vehicles. You will see that the closures on 12 and 27 February had been imposed, in each case, the day before because of high wind speeds. The maximum recorded wind speed on 12 February was 41 knots and, on 27 February, 49 knots.

  Strategic Rail Plan
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the publication of the final directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority will affect(a) the timetable and (b) progress towards implementation of the Strategic Plan published on 14 January; and if he will make a statement. [40268]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No, the timetable and implementation will not be affected.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the uncommitted public sector investment in transport under the 10-Year Plan is intended to enable the leveraging in of private sector investment. [40230]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Of the original £8.9 billion of unallocated public sector investment in our 10-Year Plan for Transport, £2.3 billion has been allocated to the railways,Official Report, 29 January 2002, column 175W. This £2.3 billion will be used to help deliver our 10-Year Plan objectives for rail in partnership with the private sector.

  Of the remaining unallocated public sector investment, we will consider to what uses this investment will be put in our forthcoming Review of the Plan and the extent to which this may leverage in private sector investment.

  Rail Passengers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2002,Official Report, column 220W, on rail passengers, for what reason growth in Eurostar passenger and revenues is expected to continue. [40270]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Economic growth is the main cause of long term growth in Eurostar passenger demand and revenues. Eurostar will also benefit from the completion of Sections 1 and 2 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, which will allow Eurostar to reduce journey times, improve reliability and increase the frequency of services.

  Rail Network
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if the Strategic Rail Authority has provided(a) his Department and (b) the Treasury with an estimate of the total renewal cost of the UK rail network; [40222]

  (2) if his Department has made an assessment of the total renewal cost of the UK rail network; and if he will make a statement; [40221]

  (3) what estimate he has made of how much is required fully to renew the United Kingdom rail network; [40224]

  (4) if his Department has provided information to the Treasury to enable it to carry out an estimation of the total renewal cost of the UK rail network; [40223]

  (5) what estimate he has made of the ratio between the total renewal cost of the UK rail network and the average annual amount allocated for renewals under the 10-Year Plan. [40202]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The appropriate level of renewals is a matter for the Rail Regulator and for bidders for Railtrack Plc. Bidders are expected to demonstrate an understanding of the investment needs of the rail network, to develop plans to improve the knowledge of the state of the rail network and to propose their renewal investment plans.

  Local Government
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what level of population growth in each of the Government's regions is being used to plan local government functions in the next(a) five years, (b) 10 years and (c) 20 years. [39550]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Estimates of the population change by Government Office region are available, but the Department does not hold centrally information on the extent to which these estimates are used by Government Departments. The estimates are given in the report by the Office for National Statistics entitled "1996-based Subnational Population Projections—England" (series pp3 no. 10). The table provides the overall summary.
  561W

  Table 1.1 Population of England by Government Office region for selected years

  Area population (thousand)

  Percentage change

  19961

  2001

  2006

  2011

  2016

  2021

  1996–2001

  1996–2006

  1996–2011

  1996–2016

  1996–2021

  England

  49,089.1

  49,871.1

  50,526.3

  51,161.2

  51.831.9

  52,483.9

  1.6

  2.9

  4.2

  5.6

  6.9

  North-east

  2,600.5

  2,579.3

  2,555.1

  2,535.9

  2,521.4

  2,509.1

  〓0.8

  –1.7

  –2.5

  –3.0

  –3.5

  North-west

  5,470.8

  5,485.0

  5,490.1

  5,497.3

  5,513.7

  5,529.7

  0.3

  0.4

  0.5

  0.8

  1.1

  Merseyside

  1,420.4

  1,385.5

  1,352.5

  1,323.1

  1,298.9

  1,277.9

  –2.5

  –4.8

  –6.9

  –8.6

  –10.0

  Yorkshire and Humber

  5,035.5

  5,071.1

  5,098.2

  5,129.6

  5,164.7

  5,199.6

  0.7

  1.2

  1.9

  2.6

  3.3

  East Midlands

  4,141.5

  4,234.1

  4,311.7

  4,383.7

  4,455.4

  4,523.0

  2.2

  4.1

  5.8

  7.6

  9.2

  West Midlands

  5,316.6

  5,342.8

  5,358.4

  5,372.3

  5,391.4

  5,410.8

  0.5

  0.8

  1.0

  1.4

  1.8

  East

  5,292.6

  5,448.0

  5,581.8

  5,702.2

  5,823.2

  5,940.9

  2.9

  5.5

  7.7

  10.0

  12.2

  London

  7,074.3

  7.214.8

  7,337.3

  7,470.0

  7,608.5

  7,736.2

  2.0

  3.7

  5.6

  7.6

  9.4

  South-east

  7,895.3

  8,133.8

  8,343.7

  8,534.0

  8,721.9

  8,905.0

  3.0

  5.7

  8.1

  10.5

  12.8

  South-west

  4,841.5

  4,976.6

  5,097.5

  5,213.0

  5,332.8

  5,451.7

  2.8

  5.3

  7.7

  10.1

  12.6

  1 Base

  Road Safety
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secreatry of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much his Department has spent on road-safety related matters in each of the last three years. [40225]

  Jamieson
  In the financial years 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01, my Department spent £68 million, £84 million and £97 million respectively on road safety. These figures exclude the Department's internal administration costs. While they include Highways Agency expenditure on specific safety schemes, it is not possible to estimate the cost of the safety benefits inherent in larger projects.

  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 road safety spending in the United Kingdom and the number of vehicle journeys each year. [40227]

  Jamieson
  Expenditure on road safety by my Department and by local authorities in England in 1999–2000 totalled £318 million. It is estimated that motor vehicles travelled 398 billion kilometres in England in 1999. This suggests that annual expenditure on road safety is of the order of £8 per 10,000 vehicle kilometres travelled.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what regulations apply to speed limit indicators painted on the road surface in restricted areas. [40225]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Departmental policy is to authorise carriageway roundels only when used in conjunction with upright repeated signs. Research has shown when used alone roundels have little effect on vehicle speeds and adverse weather conditions can render them invisible.

  Direction 10 of Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 1994 states that repeater signs are prohibited on restricted roads. Consequently carriageway roundels are only authorised when used in conjunction with an upright sign at the gateway/terminal of a restricted road.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he made of the extent of reporting of road crashes that involve children. [40548]

  Mr. Jamieson
  After a study for my Department in 1996, the Transport Research Laboratory reported that "around half of casualties aged 0–4 and 15–19 and a third of those aged 5–14 were reported but the reporting rate 562W
  increased to around two-thirds or more for older casualties". The reporting rate also varied with road user group: 56 per cent. for children aged 0–14 who were car occupants but only 12 per cent. for pedal cyclists.

  The main reasons given by casualties interviewed in hospital accident and emergency departments for not reporting an accident were that the accident was too trivial or that no one else was involved.

  Light Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he plans to limit light aircraft noise. [39691]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: All light aircraft issued with a UK Certificate of Airworthiness are required to comply with ICAO Annex 16 international noise certification requirements, which are currently implemented through the Aeroplane Noise Regulations Order 1999. These certification requirements place a maximum decibel limit on the noise level that an aircraft may produce.

  The air transport White Paper, which we plan to publish this year, will cover aircraft noise policy generally including such legislative changes as we conclude may be appropriate in respect of the operational noise controls (including on light aircraft) available to aerodromes and to the Secretary of State.

  Writing Paper
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason the Minister for Housing, Planning and Regeneration's official writing paper does not include his correct style and title; and if he will amend it. [39904]

  Ms Keeble
  The Minister's writing paper is headed with his name. He has no plans to amend it.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in his Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40446]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Rail travel is ordinarily undertaken on standard class tickets. However staff in my Department at Band 5 (Senior Executive Officer) and above may choose
  563W
  to travel first class where there is a business need and the extra expense is justified, for example, better to facilitate working during the journey.

  With the exception of a few staff at Band 4 (Higher Executive Officer) who may choose to travel first class, staff below Band 5 may not choose to travel first class except where:

  (a) they are travelling with someone who is travelling first class;

  (b) the facilities provided in standard class do not meet their needs, for example if they are pregnant or suffer from a disability;

  (c) there are no seats available in standard class, or in circumstances when it is necessary to buy a meal on the train and this is not possible when travelling in standard class;

  (d) there is a need to travel overnight and use a sleeping berth.

  Health and Safety At Work
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list for each year since 1997 the incidence rate of(a) fatal and (b) major injury accidents at work. [40427]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The incidence rate of fatal and of major injuries, reported to HSE and local authorities, 1997–98 to 2000–011 is shown in the table:

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  (a) Fatal injury rate

  Employees

  0.9

  0.8

  0.7

  0.9

  Self-employed people

  1.8

  1.9

  1.7

  2.4

  Workers

  1.0

  0.9

  0.8

  1.0

  (b) Major injury rate

  Employees

  127.6

  121.7

  116.6

  107.3

  Self-employed people

  23.3

  20.3

  19.7

  19.0

  Workers

  113.8

  108.8

  104.9

  96.9

  1 The figures relate to the planning year 1 April to 31 March and those for 2000–01 are provisional.

  Notes:

  1. The incidence rates per 100,000 employees, self-employed and workers have been provided. "Workers" are employees and self-employed combined.

  2. Injuries reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1995.

  3. Non-fatal injuries are under reported. The Labour Force Survey suggest that, in 1999–2000, employers report about 44 per cent. of injuries that they should report and self-employed people report less than 5 per cent.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list for each year since 1997 the incidence rate of cases of work-related ill health. [40425]

  Description of contract

  Date

  Assessment Centre Recruitment for Traffic Examiners

  September 2001

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Training course

  2000–02

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  Provision and Maintenance of IT Infrastructure

  September 1997–August 2004

  Driving Standards Agency

  Supply of Finance Director on an agency basis

  March 1998–November 2000

  Fire Service College

  Direct Marketing Services

  August 1998–July 1999

  Fire Service College

  Recruitment Service for DTLR

  November 2001

  DTLR(C)

  National Road Traffic Census for 2002–04

  January 2002

  DTLR(C)

  Recruitment Service for DETR(C)

  October 1998 (contract now completed)

  DTLR(C)

  General Recruitment Services

  February 1997 (contract now completed)

  DTLR(C)

  564W
  Dr. Whitehead
  No single source of information is available on the nature and full extent of work-related ill health in Great Britain. The most inclusive and broadly based estimates come from self-reporting surveys of the national population where individuals are asked to report any work related ill health they have suffered in the last 12 months. The latest available estimate of the incidence of new cases of work-related ill health from such a survey is for 1995; some 400,000 cases per year, or an incidence rate of 1,400 per 100,000 workers. An updated estimate, for 2001–02, will be published later this year.

  More recent figures for particular types of work-related ill health are available from alternative are published in Health and Safety Statistics 2000–01, a copy of which is in the Library (and on the internet at http://www.house.gov.uldstati stics/2001/hsspt2.pdf).

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many working days were lost per 100,000 workers from(a) work-related injury and (b) ill health in each year since 1997. [40426]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The overall number of working days lost, as a result of work-related injury, is obtained every three years through a national survey. The latest figure, covering the financial year 2000–01, is estimated to be 27,900 working days lost per 100,000 workers, while in 1997–98 the figure was 25,800.

  For work-related ill health, the latest available figure is based on a survey of self-reported work-related illness in 1995. The survey estimated that 71,000 working days were lost per 100,000 workers in Great Britain. A more up-to-date estimate, covering 2001–02, will be available later this year.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what arrangements were put in place at the time of the NATS PPP to ensure that the income generated by the online services was kept separate from the other services. [40607]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The ring-fencing of NATS' en route services is effected through the air traffic services licence granted under the Transport Act 2000. The Government placed copies of this licence in the Libraries of the House in April 2001.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Department. [39344]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The following contracts have been awarded by DTLR to the Capita Group, since 1997:
  565W

  Description of contract

  Date

  Project Management/Consultancy General

  July 2001

  Highways Agency

  Engineering Support to Safety Standards and Research Structures and Technical Approvals

  February 2002–04

  Highways Agency

  Traffic Monitoring East 2000

  August 2001

  Highways Agency

  HRS Consultancy Services framework

  February 2001

  Highways Agency

  A66 Stainburn to Great Clifton Bypass

  February 2002

  Highways Agency

  Notes:

  Four contracts were awarded to Cumbrian Contract Services (now part of the Capita Group) by Highways Agency between November 1999 and September 2000.

  20 contracts were awarded to Cumbrian Industrials Ltd. (now part of the Capita Group) by Highways Agency between December 1997 and August 2001.

  The Department's evaluation mechanism for successful delivery of contract is based on value for money, taking into consideration cost, quality and delivery for each individual tender.

  The Department does not as a general rule have clauses in contracts relating to penalty clauses unless there are clear grounds for inclusion, as in the delivery of a construction project where damages could be assessed. No record is kept centrally of instances where these clauses have been invoked. Individual contract values are not quoted to protect commercial confidentiality.

  Description of contract

  Date

  Department/agency

  Assessment centre recruitment for traffic examiners

  September 2001

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Training courses

  2000–02

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  Provision and maintenance of IT infrastructure

  September 1997 to August 2004

  Driving Standards Agency

  Supply of Finance Director on an agency basis

  March 1998 to November 2000

  Fire Service College

  Direct marketing services

  August 1998 to July 1999

  Fire Service College

  Recruitment service for DTLR

  November 2001

  DTLR (C)

  National road traffic census for 2002–04

  January 2002

  DTLR (C)

  Recruitment service for DETR (C)

  1October 1998

  DTLR (C)

  General recruitment services

  1February 1997

  DTLR (C)

  Project management/consultancy general

  July 2001

  Highways Agency

  Engineering support to safety standards and research structures and technical approvals

  February 2002–04

  Highways Agency

  Traffic monitoring east 2000

  August 2001

  Highways Agency

  HRS consultancy services framework

  February 2001

  Highways Agency

  A66 Stainburn to Gt. Clifton bypass

  February 2002

  Highways Agency

  1Contract now completed

  Notes:

  1. 4 contracts were awarded to Cumbrian Contract Services (now part of the Capita Group) by Highways Agency between November 1999 and September 2000.

  2. 20 contracts were awarded to Cumbrian Industrials Ltd. (now part of the Capita Group) by Highways Agency between December 1997 and August 2001.

  The Department's evaluation mechanism for successful delivery of a contract is based on value for money, taking into consideration cost, quality and delivery for each individual tender. The Department does not as a general rule have clauses in contracts relating to penalty clauses unless there are clear grounds for inclusion, as in the delivery of a contraction project where damages could be assessed. No record is kept centrally of instances where these clauses have been invoked.

  Individual contract values are not quoted to protect commercial confidentiality.

  Air Travel (Deep Vein Thrombosis)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research is being undertaken by the Government into links between deep vein thrombosis and air travel. [40677]
  566W
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to Capita since 1997, stating(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 any penalty charges have been incurred; and if he will make a statement. [39981]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]The following contracts have been awarded by DTLR to the Capita Group, since 1997:

  Mr. Jamieson
  Rather than undertaking its own research into possible links between deep vein thrombosis and air travel, the Government will support the international research project being planned by the World Health Organisation.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the reasons why the research into links between deep vein thrombosis and air travel announced by the World Health Organisation in August 2001 has not yet begun; and what representations the Government made to the World Health Organisation as to beginning the research. [40678]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Members of the Aviation Health Working Group, which includes this Department, met representatives of the Scientific Committee responsible for the proposed WHO project on 26 February to discuss
  567W
  the timing of the study. Details of the various research protocols have now been agreed and it is planned to begin the work on 1 April 2002, subject to sufficient funding being in place.

  Local Government Finance
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, local Government and the Regions what

  Revenue expenditure1

  Government grant2

  Non-domestic rates3

  Council tax4

  £ billion

  £ billion

  Per cent.

  £ billion

  Per cent.

  £billion

  Per cent.

  1997–98

  47.256

  23.840

  50

  12.034

  25

  11.241

  24

  1998–99

  50.189

  25.291

  50

  12.531

  25

  12.332

  24

  1999–2000

  53.651

  26.421

  49

  13.619

  25

  13.278

  25

  2000–01

  57.324

  27.784

  48

  15.406

  27

  14.200

  25

  2001–025

  61.270

  30.341

  50

  15.144

  25

  15.245

  25

  1 "Revenue expenditure to compare with TSS" i.e. expenditure financed from Revenue Support Grant, specific and special grants within AEF, non-domestic rates, council taxes and balances. Also includes spending met by SSA Reduction Grant, Police Grant, Central Support Protection Grant (1999–2000 onwards) and General Greater London Authority Grant (2000–01 onwards). This column is not the total of the others. The difference is due to funding by balances and other adjustments.

  2 'Includes Revenue Support Grant, specific and special grants within AEF, SSA Reduction Grant, Police Grant, Central Support Protection Grant (1999–2000 onwards) and General GLA Grant (2000–01 onwards).

  3 Distributable amount from non-domestic rate pool. This is not exactly equal to the payments from businesses in any year, but adjustments are made to the distributable amount in future years to ensure that, over time, all rates received are redistributed to receiving authorities. Includes City Offset.

  4 Gross of council tax benefit and council tax transitional reduction scheme.

  5 Budgets.

  Right to Buy
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the impact on the numbers of local authority tenants in London applying for the right to buy of(a) reducing the maximum discount to £25,000, (b) extending the discount clawback period to five years and (c) extending the cost floor liability period to 15 years. [40774]

  Ms Keeble
  No such estimates have been made. As explained in our December 2000 Housing Policy Statement "Quality and choice: a decent home for all", the Government have no proposals for further significant changes to the Right to Buy scheme.

  South West Regional Assembly
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what expenses and allowances are available to members of the shadow South West Regional Assembly. [41139]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Expenses and allowances are a matter for the Assembly. Its accounts are published annually.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set out the division of functions between the shadow South West Regional Assembly and(a) the South West Regional Development Agency, (b) the Government Office of the South West, (c) county councils, (d) district councils and (e) unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement. [41135]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The South West Regional Assembly is a voluntary body. It has not statutory duties and 568W
  proportion of local government expenditure has been met by (a) Government grant, (b) business rates and (c) council tax in each of the last five years. [40775]

  Dr. Whitehead
  English local authorities have reported the following funding of revenue expenditure:

  determines its own functions. However, I understand that its top priorities for the next two years are to:
  further develop its role as the voice of the South West;
  continue to identify present and future needs of the region; and
  encourage and promote integrated policy-making for the delivery of regional objectives.

  The Secretary of State in approving the Regional Planning Guidance (RPG10) recognised the Regional Assembly as the Regional Planning Body for the South West. The Regional Assembly is therefore responsible for implementation, monitoring and reviews of RPG. I understand that the Regional Assembly is also taking forward the Regional Sustainable Development Framework, which it signed up to in December 2000.

  The purposes of Regional Development Agencies are set out in s.4 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998:
  to further the economic development and regeneration of their area;
  to promote business efficiency, investment and competitiveness in their area;
  to promote employment in their area;
  to enhance the development and application of skills relevant to employment in their area; and
  to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom, where it is relevant to their area to do so.

  The Government Office for the South West manages spending programmes in the region on behalf of a range of Government Departments, carries out certain regulatory functions, sponsors the Regional Development Agency and provides a regional perspective which helps inform the development of Government policy.

  The functions of local authorities are set out in many different pieces of legislation and are summarised, for

  569W
  example, on the website of the Local Government Information Unit www.lgiu.gov.uk. In summary:
  counties provide the following services: education, libraries, social services, trading standards, waste disposal, highways and transport, strategic land use planning.
  districts provide the following services: housing, parks, sports, arts and entertainment, land use planning permission, environmental health, waste collection and recycling, street cleaning, council tax collection, council tax and housing benefits, electoral registration and administration.
  unitary authorities are responsible for all the functions carried out by a county and district where there are two tiers of local government.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when he will hold a referendum to determine whether to proceed to an elected South West Regional Assembly; and if he will make a statement; [41130]

  (2) if he will list the policy areas for which the proposed South West Regional Assembly will have executive authority. [41137]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The forthcoming Regional Government White Paper will set out our proposals for elected assemblies for the English regions.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the budget(a) this year and (b) next year is of the shadow South West Regional Assembly. [41132]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Assembly receives funds from a number of sources and is responsible for its own budget. Its accounts are published annually. The Department has made available £0.5 million for the Assembly in this financial year and proposes to make available £0.6 million in 2002–03.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers, deriving from which statutes, can be exercised by the shadow South West Regional Assembly. [41131]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Assembly is a voluntary, non-statutory body. As such, it does not exercise any statutory powers or duties, and does not need specific statutory authority to carry out the activities determined by its members. However, the Assembly could not take an effective role in scrutinising the activities of the regional development agency for the South West unless the agency was required to play its part. Accordingly, provisions in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 allow the Secretary of State to designate a chamber for the region (which is the Assembly), and to direct the agency to have regard to the chamber's views and to consult it about the exercise of specified functions.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the terms of reference are of the shadow South West Regional Assembly. [41134]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Assembly has no "terms of reference" set by Government. However, I understand that the Assembly has set as its top priorities for the next two years:to further develop its role as the voice of the South West;
  to continue to identify present and future needs of the region; and
  to encourage and promote integrated policy-making for the delivery of regional objectives.
  570W
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the members of the shadow South West Regional Assembly, indicating in each case the reason for their membership. [41138]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Membership is a matter for the Regional Assembly.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff are employed by the shadow South West Regional Assembly; and how many staff will be employed next year. [41133]

  Dr. Whitehead
  "South West Regional Assembly" is the name used by the regional chamber designated by the Secretary of State under s.8 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. It is not a "shadow" body of possible future elected regional assembly for the South West, but a voluntary body which has been recognised by Ministers for the purposes of scrutiny of the South West Regional Development Agency.

  Staffing levels are a matter for the Assembly.

  Voting
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will calculate the proportion of(a) United Kingdom residents and (b) council tax payers who do not have the right to vote in local authority elections; if he will calculate the total amount of council tax revenue received from residents who do not have the right to vote in local authority elections; and if he will list the 20 local authorities in receipt of the highest proportion of revenue from residents not entitled to vote. [41143]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information necessary to make the calculations is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to make voting from overseas easier for UK diplomatic staff, with specific reference to voting by post; and if he will make a statement. [41167]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Regulations, approved by Parliament, were introduced in February 2001 to allow all overseas voters, including those serving in British diplomatic posts, to vote by post if they so wish.

  Firefighters (Recruitment)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to amend departmental guidance in relation to the recruitment and retention of people with diabetes as firefighters to take account of EU Council Directive 2000/78/EC. [40641]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department is reviewing the existing guidance to the fire service on the employment of people with diabetes as firefighters. Key interest groups will be consulted, and the review will take account of all relevant legislation.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by how much his Department underspent its expenditure limits in the financial year 2000–01. [40830]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Provisional outturn against departmental expenditure limits for 2000–01 is published in the Public Expenditure 2000–01 Provisional Outturn White Paper (Cm 5243), which is available in the Library. Final outturn against departmental expenditure limits for 2000–01, adjusted to take account of machinery of government changes in 2001–02, will be published in May 2002 in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2002–03.

  Rail Safety
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1169w, on safety training for railway employees, what information is collated by the (a) Health and Safety Executive and (b) individual railway companies on the number of railway employees who hold certificates of competence to work on railway tracks; what information about this was collected by British Rail prior to privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [40547]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Regulation 3(1) of the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994 requires employers to keep adequate records of any assessments undergone by safety critical employees. The Health and Safety Executive does not collate such information itself.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the non-professional railway occupations for which 572W
  employees are required to hold a certificate of competence or to show that they have completed appropriate training before being allowed to perform their job; and if he will state the type of certificate or qualification which is required in each case. [40525]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994 require employers to ensure that all employees carrying out work vital to the safe operation of the railways are competent and fit to carry out that work. The types of activities considered safety critical are described in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance to these regulations. This is available on the HSE website at www.house.gov.uk. Specific requirements for demonstrating competence are not set down in the regulations.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on how many occasions since 1 May 1997(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; and if he will list the total cost, including (i) travel, (ii) accommodation and (iii) subsistence allowance, for each occasion. [37983]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]Between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001, special advisers in the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions travelled abroad on six occasions, at an average cost of £4,000 per trip. The countries visited were Japan, USA, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, China and the Netherlands. Information for the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 2000 is already in the public domain. All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Financial Regulation
Lord Watson of Richmondasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the collapse of Enron and the Allied Irish Bank fraud case, new and additional financial regulations for public companies may be required in the United Kingdom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, both of the cases referred to took place in the United States, where financial regulation and accounting requirements are significantly different from those which apply in the United Kingdom. But it would be unwise to assume that similar problems could not arise here, and right that UK regulators should review their arrangements carefully in the light of these events.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 27th February that the DTI and the Treasury are jointly setting up a group to oversee and co-ordinate the UK response to the accounting and auditing issues raised by Enron in particular. She also announced a review to examine the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors of British companies.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am sure he would agree that the role of the non-executive director lies really at the heart of the credibility of corporate governance. The days have sadly long gone by where the presence of a "Lord on the board" was a guarantee of the credibility of that corporate governance. Does the Minister therefore agree that the Government should back the proposals of Professor Myers to formalise regular meetings between institutional investors and non-executive directors without executive directors being present? Secondly, can he assure the House that he will succeed in persuading Sir Peter Davies to head the Government's review of the role of non-executive directors, or find someone of equal status before too long?.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, never having been offered the opportunity to be a "Lord on the board", other than on the board of my own company, I do not know whether it is appropriate for me to comment on the noble Lord's first point. As he knows, Professor Myers works very closely with the Government. I am sure that that will continue. We
388
take his views very seriously indeed. As to the chairmanship of the group, I can only say that discussions are proceeding.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that I here will be no Gadarene rush to further regulation? The new regulatory system in the City is less than three months old and many firms are struggling with the burden of having to implement it. Does the Minister agree that if we produce more regulation we will be in danger of impacting on the competitive position of the City of London at a very critical time in the formation of a European capital market? In asking the question, I declare an interest as the chairman of an investment bank working in the City.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we must be very careful. Those who express great confidence in the integrity of the City of London are faced time and again with shocks which they said could never happen and then do. Barings Bank is one example; and there have been many others. The Barings example is close to the Allied Irish Bank example. So I would be cautious about ruling out further or different regulation as the outcome of the review to which I have just referred.
Lord Paul: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm whether it is really possible for non-executive directors to find out about any mistakes during the little time that they spend with the company?.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is why we are having a review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors. In looking at the list of non-executive posts, which a number of people—not necessarily Lords, indeed probably largely not Lords—hold, I agree with my noble friend Lord Paul. I find it difficult to see how they could spend enough time. Surely it is also a question of skill, of experience and of access to the information which is necessary to carry out a non-executive director's job.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, in reviewing the role of non-executive directors, will the Government look again at the often quoted doctrine that the responsibilities in law and in fact of all directors on a board are equal when patently they are not? Non-executive directors are in a very different position from executive ones. Indeed, the difference between them could be regarded as the difference between referees and players. To regard them as the same often has most unfortunate consequences.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would qualify a little of what the noble Lord. Lord Taverne, says. Non-executive directors do have particular roles as members of remuneration committees and audit committees. To that extent, the referee role, as opposed to the player role, is properly recognised.

389
Nevertheless, the noble Lord has a valid point. That is one of the issues which I have no doubt will be debated by the review group.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, given that auditors are prohibited from being directors of the companies for which they carry out an audit, and vice versa, does the Minister think that auditors should be equally prohibited from being consultants to companies which they are auditing—except of course if the audit is in relation to tax matters, which are relevant? If he thinks that there is any value in that proposition, will the Government consider doing anything about it? He may of course think that there is no value.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, on the face of it that seems to be a proper and helpful comment. So often these days consultants perform similar roles to those of directors, often without having the same responsibilities, which makes the matter even worse. One matter which shocked me about Enron was the extent to which staff members and partners of the audit firm then went on immediately afterwards to become directors of the company that they had audited. I assume that that is also a matter that we shall be looking at.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, can the Minister indicate what the relationship is in timing between the inquiry that he referred to, which I think is welcomed in all parts of the House, and the reform of company law, which is much mooted and to which the Government are committed?.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, indeed, my Lords, we are committed to that. Last year, we published an enormous volume on the reform of company law. A Bill team is working on company law reform at present. As is well known, I cannot say when that will gain parliamentary time, but there will of course be extensive consultation with at least draft clauses being available before any Bill is presented to Parliament. But other things are going on at the same time. The Financial Services Authority is undertaking a review of listing rules which is expected to take between one-and-a-half and two years. These things take too long.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I speak as a "Lord on three boards". Is not one problem that executive directors choose as non-executive directors people with whom they feel comfortable and whom they sense may not—how shall I put it—rock the boat? Does the Minister agree that far more important than regulation and non-executive directors is the whole ethos within which the City, in particular, carries on its tasks?.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord was not chosen by the executive directors of those companies because he is amenable to their wishes. Knowing him, I am sure that he would
390
not be. The Question raises important issues, for example, the role of institutional shareholders. Should they not have a say in who the non-executive directors are? Those are all matters of great importance. I think that we shall have an opportunity to debate them on a Labour debate in the near future.

Prison Visitors' Centres
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Listowelasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the recommendations of the recent report by the Prison Reform Trust and the Federation of Prisoners' Families Support Groups, Just Visiting: A review of the role of prison visiting centres, and to the significant decline in the number of prison visits since 1997.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, we welcome the report. My honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for prisons, Beverley Hughes, spoke at its launch on 30th January. We want prisoners to maintain close family ties in order to improve their chances of resettlement on release. We accept that there is much room for improvement in the provision of visitors' centres and will consider the report's recommendations.
We share the noble Earl's concerns about the decline in the number of visitors to prisons and last year undertook research on it. We are now consulting the Federation of Prisoners' Family Support Groups about the research findings in order better to understand the underlying reasons and what action, if any, is needed.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. Does he therefore endorse the statement by Martin Narey, the Director-General of Her Majesty's Prison Service, that,
"A stable, supportive family … is a key factor in preventing re-offending on release"?
Is the Minister aware that last week on average it took me 20 minutes or four telephone calls to obtain the prison social booking line at London prisons? It has been especially difficult at Pentonville and Brixton. What will the Minister do to improve the booking times at those prisons?.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we certainly endorse the statement made by Martin Narey, Director-General of the Prison Service. There are difficulties booking visits, there is no question about that. We are considering issuing good practice guidelines for prison establishments and upgrading the information technology and telephones used to book visits. That is simply one factor in the decline of visits per prisoner.
The overall number of visits has not declined during recent years, but of course the prison population has risen while the number of visits has stayed the same, so there has been a relative decline. There are serious

391
issues with regard to booking visits and I regret the difficulties that the noble Earl has experienced—which are no different from those of families. We are trying to address them.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that barely half of all prisons in England and Wales have a well-resourced and managed visitors' centre, many of which struggle for funding? Those centres play an intrinsic role in the visits process. I declare an interest as someone who started the first visitors' centre—at Pentonville, as it happens—30 years ago. Can the Minister clarify the Government's policy for the development of such centres, as it is so well established that family contact—and therefore visits—play a vital role in the re-establishment of prisoners on release?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is crucial that every prison has a visitors' centre. In years gone by, there was nowhere; people waited for their visits in the pouring rain. Currently, 77 out of 123 male establishments have visitors' centres—that is 63 per cent. Eight out of 14 female establishments have visitors' centres—that is 57 per cent. So the proportion is slightly more than a half, but there is a considerable way to go. Any new prison built will automatically be kitted out, as it were, with a visitors' centre outside the prison but within its curtilage—usually near the car park.
Currently, work is under way to provide a visitors' centre in Liverpool Walton, which I visited briefly last summer. I think that it is the largest prison in the country, holding about 1,200 prisoners. A visitors' centre is being provided there. For all the reasons given in the report, it is crucial that every prison should have a visitors' centre.
Lord Acton: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, on the figures that he has just given, the percentage of visitors' centres in women's prisons, where they are especially important, is disappointing? Are the Government making any special efforts not just to get the numbers up from 57 per cent, but to get them up to 100 per cent?.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is a fact that a slightly smaller percentage of women's prisons have visitors' centres. One would have thought that, given the explosion in the female prison population and the need for contact with family and children, there would be more visitors' centres in women's prisons than in male prisons. It is probably caused by the explosion in the female prison population and the number of female prisons.
I will see that the importance of the matter is urged on the Prison Service. Such centres are, generally, provided and managed by the voluntary sector. We want that to continue, but we must consider the resources that the Prison Service can put in, particularly where we are revamping and rebranding prisons. There have, of course, been some changes in the use of buildings recently, and I shall make it my
392
business to ensure that buildings changed from male to female prisons—or vice versa—include a visitors' centre.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, in his answer to the previous question, the Minister referred to the voluntary organisations. I am a former, very active member of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, a body that, as the Minister will know, has been deeply involved with prisons. Does it concern the Minister that WRVS is pulling out of the work that it has done in prisons and re-defining where its work will be?.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness has given me information of which I was unaware. In fact, when I was discussing the matter, reference was made to the magnificent work of the WR'VS in the prisons. I was unaware that the service was pulling out, and I shall seek further and better particulars about that.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the explosion in the number of women in prison. He may be aware of the scheme that was running at Holloway prison, where the families of prisoners were able to come in and spend the whole day with their mother in a slightly more normal environment. I understand that that scheme has been suspended. Can the Minister say for how long it will be suspended? Can he assure the House that it will be reinstated as soon as possible?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know why it has been suspended at Holloway, but one of the great recent advances in penal policy has been the enabling of families, particularly children, to spend a day at the establishment with their parent, outside the regime, perhaps in the gymnasium or the catering facilities. There has been a big increase in the number of people who are able to spend a day at the prison on a full family visit. I do not know what has happened at Holloway. I shall find out about it.

Schools Selection
3.23 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many local education authorities there are in England; how many have selection procedures for entry to secondary schools; and what action the Government are taking to end all selection procedures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, there are 150 local education authorities in England, and 164 secondary schools in 36 authorities select all their pupils by academic ability. No new selection by academic ability can be

393
introduced, and we have put in place procedures enabling parents locally to decide whether they wish to end existing grammar school selection.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many government supporters are deeply disappointed by the slow progress on the policy of ending selection altogether? Does not experience over many years show that not only is selection at 11 or the use of the 11-plus examination inaccurate; it also causes tremendous problems in later years? Is the Minister aware that in recent opinion polls parents have shown overwhelming opposition to selection at 11?.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I share my noble friend's concern about selection at 11. It is important to recognise that children develop in different ways and at different times. I have long worried about the concept of deciding at 11 that a child has failed. However, we are committed to allowing parents the opportunity to decide. We have put in place a system which, we believe, is as fair as possible and allows parents to make that choice. We have no plans to amend that process.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, contrary to what she said in her Answer, under the wide powers in Clause 2 of the Education Bill, which will receive its Second Reading in this House on Monday, it will be possible to expand selection so long as it is linked with innovation and rising standards?.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I look forward to debating the Education Bill with the noble Baroness. The power to innovate, which is part of the Bill, is about being able to remove legal impediments to innovation in schools. The example that I shall use in our debates is that of a school that might wish to introduce a continental-style timetable. We are committed to ensuring that we do not allow selection by ability. That will not change.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that only about 7 per cent of specialist schools use their ability to select up to 10 per cent of their pupils by aptitude, whatever that is? The Government might as well scrap that provision. Will the Minister join me in welcoming that small percentage? It shows that most specialist schools are committed to the comprehensive principle, even if the Government are not.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government are committed to the comprehensive principle. As the noble Baroness will know, there are 685 specialist schools, of which 30 are grammar schools. Those that select would perhaps have selected under other systems; they are normally former grant-maintained schools. Indeed, some of those schools have decided not to select by aptitude because it does not suit them to do so.
394
The ability to select is there for schools which believe that it will enable them to develop their specialism on top of what they do in the national curriculum. The obvious examples, which I have cited many times in your Lordships' House, are concerned with PE, sport and performing arts. We do not support selection by ability.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, will the Minister cast her mind beyond the insular attitude of her party and consider that, across the Channel, where there is selection, people choose schools related to the abilities of children—vocational, academic and so on? Does the Minister recognise that some children benefit from being at an academic school and some benefit from being at a vocational school? Why not abandon the past and allow that the grammar schools have contributed? The Government's real problem is that they are not prepared to face the issue of vocational schools. Cannot the Minister break away from the ideological battles of the past?.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord will agree with me that one of the difficulties with his question is how we define the words "academic" and "vocational". Some of our great vocational trades and professions—medicine, for example—require high academic standards. They are false labels.
In the past, the difficulty was that we chose a system that decided that, at 11, somebody was better than somebody else. We have no wish to return to that; we wish to ensure that children and young people can follow the career route to their profession or trade that best enables them to achieve their full potential. That is best done, not in a system that says to children of 11 that their route has been chosen but in one that allows them to have a breadth of experience, recognising that in the past we have used false labels.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, for most people—if not all—in local authorities who decided things for the education committees that they managed, it was not a question of something being better or worse? There was a recognition that children are different, one from another, and that a good education service ought to cater for those who are different and more academic than others.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I recognise the excellent work that people have done on education committees for many years. I make no criticism of them for that work. However, there is no doubt in my mind—and I went to a grammar school—that, whether the intent was there or not, those from my area who attended schools that were not grammar schools did not receive the kind of education that I did: it was different. For many of them, it was considered to be not only different but lesser than the education I received.
I accept that children must have the ability to explore different educational paths. Some will end up doing sciences, as opposed to languages; for others, art

395
or music will be foremost in their mind. We are not saying that all children are the same; we are saying quite the opposite. One of the big thrusts behind the Education Bill is to recognise that children and schools are different. That is a given. We are saying that no one child is better than another with that distinction being made at the age of 11.

Gujarat: Safety of British Nationals
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ahmedasked Her Majesty's Government:
What efforts are being made to protect British citizens in the Indian state of Gujarat.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I am greatly saddened at the deaths in both communities. We are in close contact with the Indian authorities which are responsible for the safety of British nationals. They have offered escorts for those stranded. Our staff in Mumbai are doing all they can to assist those in difficulty and to seek information on those still missing. They maintain lists of those who register. Our travel advice provides current information for families in the UK.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. I want to take this opportunity to thank the FCO staff, the resident clerks, our High Commission in New Delhi and the Consulate in Mumbai for the help and assistance that they have provided to the British families and their relatives in India. What efforts are being made to find the two British citizens, Shakil and Saeed Dawood, who have been missing for six days and whose driver and cousin were murdered in front of them?
Is my noble friend aware that yesterday's Independent contained a report that the BJP leaders, like Deepak Patel, led mobs of terrorists who attacked and killed 42 people? Will the Government consider proscribing VHP and other terrorist groups on the list of terrorist organisations as they have attacked and murdered innocent British citizens in Gujarat?.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments about the staff of the FCO. In such circumstances, the work of our consular staff comes to the attention of the public but they work constantly on such issues even when there is no crisis.
My noble friend asked specifically about what is being done to help the two British citizens who are missing. We are working very closely with the Indian authorities on that. We have pressed them and they have assured us that they are doing all that they can to find those citizens.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that communal violence, from whichever source, perpetrated on the religious beliefs of any individual is unacceptable? Will she support the action of the Chief
396
Minister of Gujarat and the Prime Minister of India—I have been in contact with the Chief Minister who is trying to bring the situation under control—and agree that they are the best people to assist with the situation?
Furthermore, does she consider it appropriate that rather than focusing on communal issues as regards this matter, it is in the interests of all communities to work through the existing channels to try to bring a semblance of peace in that region?.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord and we appreciate all the efforts of the Indian Government to restore calm. On 1st March national leaders of the main political parties issued a joint appeal for calm, and deployment of the army has helped to bring the rioting under control.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, in contacting the Indian authorities about the horrific sectarian killings, particularly in Ahmedabad and Godhra and about the difficult and long-standing issues surrounding the Ayodhya Temple site, will the Minister ensure not only that we look after the interests of British nationals, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, rightly urged, but that we make absolutely clear to the Indian authorities that they have our full support in dealing with these matters in an evenhanded way?
Furthermore, does the Minister agree that any suggestion that the authorities, or arms of the authorities, might have stood aside to allow mob violence in the name of revenge is completely wrong and that any such suggestion will be brought down by the Indian authorities? Will the Minister indicate that the authorities will have our support in an evenhanded approach?.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is precisely why we have appreciated the efforts which have been made by the Indian Government to restore calm. It is very important that as regards the violence in Gujarat the Indian authorities are seen to be doing all that they can. We were very pleased that the national leaders of the main political parties issued a joint appeal. In the context of the communal violence, that statement was most important.
Lord Paul: My Lords, what has happened in Gujarat is a great tragedy and we condemn everyone who is responsible for it. As some of the comments made in this country have unnecessarily divided the community, will the Minister ensure that that is not allowed to happen?.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Paul. I am aware that in one or two cases what has happened in Gujarat has spread to the streets of the United Kingdom. We are extremely concerned about that and we shall d o all that we can to ensure that that does not occur.

Business of the House: Private Notice Question
3.36 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for allowing me to ask whether he would mind elaborating on his reason for refusing a Private Notice Question this afternoon concerning the sale of the Treasury silver. I thank him for that. A Treasury spokesman is quoted in a newspaper today as saying that the sale is going ahead.
I am sure that the Leader of the House remembers that on 29th October the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said:
"surely it is proper that any decision should be announced to Parliament rather than to anyone else".
The noble and learned Lord will also recall the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, saying that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde had correctly expressed,
"the view of the House that the items should be withdrawn from sale".—[Official Report, 29/10/01; col. 1174.]
If the Treasury is so anxious to achieve savings and efficiency, as its spokesman says today, why does it not look to the administrative expenses of the Chancellor's own department which are due to rise, on his own budget forecasts, not by £100,000, the value of the silver, but by £500 million over the next four years?.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I believe that the procedure for Private Notice Questions is well known to your Lordships. It is set out at paragraph 4.101 of the Companion:
"A private notice question (PNQ) gives Members of the House the opportunity to raise urgent matters on any sitting day".
This matter is not urgent. Indeed, the basis on which the Question was put—and as always I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi—was a cutting from the Daily Telegraph, a copy of which the noble Lord gave to me.
I have made it plain—and I hope that the House approves—that my inclination is always to assume that PNQs should be accepted. I believe that I have faithfully abided by that.
When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, sought a Private Notice Question to be heard on 29th October last year, the proposed sale was the next day. It seemed to me—and I know that the House agreed—that it was right to give time for the noble and learned Lord to raise that matter. It was raised.
Since then, my noble friend Lord McIntosh has answered a number of questions, one being as long ago as 12th February. That is the best part of a month ago. One of his answers on 12th February to, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, was that,
"the Government concluded in the light of representations that open-market sale was not appropriate in that case".
That is the Privy Council silver. He continued:
"Arrangements are being made for a sale confined to institutions willing to display the items to the UK public".— [Official Report, 12/2/02; col. WA139.]
398
I am acting here only, I hope, in the interests of the House. Having looked at the Companion it seemed to me that this matter could not conceivably be described as urgent. It seemed to me right in the interests of the House that we adhere to the proper procedures and I hope that the House will support me.

Scottish Parliament (Referendum) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum in Scotland on whether the Scottish Parliament should continue to exist or be abolished. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Palmer.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Kyoto Protocol
3.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"Following agreement at the European Community Environment Council on Monday, I am very pleased to announce that the Government have today laid the Kyoto Protocol before both Houses of Parliament. This significant step begins the formal process of UK ratification of this hugely important protocol.
"This House is aware of the leading role that the Government have always played in the fight against climate change and, in particular, the pivotal role played by my right honourable friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment in the original negotiations on the protocol in Kyoto. We have maintained that lead in subsequent negotiations and we are making strong progress with implementing a strategic and innovative programme of action to reduce the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. I firmly believe that the UK, as well as the rest of world, has much to gain from meeting the challenge of climate change head-on.
"The deal that I helped to secure, first in Bonn and then in Marrakesh last year, was the latest in a series of major political achievements and paved the way for ratification. Since then, the EU has set an aim for the Kyoto Protocol to enter into force in time for the World Summit on Sustainable Development at the end of August. The summit will mark the 10th anniversary of the Rio Earth Summit, which set up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in the first place. Although we do

399
not expect or wish climate change as such to feature prominently on the summit's agenda, entry into force of the protocol before it takes place will demonstrate beyond doubt the world's commitment to taking its environmental responsibilities seriously.
"The Environment Council's agreement on Monday to the Council Decision on European Community ratification and to the EU "bubble" was a significant milestone. This needed to happen first, so that the reduction targets agreed politically by each member state in 1998 became legally fixed. I am delighted with the outcome of the Council meeting which followed detailed and, at times, sensitive negotiations. It means that all member states are now able to complete their own national ratification procedures, and that the EC and its member states will be the first of the key developed countries to ratify the protocol.
"This Government are certainly wasting no time in ensuring that the UK ratifies the protocol as soon as possible. Today's event marks the start of our process. The protocol will be before Parliament for the next 21 sitting days. At the end of this period, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will sign the UK's instrument of ratification. For legal and presentational reasons, the UK will deposit its instrument with the UN Depository at same time as the European Community and other member states. We are aiming to do this by June at the latest.
"UK ratification of the Kyoto Protocol sends an important message to the world that we are committed to the protocol and to tackling climate change. It reaffirms the Government's pledge to meet their environmental objectives. And it meets our manifesto commitment to provide leadership abroad and to work for international agreement on climate change.
"I hope that countries not yet committed to ratifying will follow the EU's lead. The House will be aware that the US has recently announced proposals for domestic action to tackle climate change. We welcome the fact that President Bush accepts climate change as a serious problem and has increased support for climate science and for climate-friendly innovation. However, our analysis of his proposals suggests that US greenhouse gas emissions will be around 25 per cent higher in 2010 than in 1990. This contrasts quite starkly with the 7 per cent reduction to which the US had originally agreed under Kyoto. We continue to believe that the Kyoto Protocol represents the only workable option for the international community to take forward serious action on climate change, and we hope that the US will re-engage with this process in the future. It is of course extremely important that we maintain a constructive dialogue with the US on climate change and we will seek to establish a process through which this can be achieved.
"UK ratification of the protocol will mean that we become legally bound by the target to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5 per cent below
400
1990 levels by 2008–12. The UK's climate change programme sets out a range of policies that could reduce emissions by 23 per cent by 2010, well in excess of our Kyoto target and setting us in good stead for future reductions. The programme, therefore, also addresses the Government's ambitious domestic goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010.
"Our climate change programme is providing a strategic focus for action. It is stimulating positive action by UK businesses, local government and other organisations. It is encouraging longer-term changes and a move towards a low carbon economy. And it is implementing a series of innovative and creative policies to ensure that the UK cuts its emissions in a flexible and cost-effective way.
"Let me run through the key policies in the programme. First, we have established the world's first economy-wide emissions trading scheme, backed by a government incentive of £215 million over five years. The scheme is due to "go live" early next month and is one of our major priorities. Emissions trading is a cost-effective way of making a low carbon future a reality, and by pioneering this scheme, we intend the City of London to become the world centre for emissions trading.
"We have set a target to provide 10 per cent of the UK's electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2010, backed up by government funding of at least £250 million over the next three years. We also have a target to at least double the UK capacity of combined heat and power by 2010. We will be publishing our draft CHP strategy shortly, with a range of measures to achieve the target.
"We have put in place the climate change levy package that will help to fund measures to promote better energy efficiency in business. We established the Carbon Trust which will recycle around £100 million of climate change levy receipts to boost the take-up of cost-effective, low carbon technologies.
"There are a range of programmes and schemes to promote better energy efficiency in the domestic sector. And at European Union level, we secured voluntary agreements with car manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency by at least 25 per cent, backed up by changes to vehicle excise duty and company car tax to encourage more fuel efficient, low-emission cars.
"Finally, the Government's 10 Year Plan for Transport will address projected emissions growth in this key sector.
"The programme also looks at what we might need to do to adapt to the effects of climate change in the UK. The Government are taking early action to identify adaptation priorities and we are supporting the introduction of adaptation strategies on the ground through the UK Climate Impacts Programme.
"In addition, the programme begins to put in place policies to reduce emissions in the longer term—beyond 2012. We know that Kyoto, while

401
important in itself, is only a first step, and that much deeper cuts in emissions will be needed if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. The Government are determined to continue towards a low carbon economy in a way that benefits both the environment and UK industry. This is one reason why we commissioned the recent PIU energy report that we are now considering, and to which we will respond later this year.
"I would like to finish by re-stating the Government's belief that meeting climate change targets will not only be good for the environment, but also presents new opportunities for businesses to improve energy efficiency, to cut costs and to get ahead of their international competitors by developing cleaner technologies and moving into new markets. It presents new job opportunities for people living and working in the UK. And it offers more choice for the consumer. We want to make sure that the UK makes the most it possibly can of these opportunities, as well as making a strong and determined contribution to the global fight against climate change. Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol is one of the most important steps on that road".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We welcome the progress made by the EU towards ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, but there is much more to do. The UK's fight against climate change, initiated some 10 years ago in Rio by John Major and taken further by my noble friend Lord Gummer, laid the foundations for the international agreement to tackle climate change.
The Statement today refers to the pivotal role played by the Deputy Prime Minister. But that was not without its difficulties. It was the same Deputy Prime Minister who, back in November 2000, lost his nerve and his cool during negotiations with the French environment Minister, causing her to refer to him as a "male, chauvinistic pig". There has been slow progress since then, but the UK statistics are poor. We are one of the dirtiest countries—98th out of 142—and we have a poor record on recycling. We recycle a paltry 11 per cent compared to Switzerland, Germany and Austria with recycling rates of around 50 per cent. Is the Minister confident that local authorities will meet the government target of 25 per cent by 2005? Will that figure include the extra huge costs that local authorities are currently facing because of the fridge mountain debacle? It is hoped that other countries will ratify and, in particular, that the United States will reengage with the process. What risk does US exclusion from the process pose to its eventual legal status?
The Government have set a target of providing 10 per cent of the UK's electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2010. Will the Government take
402
urgent action to implement the recommendation in the energy review and remove the institutional barrier to,
"the working of the planning system which at present fails to place local concerns within a wider framework of national and regional need"?
Will the Government take into account the emissions from aircraft which heavily pollute our skies? The Statement refers to "deeper cuts". Is this one aspect that the Government are considering?
Does the Minister accept that the Government's failure to put in place a coherent transport policy has led to the queues of traffic that still pollute our air on a daily basis and add to an already critical situation?
Does the Minister take seriously the remarks of the Chief Scientific Adviser who, on radio this morning, called for an increase in the number of nuclear power stations if some of the targets are to be achieved?
Will the Government assure the House that the climate change levy will not damage the competitiveness of UK industry? The energy review to which I referred earlier states that,
"it would not make any sense for the UK to incur large abatement costs, harming its international competitiveness, if other countries are not doing so".
The whole tone of the Statement is self-congratulatory. However, the Government's ability to achieve their objectives and rational strategies is suspect, particularly in relation to what was the Department of the Environment and MA FF, now the unjoined-up DEFRA, and other government departments.
The PIU report makes clear that, to achieve the objectives set out in the Statement, major institutional changes, including to the planning system, need to be made to deliver the strategy. When do the Government intend to put these changes in motion?
3.53 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome the ratification. We would also welcome an early debate in the House on both the Kyoto Protocol and the Government's objectives for Johannesburg because the two go hand in hand.
I was slightly surprised to hear the noble Baroness on the Conservative Front Bench label the UK as the 98th out of the 142 "dirtiest men in the world". It was under the Conservative government that we first received the label of the "dirtiest man in Europe"—because that is what the measurements were at that time—but no government to date have proved themselves to be firmly behind environmental taxes and the kinds of actions needed to move us forward.
We should certainly debate further the issue of nuclear power. It is easy to say that it is a cleaner technology, but its legacy in terms of expense for future generations is something for which they will not thank us. More than that, it has not proved itself economically in the present generation, although governments find that easy to ignore when searching for an answer to climate change.

403
At the beginning of the Statement the Minister said that the world has much to gain from meeting the challenge of climate change head-on. That somewhat plays down the issue. The position is that the world has everything to lose if it does not meet that challenge.
The Minister went on to say that the Government would be funding renewables to the tune of £250 million over the next three years. That is only £80 million a year. He did not say whether that money was for research and development or for infrastructure development or both. The west coast of Scotland, if developed properly, has an enormous amount of renewable energy but it desperately needs investment in its infrastructure to bring that energy down to where it is needed. I would welcome the Minister's comments.
Noble Lords will know that my noble friend Lord Ezra has often spoken of the enormous potential of combined heat and power plants. I welcome the fact that the strategy for that will be published shortly. Will the Minister define what "shortly" means, because that policy is certainly in a mess at the moment?
As to the range of programmes and schemes to promote better energy efficiency in the domestic sector, one of the Government's biggest failures to date has been the absence of a change to building regulations and planning policy guidance so that account is taken of simple things such as passive solar gain—big windows that face south. It is not rocket science but it does require firm policies.
Can the Minister comment on the Government's 10-year plan for transport? He says that it will address the issue of projected emissions growth in this key sector. The plan will count for nothing if action does not follow. To date, we have not seen any action which has reduced congestion and we still wait to hear what will happen with the railways. It is a fine Statement, but I hope that action will follow.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of both Opposition Front Benches for the ratification process. It is very important that we should be united across the parties on Kyoto. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, slightly spoilt it by saying that the Statement was self-congratulatory, but we do, as a country, have something to congratulate ourselves on. As the noble Baroness said, the process started under the previous regime at Rio and we have led the way, not only in the negotiating field but in being on target to meet our Kyoto objectives to a far greater degree than many other countries. Therefore, self-congratulation is appropriate without falling into complacency. We must not be complacent on this front at all.
Both noble Baronesses asked a number of questions. Recycling is certainly an important part of our delivery of aspects of the climate change programme and of other objectives. We believe that local government will play a major part in that delivery and that it is setting itself up so to do. It will receive help from the Government.
404
The current difficult situation with fridges is outside our assumptions. The help that we have already announced in regard to fridges is over and above the general help we are giving to meet recycling targets. We expect local government itself to have in-put in meeting the recycling general targets. It is to be hoped that the situation with fridges can be surmounted, and we shall focus on meeting those targets over the medium term.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the United States. We all regret the position taken by the United States but, as the Statement indicates, there has been a significant shift. President Bush now recognises that climate change problems exist and he is prepared to fund scientific research and to make general exhortations to United States industry. That is a different position from the one he adopted on taking power, so there is some progress.
There is also considerable progress in US corporate circles and US public opinion. The situation can change, but it is at the moment a major problem not having the United States on board. There is no point in balking that. The US needs to be persuaded to rejoin the process.
As regards the legal status, a US presence is not absolutely essential. The requirement for the protocol to come into force is that 55 nations must sign it, among which must be countries representing 55 per cent of the developed world in terms of emissions. That can be done without the United States— although it does require the signature of some of the other powers which are "teetering" in regard to a decision—of Japan, for example, which is further along the line towards committing itself than it was a few weeks ago, and of Russia, where major decisions will be taken in the next few weeks. Those two nations need to be included if we want to reach the 55 per cent target.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised important issues relating to the energy review. The Government's response will come shortly, and will include issues relating to planning. She also raised issues on the transport side, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Clearly, transport is a very important area in which further action is required in order to meet the targets. In relation to aircraft, international agreement will be necessary. At present, it is very difficult for one nation, or even the EU, to take the lead. However, discussions are beginning on aircraft emissions. More substantial are the emissions from motor traffic. The 10-year plan—about which both noble Baronesses were slightly sceptical—is geared very much to reducing congestion on the one hand and emissions per vehicle on the other, as well as transferring some traffic away from the roads and adopting less carbon-intensive systems.
On all those fronts—the 10-year plan for transport; improving the infrastructure; taking other measures to reduce congestion; and, in concert with the corporate sector, changing the basis of fuels and increasing the

405
fuel efficiency of vehicles that remain dependent on carbon technology—we are making an important contribution. It is particularly important since transport is the one area where emissions are still rising.
Nuclear power will be covered in the Government's response to the energy review. It is fairly clear, both from the review and from the Government's announced position hitherto, that the UK does not need new nuclear capacity to meet the Kyoto target. The dilemma for energy policy in that sense is what will happen beyond the 2012 date when there may be a gap and the PIU may make reference to doubling the target for renewables, for example. Others would advocate an increased nuclear role. But there is no need, in order to meet the Kyoto targets, for us to presume any increase in the nuclear component. At present, there are no proposals for additional nuclear capacity. However, both for our own purposes and for world purposes, we wish to retain a capacity in nuclear technology.
The climate change levy is one of the most important of the environmental taxes which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, regretted that we did not have. It is an important environment tax. It is also one that is geared to improving the ability of British industry to be ahead of the game in developing technology and the production and distribution methods that minimise carbon emissions. That will give British industry a competitive advantage in the medium term, both in terms of the pressures on industry to act quickly and in terms of recycling some of the climate change levy into carbon-saving technology.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to renewables. I have stressed their importance, and the importance of CHP on which a study will come shortly. I know that "shortly" can be interpreted as meaning tomorrow. It will not be quite as shortly as that but it will be within a reasonable time.
The noble Baroness also mentioned building regulations. We made significant progress in that area a few months ago. My colleague, Nick Raynsford, announced some significant changes in future building regulations. There is some more work to be done, but that will be an important contribution. The noble Baroness also raised the question of a debate on Kyoto and Johannesburg. That is a matter not for me but for the usual processes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, commented that we have everything to lose if we do not achieve the targets. That is true. The world has a lot to lose if we do not deliver on Kyoto as the first step to delivering climate change. The ratification process at EU level undertaken by this Government and the lead that Britain and the EU have taken will help us to take that first step.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that he believes that the British biofuel industry has a significant contribution to make in meeting the Kyoto objectives?.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, biofuels—both in the sense of potential in liquid biofuels and in biomass for energy production—are certainly alternative fuel technologies that we need to develop as a contribution towards meeting the renewables target. It is also part of the synergy of the new department—which the noble Baroness indicated had not gone as far as it should. I dispute that. We have made great progress. It is in terms of a synergy between the agricultural dimension of the department and the environment dimension that we could develop alternative crops which could be profitable for the agricultural sector and help in meeting our renewables targets. That, if nothing else, is a justification for DEFRA.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although he suggests that it is not essential to have the United States on board, it is nevertheless highly regrettable if it is not? Does he accept, therefore, that the Government will receive all possible support in the robust stand they seem to be taking with our United States friends? Does he further agree that, in taking such a stand, the time has come to make the argument very toughly that failure to get to grips internationally with this issue will result in more economic disruption and more human suffering than is ever likely to result from terrorism?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is profoundly true. It is part of the tone of what we are trying to convey at all levels to our United States friends in an attempt to persuade them off the course of abandoning the Kyoto Protocol and to re-engage with it. I said that we could manage to deliver the terms of the protocol without the United States. But that would be in a narrow legal sense. Clearly, when we are talking about a country which contributes over a quarter of all emissions, the absence of that country from the process is an important problem in terms of delivering it.
There are some matters which President Bush is prepared to put into place to slow down the growth of emissions. But his predecessors, in 1990—indeed, the government led by his father—committed themselves to a 7 per cent reduction. Our calculations at present are that, as was indicated in the Statement, there will he a 25 per cent growth of emissions despite President Bush's package. That will make the delivery of the Kyoto targets very difficult to achieve. We and our allies and other friends of America need to try to persuade it to change course.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Scotland has an excess in terms of its capacity to generate electricity. He may also be aware that I believe that that is excellent. I want to ask the Minister about hydro-generation, which currently represents 10 per cent of Scottish electricity

407
generation Do the Government plan to expand this well-proven technology, especially as it is acceptable within the landscape? The Minister will no doubt be aware that Scotland's neighbours in Norway have sufficient hydro-capacity to be self-sufficient should there be a bad, rainy summer. It is an excellent feature—had weather can equal sufficiency in energy.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in the improbable event of a summer of heavy rain in Scotland, I have no doubt that the hydro facilities that it has, and other potential projects, could make a significant contribution. Hydro-electricity is not, strictly speaking, as effective in terms of renewables and carbon minimisation as some other areas. Nevertheless, we recognise the capacity of Scotland to create energy from its natural resources. Along with many other areas, Scotland will no doubt be making a major contribution to saving the world from climate change. Its natural advantages need to be developed. In that sense the Government will certainly support hydro-technology.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I welcome the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and the actions that the Government are taking. I note the Minister's response to the question about the nuclear industry. However, does he agree that the amount of CO2 emissions currently saved by the nuclear power that we generate is helping towards meeting those targets? In particular, looking to the longer term, does the Minister agree that we shall need to take decisions soon on whether we can maintain the current figure of 20 per cent of electricity that is generated by nuclear power in this country if we are to try to make progress on limiting CO2 emissions? Does he also agree that the previous government and the present Government have failed to deal with the major issue at the heart of public concern about the nuclear industry, which relates to the safe disposal of nuclear waste? I know that my noble friend the Minister has previously expressed concern about that. What is his department doing about the problem and when can we expect some decisions to be taken about the safe disposal of nuclear waste?.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise the concern in your Lordships' House about nuclear waste, which reflects the public concern. My noble friend will know that we have now engaged in a consultation process on the options for disposal of nuclear waste over the long term. Clearly, whatever level of nuclear capacity we have over the longer term—and there are decisions that will have to be made on that—the amount of nuclear waste that has already been generated, together with that which will be generated by power stations that will be operational for a number of years yet, is sufficient for us to need a strategy for its longterm disposal. We are addressing that now.
My only point about nuclear capacity, as I said earlier, is that we do not have to take a decision on it in order to meet the Kyoto targets. However, that does
408
not mean that we can wait until beyond 2012 before we take the serious decisions on our future mix of energy sources.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, under the Kyoto agreement, the Republic of Ireland was afforded a marked increase in relevant emissions, in contrast with the reductions required in the United Kingdom. A significant consequence of that has been a substantial differential in excise duties on road fuel between the Republic and Northern Ireland, with an ancillary consequence of massive smuggling between the two. I do not dissent in any way from the Kyoto principles, but I should like to know whether the Government have advanced any new resolution to that problem, which leads to massive disrespect for the rule of law in the Province, to the despair of honest traders, quite apart from misgivings as to where the proceeds of smuggling might be going.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that that serious problem of differential fuel taxing and the resultant smuggling or legal crossing of the border to fill up with petrol can be ascribed directly to the Kyoto Protocol. The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom take separate decisions on their mix of taxes. Our argument is that other fiscal measures will be needed in the Republic of Ireland and in other EU states to ensure that they meet their Kyoto targets and contribute to their given figures within the Eli bubble. Ireland may be allowed some increase, but it needs to ensure that it keeps within the requirements of the EU bubble, which may mean that some additional taxation is needed. It is for the Government of the Republic of Ireland to decide on that mix of taxation. The difference in relative taxes has caused some serious disturbance in Northern Ireland, but that is a consequence of us all maintaining separate sovereignty over taxes. I know that some of the noble Lord's friends would not wish to upset that position in the European Community.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, if I recollect correctly, the House recently passed a statutory instrument devolving the setting of targets for renewable energy to the Scottish Parliament. Do the targets that the Minister is talking about today relate only to England and Wales, or are they targets for the whole of the UK?.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the targets relating to our international obligations are for the whole of the UK. The devolved administrations are all party to the UK programme for dealing with climate change. There are separate chapters of the climate change programme relating to the contributions of the devolved administrations. In some cases, the way in which they are meeting their targets is different, because of devolution.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, if no one else wants to speak from the Back Benches, I believe that I am entitled to ask a follow-up question, in view of the time

409
available. I should like to press the Minister on the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. We all hope that we shall be able to get some fuel from our crops. The Minister and I share that hope. However, it is difficult to ensure that bio-generating power stations are placed near to where the crops will be grown. He will remember that one recent application in Wiltshire was turned down. One of the problems that we shall face if we are not careful is that we may grow crops in one part of the country and then waste huge amounts of energy and money on transporting them to the other end of the country. Planning for fuel generating plants is hugely important.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am familiar with the case that the noble Baroness refers to. She raised the general issue of planning consents earlier. This is an important issue. The Curry commission on agriculture made great play of the importance of energy crops. A market for those crops is needed, which requires appropriate investment. The PIU report's comments on planning consents will have to be taken up in our review of planning and will be part of our response to the PIU energy review.
Lord Haslam: My Lords, the response to the Statement has been favourable, but I have to strike a sour note. I have lived through the history of this issue. Going back to Rio, its effects were minimal. The main reason for that is that when Mr Clinton went to the Senate, it put down a protocol that said that any environmental measures must not affect the United States economy adversely. That protocol remains in force. Mr Bush has been perfectly honest, because that has been the American position throughout the Rio and Kyoto negotiations.
The other issue that annoyed the Americans beyond measure about Kyoto was the fact that Britain, Germany and France insisted that the base date should be 1990. The Americans wanted 1997, which was the date of the Kyoto agreement. We more or less destroyed our coal industry during this intervening period, while the merger with East Germany gave the Germans a great bonus and the French were going nuclear at the time. We all got the benefit of rapid change that has long gone. We will not have any similar opportunity in the future.
We are now faced with a situation in which America is not in, along with China, India and all the developing world. That represents more than half the potential world consumption and these economies are growing and growing. More coal and gas is being burned in the world now. That trend will continue. Demand for electricity and power is going up all the time. We say that we shall make a reduction of 10 per cent, but we are working on a moving target, not a fixed one. Renewables would have difficulty keeping up with that growth, let alone exceeding it.
The other problem with Kyoto is that, to get people on board, concessions were made that rendered the agreement somewhat flawed. There is trading of emissions between countries—emissions can be
410
bought and sold. Another important development is that a country can grow forests that act as a sink for CO2. This could become a cheater's charter.
We would like to believe that the agreement is a wonderful thing that will change the world. We may feel good about setting an example, but the industry in this country is not in such a wonderful state that we can put ourselves in an uncompetitive position. All the renewables that we are talking about, even the successful ones, are far more expensive than the traditional forms of energy with which we are familiar.
We are at a critical stage and it would be wrong to blind ourselves to the real situation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, much of what the noble Lord said is correct, and I have never said—nor has any UK Government or EU spokesman—that Kyoto resolves the problem of climate change. However, the conferences at Rio and at Kyoto were the first occasion on which the world as a whole collectively accepted responsibility for trying to slow down and reverse a process that could be devastating for the world as a whole. That was a major political achievement.
Delivering the commitment will be a major first step—although only a first step—in dealing with these problems. As far deeper cuts in carbon will be required post-Kyoto, far more substantial changes in our production and economic methods will be required. Nevertheless, it is a first step. As with any journey, the first step is vital. In this case, the exercise of leadership also is vital. Britain and the EU as a whole, but particularly Britain, have taken that vital first step in leadership. A significant proportion of developed countries must follow that lead before we can expect countries such as India, Brazil and China to come on board.
Significantly, the Chinese have announced for the first time some very serious action to clean up their technology. In the past five years, China's carbon emissions in relation to per capita GDP have been reduced drastically. China has made a start in decoupling carbon emissions growth from economic growth. That process must be greatly intensified. However, we cannot expect countries with a standard of living comparable to China's to adopt the ambitious Kyoto Protocol carbon reduction programme unless a lead is given by countries with much higher levels of per capita carbon emissions. That is why it is vital that 55 per cent—the key figure—of developed countries make that commitment. We can then begin to put pressure on the Chinas and the Indias of this world to come on board.
That is one more reason why it is regrettable that the United States is not with us. I am not accusing President Bush of being dishonest in any sense; I just think that he is wrong—wrong for America and wrong for the world. I believe that American industry and American public opinion need to be persuaded to change that position so that America can take its rightful place as a leader in this process. America is currently on the wrong track, although it is beginning

411
to see the arguments on the need to stop climate change. Those arguments will become much more substantial as time goes on.
I do not believe that our commitment to Kyoto and to this process puts British industry—except, very momentarily, in a few sectors—at a disadvantage. In the short to medium-term, this type of technological change in production and other methods will give British industry a competitive advantage because, eventually, industry around the world will have to adopt those methods. As we are in the lead in this technology, our commitment is economically sensible as well as vital for the survival of the planet.

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
4.23 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIR MAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 33 [Police powers for police authority employees]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 184:
Page 31, line 34, at beginning insert "After consultation with his Police Authority,"
The noble Lord said: This is a simple little amendment which I hope will catch the Minister in the same helpful frame of mind as we found him in when we began our consideration of the Bill and he agreed that the principle of consultation was inconceivable in the context of the Secretary of State preparing a national policing plan. It seems to me that it is similarly inconceivable that a chief constable would introduce suggested changes in the form of policing in his constabulary without consulting his police authority.
This is a very simple amendment which I hope will tempt the Minister once again to say a very simple, "Yes". If he does not accept our rather basic wording in the amendment but agrees with us in principle, he might consider the issue and return with his own proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am pleased to kick off by saying that I agree with the spirit of this group of amendments—so we are starting off on the right foot. We believe that a chief officer of police should consult fully with his police authority before he extends any powers to civilian police authority employees or establishes an accredited community safety scheme within the force area. However, we believe that there is a danger that these amendments will create an additional and
412
unnecessary bureaucratic burden by requiring consultation that, in many ways, duplicates what this legislation already requires.
Amendment No. 184 requires a chief officer to consult his police authority before designating support staff. Amendments Nos. 185 and 188 propose a system of consultation that is based on establishing a designation scheme for the extension of powers. The proposal would be drafted by the chief officer and submitted to the relevant police authority in the same way as the annual policing plan—in many ways duplicating an already established consultation mechanism which works well.
Currently, chief officers who decide to make use of support staff—albeit without police powers— in roles such as case managers and custody support staff are not required to consult police authorities. That is seen exclusively as a matter for the chief officer. Therefore, the lack of an explicit requirement to consult is consistent with existing practice. However, I accept that there is a difference in that those people would have a small amount of police power. Nevertheless, we believe that the best way forward, creating the least additional bureaucracy, would be to require annual consultation with the police authority on any proposals to begin or continue the extension of powers to support staff or the establishment of an accredited community safety scheme.
In Clause 34, we have already required that plans to designate support staff under Schedule 4 or to establish a community safety accreditation scheme—and how the two proposals overlap—be set out in the annual policing plan and that drafts of that document be submitted by the chief officer to the police authority. I think that the annual policing plan is probably the right vehicle for this consultation. As we discussed in our initial consideration in Committee, it is a local plan, prepared by the police authority before the beginning of each financial year. The plan sets out the arrangements for policing the force area during the coming year.
The process for producing the plan was established under the Police Act 1996. The mechanism set out in these amendments is very similar to the proposed one in that the chief officer drafts the plan and submits it to the police authority. Moreover, when the police authority disagrees with the draft plan, it is required to consult with the chief officer before publishing a plan that differs from the draft. We believe that this sets out clearly what the consultation process should be. It also ensures that decisions are agreed before the start of the financial year to ensure that adequate resources are available.
In the light of those comments and our belief that there should be consultation, albeit in the form of the annual policing plan, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will agree that we have met the spirit of his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. The answer to his question is essentially, "Yes". Nevertheless, I still ask him to

413
consider the need to include such provision in the Bill. While the annual policing plan is an entirely appropriate vehicle for consultation, there is nothing that says that it must be done that way or that a chief constable could not start the process without consultation. We are again dealing with this wretched business of possibilities. If the Minister will think about what I have said, I shall happily think about what he has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 185 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcestermoved Amendment No. 185A:
Page 31, line 34, after force insert ", including the British Transport Police,"
The noble Lord said: I have tabled this amendment as it appears that the Bill as drafted does not give the British Transport Police the power to accredit community support officers. A wide range of functions is proposed for CSOs and there is scarcely one which does not apply to the railway environment. Tasks such as helping to combat graffiti and vandalism, providing a visible authority presence at particular "hot-spot" stations in times of increased alert and general reassurance to reduce fear of crime at stations are all obvious areas for co-operation between CSOs and the British Transport Police.
Currently, BTP are working on safety issues of exactly that kind with rail staff in two distinct ways. The first is at Railtrack's 15 major stations. These account for approximately 15 per cent of all crime reported to BTP. Security guards are employed on those station concourses. However, until recently, those guards did nothing more than call for BTP help whenever they were faced with a problem. Therefore, they did not provide a great deal of assistance in tackling the problems they were hired to resolve. Happily, however, Railtrack realised this and talked to BTP about providing training for those security guards. As a result Railtrack now has people who are better equipped to deal appropriately with difficult situations. The next stage will be the development of a briefing process to encourage security staff to be deployed in ways that are most likely to reduce crime.
There is no doubt that the public would benefit from there being better trained, more accountable security guards at stations. Yet, as things stand in the Bill, staff at major stations in London would have to be accredited by the Metropolitan Police under the control and direction of the commissioner, wear uniforms identical to other Met CSOs, but operate in areas which are under BTP jurisdiction, whereas the CSOs themselves would not be under that jurisdiction. I suggest to my noble friend that that would not work. It would be impossible if BTP officers were unable to direct security guards on stations. If chief constables are not to be allowed to accredit staff in another chief constable's area, as the Bill states, they should be unable to do so in the area of the BTP chief constable.
414
The same applies to an even greater extent with on-board train staff. BTP was recently asked by a train operating company, South West Trains, to work with its people on its services and to train them. The company plans to invest up to £1.8 million on the initiative. If BTP were not allowed to accredit the staff they have trained, train operating companies would have to approach a Home Office force for accreditation of their staff. But as a chief police officer can accredit only in his own police area, the particular train operator I have mentioned would need to seek accreditation from the Met and from Surrey, Hampshire, Sussex, Devon and Cornwall forces. That situation is clearly unworkable. I respectfully suggest to my noble friend that there is a strong case for amending the Bill in the modest way that I have suggested to ensure that BTP are given the authority to accredit CSOs. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: I support the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. BTP are a special case. I believe all of us consider that railway premises are underpoliced. Graffiti is in evidence everywhere. There are all kinds of opportunities to cause damage on the railways, which go largely unchecked. However, I ask the Minister to ensure that anything that is done for Specials in this regard—which I hope will be done—should apply also to the British Transport Police as they need to employ Specials. The amendment would allow BTP to take responsibility for certain railway staff, from whom I hope they will be able to recruit personnel, as well as employing Specials.
Lord Hylton: There are two forms of highly anti-social behaviour which in my experience frequently cause delay to trains. The first is the dropping of sometimes heavy objects off bridges either on to the rail track or on to passing trains. The second is trespassing on the line. Can the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, or the Minister tell the Committee that those forms of activity, which are much to be deplored, are already covered by the existing powers of British Transport Police? If they are, can they be dealt with more effectively? If they are not, what should he done?
Lord Renton: I am not opposed to the amendment; I rather tend to favour it. However, an earlier clause refers to various other police bodies. It seems to me that to single out the transport police is unfortunate. Clause 3 refers to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. New Section (3A) on page 3 refers to the Northern Ireland Police Service and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. One wonders why they should not be treated in the same way as the transport police.
Lord Elton: While we are on the point, and to give the Minister time to think, will he tell us where the Royal Parks Police figure in all this?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall deal with the final point first. That police force does not figure here. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the issue he raised will de dealt with in later amendments.

415
I have some sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and with his argument that the changes set out in Clause 33 would also be appropriate for the British Transport Police. I know that that view is shared by the force, which sees great potential in community support officers patrolling railway stations, for example, in support of the police. However, having made those nice comments, the Government do not think that this Bill is the right vehicle for such a change. The British Transport Police do not have a police authority and so, at the moment, could not be brought within the scope of Clause 33. Also, as many of the powers in Schedule 4 are not available to BTP constables it would not therefore be appropriate to confer them on BTP civilian staff.
However, I can tell the noble Lord that the Government want to include the British Transport Police, where appropriate, within the scope of the police reform package as a whole. I shall undertake to take up this issue with colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, who are actively considering bringing forward their own legislation dealing with the British Transport Police more generally. Waiting for another Bill also has the advantage of seeing how this new policy operates across the 43 Home Office forces before extending it more widely.
We need to spend more time thinking through some of the issues which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, raised concerning the territoriality of the police service. Discussions with colleagues in the DTLR will be important in that regard. The noble Lord made some good, helpful points. Some issues will need to be resolved. We consider that they can be usefully resolved in further discussion with our colleagues. Some of the issues could be teased out. It would be more appropriate to deal with this important matter in separate legislation dealing more exclusively with the British Transport Police.
I should try to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, if I can. We confirm that the offences of trespassing on railway property and throwing stones, rocks, boulders or whatever to impede the progress of trains are enforceable by the BTP—they involve, after all, criminal offences——and through issuing fixed penalty notices by the police under Section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Those powers are proposed to be conferred on community support officers under Part 1 of Schedule 4 of the Bill.
I have given as comprehensive a response as I can. I hope that I have given sufficient encouragement to my noble friend Lord Faulkner to enable him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord does so, I want to pursue the issue of the Royal Parks Police a yard or two further—or a metre or two further, as I believe we should now say. Although I am not one of the foremost supporters of the idea of auxiliary policemen, some of the powers that will be given to them in Schedule 4 appear to be extremely appropriate to people patrolling parks. I refer to the powers under the
416
Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act, the powers of an authorised officer of a litter authority, and the powers relating to anti-social behaviour and the consumption of alcohol in a public place. Those matters are somewhat akin to what a park-keeper used to do and should not be done by fully trained policemen. I might agree that the Royal Parks Police would be a good addition in this context but they do not appear to figure in the provisions.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I understand it, the problem with the Royal Parks Police is similar to that of the BTP. They do not have their own police authority.
Lord Elton: I hesitate to correct the noble Lord—I am almost certainly wrong because I have a bad memory—but I rather thought that the Home Secretary had the relevant responsibility. If so, I should have thought that it was still with him or that it has gone where some of his other powers have gone.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I, too, may be wrong but my understanding is that the Home Secretary was only ever the police authority for the Met, although he no longer does that. I believe that that is right but perhaps we need to clarify the situation. The noble Lord makes a good point generally. The matter could be picked up later—perhaps when we consider the BTP. He is right to say that it is appropriate for support staff to deal with such matters. That would be entirely right for such a service.
Lord Monson: Did I understand the Minister to say that those who are caught throwing stones at trains—on at least one occasion I have seen them smash windows and injure passengers on the train—can be arrested only by the British Transport Police?.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes—by Home Office police; by the local territorial force, whether Sussex, Surrey or the Met.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: On Second Reading, I said that Kensington and Chelsea employs the Royal Parks Police in its parks. I was told that most of those police are employees of the local borough. I do not know whether that situation will change.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That, too, is a different issue, which we shall air when we come to later amendments. It relates more to the issue of accreditation.
Lord Dholakia: In relation to the amendment, is it possible for a police authority employee to be seconded to the British Transport Police in emergencies?.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I want to reflect on that. It is probably the case that the powers are

417
interchangeable but I want to be more certain before giving a definite response. Perhaps we can get back to the noble Lord on that matter.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I want to shed a little light on the exchange between my noble friend Lord Elton and the Minister. There was a review of the Royal Parks Police, the outcome of which was that they should be transferred into the Met on the same terms. Prior to that, they came under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport through the Royal Parks Agency, and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had the relevant responsibility. I do not know whether the Home Office has now accepted that recommendation and implemented the transfer into the Met.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is a broader issue than that raised by my noble friend Lord Faulkner. I do not seek to be defensive in any way. Clearly, things are as they are—the status quo prevails.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am most grateful to the Minister for the friendly tone of his response and to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for supporting the original purpose of my amendment. I shall read very carefully what my noble friend said. I am a little disappointed that he thinks that this is not the correct Bill in which to make the change.
Lord Elton: I believe that the convention is that if one wants to come back to a matter on Report, one says so at this point. I say so now. I want to return to the issue of the Royal Parks Police. Whatever the current position is, such powers should be available to them.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My amendment does not deal with the Royal Parks Police. Presumably, if the noble Lord wishes to table an amendment on the Royal Parks Police, he is perfectly entitled to do so. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 186:
Page 31, line 39, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: I suspect that we now move into slightly more contentious territory. The Bill seeks to increase the level of policing through the use of civilians. It does so in two ways. The amendment is directed towards the first of those ways, which involves the use of police authority employees.
There are a number of problems with that approach. I make it clear from the start that in many ways we regard having police on the beat as the most important aspect of policing. That is where the police meet the public with—I hope that this phrase will not be misinterpreted—a vengeance. That is where the police's reputation is made. A sad comment on the way in which policing has developed is that we see police on
418
the streets much less than used to be the case. That is one reason for the increase in street crime in all its awful forms. As a matter of principle, we should prefer the police to be on the streets, not supplementary civilians who may have variable powers. I shall come to that later.
The clause states that police powers should be given in four forms to police-employed civilians. That has a degree of preference to accreditation schemes in that those people are at least employees of the chief constable and there is at least a clear line of responsibility back to the police. In so far as the intention is to put policemen on the streets by using community support officers, we believe that that is wrong. We think that if the police are to go out on the streets, they should at least be special constables. We do not see why those people should not be established in that way.
We completely accept paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (2), which, of course, have nothing to do with the amendment. We believe that what they propose is wholly laudable. If better use is made of police civilians in carrying out work which presently involves constables within police premises, then we consider that to be completely appropriate. However, when it comes to putting people on the street, we are convinced that, for the sake of clarity, such people should have the status of special constable.
If that is the case, two things are ensured. The first is a proper and full level of training, which the accreditation scheme certainly will not produce, although we shall come to that matter later. It might conceivably happen with a community support officer.
Secondly, it ensures that such people are on the street with full police powers. Part 1 of Schedule 4 produces a list of possible powers. The way in which the Bill is drafted means that a community support officer who has a limited basket of powers, because that is the way that the chief constable has designated him, may work with another community support officer who has a different basket of powers because he may have come from a slightly different area or he may be held to have a different level of competence. The opportunity for public confusion as to what these people are and how they are functioning is huge.
Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is simple. In order not to repeat myself too many times this afternoon, I shall avoid going into the matter further but I shall mention some of the basket of functions. The whole fixed penalty area is included, together with disorder, cycling on a footway, dog fouling, litter, powers to detain and, indeed, powers to use reasonable force to detain, requiring a name and address to be provided, and so on. All those powers are included, but a community support officer does not need to have them all; he need have only some of them.
Therefore, the chief constable has a great deal of discretion. I do not mind him having that discretion but, in this case, which concerns the interface between the police and the public, the situation requires absolute clarity. The public will not understand if there are any differences.

419
The question has been raised of a precedent having been set in relation to traffic wardens. So far as I am aware, everyone knows what a traffic warden's functions are, wherever one meets him almost anywhere in the country. Traffic wardens carry out a one-function operation and work extremely well at it, although I dare say that they may have caused many of us a great deal of aggravation over the years. That position is clearly understood. But the position in the Bill is not clear.
Therefore, we have decided that the solution is to remove the community support officer from this part of the Bill. That does not prevent the chief constable using his civilians in aid of his constables in carrying out the work that they do at present, but it does prevent him sending them out on to the street. In our view, that is not appropriate and we believe that it would lead to confusion.
We have tabled later amendments which seek to turn these officers into community support special constables. We believe that that would be an acceptable way in which to proceed. There is, of course, a separate issue behind this matter which presumes that any police force has many spare civilians and much spare capacity waiting to carry out such work. But that is a separate issue. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: I rise to address the issue of community support officers that is raised in the amendment. I was present at a meeting of the Association of Chief Police Officers which was attended by a large number of police authority representatives. Views were sought around the room and, except for London—my noble friend Lord Tope may express his opinions about London—only one authority in South Wales expressed the idea that community support officers should enjoy police powers.
A presentation was given by Knowsley Council, which has several such officers. That council expressed adamantly the opinion that they should not have police powers. The council employed some people who, I imagine, the police would not recruit, but those people carried out a great deal of work with regard to graffiti, vandalism, quarrels between neighbours, abandoned cars and all kinds of things which give rise to nuisance value in the community.
In Abingdon in Thames Valley, we have two retired police officers who act as community wardens. They have been very successful both in reducing crime and, with the help of volunteers who work with the youth in the town, in turning people away from anti-social behaviour and congregating outside shops. They mentor the youths and, in many cases, give them the time and the parenting which they do not otherwise receive. They steer them in the right direction. Generally speaking, we are not in favour of such people exercising police powers.
We may not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on subsequent amendments. We may not agree that all such people could be special constables—they may pass neither the fitness nor the age tests. But there
420
is no doubt that many civilian people could assist in maintaining law and order in many ways. We would certainly be very much against the Home Secretary directing that those people should be employed; it should be a matter for local discretion. I certainly am not saying that, because they are needed m London, they may be needed throughout the rest of the country. But, in general, I support the thrust of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
Lord Condon: I rise to express concern about the amendment. On Second Reading, I encouraged your Lordships not to dismiss the proposal for community support officers out of hand. I readily acknowledge that the use of community support officers will not be the first or best choice of chief officers. Their first, and best, choice will be to have an increase in regular police officers.
Therefore, what has driven a small number of them to support this proposal outside this House? The Minister has spoken about the record number of police officers. That may well mean that we have, or are about to have, one more than we had several years ago. In fact, if one takes out the reduction in the number of special constables, which has dropped from 20,000 to 13,000 over the past two years, the policing endeavour in the round has reduced dramatically, despite the best efforts of many people.
If one then turns to the specifics of London, one finds that it becomes an even more challenging environment. My former police service, which peaked at nearly 29,000 police officers in the early 1990s, has reduced in number to about 26,500. It has seen a dramatic reduction in civilian staff and special constables. I shall illustrate that. today I drove from Sutton through Croydon, Streatham, Lambeth and Vauxhall and I did not see a single police officer until I approached Westminster. I believe that London has become a challenging environment. That is why London and perhaps one or two other police services would like at least to be able to consider the provisions within the Bill.
Specifically in the London context, I know that my former colleagues would like to consider using community support officers in three ways. First, they would use them to work alongside regular police officers on estates and describe them as community support. They would be briefed with regular officers; would accompany them and would be used with them in conjunction with community work. Secondly, they would also be used to support the traffic endeavour. I refer to the congestion in London and to the reduction of average speeds. There are specific proposals to use them in that way. Thirdly, and probably most importantly at present, they would be used to enhance the security endeavour. I know that my former colleagues are anxious to use several hundred community support officers in protection duties to release regular officers and to provide an additional security resource post September 11th.
There is a set of challenging circumstances, particularly in London, which would encourage the use of community support officers. However, I am the

421
first to admit that they would not be my first choice. My first choice would be an enhancement of resources to enable the provision of more regular officers. I believe that the amendment would give the police service additional short to medium-term choices around extending the policing family.
If support officers, however designated, are also Specials, they will require commensurate training to ensure that they are properly trained and accountable to enable them to use the powers of Specials. In one way that would defeat part of the rationale for the provision; that is, to enable the police family to include support staff who are not trained to the level of either Specials or regulars. I am sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment. I believe I know where the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is coming from. By all means the provision should be hedged in with prescriptions and controls so that anxieties are expressed in other ways. However, I would encourage an enabling provision at the end of the Bill to enable the police family to be extended, even if we have not got it right so far.
5 p.m.
Lord Elton: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, comes from a different direction from those who speak for police authorities further north and west, whose concerns must be kept in mind. I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord has a different picture in his mind from the one that I have in mine of the people we are talking about, the community support officers. It may be that he knows something which I do not about what the chief officers of police and the commissioner will regard as the meaning of the words "adequate training" in subsection 3(c). There has been a certain amount of bar talk of a few weeks training for such people.
Those people will be the representatives of the police force, so far as the public are concerned. They will be on the street and if they lose their name, then the Met, or another police force, will lose its name with them. If my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith is to be persuaded of the point—I do not think that will be easy—the one thing which might persuade him would be some sort of undertaking by the Government as to what the level of training will be rather than leaving that to that general and subjective phrase.
I found another part of the noble Lord's intervention a little puzzling. He said that he drove what was, I think, something like 12 miles through London—not far from my front door on the way—and, like me, saw not a single policeman. However, the business of community support officers is to accompany the policemen that he did not see, so presumably he would not see them either. There must be an answer to that. Presumably that means that other people will be deployed in police stations and panda cars to get the policemen out on to the street.
My next point is an enthusiastic endorsement of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about the efficacy of getting to young people by means of
422
mentoring before they get into trouble. That is a wider subject than the amendment. However, we should all have a motto in our minds, which is, "Even better than more policemen is fewer criminals". The way to achieve that is to get to children before they become criminals. However, I go too wide.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: I bring a different perspective to the issue. Like the noble Lord, Lord Condon, I speak as a former police officer. I should like to bring us back to the real world. We are talking about community support officers who would support the police in the difficult job of policing. The reality is that the police service cannot attract sufficient recruits. In an ideal world we would have more police officers. The reality also is that we already have different forms of community support officers. I hear Members of the Committee say that the provision has no support north of Watford. That is simply not true. In my county, Sedgefield, for some time we have had a community support patrol employed by Sedgefield Council. It is not under the control of the police but works closely and well with the police and is supported by them. It acts as the eyes and the ears of the police dealing with minor vandalism. That is the very thing for which members of the public ask.
Members of the public are crying out for a uniformed presence and, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, rightly said, the police are not providing it. I have experienced the same problem. We do not see officers walking about on the streets. That is not the fault of the police. It is a fact of life that for various reasons police officers are tied up on specialist duties. We used to have park-keepers and bus conductors who provided a uniformed presence in the community. That gave people a sense of security. We do not have that now. We now have security guards in shopping centres and community patrols such as those in Sedgefield, which I have mentioned. There are similar schemes throughout the country. The reality is that we now have private bodies patrolling in uniform—without police powers; I accept—giving the community that for which they ask; that is, a sense of reassurance which, for whatever reason, the police cannot supply.
It may well be that, like New York, we shall be able to recruit sufficient police officers. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Condon, that New York has turned things round completely, not least because it has increased the number of uniformed police officers over the years. It has also applied a zero-tolerance approach to policing, which I favour. The police should get back to policing and forget about being social workers. Policing is about enforcing the law. So long as police officers do that, I believe they will make a difference. Unfortunately, some chief officers do not believe in that and think that the police have a different role. However, that is by the way. The reality is that we have many different types of uniformed bodies patrolling the streets.
This provision means that for the first time uniformed patrols will be under the control of the police. In my judgment, the advantage of that is clear:

423
the police service can set the standards; provide the training and look at the complaints procedure against the security patrols; that is, the community support officers. In other words, there is a mechanism in the Bill which leads to the independent police complaints commission. There will be accountability for the first time.
I declare an interest as president of the Joint Security Industry Council. I am involved with security companies and organisations. It is important to mention that the security industry can benefit from the Bill's provisions. Clearly there is some business here for the security industry—but at least under the Bill, it will come under the control of those who participate in such schemes, whether accredited or working directly for the chief constable, and be subject to all the standards those authorities set. That is a real advantage. To remove the clause would be a great mistake.
Lord Fowler: I bow to the noble Lord's expertise but do not agree that the public want community support officers. We should approach the matter by considering what the public do want. In that respect, I support my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and believe that this is one of the most fundamental proposals in the Bill. It comes not from the Home Secretary but from his predecessor. Much of the originating work was done by Ian Blair, then Chief Constable of Surrey, now Deputy Commissioner of Police for the metropolis.
No one would claim that the proposal has the overwhelming support of the police service the length and breadth of the country. When Mr. Blair set out his vision at an Association of Chief Police Officers conference in 1998, he saw
"two local authority patrols in bright red uniforms marked Surrey Police Compliant move around the high street drawn from the welfare-to-work programme, funded by central government in concert with the local authority. They have radios connected to the police officer with direct responsibility for this area. That police officer is liasing with education and social services representatives, whose cars are also marked police compliant".
That was the beginning of public debate on a proposal that the police service has not overwhelmingly accepted. It is at odds with the tradition of police work in this country. The reason for establishing an organised professional police service was that private patrols broke down. That is how the Metropolitan Police were formed. I am in no way prejudiced against private security. Between 1990 and 1993 I was a director of Group 4, which is one of the leading security companies in this country, and remain an admirer of its standards. I believe in the role of private security and support licensing.
I believe also that there is a natural limit to the role of professional private security and perhaps even more to that of local authority staff, however they are recruited and dressed. Private security has a valuable role in guarding premises and protecting cash. Local authorities have an established role in respect of parks and so on.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: The noble Lord suggested that the debate started with Ian Blair but that simply is not true. Patrols in Sedgefield happened well before Ian Blair. The reality is that there are uniformed patrols on the streets and enforcing the law, dealing with minor vandalism. The clause will bring those services within the ambit of the police service for the first time. At present, there is no legislation to stop anybody setting up a private patrol that can be hired by a wealthy estate or a local authority. The clause will bring such services within the police family and make them subject to the standards that the police service represents. The noble Lord has not addressed that point.
Lord Fowler: I have only just started. If the noble Lord will be patient, I will address that particular point. I cannot comment on any debates that the police service has in private but what I said about the public debate is absolutely correct. The Home Secretary's response was that Ian Blair's plans and the ones we have today were a real possibility.
The proposal goes way beyond anything we have had before. As far as I know, we do not have private patrols on the streets with the power to arrest and detain people for 30 minutes before the police turn up. Does the noble Lord want to correct me and claim that hundreds of people are undertaking such patrols?
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: I am reluctant to intervene again and to interrupt the noble Lord's flow but this is about completely removing community support officers. The question of powers will be debated later.
Lord Fowler: With respect, we are debating the concept of community support officers. That is the whole point of the amendment. It is difficult to debate the concept without examining the powers. Unless the noble Lord and the public understand that we are discussing something new, the debate will get off to a bad and confused start.
We should remember recent history—and here I praise the police service. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, I was engaged in writing a book about the police in Europe. In 1968, there were riots and demonstrators fought against police in Amsterdam and, notably, Paris. In London, things went very differently. The point was made to me time and time again in Europe that the mistake made by the European police was adopting the view that "My uniform is my authority". The British police had won trust. I fear that we risk saying, "Your uniform is your authority". I am not sure that the public would understand or accept that concept.
Under the Bill, community support officers would have powers never seen before. There will be disputes about abuse of power. This is ABC stuff as far as the police service is concerned. It realises that policing must be sensitive. The importance of trained police on

425
the beat goes beyond reassurance. The generally good relationship between the police and public in Britain depends on day-by-day meetings between them.
The Government and the country have a strategic choice. The Government are saying, "Don't worry. These things are taking place but there is a record number of police". The Minister used that phrase himself. I am a qualified admirer of the Minister—qualified only because I do not agree with many of his political views. However, I have known and worked alongside the Minister in Birmingham a long time. When he was a member of the Opposition, he would have choked with indignation if a Conservative government had used that phrase to describe police recruitment. We all know that no priority was given to police recruitment in the first four years of the Labour Government.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Fowler: No. If the noble Lord does not mind, I must make progress.
A rather important point was, again, made by the noble Lord. I do not believe that he is right when he says that new police cannot be recruited. I simply do not think that that is the case. Indeed, there is a lesson to be learnt from New York and its zero tolerance policy. We have all been over there to see it; at least anyone who has had anything to do with home affairs over the past five or six years has done so. Its introduction has been remarkably effective. It has targeted resources upon so-called "hot spots" in crime, and has cleared up crime in a remarkable way. But what was the first course of action that they took before the policy was introduced? They recruited something like 7,000 to 8,000 new policemen. They did not recruit community support officers, they recruited policemen. That was also true throughout the cities of the United States.
The noble Lord, Lord Condon, put it gently, but I should put it much more bluntly. The fact is that we are under-policed in this country. We are under-policed in London; we are under-policed in our big cities; and we are under-policed in many other towns throughout the country. In my view, that is the problem and the issue that we should be addressing. If we have resources, it seems to me that they should be directed to that area. The Government say that where such additional community officers have been introduced they have had an effect. Of course they have had an effect. But the question to consider is this: if police had been introduced in those areas, would there have been an even greater impact on the situation?
Frankly, I fear that the proposal is Treasury driven. It is the cheapest way that the Government can find to reassure the public. I believe that to be the long and short of it. It will be a grave mistake for this country to accept such a proposal. Fundamentally, this is the wrong course for the Government to take. Of course we want a bigger anti-crime presence on our streets, but I suggest that the public—they are the acid test—
426
would infinitely prefer trained police officers to these proposed substitutes. We should recognise that, by any standards, we have a fine police service in this country with a fine reputation. Indeed, I pay tribute to them. That is where the Government should place their priority, not on the kind of substitutes that are now proposed.
Lord Tope: On the first Committee day I declared that I am a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and of the Association of Police Authorities. Therefore, I am very well aware that very different views are held by those who come from the MPA from those who come from other police authorities. I do not find that in the least surprising, or, indeed, in the least remarkable. It arises because we have very different circumstances and experiences. The metropolis—London—is probably unlike any other city; it is certainly unlike most other cities for well-known reasons.
If the Bill were proposing that every police authority or police service in the country must have community support officers, I should be loudest in my opposition to that proposal. That would be completely wrong. It would be inappropriate for the circumstances of most areas. However, as I understand it—I am sure that the Minister will confirm this—the proposal is that they "may" do so. I shall not enter into an argument about who first thought of the idea, but it is well known that the proposal has been driven by the Metropolitan Police service and, now, by the Metropolitan Police Authority; and, in particular, by our Deputy Commissioner. I have had the benefit of Deputy Commissioner Blair's briefings on many occasions, and I am almost word perfect now. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Condon, explained the proposals as regards the Metropolitan Police with greater authority, and much better, than I can. So I shall not repeat those points.
However, if I thought for one moment that what was being proposed was simply a cheap alternative to policing, I, too, would oppose it. In the Metropolitan Police Service, of which I can speak with knowledge—I cannot for other areas—we are now recruiting at maximum. The Metropolitan Police Training College in Hendon has been full on every intake for most of the past year, and it looks as though that will continue for next year because the budget provision is available. So at last, long overdue, the Met is recruiting as fast and as fully as it can. It is in that context that I view the current proposals for community support officers. It is not a question of them being recruited instead of uniformed police officers. Like all noble Lords and members of the public, I certainly want to see as many uniformed police officers on our streets, and elsewhere, as possible. CSOs will not be introduced instead of uniformed police officers; they will be there as a supplement to the latter. That is an important difference. It is the condition upon which I support them.
As I said, we are recruiting at maximum. Physically, we cannot train any more officers at present. Retention is a different issue and one upon which I

427
shall not dwell today, but recruitment is at maximum so as to get an increased uniformed presence onto our streets and into our estates. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, explained that there are three different proposals, if you like, in the Met for the use of CSOs.
There are those to be used in connection with security needs—the standing-on-the-street-corner position, which has been carried out by police constables since 11th September and police constables are extremely bored with having to do it.
There is also the transport proposal. Within the Greater London Authority there is now an agreement between the Metropolitan Police Authority and Transport for London for a transport policing initiative, which, when fully developed during the course of the coming year, will cover 26 of the bus routes most subject to criminal activity. Those duties will be conducted by uniformed police officers, supplemented by what I suppose will be called "community support officers". I do not mind what name is used. That proposal will go ahead; the agreement is there.
However, the key question is the issue that we should be debating; namely, what powers will these officers have? But that is not the subject of the amendment now before the Committee. The amendment proposes that we should delete CSOs from the Bill. That is why I am uncomfortable with it.
There is an important debate still to be addressed about the nature of the powers that such officers will have. That is the key question; it is not about whether they should exist. Then, in due course, the greatest number—.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I shall be brief. How can we conceivably debate this amendment without looking at Schedule 4 and considering the width of the powers equated in effect to those of a police officer? The debate is about whether there should be a supplement. I am totally in favour of supplement. Indeed, the noble Lord, who is a very experienced police officer, explained the need for it. That is fine. But that is not the essence of this debate. We cannot deal with this amendment without considering Schedule 4. That is the issue as I would put it.
Lord Tope: During the course of a most interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, it crossed my mind that we were going through a Second Reading debate rather than a Committee stage discussion. The two amendments that we are considering specifically call for the deletion of community support officers from the Bill. There are many noble Lords who have far more experience than I have of the procedure of this Chamber. However, I thought that we were supposed to be discussing two amendments, both of which seek to delete the reference to "community support officers" from the Bill. I was explaining why I am unhappy with that suggestion.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: Perhaps I may simply make the point that it is possible to have CSOs
428
without any powers, other than those of civilians. That is what happens in Sedgfield. Therefore, we do not need to discuss the powers at this stage. I entirely agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Tope: This discussion is beginning to get a little like debates in the other place. I am grateful to the noble Lord. That was exactly the point that I was trying to make and was in the process of developing. Let us call these officers "community support officers", though they were originally called auxiliaries. They will be working on London buses; indeed, that will happen, whatever powers they may have. That is my point.
Many noble Lords have referred to the work in the community. Like other authorities elsewhere that have been mentioned, I know that many London boroughs employ neighbourhood wardens, or whatever. Similarly, those people have no policing powers as such, but they carry out an extremely important and useful job on estates and on the streets. It is a visible, and usually uniformed, presence that provides reassurance. Those employed by my local authority work very closely with the local police. They provide intelligence to the local police, and, indeed, receive briefing from them. It is known in the community that they do so, but one of the reasons for their strength is the fact that they are not seen to be part of the police. They perform a useful function.
I take issue with the noble Lord. It is possible—whether or not it is desirable—to have community support officers of whatever name who have no powers at all. When we move further on in the Bill we shall debate what powers they should have. Then there will be some important differences. But I am unhappy with these amendments.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I can try to bring the debate back to the point. It has strayed very much into the area of the community safety accreditation scheme. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about civilians already in full-time employment doing a full-time job for the police. The suggestion is that they might be "put out on the streets"—and I do not mean that in any derogatory sense—with very limited police powers in aid of the police.
The difference between us is not whether or not they should go out onto the streets. We do not dispute that. We think that in this instance their three other suggested functions will relieve the constables who should be doing the work. Therefore, there is that aspect to the matter. We also feel that people on the streets acting as bobbies should have full police powers. Therefore, they should be special constables. We shall go over the ground again, but I want to try to draw the debate back to the slightly narrower focus.
Lord Waddington: The noble Lord, Lord Tope, was entirely right to remind us that there is nothing in the Bill which requires chief officers of police to recruit community support officers. But we have gone over

429
this ground many times before. I do not think that the noble Lord would seriously deny that pressure could be brought to bear on chief officers of police to recruit them purely for budgetary reasons.
I thought that when we debated the issue the other day the Minister was inclined to come half way to meet us and to agree that perhaps something should be written into the Bill in order to prevent that kind of pressure being brought on chief officers of police. But there is nothing in the Bill at the present time to prevent that pressure being brought. Therefore, we must proceed on the assumption that the Bill should not go forward with this power unless we are absolutely satisfied that it would be right for a chief officer of police to exercise that power.
Lord Rooker: I do not want to pre-empt anyone's debate, but, to be honest, I think that that is a bit unfair. I gave a firm commitment about the use of the powers under Part 1 in respect of Part 4. I am hardly in a position to do anything about that today. We are still in Committee. I gave a firm commitment that we would go away and come back on Report. So I say to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that to start using that argument is wholly counter-productive. It is a circular argument that gets us nowhere because I have nothing else to say in response to it, other than what I have already said.
Lord Waddington: I thought that I was helping the noble Lord, not harming his case. I am perfectly prepared therefore to withdraw what I said about the Minister, which I thought was very kind to him. But it still is the fact that at the present time there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent pressure being brought on chief officers of police to recruit community support officers. That is the way we should approach this provision so that we are satisfied, before we let this power go forward, that it is a proper power and one which should in appropriate circumstances be used by chief officers of police.
No one denies that there are plenty of areas in which the burden on the police can be reduced as a result of the use of civilians. During my time in the Home Office, great progress was made in that direction. I am by no means sure that greater progress can still not be made. But we need to look at the duties which would be performed by these community support officers. Those who advocate the recruitment of community support officers are advocating that they should carry out some of the most difficult and dangerous of all police tasks.
We are not talking about these people just being ornaments on the streets. We are suggesting that they should be recruited to control city centres and housing estates and deal with louts and troublemakers. Their suggested duties are ones which police officers—it has been suggested—are sometimes reluctant to perform. Indeed, I seem to remember that one of the proposals put forward by the Home Secretary was that special financial bonuses might be available to police officers in order to encourage them to carry out these very duties.
430
One has only to look at the diary of a police officer in order to see how little patrolling is done. Why? Is it purely a question of chief officers of police concluding that patrolling is a useless exercise? Or is it a question of there being so many other difficult duties to perform and so many pressures on the police that they cannot spare the police to do it, although they are essentially duties which should be carried out by fully trained police officers?
I am extremely worried about the possibility of these half-trained people being put into difficult situations at a time in our history when there is a great deal of lawlessness, violence and hooliganism on our streets. At Second Reading I read a letter which had been written to The Times by a former senior officer in the Metropolitan Police. He queried how the system would work? He asked what on earth would happen if a community support officer was checking someone—a lout for dropping litter—and moments later that same lout was to draw a knife on someone standing next door to him? Is he supposed to beat a hasty retreat? In what dignified way would he get out of that kind of situation, because of course he will not be given the powers to deal with it. What would happen if he was dealing with someone who had parked a car improperly and at that moment someone came up and tried to hijack the car? No one has really answered these questions.
The lack of full police powers could lead to ridiculous situations. Yet no one so far has suggested that these half-trained people should have full police powers. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Tope, saying that that is in another amendment. We must decide the principle of the thing now. There are difficulties in both directions. If they are given insufficient powers they cannot deal with difficult situations. If they are given too great powers then the public will question why one should give such great powers to someone who is not fully trained as a police officer.
Where will these people come from? No one has answered that question yet. Sometimes people say, "Well, there are not enough people queuing up to be police officers. Therefore somehow or other we must tap other sources for recruits". I wonder where these other sources are. I should he extremely anxious if the kind of people attracted to become community support officers were people whom we would not consider for one moment as potential police officers. They might be very good traffic wardens, but really they are not potential police officers.
Sometimes we have heard the opposite. We have heard that there are plenty of people queuing up to be police officers. If that is so, the answer is the one put forward by my noble friend. We should be recruiting sufficient police officers in order to carry out all these other duties which the Government say will have to be performed by community support officers.
Surely, we should be looking at other ways to get people who can carry out these difficult jobs. The most obvious people are the Specials. They have the right powers and the right commitment, they are well

431
established in the community, well known and accepted by people. We should now be bending all our efforts to devising new incentives to get more people to join the specials and encouraging every police force to expand its specials.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am sure that everyone—I speak in particular for the women in the community—wants more police. As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, said, our absolute first choice is to have a much stronger and better police service. I speak of the Metropolitan area, which I know better than other areas. But I should be reluctant to throw out community support officers, because although I would put police first and specials second, I would rather have community support officers than no one. That is the situation at the moment: no one on the streets. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, made an interesting point when he said that private bodies are giving the community what it is asking for. Anyone can put on any sort of uniform and go around. That is true.
I should like to correct an error I made at Second Reading when I said that we did not want a Miami-type situation and that the police had told me that 90 per cent of properties were not open to the police in Miami. Afterwards, the police told me that it was 19 per cent. I said that their officers had better be a little clearer next time because Hansard had correctly recorded me as saying 90 per cent. That is what I thought the officer had said, but 19 per cent of premises in Miami are unavailable to the ordinary police force there because they are totally controlled by private forces. I do not want to see such a great structure of private forces developed here. If the only alternative is community support officers, I would rather see them than lots of private security firms growing willy-nilly.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith made some valid points, but my concern as an ordinary member of the public is, first, to see more police and, secondly, ino re specials, especially if we can give them more of an official role. I understand that at present many specials are unpaid. If we are to turn them into professionals we must pay them. As a third choice, I would go for community support officers.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I agree with my noble friend. In the last resort, the public would rather have entirely civilian and private community support officers than no one at all. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, had to say about Sedgefield. Of course, he speaks with tremendous authority as a professional police officer. I am sure that it is desirable to have some form of support rather than none. I assume that those people have no powers of arrest, but it would be interesting to know how they deal with minor vandalism. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain that later.
My noble friend Lord Fowler said that he was a qualified admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I
432
am rapidly becoming an unqualified admirer of his—qualified only because it is based on my experience of how he has dealt with this difficult Committee debate. I hope that he will continue to deal with it in the same way—I expect he will.
Perhaps I may provide an analysis of the problem and ask the Minister's views on three or four questions. First, does he think that, rightly or wrongly, there is a lack of public confidence in the level of policing that they experience? If so, does he think that that derives from the public's belief that there is an insufficient rate of crime prevention and detection? I think the answer to both questions is yes, but it would be helpful to know if he agrees. If so, does he agree that it is elementary that that lack of confidence ought to be diminished? If his answer to that is yes, is there a more obvious way to diminish it than to have more Police officers, if that were practical? Lastly, does he therefore think that there are too few police officers?
The public want to see people on the streets with the powers of police officers. If confidence is to be restored, those who are put on the streets to do something to remedy the lack of confidence must have police powers.
At Second Reading, I tried to draw attention to the extraordinary rigmarole that must be gone through by a civilian if his authority to ask for a name, address and so forth and to require someone to stick around for half an hour until a policeman turns up were to be questioned, as inevitably it will. I drew attention to the curious provision that he must say,
"the accreditation…may provide that an offence is not to he treated as a relevant offence…unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the accreditation".
He must go through the whole business of his own individual accreditation, which may be different from that of someone else. My noble friend Lord Waddington touched on this point. If the public see someone putting two fingers up to someone who is incapable of detaining him no matter what he is doing, confidence will not be established or enhanced—in fact it will worsen.
The Government must recognise that there are not enough police. Why 'are we not doing a New York? Presumably, because the money does not run to it. That is what the public fear. That is why people must be recruited who do not have the full powers of police—because if they did they would want to be paid what the police are paid. That is the problem that the Government face: they cannot attract the necessary increase in public confidence by those means. The public will think that they are doing it on the cheap.
I hope that I am wrong about that and the Minister will say, "We are pressing ahead with increased police numbers and the more we get, the more we shall encourage chief constables to put them on the street". But I think that my analysis is correct. I should be grateful if, when he comes to reply, the Minister would tell me whether I am right or wrong.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I can answer his question about Sedgefield, which is relevant. The community force in Sedgefield, which is employed by the local authority, has no additional powers to those of members of the public. The Committee must understand that there is not a great deal of difference between the powers of the police and the powers of members of the public under common law. Officers of the community force enforce the law as best they can. They deal with the very things that cause problems in communities. That is not bank robberies, stabbings and murders but graffiti and youths causing annoyance, swearing and urinating in public places— the quality of life issues, as I call them. The community force provides a presence and confronts such behaviour.
If the situation becomes confrontational to the extent that additional powers are required—it may well do and often does—community officers call the police to the scene of the incident and the police respond. They are in radio contact with the police and work closely with them. The noble and learned Lord asked what happens if people put two fingers up. After 35 years of policing, I can tell him that I have often had two figures put up to me. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, has had the same experience.
The answer is that one acts on one's wits. Of course, that does not always succeed and one often ends up being assaulted. No doubt that would happen to community support officers, but that is no reason for not having the provisions of the Bill. Under the Bill, it is an offence to assault or run away from a community support officer who is trying to enforce the law. There is no excuse for not applying the Bill's provisions. I hope that that answers the noble and learned Lord's question.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have not had a chance to intervene in the debate before now. Although I shall move an amendment later, I must justify my existence by speaking briefly now. I shall not speak specifically about community support officers, but about the powers that will be available to people such as community support officers or those from accredited organisations.
I represent the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which is about to launch a borough constable unit. My amendment will propose that the powers available to them be slightly increased. At this point, however, I want to support what has been said about the desirability of having additional or supplementary people on the streets. It has become increasingly apparent that the sort of minor offences that have been referred to are beginning to cause enormous grief to residents and to the public and that the police have neither the time nor the presence to deal with them. Such offences must be dealt with, if we are all to have a reasonable quality of life. We must ensure that our estates and streets are properly managed.
434
I may intervene once or twice again, but I had thought that there might be a long distance between now and when we discuss my amendment, when I might be able to say more on the subject.
Lord Baker of Dorking: As a resident of South Kensington, in the Royal Borough, I am pleased to know that we will have borough constables, even with slightly enhanced powers. I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by my noble friends, but I do not share them entirely. The proposal has quite a lot to be said for it, and I hope that the House will listen to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who has had responsibility for dealing with the country's greatest policing problems.
It is a little too facile to say, "If only we could have many more police officers". I increased the size of the police force, as did my noble friend Lord Waddington and my successor. I think I heard the previous Home Secretary say that he was increasing the size of the police force, and I dare say that the present Home Secretary says that he will increase it. It is a pity that we have not been a bit more successful in achieving that. If it were possible to increase the size of the police force significantly, all parts of the House would support that. However, there are difficulties, and we must accept that.
The other difficulty is that today's police officer must be trained in a range of skills that is unbelievable compared to the training given to a police officer 50 years ago. He must be trained not only in the ordinary duties of policing our streets but in the difficult business of dealing with marital conflict, dealing with a rape scene and dealing with drunken louts turned out of clubs at 3 o'clock in the morning, which is a more intense problem than it was when the pubs closed at 10 o'clock or whenever it was. He must be trained in the complicated area of interview techniques, which, of course, have changed as a result of PACE and developments of PACE. He is a much more professional person than the bobby on the beat of 50 years ago. It seems sensible to try to find people who can do some of the lesser policing jobs with slightly less training. That is what this is about.
Successive Home Secretaries have civilianised wherever they can. There has been much civilianisation in the big depots that control motorway surveillance. However, the question is whether we can do that on the beat, where officers will come into contact with the public. That is the issue about which my noble friend Lord Fowler spoke. Will it carry conviction? It will carry conviction in my borough, so I am pleased and relaxed about it, but we should address that problem.
Thirty years ago, the Metropolitan Police were responsible for all stationary vehicle offences in London. If a car was parked illegally, the police had to deal with it. They had to arrange for it to be towed away and for the owner to be summoned and taken to court. That responsibility was given over to a group of people called traffic wardens. When traffic wardens were first appointed, we had exactly the same debate. We asked ourselves, "How can we give to traffic

435
wardens the right to take away a vehicle that is owned by somebody? They are not as well trained; they are lightly trained". Now, we do it; we accept it automatically. Indeed, following the crisis on 11 th September, when there was great pressure on security in London, the Metropolitan Police said that traffic wardens would take over all traffic responsibilities in London—the whole lot, the whole caboodle. That would be exercising police powers, but they were asked to do it in a crisis. I do not think that the liberties of London, as it were, were suddenly restricted by that. Therefore, I rather welcome the provision in the clause, and I hope that not many bars will be put in its way.
The noble Lord, Lord Condon, also mentioned the security responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police. Some of those require very specialist training. However, many embassies have a police officer standing outside for 365 days and nights a year—and nothing happens. There are embassies at which a lot can happen, and that requires particular training. However, there are many embassies at which absolutely nothing happens. Is that a sensible use of a police officer? I do not think that it is. As Home Secretary, I had protection, as did the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and I have been happy with someone who was not a fully trained police officer standing outside my house. We should accept the fact that there are various activities that could suitably be carried out by other people. I hope that this is a gateway to that.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise to the Minister and to some of my noble friends if, like my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, I am a tiny piece of grit in the collective shoe on this issue. I recall that, at Second Reading, I expressed greater support for and receptivity to the concept that we are discussing than some of my noble friends.
I appreciate that my principal exposure to policing, apart from Northern Ireland, has been in London, with the Met and the City of London Police. I acknowledge, of course, that I have never been a Home Office Minister and have not had that experience, but, during the previous Parliament, I could not go to a community meeting in Westminster—whether it be to do with an amenity society, residents' association or any of the three admirable police community consultative groups—without the issue of police numbers in Westminster and the police presence on the streets being raised. My noble friends Lady Hanham and Lady Gardner of Parkes alluded to similar experiences.
In part, that was against a background of complaints from the suburbs that they were being drained of police so that demonstrations in central London could be policed. However, it was also against a background of the loss of manpower from well policed areas of London—I use the phrase "'well policed" in all its senses—to other areas of the city that had a faster deteriorating crime rate. In an ideal world, as other noble Lords have said, we would prefer full-time, regular police officers. However, it is true, in
436
harness with this, that some duties that must he fulfilled are a less than good use of full-time officers, with a consequential dilution of their morale.
Given the difficulties with ethnic recruitment to the Met, I am conscious of the remarkable success of the Territorial Army in recruiting ethnic minorities. In the Green Jackets' TA unit in Mayfair, about half the recruits are from ethnic minorities and about half are from single-parent families. Incidentally, there is much to be said for a uniform and discipline in giving structure to the lives of the young people who come from such backgrounds. I am attracted by the use of this vehicle to draw ethnic minorities into the police in that preliminary way, in exactly the same way as the RUC Reserve was used in Northern Ireland, giving people the chance to experience policing, before deciding whether to become full-time officers.
There is a genuine irony in our attacking the Government for greater centralisation if we are not prepared to contemplate the possibility of decentralised experiment. Of course, as I also said at Second Reading, there are real problems in determining the powers of the new categories of officer and securing public recognition of those powers. However, we cannot discuss them, as we IA ill do later, without assenting, at least, to the idea that there are parts of the country where such officers might be valuable.
I close with a reflection from the mid-1980s when I was the Minister responsible for Customs and Excise, which is obviously another law enforcement agency. I made 16 full day visits to Customs and Excise in different parts of the country. My experience was that, anywhere south of Watford, the only subject which Customs officers wanted to discuss was pay. North of Watford, that issue never arose.
It is a mistake to see the country as unremittingly homogeneous. There are different needs in different places. We should not forget that policing started in London because that was where the problems were.
6 p.m.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may try to put the matter into perspective. The amendment only seeks to delete subsection (I)(a) of Clause 33 and we have three other subsections all aimed at recruiting civilians into policemen's uniforms doing policemen's work. Therefore, will the Minister tell us what proportion of personnel he hopes will be recruited under each of the four provisions?
It seems that people have been reacting to the amendment as though it were going to scrub out all civilian recruits of the new kind to the police service. That is very far from what will actually occur. The ones who are recruited as investigating, detention and escort officers, can all replace fully trained officers to become visible, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, wants, and perhaps be available to be accompanied by the people under subsection (1)(a) which we are seeking to delete.
Lord Rooker: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the answer is most certainly not. That is because

437
this is an enabling power. It would be ludicrous for a Minister to stand up and give targets for community support, investigative, detention and escort officers. Amendments have been tabled relating to each type of officer. They propose either to scrub them out or to look at their powers and functions. At the appropriate time I will be happy to do that. However, bearing in mind all the previous debates, as well as the fact that this is an enabling power, it would be inappropriate for Ministers to give targets. It is a matter for the chief constables.
I welcome the debate and all the points raised, although I wish the last five speeches had been the first five speeches. From the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, onwards, the debate seemed to me utterly realistic and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, made my winding up speech for me in a much shorter time than I am afraid I am going to take. I am extremely grateful for what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Baker.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, is right in saying that incredibly complex training is required of today's police. The noble Lords, Lord Waddington and Lord Elton, referred to half-trained people being used to police the streets. That is wrong and I shall turn to that matter later.
I have lived in London for many years but I do not count myself as a Londoner. I learn as I go along. There are issues relating to London in respect of which some boroughs are setting up their own policing function. There will be a combination of the community support officers and the accreditation schemes, to which we will turn later. They have the stamp of approval of the commissioner in London. It is better to use such people and schemes rather than having freelance people working for boroughs or private companies on private estates. Such a framework reassures the public. If efforts are led by the boroughs, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police, so much the better for the accreditation schemes. There is a lot of merit in them.
The answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is yes, yes and yes. It also leads to the conclusion that the fear of crime is much too high. It is a major problem. However much we talk about crime statistics going down in one area, or up in another, the fact is that the public's fear of crime far outweighs the reality of what is happening in their local communities. We must recognise that fact.
There are too few police officers. I said during the course of our earlier debate that there is a target to achieve 130,000 officers by spring of next year. I also said that the Home Secretary would set a new target because that gave the lie to the suggestion that once we had achieved the target the number would remain stable and alteration would be only by means of community support officers and others. That is not our intention, by any means.
I am not going to argue about the numbers. One of the statistics that I always remember from 1979—probably the trickiest of the seven general elections I
438
fought—was that there were then 15,000 more police officers in the country than there were in 1974. I do not believe that the then Labour government received any credit for it, but it is a figure that I have always remembered. I accept the number of police and special officers has gone down in the past few years and that civilian support has gone up.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and I were constituency neighbours for many years. In response to his remarks, let us suppose that in opposition someone had come to me from the then government when he was a member of the Cabinet and said, "You've got real problems on an estate in a ward in your constituency. There are real problems with what would be relatively minor offences but to the people concerned the crimes are the most serious matters in their lives. Balls are knocked up against gable walls hour after hour after hour; bikes are everywhere; dogs are fouling the pavements; and youths are messing around with alcohol. There are not enough police to do the job but we have a few uniformed blokes organised and controlled by the police. Do you want them?" Does the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, really think that I would have attacked a government who would have come along and said, "This is probably a good idea. It may help your constituents"? No, of course I would not and he knows that.
The issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, are important. The priority is right. I agree and I believe that the public will agree that we would rather have police. The specials are not always available when one needs them and the community support officers are a uniformed presence with certain very limited powers. I agree with the noble Baroness's analysis.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, made the point about the diary of the police officer. We debated that matter at Second Reading. I do not have the figure in front of me but I believe that either 43 per cent or 47 per cent of a police officer's time is spent at the station. Why is that? It is because of the paperwork. The average amount of time spent on the paperwork required of a police officer in respect of an arrest of any kind is three and a half hours in the station. Whatever the crime, the police officer spends three and a half hours off the street and in the station.
What is proposed in the clause—the detention, investigation and escort officers—is intended to cut the amount of time that a police constable is in the station when he could be back out on the beat, as set out in the White Paper. There is nothing new there. The argument is not that the police do not want to go out and are hiding in the station, as implied by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. Far from it, they are tied down in the station because of the paperwork and everything else. I suspect that we have all seen what happens. As I say, the average time is three and a half hours off the beat.

439
I do not want to separate the noble Lord, Lord Tope, from the last five speakers, but the problem is that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, came in the middle. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke from his knowledge of Hendon college. I have none and I must make a point of visiting the college. He said that it was full. We can say with some certainty that we will have 130,000 police officers by spring of next year because we know the retirement rates, the wastage rates, the ill health rates and the recruitment and training rates. We can be confident that we can hit that target. I believe that is a valuable point and I am grateful that he was able to make it.
Returning to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I do not believe that the community support officers are at odds with tradition because traditions have changed. We shall come to that later in the debate.
My noble friend Lord Mackenzie mentioned park keepers and conductors on buses. In some ways it is true that community support officers will fit more neatly into the accreditation schemes. However, it is a fact that we used to have more of a uniformed presence about. I can remember that even over my short years. It used to he said of the park keeper, "The parky's coming after you. You'd better scamper". I recall that at the time I was scrumping apples in someone's back garden. Traditions have changed, and no longer do we have a uniformed presence in our public spaces.
In that sense, I do not believe that the proposal to introduce community support officers, to be taken up at the wish of chief police officers, goes against tradition. Such officers will fit in better with modern society and will meet the changes that have taken place.
Again, my noble friend Lord Mackenzie made the point that the problems are not found only in London. I accept that, although I freely admit that much of the pressure to embrace community support officers has come from the Met. It may well be that other chief constables will sit back in thinking mode to watch and discuss what happens in London. However, they will have to be careful because London is in no way a mirror image of the rest of the country. Far from it. The rest of the country can be a great deal nicer. But it could be said that London will act as a virtual pilot for the rest of the country.
Mr Blair has told me that he sees no problem whatever in the recruitment of community support officers. That brings me to a point made by the noble Lord. Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who pointed out in our brief discussion that community support officers may well be able to strike a better balance with the ethnic minorities—as is also the case with the specials—than is possible in the regular force. Perhaps it will be a better route for recruitment. I believe that there is a good deal of support for and agreement with that view among professional police officers.
440
he noble Lord, Lord Elton, was far too harsh on the issue of training. He criticised subparagraph (c) of Clause 22(3). However, subsection (3) states:
"A chief officer of police shall not designate a person under this section unless he is satisfied that that person—
(c) has received adequate training in the carrying out—of the powers",
which the officer will allow that person. It is true that there is to be a "pick and mix" menu. The idea that, say, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis would permit half-baked training to meet the criteria that he—not Ministers—will have chosen for community support officers is a bit of an attack on the professionalism and the seriousness of the police with regard to training. There is not a shred of evidence that the commissioner or any other chief officer would send people out who were not trained. They will be trained to do a different job from that of a regular constable. I accept that. But it is a question of horses for courses in that respect.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, that the first priority must be more police on the beat, which was repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. It is a fair point. The noble Lord went on to list three areas within the Met where community support officers could prove to be extremely useful, on occasion working alongside regular officers but not necessarily all the time. For example, if a roadblock has to be set up and searches carried out, surely the job of patrolling the cordon of the roadblock while regular officers carry out the work of stopping cars and conducting searches is an ideal role for a community support officer. It would free up regular officers for their work. Indeed, in London community support officers could prove extremely useful in the traffic endeavour.
The noble Lord also reiterated a point he made on Second Reading—that community support officers could well enhance the security effort following the events of September 11 th, a point that many noble Lords brought up. Many police officers were drafted in, but then we were told that they were bored out of their minds because nothing happened. We were lucky that nothing happened, but that was because there was a uniformed presence on the streets. The point is that we will never know. It was a precautionary move, wholly justified in the circumstances; indeed, it remains so. We are therefore wholly justified in looking at other ways of ensuring that all the tasks set for the police are carried out.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was not totally supportive, by and large he appeared to want to see how this would work—I am paraphrasing from my notes, which are not that good. We are holding here very much a Second Reading debate on whether we should have community support officers. I accept that, because we are not debating their powers. We shall come to that in Schedule 4. where Members of the other place sought to limit the options for chief constables.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, expressed a fundamental point and put forward a fairly extreme view: no community support officers, whatever their

441
powers. That takes the extreme view reflected in the purpose of the amendment which I hope that the Committee will not support because it would certainly negate the remainder of our debate looking at the powers, and it is too extreme.
I turn now to my speaking notes, because I must put one or two points on the record that may not be in direct response to the remarks of noble Lords. There are no powers of arrest for community support officers. However, as one noble Lord pointed out, the introduction of such officers marks one of the key proposals in the White Paper and we consider it to be one of the major elements of this piece of legislation. We make no bones about that. This is enabling legislation, it is not prescriptive and it will be up to the chief officer to decide whether to go this way. I shall make the point again that the Metropolitan Police have argued strongly for such a proposal, given the scale of the demand for officers to provide a counterterrorism presence. However, the role of the community support officer will have a wider application.
The British Crime Survey shows that, while the incidence of crime is generally falling, the fear of crime is not. It is important to take that fact on board. There is an unfulfilled public expectation to see a police presence on every street tackling low level crime and anti-social behaviour. After all, most people expressing a fear of crime because they have come up against it do not do so because they have been involved in a bank robbery or a terrorist offence. They have not become entangled in major, serious crimes. Rather it is youths misusing alcohol and behaving in an anti-social manner. While that might be classed as low level crime in the hierarchy of crimes, for the individual suffering from it, it is the thing that sends them out of their mind.
People can become absolutely obsessed with what happens once local youths and miscreants start to misbehave. Those petty crimes can take over their lives and make them physically ill. That was certainly my experience when representing areas of Birmingham where there were such difficulties. I could not go to the chief constable and say, "Put your top man, or your top lady, on to this". I knew that there were other problems. I could not claim that those petty crimes were the most important policing issue in the City of Birmingham, but for my constituents it was the thing that was ruining their lives.
At that level we can make a difference. Giving a lever to chief constables in the form of community support officers is what it is all about: it will help them to make a difference. Initial audits and consultations carried out by the crime and disorder reduction partnerships have shown a strong public concern about these relatively minor aspects, sometimes no more than noisy youths. Many people suffer from the problems of anti-social, sub-criminal behaviour which can blight entire communities as well as individuals.
Community support officers will not replace police officers. As I have said, we are committed to increasing police numbers to the figure of 130,000 and we shall set a new target when we reach it. Community support
442
officers are not intended to have the full range of powers of a regular constable or a special. I remind the Committee that specials are not civilians playing policeman; they are fully attested constables but, by definition, they are not always around when they are needed. They are not available at 3.30 in the afternoon when someone might be playing up near the entrance and exit of a school. Someone must be sent along to sort it out and to show a presence. That is the kind of problem which can be dealt with by community support officers.
Community support officers will free up regular officers to carry out the duties which require their full powers. The role of the community support officer will be limited and will be clearly focused. Unlike regular beat officers, whom they may support, community support officers are unlikely routinely to be called away to deal with more serious crimes. Unlike special constables, who are generally only available at weekends—by definition they have full-time jobs elsewhere—the community support officers will be available at the times of the day when the chief officer requires them; for example, for transport routes in the middle of the day and for estates and communities in the school holidays. There are people who dread the onset of school holidays because of minor crime. If the chief constable has the resource of community support officers working with other organisations in known areas, he can nip it in the bud.
There are a number of safeguards throughout this part of the Bill—which I shall not debate in detail now—in regard to the designation of support staff and the exercise by them of these limited police powers. The Bill provides that the chief officer must be satisfied that a person is suitable to carry out the relevant functions, is capable of carrying them out and is adequately trained. The chief officer may modify or remove the designation, including the powers conferred on community support officers, at any time he chooses.
Such support staff, employed by a police authority and under the direction and control of the relevant officer, will come within the remit of the independent police commission, as we discussed earlier in Committee, and will come under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes of practice. So, to that extent, people can be reassured that there will be a uniformed presence, with extremely limited powers, in areas where people's lives are made a misery.
It is worth the effort to allow the Met, or any chief constable who wishes to do so, to pilot this operation—it is not something that we are imposing—and we could then see how it works and if it is up to the job, which we believe it will be. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment to a Division.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had an amazing debate in which we have inevitably gone across the length and breadth of this subject, including the community safety accreditation schemes. I hope the Committee

443
will forgive me if I express the hope that we do not have to go over it all in duplicate when we come to those schemes; that would be superfluous.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate—even to those behind me who disagree with the amendment. I do not detract from what we have suggested and I will explain why. Among other matters, we are talking about the quality of policing and we should first get the proposal into perspective. The amendment refers only to community support officers who, if we accept the designation, will be civilians already employed by and doing a full-time job for the police.
If we accept the designation, one of the qualifications on the use of these people is that it will apply only during their normal employment hours. So very often they will not be available on the street at those times when there will be, perhaps, most pressure. We need to face that.
Lord Condon: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Am I to understand that he believes that it is only civilians currently working for the police who will be redesignated as community support officers? If that is his belief, he is mistaken. The idea is that hundreds of new people will be recruited, who will become employees and therefore able to be community support officers and used for whatever hours it is necessary for them to be used.
Lord Dixon-Smith: It may be that I have misunderstood the Bill, but if the police are to be given the resources to employ many additional civilians over and above those they already employ, they will also have resources to employ many more policemen. I believe my qualification is appropriate, but perhaps the Minister will tell me if I am incorrect. It is an important point. I certainly was not aware that the police were going to be resourced to employ many extra civilians—buckshee, so to speak—to fulfil this specific role. I thought that we were dealing with existing police civilians.
Let us get the civilians in perspective. New York has often been referred to, but it has more than 40,000 policemen as opposed to what we hope will be more than 30,000 in London very shortly, which will be very welcome. But, rather differently from London, New York has around 40,000 civilians as well, whereas in London the figure is somewhere around '7,000 civilians. I question whether many civilians will be available to become community support officers and fulfil this function—particularly bearing in mind that they will also be asked to become investigating officers, detention officers and escort officers.
I am sure that the Minister will intervene and tell me if I am wrong. Are we talking about new civilians additionally employed to fulfil this role, or are we talking about existing civilians?.
Lord Rooker: That has never been the issue. It has not been raised in the debate. They will be new people, over and above those who are there now, subject to the decision of chief constables. Of course there are
444
resource implications, but the powers conferred on people under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d)—if I can put it that way rather than read them all out again—are quite different and quite new.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have no difficulty with the powers, but I do have difficulty with the function. If we are to employ additional people, so be it. There is plenty of what I call "constable substituting" work on which these people can be used. That will release more constables to go out onto the streets--and it is on the streets that constables should be used, the police cannot do that, then we should use special constables first and foremost. To do anything else would be to admit that we can no longer police the streets in the conventional way and to admit that we will have to devalue the whole service that we provide to the public.
I do not find that a satisfactory proposition. That is why we suggest removing the community support officer from the Bill and, when we get to the community safety accreditation schemes, accrecliting these people as special constables.
In his response, the Minister gave the impression that he was thinking about special constables in their existing context. He said that special constables are available only at particular hours; that they are not available when they are wanted and so on. Of course they are part-timers and volunteers. That is the basis on which special constables are used at the present time—I accept that—hut we envisage a complete change in the approach to special constables.
As I have said, the legislation which governs the appointment of special constables its very simple. It goes back to the 1996 Act, which states:
"The chief officer of police of the police force maintained for a police area may, in accordance with regulations—appoint special constables".
It continues:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the government, administration and conditions of service of special constables".
If the existing regulatory structure does not give the flexibility required to put these people into the category of special constables and to train them accordingly, we would be happy to help the Government to alter the regulatory basis on which special constables work. But the flexibility is certainly there in the legislation and it could be done.
We are not arguing about ends: we are arguing about means. We all want the same ends, and we should remember that throughout our discussions. Our disagreement is over the means. We believe that there is an issue of quality here. We do not want to devalue the quality of the service to the public on the street.
It is worth picking up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, about accreditation schemes. Schemes such as that in Sedgefield exist under the present law. We do not need to change the law to keep them going. Such schemes will unquestionably continue.

445
Although, as the Minister says, we are not giving community safety officers powers of arrest, we are certainly giving them powers to detain, and powers to use "reasonable force" to detain. One can split hairs and debate the meaning of words; but if a person has power to detain and power to use reasonable force to detain in particular circumstances, they may not be powers of arrest, but the distinction is difficult to make. It would make for an interesting debate in a court of law.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: It seems quite simple. If there is a power of arrest, all the rigmarole of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act comes into force. There is a big distinction between power of detention and power of arrest.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Yes, I accept that. But what is the reality? If someone out on the street detains someone, where do we go from there? He waits for a constable to arrive, who then has to go through all the rest of the procedure. But the effect is the same. It will be the support officer who starts the process.
We ought to recognise that this is a very serious change. We shall be putting civilians in a very difficult situation. Yes, I accept that the chief constable concerned, or the commissioner, has to be satisfied that such people are adequately trained to do the job.I suspect that that will be quite difficult.
Our amendment relates to an argument about means, not about ends. It is not illogical. If we go down this route, we shall be devaluing the service that we give to the public. I have listened to the various comments and shall consider them carefully between now and Report. We may well need to return to the matter. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 186A not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 187:
Page 32, line 2, at end insert—
"(2A) A Director General may designate any person who—

(a) is an employee of his Service Authority, and

(b) is under the direction and control of that Director General,

as an investigating officer."
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak briefly to the other government amendments grouped with it.
These amendments are intended to bring the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service into line with the Bill's provisions for allowing support staff to be designated as investigating officers.
I must make it clear that the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service are not police forces. Non-police members are employed by the respective service authorities and are under the
446
control of their respective directors-general. In the same way as for police forces, there can be much value in having civilian investigating officers in specialist areas such as financial and information technology crime. That is particularly relevant for the National Crime Squad, which houses the Hi-Tech Crime Unit, and for NCIS, some of whose personnel work in the unit as part a close-knit team. In addition, both organisations have experience and expertise in investigating financial crime, as well as other specialist work.
Under the amendments, the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 4 will be applied to NCS and NCIS in the same manner as they currently apply to forces. I should stress that the amendments are concerned only with the designation of support staff as investigating officers. Given the different role of the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service as compared with the 43 forces, there is no requirement—and these amendments do not provide—for the directors-general to designate persons as community support officers, detention officers or escort officers. I beg to move
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 188:
Page 32, line 2, at end insert—
"(2A) Before exercising his powers under this section, a chief officer of police of any police force must submit to the police authority maintaining that force a draft scheme (a "designation scheme") setting out—

(a) the purpose of the proposed designation scheme relating to the designation of persons under this section and the expected benefits for the policing of the area;

(b) how the designation scheme contributes to the three year strategy issued by the authority under section 6A of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) and the local policing plan issued by that authority under section 8 of that Act;

(c) the extent and nature of the powers he proposes to confer on designated persons;

(d) how the suitability and capability of persons to be designated under the scheme will be assessed;

(e) the arrangements for the provision of training to such designated persons;

(f) the arrangements for the provision of equipment to such designated persons and any health and safety implications of the proposals; and

(g) an estimate of the direct and ancillary costs of the scheme to the police fund kept by the police authority.

(2B) The chief officer shall not exercise his powers under this section until the police authority has approved a designation scheme for this purpose.
(2C) Before approving any scheme, or any modified or revised scheme, which differs from the draft scheme submitted by the chief officer, the police authority shall consult the chief officer.
(2D) Before approving any such scheme, the police authority may consider any views obtained by the authority in accordance with arrangements made under section 96 of the Police Act 1996.
(2E) The chief officer may from time to time submit to the police authority a revised or modified draft scheme for its consideration.
(2F) It shall be the responsibility of any police authority which has approved any scheme under subsection (2A) above to keep itself informed of the workings of the scheme, including, in particular to monitor the impact of the scheme on public confidence in the force maintained by that authority."

447
The noble Lord said: I let this matter go by, and I do not want to delay the Committee. The answer given by the Minister at the beginning of our debates today about the police authority being included in consultation was sufficient for me. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): The amendment is proposed: page 32, line 2, at end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
Lord Rooker: Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the amendment'?.
Lord Bradshaw: In the light of the Minister's earlier assurances, and having given Members of the Committee the opportunity to intervene, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 189:
Page 32, line 3, after "police" insert "or a Director General"
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 190:
Page 32, line ID, at end insert "; and
(d) is properly equipped to carry out those functions"
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 192. Both deal with a simple issue--namely, equipment and training—which we have to a considerable degree crawled all over already, so I need not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. We thought it worth tabling the amendments in order to ensure that community safety officers out on the street are properly equipped, and that they will have received proper training. We have covered most of this ground, but the Minister may feel the need to reinforce what he has already said. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am obliged to reply to any amendment moved from the Front Bench, but I need use only about a quarter of my briefing.
These amendments deal with two issues about designated persons—the provision of equipment and the provision of training. We share the concerns expressed that the civilians designated under the provisions of this clause should, and indeed must, be properly equipped and trained while undertaking their duties. However, we do not necessarily believe that we need to provide for that on the face of the Bill, as Amendments No. 190 and 192 seek to do.
It will be for the chief officer—the chief constable, and the commissioner in the Met—to ensure, as is presently the case, that his employees are given the proper equipment to undertake their duties safely. Like any employer, he will be responsible for their safety and welfare. It is appropriate to allow for maximum flexibility and to let the chief officers decide
448
how their staff, whether police officers or civilians, are equipped. We do not believe that this is a matter for the Bill, serious and important though it is.
Lord Renton: I rarely express doubt about what the noble Lord has said, but I feel that my noble friend's proposal is not an unwise precaution. Yes, nearly always one will be able to take it for granted that these extra people with extra powers will be properly equipped. But just occasionally there may be someone who is not properly equipped. If he cannot point to any statutory requirement that he should be, then the matter will not be fulfilled. This is a wise amendment. I ask the Minister to give it further consideration.
Lord Rooker: We have given thought to the important issue raised in the amendment. The civilians charged with the limited powers provided by the Bill will necessarily have to be supplied with t he relevant training and equipment to exercise those powers. In some respects, they are different from regular police constables--their powers are different and their training and equipment will be different. Nevertheless, it is the duty and responsibility of the chief constable, as the employer, to make sure that they have adequate training and equipment to carry out satisfactorily the duties that he has designated they should have. He might not give them all the full powers, so they might not need all the necessary equipment or training of the regular constable. The training must be specific to the powers they will exercise. We should trust the judgment of the chief constables, who will not knowingly send their police officers- -whether regulars, specials or community support officers---out on a job without proper equipment.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I apologise for not having been here for the debate on Amendment No. 186. Did the Minister deal with the important issue of training in his reply to that debate? Did he indicate the likely length of any training'? The community support officers must have appropriate training before they can do the job.
Lord Renton: And equipment.
Lord Rooker: I do not claim that I gave a comprehensive reply, but I pointed out that the Bill says that the chief officer, the chief constable or the commissioner, in the case of the Met,
"shall not designate a person"
to be a community support officer or one of the other officers—
"unless he is satisfied that"—
among other things—
"that person…
has received adequate training in the carrying out of those functions and in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties to be conferred on him by virtue of the designation".
There is a pick and mix menu of powers that the chief police officer can designate to the community support officer. They are all minor in the grand scale of things,

449
but they do not all have to be awarded. The officers must be properly trained. That is a legal commitment on the face of the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Carlisle, because this is an important issue, particularly for those who will be involved in the future. I take some comfort from the Minister's comments about the responsibilities of the chief constable, as the employer. I shall study those words. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkesmoved Amendment No. 191:
Page 32, line 10, at end insert "; and
(d) has access to appropriate means of personal protection"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment differs from the one we have just discussed, tabled by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, in that my concern is the personal security of the community support officers. We were told at our briefing with the police that they would not be allowed to carry a baton, a spray or any means of self-defence. When I asked why that was so and how they would manage in a dangerous situation, I was told that they would not be put in a dangerous situation. If there was a dangerous situation, full-time policemen would be used.
How can anyone predict where a dangerous situation w0ill arise? The current spate of muggings in London have all happened in unexpected situations. Nobody who has suffered from the present habit of following people home from events and attacking them on their doorstep, as happened recently to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, was anticipating it. If they had been anticipating it, it might well not have happened. It is much more serious if the attacker is armed with a knife.
It is wrong for the officers concerned not to have some form of self-protection. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, on Amendment No. 186, said that you quite often end up being assaulted. I am sure that that is true.
We were also told that community support officers would have differently marked uniforms from the ordinary police. That means that it will be obvious that they are the ones who have no personal protection. They are allowed to use reasonable force—presumably that applies to self-defence—but hand-to-hand combat is rather different from having at least a truncheon. I seek some reassurance on that. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall be very brief in support of my noble friend. I cannot put a date on it, but some time in the 1980s I read an account of a situation within the Metropolitan Police district when a single constable, perhaps only 21 years old, is standing in the street and has to take a decision on
450
whether to stop a car that has four people in it who look both disagreeable and suspect. At that moment, the rule of law in that part of London rests on the shoulders of that young man. Against that background, the questions that my noble friend has raised require a serious response from the Government, which I am confident they will get.
Lord Monson: The noble Baroness has made a very good case for the amendment. Unfortunately, neither the noble Lord, Lord Condon, nor the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, is in his place at the moment, but I am sure that they would be able to confirm that an extremely high proportion of police officers are injured, particularly in the Metropolitan Police area. One man in his 30s, whose father works for me, spent many years in the Army doing a dangerous job to do with explosives and was never injured in any way, but since he left the Army and joined the Metropolitan Police he has been seriously injured by a suspected drug dealer, to the extent that he almost had to be invalided out.
As the noble Baroness says, nobody can foretell the situations in which such officers might find themselves. We cannot be certain that it will be possible to keep them away from trouble. If we want recruitment to go at all well, we have to accept an amendment such as this; otherwise nobody will volunteer for the job.
Lord Dixon-Smith: In principle we support the amendment, which is a more detailed reprise of the previous amendment.
Lord Rooker: I hope to give a serious reply, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, requested. Community support officers are not second class police officers. They will play a complementary role. That is very important.
Nobody can forecast all the circumstances in which they will find themselves, but it is not the intention that the role and powers of community support officers will require them to become involved in unarmed combat, as one noble Lord said. We all share the concerns of the noble Baroness that civilians designated under the clause should be properly and appropriately protected while undertaking their duties, but we do not think that we need to put that on the face of the Bill.
There have been some scare stories in the newspapers, but we do not envisage community support officers carrying CS spray and batons or getting into situations in which they might need to use such equipment. On the other hand, we have made it clear that, while we do not think that we need to specify appropriate means of personal protection in the Bill, a code of practice will be issued under this chapter that will include guidance on levels of protection for designated officers. In some ways, that will have the same practical effect as the amendment. The intention is the same, but we approach the issue from another route.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I am still concerned. We were told

451
categorically that community support officers would not be able to carry any form of protection. If that is true, we must have some reference in the Bill to protection for them. It would be very wrong not to do so.
I emphasise again that no one can tell where they will have to confront a difficult situation. All the current attacks in London are happening unexpectedly, often in areas formerly considered safe. The police officer who spoke to us said that officers sent to one particular station which he mentioned were sent with full riot gear. That is fine. However, ordinary civilians who have been stabbed and killed were walking along streets in areas that they thought were safe.
I believe that we need this provision. Although I shall leave the Minister to think about it, I shall be considering whether to return to it myself. I feel strongly about the issue. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 193:
Page 32, line 13, leave out from "duties" to "that" in line 15.
The noble Lord said: Clause 33(5) states:
"A designation under this section shall confer powers and impose duties on the designated person by means only of provisions specifying the provisions of the applicable Part of Schedule 4 that are to apply to the designated person".
That implies, at the very least, that every individual might have a different designation; I do not see how it could imply anything else. That simply would not be satisfactory and could cause absolute confusion in the minds of the public. Although they are in a different uniform from that of the police, people in uniform could have variable powers taken from a basket containing a slightly larger number of powers. I do not think that that would be sensible. We do not like the devaluation aspects of the proposal, but if we have to put this type of sub-police into operation, we should ensure that there is absolute, crystal clarity about their function and how they are to work. I think that there would be great difficulty if we did anything else.
I suppose—just placing a saving bet; we have not tabled an amendment to this effect, but I offer it to the Minister to consider—that if a chief constable wished to pick from the basket of powers, at least in his force area, everyone should have the same powers. I think that that might reduce the potential for confusion. If different powers were held by each individual, and one of those individuals stopped or attempted to check someone, the first words that he would hear would be, "Show me your accreditation. I want to know if you have the power to stop me". I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend does not mind, but a very small drafting amendment would have to be made if Amendment No. 193 is made. It is that, in line 16, "of that Schedule" would have to be changed to "of Schedule 4".
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith for moving this group of
452
amendments. I share his view that this part of the Bill gives the chief constable discretion to vary the powers that his designation shall confer upon the officer concerned. On page 110, one finds the related provision of Schedule 4. The issue becomes clear in paragraph 4(1), which states:
"This paragraph"—
which is the paragraph conferring the power to use reasonable force to detain persons—
"applies where…a designation under section 33 applies this paragraph to a person to whom any or all of paragraphs Ito 3 are also applied".
Although it is a short point, A is one that is replicated in the case of accredited community support officers—to whose situation I perhaps rashly strayed in our previous debate. It is the same point. If the public are to be confident in this innovation, they will have to know what powers these people shall have. If these people are to convey and carry credibility, they should be able to explain quite simply to the person to whom they are addressing their powers, whether those powers are designated under Clause 33 or accredited under Clause 35.
I hope that I am not wrong—in the sense that this discretion is not granted—but if I am, I have to say that the drafting is very obscure. I do not believe that it makes that clear.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I have no emotional capital tied up in the example that I gave on Second Reading, but I shall remind the House of it. There was a time in London theatreland when Camden Borough Council suddenly decided that it would put its parking regulations on a different basis from that of the London Borough of Westminster. Those who were parking their cars to attend the theatre were careless about the location of the borough boundaries, and they were extremely offended when they discovered that they were being penalised for parking their car one street away from where they would have been in perfectly good shape.
It is a genuine dilemma. It is wrong to put these officers—if the experiment goes forward, we would wish them extremely well—in a position in which, in the early stages, they could be penalised by the possibility of a misunderstanding. As I have acknowledged, there is some irony in these remarks in that we generally urge decentralisation on the Government and seek to avoid centralisation.
Lord Rooker: This group of amendments raises a useful point. It would, however, have a perverse consequence which I shall outline later. Although I cannot prejudge what will happen, I can well foresee different chief constables making different use of the "menu". If they make different use of the powers so that their community support officers have different powers, the public might well wonder why that has happened. The point, however, would arise when they went into a different police force area, and powers currently vary between different police force areas. I

453
should add that police authority boundaries usually coincide with main roads or railway lines, a bit like constituency boundaries do.
I do not know whether, in designating the community support officers within his force, a chief constable would ever think it wise to give individual officers different levels of power. Although it is true that he is designating "persons", and assigning different powers would be technically possible, I do not think that such an arrangement would be a practical runner. I should develop the argument, however, as the matter is not that clear cut.
As I have said, subsection (5) of Clause 33 currently enables the chief officer to use appropriate parts of the schedule as a menu from which he can select the powers appropriate for the deployment. In theory, that could mean that all staff have different powers. However, we believe that, in practice, there may be only two or three groups of powers for each category of support staff. Therefore, across a police force, each designated category should have the same powers. However, there will be four levels of officer, which are outlined in paragraphs (a) to (d) of Clause 33(5).
As I understand it, the Metropolitan Police have indicated that they will establish just three categories of community support officer—dealt with in Clause 33(5)(a)—whom they have called auxiliaries. They include security auxiliaries, Transport for London auxiliaries and community auxiliaries, and they will perform the functions described by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
The powers extended to each category of community support officer would be appropriate to their function. For example, the Metropolitan Police's security auxiliaries would clearly need the powers in paragraphs 12 and 13 of Schedule 4 to enforce cordoned areas established under the Terrorism Act 2000 and to stop and search vehicles under Sections 44 and 45 of that Act. This may also be the case in other parts of the country. Different forces will have different functions for their CSOs and hence different combinations of powers. That is a slightly different matter to the parking restrictions in boroughs that were mentioned.
Similar arguments could apply to other categories of support staff. Chief officers might prefer support staff to have only some, not all, of the detention office powers in order to suit local policing arrangements. The clause enables chief officers to "mould" the designation of support staff to suit local needs. We want to retain that flexibility. The amendment removes that local flexibility.
By extending the full range of powers to support staff from the outset we would prejudge the roles that they are to fulfil. We have aimed throughout these clauses to enable rather than prescribe. The amendment would require that, for example, a detention officer who would be dealing only with handling people in custody would also have to be trained in interviewing suspects. As the designated officer may not be using all his powers his training
454
would become "rusty" for those powers he did not use. But there would still be the chance that he would be asked to use these powers in the future. He would have received training but would be out of practice. We need to trust that chief constables will exercise their discretion in specifying powers from the "menus". The code of practice under Clause 39 will help them achieve that.
The noble Lord argued that the public will be confused if CSOs have different powers in different parts of the country. I do not accept that. That may be the case as regards different parts of the force. That is the real bones of the argument. I hope that the code of practice will resolve that matter. This is an important point. I am glad that it has been raised as it has enabled some of the issues we are discussing to be put on record.
7 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he think it right that there should be an 00ED; la carte menu, as it were, for chief constables within their force, or within particular districts of their force, or should there be a set menu? The noble Lord said that he did not think that that difficulty would arise in practice. However, if it were made clear that everyone within an area should have the same powers, that would overcome the difficulty that some of us on this side of the Chamber detect. It is one which I mentioned in relation to safety officers under Clause 35. It is terribly important that these people should be able to state clearly, "I have the same powers as my colleague over there and my colleague over there" when asked for the authority by which they presume to interfere with someone's liberty in the street. That is the short point. I dare say that the noble Lord will not be able to reply to that point now, but I ask again whether it should be an 00ED; la carte or a set menu?
Lord Rooker: I cannot prejudge the position. One would imagine that all the officers within an area performing the same function would have the same powers. If their functions differ, the position may be slightly different. I refer to the position in London. That is rather a bad example as I shall dig myself into a hole if I am not careful. The Metropolitan Police have stated that they will establish three categories of community support officers. The Transport for London auxiliaries would police the transport routes in London. I presume they would be clearly identified as transport auxiliaries and would all have the same powers. Therefore, there would be no argument about that. I presume that the security auxiliaries would be designated in a similar way. We shall give further thought to this issue to ensure that the code of practice overcomes the problems that the Committee has identified. The public must not be confused. That is an important point. We do not want the public to be confused. We do not want some barrack room troublemaker to play off one community support

455
officer against another if he finds out that one has powers which another does not. That point must be taken on board.
Lord Dixon-Smith: This has been a useful discussion. I am grateful for my noble friends' contributions. We should remember that subsection (5) of Clause 33 already specifies different menus for different designations. Subsection (5) refers to Schedule 4 and states that,
"the applicable Part of that Schedule is—

"(a) in the case of a person designated as a community support officer, Part

(b) in the case of a person designated as an investigating officer, Part 2".

But the fact of the matter is that within each part you can still cherry pick. I recognise what the Minister said with regard to the specific problems of London, but I suspect that the commissioner for the Met would deprive himself of a certain amount of operational flexibility if he said that certain people could operate only on the Underground and others could operate only somewhere else and so on. We need to think seriously about this issue before we return to it on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 196:
Page 32, line 22, leave out "A person" and insert "An employee of a police authority or of a Service Authority"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 197:
Page 32, lane 24, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: Paragraph (a) of subsection (6) of Clause 33, which this amendment seeks to delete, restricts the power of a person to operate as a community support officer. Under the Bill a community support officer is authorised to work only during his hours of employment. Policemen go off duty but that does not seem to cause any problems with regard to performing their functions. Occasionally, they perform entirely appropriate functions when they are off duty. That does not appear to cause any problems. The Bill seems to impose an unreasonable restriction. Subsection (6) of Clause 33 states:
"A person authorised or required to do anything by virtue of a designation under this section—
"(a) shall not be authorised or required by virtue of that designation to engage in any conduct otherwise than in the course of his employment".
456
I believe that that constitutes an unreasonable restriction which could perfectly well be removed. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 198.
Lord Rooker: Amendments Nos. 197 and 199 would remove local flexibility in relation to how powers are designated to support staff. They would also allow support staff to exercise the powers that have been given to them outside the course of their hours of duty. That could be a problem.
The clause is designed to give maximum local flexibility to chief officers to enable them to deliver the most effective policing. The restrictions are also meant to underline the difference between a community support officer, who works in support of the police, and a sworn constable who is always expected to exercise his or her powers anywhere. I was brought up to believe that a policeman is never off duty. He or she may have "clocked off—, but they are still a police officer. The ability to place restrictions on a designation is a key part of the flexibility given to chief constables. For example, locally based community support officers may only operate over a limited geographical area—that may be done for a purpose and may involve, for example, a single estate—enabling them better to gain the support and respect of the local community and to build up intelligence networks. By restricting the powers of CSOs to that area, the chief officer would, in effect, be ring-fencing low-level policing in that area, making it clear to the community that the CSO would not he automatically removed to respond to pressures elsewhere in their force area.
The ability to confine even CSOs to a community will provide those communities with reassurance. That is part of the contract between the police and the community. That would be entirely up to the chief officer. It might be useful to a community that had much trouble if an arrangement was made with the local police that CSOs would be designated to it. That is rather like saying to the chief officer, "CSOs will be in this area and they will not be taken away when there are other demands in the force. I shall designate them for your area to crack the problems on that estate". If the community knew that people could not cause diversionary efforts elsewhere, that might be an extra factor in reducing a community's fear of crime.
For an investigating officer who is newly trained but inexperienced in the exercise of his powers outside a training room, the designation may require that he works under the supervision of a more experienced officer for a period to build up his experience in "live" situations. That may be for only a very short period, after which the condition could be removed from the designation. The necessary flexibility for chief officers in that respect is important.
The amendment would in theory enable an off-duty escort officer to escort a prisoner to or between police stations or an off-duty investigating officer to exercise

457
the powers of entry and search after arrest. Moreover, we do not want CSOs to be able to operate their powers except in the course of their employment when they are under the direction and control of a chief officer, fully accountable and clearly identifiable. Those are some of the necessary consequences of having such extra "civilianisation" for the police. Those people will make that system work and should not be regarded as second-class police constables.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has rather lost me. We are, I believe, discussing subsection (6)(a). My noble friend said that he was concerned that such people would be empowered to act when they were not on duty, which involves a restriction on time. The Minister said that the virtue of the provision was that it meant that such people would not be empowered to act when they were in a different place and he discussed the matter in relation to a particular estate. Which effect will the provision have?
Lord Rooker: I hope that my explanation was clear. I think it was. I fully accept the noble Lord's point. My notes on Amendments Nos. 197 and 199 include a section entitled, "Purpose and effect"—former Ministers will be aware of that. I sometimes use the section as a speaking note, although I was told off about that this morning. The first few words of that section state:
"Purpose of the amendments is not entirely clear".
Forecasting what is in noble Lords' minds is always part of the problem. The examples that I gave show that we want maximum flexibility but that we want the chief officer to be able to designate where necessary—to ring-fence, either in hours or in relation to a locality, such as an estate—and to use the CSOs in the best way possible. In my example, the investigating officer might well be designated for a period of time and all the functions could not be carried out unless they were under the direct supervision of someone else. Keeping such flexibility goes to the heart of the amendments. I have probably gone somewhat wider and responded to an amendment that was not tabled. That is because we were not clear what was in the noble Lord's mind.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Condon: The amendment would remove a time limitation—it would be a sensible time limitation. It seeks to make a clear distinction between the roles of police officers, specials and people designated under the new provisions. Police officers and, to some extent, special constabulary officers have a moral duty to intervene when off duty and on occasion a legal duty to intervene when off duty. That makes it clear that designated people would have no powers and no requirement to act. A sensible delineation is involved. We should make it clear from the start that such people
458
are different, have limited training powers and responsibilities and are not expected or allowed to use those powers when off duty.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and the Minister for their responses. I am afraid that we are turning the devaluation screw on those people, and I am sad about that.
I did not speak to Amendment No. 199. It involves another aspect of what I refer to as the confusion caused by drawing functions from baskets. The amendment would reduce that effect. I do not intend to say any more about it. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation although I am not wholly satisfied by it. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 198:
Page 32, line 25, leave out "his employment by a police authority" and insert "that employment"
On Question, amendment'agreed to.
[Amendment No. 199 not moved.]
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 200:
Page 32, line 29, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and my noble friend Lord Dholakia. We are concerned about the exercise of reasonable force. That might provoke as much as contain attacks on CSOs. I seek from the Minister the assurance that it is for the chief police officer in consultation with his police authority to decide whether the clause should be invoked. Are all CSOs going to have to have the power to use reasonable force, other than in cases involving self-defence, or can the power be invoked if they wish to invoke it? I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I can understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. We need to be clear about why we are extending the power to use reasonable force to civilians employed by the police authority and we need to be satisfied that we have sufficient safeguards in place.
I suppose that there will always be fears about the use of reasonable force by designated persons but I do not think that they are justified. In some ways, the amendment strikes at the heart of the whole of Clause 33. If we are serious about designating police employees who are not police constables to carry out their roles—of community support, investigating and detention and of being escort officers—it is important that we give them the necessary powers to perform their full role.
All of those types of police civilian have a need to use reasonable force in certain circumstances: to detain someone while awaiting the arrival of a constable, to prevent escapes or to search premises. To expect those civilian officers to carry out the important functions set out for them in the Bill without the sanction of using reasonable force would significantly undermine

459
their credibility and effectiveness. It would also mean that they would need to be shadowed by a police officer who would be able to use reasonable force if necessary so that the civilian could carry out his duties. That would somewhat undermine the whole purpose of the clause, which will enable civilians to carry out discrete areas of policing business so that police officers are freed up to get back on the beat. That is the purpose of the exercise.
As I said in debates on other amendments, there will be significant safeguards in place to ensure that designated persons use any powers granted to them appropriately. To begin with, they must be police authority employees. They will be under the direction and control of a chief officer and will be accountable to him. As I said, the chief officer is under a duty to ensure that such people are suitable to carry out the functions, that they are capable of doing so and that they are adequately trained. The chief officer can modify or withdraw the designation at any time, if necessary, They will also be subject to the independent police complaints commission, whose role will form part of their training. In addition, they will have regard to the relevant Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes of practice, which will also form a necessary part of their training. Their powers are extremely limited but, without the possibility of using reasonable force, those limited powers would be made a mockery of.
I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord. This is an extremely sensitive area. However, I do not believe that it is a question of our enabling the police to employ people who will misuse force. As I said, those people will be subject to the new complaints commission; they will be adequately trained; and they will be familiar with the powers that they have and will know how not to go beyond them.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the noble Lord sits down, surely there is a problem here. In our previous debate we agreed that the power to detain depends upon the terms of an individual officer's designation. Nevertheless, it is surely beyond argument that a police officer who is empowered to detain is empowered to use reasonable force. What is the position of a community support officer who has not, by the terms of his designation, been authorised to detain someone but who none the less, let us suppose, reads this clause or is instructed in it and recognises that a police constable is entitled to use reasonable force to detain? Where does he stand in those circumstances? Although his designation denies him the power to detain, the clause seems to confer it upon him. That is a muddle. I may be muddled myself but it is a muddle which the drafting gives rise to, and I believe that I am correct in that analysis. If that is the case, surely it cannot be right.
Lord Rooker: As ever, I am happy to have the drafting checked following what Members of the Committee have said. However, I have before me a comparison of community support officers and what I call the "extended police family"—the accredited people. A community support officer will have the
460
power to detain a person for up to 30 minutes, pending the arrival of a constable, or to accompany a person to a police station with that person's agreement. He will have the power to use reasonable force to detain a person or to prevent him from making off.
That power will have to be used very carefully in conformity with what I have already said, that is, the officer will be subject to not "over-doing it", according to the requirements of the police complaints commission and those of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. However, if the noble and learned Lord has detected what he considers to be a drafting error in subsection (7), I shall certainly have it looked at.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I wonder whether the Minister will look at this matter again. As I understand it, he said just now, in terms, that a community support officer will have the power to detain a person for up to 30 minutes until the police arrive. My reading of Schedule 4 is that he has no such power. Surely one cannot have a power to detain without having a power to arrest. The Minister has made clear that there is no intention of there being a power to arrest. But Schedule 4 does not say that he has a power to detain until a police officer arrives; it says that he can request a person to stay and, if he chooses not to do so, that choice is in itself an offence. With great respect, that is totally different from a power to detain.
I know that Part 2 of Schedule 4 is headed "Power to detain" but, unless I have completely misunderstood the purpose of the schedule, if the community officer sees someone whom he believes to have committed an offence, he has the right to ask for that person's name and address. If the person refuses, the community officer has the right to ask him to remain for up to 30 minutes until a police officer arrives or he may accompany him to the police station. The person in question is free to refuse to do either of those things but, in doing so, he will commit the offence of failing to comply with the request of the community support officer. With great respect, I believe that that is totally different from a power to detain, which must, of necessity, surely imply a power to arrest. One cannot detain a person unless one has already legally arrested him.
Lord Rooker: Until he reached his last few sentences, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, explained the matter correctly. But I believe that he is wrong in saying that the power to detain and the power to arrest are separate. I imagine that there will be arguments about this in future, although I hope that there will not necessarily be so. When does the 30-minute period start, for example? It will probably be at the point when a person decides not to co-operate with the community support officer, who will have asked the person either to supply a name and address or to wait until a police officer arrives.
Obviously the community support officer will be in touch with the police station by radio; it will not be done by semaphore. Therefore, if a person decides not to comply and looks as though he will make off, then, subject to the circumstances, the community support

461
officer will have the power to use reasonable force to stop him making off and to make him await the constable, who will have the power to arrest. The power to arrest does not lie with the community support officer.
Lord Bradshaw: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I come from a police authority which has never, for example, fired a firearm in anger; and it is a big police authority. I believe that some authorities may not want their community support officers to have such a power. I ask the Minister to consider making this not a mandatory power but a power with which the police authorities can accredit their officers if they wish.
Lord Elton: In furtherance of the point raised by my noble friend Lord Carlisle, subsection (7) gives the power to use force where it would be used by a police constable. But surely the police constable could not use it unless he had first arrested the person who was about to make off. I do not believe that that point has been answered.
Lord Rooker: According to my reading of the situation, I believe that that is wrong. The police constable will probably have the power to detain prior to making an arrest. I am sure that it is that way round. I shall take advice from my learned friends during the break, but I am fairly certain that I am right on that point.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make a suggestion which is generally intended to help. Is not the way out of this matter to confer always upon community support officers the power to detain? That is, in any case, what the public would expect. We have already established that they may not always have it because the designation may not specify that it shall apply. If everyone has it then we do not have the confusion to which I have drawn attention of a person not having a power to detain but, none the less, having the power to use reasonable force to stop a man running away. That is nonsense.
Lord Rooker: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has been extremely helpful, and I shall certainly consider that suggestion.
Lord Bradshaw: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 201:
Page 32, line 39, at end insert—
( ) In this Chapter—
"Director General" means —

(a) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service; or

462

(b) the Director General of the National Crime Squad; and

"Service Authority" means —

(a) in relation to employment with the National Criminal Intelligence Service and to its Director General, the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service; and

(b) in relation to employment with the National Crime Squad and to its Director General, the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad.".

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage resume not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2002
7.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may also be convenient if I speak to the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2002. I shall move both orders separately, and if noble Lords wish to speak just to one or the other, that is their entitlement.
As the House will be aware, the draft uprating order and the draft guaranteed minimum pensions order are an important part of DWP business. The uprating order will increase most benefits from April in the normal way in line with the RPI for national insurance benefits and the Rossi index for income-related benefits. For the 12 months ending in September, both of those price indicators were 1.7 per cent. The other order will increase guaranteed minimum pensions by 1.7 per cent in line with the RPI. However, as in every year since 1998, there are some benefits that we want to increase by more than inflation.
I deal first with carers and the disabled. We know that it is particularly hard for families on low incomes who are bringing up children with disabilities. Indeed, children with disabilities or children in families with a disabled person are some of the poorest children in the country. Again, we want to provide substantial extra help for disabled children. We are raising the disabled child premium to £035.50 per week, giving an additional £;p5 on top of normal uprating, which will benefit around 80,000 children in the neediest families.

463
We also want to help remove the barriers to work for people with severe disabilities and make sure that work pays. Two years ago we substantially increased maximum payments and earnings disregards in the Independent Living Fund. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Wilkins is not here. She was one of those who pressed that most urgently, and rightly so. We are abolishing the ILF earnings limits altogether, both for those severely disabled people and their partners. That will be worth an average £130 per week to those families. That means that there is now no disincentive to work for disabled people who are currently being supported in independent living by the Independent Living Fund. We shall also extend help to people with savings of up to £18,500 by increasing capital limits in relation to the fund. Since 1996–97, ILF provision has gone up from £109.6 million to the £150.5 million provided in 2001–02.
We have already announced a package of help for carers worth £500 million over three years. Carers will also benefit from the increase in the invalid care allowance earnings limit, which increases in line with the lower earnings limit. From next April, carers will be able to earn £75 per week after allowable expenses without their invalid care allowance being affected. Again, that is an encouragement to keep them in touch with the labour market. We know that the average period of caring is between two and three years.
We are doing more than ever to help families to balance their work and home lives. We are raising the standard rate of maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay from £62.20 to £75 per week. That will benefit around 340,000 families per year and is the largest weekly increase in the benefit since February 1958. I do not know what happened in January 1958 but I shall seek to find out. Additionally, the Sure Start maternity grant will rise from £300 to £500, giving a further substantial increase to mothers on low income when they most need it.
When we discussed that on an earlier occasion, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pressed me on what happened to those who failed to qualify. We were worried that they might slip through the net. I was able to reassure him. After a quick "tracker" exercise, we found that in the case of almost everyone who was refused the first time round, it was because, for example, they had applied too early, and they subsequently received the benefit. The increase to £500 at the point at which a pregnancy is confirmed is a key initiative in ensuring that children have the best chance of coming into a secure life.
Again, we want to do more for pensioners and give significant help to the elderly. That is an issue which has occupied your Lordships' House over the past few weeks. Measures in the order show our continuing commitment to tackle pensioner poverty and to ensure that our pensioners directly benefit from the growing prosperity of the country.
We shall, as promised, increase the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings to £98.15 for a single person and to just under £150, £149.80, for a couple. As a direct result of MIG, a single person will
464
be at least £15 per week better off and a pensioner couple £23 per week better off than I hey were in 1997. In conjunction with winter fuel payments and free TV licences, we see that a single pensioner is at least £18 per week better off and a pensioner couple will have gained more than £27 per week.
The pension credit, which we recently debated, will boost significantly the incomes of low income and modest income pensioners by directly rewarding their savings. As I have said on many occasions, a pensioner, possibly a widow, 'with a modest occupational pension of £100 per month at present sees no benefit from that because MIG is of sufficient decency to float them above it. In future under pension credit, a pensioner with an occupational pension of £100 per month will keep £60 of it and be £60 per month better off.
Between now and the introduction of the credit we shall continue to ensure that those on low and modest incomes can also share in our growing prosperity. The transitional arrangements introduced in last year's order and continued in the order that we shall debate tonight allow for that. We shall, as promised, increase the basic state pension by £3 to £75.50 per week for single pensioners and by £4.80 to £120.70 for couples. Widows' benefits and bereavement benefits will rise in line with the amount for single pensioners.
The state second pension being introduced this April will, as it builds up, give more help to those on lower earnings or with broken work records such as carers and disabled people and, above all, women with interrupted earnings, while those on moderate and higher incomes will be encouraged to save through occupational and other funded pensions. Stakeholder pensions will fill a gap for low cost and more portable pensions.
I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is in her place. As I announced in the debate following Third Reading of the State Pension Credit Bill, we have reviewed the rules governing the reduction in benefit when one of our clients goes into hospital. Alongside the introduction of the credit in April 2003, we shall ease the current rules so that relevant income maintenance benefits are no longer downrated—whether for pensioners or other clients on benefits--after recipients have been in hospital for six weeks. We have effectively doubled the six-week rule so that benefit will remain in payment in full for 13 weeks. As most hospital stays, including those of pensioners, are shorter than 13 weeks, I am happy to say that most people will not see a reduction in their weekly income. An estimated 26,000 of the 35,000 people who currently have their benefit reduced—that 26,000 includes 20,000 pensioners—will benefit at a cost of around £40 million per year. I well recall the warm welcome that was given to those proposals in the House.
To conclude, we are continuing to target more money on families and people with disabilities as well as continuing our action to tackle pensioner poverty and end child poverty. We are able to do that because of our success in building a strong economy and

465
reducing the costs of failure; that is the payment spent on unemployment benefit when people would rather be in work. We have seen the results. The latest figures show more people in work than ever before, with employment up by over 1.3 million since 1997. Unemployment remains at levels not seen since the 1970s. For example, when we came to office around 250,000 youngsters were unemployed. That is now down to around 32,000.
As I said, the latest figures show more people in work than ever before. Our fundamental overhaul is transforming the welfare system from a passive organisation paying out benefits to an active system which fights poverty, creates opportunity and helps people become self-sufficient and independent by helping those of working age into work.
A combination of the national minimum wage, which again largely benefits women, of tax credits, which largely benefit women, and changes to national insurance, including raising the point at which one pays national insurance while protecting one's benefit entitlement on the LEL, which again largely benefits women, as well as changes to the tax system, all ensure that work pays. The new deals make work possible and have so far helped well over 600,000 people into jobs. We are taking a single approach to work and benefits delivered through Jobcentre Plus. It will no longer be, "Here is the benefit office, a la 'The Full Monty', and there is the employment office". There will be an integrated service. We know that sometimes people move in and out of work. We want an integrated service so that we can offer help to everyone of working age for the first time. The measures we are taking all help to shift that culture.
We believe that this uprating order further delivers on our promises. Many points raised by your Lordships were aired at the time that the uprating statement was made. However, I shall do my best to follow up any of your Lordships' concerns during tonight's debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of a company pension fund.
Moving these Motions in another place, the Secretary of State began by saying:
"this year I am able to increase some benefits by more than the rate of inflation. We are able to do that because of our success in helping people into work".—(Official Report, Commons, 25/2/ 2002; col. 500.]
That was an unexpected remark by the Secretary of State. The implication would appear to be that if unemployment goes down, pension increases go up—not an argument normally deployed. It is true that both affect the National Insurance Fund but if that argument is made, what would happen if unemployment were to rise? Would pensions then go down? That seems an odd correlation to draw.
466
One problem has been the substantial fluctuation in the uprating of pensions. One year we saw the notorious 75p increase. The following year, ahead of a general election, there was suddenly a £5 increase. This year the increase is to be £3. If we understand the last Budget correctly, in future the increase will be no less than 2.5 per cent—but this year the figure is only 1.7 per cent.
We join in welcoming the various changes that the noble Baroness has announced, such as the ILF earnings limit, maternity benefits, support for children age two and three who are disabled, and earnings relief for the severely disabled. They are greater, as the noble Baroness rightly stressed, than the RPI increase. Benefits generally under the RPI and the Rossi index are 1.7 per cent. We need to put that in the context of the position generally with regard to pensions.
First, I want to comment on hospital downrating. On Third Reading of the State Pension Credit Bill on 25th February, there was widespread welcome in all parts of the House for the Government's proposal to extend from six weeks to 13 weeks the period before an individual's benefits are downrated. On that occasion the noble Baroness did not mention—neither did the Secretary of State in the other place—that change would not be happening until autumn 2003. Between now and then, people who are in hospital for more than six weeks will have their benefits down rated. It was a little ingenuous of the noble Baroness not to mention that point. Our welcome would clearly be more enthusiastic if that improvement were to take effect immediately.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is a little ungallant of the noble Lord. That whole debate took place in the context of the State Pension Credit Bill and the timing of that associated with hospital downrating. It never occurred to me that an announcement about what we were going to do on the State Pension Credit Bill and hospital downrating in that context in February would be assumed to be coming into effect six weeks later.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, when the noble Baroness replies, perhaps she will explain why it is necessary to delay the change until autumn 2003. It would be better if the change could be made before then. If there are good reasons for not doing so, we will consider them. In any event, people in hospital during the intervening period will not enjoy the benefit of the change until autumn 2003.
Other points raised during the downrating debate related to whether the figures were updated to allow for changes in circumstances. It is common ground in all parts of the House that household expenditure now is very different from when the system was originally introduced. The noble Baroness suggested that should raise that matter in this debate.
I looked for some clue in the orders. All I could find was the note from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which refers to Article 19 and Schedules

467
6 and 7, which set out the amount by which housing benefit entitlement is reduced for a period in hospital. I understand that those reductions will be increased between now and when the underlying change comes into effect, and then increased thereafter for people who are in hospital for more than 13 weeks. Why are those increases to take place?
We asked 10 days ago how up to date are the deductions now being made and which will continue to be made. I suggested that there ought to be regular updating, to take into account—as is done with the RPI—changes in household expenditure. When was the pattern of expenditure that is taken into account for the downrating rules last reviewed, revised and brought up to date? Perhaps the Minister could explain also why there does not appear to be any downrating change except in relation to council tax and housing benefit.
As to setting the upratings in the broader context of pensions provision, the Government hope that over time, the proportion of pensions met by funded schemes will increase to 60 per cent, with only 40 per cent from the state. The changes since 1997 give cause for concern. We—I refer to the usual suspects, who are in their places—spent many hours considering the stakeholder pensions Bill. That legislation, I say with regret, has proved disappointing inasmuch as many stakeholder pensions seem to be replacements for existing arrangements and many of the people entering into them are not those originally targeted.
Doubts are increasingly being expressed in the press about the state second pension, which we also spent several hours debating on a separate, large chunk of legislation. A leader in the .Financial Times on 4th March commented:
"The current plan for a combination of the two state pensions"
—that is, the basic state pension and the second state pension—
"is likely to provide only the rough equivalent of what the old basic state pension provided at its peak—a little above 20% of average earnings".
That will not be a helpful level of benefit on which to rely. The article goes on, predictably, to draw attention to the fact that anyway, the amounts are likely to be overtaken by the increase in the minimum income guarantee.
As we see more and more increases in means testing, can the Minister tell us what percentage of pensioners are now subject to means test and what forecasts have been made for 2010 and 2020? There are mounting concerns about the matter. Reports have been produced by the Institute of Fiscal Studies suggesting that someone retiring in 2050 will need a pension pot of some £100,000 just to buy an annuity equal to the minimum income guarantee; in short, a pensioner will get nothing for the fact that he has accumulated that pot. The institute also found that MIG is unambiguously discouraging savings. Again, against the background of these orders, the declining savings ratio that more than halved between the third quarter of 1997 to the third quarter of 2001 is worrying. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us what is the savings ratio at present.
468
The other general points in this context relate to the fact that we are really concerned with inter-generational transfers. That is a crucial point. The more one looks at the way in which things are developing, the more one begins to wonder whether the pay-as-you-go system, with all the changes that appear fairly predictable now, will be met in reality when, in political terms, claims are made. That is particularly so if the present generation does not make adequate provision for its own retirement in due course. We do not have any figure for the present value of future pension payments. I tried to get this established when we discussed the government accountancy legislation sonic two years ago.
I believe it is right to say that, at long last, it appears that the Government will shortly be responding to the Sharman report on these matters. As regards the state system, can the Minister say whether that report will give us an idea of what the overall situation is likely to be with regard to those future pension liabilities'? Clearly it is a massive figure. Can the noble Baroness give us the figure on the government balance sheet that will show the present value of future pension liabilities? At present the Government do not produce such a figure—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can help me a little. I do not actually understand his question. Is he referring to the liability to state public revenues to be financed by taxpayers, is he referring to the savings ratio to be held b) individual people through money purchase schemes or is he talking about the cumulative sum—the £600 billion or the £900 billion—that are currently in private funds? Alternatively, is he talking about the percentage of GDP compared to Italy, Denmark or Belgium? I should be happy to give him those figures.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the short answer to that multiple choice of questions is that I was referring to none of those figures. In the national accounts and on the national balance sheet that we now have, I was suggesting that we ought to have a figure for the present value of the Government's future pension liabilities.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean FRS17?
Lord Higgins: No, my Lords; it is nothing to do with FRS17. I shall repeat what I said. I have in mind the discounted value of future pension liabilities. Clearly that is a liability on the Government's balance sheet but at present we have no information in that respect.
I have spoken for much longer than I intended, but perhaps I may say a few words about occupational pensions. This matter has suddenly become headline news. Attention has been drawn to the problems faced by occupational pension schemes, which the Government say that they are anxious to foster, as far as concerns the decline in the stock market and longer life expectancy. In addition, there was the Chancellor's action on advance corporation tax back in l997–98.

469
As the Minister will know, concerns have also been expressed on the subject of FRS17. Perhaps I may spend a few moments on the issue. I understand that the Secretary of State held consultations a few days ago on the subject. If we are to achieve the Government's objective of a high percentage of funded pensions, it is important for us to encourage occupational schemes as far as we can. The move from final salary schemes to defined contribution schemes is of concern. The argument is that the FRS17 proposal merely anticipates the European standard that will be introduced. I find that surprising. We well know that the amount in UK pension funds is more than the pension funds in the whole of the rest of the European Union. So the idea that they would have a tougher standard than ours seems rather surprising.
In that context, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether she thinks that the European standard, which is supposed to be developed in the next few years, will actually be tougher than the proposals in FRS17. It is very worrying that so many company schemes have tended to change from a defined benefit scheme to a defined contribution scheme, most notably yesterday with Marks and Spencer, which has an enormous reputation for being good as regards pension provision. If no comments are made in this respect, I am worried that there will be something of a fashionable, or panic, reaction to change in a way that will seriously affect the pensions of everyone in the country for many years to come. It will place an increasing burden on the items that are dealt with in this uprating order and on the requirement of the state to make provision instead, when it would be much better dealt with on a funded basis.
I have no particular points to make on the second order. However, its Explanatory Memorandum states:
"This Order does not impose any new costs on business".
I am not entirely clear as to why that is so. If there is to be an increase of£1.7 per cent on the minimum pension requirement, I do not understand how there can be no extra cost to business. Perhaps the Minister can explain.
The issues before us are fashionable and extremely important. If we are to appraise them correctly, the orders under discussion need to be put in that broader context.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the Minister for making available to us the Explanatory Memorandum provided for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. While I am on the subject, I should also like to thank the Minister for the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the affirmative instrument under the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, which is a welcome innovation. It is the sort of document that comes out of a well-run department.
On hospital downrating, I wish to join my noble friend Lady Barker in the welcome that she warmly extended to it on the previous occasion. I take the Minister's point about the commencement date of the
470
Act. However, our amendment contained no proposal to change that date. I do not know whether the Minister was aware at that time of the outturn of the National Insurance Fund for the year just completed, but I certainly was not aware of it. That outturn shows an excess over the Government Actuary's forecast of 2.5 billion in one year, which is a fair amount of money. It is a situation in which the Government could afford, if they chose ex gratia, to have anticipated the date contained in the legislation. I share the regret of my honourable friend Mr Webb that they did not choose to do so. However, that does not in any way diminish my gratitude for what they have done about the downrating from 2003.
On FRS 17, I must declare an interest as one who is due to retire within the year on a final salary scheme. For that reason I shall say only that I very much share the curiosity of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about what exactly is going on and why. If the Minister is able to enlighten us further on that subject, I shall be grateful.
One omission from this uprating statement—I know that it is not normally uprated but it might be a good idea if it were included in mandatory uprating—is the Government's winter fuel payments. It is not my business to teach the Government how to win votes, but I can tell them in retrospect that in the Romsey by-election the winter fuel payment, rather than an increase in the basic pension, would have shifted far fewer votes out of the Government's column if it had been covered by mandatory uprating, as is the basic pension. It is a point that I had made to me on the doorstep on a large number of occasions. It is one that the Government might have found worth listening to.
I must on the other hand welcome the increase in the statutory maternity payments above inflation and the increase in the earnings limits of the ILA. I am sorry though that nothing is done to narrow the gap between the levels of income support for the over and the under 25s. Of course a long succession of percentage changes has the effect of making the numerical gap even wider than it was before. That is a matter which I must confess I regret.
By general convention, this debate is treated as an opportunity for a general discussion of the state of the field of social security. I have decided that I shall not do it that way this time. The Minister knows my general views about the Government's basic principles and approach to social security. I know her views on those views. In fact, I reckon that we could both repeat that debate in our sleep. So I shall not do it, except to refer to a small amount of new material that has become available since last we discussed the matter.
One is always tempted, in going over orders such as this, to pick out some often unexpected fact and demand an explanation of it—for example, the cases where the invalid care allowance is arranged by the Secretary of State to be paid on a Wednesday. I shall not do that because, as the Minister illustrated just now, she is perfectly capable of dealing with any such queries. In the memorable words of Dame Helen Gardiner in the Lady Chatterley trial:
"You wouldn't want me to explain that. I could".

471
So I have decided not to go down that road either.
However, I want to raise the question of the National Audit Office report on the New Deal for Young People. I was a little disconcerned to hear the Minister repeat, yet again, that over 200,000 people had found work because of the New Deal. The National Audit Office, in paragraph 8 of the report, states:
"But the economic impact of the programme cannot be measured simply in terms of the number of young people placed into jobs. For example, many of them would have found a job anyway because of natural labour market turnover and the general expansion of the economy".
Its estimate is that in the first two years of the programme's operation, the deal reduced youth unemployment by 35,000 and increased youth employment by 15,000.
Any increase is welcome. But these are figures of a very different order from the ones which the Government have been quoting and from the one the Minister quoted tonight. I should be glad to know whether the discrepancy is because the Government have not yet taken the report on board or because they disagree with the report. If they disagree with the report, for precisely what reason do they?
The report also draws attention—as my party has done for quite a long time—to the number of people leaving the New Deal to no known destination. It says that it is about a further 30 per cent of leavers from the programme.
The Minister will undoubtedly reply with the information which the report has at paragraph 2.13. It states:
"Research commissioned by the Employment Service suggests that 56 per cent of these people had in fact entered employment, including sustained employment".
That is a very guardedly worded paragraph, is it not? "Research suggests that" is a formula which, when I employ it, indicates a very low degree of certainty about the point I am discussing. The reference to "employment, including sustained employment" would be satisfied if only I per cent of it were sustained. Indeed, it would if only 0.1 per cent of it were sustained.
I should like to know more about the research which is there referred to. I appreciate that I have not given the Minister notice of this point and she will not have it at her fingertips tonight; although one never knows with the Minister, she always might. But if on some occasion or other I were able to see some of this research and see what it contains I should be extremely interested.
That raises the more general question of whether the Government have placed comparatively too much emphasis on the New Deal and too little on the job of sustaining benefit levels. The campaign for food poverty is coming up with fairly considerable bodies of evidence of people who are actually short of food. Malnutrition among those admitted to hospital has been a matter of general concern since the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was Minister. It remains so.
472
One should also take account of the fact that in purchase of food many people on benefit are paying prices which are greater than the indices would indicate; especially those who are not able to walk to the nearest supermarket and do not possess a car. The cost of food to those who do not possess a car is, in real terms, a good deal higher than the cost of food to those who do. If one lives either in remote rural Wales or on the 21st floor of a council flat where the lifts have been out of action for six weeks—that is an actual example from the ward next door to my own—then one's shopping is very much restricted to what is in the immediate neighbourhood.
Deterioration of health as a result of malnutrition does not increase employablity. We do not have any research on minimum income levels necessary to sustain good health. My party has called for such research on many occasions. I should like to take this as one more occasion on which to do so.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, first. I express my thanks to the Minister for her announcement in response to my amendment to the State Pension Credit Bill about the hospital downrating rule. I am sorry that I was not able to be in the House last week to hear the announcement.
Obviously, it was high time that that rule was reviewed. It had been in existence for 54 years without any real change. Thirteen weeks is a much better cut off point than six weeks. Obviously, my former colleagues at Age Concern will be looking carefully at the operation of the rule on those still affected and would have much preferred a cut off at 26 weeks or six months rather than 13 weeks. But I am pleased that only 9,000 people will now be affected. I share many of the other concerns eloquently expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord. Lord Higgins.
I want only to mention a couple of points. As to when the change is introduced in autumn of 2003, while understanding absolutely the reasons for that. as explained by the Minister, we have to remember that if one is very old, then time is of the essence. That is quite a long time to wait. The Government have said on many occasions that they are firmly committed to the state pension forming the foundation of pensioner incomes. I am pleased that it will be increased above inflation this year. But people now need and demand a lot of information that they have not yet received. It would be most helpful if, through research, we had a real estimate of pensioners' budget needs. We have never really had that; we have had to depend on the voluntary sector to make the sort of estimates that the family expenditure survey—the shopping basket assessment of need—does not achieve for older people, whose priorities are quite different from those of families with young children. I wish that we had a pensioners' budget assessment every year, which would give us a good indication of what is needed.
Turning to other issues, I very much welcome the improvements to maternity benefit and the incomes of people trying hard to balance family life and work. Those employers that are family friendly need encouragement. That is an important step in our

473
changing society. Our ageing demography does not mean that those with families and young people are unaffected. I very much welcome efforts to tackle child poverty and discrimination against people with disabilities, especially disabled children, and to help those families included in the Sure Start initiative, to which I am personally committed.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer your Lordships' questions. If there are questions that I am unable to answer because of a lack of precise information or that I simply overlook, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me and I shall certainly do my best to respond in writing.
I turn first to the comments, questions, propositions, assertions or, on a good day, statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He began by asking whether, because we were stating that as unemployment was down, pensions were going up, the reverse was also the case. In other words, were the two tied? He knows perfectly well that that is not the case. State pensions are paid from general taxation, although attributed to the National Insurance Fund, on a pay-as-you-go system, as are unemployment payments.
The substantive point being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—certainly the point that I would wish to make—is that it is precisely the prudent management of the economy—I know that the noble Lord will wince at those words—and the resulting reduction in unemployment that allows us to ensure that pensioner incomes, including state provision of pensions incomes, have since 1997 not merely increased by inflation but have kept pace with the overall incomes and earnings in this country, which of course have increased in excess of the retail prices index. Whether the noble Lord chooses to track that in the statistics for households with below average incomes, or whatever, I am sure that he will accept my assertion. That is the point: there is head space, given growth, for the Government to be more generous in a redistributive sense than might otherwise have been the case.
I turn to the noble Lord's second point about hospital downrating. I was delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, present to welcome the orders. I apologise if any noble Lord misunderstood anything about the timing. The reason for the timing is that it is associated with the introduction of pension credit and the information technology systems being developed for that. Therefore, the change from the six-week to the 13-week rule will be part of that package. Noble Lords will recall that we started by talking about the savings element of pension credit being protected from hospital downrating. That was in the original IT package. That was extended according to the timetable; that is why it is associated with the October introduction.
The noble Lord asked me whether the elements within that were reviewed in uprating terms. The process is not like a family budget assessment. We do
474
not work out individual lines. Pensioners, or anyone else in hospital, will have very different patterns of expenditure according to their housing situation, whether they run a car, what are their month-by-month overheads, and the like.
We have never tied hospital downrating to explicit expenditure. As the noble Lord will know, as a general principle we have said that we do not believe that the state should be paying twice for the same contingency. We therefore currently introduce a modest reduction after six weeks, but in future it will be after 13 weeks, and a much fuller reduction after 52 weeks. As far as I am aware, the percentage reduction has remained fairly constant over the years, including under the previous administration. But I will check to see whether it has changed considerably. It is a percentage reduction, which therefore varies according to the total level of retirement pension. If retirement pension changes, so must the amount being deducted from it.
That has never been attached to individual assessments of income. There may at some point be a statement to be made; there may be a change in policy on capital limits, or whatever. But that has never been done in the way that the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, why is it necessary to link the rule on downrating to the pension credit Bill? Why cannot that be done in some other way? Of course, that Bill is now going to another place, so it can be amended if need be. On the Minister's point about uprating, surely the amount deducted to avoid double counting ought to bear some relationship to the amount of money that the person is alleged to have saved as a result of going into hospital. Some estimate must be made of that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, there was an initial calculation that has been sustained. I am puzzled by that point because most government upratings, whether of capital limits or whatever, are not calculated on a family budget unit assessment; they never have been. They are a determination by a government as to what they believe to be appropriate, given the information that they have and extrapolation from past patterns. This instance is no different. As far as I am aware, the percentage reduction has remained broadly in line for many years. A future government may consider that a different percentage should be deducted, but this is not an item that is attached to a bundle of goods. As far as I am aware, it never has been.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister realises what a big gate she has opened by saying that the doctrine of double provision is not attached to actual cost. Has she made it as abstract as the Trinitarian doctrine of the double procession, which finally divided the Greek and Latin churches?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords, I must say that that comparison had not occurred to me. My point is that the doctrine of double provision means that if, for example, someone has been caring for an

475
invalid son, is married and in receipt of invalid care allowance and then becomes a widow, she does not receive double provision—both the widow's benefit and the ICA—even though her pattern of expenditure, given her son's disability, may be very different indeed, on a bundle of goods assessment, from that of someone else in a similar position. No one in receipt of carer's allowance is assessed for how much carer's allowance they should receive according to housing costs, heating costs and so on. They receive a determinate sum.
The noble Earl may call it arbitrary, but that has been the policy of all governments. They determine the amount that they think appropriate and that is what they pay. Occasionally, it may be revisited—in terms of capital limits, every five years or so. Basic income levels may be linked to RPI but that is the determination. That is no different in this case from any other area of government policy. I am surprised that the noble Earl is pressing me on that. The RPI goes up, the proportion taken for hospital downrating remains the same, therefore the relationship between the two figures continues. I am puzzled that the noble Earl should think that it should be based on anything else. If it were to be based on individual cost assessment, every pensioner would have to be individually means-tested to assess what were their expenditure patterns. I cannot believe that the noble Earl wants to go that way, especially given his remarks on means testing.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins then spoke about stakeholder pensions. He regards them as having failed to make an impact. About 700,000 have now been sold and about 85 per cent of all employers—the key test is whether it is meeting the employment gap rather than, as the noble Lord rightly said, being recycled to help others, although that is not necessarily a bad thing—are now complying by making available stakeholder pensions. It will take time to build. Some stakeholder pensions are being bought for nonworking people, including children and non-working spouses, but that is not a bad thing either, given the resources that people will need to build up a secure retirement.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, the Minister did not respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the relationship of hospital downrating payment to pension credit. I would like to follow that up.
The Minister talked about the introduction of computer systems and the fact that it would take 18 months to change the computer system for pension credit. I am sure that that is right, but there must be existing computer systems for calculation of hospital downrating. Why can they not take on board a simple change?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I repeat: the Government will not introduce the downrating ahead of the proposed time. The fact that the noble Baroness may wish to see it is not on the Government's agenda. It was not part of the original statement last
476
November; it has come about as a result of representations and the development of the Government's thinking.
As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, the Bill must still go through Parliament, and I would have thought that most people would recognise that, with such major changes, there is normally at least 12 months' play before the changes are introduced. It is no different, in that sense, from the usual advance notice of what we propose to do. That is a reasonable policy, and it is intrinsically connected with the developments in pension credit, particularly because the savings element of pension credit is protected. It seems sensible to brigade the changes that will result in that process. At the moment, the hospital downrating administration costs are something like £4 million to £5 million a year. That software will have to be rewritten and reworked. It is reasonable that it should be associated with the development of the pension service and the introduction of pension credit.
I cannot recall in my time in government and opposition any significant change of that sort that did not have a run-in period of 12 months or so. I am surprised that your Lordships think that it will be introduced in the next three weeks or so.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, talked about stakeholders and the state second pension. He thought that that might also be redundant. I think that the Financial Times may have understood; I am not sure whether the noble Lord quoted it inaccurately or whether the paper itself had misunderstood the nature of the S2P. As the noble Lord will know, the state second pension allows carers on incomes below £10,000 a year, as well as disabled people, to get a pension that, for a carer, would be worth about £40, after 40 years' caring. What is more—this is the misunderstanding about the connection with MIG— with pension credit, for someone who has been contributing to such a pension as a low earner, it will be wrapped around in the pension credit formula, so that they will be a gainer. That is perhaps what the Financial Times has misunderstood.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pressed me on means testing, as he often does. I simply do not accept that vocabulary. With the pension credit people will receive a review every five years to map their income and give them a reliable means of financial support for the next five years, under which they can plan their lives. Incidentally, that mapping disregards all sorts of modest extraneous moneys such as voluntary and charitable contributions. That cannot be called means testing. It is far less a means testing system than any taxation system, and I do not think that it helps to encourage pensioners to think of it as an entitlement— the words that the noble Baroness, Lads Barker, rightly used—to keep labelling it as means testing. If there are ways of further reducing intrusion, I am sure that the pension service will do so. A five-year assessment of income, based on a telephone service., in which we help somebody to fill in the forms so that they will have a reliable income seems far removed from the 1930s concept of means testing, which is too easily bandied around in the House.

477
I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the future discounted liabilities of pension funds. I need to read his words carefully and make sure that I understand him. I have had four goes; perhaps I will get it right on the fifth.
I share the noble Lord's concern about FRS17. We should not impose a standard that could be tougher than international standards. As the noble Lord recognised, the Secretary of State has discussed the matter with the independent Accounting Standards Board—not a government body—and has made the same points as the noble Lord made tonight. The standard in the UK is different from the international accounting standard, and that allows for more of a smoothing effect.
Having said that, I think that it would he wrong to blame FRS17 for what has happened in the move from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes. I was shocked to realise that the amount of money that had not gone into pension schemes because during the 1990s employers could, perfectly legally, take pension holidays is £11.5 billion. From the report on the funding of defined benefit schemes, it would seem that employers seemed willing to sign up to defined benefit schemes when they did not have to pay for them. As soon as they were expected to deliver on their pensions promise, they opted out of defined benefit schemes and hastened into defined contribution schemes, whereupon they halved, on average, the employer's contribution. That is the problem.
I had some work done on the matter in case I had misunderstood the statistics, and it was clear that, if employers and employees on average salaries continued to contribute to defined contribution schemes in the same proportion as for defined benefit schemes, the outcome over a long enough period should be the same. For example, we estimated that, for someone with an income of £300 a week, 10 per cent contributions between employer and employee would produce a pension of £100 a week. If the contributions were 15 per cent, they would get a pension of £150 a week over a 35-year saving period.
The difference in value between a DB and a DC scheme hinges almost entirely on the willingness of employers to maintain the same level of contribution. I fear that they will not, because that has been the basic reason why they have left the schemes, but if they did, the outcome over a period of time should be broadly similar. The defined contribution can have other advantages, including portability and transferability. The answer is to try to ensure that employers observe their pension promise, even though the format of the pension will have changed.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked why we were not uprating winter fuel payments. Given that in 1997 they were £20, they would be about £27 now had we uprated them. In fact, they are £200. It is a little churlish to accuse us of not having uprated them when we have increased them from £20 to £200.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I took some care to work my remarks in order to avoid that particular reply. I
478
asked the Minister why she had not included the principle of statutory uprating. I was well aware of that increase and of its generosity, as were the pensioners with whom I talked. However, they were also aware that the statutory principle which would continue it in future had not been laid down. That point remains.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the pensioners who made those remarks to the noble Earl were rather churlish. They have seen increases of £50 from a base of £150 in the past year or so. If their notion of uprating is to increase that sum by £50 each year, it is unreasonable. The Government have never laid it down that that or other sorts of payments should be RPI-ed. Had it been RPI-ed back in 1997, pensioners would have been so much the poorer.
The final major point made tonight was about the new deals. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me about the research behind the NAO report. NAO reports are published as agreed reports. A formal government response will be published following the PAC report later in the year. Looking at the report by the Industrial Society and some of the policy studies that have come out, as well as the NAO report, I think that it is worth emphasising that several hundred thousand youngsters have gone through the New Deal. Obviously and inevitably there will be dead weight. It is an ugly phrase, but there will be. Many young people would have got jobs anyway, but we do not know in advance who will get the jobs without our help and who needs our help, without which they will not get the job. If the noble Lord has a formula for that, that would be helpful: we could target it. The evidence shows the value of the New Deal even to those youngsters who might well have got jobs without the New Deal.
Before I finish I shall give some statistics. Already the value to the social economy is in the region of £500 million for the £140 million that we have expended. It is clear that three-quarters of the youngsters have gone into sustained jobs. Those who have become unemployed have gone into proper jobs much more quickly than they would otherwise compared to those who have not gone through the New Deal. We also know that the net hourly wages when those youngsters have come off the New Deal has increased by an average of 20 per cent; and that whereas in 1997 200,000 young people had been unemployed for more than six months, the figure is now down to 39,000. A major component of that has been the New Deal.
I have dealt with most of the questions. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, queried the failure of benefit levels to be associated with the equivalent of family budget unit and real cost of living assessments. I mentioned on a previous occasion my delight that, for example, a lone parent with two children is already receiving a level of benefit which at least matches—and in some cases even exceeds—the estimated figures that the research bodies were putting forward as a minimum acceptable income.

479
More to the point, the noble Earl knows, as I know, that those lone parents and their children will be lifted out of inter-generational poverty only by being encouraged into work. The New Deal for lone parents—200,000 lone parents have come through and the vast majority have gone into work—means that a lone parent with children on a minimum wage of £4.10 per hour, working 16 hours per week, will actually get paid a wage equivalent to about £12 per hour. A lone parent gets paid a man's wage by virtue of the combination of the New Deal, the minimum wage and the tax credits. That is what will lift her and her children out of poverty for the future. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2002
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
8.33 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may clarify the end of our previous debate on Clause 33(7). In order to avoid wasting time at Report stage it would be for everyone's convenience if I could briefly outline the position having now taken advice. There was confusion and I was partly responsible for it.
Clause 33(7) has the effect that where an existing police power is conferred on a designated person which comes with a power to use reasonable force when it is exercised by a constable, the designated person will also receive a power to use reasonable force. For example, if the power under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to take fingerprints or to conduct a search is conferred on a designated person, that person will have a power to use reasonable force in that existing power.
It will be up to the chief officer whether those powers are conferred. If they are, the civilian will have the power to use reasonable force, if necessary. That is only sensible as they would otherwise commit an assault on a detainee if consent to having fingerprints taken or being searched was not given or was withdrawn. However, Clause 33(7) does not confer an automatic right to use reasonable force in connection with the powers in Schedule 4, which are not existing police powers but which are readily crafted for civilians.
480
This includes the power to detain while waiting for a police officer, which is available to community support officers under Schedule 4(2). The power to detain will be available only if the chief officer decides that it should be. The power to use reasonable force to enforce that detention under Schedule 4(4) will also be available only if the chief officer decides that it should be. I hope that that clarifies the situation.
Lord Marlesford: Is it in order to ask the Minister a question on that statement?
Noble Lords: No!
Schedule 4 [Powers exercisable by police civilians]:
[Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 204:
Page 110, leave out lines 26 to 29.
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his explanation of a matter that is not dealt with on the Marshalled List. I will study it, as I believe will everyone here. I envisage some poor community support officer having to explain the situation when he tries to do something on the street.
Amendment No. 204 introduces a serious question because it seems to call into question what is the nature of an offence. The Bill, as drafted, at paragraph 2(6)(b) on page 110 states that it is,
"an offence the commission of which appears to that person to have caused … injury, alarm or distress to any other person; or — the loss of, or any damage to, any other person's property; but a designation applying this paragraph to any person may provide that an offence is not to be treated as a relevant offence by virtue of paragraph (b) unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the designation".
If one tries to abbreviate that, what it says is that an offence is not an offence unless it is designated as one. I find that a rather convoluted way of drafting legislation and cannot resist asking the Government precisely what it means. This is a probing amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I shall do my best to put this on the record. It is a problem when one amendment in a group is moved because my notes are necessarily comprehensive for all the amendments. While I shall speak to Amendment No. 204, some of the preceding paragraphs which I am not going to use may have been relevant.
As far as concerns Amendment No. 204 the Government believe that they must retain local flexibility. The ability to treat an offence as a relevant one, subject to conditions specified in the community support officer's designation, is part of that flexibility. For example, the conditions may limit relevant offences to those offences witnessed by the community support officer or exclude certain offences or categories of offence.
The Metropolitan Police have argued strongly for provision to be made for community support officers to exercise a range of powers, including the power to detain and, where necessary, use reasonable force if

481
they are to be effective in dealing with low level disorder. That role will be enhanced if community support officers are able to act in support of the police.
Furthermore, community support officers can also operate as professional witnesses in certain cases. I hope that those paragraphs will satisfy the noble Lord. If not, I shall write to him unless he wishes to return to this at a later stage.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I did not understand the original paragraph and I am not entirely sure that I have understood his response. However, I shall study it and seek further advice sufficient to make the position plain. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 205 to 216 not moved.]
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 217:
Page 118, line 14, leave out paragraph 24.
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 24 on page 118 of the Bill relates to intimate body searches. We are concerned that intimate searches may be carried out by community support officers. We believe that that goes rather too far. If someone needs to undergo an intimate search, then that person should be taken to the police station and the search should be carried out by a police officer and should, of course, be subject to all the safeguards that such a search would normally require. For example, an intimate search would not be undertaken in the street.
We think that paragraph 24 of Schedule 4 should be left out. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can safely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that this is a highly sensitive issue. I welcome the opportunity to explain the thinking behind this part of the Bill and the safeguards that are already in place.
When colleagues, fellow Ministers and I visit police forces and have discussions with police officers, we are often told of their frustrations about spending so much time inside the police station rather than out on the beat. As we have explained many times before, this part of the Bill seeks to change that so that suitably qualified civilians can perform some of the functions and duties, thus allowing officers to do what they should be doing; that is, working in the community.
There is no point in having civilian detention officers if we then give them only limited powers so that they cannot perform the full range of duties necessary. This would require a police officer to stay behind to carry out functions such as intimate searching or administering warnings about the use of samples.
We share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord that there must be safeguards, but I think that they are already in place. Detention officers will be employed
482
by the police authority and will be under the careful direction and control of the chief officer—in the same way as police officers are. They will be accountable to the chief officer and subject to proper disciplinary and complaints procedures. I believe that we have made that plain in previous debates. Perhaps most important, the significant safeguards set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the corresponding PACE code of practice will continue to apply.
It may help if I explain to noble Lords the effect of Section 55 of PACE, which provides that an officer of at least the rank of superintendent may authorise an intimate search only where he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that someone who has been arrested and is in police detention may have concealed on him something which could be used to cause physical injury to himself or others and which he might use while he is in police detention or in the custody of a court; or that such a person may have concealed on him a class A drug and was in possession of it with the appropriate criminal intent before arrest.
In either case, an intimate search can be authorised only where the authorising officer reasonably believes that the concealed item cannot be found without an intimate search taking place. Section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which is not yet in force, lowers the rank of officer who can authorise an intimate search from superintendent to inspector. However, this change in rank of authorising officer does not affect the circumstances in which these searches are carried out.
Currently, PACE and Code of Practice C provide other safeguards, which will apply to detention officers. For example, the reasons why an intimate search is considered necessary shall be explained to the person before the search takes place. An intimate search for drugs may only be carried out on medical premises by a registered doctor or nurse. Whenever an intimate search is carried out, the custody record must state which parts of the body were searched and why they were searched. All of those points must be made plain.
An intimate search for other harmful articles may only be carried out at a police station or medical premises by a registered doctor or nurse unless the superintendent considers that this is impracticable. In such a case, the intimate search will be carried out by a constable or, with the passage of this schedule, a police-employed detention officer.
PACE and Code of Practice C provide additional safeguards in these circumstances which will apply to a detention officer. For example, a constable may not carry out an intimate search of a person of the opposite sex. Where an intimate search is carried out by a constable, the reason why it was impracticable for a medically qualified person to conduct it must be recorded. This will apply where detention officers are authorised to carry out a search.

483
In practice, the circumstances in which a superintendent needs to authorise an intimate search of a person by a constable or, in the case of this Bill, a detention officer, are very rare. Such a situation might arise where, for example, a superintendent reasonably suspects that a person has concealed a harmful article on himself, such as a razor blade or a knife, and no doctor or nurse is available to conduct an intimate search.
Code of Practice C which contains guidance on the conduct of intimate searches is currently under review as part of the general review that we are undertaking of all codes of practice. We are including clearer guidance for inspectors on exercising discretion in cases where a doctor or nurse is not available to conduct an intimate search.
PACE and the code of practice have provided very adequate protections for the past 17 or 18 years. They have proved themselves and, through being subject to constant updating, they are robust and have withstood the test of time, as they were intended to do. We think that the significant safeguards that have been built in will not in any way be eroded by the introduction of this schedule. Any intimate search undertaken by those designated under this schedule will be made only with the authorisation of a senior police officer and will be in limited and controlled circumstances.
For all those quite proper reasons, we feel that we must resist the amendment. While I understand why the amendment has been tabled, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Elton: In order to clarify the background to this point, am I right in assuming that the effect of Clause 33(6), which we discussed before breaking for dinner, is that detention officers will only act as detention officers inside a police station. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned that such searches should not be undertaken on the street, but as I understand it, they would not be empowered to act on the street.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I cannot believe that the noble Lord is anything other than correct. However, he should be assured that if there is any variation on that, the noble Lord will be told very promptly.
Lord Bradshaw: Before withdrawing the amendment, I should like to ask the Minister to look at this again. I stand corrected; this can only be done by detention officers. However, the people who are going to be employed as detention officers—in fact, they are already employed as detention officers in West Mercia, for example—are not employees of the police authority. They are people who work under contract for companies such as Group 4 or Premier Prisons, who provide a detention service for the police authority in their custody suites. Thus the detention officers are not police authority employees. Can I take it that they would not be allowed to carry out such searches?
Lord Rooker: I refer again to the first line of Clause 33:
"The chief officer of police of any police force may designate any person who—

(a) is employed by the police authority maintaining that force, and

(b) is under the direction and control of that chief officer".

I take that to mean police authority employees.
Lord Bradshaw: But they are employees of Group 4, or whoever employs them, and they are under contract to the police authority. It would need a watertight contract if such people were involved in intimate searches. The contract would have to cover both the PACE and discipline requirements for such people in all respects.
This is a difficult area. I shall reflect on what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, to be crystal clear, there is no question of intimate searches being carried out in the street. I want to put that on the record. The power under PACE which can be conferred can be carried out only in a police station or a hospital. It is not a power which can be conferred on community support officers.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that detention officers can exercise powers only in police stations. I hope that that is crystal clear.
Lord Tope: I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance, but between now and the next stage will he look at the question of employees of police authorities only? The reason I ask is that in the Met—and I am sure this is happening in other parts of the country—we have a PFI scheme to build three new police stations in south London. As part of that PFI scheme, a number of the employees—and, frankly, I cannot remember whether they include the detention officer but I think they do—will be employees of the company in the PFI deal. I am not clear of my facts, but, under such circumstances—this is not the only such deal and will not be the only such deal in the years to come—is that actually the case? Perhaps the Minister will look at this issue and advise us on it outside the Chamber.
Lord Rooker: We shall look at the issue. But Clause 33 is entitled,
"Police powers for police authority employees".
I am not a lawyer, but an employee is an employee, not a contractor or a sub-contractor. People working for contractors would be the employees of someone else, not the police authority. Part of the whole reassurance in Clause 33 is that the people concerned are employees of the police authority under the direct, specific employer control of the chief constable
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 219:
Page 121, line 33, at end insert "; and
( ) in relation to designation under section 33 by a Director General, means England and Wales."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Community safety accreditation schemes]:
[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 221:
Page 32, line 43, leave out "for the exercise"
The noble Lord said: I hope that the purpose of this group of amendments is self-evident. They seek to remove from the Bill the proposals for accredited persons to exercise police powers, however limited. We are not absolutely convinced that there is any need for such persons to exercise police powers.
I am sure that the Committee is aware of many active neighbourhood and street warden schemes. They are extremely popular with local communities and there are many local initiatives. At present, such schemes do not have any police powers but the clause suggests that they should have. I should stress that many communities—and I speak for a large number of them in the APA—want to see their local wardens left as they are and not to exercise police powers. But as long as the powers in the Bill are permissive and can be adopted if communities want to adopt them, we are content to let the matter rest there. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I take it from the noble Lord's concluding remarks that he understands the significance of the amendments. They would undermine the effectiveness of the community safety accreditation schemes. Clauses 34 and 35 and Schedule 5, which these amendments seek to remove or seriously weaken, set out the powers which chief officers can give to members of accreditation schemes. That meets the noble Lord's final point because it is still enabling—in other words, there is a degree of discretion on the part of the chief officer.
A wide range of organisations and their staff already contribute to community safety. One of the key objectives of this part of the Bill is to harness the energy and commitment of neighbourhood and street wardens, shopping centre security staff and many others—this is where we have talked about the park keepers—who make a direct and crucial contribution to making communities safer.
The accreditation of such community safety organisations and the option to confer limited police powers on their employees will enable wardens and other accredited persons to be more effectively deployed. This is not policing on the cheap but a realistic, hard-headed approach to supporting police work.
I should emphasise that a number of safeguards will be built in to the accreditation scheme. A dual key will operate. The employer—usually a local authority chief
486
executive—would need to seek appropriate powers and the chief officer would need to agree them. The local police authority and other local agencies would be fully consulted on the proposed community safety accreditation scheme. The chief police officer would need to be satisfied that the person to be accredited was suitable to exercise the powers to be conferred on him, was capable of carrying out the community safety functions and was properly trained.
The employer would need to have a suitable complaints and disciplinary procedure in place. All accredited persons would be publicly recognisable by a nationally-approved badge on their uniform. The continuation of any accreditation scheme would be subject to an annual review and the accreditation of any individual could be withdrawn at any time.
The precise powers to be conferred on the employee of a particular accredited organisation would be depend on his or her role and local requirements. Schedule 5 therefore provides a menu from which powers can be selected to suit the training and deployment of accredited persons. In practice it is unlikely that chief officers will have more than a few variations in the powers extended to accredited persons.
I believe that that meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. No one is forcing this scheme on employers or chief constables. In the same spirit and for the same reasons as in our earlier long debate today, I hope that the Committee will accept the position as stated. We shall look at all issues raised. In not moving these amendments, the noble Lord can be assured that we have met his main point.
Lord Elton: Did the Minister say that these people would wear a nationally approved badge and not a nationally approved uniform? It seems rather odd. One would think that either the whole thing would be local or the whole thing would be national. Is there a reason for that?
9 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I do not know, but I suspect that they may be employees of local authorities. The local authority may have the relevant uniforms for its employees, in the parks, for example; it may be that the private sector has a uniform for its shopping centre control wardens. All we are saying is this. Although people are not employed nationally in that sense, they are employed as part of a national scheme. They are approved and accredited by a chief of police—that is the key point. The badge would be the symbol to the public that they are bona fide, that they are not private sector, vigilantes, or free enterprise. To badge up someone else's uniform in a distinctive way would probably be the appropriate thing to do.
Lord Bradshaw: Again, given the Minister's assurances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 223:
Page 32, line 44, after "him" insert "as community safety special constables"
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 244, 247 and 250. The purpose of the amendments is to change the status of the accredited community safety officers to that of special constables.
We have had this debate ad nauseam, so there is no point in repeating all the arguments. However, I should like to make one or two points. It is clear—and I regret this—that the Government have not thought seriously about this possibility. They have decided to do things this way—using accredited people—and that is it. That is unfortunate.
The effect will be that the specials will continue to languish. There is no original thinking about how to re-stimulate and re-enthuse the specials. This Bill provided an opportunity for that to happen. If that is the way the Government want it, so be it. It is regrettable, because there was the opportunity for a complete change of direction which would bring people back into the special constabulary. As with the Territorial Army, recruitment could have helped to overcome the ethnic barriers which cause so many problems for the police. Had that been by the specials route, it would undoubtedly have led some recruits into joining the regular police force, which would have won the approval of all of us.
The purpose of the amendments is to point out that the Government are missing an opportunity. On the whole, they will be providing a somewhat devalued service to the public in future. If that is what they want, that is what they want. We find it regrettable.
Turning to Amendment No. 247, the possibility arises in the Bill of the chief constable charging for costs of accreditation. We suggest that the cost of training should be added. However, I am bound to say as a matter of principle and practicality that it is more likely that the last thing a chief constable will be able to do is charge employers for the cost of accreditation. If anything, they will need inducements to join this scheme. Outside employers and even local authorities will not find it a particularly attractive option. They will become subject to complaints procedures which they must have in place. If anything goes wrong, it will impose quite a burden on any outside employer who has become involved in one of these schemes. However, this subject was roundly debated earlier. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I support the purpose behind the amendments as described by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. Surely, the best way forward would be an expansion of the special constabulary. Although I understand the principle behind the introduction of community support officers, I hope the fact that the Government are proceeding down this line does not mean that they will not at the same time attempt to increase the number of special constables.
488
One was concerned earlier this week when one heard the Minister's reference to the enormous drop in the number of special constables as compared to some 10 or 20 years ago. I hope that the Minister is not going to say that the provisions of this Bill should be an excuse for not trying to recruit more special constables. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has said, in the end the recognised special constable is the best back-up for the permanent police force given the possibility that many become police officers.
Lord Renton: I, too, support the amendments. Perhaps I may add to the comments of my noble friend Lord Carlisle. For many years, special constables have played a vital part in keeping order in our society, especially on occasions when the police must be assumed to be under greater pressure than they normally are. Therefore, these amendments are important.
Perhaps I may mention a purely grammatical matter which I have noticed in passing. I first learnt to read and write before 1914. It may be that the language has changed a little since that time. We always used to say that things and people should be accredited "with", not "of. The last two lines of subsection (1) say:
"for the exercise within his police area by persons accredited by him under section 35 of the powers conferred by their accreditations".
Surely it should be "with the powers".
Lord Rooker: Far be it from me to complain about people's attendance. I cannot put my hands on my notes from Tuesday, but we had a short debate on two amendments relating specifically to Specials in which I explained that the Government are reviewing the possibility of payments and bounties for Specials to try to increase recruitment. There has been a drop of several thousand Specials over the past four years, down to 13,000 from about 20,000, As a separate exercise—and this is on the record from our debate earlier in the week—we are taking forward a project with ACPO and, I think, the Association of Police Authorities, which has been designed to find ways to increase the number of Specials. Nothing that I say today in any way qualifies what I said on Tuesday. I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, to think that we are not concerned about the drop in the number of Specials, because we are.
The Specials are a vital resource in ensuring public confidence. As volunteers, they are the embodiment of active citizenship. The Government want to reverse the decline in the number of Specials. As part of that, we are looking at ways of improving the recruitment and retention of Specials, including exploring the case for paying an allowance to recognise levels of commitment. We are not looking to change the status of Specials to that of paid employees, as we believe that that would detract from their special status.
The amendments would have two possible effects. They could create a category of employed status Specials, whose main job would be working as Specials, with the full powers of volunteer Specials, including powers of arrest—in other words they would

489
be full constables. In effect, the amendments could create a less well paid regular force employed by an outside organisation. Alternatively, the amendments might require organisations that promote active citizenship among their staff to pay all the costs involved if any of their staff want to become volunteer Specials, including the costs involved in accreditation and training. That is not much of an incentive to small organisations to promote becoming a Special over other forms of volunteering, which are of minimal cost to the employer.
Volunteer Specials are an essential and valuable part of the police service, but they are not the solution to the problems of anti-social behaviour. By their very nature, Specials are available outside normal working hours. Most Specials have a job in addition to their voluntary work. They are available at weekends and in the evenings.
Neighbourhood wardens and others for whom community safety and regeneration is a full-time job are available at the beginning and end of the school day, on pension day and during the school holidays. They provide a full-time community presence, which is enhanced by the presence of the Specials when they are available. There is a desire to do something for the Specials. I said on Tuesday that I regretted that we were not able to do anything in this Bill, but I pointed out that there was legislation in 1992 under which a regulation was put through both Houses that would enable us to make the changes following our review. We would not require primary legislation to do that. That is a separate exercise and is not being negated in any way by the Bill's proposals for community support officers or the accredited people through their organisations.
I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is coming from. He does not want community support officers, period. The amendment is a way of converting the idea into Specials. Specials look like police officers because they are police officers, with the full powers of constables. I hope that my explanation of the powers and commitment of the Specials is not compatible with our proposals for the people who would be designated under this part of the Bill.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: If it is any help to the Minister, he dealt with the issue on Tuesday at cols. 181 and 182. His memory is remarkably good. The experimental bounty was introduced in 1993.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I accept what the Minister said about costs and I agree with him. I expressed some doubts when I moved the amendment. However, he has failed to understand what we are trying to do. He has suggested that these people are going to be employed as full-time special constables. That is not the point of the amendments. These people will be doing a full-time job, and they will continue to do that job. However, as they will be accredited—just as they would be accredited under the accreditation scheme—they will be accredited special constables. It would be
490
a supplementary addition to their job, not a substitute for it. It is a completely new approach to the whole issue.
Regrettably, the Minister has failed to make that distinction. He is still thinking about special constables in the old, traditional way as volunteers doing something outside their normal job. The whole purpose of this group of amendments is to make it possible for them to do their job and to have a supplementary responsibility, just at the accredited safety officers will have. The supplementary responsibility will make them special constables as opposed to accredited officers. That is the only distinction.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: Is the noble Lord proposing that full-time employees of an employer should have the full powers of a regular police constable, as specials have?
Lord Dixon-Smith: Yes.
Lord Rooker: It is a remarkable innovation then.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Yes, it is a remarkable innovation, and we should be quite clear about it. That is why I say that it is a radical proposal.
I shall leave it there. The Minister is now aware of the point, and that is satisfactory. We have also identified the difference between us. I ask him to think about the point, which is very important. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 224 to 226 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 227:
Page 33, line 24, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Clause 34(5) states:
"A community safety accreditation scheme must contain provision for the making of arrangements with employers who … are carrying on business in the police area in question, or … are carrying on business in relation to the whole or any part of that area or in relation to places situated within it".
The amendment seeks to uncover precisely what is meant by the provision. Firms such as Group 4 and Securicor, for example, have company headquarters. Are they carrying on business only at the location of that headquarters or across the whole country? If the latter, their employees policing a shopping centre could be accredited in that area although their headquarters were somewhere else and all their revenue and taxes went elsewhere. The amendment makes a small point of detail which seeks to ascertain the meaning of the provision, which is loosely worded. We shall have to be able to gain employers' co-operation.
There is another point. It appears that employers who indulge in these schemes will pick up a liability if their employees do anything wrong when acting on behalf of the police. The point is dealt with in Amendment No. 260, which is in this group. We have

491
to be very clear that, should someone acting with police powers make a mistake, liability for that mistake should go back to the police rather than to the employer.
Both issues are very important in their own way, although in the context of some of the matters we have discussed they may seem trivial. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that we can reassure the noble Lord sufficiently. As I understand the amendments, they appear to be concerned about a shift in responsibility and legal liability for unlawful conduct on the part of staff who are given certain powers.
So far as we are concerned it is immaterial where a company's headquarters are located. If Group 4 is contracted to provide the security in a shopping centre in Epsom, it is carrying on a business in Epsom. The location of its headquarters does not have much relevance. The important matter is that whoever is deployed or employed as a neighbourhood warden has already built up a reputation for his or her commitment and professionalism. Such wardens will be eligible, if their employer and the local chief constable agree, to be accredited as part of a community safety accreditation scheme and could be extended limited appropriate powers.
We do not want to bring wardens and the like under the control and supervision of the police; their strength is their independence. As part of the accreditation process the training and professionalism of both the individual staff and their employers will be carefully assessed and powers will only be extended where the chief officer is satisfied with standards of training and professionalism and that there is appropriate supervision in place. That is the important point.
The accreditation of an organisation and the extension of powers to employees will be reviewed regularly to ensure that the standards we expect are maintained. That is another important assurance for the noble Lord to take into account. We believe that we have the safeguards in place to ensure that supervision of exercise of powers is of a high standard. We already trust others to exercise official powers and their employers to supervise them; these safeguards will enable the public to trust accredited persons and their employers in the same way.
We believe that bringing accredited organisations under the direct control of the police by making them liable for the actions of accredited persons will discourage organisations from working in coordination with the police and could be a burden on the police and mean that those organisations that are accredited would lose their independence.
I hope that those assurances help the noble Lord. I understand what motivated him to table the amendment, but we believe that we have adequate checking mechanisms in place and that the liabilities are
understood.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am afraid that I yield to no one in my ignorance of these procedures but I
492
thought that Amendment No. 260 was grouped with the amendment we are discussing. I thought that my noble friend on the Front Bench alluded to the making of a joint tort-feasor in connection with the employer. I raised that matter briefly at Second Reading. I do not think that the Minister mentioned it in his reply. I n my view what is wrong here—I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on the matter—is the following.
In law you are liable as an employer for the actions of your employee only if they are carried out in the course of his employment with you. That is putting the matter very generally. Yet here we have a blanket imposition of liability upon the employer as a joint tort-feasor, joint wrongdoer, with the chief officer of police in circumstances—which will catch the employer—where he may have given the most express instructions to his employee not to do a certain thing in the course of his work as an accredited officer and has exercised proper supervision to see that he does not. Yet, none the less, his instructions are broken. In those circumstances I believe that anyone would say that it was unjust to make the employer liable. If anyone is to be liable it should be the police on whose behalf this work is being carried out.
Which employers will be approached for accreditation purposes? We have heard of some instances of providers of private services of a security character but the matter is not limited to that. Will the Minister deal with that point? I believe that it is a fairly simple one which can be dealt with today, particularly as it was raised at Second Reading.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not an expert in tort but I should think that in the circumstances that the noble and learned Lord described, there probably was a strict liability because the instructions or guidance had been issued by the employer, not the police. I do not necessarily believe that the liability would shift, but I shall take advice on that. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord if we did not cover that point in the fallout from our debate at Second Reading. A difficulty may well be caused in the situation that he described. That is one of the circumstances in which liability is perhaps more strict that he would wish.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Liability can be strict only if the Bill imposes it, which it does. It is that which I respectfully suggest is unjust.
Lord Condon: I place on the record the fact that I am a non-executive director of Securicor—particular firms have been mentioned—and my silence on this matter should he seen in that context.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: In London, there is much interest among local boroughs about accredited persons. They should also be considered in this respect.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: For the convenience of Members of the Committee, our advice is that in this instance the employer will be liable for unlawful conduct only in the course of the person's employment

493
and in reliance or purported reliance on designation or accreditation. I think that it is right to say that a member of the public should have a remedy against an organisation, not an individual. That must be right.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I hope that the Minister will examine this matter again because I do not believe that that is an accurate statement of the position. I am quite prepared to find that I am wrong in the event, but in this regard the provision would impose strict liability on anything done by an employee in reliance or purported reliance on a designation or accreditation. It is important for the guy in the street who is stopped and told that he is behaving in an antisocial way to know who he will sue. He will assume that the person is acting within the course of his employment. One can envisage certain circumstances in which he will not be; none the less, strict liability will be imposed, as the clause is currently drafted, on the employer.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We will need to satisfy the noble and learned Lord, who is obviously very learned in these matters. I have put our interpretation on the record.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification and to my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew for pursuing this point. The only sensible advice that one could give to any employer is to avoid letting his staff be accredited because of this potential liability, and I do not think that that is what the Government intend. They may think that that position will not arise but we are right to fear that it could arise. If it could arise, the advice that I suggested would be appropriate and that would rather destroy the scheme's credibility. I hope that the Government will carefully examine the issue. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 229:
Page 33, line 32, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: This amendment returns us to the point that we have just been discussing, and I shall not discuss it further; we have already dealt with it.
Amendment No. 230, which is grouped with Amendment No. 229, would leave out subsection (6) on page 33 at line 32 and insert:
"A chief officer of police who establishes and maintains a community safety accreditation scheme shall ensure that the employers of the persons on whom powers are conferred have established and maintain satisfactory procedures for the handling of complaints, which, at the election of the complainant, may be referred to the Commission in the event the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of such a complaint".
That would make it absolutely clear in the Bill what would happen if a complaint causes a problem.
Amendment No. 232 imposes on the chief officer a duty to ensure that the employers of an accredited person have an adequate complaints procedure. We have more or less dealt with that point.
494
Finally, Amendment No. 233 states that it will be the duty of a chief officer to establish and maintain for public inspection a register of the employees against whom complaints are made. We do not believe that that is an unreasonable suggestion to make; nor is it unreasonable to suggest, as we seek to do in Amendment No. 249, that the chief officer must have regard to that list of complaints if, in fact, he is looking to renew accreditation. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Lord said, this debate leads on neatly from the preceding one. It appears to me that the noble Lord is seeking—I understand why—to provide further safeguards in relation to the complaints systems of organisations that have been accredited under Clause 34.
We absolutely agree that we want these arrangements to be transparent and robust. We also want members of the public to feel confident, as the noble Lord said, that they have powers of redress against anyone who is working as part of an accredited community safety scheme. Clearly there is a balance to be drawn, but we believe that we already have sufficient safeguards in place. To introduce more could leave us open to the claim that we are unnecessarily increasing the burdens on the police service while saying that we are committed to reducing them. At this moment, Sir David O'Dowd, the former Chief Inspector of Constabulary, is leading a task force to reduce levels of bureaucracy in the police service.
We have already provided in Clause 34(6) that chief officers must ensure that satisfactory complaints handling procedures are established and maintained. Clause 35(7) provides that accreditations are subject to periodic review and renewal. If there is evidence that previously satisfactory systems are no longer working, then chief officers will be able to withdraw all accreditations involving that employer as the criteria for accreditation will no longer be met.
We have also provided in Clause 36(5)—I believe that perhaps this goes some way towards meeting the point raised in the earlier debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—that, in the event of torts, the employer and employee will be held jointly liable. In our view, that will provide a strong incentive to employers, whose very purpose and function depends on gaining and keeping the respect and confidence of the communities with whom they are working in partnership, to ensure that procedures are followed and that any complaints are handled properly and resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant.
Clause 39 will require chief officers to have regard to a code of practice on the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under this part of the Bill. It will include guidance on the accreditation process and will ensure that organisations operate satisfactory complaints handling processes. It would be possible to see this as a further safeguard in the sense that we want to trial these matters. We shall pilot the accreditation

495
schemes before they are available for implementation and roll-out nationally. Therefore, there will be a thorough process of piloting, trying and testing the procedures to ensure that they work and that they are properly operable.
We believe that we have the balance right between bureaucracy and ensuring that the public can trust that there is sufficient regulation. We believe that there is the right balance between regulation and a lighter touch to ensure a proper level of protection in the case of complaints.
Findings from the pilot schemes will indicate whether that balance is right and they will be used to advise us in rolling out and perfecting the scheme nationally. They will also enable us to amend the code of practice issued under Clause 39, if appropriate. I hope that that provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may say, in support of my noble friend, that it seems odd, having expended so much effort in producing the new commission to cover the whole of the police force everywhere, to then construct a new wing attached to the police force which will not be subject to it. I do not want to promote a long debate tonight. However, I want to declare an interest if the matter comes back on Report.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to my noble friend, who raised a valid point. We are not completely satisfied that this part of the Bill is consistent both with other parts of the Bill and with what we think would he a desirable situation. We have had a fairly full explanation, for which I am grateful. We shall study it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 230 to 233 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may return briefly to vicarious liability, which we discussed a few moments ago. On instructions from behind him, to the north east as seen from here, the Minister said that there is a safeguard because the person would have to be acting in the course of his employment. I thought that that was wrong and suggested so. However, the point I should have taken is to be found on page 35, line 15, in subsection (5), which states:
"[all] conduct by such an employee … shall be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment.
The clause makes it conduct in the course of his employment, even where the ordinary law in the circumstances with which we are concerned would not. That is the fallacy of the argument. I wanted to mention that before the whole matter disappeared.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Accreditation under community safety accreditation schemes]:
[Amendment No. 234 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 235:
Page 34, line 3, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 235 deals with a matter which causes us concern. As drafted, the Bill would require that the employer of an accredited person would be able to supervise the carrying out of a police function. Such employers, often commercial employers or local authorities, however well intentioned, will not be experienced in police matters. It seems to us wrong for them to be held responsible for the supervision of a police function by an accredited person. We believe that that places an unreasonable burden on them.
Amendment No. 236 seeks to omit paragraph (b), which is unnecessary in view of the wording in subsections (c) and (d). The Minister will be able to accept Amendment No. 237 with no difficulty. It simply leaves out the word "himself". A person can be none other than himself. He cannot be somebody else. Therefore, the word is unnecessary.
My only comment on Amendments Nos. 239 and 241 is that if we were to go down the special constable route which we propose, both paragraphs would be unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: As to Amendment No. 237, I shall take advice on the use of "himself". I am sure that there is a good legal reason.
The amendments would remove the requirement for chief officers to satisfy themselves about the suitability of the person who is to be accredited—including checks into their capability to perform the functions for which powers are sought, the training that they have received in respect of those powers and the suitability of the person's employer to supervise the carrying out of those functions.
We are talking not about community support officers but about employees of someone other than the police authority. It is wholly proper that the chief constable can make sure that the employer has all the necessary functions and capabilities in place before designating employees. We are dealing with a mixed bag—maybe local authorities.
The jobs in question are being done now. Local authorities that are employing wardens, or shopping centre managers who are employing their own heavy mob and gatekeepers, are doing so as a commercial enterprise—unfettered in many respects, because they are not performing police functions anyway. The beauty of the accreditation scheme and giving police a role is that the chief police officer will be able to ensure the bona fides of the employer before employees are designated. The duty of the employer is not that of the chief constable. It is vital that those checks are made before a person is accredited.
Clause 35(4) must be left as it stands because it is essential to have a statutory framework for the accreditation of the powers, as part of the public confidence factor. It is not sufficient to require that the chief officer satisfies himself of the suitability of the individual to be accredited. The process must include

497
an assessment of the person's capability and training and a check that the employer is a fit and proper person.
Checks on the individual to be accredited and the employer would cover criminal records and good character, which are essential to ensure that powers are only conferred on appropriate persons. Checks on training will enable the chief officer to be reassured that the individuals have been trained to exercise the powers conferred and reach the required standards in their knowledge of relevant law, first aid and conflict resolution. There is probably no statutory training requirement at present, which provides the loophole. People can put on a uniform, sell a service and operate—and the public think that they must be okay because they are in uniform. From some stories, some of them certainly have not been trained in conflict resolution. Police checks will add extra comfort.
We intend to consult stakeholders on the checks to be made. I cannot rely on the code of practice too much because it is important to pilot this specifically. With community support officers, piloting is almost de facto because the Metropolitan Police want to get on with it. Others may be less certain, so it becomes a sort of a pilot. With accreditation, we will pilot and will not allow schemes to be rolled out until we have feedback on the advice given in the code of practice.
I have been on my feet a few minutes but no one has brought me a note about "himself", so I will have to write to the noble Lord on that point.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am not a lawyer, but I have studied Amendment No. 237. It occurs to me that the word "himself- appears in this paragraph for the sake of clarity. The person's employer in paragraph (a) has been described as,
"a fit and proper person".
Therefore, as a new person is introduced in paragraph (b), it is conceivable that it was felt necessary to add the word "himself" in order to produce a distinguishing mark between the two.
Lord Rooker: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I am sure that there is a note somewhere to that effect.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke who may have produced the right explanation. However, I am a little disappointed in what the Minister said in response. Where local authorities are operating wardening schemes, or where a commercial security firm is providing security officers for a shopping centre, police powers are not being exercised. Let us be clear about this: they do not need to have the sort of supervision and training, and so on, that is required.
The Minister had much to say about approving the employer as a "fit and proper person" to employ people to carry out such work. But the bit of the Bill that we seek to remove is very specific in this respect.
498
When we are talking about getting people accredited and ensuring that they are properly trained, it does not have anything to do with the employer being a fit and proper person. The provision says that a person's employer is,
"a fit and proper person to supervise the carrying out of the functions"—
in other words, police functions. Indeed, they are nothing else. They are not related to employer/employee relations, or anything else. They are pure police functions. Even if the employer were competent to do so, I doubt whether it would be appropriate to have a third party employer supervising police functions. We are talking about policing, and the integrity of policing. I do not like that phrase in the Bill because it is very specific.
I have heard what the Minister said, and I hope that he heard what I said. Perhaps we should both go away and consider all that has been said on the subject. It is always possible that we may reach a satisfactory conclusion at some time in the future, though we shall not do so tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 236 to 242 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 243:
Page 34, line 12, leave out from beginning to "for" and insert "The Secretary of State may by order provide for appropriate fees to be charged by a chief officer of police"
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we turn our attention to the wording in the Bill that deals with the question of fees. My preference is that no fees should be involved in the process. I cannot see any incentive for outside employers to become involved in such schemes. Indeed, I can envisage many disadvantages for them. However, if there are to be fees, we believe that they should be agreed on an approved scale rather than it being an option for a chief constable to charge what he thinks fit. Of course, if he believes that nothing is fit that might be "appropriate". He could conceivably see this as a commercial operation, though that is highly unlikely. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 244 and 246, which are grouped with the noble Lord's amendment. Our amendments deal simply with the question of who is responsible for the police fund. At present, we believe that it is the police authority. If that is so, we would seek to amend the subsection to make it the responsibility of the police authority to charge such fees as it "considers appropriate", rather than it being a matter for the chief officer of police.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We probably disagree with the noble Lord's last point. It should be for the chief officer to decide the size of the fee. Clearly, there would need to be consultation within the police authorities over that.

499
The purpose of the clause is to enable the authorities to cover only those costs that they incur during the process of accrediting new and renewal applications. It is not a licence for chief officers to create additional wealth for their forces. In line with that, the code of practice under Clause 39—to which chief officers must have regard—will make it clear that this should not be regarded as a fund-raising exercise. It will require that the costs involved in the accreditation process are offset by the fees charged to make the process basically cost neutral to the force, so that it does not have to transfer resources from elsewhere, and obviously, in particular, frontline services.
If the charge was set nationally by the Secretary of State, the effect could lead to profits being made in some force areas. Obviously, it will depend on a force's costs, the way in which it builds up its costs base and the way in which it charges items. That would put some forces at a financial advantage and others at a disadvantage in creating these accreditation schemes. So there could be a perverse effect.
The Bill as drafted, supported by the code of practice issued under Clause 39, probably provides the best framework for charging fees as part of the accreditation process; protecting both employers from being charged more than necessary and the police from having to subsidise the process from their core costs.
We take the view that the police authority must be fully involved and, as I have said, consulted about all aspects of setting up community safety accreditation schemes in their force areas, including the size of any fee. So, in general terms, I think that that satisfies the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. These issues will be covered in the code of practice under Clause 39.
Although we have sympathy with the noble Lords' amendments, as I have explained the scheme to the Committee, it should give the chief officer the flexibility to vary the fee on accreditation so as to ensure that it matches any costs being incurred. It will also mean that the fee is appropriate to the force area.
We give a very firm undertaking that the matters will be properly dealt with in the code of practice. I think that that probably enables the noble Lords to feel confident that they can withdraw the amendments.
Lord Bradshaw: I make the point that the Police Act 1996 is absolutely clear on this matter; it is the police authority which makes the charge on the advice of a chief office and it is responsible for collecting it. It does not matter very much to me, but I think that the Minister is in error. I ask that on Report we are absolutely clear—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Our understanding of the best means of operating this scheme is for the chief officer to set the fee in consultation with the police authority. I suspect that it is an issue that the police authority finance committee will ruminate over for some time in helping him come to that conclusion.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. We should be quite clear that what is
500
cost neutral to the police force will definitely cost someone some money. That may pros e to be a problem, but that remains to be seen. I doubt whether anyone will want to get involved in these schemes with direct costs, bearing in mind all the other problems and potential liabilities that the Bill seems to provide for. We shall consider what has been said, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 244 to 247 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 248:
Page 34, line 23, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to another nice little bit of wording in the Bill that seems to me to add confusion. The clause states:
"A person authorised or required to do anything by virtue of an accreditation under this section—
(a) shall not be authorised or required by virtue of that accreditation to engage in any conduct otherwise than in the course of his employment"—
all right, we have debated that and we do not need to go over that ground any more. But the clause continues:
"shall be so authorised or required subject to such other restrictions and conditions (if any) as may be specified in his accreditation".
Here we go round the whole thing again, because we get down to the business of an individual being given an individual specification for his job, instead of everyone standing on familiar ground, so that we can all understand.
Those words are unnecessary; it is unfortunate that they are there. I hope that the Minister will agree to expunge them. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am sorry, but I cannot satisfy the noble Lord. We need the words in the Bill. I hope that I shall be able to explain why.
We want to enable police forces to mould the extension of powers to accredited persons to fit local policing needs and the aspirations of local people. There will be occasions when powers should be extended more traditionally—operating all day, every day and anywhere in the force area. But there is a place in modern policing for a different approach reflecting the needs of individual communities. The provision is highly targeted.
An example would be the security staff in a shopping centre. It would be in keeping with an accreditation scheme involving a security firm to confer powers in Schedule 5 on the shopping centre security staff, but to limit the exercise of those powers to the confines of the shopping centre. It would clearly be inappropriate in such a case for staff to be able to exercise powers outside the area in which they are contracted to work.
Or consider a crime hotspot—one of the estates to which I referred earlier. The police may tackle that by providing intensive policing for a set period. They may as part of a whole community approach to reducing crime in that area accredit community safety

501
organisations to work only in that geographical area, providing a permanent patrolling presence in that part of the locality.
The extension of the powers will require consultation with the police authority—and through the authority the local community—so that precise restrictions and conditions to be applied can be agreed. Pilots of such accreditation schemes will monitor the effectiveness of restrictions and conditions and ensure that they are appropriate for, and agreed and understood by, the communities in which accredited people work.
We believe that it is important that chief officers can ensure that the role of the extended police family fits the policing style and needs of their force area. I accept that that ability to mould the extension of powers is non-traditional—new—but that does not make it wrong. We are trying to tackle those problems in a new way. Although people may think that the public will be confused by that approach, I certainly do not think that that will be true when they see far more uniformed people in their localities.
I hope that giving those practical examples provides a translation of paragraph (b). Reading the opening of subsection (6), one would not have a clue how it will touch the lives of people in this country. I hope that I have given examples of how, if we lost those words, we should not be able to give the chief officers flexibility to mould policing to the needs of local communities.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I was almost about to say that it satisfied me, but I do not want to see him fall off the Bench. However, it is unlikely that we shall need to bring this amendment back. I am grateful for his explanation, which makes the situation clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 249 and 250 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before we leave our debate on the clause, I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who, having said, "I am not a lawyer", did not add the normally mandatory words "thank God". Perhaps he thought that they would be superfluous.
Lord Rooker: I shall confirm what I said without the note. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, was right: the word "himself" was there to distinguish the employer from the employee. He got it absolutely right.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Powers exercisable by accredited persons]:
[Amendment No. 251 not moved.]
Baroness Gardner of Parkesmoved Amendment No. 252:
502
Page 122, line 25, at end insert "or other proof of identity"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment and Amendment No. 253 are simple and self-explanatory. I tabled them because one of the most contentious matters is asking someone to wait with an accredited person, if necessary, for up to half an hour. Much of our debate has revolved around that matter.
It is also unsatisfactory that there will be no way of knowing whether the name and address given by someone are accurate. The Minister has said to me that the Government were clear that they would not oblige people to carry identity cards. I have, therefore, not suggested that, although I had originally intended to propose it in the amendment. However, there are all sorts of cards that people might have—for example, a driving licence or a security pass such as we have here. There are all sorts of forms of identification. If those were produced and accepted, it would save a lot of aggro all round. That would be desirable.
The second amendment would cover a situation in which someone produced a proof of identity that was not genuine. They might have stolen someone else's identity card—not one with a photo on it, but some other type of card.
I move the amendment in the hope that it would help avoid unpleasant situations that might end up in a degree of aggression with which the accredited person would not be equipped to cope. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for that explanation and for the spirit in which she spoke to the amendment. I would have liked nothing more than to have a debate about ID cards and entitlement cards, but not at three minutes past ten o'clock on a Thursday evening.
I agree with the noble Baroness that accredited individuals will, in some cases, want to see proof of a person's identity and their home address, before they are satisfied that the details that they have been given are correct. In practice, accredited people will ask to see proof of identity and address, and we will set out guidelines in the code of practice, under Clause 39, about this matter. We need not amend the Bill; it can be done through the code of practice.
We have made it abundantly clear, whatever our conclusions, that we will not introduce any form of entitlement card that a person might be required to carry and produce. That is ruled out. I have to say that every time, so that there is no misunderstanding in the media. It is not noble Lords who will misunderstand; it is others who are out to scupper the plan, even though we have not consulted on it yet.
In the recent White Paper on immigration and asylum, there is an announcement that the Government will, in the summer, produce a full, detailed and comprehensive consultation paper on the issue of entitlement cards—whether they are good or bad, whether we ought to have them and how they might work. However, as I said, I hope that we can

503
cover the fair points raised by the noble Baroness in the code of practice. That having been said, I hope that she will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 not moved.]
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 254A:
Page 123, line 17, at end insert—
"Power to use reasonable force to detain person
(1) This paragraph applies where the accreditation of an accredited person—

(a) specifies that this paragraph applies to him;

(b) specifies that any or all of paragraphs 1 and 2 also apply to him; and

(c) sets out the matters in respect of which he has the power conferred by this paragraph.

(2) The matters that may be set out in an accreditation as the matters in respect of which a person has the power conferred by this paragraph shall be confined to—

(a) offences that are relevant fixed penalty offences for the purposes of the application of paragraph 1 to the accredited person;

(b) offences that are relevant offences for the purposes of the application of paragraph 2 to the accredited person; and

(c) behaviour that constitutes acting in an anti-social manner (within the meaning of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders)).

(3) In any case in which a person to whom this paragraph applies has imposed a requirement on any other person under paragraph 2(1) or 3(1) in respect of anything appearing to him to be a matter set out in the accreditation, he may use reasonable force to prevent that other person from making off while he is either—

(a) subject to a requirement imposed in that case by the accredited person under paragraph 2(2); or

(b) accompanying the accredited person to a police station in accordance with an election made in that case under paragraph 2(3)."

The noble Baroness said: I feel like Charlie Drake playing in the orchestra when he stood up with the triangle and missed the beat. I have tabled only two amendments to the Bill, Amendments Nos. 254A and 254B, and I want to make it clear at the outset that I am a member of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. That borough has asked me to bring forward these amendments.
As I indicated earlier, the Royal Borough is seeking to introduce borough constables. That is being done in co-operation with the Metropolitan Police. The intention is that they should be fully trained in conjunction with the police and should be a well-geared force. The one aspect that is difficult is that, while they will have the powers to detain, they will not have the powers enabling them to use reasonable force.
To all intents and purposes, borough constables will do the same job as will be done by the community officers. It would seem sensible that they should have the same power to use reasonable force, however "reasonable force" is to be defined. People will not then be able to put up two fingers to them, as described
504
earlier, and rush off. It is appropriate that an accredited organisation, as a borough will have to become, should have such powers.
It may be that before the powers are granted to an individual borough or accredited organisation they need to be sanctioned by someone else. Whether that should be the local police authority, as suggested, or the Secretary of State I know not. However, somewhere along the line it will be important that there is the right to use reasonable force. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the amendment. As I said at Second Reading, the boroughs want the right to work in conjunction with the police. However, they want in particular to be able to retain people within their own neighbourhood so that they cannot suddenly be spirited away somewhere else. That is why such provision is most important.
Lord Rooker: There is a fundamental reason why we cannot accept the reasonable use of force. The accredited persons are not under the direct and specific control of the chief constable; they are employees of someone else. That is why the reasonable use of force is ruled out.
The issue of their being spirited away from one borough to another should not exist. If they are employees of the borough and the council, they are employees of the borough and the council. The employer would decide where they were located, not the police. A separate issue is therefore involved. There is no reason to suppose that if the borough is organising an accredited community scheme it will not be in control of the people. It will be in control of the people because it will be the employer. There will be no question of people being spirited away. However, as the individuals will not be directly employed under the control of the police the question of giving them the power to use reasonable force is ruled out.
The borough constables will have most of the powers of community support officers but they will not have the power to issue fixed penalty notices; they will not have the power to use reasonable force and they will not have the power of entry to save life or limb or to prevent serious injury or damage to property. There are also a couple of other powers which they will not have. It must therefore be said that they are more limited than the community support officers, but, as we said earlier, those officers will be employees of the police authority and under the direct control of the chief constable. That is the fundamental reason why I must say to the noble Baroness that I cannot accept her amendments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Before my noble friend Lady Hanham rises to reply, I should like to raise a point which was first covered in the debate on Second Reading. London boroughs would like to see a halfway house between the accredited person and the community support officer. They would like to be able to run things jointly with the police and to be involved in these affairs. That would put them in a much

505
stronger position. However, the one problem about that would be whether the police would then be able to whisk the neighbourhood policemen away.
Can the Minister consider whether it would be possible to bring forward an amendment which would allow the joint commissioning of a force between a local authority and the Metropolitan Police? Many London boroughs would welcome that kind of arrangement.
Lord Rooker: I dare not respond to that on the hoof. We have here two quite specific and distinct areas: community support officers and community safety accreditation schemes. One of those proposals is fundamentally opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, but the noble Baroness now asks me to look into creating a hybrid of the two.
In effect, we can only repeat that it is up to chief constables to decide, first, whether to take on community support officers and what those officers will do and then to confer the necessary powers. Secondly, we will give chief constables the right to decide whether they will accredit community safety schemes with or without local authorities and with or without the private sector.
It may be that in a place as varied as London, with 8 million people, several thousand police officers and some 32 boroughs—each a great deal smaller than Birmingham, I might add—some operations that would suit both the police and the local community could be considered. However, from a standing start, as it were, I cannot give the noble Baroness the specific answers that she requires. I believe that these proposals are outwith what is set out in the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to look into this matter to the extent only as to whether the chief officer would have the power to agree to have community support officers run jointly between the Metropolitan Police and a local authority. Would he have the right to do that or would such a power have to be created? I am happy to wait for the Minister to write to me on this.
Lord Rooker: As always, I shall certainly look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness. Of course, it may be a question of who pays for the community support officers. Those are issues that must be considered. As I have said, I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hanham: I think that we have raised here a point that slightly differs from what is in the Bill; that is, the possibility of creating borough constables and their being funded by and large by local authorities. My local authority is now prepared to commit quite substantial sums of money to this.
I shall return to where I started. My concern over the right to use reasonable force is that if there are going to be accredited persons on the street, they should have the power to hold someone for 30 minutes while,
506
presumably, the police are summoned to come and help them. It is not much use if the person being held is allowed to scarper off down the road and no one has the right to bring them down with a rugby tackle. Perhaps that exaggerates the case a little. However, what is being suggested here will probably leave the accredited officers without the tools to do the job.
I understand the Minister's explanation that under normal circumstances the chief constable would have to authorise the right to detain a person using reasonable force. However, would the Minister be kind enough to look into whether there is some way the provision could be amended to enable such forces—which I believe may now spring up all over the country as local authorities take it on—to be given the right to use reasonable force? If he will, then I shall withdraw my amendment.
Lord Rooker: I am willing to look at all of these suggestions. On the other hand, I think that the noble Baroness is proposing something that contradicts the heart of our proposals. It may be that I have to be wholly negative in my response. Nevertheless, I have heard what she has said. I shall take it away and seek further advice.
Baroness Hanham: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 254B:
Page 124, line 11, at end insert—
"Seizure of cycles
(1) This paragraph applies in respect of an accredited person—

(a) whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him; and

(b) whose employer, for the purposes of section 35 of this Act, is a local authority.

(2) If an accredited person to whom this section applies has given a person a fixed penalty notice under section 54 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (fixed penalty notices) in respect of an offence under section 72 of the Highway Act 1835 (c. 50) (riding on a footway) committed by cycling he may seize the cycle in respect of which the alleged offence was committed.
(3) If any cycle is seized under sub-paragraph (2) and the person to whom the fixed penalty notice was given pays the fixed penalty before the end of the suspended enforcement period, the cycle shall be returned to that person.
(4) The provisions of sub-paragraphs (5) to (9) shall have effect if—

(a) any cycle is seized under sub-paragraph (2); and

(b) the fixed penalty has not been paid in accordance with Part III of the 1988 Act before the end of the suspended enforcement period.

(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (8), following the conclusion of any proceedings in respect of the alleged offence the cycle shall be returned to the person from whom it was seized unless the court orders it to be forfeited under sub-paragraph (7).
(6) If the recipient has not given notice requesting a hearing in respect of the offence to which the fixed penalty notice relates in the manner specified in the notice, the local authority may make an application to the court for an order that the cycle seized under sub-paragraph (2) shall be forfeited.

507
(7) Subject to sub-paragraph (8), the court—

(a) by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under section 72 of the 1835 Act committed by cycling; or

(b) to whom an application for forfeiture is made under sub-paragraph (6),

may order any cycle produced to the court, and shown to the satisfaction of the court to relate to the offence, or as the case may be the alleged offence, to be forfeited and dealt with in such manner as the court may order.
(8) The court shall not order a cycle to be forfeited under sub-paragraph (7) where a person claiming to be the owner of or otherwise interested in it applies to be heard by the court, unless an opportunity has been given to him to show cause why the order should not be made, and in considering whether to make such an order a court shall have regard—

(a) to the value of the cycle; and

(b) to the likely financial and other effects on the offender of the making of the order (taken together with any other order that the court contemplates making).

(9) The court may order forfeiture notwithstanding that the value of the cycle exceeds the maximum penalty for the commission of an offence under section 72 of the 1835 Act.
(10) In this paragraph "local authority" means—

(a) in relation to England, a county council, a district council or a London borough council; and

(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council; and

"suspended enforcement period" has the meaning ascribed to it under section 52(3)(a) of the 1988 Act (fixed penalty notices)."
The noble Baroness said: This is a simple amendment. One of the powers that the accredited officers of organisations will have is to issue fixed penalty notices for those cycling on the pavement. All I can say is, "Yippee", because we have been waiting for a long time for someone to issue a fixed penalty notice to those who bowl down the pavements and knock people over.
I am seeking an extension of a power which is also in the Bill to enable those officers to confiscate the bicycle until the fixed penalty notice is paid. We seem to be able to confiscate everything else under the Bill and I am seeking to add bicycles to that power of confiscation. It would make things easier and resolve the problems more quickly. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the amendment. In particular, I should like to emphasise how effective confiscation of, for example, hot dog stalls has proved. The local boroughs have found that confiscation is the only sanction that has any effect.
If the confiscated bicycle has to be transported and stored, presumably the owner will be treated in a similar fashion to a motorist who has his car towed away and will have to pay a small penalty or costs.
Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation of the amendment. I agree that cycling on the pavement is a nuisance and can be dangerous. That is why we are including in the Bill the power for the extended police family, the accreditation scheme, to issue fixed penalty notices for dog fouling, littering and riding on footpaths. That power is there because those are the kinds of issues which are suitable for the
508
functions and powers of accredited officers to address. However, I think the noble Baroness's amendment goes a little too far.
As the Committee is aware, we are determined under this part of the Bill to ensure that the community support officers and members of the community safety accreditation schemes are given powers consistent with their training and the public's expectation of their role. I realise that the expectation of their role for the noble Baroness includes taking the bicycle as well as the fixed penalty—I accept that—but we have always been clear that we do not want accredited people such as neighbourhood and street wardens, which is what we are effectively talking about, involved in potentially difficult situations—and putting a bicycle on your hack could cause a problem.
The power to confiscate could mean accredited people coming across resistance from a cyclist who may or may not have dismounted, and could involve a tricycle, which would be somewhat difficult to confiscate. They would not have the powers or the training to deal with that kind of resistance, and we do not want the people acting in this role placed in that kind of situation. That could undermine their credibility.
This is one of the issues where we have opened up not so much a can of worms but a box of gold—although not in a money sense—which will be good for local communities. The noble Baroness is right: people do want to go a little further. I am delighted to see overwhelming support from the noble Baronesses, which is somewhat in contrast to the speeches made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. That is a pretty sour note to end on and I am sorry about that.
Baroness Hanham: I am tempted to try to extend the confiscation to the dogs, but I shall not. I am hanging on to the bicycles in the hope that, with proper training, we will be able to confer that confiscatory power on these people. I heard what the Minister said. I shall consider it and I shall withdraw the amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Supplementary provisions relating to designations and accreditations]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 255:
Page 34, line 37, leave out "to that person, if requested to do so" and insert "to such person as may be present and affected by the performance of that power or duty"
The noble Lord said: We are back in the business of discussing public confidence. I forgive the Minister for the slight tweak at the end of his previous remarks. We do that kind of thing to each other from time to time. It keeps us awake.
The Bill provides that if an accredited officer exercises police powers on someone else, he shall show his accreditation to that person to prove that he is who he says he is. The amendment merely expands the scope of that requirement to include others who might be present so that everyone is aware that he is who he says he is. Otherwise, one can imagine the possibility

509
of a secondary fracas arising which might cause a problem. This is a simple amendment. I ask the Minister to think about it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): If Amendment No. 255 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 255A.
Lord Rooker: In responding, it is worthwhile reminding the noble Lord of the wording of the amendment. It seeks to,
"insert 'to such person as may be present and affected by the performance of that power or duty'".
I shall give a couple of examples of where that may cause difficulty. I freely admit that I do not claim authorship of the examples, but they seem to go to the heart of the amendment. They are definitely extreme examples. However, my note states that they are a good way to test the robustness of the amendments.
Let us imagine that a community support officer rescues a child from a burning house using a power conferred on him. The amendment requires the community support officer to show his designation to everyone who was present and was affected by the rescue. It could be quite a crowd—the child's family and friends, playmates, neighbours and other passersby who were witness to the events. It could be disruptive, and logistically difficult, to ensure that they were all shown the designation. Also, would the community support officer be in breach of his or her duty under this amendment if he or she were unable to track down all those who had been present?
Or let us imagine an accredited person tackling a group of children where one or two of them were smoking and drinking alcohol. If the person had to show his or her accreditation to every member of the group and to any passers-by before being able to seize the tobacco and alcohol, it would fundamentally undermine their effectiveness.
On that basis, I believe that we have got the balance about right. If a member of the public is happy not to see the accreditation or designation, it seems sensible not to create an extra bureaucratic process that must be gone through. If, on the other hand, they do wish to see the accreditation or designation, then the Bill provides for that. So it is not a question of the public being denied, of the person concerned saying: "Who are you? What is your power? Where is your badge?". That is fair. At present, we do not know what form it will take. It may take the form of a photo identity card, it may take some other form.
All designated officers—community support officers, detention officers, escort officers and investigating officers—will be uniformed and easily identifiable. They will carry their designation and will
510
be required to show it to the person to whom their actions relate when asked to do so. I believe that that is a fair way of operating.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: In view of the first everyday example given by the Minister, will the accredited officer then have to show people the MBE which he received for saving the child from the house?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister. I was tempted to say touché, but then I realised that the Bill would require the person rescuing the child from the fire in the house to show the child his accreditation before he rescued him. We have a little difference between us on the issue, but I am being facetious. The Minister has provided a reasonable explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 255A not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 256 and 257:
Page 34, line 39, leave out from "designation" to "35", in line 40 and insert "by a chief officer of police under section 33 or his accreditation under section"
Page 35, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) A Director General may at any time, by notice to a person he has designated as an investigating officer under section 33, modify or withdraw that designation."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 258:
Page 35, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) The decision by the chief officer to modify or withdraw the designation or accreditation shall not be subject to appeal or judicial review or found any claim for damages at law or otherwise."
The noble Lord said: The aim of the amendment is to ensure that, in the event of a chief officer withdrawing a designation from an individual or a firm, there can be no kickback to him for so doing. That seems a sensible precaution.
The same principle applies to Amendment No. 259, which would leave out the question of liability. It would remove the possibility of the employer of an accredited person being found liable for, shall we say, a misaction by one of his employees when that employee was using police powers.
Both amendments are sensible. Although we covered the points raised in the second amendment earlier to some extent, I hope that the Minister will consider them. They do not seem unreasonable additions to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: Throughout today's debate and a good part of our earlier debates, it has been stressed that we are putting the role into the hands of the chief officers. It is their decision whether to go down this road. They will be able to remove accreditation and it will be their decision to do so.
A code of practice will be issued to chief officers covering the exercise of their powers to modify or withdraw designations and accreditations. Where they

511
are accrediting employees of another employer, it will also include guidance on consultation with that employer to ensure that they are fully informed of any proposal to modify or withdraw. Designated persons will be employees of the police authority. Accredited persons will be employees of the employer who has entered into arrangements with the chief officer. Employment law will apply if designated or accredited persons feel that they have been ill treated in the course of their employment.
Overall, it is probably right that the Bill should not give a right of appeal against removal or modification. That power should lie with the chief officer's discretion. Obviously, it cannot be done unreasonably. There has to be a reason. There will be a code of practice to govern such circumstances.
It may look a little unfair that there is no right of appeal, but the initial designation and accreditation is done not in a prescriptive fashion, but by an enabling power at the police officer's wish and decision and not at that of anybody else. The policing of an area is the responsibility of the chief officer. If they decide to change the rules and remove or modify designation or accreditation, it should be up to them. They will, of course, be subject to other rules, such as the reasonableness test and employment law in other respects, but we should not interfere by putting in a right of appeal as is envisaged.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am fascinated by the Minister's reply. The amendment specifically states that accreditation
"shall not be subject to appeal or judicial review or found any claim for damages at law or otherwise".
My amendment therefore seems to express the Minister's desire, and there seems to be nothing between us. The Minister even seems inadvertently to have agreed my amendment. It is an interesting situation. I think that, with that happy thought, we shall both go away and study the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 259 to 261 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 262:
Page 35, line 20, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of determining liability for the unlawful conduct of an employee of a Service Authority, conduct by such a member in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under section 33 shall be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment; and, in the case of a tort, the Service Authority shall fall to be treated as a joint tortfeasor accordingly."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Removal of restriction on powers conferred on traffic wardens]:
Clause 37 agreed to.
Earl Attleemoved Amendment No. 263:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
"ADDITIONAL POWERS OF TRAFFIC WARDENS: ABNORMAL LOADS
In section 96 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (additional powers of traffic wardens), after subsection (2)(d), there shall be inserted—
"(e) any order made under section 1 or 6 of this Act relating to the movement of an abnormal load where "abnormal load" means a load, including the carrying vehicle, whose weights or dimensions—

(i) exceed those within regulations made under section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), or

(ii) are such that regulations made under section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 require movement of the load to be notified to the chief officer of police.""

The noble Earl said: I declare an interest. I am president of the Heavy Transport Association and close to other associations, and I operate my own abnormal load vehicle.
I am a little surprised that we did not debate Clause 37, and I was worried that the Committee might not accept it. Later, I shall move amendments on the escorting of abnormal loads, a task currently undertaken by the police.
Sometimes during the movement of an abnormal load, it is necessary for the operator to request what are termed "special facilities". They entail the police, and only the police, facilitating and authorising the driver to go right at a "keep left" sign, the wrong way up a one-way street, the wrong way around a roundabout, or to drive for a distance on the wrong side of the road. It could well be that, on a 30-mile movement, special facilities are required at only one location, which is often at the start or the end of a journey. Unfortunately, however, a police escort is required for the whole journey. That is clearly not an effective or good use of police resources.
Can the Minister say whether Clause 37 as drafted provides the necessary powers to authorise special facilities, or is an additional clause—such as the one I propose in Amendment No. 263—required? It would be desirable for traffic wardens to have these powers regardless of whether my later amendments find favour with the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, thought that Clause 37 might disappear. However, we have broad sympathy with the intended aim of Amendment No. 263. I understand that he has discussed the matter with my right honourable friend John Denham, who is the Minister of State responsible for the Bill. Like the noble Earl and ACPO, we should like to see a reduction in police involvement in such work. We are actively considering how to ensure that we have the best arrangements for escorting abnormal loads.
I understand that, today, my right honourable friend met ACPO representatives. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not think that the

513
amendment is necessary or the best way of proceeding. It would be inappropriate to specify in detail what regulations must be made with regard to one issue but not others.
I did not address the Question that Clause 37 stand part of the Bill. However, I refer to traffic wardens and the power to authorise drivers of abnormal loads to break traffic rules such as driving round roundabouts the wrong way. In my years of driving I have once or twice observed instances when it was fairly obvious that a heavy load was not going to negotiate a roundabout by going round it the right way. Yet it was fairly obvious that if those loads had taken the wrong way round the roundabout they would have negotiated it easily. However, I was not in a position to summon the police to sort out those situations. Traffic wardens could direct those situations as part of their general power to direct traffic. The powers to direct traffic are contained in Section 35 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which states that a driver must comply with directions given by a constable. Section 37 of that Act states that pedestrians must comply with directions given by a constable. Those powers are applied to traffic wardens by virtue of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended.
However, I come to the rub. If traffic wardens were to authorise drivers of abnormal loads to break traffic rules on a regular basis, there would be significant implications for additional training requirements and so on. I hope that there is some scope on the matter as regards the discussions that are taking place between the Minister and ACPO. We have general sympathy with the points that the noble Earl has made. I hope that we can arrive at a satisfactory solution to the clear problem which he has identified.
Lord Bradshaw: Before the noble Earl replies, will the Minister tell us in plain English what extra powers traffic wardens get under Section 37? I thought that they had a lot of extra powers to give directions to cyclists and others.
Lord Rooker: I have a note which is about 50 words long. However, the point is that the powers to direct traffic are contained in the Road Traffic Act. Under Section 35 a driver must comply with directions given by a constable. That power was given to traffic wardens under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Therefore, traffic wardens have the power to give a driver an order with which he must comply. Indeed, they also have the power to give pedestrians an order with which they must comply. To that extent their powers are exactly the same as those of a constable. Traffic wardens can tell a driver to stop, go right, go left or start. I imagine that that power would get most people out of a mess.
Lord Bradshaw: I wish to be clear that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 are extended in Clause 37. I simply inquired
514
whether the extension was sufficient to meet the point the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made or whether further extension was necessary.
Lord Rooker: I shall try to give a little more detail. The powers I have mentioned were given to traffic wardens but in some cases they can be exercised only in certain circumstances. Section 96(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides that traffic wardens can exercise general police power to stop vehicles under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 only in a limited range of circumstances. That restricts the functions they can carry out. It means that generally police officers must be employed in undertakings where it may be necessary to stop vehicles, even though their powers may not be required.
Clause 37, which we passed, removes that restriction by deleting the reference to Section 163 as one of the enactments under which powers can only be used in certain circumstances. That means that traffic wardens will have the same power to stop vehicles as that currently held by police officers. That removal of an unnecessary bar to the type of powers traffic wardens can undertake will enable their use in a wider range of circumstances as deemed appropriate locally and will thereby reduce demands on the police where the only additional power required is the power to stop. That will free up police officers who currently have to supervise such things as vehicle emission checks. My briefing then states:
"I beg to move that Clause 37 stand part of the Bill".
I think that the noble Earl has got the message from that. I hope that it is a good explanation of his in some ways legitimate desire. I wish that I had spoken to Clause 37 after all.
Earl Attlee: The Minister is not the only one!
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. The amendment specifically examined the powers of traffic wardens in order to facilitate private escorting. I shall move Amendment No. 333 at a later stage, which will give the Minister an opportunity to give a more informed response as a result of our discussion on this amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Power to amend Chapter 1]:
[Amendment No. 264 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 265:
Page 36, line 4, after "(2)" insert "or (2A)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 38 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: The clause is one of those glorious Henry VIII clauses that we see with monotonous regularity in legislation emanating from the Government. It will give the Secretary of State by order the power to, "modify the provisions or—in this case—
"Schedule 4 by … amending or repealing any provision of that Schedule".
or by,
"adding powers or duties to the powers and duties specified in that Schedule as applicable by a designation … The Secretary of State may by order modify the provisions of Schedule 5 so as to authorise the conferring or imposition, on an accredited person, of powers and duties in addition to those contained in Schedule 5 … An order under this section may make provision for such modifications of any enactment (whenever passed) as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate for the purpose of facilitating the exercise or performance of any power or duty which becomes capable of being conferred or imposed by virtue of an order under this section".
That is a glorious mélange of facility to amend primary legislation by regulation. We see that periodically. One could just about record the fact that this is a necessary statutory inclusion and that my objection is a necessary statutory objection.
I accept that when one finally gets to the end of the clause, it states:
"The Secretary of State shall not make an order containing … any provision authorised by this section unless a draft of that order has been laid before Parliament and approved".
That is frightfully kind of the Government! We give the Secretary of State powers—I stress that it is Parliament that authorises that, not the Government—to amend primary legislation with a slip of paper that we more or less whip through on the nod. This may be deemed to be a reasonable procedure—it has been used many times previously. Each time that I have come across it, I have objected to it and will continue to do so. It may be for the administrative and legislative convenience of the Government but I still do not think that it is justified. If there is primary legislation, it should take primary legislation to amend it. That fairly simple point is our objection to the clause.
Lord Rooker: I was rather surprised that the noble Lord did not mention that in its report on the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made no comment whatever on the order-making power contained in the clause, other than to confirm that the affirmative resolution procedure was appropriate. I rest my case.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I had to leave the Minister something to say! He is quite right, but that does not mean that one has to accept or agree with the report. I hear what he said and I shall not oppose the Question whether clause stand part.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 39 [Code of practice relating to chief officers' powers under Chapter 1]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 266 and 267:
Page 36, line 26, after "police" insert "and by Directors General".
Page 36, line 31, after "police" insert "or a Director General".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 39, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Bradshaw: I believe that this matter returns to the discussions we had about Part 1 of the Bill. We received assurances from the Minister that he will come back to us on that point. But there are issues in the clause we do not like. We want there to be a requirement to consult the police authorities which will have community support officers, and in future we want that to be a permissive power. I shall not go on at length about that at this time of night, but we wish formally to oppose Clause 39 because we believe that it will be subject to amendment at a later stage.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I hope that at this hour of the evening I shall not be held to be unduly suspiciously minded in asking the Minister what is behind the clause. Rightly, he has told us on many occasions during the course of debate today that the employment, for example, of the community support officers will be completely under the control and in the hands of the chief officer of police of the area concerned. Then we find that Clause 39 suddenly seems to give a great deal of power back to the centre. It states that:
"The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice about the exercise and performance by chief officers of police of their powers and duties under this Chapter",
and that the police, in discharging any function under this chapter,
"shall have regard to the code".
I ask the Minister whether that means that the Secretary of State may, if he wishes, issue a code of practice which states that the chief officer of police shall exercise his powers and duties under this chapter by the employment, for example, of community policing. We were told that it is clear that it is to be left to the local chief officers and local areas to decide whether that is suitable for their purposes. Yet it seems to me that the clause, as it stands, gives powers to the Secretary of State to make orders which could direct chief officers to employ such people when they may not necessarily wish to do so.
As I said, I am probably being unduly suspicious. But I have a slightly suspicious mind when it comes to this Government appearing, on the one hand, to convey power to other people hut, in fact, bringing more and more power into the centre.
Lord Elton: I associate myself with those remarks, which chime very closely with what I said during

517
debate on an earlier amendment about exercising power from the centre by means of direction. This is being done by means of guidance. It is the same wolf in a different sheep's clothing.
Lord Tope: In our earlier debates on parts of the Bill the Minister was emollient—I believe that that was the word often used—about consultation with the APA and ACPO. Should this clause be agreed to, and should the Secretary of State be empowered to issue a code of practice, there is nothing in the clause that requires him to consult in any way the APA or ACPO. Can the Minister show that he is still emollient and assure us that, if the clause remains, he will return with a requirement that the Secretary of State will consult the ACPO and the APA before issuing the code of practice?
Lord Rooker: I am a naturally suspicious person, but I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that the code of practice would not allow the Secretary of State in effect to order chief officers to operate the community support officers scheme. That would be contrary to provisions on the face of the Bill in previous clauses. The code of practice, which I referred to in passing on one or two other amendments, cannot be used to do that. It contains, for example, advice on protective clothing and equipment and on making a criminal record check before persons are designated. That is the meat of the code of practice. Its purpose is not to undermine or overturn what is in the earlier part of the Bill. The criteria to satisfy the test in Clauses 33 and 35 concern the capability of persons to carry out certain functions and standards of training.
The purpose of the code is to make the scheme operational, not to make the whole country the same. I suppose that the code will have to state that the badge for accredited officers must be of a certain size and colour. The purpose of the code is not to reverse fundamentally what we have discussed.
I have no problem with consultation, and shall take that away for consideration. It seems to me inconceivable that my right honourable friend would issue a code of practice without consulting with ACPO or the police authorities. However, we shall take that away for consideration.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I thank the Minister for giving me the assurance that he did on the way in which the code of practice will operate. I accept his account of what he says he will do. I have nothing further to add on the clause.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Offences against designated and accredited persons etc.]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 268:
Page 36, line 33, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: We were fascinated by this part of the law. I can well understand that if one assaults an accredited person, one is committing an offence.
518
However, one wonders why one needs to create yet another offence of assault. My legal eagles tell me that there is a well- established criminal law against assault enacted in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. I have difficulty in understanding why that would not apply if someone committed an assault against an accredited person. This is a neat, probing amendment to see why we need to have yet another specific assault law when assault is already well covered. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am not sure that this issue is covered. I believe that we need this part of Clause 40 and it would be a mistake to remove it. Everyone acting in an official capacity within the police service should be able to do so without fear for their own safety. Where they are exercising police powers, however high or low such powers may be, they are right to have a reasonable expectation that an attack on them would be treated with the same seriousness as an attack on a police officer. That is why we do not want to accept Amendment No. 268. It follows, therefore, that this clause is an important part of the Bill.
Aside from the offence of assaulting designated or accredited persons, the clause sets out various other offences relating to obstructing or impersonating such persons. That is not an unimportant point. There will be more uniformed people on the streets of this country at community level. It is important that people with other purposes in mind do not abuse that. We must ensure that impersonating designated or accredited persons is an offence. That parallels the provisions for assaulting, obstructing or impersonating police officers contained in Sections 89 and 90 of the Police Act 1996. Not only should there be protection for support staff; there must be appropriate penalties where others seek to deceive by suggesting that they are designated or accredited persons. There is also an important safeguard for the public in that it is also an offence for a designated or accredited person to make any statement or to act in any way that falsely suggests that he has powers over and above those that he has. That itself is not unimportant, given that we have said throughout that chief officers have a menu from which to choose.
Chief officers will choose which powers accredited persons and community support officers will operate. They will vary in different areas. It would be wrong and an offence for accredited and designated persons who feel that they should have powers not given them by the chief constable to claim that they have those powers. I ask the noble Lord to think twice before pressing his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister seems to assume that the amendment relates to Clause 40 standing part of the Bill. In fact, Amendment No. 268 simply deals with assaults on accredited persons. I am surprised if we are not creating specific offences to deal with assaults—as earlier police Acts have done in respect of police officers. The reason is almost certainly that each time that was done, it raised the level of penalty. In light of the Minister's explanation, which I shall study, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Office of Communications Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Israel: UK Licensed Equipment
  Israel: UK Licensed Equipment
  Macedonia
  Macedonia
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Calais-Frethun Terminal: Security
  Calais-Frethun Terminal: Security
  National Asylum Support Service
  National Asylum Support Service
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Foot and Mouth: Disease Control Centres
  Foot and Mouth: Disease Control Centres
  Ruminants: Feeding of Mammalian Protein
  Ruminants: Feeding of Mammalian Protein
  Animal Feed Imports
  Animal Feed Imports
  Darwin Mounds: Protection of Deep Water Habitats
  Darwin Mounds: Protection of Deep Water Habitats
  Disabled People: Winter Fuel Payments
  Disabled People: Winter Fuel Payments
  Traffic Accidents and Mobile Phones
  Traffic Accidents and Mobile Phones
  Medical Toxicology Unit
  Medical Toxicology Unit
  Haemophilia
  Haemophilia
  Chiropody
  Chiropody
  Northamptonshire Community Health Councils
  Northamptonshire Community Health Councils
  Wembley Stadium
  Wembley Stadium
  Resort Casinos
  Resort Casinos
  Sweden: Ministerial Visits
  Sweden: Ministerial Visits
  Public Services Reform
  Public Services Reform
  Scottish Parliament
  Scottish Parliament
  Cabinet Committees
  Cabinet Committees