Sitting of 12 March 2002

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

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL(BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 19 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Squid
    Mr. Richard Bacon: What discussions he has had with the Falkland Islands Government concerning a multilateral treaty for illex fishery on the high seas. [39564]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): We discussed a possible multilateral high seas agreement at the November South Atlantic fisheries commission meeting in Argentina, in which the Falkland Islands Government's director of fisheries played a key role as a member of the UK delegation.
    Mr. Bacon: It gives me great pleasure to ask the Minister a question about squid, but before I do so, I should declare that I returned recently from the Falkland Islands, which I visited at the invitation of the Falkland Islands Government. I have registered this in the normal way and been assured by the Registrar of Members' Interests that my question is not in breach of the advocacy rule.
    Is the Minister aware that satellite photographs show fishing boats on the high seas emitting more light than the city of Buenos Aires because there are so many of them? Will he ensure, in the spirit of what the Secretary of State for Defence said about the Falkland Islands yesterday, that there is wider co-operation between Argentina and the Falkland Islands, especially in view of the fact that the European Union negotiations have not proceeded well in the last three years? Will he also ensure that this subject is high on the agenda at the meeting of the South Atlantic fisheries commission next week, and that it stays on the agenda because it is in the interest of both countries and
    740
    will do more to promote the economic development of the Falkland Islands than any other issue, according to legislative councillors I have met there?
    Mr. MacShane: I thank the hon. Gentleman and his two colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), who went to the Falkland Islands recently and expressed the continuing care of the House, the Government and the British people for the safe prosperity and future of the islands. My answer to the hon. Gentleman is simply yes, this is an important issue and it will be discussed next week.

    Zimbabwe
    Richard Ottaway: If he will make a statement on the conduct of the Zimbabwean elections. [39565]
    Barbara Follett: What recent discussions he has had with the countries of southern Africa about securing a solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe. [39572]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Counting in the election is under way today. As the House is well aware, there has been every sign of ZANU-PF-backed violence and intimidation, right up to the close of polling, as well as many reports of irregularities, including a shortage of polling booths in urban areas, and harassment of opposition election agents in rural areas. We will make a final judgment when the outcome of the election is declared and the international observers have reported. I will, of course, keep the House informed. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his statement last Wednesday, Zimbabwe dominated discussions at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia.
    Richard Ottaway: Murder, violence, intimidation, gerrymandering, corruption, arson—these are the lengths to which Mr. Mugabe has gone to thwart the democratic process in Zimbabwe. Leaving aside the impotence of the Commonwealth, does the Foreign Secretary agree that Mr. Mugabe has no legitimate right to be head of state in Zimbabwe, and will he confirm that this Government will not recognise him as such?
    Mr. Straw: The descriptions that the hon. Gentleman has uttered are entirely accurate. This is a terrible period not only for Zimbabwe but for those who hold dear the cause of democracy in Africa and elsewhere. I am not making predictions about the formal outcome of the election, but I promise that I will keep the House informed and, if I can, I will make a statement to the House about the decisions that we shall make. The only reason why that might not immediately be possible would be if such decisions were made at a weekend.
    On the issue of recognition, it is states that are recognised, not Governments—a view also taken by the previous, Conservative, Administration. Of course, if it becomes clear, in the event of President Mugabe's being declared the winner, that he has stolen the election—the

    741
    evidence is already pretty strong—that will have enormous implications for the nature of our relationship with Zimbabwe.
    Barbara Follett: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure the early release of the general secretary of the Movement for Democratic Change, Welshman Ncube, who was arrested yesterday? His arrest typifies the appallingly undemocratic way in which the elections are being conducted.
    Mr. Straw: The answer to my hon. Friend is yes. I have been in touch with Brian Donnelly, the British high commissioner in Zimbabwe, about this matter as well as many others. The fact that President Mugabe and ZANU-PF have resorted to methods of violence, intimidation, murder and bringing charges, which many say are trumped up, against members of the MDC, including Welshman Ncube and Morgan Tsvangirai, illustrates President Mugabe's lack of confidence in his ability to win a free and fair election.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I, from this side of the House, warmly congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway)? Whatever the outcome of the election, I remain optimistic that the presidential candidate from the Movement for Democratic Change can and should be elected. Is it not devastating that the objectives and criteria of the Harare declaration of 1991 have been busted open and flagrantly abused by the current president of that country? We want a change, so that the wonderful people of Zimbabwe can share in the genuine growth and prosperity that they warmly deserve.
    Mr. Straw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for his remarks. I hope that the issue of democracy in Zimbabwe will not be not subject to partisan exchanges across the Floor. Everyone should be united on the need for democracy and for all sides in this country to support the forces of democracy. As for the future, my long experience of elections is that they are often difficult to predict, even more so when there has been such intimidation and so many irregularities. The immediate future for the people of Zimbabwe may be dark, but I have faith that they will be able to come through that, and that in the end democracy and right will triumph.
    Ross Cranston: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the stand that he took on suspension at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. Can he confirm that steps will be taken by the institution of the Commonwealth following the election result? Does not the Commonwealth have to grapple with the issue of suspension in the long term? In the future, other countries will deserve to be suspended, just as Zimbabwe deserves to be suspended now.
    Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear last Wednesday that we regretted the decision—or lack of decision—of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Australia last week not to move immediately to suspend the Mugabe Government from the
    742
    Commonwealth, just as I greatly regretted the failure of the Commonwealth Ministers action group to do so when it met on 31 January.
    At Coolum, it was agreed that a troika of the three Heads of Government should be established to determine whether Zimbabwe should be suspended following the outcome of the election and the report of the Commonwealth observers. What decisions they make remains to be seen, but what has become clear over the past year is that the existing arrangements for what amounts to disciplinary action by the Commonwealth need to be changed to take account of regimes, like the Mugabe regime, that may have been democratically elected but have rapidly resorted to undemocratic practices. I am pleased to say that at least one good thing happened at Coolum, which was that the decision was taken to ensure that there is such a disciplinary process in future.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: At the last Labour party conference, the Prime Minister said that there would be no tolerance of the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen. I do not want to anticipate the statement that the Foreign Secretary proposes to make in the next few days, but can he tell the House exactly how that policy of no tolerance is to be put into effect?
    Mr. Straw: I can tell the House what has already happened. On 18 February, I managed to secure the unanimous agreement of all 15 member states of the European Union for sanctions that are targeted at individuals in ZANU-PF, including a ban on military sales, and not at the people of Zimbabwe. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the United States has taken similar measures, although they are not quite as comprehensive. If the worst happens in Zimbabwe and the election is stolen by President Mugabe, we will be in close touch with our European Union, Commonwealth and American allies about what further action can be taken.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Macclesfield."] I am sorry. How could I confuse my two hon. Friends? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for rightly reminding us of the 1991 Commonwealth declaration, which ironically was signed in Harare. A quotation from that declaration was included in the booklet produced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office yesterday to celebrate Commonwealth day. It is worth recalling the words:
    "We believe…in the individual's inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic processes in the society in which he or she lives."
    Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Harare declaration rings tragically hollow in Zimbabwe today? Has not the Mugabe regime ridden roughshod over the principles of democracy, making a total mockery of that declaration? Has not the barbarous and brutal conduct of the election—both before and during it—been outrageous, and on any fair test unacceptable? Why will the Foreign

    743
    Secretary not make it clear today that if Mugabe is proclaimed the winner, he will reject the result and act accordingly?
    Mr. Straw: Is Zimbabwe—is the regime of President Mugabe—in breach of the Harare declaration? Yes, manifestly so: there is not the slightest doubt about that. At least I got the Commonwealth to recognise that in the Commonwealth ministerial action group, both before Christmas and on 31 January. It is not just me saying this; there is now the clearest possible recognition of the breach.
    As for what action we should take, I think it wise to await the outcome of the election. Counting is taking place this afternoon. I promise to keep the House informed and, if I am physically able, to make a statement to the House immediately. Let us make decisions when we know the full facts.
    Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman obviously has more faith in the Mugabe-endorsed election observers than I have.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Commonwealth disgraced itself at last week's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting? Does he agree that if Mugabe claimed victory and the Commonwealth failed to disown the result and suspend Zimbabwe, it would be a travesty of everything that the Commonwealth stands for? It would be a failure not so much of the Commonwealth as of its collective leadership.
    After so much dithering, which has led to so much suffering for the people of Zimbabwe, will the right hon. Gentleman now grasp the nettle and give the lead that is necessary for the building of an international coalition to restore genuine democracy in that sad country?
    Mr. Straw: The gentlest thing I can say to the right hon. Gentleman about his suggestion that I have faith in Commonwealth observers is that it is an error rather like confusing South Staffordshire with Macclesfield. In fact I did not mention observers, or whether I have any faith in them. Whether the House has faith in them will depend on the quality of their report, in the light of palpable evidence—seen and read by all of us—of the irregularities that have been going on under the nose of the international community, as well as their own noses.
    There are three principal sets of international observers in Zimbabwe, from the Commonwealth, the Southern African Development Community and South Africa itself. What reports they produce remain to be seen, but of course those reports will be scrutinised very carefully, and the credibility of those organisations and individuals will be as much at stake as the issue of the integrity of the election.

    Iraq
    Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on Government policy on Iraq. [39566]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The Iraqi regime represents a severe threat to international and regional security as a result of its continued development
    744
    of weapons of mass destruction. It has an appalling human rights record using torture and mass execution of political detainees.
    Iraq continues to defy the United Nations. Of 27 separate obligations imposed on it by the UN Security Council, Iraq is in clear breach of at least 23. Her Majesty's Government are playing a leading role in establishing a new control regime which better targets the importing of military-related goods to Iraq, while allowing normal civilian goods to be imported without restriction.
    The international community's most pressing demand is for Iraq to let the weapons inspectors back and, this time, to allow them to do their job without obstruction.
    Mr. Heath: Does the Foreign Secretary agree, in the absence of compelling evidence of complicity, and given the certainty of the disintegration of the international coalition, and given the expectation of mobilisation by Iran and Kurdish separatists, that massive military confrontation with Iraq is certainly not inevitable and would indeed be foolhardy? If so, will he tell us what alternatives he proposes to ensure Saddam Hussein's compliance with UN resolutions?
    Mr. Straw: As far as compliance with the United Nations resolutions is concerned, we in the United Kingdom Government are doing a huge amount of work, in which I have been involved from the day I assumed this office, to secure a more targeted regime of controls of exports to Iraq. We now have the agreement of the Russian Federation for the principle of what is called a goods review list; I hope very much that, when resolution 1382 comes up for renewal, it will be put fully into effect.
    As for compelling evidence, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that there is a huge amount of published compelling evidence about the complicity of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime in the production of weapons of mass destruction. When they were in Iraq, the United Nations weapons inspectors discovered chemical and biological weapons and missile parts buried in the desert, and concealed in caves and railway tunnels. They also discovered large quantities of chemical warfare agents, including Sarin, Tabun, mustard and nerve gases. Iraq was also producing biological warfare agents such as anthrax, botulinum toxin, gas gangrene and aflatoxin. The weapons inspectors were unable to account for 4,000 tonnes of so-called precursor chemicals used in the production of weapons, 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals used in the production of nerve gas and 31,000 chemical weapons munitions.
    In these circumstances, in our judgment it is more important than ever that inspectors from the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency be given access to all relevant sites, to be allowed to inspect freely wherever they want to, at whatever time they wish to. That is the action which Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime must take to come back into the international community, for what lies at the heart of this issue is the rule of international law.
    There have been nine United Nations Security Council resolutions, none of which Saddam Hussein has complied with in full, and 27 separate obligations upon Saddam Hussein of which he is in blatant breach of at least 23,

    745
    notwithstanding the overwhelming and compelling evidence of his involvement in developing and producing weapons of mass destruction.
    Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend has said, the Iraqi regime is guilty of the most awful human rights abuses. He also said that international law was important.
    I chair an organisation called Indict. It is funded by the United States Congress, and its main aim is to collect evidence against the Iraqi regime on charges of human rights abuses. Two years ago I took a file to the Attorney-General containing evidence, which can be tried in British courts under universal jurisdiction and the Taking of Hostages Act 1982, of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Iraqi regime.
    Why, two years later, when a leading Queen's counsel says that we have enough evidence to bring this case to a British court, has the Attorney-General kicked it into the long grass by sending it to Scotland Yard? Why is a case not being brought? Surely that is a better option for dealing with the Iraqi regime than some of the options that are at present being considered.
    Mr. Straw: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done over many years in standing up for the cause of human rights and against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the main point that she raises is a matter for the Attorney-General, but given the seriousness of the matters that my hon. Friend has raised with me, I will readily take them up with the Attorney-General and have a meeting with her.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that many of us are very concerned about the talk of pre-emptive military action against Iraq? Many of us do not believe that it is as yet established that there is a sufficient requirement for that. Would the right hon. Gentleman ensure, first, that before he has further substantial discussions with the United States Government he holds a full debate in the House, so that the views of hon. Members can be identified? Secondly, will he ensure that if we are to have military action at any stage, that will be made the subject of a substantive vote on which the House can express its opinion?
    Mr. Straw: I would welcome a debate on the matter. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand from his experience as a Minister, this is a matter for the usual channels to sort out.
    As for further debates, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the conventions of this House about the basis on which military action is decided. There is an argument for those conventions to be changed, but those are the conventions. But of course, as far as this and preceding Governments have been concerned, whenever military action has been determined, the House has had a crucial role to play. In respect of matters following 11 September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ensured that Parliament was recalled from recess not once
    746
    but twice, and there were five separate debates—all in Government time—on Afghanistan between September and December.
    David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if military action were to be taken against the Iraqi dictatorship, many of us who fully supported the campaign in Afghanistan would have to be satisfied, first, that it is absolutely essential, secondly, that it is according to international law—I cannot emphasise that enough—and, thirdly, that the Iraqi dictator has not allowed the weapons inspectors back in? A great deal depends on the line that he takes over allowing back in those inspectors, who can check and verify weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. Straw: I entirely applaud my hon. Friend for being concerned about military action, because we all should be. It cannot be ruled out in this situation, but no one who is serious should contemplate the prospect of military action unless, as he said, there is the clearest possible evidence of the necessity for it and, alongside that, unless there is a clear need for military action to be taken when other practical measures have failed. I do not believe that anyone looking at this matter inside and outside Government is taking any different approach from that.
    Certainly, we want the weapons inspectors to go back, but that has to be on the basis that they are admitted in circumstances in which they can properly do their job and are not subject to the kind of restrictions that Saddam Hussein imposed upon them in the period up to 1998.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Foreign Secretary was right to remind us of those UN resolutions of which Saddam Hussein and Iraq are in breach. Does he understand, as Mr. Cheney will find as he tours Arab capitals, that there is a strong sense among Arab Governments that we are inconsistent in our determination to apply some UN resolutions, but not all, and that there are other countries in the region that could well be taken to task for their failure to implement UN resolutions, not least 242 and 338? Does he agree that military action and the abandonment of the strategy of containment and deterrence can be contemplated only after all other reasonable alternatives have been explored, and with a proper understanding of the possible political and military consequences, including the break-up of the coalition against terrorism and, equally, the break-up of Iraq? As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) drew to our attention, should not any British participation in military action be dependent upon an affirmative vote in the House of Commons; not just for the Members of the House of Commons, but so that the people of the United Kingdom can be satisfied that these issues have been properly explored?
    Mr. Straw: I dealt with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford, etc. [Interruption.] It is his penalty for having such a long constituency name. I strongly accept that we do not take military action without clear and compelling evidence—I have read out some of that—and take it only where it is clear that it is, as it were, the last resort. So far as the view of the Arab community is concerned, it is profoundly concerned about

    747
    the middle east and it wants to see 242 and 338 implemented; so do the rest of us. However, there may at least be a process to achieve that.
    At the same time, many Arab leaders whom I have met express, privately if not publicly, the gravest possible concern about the threat that the Iraqi regime has posed and continues to pose to the stability of the region, as well as about the appalling record of that regime—unparalleled in its depravity—against the Iraqi people themselves.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I appreciate that—so far—the response to 11 September has been calm and measured, as the Prime Minister said, but does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary understand the concern caused by those members of the Bush Administration who seem gung-ho about starting wars with various unconnected countries, and who even contemplate nuclear first strikes against countries that do not possess nuclear weapons, as well as against those that do?
    Mr. Straw: If I accepted the assumption behind my hon. Friend's question, I would share his concern, but I have not met members of the Bush Administration who are gung-ho. [Interruption.] The ones whom I have met are careful and cautious. Of course, I understand the anxieties, which are expressed on both sides of the House. However, if we judge people by their actions and decisions—rather than by the noises off of their most extravagant supporters—the fact is that every decision that President Bush has taken in the international field since assuming his very high office has been careful, cautious, proportionate and within international law, and has enjoyed the support of the international community. I have no reason to believe that future decisions that he takes will be any different.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: The Foreign Secretary has already clearly shown that Saddam Hussein possesses a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and that he continues to develop such weapons. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Saddam has shown that he is prepared to use them aggressively, not least against his own people; that he regards the United Nations and its resolutions and inspectors with contempt; and that, unchecked, he poses a growing threat to the union and beyond? Is it not an overriding responsibility and objective to stop Saddam, and to decommission his weapons of mass destruction before he uses them—or gives or sells them to others to use? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he shares that serious objective with our American allies, and that nothing—nothing—must be ruled out as a means of achieving it?
    Mr. Straw: I have already put on the record a synopsis of some of the compelling evidence against Saddam Hussein, the danger that he poses and his continual flouting of the obligations of the international community and the Security Council of the United Nations. We should not rule out possible actions if Saddam Hussein does not comply with international law, but we have to be very careful in this situation. We must be cautious and proportionate, and ensure that the decisions that we take have the support of the international community and are consistent with international law. As I said a moment ago,
    748
    nothing in my discussions with members of the Bush Administration suggested that they have in mind anything other than proceeding in that way.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the Foreign Secretary's response to the King of Jordan, one of this country's best friends in the middle east, who says that a military attack on Iraq would be a catastrophe?
    Mr. Straw: We understand the vulnerability of Iraq—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Jordan."] Sorry—we understand the vulnerability of Jordan. I think that it receives all its oil from Iraq, so it is in a very difficult position. At the same time, I greatly applaud the stand taken by the King of Jordan and his Government. If military action is in contemplation—it is not directly in contemplation at the moment—there will be the fullest possible consultation with all Arab states, and particularly with allies such as Jordan, before any decisions are taken. However, my discussions with the Government of Jordan demonstrated that every single member—from the highest level downwards—is profoundly concerned about the threat that the Saddam Hussein regime poses to their people and to the stability of the region.

    War on Terrorism
    Mr. George Osborne: If it is his policy to support action against countries other than Afghanistan in the campaign against terrorism. [39567]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The coalition did not take action against Afghanistan as a country, but against al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime that harboured and supported it. We support appropriate action against terrorism; indeed, it is our duty to do so under United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, which was passed on 28 September 2001.
    Mr. Osborne: Who really speaks for the Government on the issue of broadening the campaign against terrorism? Is it the Secretary of State for International Development, who thinks that further military action is not sensible; is it the former Foreign Secretary, who leaks Cabinet discussions to advance his case; is it the current Foreign Secretary, who thinks that the American Administration are electioneering; or is it the Prime Minister, who conducts his own presidential foreign policy without telling anyone about it and does not come to the House to explain it?
    Mr. Bradshaw: That question was not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] Okay, it was. He quoted most of my colleagues inaccurately, but the Government are clear on the issue. As I said in my original answer, our policy is based on the unanimous United Nations resolution that was passed post- 11 September.
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the lessons that most of my constituents and others who view the actions after 11 September have learned is that we ignore people such as Saddam Hussein and the Taliban at our cost? Does he agree that in deciding how to proceed—as we must—he has the support of the majority of the public? Will he

    749
    ensure that we put as much effort into maintaining broad support, especially in the Muslim world and the Muslim diaspora? We have enjoyed support so far from the majority of British Muslims, who understand that they are just as much at risk from terrorism and acts of gross human rights abuses by Saddam Hussein as we are.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we take people with us in the campaign, which should not be seen in a narrow military dimension. It involves international development, good governance and political and economic reform. Many people have missed the fact that phase two has already begun in many ways. In co-operation with several Governments, including the Philippines, Yemen and Nepal, the international community is assisting Governments who wish to deal with the terrorist threat but do not always have the means themselves to do so.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the Minister accept that in any action against Iraq it will be essential to carry with him not only his hon. Friends and Opposition Members, but the wider Muslim community and the country as a whole? That will mean building up trust in the Prime Minister. When will the Prime Minister come to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tomorrow."] When will the Prime Minister—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Tomorrow."] When will the Prime Minister make a statement on his proposals for Iraq, instead of just leaking stories to the Australian press?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Members have given the hon. Gentleman the answer to his question about when the Prime Minister will next come to the House. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume that action against Saddam Hussein would be unpopular in the Arab and Muslim world. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already pointed out, little love is lost between Saddam Hussein and his neighbours. We will of course work to take people with us and maximise consensus.
    Mr. Derek Foster: My hon. Friend will recall the widespread admiration for the Prime Minister following the events of 11 September, especially in putting together the broad-based alliance. Is he aware that if we follow the United States into action against Iraq, we run the risk of wrecking that alliance, further destabilising the middle east—which is already on the threshold of war—and causing widespread unease on the Government Benches?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I do not think that it is correct to talk about Britain following the United States. Britain will make a decision based on our national interest. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have already pointed out, little love is lost between Saddam Hussein's regime and his Arab neighbours, but we will of course take into account views in the Arab world, as we did after 11 September, and do our utmost to build the maximum consensus.

    Middle East
    Norman Baker: If he will make a statement on the prospect for peaceful resolution of the conflict in the middle east. [39568]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The Government are profoundly concerned at the continuing violence in the middle east. We fully understand the intense political pressures on the Israeli Government to respond to repeated suicide bombings. Our condemnation of terrorism in all its forms is unequivocal. We look to the Palestinian Authority for 100 per cent. effort to deal with terrorism, but actions aimed at inflicting maximum pain on Palestinian civilians can never be an effective basis on which to build peace.
    It is precisely because of the gravity of the situation that the parties concerned and the international community should do all they can to restart the peace process. Over the past three days, I have spoken to the Israeli Foreign Minister, the Palestinian Authority's foreign affairs representative, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and to EU Foreign Ministers. We welcome the return of US envoy General Zinni later this week, the Saudi Arabian initiative and US Vice-President Cheney's visit. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians must grasp the opportunity that those provide to de-escalate the violence and restart dialogue.
    Norman Baker: When the Prime Minister met Vice-President Cheney yesterday, did he stress that it is important for the middle east that UN resolutions in respect of Israel and Palestine are enforced as well as those in respect of Iraq, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) noted? Is not the way forward to establish a genuinely independent Palestinian state, as well as to make sure that Israel's right to exist within its own borders, free from attack, is recognised by all? Did the Prime Minister also tell Vice-President Cheney that any attack on Iraq would be likely to set the peace process back, rather than advance it?
    Mr. Straw: The point about the United Nations Security Council resolutions was not raised with Vice-President Cheney for one reason only: the United States is completely committed to the implementation of key resolutions 242 and 338, which it supported in the Security Council. The US has helped to provide a route map to securing the resolutions' implementation through the Tenet and Mitchell plans.
    In addition, we all share the aspiration and the hope that a secure state of Israel can exist within recognised borders alongside a viable state of Palestine. We have long made that clear, and I am glad to say that President Bush made it clear in almost those exact terms when he addressed the UN General Assembly on 10 November.
    Richard Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the comments of Jonathan Friedland in The Guardian last week, when he said that every last one of the 200-plus Israeli reservists who refused to go to the West Bank and Gaza were heroes? Last week, premier Sharon told the Knesset that the aim was
    "to increase the number of losses on the other side. Only after they have been battered will we be able to conduct talks."

    751
    Is it not time that the Government used their influence with the United States to say that, if the US is serious about tackling terror, the least that it should do is cut off the supply of arms to Israel, which is attacking Palestinian civilians daily?
    Mr. Straw: With apologies to Mr. Friedland, I must tell my hon. Friend that I did not see that article in The Guardian last week, so I shall not comment on it. As far as the area's future is concerned, the situation there is extremely grave. Of course, there are people who, like my hon. Friend, speak strongly and powerfully for the Palestinians, and there are people who speak with equal passion on the other side, for the Israeli community. I hope that there are people in all parties in this House who speak for all sides.
    The situation is profoundly grave. Yes, I grieve for all the innocent Palestinians who have lost their lives in recent weeks, and I grieve also for all the Israelis who have lost their lives. But I have to say that the terror that is now felt in Israel as a result of the increasing and escalating use of suicide bombers is palpable. [Interruption.] The terror carried out by the IRA in this country was bad enough, as many people—myself included—experienced, but I ask the House to understand and appreciate what it would have been like if it had included the terror of suicide bombs.
    As I made clear in my statement, in these circumstances we must work to ensure cautious and statesmanlike responses from both sides. However, we must also have some appreciation of the pressures exerted on the politics of Israel, as well as on the Palestinian Authority. We must also try to look to the future in the midst of this grave darkness. That is why the United Kingdom Government have been working as hard as we can, and why we welcome General Zinni's travels to the region at the end of the week, the visit of Vice-President Cheney and, in particular, the initiative of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: I preface my question by declaring an interest as a member of the Business Advisory Council of the United Nations. The Foreign Secretary has reminded us this afternoon of the grave developments in Iraq, but those were known to most of us before the shocking events of 11 September. In recent days, our Prime Minister and the President of the United States have clearly indicated their likely intention to lead our two countries into war against Iraq. Before the Prime Minister seeks the support of this House of Commons for such action, will the Foreign Secretary urge him to publish a document explaining in precise detail, for the benefit of those of us who do not have access to secret intelligence reports, the threats to Britain and the United States that would justify an attack on Iraq at this stage? Will the Foreign Secretary also tell us under what chapter or clause of the United Nations charter we would seek to proceed in declaring war?
    Mr. Straw: The issue of the chapter on military action does not arise because no decision has been made about military action. I have said already that we accept our obligations in international law, but the issue of Iraq is about international law and the failure of the Saddam Hussein regime to meet the very clearest requirements of international law on him.
    752
    The hon. Gentleman makes a point about 11 September, and I would make exactly the same point. We were aware of much of the evidence against Saddam Hussein before 11 September. What 11 September did—for the whole international community, I hope—was make us more alive to threats from failing states, terrorism and rogue states such as Iraq than ever before. Surely the lesson of 11 September, and of the decay of Afghanistan which allowed terrorism to breed before 11 September, is that where we have evidence—as we had about Afghanistan before 11 September—we need to act on it before the international community and the peace of the world is put at risk to the degree that it was on 11 September and could be again.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Taking into account the act of outright aggression carried out in Ramallah today by Israeli forces under a Defence Minister who, to his shame, is the leader of the Israeli Labour party, the fact that tanks supplied by Britain may well have been used in that attack, and the fact that in the year of Sharon's premiership four times as many Israelis have been killed by terrorist acts as in the preceding year and four times as many still Palestinians have been killed—innocent Palestinians as well as innocent Jews, as my right hon. Friend says—is not the time approaching when economic sanctions and an arms ban may have to be considered by the United Kingdom and Europe on both sides in this hellish confrontation?
    Mr. Straw: I accept my right hon. Friend's profound concern and applaud the way in which he has put his point. However, I believe that, although the situation is very grave, the best prospect of a peace, which can only come through negotiation, is by accepting the principles of Crown Prince Abdullah's initiative and by the work of General Zinni and others in ensuring that there is a pathway back through Tenet and Mitchell to direct negotiations. What is so frustrating is that virtually everybody is agreed, inside the Israeli Government as well as the Palestinian Authority, that there have to be negotiations, and they are pretty well agreed about the basis for those negotiations. We all have to get those negotiations going. If I felt that my right hon. Friend's proposals would assist in those negotiations, I might support them, but I have yet to be persuaded.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Following a recent visit to the middle east with the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), I tabled a question asking what was being done to help to allow Yasser Arafat attend the Arab summit in Beirut at the end of this month. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the fullness of his reply, and for agreeing that Yasser Arafat should attend. As violence in the middle east gets worse and worse day to day, any new idea is of the utmost importance. As the Foreign Secretary said, the proposals made by Crown Prince Abdullah deserve to be treated seriously and must be encouraged. Having an empty chair in Beirut instead of Yasser Arafat will only make things worse. What progress has been made in seeking a common position with the Americans that Yasser Arafat should be allowed free passage from the Palestinian Authority to Beirut and back again?
    Mr. Straw: A good deal of discussion has taken place with the Americans to ensure that. I am glad to note that

    753
    the Israeli Government have now agreed at least to release President Arafat from what effectively amounts to house arrest. We shall continue to put pressure on the Israeli Government to ensure that he can travel to Beirut and back again in safety. That is essential, and we are discussing it with the United States Government and others.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What discussions he has had about extending the mandate of the international peacekeeping force beyond Kabul; and if he will make a statement. [39569]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): We have discussed the expansion of the international security assistance force with a number of our colleagues, including Hamid Karzai, chairman of the Afghan Interim Administration. The expansion of ISAF beyond Kabul is not a matter for the UK alone, but for the whole international community. The UN Security Council resolution 1386 limits ISAF to Kabul and the surrounding area.
    Mr. Mullin: May I put it to my hon. Friend that the problems in Afghanistan are by no means over, and that a little help will be required from the Americans among others to stabilise the situation there before we turn another country inside out?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I agree with my hon. Friend that an enormous job of work remains to be done in Afghanistan. The Americans are contributing a great deal in terms of special forces on the ground and financial support. However, I agree that the international community and the United Kingdom should not repeat the mistake that we made 10 years ago. We shall not abandon Afghanistan until we have ensured its secure and prosperous future.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: What steps are the Government taking, whether by the use of peacekeeping forces or otherwise, to make sure that the farmers of Afghanistan do not take advantage of their new-found peace simply to return to the massive production of heroin, as they have done in the past, and to export it through Europe and thereby ruin the lives of young people in the countries that liberated them in the first place?
    Mr. Bradshaw: ISAF is not strictly responsible for the areas of Afghanistan to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Its remit is restricted to Kabul and its surroundings, so its ability to act in that regard is limited. However, the interim authority has put on record its determination to stamp out opium production. The signs are encouraging—the prediction is that this year's crop will be about a third of what it was under the Taliban.
    We are working hard with the Afghan Interim Administration and the rest of the international community, with all the extra funding promised at the Tokyo conference. Part of that money will be used for crop substitution and other schemes to help wean Afghan
    754
    farmers off opium production, which is basically the result of Afghanistan being a failed state. The most important thing is to get Afghanistan back on its feet.

    North Korea
    Mr. John Grogan: What recent contact he has had with the Government of North Korea to discuss bilateral relations. [39570]
    Mr. John Smith: What recent discussions he has had with North Korea on international security. [39574]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Denis MacShane): The North Korean Vice-Foreign Minister, Choe Su Hon, visited London in December. He met my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and I held detailed talks with him. I told Mr. Choe that North Korea should end its missile exports and comply fully with its nuclear commitments under the agreed framework, tackle its poor human rights record, and hold talks with the South Koreans and the United States.
    Mr. Grogan: During those discussions, was the question of the "sunshine" policy of engagement with the North of President of South Korea, Kim Dae-Jung, raised? In my hon. Friend's judgment, did President Bush's "axis of evil" speech help or hinder the development of that policy?
    Mr. MacShane: The Government strongly support President Kim Dae-Jung's "sunshine" engagement policy. In all my talks in South Korea, I have expressed that support and I urge whoever succeeds him this year as president to continue that policy.
    When President Bush interpreted the "axis of evil" speech when he visited the region, he made it quite clear that there was no question of any military attack on North Korea. He repeated what Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has said, that the United States is ready for talks
    "any time and any place"
    with Pyongyang. I again urge the North Koreans to take up that offer.
    Mr. Smith: Does my hon. Friend think that the American Administration's nuclear posture review that advocates targeting North Korea and other non-nuclear countries will improve international security? What is more, does he think that it will help or hinder the international community's attempts to deter North Korea from developing intercontinental ballistic missiles that can deliver a nuclear payload?
    Mr. MacShane: Surely the important point is that the policy review, as reported in the press, reiterated the United States' commitment to a "no first use" policy. It also indicated that America was seeking to reduce the number of its nuclear missiles from 6,000 to 2,000. The message that my hon. Friend and other Members surely should convey is that we want North Korea to engage with, to talk to and to open up to the rest of the world.

    755
    That is the view of South Korea, Japan and China, and, I believe, of the United States—and certainly of Her Majesty's Government.
    Michael Fabricant: Is North Korea not already developing ballistic missiles and is it not building silos for those ballistic missiles? Is it not the case that, when those silos are completed, there will be no way of disarming North Korea short of a dreadful attack?
    Mr. MacShane: As I said in my first answer, I told the Vice-Foreign Minister of North Korea that we wanted North Korea to stop the proliferation and export of the missiles that it is building. It is a serious issue, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it must be addressed. That is why we want a policy of getting North Korea to the negotiating table—whether with the United States, South Korea or anyone else.
    Mr. Richard Spring: The Under-Secretary will recall the declaration of March 2000 that called for Government-to-Government dialogue and inter-Korean economic co-operation on the Korean peninsula. Given that President Kim's attempts to engage with the North have been limited in success and given North Korea's substantial military capability, including, we believe, the possession of weapons of mass destruction, will the Under-Secretary urgently press for a specific anti-terrorism agreement between the two countries, which has been requested by the South Koreans? That is at least one way of moving towards creating a sense of peace and stability in the region.
    Mr. MacShane: That is a very positive suggestion. I certainly urge the North Koreans to enter into talks with the South Koreans to take that kind of confidence-building agreement forward. It would be most welcome in the region as a whole.

    EU Enlargement
    Linda Perham: What discussions he is having with candidate countries to the European Union on their accession. [39571]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): We have regular discussions with all the candidate countries because our Government are champions of EU enlargement.
    Linda Perham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he confident that Cyprus will be among the first wave of countries to be admitted to the EU in 2002 whether or not there is a solution to the problem of the division of the island? Will he visit Cyprus to discuss its application?
    Peter Hain: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's work in the House for the Friends of Cyprus group. It does excellent work to bring the voice of Cyprus into our deliberations.
    I intend to visit Cyprus in the near future, and that is crucial because we are seen as champions of EU enlargement. Countries such as Cyprus see us as their friends, but they do not see the Conservative Opposition as their friends, because the Tories voted against the Nice treaty, which will allow Cyprus into the EU.
    Cyprus has already closed 24 of the 29 chapters that it has opened in the negotiations preceding its accession to the EU. We hope that the process will continue and that, if at all possible, Cyprus will come in as a united island after a bi-communal, bi-zonal peace settlement has been achieved. However, if that is not possible, the Republic of Cyprus and its Government are recognised by the EU as entitled to join if they complete the negotiations.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Now that the Minister's fanaticism is becoming clearer to everyone, will he at least accept that it would be expensive nonsense and a shambles for the European Union to be extended without a fundamental review of its agricultural policy? Bearing in mind the level of overproduction and the enormous potential for production in eastern Europe, does he agree that we should not accept the complete nonsense that will result unless we get fundamental agricultural reform?
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman knows all about fanaticism, if I may say so. To answer his question, the common agricultural policy needs reform; there is no question about that. Indeed, the Government initiated proceedings that resulted in an initial stage of reform in 1999. That is continuing. The CAP cannot continue in its present form. It will collapse as a result of enlargement. That will force reform if no other forces in the European Union do so. The hon. Gentleman should take account of the fact that many of our friends, including the Czech Republic, Hungary and Cyprus, are among the applicant states that want to join the European Union. He should be supporting them, not opposing them like his Front-Bench colleagues.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given notice of this point of order to you and to the hon. Gentleman concerned.
May I ask you to investigate the conduct of the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), who has, perhaps inadvertently, misled the House? During last Tuesday's debate I raised with him allegations that the local Plaid Cymru party in my constituency had been receiving donations in exchange for local bus contracts. The hon. Gentleman dismissed the suggestion by saying, at column 157, that all those allegations had been immediately withdrawn. That is not in fact the case, as the hon. Gentleman must have known at the time. Both Councillor Bevan, who originally made the allegations, and the district auditor are now pursuing the matter with some seriousness.
Mr. SpeakerThat is not a matter for the Chair.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are daily seeing on our television screens the horrible massacres that are occurring in the middle east. Civilians in the occupied territories are being attacked by tanks and helicopter gunships and bombed by planes. It is not an equal struggle, yet there has been an almost deafening silence from our Government, apart from responses to one or two questions that they had to answer this afternoon.
Yesterday the Prime Minister met Vice-President Cheney, who could and should be doing something to resolve the horrendous massacre that is occurring in the middle east. Nobody condemns suicide bombers more than me, but this is not an equal struggle. These are people with home-made weapons; civilians who are living under occupation and fighting a first-world army. Have the Government said whether we will get a statement on what is happening in the middle east?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Lady has put her concerns on the record.

Broadcasting Act 1990 (Amendment)
3.33 pm
Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990 in respect of restrictions on the holding of licences.
The importance and urgency of the need to relax the very restrictive rules that govern media ownership is widely recognised. Throughout the industry, across Parliament and among consumers there is a growing understanding that the changes driven by new technology, which are rapidly eroding old distinctions between television, computers and telephones, and increasing the array of information, services and entertainment available to people at home, at work and on the move, must be reflected in a new and much less onerous regulatory structure.
Historically, the media industry has been subject to more ownership controls than other industries. In the past, those restrictions were justified, by Governments of both parties, in the name of consumer protection because of the very limited choice available to viewers, listeners and readers, but today technology has removed those limits on choice. Millions of households have access to hundreds of television channels, compared with just three 20 years ago.
The Government recognised the need for change in their White Paper "A New Future for Communications", and again in last year's consultation on media ownership rules. In particular, they said that they are ready to remove the statutory obstacle that prevents channel 3—ITV—from being owned by a single company. Ministers have said that but they have not done it, and it does not seem likely that they will do so until the communications Bill goes through Parliament. Given that the publication date of the draft communications Bill keeps being put back, there must now be serious doubt about when all that will happen.
The earliest credible date for the completion of that legislation is the summer of 2003. Events in the industry mean that it is unlikely to wait that long. Even though the recent merger talks between Granada and Carlton broke down, pressures in the industry remain intense and few people believe that the present ownership structures can be sustained. We believe that unnecessary obstacles to change should now be swept aside, so that the industry can decide in what form it wishes to sustain itself. A heathy ITV alternative is needed to compete alongside BBC, Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky and so on.
I am attracted by the concept of a single ITV company, but I recognise that there are other options. Although my Bill would open the way for ITV to be owned by a single company, I must stress that it would not alter the requirements for regional or independent production. Those issues are separate from ownership. Of course, I stress that, although the Bill would remove the legislative obstacle to a single ITV company, any proposal would still have to pass the competition authorities in the usual way, and they, no doubt, would wish to examine the share of television advertising revenue that a merged company could command.
I must also stress that the measures in the Bill are only the first of a series of changes to media and cross-media ownership rules that I shall be recommending. We start

759
from the assumption that, as far as possible, media ownership should be regulated by the same competition laws that apply to other industries. I do not believe that, in general, a special regime is needed any longer.
The competition authorities can have regard to market share issues when considering whether to allow mergers and takeovers. For the most part, that should be quite sufficient, especially as they can consider any market, whether regional or local, as well as national. Of course, I recognise that definitions of market share in the media world are much more complex than those that involve dishwasher powder or hair spray. Following this Bill, I shall introduce further Bills.
Let me to turn to the crucial distinction between regulation of ownership and that of content. Although ownership rules can broadly be left to competition authorities, content is another matter altogether. Although I firmly believe that a lighter touch is needed to deal with the distinction between harm, which needs to be regulated, and offence, which can be regulated by using the off button, I accept entirely that the media industry is unique and that the content of television and radio programmes must continue to be scrutinised. The right way to do that is not through ownership controls, but through licensing procedures, and the authorities must continue to monitor content through their codes and their duty to preserve diversity and choice for consumers. The powers exercised by the Independent Television Commission—for example, in relation to taste and decency or to the time at which channel 3 carries news bulletins—will remain unaltered. In the event of extreme and repeated breaches of any licensing conditions or of the programme code, the ITC would still be able to revoke licences in those extreme circumstances.
The Bill is timely. It removes a barrier that few people believe is still justified, having been rendered unnecessary and out of date by technological progress. It implements a policy to which Ministers say they are committed. Britain has many natural advantages in the media industry—a tradition of high-quality public service broadcasting, a good record of innovation and a large pool of creative and entrepreneurial talent.
I want the emerging global players in an industry that will be important in the 21st century to include businesses in which Britain's influence is prominent. I want to make it easy for British companies to take advantage of the enormous opportunities that exist. Helping them to do so will promote diversity, choice and quality. More freedom for broadcasting companies leads to a better product for consumers. Reaching all those desirable goals should not be obstructed by either ministerial sloth or bureaucratic regulation. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Yeo, Mr. Whittingdale, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Greenway, Mr. Hammond, Miss McIntosh and Mr. Laurence Robertson.

Broadcasting Act 1990 (Amendment)
  BROADCASTING ACT 1990 (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Yeo accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990 in respect of restrictions on the holding of licences: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 April, and to be printed [Bill 110].
Opposition Day [11TH ALLOTTED DAY]

  London and the South-East
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.42 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I beg to move,
  That this House takes pride in London's great heritage and its status as a major international capital city; notes that London remains the heart of global financial markets, a world centre for arts, music and fashion, a leader in higher education, medicine and scientific research, and home to the most diverse tapestry of cosmopolitan culture in Europe; regrets that this status is being increasingly undermined by the steady reduction in the quality of life experienced by people in London and the South East and, in particular, the daily crisis faced by commuters, with delays on the railways increasing and the London Underground facing severe overcrowding with little hope for significant improvement; further notes the rise in violent crime, especially on its streets, and the continuing problems for schools and hospitals struggling to cope with low morale and staff shortages; further notes the environmental scars in many parts of London of abandoned cars, graffiti and rubbish, at a time when Council Taxes are rising even further; and calls upon the Government to address the needs of people in London and the South East and to improve the quality of overstretched public services.
  Anyone expecting a yah-boo debate in which Conservative Members try to blame the ills of London on the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats will be disappointed.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Oh! I am very disappointed.
  Mr. Pickles: My right hon. Friend is a hard man.
  We believe that some consensus needs to exist on London so that everyone—the Government, local authorities, the Mayor and the Assembly—can work together. However, the odd word of criticism of the Government may creep into the debate, but it will be uttered in the spirit of friendship and comradeship.
  Mr. Martin Salter rose—
  Mr. Pickles: On that basis, I give way.
  Mr. Salter: In the spirit of what is clearly going to be a touchy-feely consensual debate, I give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to apologise in public to the House and the British people for the decision of the Government whom he supported in 1996 to do away with the police housing allowance, triggering one of the worst recruitment and retention crises in police forces in London and the south-east. Was that wrong? Will the hon. Gentleman apologise?
  Mr. Pickles: I am sorry that the consensus has broken down so early. Police officers are to come to the House to lobby tomorrow, when we will see what they think of the hon. Gentleman and the Government he supports.

  761
  London is traditionally a vibrant and exciting city—a capital of commerce and business, of culture and the arts, and of many different and diverse cultures which have made it an attractive place. However, the question is now being asked, is London a good place to live and to bring up a family? In recent weeks, the capital has had two wake-up calls: we discovered, much to our shock, that a person is five times as likely to be a victim of crime in London as in New York; and the Mercer report on quality of life puts London 11th among all the European Union capitals.
  On pollution alone, the Mercer report puts London behind Los Angeles, Istanbul and Lusaka; in the EU, only Athens scores worse then London. More important, on quality of life overall, which takes account of socio-economic factors, crime, transport, the environment and various other measures of whether a city is a pleasant place to live, London has dropped one place since last year and six since 2000. We are now ranked 41st in the world and 11th in the EU behind Vienna, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Brussels, Luxembourg, Berlin, Paris and Dublin. By measuring factors such as personal safety and comfort, transportation and congestion, the Mercer report has picked up early the deterioration in our nation's capital.
  Mike Gapes: Speaking of deterioration, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that throughout the 18 years of Conservative Government there was mass unemployment in London and massive cuts in the number of hospital beds, and that people fled the city because things were getting so bad? Will he confirm also that under Labour the population of London is increasing as people realise that there are more jobs and greater prosperity in the city?
  Mr. Pickles: I do not confirm that. The hon. Gentleman should be careful or I will not follow the instructions he gave me a couple of days ago to lay into the Government on congestion charging and the public-private partnership. He cannot say one thing in private and something quite different on the Floor of the House. I hope that I have betrayed no confidences.
  Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman has not betrayed a confidence; he has simply got something completely wrong. He knows, because it is on the record, that I oppose the madcap congestion charging scheme introduced by the—independent—Mayor of London, Mr. Livingstone. There might in principle be a scheme that works, but that scheme is not it.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman would have done better to remain seated. We have seen the flame flicker and a sinner retract.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for smoking out the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes). Did not the hon.
  762
  Gentleman vote for the Bill that allows the independent Mayor to levy those charges? Labour Members complain, but they voted for it.
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is right. I had already been so beastly to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) that I decided to leave out that point, but my hon. Friend is less compassionate.
  Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: No. I suggest that it is in the hon. Gentleman's own interests that he remain seated.
  The crime figures tell us that in November last year there were almost 13,000 offences of violence against the person, 5,000 offences of robbery and 14 murders. That is roughly the equivalent of 2.5 offences per 1,000 people. When we compare those figures with those for the same offences in New York over the same period, we find that a Londoner was five times as likely as a New Yorker to become a victim of violent crime. It is a sad day for this country when a member of the Soprano crime family might be reluctant to take tea at the Ritz for fear of being mugged in Piccadilly—[Interruption.] I stand corrected; the Sopranos are from New Jersey, but they visit New York. Latest figures show that street crime shot up by 40 per cent. last year and mobile phone theft by 366 per cent. Most shocking of all, the victims and perpetrators of those crimes are likely to be under 18.
  Mobile phone thefts are not in themselves the cause of the sudden rise in robberies. We are grateful for Home Office research which shows that if mobile phone thefts were excluded, the upward trend in robberies would barely be blunted—small wonder, when the number of police officers has plummeted by 600 under this Government. As a result of the failure to retain experienced officers, recruitment does not keep pace with losses. The chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, Glen Smyth, said:
  "If the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary really want to arrest the rise in crime, they must first arrest the dramatic fall in police numbers."
  Mr. Smyth went on to say:
  "You've got to have feet on the beat to put hands on collars."
  With fewer police on the street and a reduction in stop and search, it is little surprise that street crime is rising.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why Conservative members of the Greater London Authority proposed a cut in the police budget, which Sir John Stevens told the Metropolitan police authority would have meant fewer police officers on the beat on the streets in London?
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong; Conservative members of the GLA proposed that there should be 1,400 officers, which is 200 more than the Mayor proposed. The hon. Gentleman is confused; Conservative members of the GLA suggested a cut in the number of press officers. I know that for Labour Members press officers and policemen are virtually indistinguishable, but it is clear that had the Conservative budget been accepted and had the Liberal Democrat party not cosied up with Labour, there would now be the prospect of more police officers on the beat, not fewer.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: As the hon. Gentleman is raising the issue of press officers in the

  763
  south-east, why did Conservative-controlled Kent county council employ 27 press officers in the year in which it made 27 care managers redundant?
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman should realise that Kent county council is at the forefront of reducing dependency, with the full approval of the Government. He should also realise that it is taking a lead in employing wardens to offer additional help to the police. It has been highly praised and its officers have been invited to No. 10 for discussions, which is more than the hon. Gentleman has been.
  Following the reduction in stop and search by the police, it is interesting that Mr. Mike Best, the editor of The Voice, recently called for it to be increased. He told the BBC that he was concerned about the number of black youths killed in shootings; he believed that the police had moved away from unprofessional standards and would use the tactic of stop and search more sensibly. He went on to say:
  "Most people would prefer not to be stopped and searched, but increasing crime is warranting that and the majority of people who have nothing to hide won't mind very much."
  The Home Secretary's response to that is surprising. In summary, his approach to stop and search is three-pronged; first, officers must provide an on-the-spot record of stop and search which has taken place; secondly, officers will receive a clear explanation, both of the principles of stop and search and the importance of exercising them fairly and effective; thirdly, a supervising officer will monitor ways in which officers stop and search people and look for trends which give cause for concern.
  Mr. David Wilshire: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Home Secretary's proposals on stop and search highlight yet another Government failure—the creation of more bureaucracy and paperwork? One way to get more police on the streets is to reduce the three or four hours that they spend filling in Labour Government paperwork before they can get back out on the streets again.
  Mr. Pickles: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who may well have been on the police parliamentary trust, as I have. He puts the case robustly. A less robust way would be to say that there are practical difficulties with the proposal. How can I put it nicely? It is not quite like that on the streets.
  I have been out on patrol with local officers from my own constabulary and with other police officers. Police are already overburdened with paperwork. They are reluctant to arrest because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) rightly pointed out, that means taking a couple of police officers off the shift for the best part of four or five hours. Most of the forms that they fill in are purely defensive, to ensure that they are not open to charges under the Human Rights Act 1998 or the various procedures laid down by the police authorities.
  Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: I shall make a few more points. I like the hon. Gentleman and I shall come to him in due course.
  764
  I was speaking about the practical problems faced by the police. I have seen police officers with a crowd of lads outside a nightclub. It is not like "Heartbeat" or "The Bill". There are not lots of police officers on the street; they do not all go around together. There is usually a single officer, or sometimes two or three. One police officer will be taking down the names of all the people whom the police have stopped to have a word, and the other police officer will be watching the first officer's back and watching the crowd.
  Estimates from police officers are that it will take six minutes to record the details. The Home Secretary says that there is no need to worry, as there will be schemes to provide officers with palm-pilots, and through bluetooth technology, all the information will whiz through the ether and go into a big computer somewhere in the police station, where it will be stored. Whether by means of whiz technology or pen and paper—more often than not, I expect, it will be pen and paper—we will he collecting useless information to be stored for no particular purpose, and putting up the backs of innocent bystanders, who will not want their names recorded. In short, that is no way to tackle crime. We must stop treating the police as the enemy and learn to trust them.
  I give way to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies). Does he no longer wish to intervene? Wake up; you're on.
  Geraint Davies: At last. The hon. Gentleman asserted that London's police will not do their duty and will not arrest criminals, for fear of having to fill in a few forms. That is an appalling slur on the police, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it now.
  Mr. Pickles: The most charitable thing that I can say in response to that intervention is that that is a very nice tie.
  Mayor Giuliani's experience of reviving New York is summarised by his concept of mending broken windows. In a speech before the election, the Prime Minister promised to tackle abandoned cars and urban decay, claiming that such issues were
  "at the heart of the Government's rights and responsibilities agenda",
  since which time abandoned cars have become endemic.
  Abandoned cars are hazardous for children and encourage more vandalism and crime in our neighborhoods. The European directive signed by Labour will force the cost of car disposal to soar, and the bill will have to be met by car owners and council taxpayers. As a result of the EU end of life directive, which comes into force in a few short weeks, the cost of the disposal of cars will soar. The Local Government Association estimates that it will cost £300 to scrap a car, which means that most scrap yards will not accept cars without payment. The LGA waste spokesman, Kay Twitchen, remarked:
  "We simply don't know how many more cars are going to be dumped. It's frightening."
  We have already seen the results of much of that careless dumping. According to the London fire brigade, the number of malicious vehicle fires across London has soared by 25 per cent. in the past year—a key indicator of more burnt and abandoned cars on London's streets.
  Derek Conway: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is of great concern, especially

  765
  to the outer-London boroughs. In Bexley, one of the difficulties for the local Metropolitan police service and the local authority in responding quickly to the problem of abandoned cars is the bureaucracy involved in dealing with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea, which is very slow to respond. Despite the interventions, he has highlighted the fact there is no lack of will power on the part of the police or councils, but an excessive amount of Labour bureaucracy that is holding everybody back.
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I must tell him that he ain't seen nothing yet. The nature of the end of life provisions on disposal and the breaking up of cars means that a premium will have to be paid. When those who are not socially responsible or are on low incomes dump their cars, the cost will be picked up by the ratepayer. We will face additional disposal problems and they will become more and more expensive.
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore welcome the Government's proposals to allow the DVLA and local authorities to operate jointly, using each other's information? Does he also welcome the reduction of time in respect of seven-day notices—one day is now required—and the shortening of the period for which local authorities must store abandoned cars? Those measures are taking us in the right direction to reduce a problem that he is right to highlight. We have got some solutions.
  Mr. Pickles: To be against those things would be like being against motherhood and apple pie. However, the hon. Gentleman took a long time merely to say that the Government are simply allowing local authorities to look at their computers. The great problem is that the DVLA's information is wholly inaccurate. The problem with Labour Members is that their briefings from the Whips make these little points and they think that everything will change—but it will not.
  Mr. Edward Davey: On abandoned cars, will the hon. Gentleman clarify two points of information? First, did the Conservative party reply to the Government's consultation on abandoned cars, which was published in October last year? Secondly, what does he think about the provisions in the London Local Authorities Bill on abandoned vehicles: does he support them?
  Mr. Pickles: Of course, we welcomed the principles, but as we are discussing the disposal of cars and recycling, perhaps it is appropriate to give notice to the hon. Gentleman that I hope that he will tell us in his speech why falsified recycling figures have been exposed in relation to Sutton borough council. A reported figure of 45 per cent. disguised a true figure of 23.5 per cent. in records going back five years. We want to know why the Liberal Democrats are on the fiddle on waste.
  Local communities will also face a menace of fly-tipped fridges. New EU regulations that the Government signed without fully understanding the implications have just come into effect. The requirements will increase the cost of disposal. Not only are there currently no facilities throughout the UK for the disposal
  766
  of fridges in the required manner, but the Government have imposed extra costs on councils that will run to £100 million a year. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has become too noisy. The hon. Gentleman should be heard.
  Mr. Pickles: I am most grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker.
  According to the Tidy Britain Group, an organisation that is well known and respected throughout the House, on-the-spot litter fines in England and Wales fell from 2,500 in 1990 to only 422 last year. Interestingly, virtually all such fines were imposed by Wandsworth council.
  Roger Casale: The hon. Gentleman is debating the quality of life in London and the south-east, but if we are going to have a serious debate, he will need to give the House some indication of what he believes are the components of that quality of life. So far, in his rambling speech, he has said nothing about that at all. For example, does he think that levels of poverty, social deprivation and social exclusion are indicators of the quality of life in London and the south-east? Does he think that the level of public investment in infrastructure and public services is such an indicator? What does he have to say about the contrast between the effect of Labour and Tory years on those indicators of quality of life in London and the south-east?
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman complains about my rambling, but he has just set a fine example to the House. I may be doing him a great disservice, but I do not think that he was here for the beginning of my speech. I do not think that he heard those fine words about consensus.
  Roger Casale rose—
  Mr. Pickles: No, no. The hon. Gentleman went on for far too long last time. I shall wait for his speech, then I shall intervene on him.
  The single greatest cause of the drop in the quality of life of the average Londoner or commuter is transportation. Our rail and underground networks simply cannot cope with demand. They do not have sufficient capacity now; they will not have it in five years' time, and in 10 years, there will have been little change. For most people, the daily trip to the office is cramped, sweaty and nasty. Travellers are packed tight, way over the capacity of the carriages.
  I asked a Minister when had been the last time that he had traveled on the underground at peak time. He told me that it had been when he was at school. I dare say that the Minister for Local Government is not a familiar traveller on the tube at peak times.
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Pickles: Well, I doubt it very much. It is all right for him, in the confines of the ministerial car, but, believe me, being on the Central line at half-past 9 is no laughing matter. Things will not get better for travellers for 10 years or more.

  767
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions may cling to the phoney formula for assessing the success of the railways, but the public know better. Much has been said about Railtrack's planning process, but at least the company was addressing the problems of platform extensions, and the train operating companies were addressing the problems of new rolling stock. Thanks to the Secretary of State's botched placing of Railtrack into administration and the failure to grant franchises of a meaningful length, platform extensions have been postponed and there will be no new trains built after 2004.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the reason for the deteriorating state of London's underground is that, since 1997, investment has been significantly less than in the comparable period leading up to that date? Should not the Government get off their ideological high horse on PPP and get on with improving the London underground?
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and what is true of the London underground is also true of the rail system that comes into London. We now know that the much-promised figure of £64 billion over the next 10 years is not accurate. About one third of that sum relates to inflation, about a quarter is double accounting, and a further third is for renewal and maintenance, which leaves just £20 billion for new investment in the railways over 10 years. Even that is an overstatement, because of the extra premium—the Byers premium—that the Government will have to pay because of the botched Railtrack administration. The refusal of pension fund managers to invest in future PPP projects has put many of the infrastructure projects at risk.
  We have now had time to assess the PPP for the tube. No one believes that it will work, or that it even has a chance of working, except the Secretary of State. No doubt, the Government machine is looking at ways to sell the PPP to the people of London using snappy, exciting advertising slogans. I am willing to bet that one slogan they will not use is "Stephen says yes, and you can trust Stephen's judgment". That will not be high on the list.
  The PPP will not bring substantial improvements in trains, track or signals until well after 2010. There will be only 12 new trains on the whole network by 2009, and most upgrades on lines will be delayed. Planned capacity enhancements will not keep in line with expected growth. London Underground has confirmed that, under the PPP, growth in capacity will be parallel to passenger numbers.
  Astonishingly, we are still waiting to hear exactly how much the PPP will cost. In the House, the Secretary of State promised that we would be given figures, but we still have only a vague figure of between 15 and 20 per cent. There is a growing feeling among those concerned with transport that it would be much cheaper for the Secretary of State to put it on his credit card than to go through the whole PPP process.
  We now have had the views of the Transport Select Committee in its short but damning report on PPP, which says:
  "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."
  768
  It goes on:
  "It is very concerning that after four years, £100 million pounds of costs, this pivotal decision for the future of London is 'subjective'."
  It suggests that there is no basis for the Secretary of State's 15-year projections, and says:
  "The decision to approve the PPP without an official review of the suitability of this methodology would demonstrate a lack of fiduciary duty on the part of the Secretary of State and the Treasury."
  Finally, it says:
  "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."
  Conservative Members wholly endorse that recommendation. If the decision is to be meaningful, London MPs must be able to affect it. We believe that Labour Members should have a free vote on the matter.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I agree with much of the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the Government's flawed PPP scheme. Does he share my concern that, according to Bob Kiley and his team, the draft contracts do not give the public sector any termination rights? If the infracos failed to perform, the public sector would not be able to get rid of them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole contractual structure for the PPP could be a millstone around London council tax payers' necks?
  Mr. Pickles: The situation is worse than that, so it is no wonder that the Minister for Local Government is looking a bit shifty and upset. If the various infracos do not perform, and fall below par, they will still receive a bonus. This is a terrible deal for London, for the underground, and for the Government. We will be trying to unravel this mess for 30 years. This is an expensive way of funding the underground. It pays not the slightest attention to increasing capacity and improving the service.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that, if the Opposition are to be credible, they must outline a coherent alternative to that which the Government are proposing. If it is not to be PPP, what is his alternative? Outright privatisation?
  Mr. Pickles: I took the Government at their word. When the Secretary of State said across the Dispatch Box that there was a plan B and that the Government would consider the Mayor's proposals, I believed him. We believe that the options put before the much-derided, independent Mayor of London deserve consideration. We will be looking for quality assurance contracts that can achieve reliability, punctuality and cleanliness, and we want the threat of industrial relations problems removed from the tube. That is what the people of London want.
  Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: No, I am not prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman, even if he changed his tie.
  It is against that background that we must deal with one of the main difficulties, congestion in central London.
  Bob Spink: May I return my hon. Friend to the subject of railways? Do not the rail problems extend beyond London to places such as Brentwood and Castle

  769
  Point, where there is just as much congestion? Our constituents who travel from those areas have suffered a decline in punctuality and reliability under this Government. Does my hon. Friend not deplore the Government's failure to resolve the problems?
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is right. As he knows, nothing has been done about the various pinch points on the approach to London terminals. Nothing has been done about platform extensions. As for the special-purpose vehicles of which the Government are so proud, no financing has got off the ground for a single one. Apparently station extensions are to be subject to the arrangement for special-purpose vehicles. What Railtrack would do with a couple of buckets of cement the Government are trying to do by putting together a special financing arrangement that will simply mean further delays. Moreover, we are unlikely to see an increase in the number of carriages from 12 to eight on most runs, because of the delay in the granting of the franchise. [Laughter.]
  Labour Members laugh. They do not have to suffer the consequences. They spend their time in ministerial cars, while ordinary people are trying to get to their jobs in the City, travelling in cramped, overcrowded carriages. They seek the relief that the Government are denying them.
  Sandra Gidley: When I was at school an increase would be from eight to 12 rather than from 12 to eight. Is this a sign of falling education standards under this Government, or of a lack of numeracy on the hon. Gentleman's part?
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady probably thought that that was a good thing to say at the time. Let me explain, however, that trains currently have eight carriages and we want the number to be increased to 12. That cannot happen, because the Government will not grant the franchise. It is a practical problem. There is a difference between a mere debating chamber and a Chamber that is trying to deal with practical problems.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: No. I want to make some progress.
  The real congestion problem in London is not caused by the number of cars on the roads. Surprisingly, research has proved that the number has not risen significantly. Congestion is increasing because of the way in which we deal with road repairs. There is to be a congestion charge, which will apply to various London boroughs. There will be a regressive tax that will hit the public sector, public-sector workers and the low-paid very hard. The tax will not move people out of cars, because public transport has not the capacity to carry them. It will be expensive to administer: in the initial years, 90p in every pound collected will go towards administrative charges. The tax is opposed by business, and it will not cut congestion to any significant extent.
  We could take a leaf out of Giuliani's book, and start looking at sensible ways of unblocking roads that are blocked by repairs, improving road signs and school
  770
  transport, and encouraging car pooling. All that could be achieved, and would reduce congestion more than the charge will.
  What is true of transport is true of all our public services. We need to follow New York's example, and recognise that improvements are brought about by practical, street-level solutions.
  London deserves better. London's decline is not inevitable. London needs leadership, determination and co-operation. The Conservative party is determined to make London a better and safer place in which to live.
  4.19 pm
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, To leave out from "Europe" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the Government's commitment to London's continued success, demonstrated by sound economic management, substantially increased employment opportunities, record levels of funding in health, education, crime prevention, transport and other key public services, the promotion of sustainable development, the enhancement of London's environment, cultural diversity and the living standards of its population, as well as the restoration of democratic city-wide government to the capital; and unreservedly condemns the Opposition strategy of talking down London and the South East.'.
  I welcome—indeed, relish—the opportunity to debate the state of London and the south-east, to demonstrate the real and positive benefits that five years of Labour Government have brought and to contrast the quality of life in London and south-east today with the state of affairs 10 years ago, when the Conservative party was in full flood.
  A decade ago, London and the south-east were trapped in recession—the second that the Tories had managed to inflict on our country—and 400,000 Londoners were out of work as a consequence. Now, thanks to sound economic management under Labour Governments, the picture is transformed. Since 1997, the number of adults in employment in London and the south-east has grown by nearly 500,000, and unemployment has fallen by 41 per cent. in London and by 46 per cent. in the south-east. Long-term unemployment in the south-east has fallen by nearly 75 per cent. since 1997.
  It is curious, as one of my hon. Friends rightly pointed out, that we heard nothing about those achievements from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), in his remorselessly negative speech. But what else would one expect from the party of unemployment, the party of recession, the party of repossessions?
  Dr. Ladyman: My right hon. Friend mentioned two recessions. I believe that, if he counts, he will find that there were actually three during that period.
  Not only did we not hear about the economic performance of London and the south-east from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), but we did not hear about the south-east. All his remarks were on London. The south-east, and my constituency in Kent, does not exist to him.
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an entirely apt point. I shall not get into a technical debate with him as to whether there were two or three recessions during the period of Conservative Government. All that

  771
  Conservative Members know is that their party brought the economy of this country to a standstill on at least two separate occasions and there was a huge and terrible social consequence for the people of this country, the damage caused by which we are still repairing.
  Mr. John Randall: Before we leave unemployment, would the Minister agree that there is no need for complacency? In Uxbridge, in December, unemployment increased by 10.7 per cent. on the previous year, and in January it increased by 15.9 per cent. on the previous year. In December, in my neighbouring constituency of Hayes and Harlington, it increased by a massive 29.5 per cent. There is no need for complacency.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will well recognise the circumstances of west London and the area around Heathrow airport in the conditions that have applied since 11 September. I shall refer to that subject later in my speech, but it is certainly not a cause for party political comment. [Interruption.] We should all be aware of the circumstances caused by the terrible events of 11 September, the need to restore confidence, and the need to once again rebuild, not least the aviation industry. We are all working on a similar basis to achieve that. But the hon. Gentleman will of course remember—
  Mr. Wilshire: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No; I am answering the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who will be the first to recognise that the overall framework of the London economy is such at the moment that there are far more opportunities for people to find work than there were when his party were in government.
  Mr. Wilshire: It simply is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to try to blame all the problems of Heathrow on 11 September. Does he accept that the incompetent delay on the terminal 5 inquiry, which his Government could have sorted out long since, is also playing its part in creating unemployment?
  Mr. Raynsford: I was not implying that the problems were solely associated with 11 September, but I was pointing out that that event had very dramatic consequences, and that it was right to take those into account and not to try to make party political points out of them. I might add that the state of the London economy under the present Government compares extraordinarily well with the state of the London economy when the party that the hon. Gentleman supports was in power, and he would probably do as well to remember that.
  The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar made a lot of fuss about transport. Let me first remind him that the use of public transport has increased enormously, with over 0.5 billion more bus passenger km and 1.7 billion more tube passenger km in London than 10 years ago. New investment is already making an impact and will transform transport options and prospects over the next few years in London and the south-east.
  Interestingly, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar chose not to mention the largest civil engineering contract in Europe; the channel tunnel high-speed rail link. My hon. Friends who represent Kent constituencies
  772
  would not make that mistake, because they know how important that project is, not just in linking Britain with Europe, but to the economy of Kent and the regeneration of east London.
  We all know who is to blame for the fact that there is not yet a high-speed rail link from the channel tunnel to London; the Conservative party. Let me remind the Conservatives of the history. It is now eight years since the channel tunnel was completed, yet while the French and Belgian Governments had taken steps to ensure that high-speed links were in place to link their capitals with the tunnel, the British Government—a Conservative Government—chose deliberately not to put any investment into our railways.
  The consequence is that passengers travel at 300 km an hour on the European side and 100 km an hour through the tunnel, and then dawdle in a meandering route through Kent; wonderful for enjoying the Kentish countryside, but a disastrous and shameful comment on the short? sightedness of the British Government of the day.
  To be fair to the Conservative party, at the very end of its period in power, it realised that this had been a mistake and began plans to establish a high-speed rail link. But the Conservatives botched it in the usual way, so that when we came into office—within literally a matter of a few weeks—we were presented with the clear evidence that their scheme was not viable and was not going to proceed. That was their legacy. Now, five years later, we have stage one of the CTRL scheme very near completion; on course, on budget and on time. What a contrast with the record of the previous Government.
  Mr. Mark Francois: The Minister is making great play of transit times into London by rail. Can he explain why, since Railtrack was taken into administration, by the Strategic Rail Authority's own figures delays on journeys into London have become much, much worse?
  Mr. Raynsford: The consequence of the botched privatisation of British Rail and the mismanagement by Railtrack has caused a serious problem on all parts of the rail network. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that Hatfield did not occur after we took Railtrack into administration. He would do well to ponder that.
  In transport, and so many other areas, we are ensuring that the investment is going in to put right the wrongs that were left by the previous Government.
  Mr. Pickles: I am curious about the Minister's reference to Hatfield, and about his shroud-waving. Does he believe that the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong when he said that safety was in no way compromised by privatisation? Is he repudiating what the Deputy Prime Minister said? Perhaps he might take this opportunity of reflecting on his words on Hatfield.
  Mr. Raynsford: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I was pointing out that in the aftermath of Hatfield—as he will know very well—the speed of rail services throughout the country, not just into London, was dramatically affected because of the need to take measures to improve safety provision. That is why I said that it would he unwise of the hon. Member for Rayleigh

  773
  (Mr. Francois) to focus too much on recent events, rather than on the context of the result of his party's botched privatisation of the railways.
  Mr. McLoughlin: We have so far heard the Minister blame 11 Sept for unemployment in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), and Hatfield for the problems on the railways. Is there anything for which this Government are responsible?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman would do well to bear in mind that, if we are trying to have a serious debate about important issues such as the decline in the number of people travelling by air since 11 September, it is reasonable to mention one of the main causes of that decline. If we are talking about the state of the railways, it is reasonable to refer to the consequence of his party's botched privatisation.
  Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way before he moves too far away from the subject of the channel tunnel rail link. Is he aware that the 10-year strategic railway plan for the south-east—he will have read it but the Opposition probably have not, as they do not consider the south-east—establishes in explicit detail that it will be possible to use the channel tunnel rail link for domestic services? For the first time, we in east Kent have a real prospect of a fast train service to London.
  Mr. Raynsford: I alluded to that point in my remarks, and I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's view that the link will be a huge asset not just for those travelling from London to the continent, but for people in Kent and east London, who will be able to make use of the greatly improved transport facilities.
  Apart from increased investment, a thriving economy and an improving quality of life in London and the south-east, there has been a further striking change in London compared with 10 years ago. That change is in the city's governance. Ten years ago London, alone of all major world cities, had no democratic city-wide authority, following the previous Conservative Government's characteristically arrogant and spiteful decision to abolish the Greater London council. At that time, we said that, on coming to power, we would restore democratic city-wide governance to London, and we have honoured that pledge by creating a Mayor and a separate elected assembly, which together constitute the Greater London Authority.
  A further telling comparison can be made between London and the south-east today, and 10 years ago: the number of Tory MPs who represent, and who used to represent, the area. In March 1992, the Conservative party had 48 MPs in London and 61 in the south-east, and felt that it was sitting pretty in the region. Today, after three consecutive electoral setbacks, it has just 13 MPs in London and 53 in the south-east. It was unable to hold on to Harrow, to Croydon, to Hove, to Hastings, to Guildford, to Basildon—[Interruption.] —and to many other places that used to be thought of as true blue. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not shout down the Minister. He must be given a hearing.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Conservative party was rightly hammered by the electorate in what it thought of as its own back yard.
  774

  The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar has better reason than most to understand the shift of the past 10 years. Ten years ago, he was about to embark on a new career, exchanging Bradford council for a south-east constituency, deserting the gritty north for the fleshpots of the south-east, and in the process trying to make the first ever transition from bluff Yorkshireman to Essex man. I have to say—with some affection for the hon. Gentleman—that he has not managed that transition entirely convincingly.
  London and the south-east are the economic powerhouse of the United Kingdom economy. Together, they account for nearly a third of the UK's total gross domestic product, and they have a massive impact on the economy of the country as a whole. London is the world's largest centre for international trade in equities, with double the turnover of New York. Inner London is now by far the richest region in the European Union. Its gross domestic product per head is 240 per cent. of the European Union average. Its closest rival, Hamburg, stands at just 180 per cent. This Government are determined to reinforce that economic success story.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend accept that rising standards in our schools are a key contributor to the improvement in London's economy? To cement further his reputation as a shrewd judge of funding applications, will he have a word with his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that they back a private finance initiative bid from the London borough of Harrow to upgrade Rooks Heath high school, which is in my constituency?
  Mr. Raynsford: I have great admiration for my hon. Friend's skill in advancing his constituency interests and his prescience in referring to education when he cannot have known that I was about to come precisely to that topic. I will of course pass on his comments to my colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills.
  In an age when information, skills and technology are the key to prosperity and growth, education is fundamental. For too long education attainment standards in London and the south-east lagged behind our European competitors, and London lagged behind the rest of the UK. This Government have given top priority to transforming educational achievement. Huge increases in funding, an unswerving commitment to raising standards, and a determination to carry through the reform essential to future success, have already begun to make a difference. Thanks to key innovations such as the numeracy and literacy hours and reduced class sizes, primary schoolchildren's performance in London has now caught up with the rest of the country, and the percentage of 15-year-olds passing five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C has risen from 43 per cent. to 46 per cent. There is still much room for improvement, but the trends are all in the right direction.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: The Minister is as usual full of promises about education. The Government have promised extra money for teachers but they have not put that money in the hands of local authorities to allow them to pay those teachers. Once again, the Government say one thing and do another.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Lady makes many claims, but she obviously has not looked at the figures.

  775
  The number of teachers in London in 1997 was 56,770, but it is now 58,290. More teachers are teaching children, with better resources and better skills, and getting better results. That is the result of this Government's commitment to improving education.
  London's cultural vitality and diversity is one of our capital's greatest assets. In that context, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar conveniently forgot to mention one very obvious symbol of the difference between Tory and Labour Governments. Our national museums and galleries, so many of which are located in our capital city and which contribute so much to our quality of life, are now open to all, free of charge. That is the result of a Labour Government.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: The Minister mentioned things that people have forgotten to mention, but does he recognise that one of the greatest determinants undermining the quality of life in London is the dramatically rising crime rate? Does he intend to talk about crime and policing, because those are the issues that matter?
  Mr. Raynsford: Of course I will deal with crime and policing later in my speech. The hon. Gentleman will also have the pleasure of hearing from the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs, who will wind up at the end of the debate. The hon. Gentleman will therefore have a full and detailed explanation of what the Government are doing to improve security and reduce crime.
  Apart from free access to museums, we have seen many other changes in the cultural world. The dome was a huge regeneration success in south-east London. The new Tate gallery is one of the world's most successful museums. The London Eye, on the other side of the river, is a great new attraction. London is full of exciting new buildings and developments, all of which have enhanced our capital's diversity, quality and attractiveness to visitors. Those are all achievements of this Government.
  We are not just capitalising on the existing strengths of the London economy and its cultural vitality: we are also committed to tackling deprivation. Delivering better services that are more responsive to local people's needs and priorities is key to the regeneration agenda. New local strategic partnerships are bringing together public, voluntary, private and community stakeholders and are already making an important contribution to regeneration in the capital and the south-east. Neighbourhood renewal funding of nearly £200 million over the next three years has been made available to 20 boroughs in London. Under the new deal for communities, more than £500 million is being provided over 10 years to improve the quality of life in 10 of London's most deprived neighborhoods through community-led regeneration.
  We are also driving ahead with the revitalisation of east London and the Thames estuary. To be fair to the Conservative party, it was a Tory Minister, Michael Heseltine, who saw the opportunity for a transformation of the east Thames corridor, as it was then called. Sadly, his efforts on this—as on so many other issues—were not always appreciated by his own party.
  However, the Labour party appreciated those efforts. We recognise the huge potential for regeneration and sustainable development in the Thames gateway area. I have already referred to the channel tunnel rail link,
  776
  which will bring widespread regeneration benefits, particularly around Stratford, where a new international station will be constructed. That and other infrastructure investment will open up large sites along the Thames gateway. Such sites include Barking Reach, with its potential for over 5,000 new homes, and Stratford Railands, where there is potential for investment in a new commercial and residential district for east London.
  We heard yesterday new estimates suggesting that the population of London is set to grow by 700,000 by 2016. That raises huge issues about where expansion, for both housing and businesses, can take place. Thanks to this Government's brownfield-first planning policies, and the adoption of sustainable development principles, London already has the highest rate of urban land recycling for housing in England. Our urban White Paper building on Lord Rogers' proposals demonstrated how we could achieve an urban renaissance with good quality new urban developments served by public transport services, using empty or under-used brownfield sites wherever possible.
  Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of Lord Rogers fundamental recommendations was to reduce the amount of value added tax on empty properties? Many of us campaigned for such a reduction for many years, and last year my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered it. Is not that another important strand in creating the right fiscal arrangements for regeneration?
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes another very good point about the significant changes that the Government have made to assist the process of regeneration.
  The availability of affordable housing is a key component in the development of mixed and balanced communities, and providing affordable homes for key workers is also a particular concern. That is why, over the next two years, the Government are putting in an extra £300 million above current levels into London's social housing. That is why, in the south-east, we are increasing the funds available for housing investment by both local authorities and registered social landlords. In addition, the first round of the starter home initiative gave £66 million to help 2,500 key workers in the south-east buy their own homes.
  However, the gap cannot be met simply by increasing public subsidy. We have to recognise that, if we are to tackle affordability problems, the first priority must be substantially to increase the rate of new build. That requires a highly innovative and radical approach—from the Government and the Mayor, from the boroughs and local authorities in the south-east as well as in London, and from developers and landowners.
  Tim Loughton: Will the Minister say why, in the council areas of Adur and Worthing in my constituency, not a single starter home initiative application has been approved? There is a drastic shortage of nurses and other public service workers in the area. The differential allowances that the Minister is offering mean that policemen from my area commute into London to enrol with the Metropolitan police, thereby exacerbating the problem of staff shortages in Sussex.
  Mr. Raynsford: I have not received a letter from the hon. Gentleman so far on those matters but, if he writes

  777
  to me, I shall be happy to respond. However, the starter home initiative has been warmly welcomed. In general, the experience is that it has worked best in those areas where the authorities concerned have been well prepared to make use of the opportunities that are being presented.
  Effective public transport is a vital element in sustainable development, and the Government fully recognise the importance of improving transport in London. We are committed to tackling the historic underfunding of London transport. We recognise this as one of the major problems—if not the major problem—facing the city. That is why our 10-year plan for transport provides a step-change in funding, with £25 billion of public and private investment scheduled over a 10-year period. All forms of transport will benefit.
  For example, we can already see some of the improvements coming through increased investment in the bus network. Interestingly, the bus network was another factor that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar did not mention. Perhaps he does not know it, but more people in London travel on buses than on the underground. Improving the bus network is just as important as improving other forms of transport. Bus use, I am pleased to say, is up by 6 per cent., to the highest level since 1975. The number of bus services is also up, and more than 1,000 new buses are on the road—cleaner, better and more accessible to elderly and disabled people.
  Light rail and tram systems offer scope for real improvements in access, particularly to some of London's more disadvantaged areas. The Croydon Tramlink, which opened in May 2000, is an excellent example of this type of new and integrated transport in action.
  Geraint Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in its first year the Croydon Tramlink moved 18 million people? Does he agree that that is a massive contribution to commuting people in the south of London?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am delighted to confirm my hon. Friend's positive appraisal of the effect of the Croydon Tramlink. I remember a pleasant occasion on which I joined him and saw the advantages for the New Addington community in his constituency which has benefited hugely from the new transport system.
  On the docklands light railway, passenger use has risen dramatically, particularly over the past three years. The growth is expected to continue, resulting in an annual ridership of 60 million passengers in 2004–05 compared with 35 million in 2000, with further growth expected beyond that.
  Central to London's transport is the tube, and its modernisation is essential to a prosperous future for the capital. The Government's public-private partnership proposals demonstrate our wholehearted commitment to modernise the Tube infrastructure. If a final decision is taken to proceed with these plans, they will deliver new trains, higher capacity and better stations which will transform travel for Londoners and visitors to the capital. The plans will deliver £16 billion of investment over the
  778
  next 15 years—that is about £5,000 for every household in London. Nothing on this scale has ever been undertaken before.
  Tim Loughton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I need to make some progress.
  Crime blights the lives of far too many people and undermines the confidence of individuals and communities. Crime rates across London and the south-east are falling but street crime in London—mostly mugging—is bucking the trend. That is the sort of violent offence that worries ordinary people most and on which the Government are determined to crack down.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs will probably say more in his winding-up speech, but let me make a few key points about what we are doing to tackle crime. The number of police officers was mentioned earlier in the debate. I am pleased to say that at the last count, on 30 September last year, there were 25,374 officers in the Metropolitan police, an increase of 679 over the year and 496 in the six months since March 2001—the largest increase for more than a decade. That is obviously welcome, but increasing the number of police officers alone is not enough. The Government have also allocated almost £50 million to projects over the past three years under the crime reduction programme.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House the number of special constables who were available to London in 1996 and the number available to London now?
  Mr. Raynsford: As I know from discussions with my local police committee and borough commander, special constables have an important role to play. Either my right hon. Friend or I will be happy to write to the right hon. Lady with a specific answer. As she will appreciate, that is a rather detailed question to put to a Minister who is not a Home Office Minister. I assure the right hon. Lady that she will receive a reply.
  We have also set up a new youth and crime unit, based in the Government office for London, supporting work in the 11 London boroughs with the highest youth crime rates. Each borough is drawing up a comprehensive, multi-agency, youth crime reduction strategy. Crime and disorder reduction partnerships have carried out crime audits with local authorities in London and the south-east and are now completing their crime reduction strategies.
  Antisocial behaviour is another important aspect of the work of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships. People should be able to live their lives free from intimidation and harassment. That is why we have given the police and local authorities additional powers to tackle antisocial behaviour. By tackling at source antisocial behaviour in young people, we can help stop them falling into a lifetime of criminal activity and instead divert their energies into more constructive work. To help achieve this, in addition to the neighbourhood renewal policies, we have put in place a number of initiatives such as

  779
  Connexions, and of course our new deal has helped substantial numbers of young people to find work and lay the foundations for a better future.
  Mr. Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: It is important that all sectors of the community work together to attack crime. To do that effectively, all sectors of society must have confidence in each other. Sadly, that has not always been the case. The Macpherson report and the actions taken subsequently by the Metropolitan police have gone some way to improve relations and mutual confidence between the Metropolitan police and London's ethnic minority communities. A landmark conference on "Black and Minority Ethnic Communities Cracking Crime Together" was held in London last week, and was organised jointly by the Greater London Authority and the Government office for London. That and similar initiatives are all about providing a new impetus for the participation of black and minority ethnic groups in measures to reduce the impact of crime, which is often particularly severe on black and ethnic minority communities.
  Graffiti is an important issue and a widespread problem.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I have given way many times, and I must make progress.
  Worry about graffiti is growing and the costs of removing it are high. It is not only the costs of cleaning and repairing damage caused by graffiti that are important; it can spoil enjoyment of public places and add to the sense of fear and insecurity in local communities. It can feed a fear of crime, even though there may be nothing, statistically, to back that fear. If graffiti is left untouched for lengthy periods, it can send out a message that no one cares about the area and that, in itself, can bring problems of decline to rundown local neighborhoods. Action against graffiti should form part of the local strategies for public reassurance and for tackling antisocial behaviour. We expect crime and disorder reduction partnerships to lead such initiatives locally. I commend the initiative of several London boroughs, particularly Lewisham, which has been extremely successful in engaging local communities in effective action to remove graffiti as soon as it appears.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I give way to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.
  Mr. Edward Davey: On graffiti, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government support clause 18 of the London Local Authorities Bill, which would make it an offence to supply, in the course of a business, aerosol paints or indelible marker pens to any person who appears to be under the age of 18?
  Mr. Raynsford: Unlike the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar I am very familiar with the London Local Authorities Bill and have had several discussions with the Association of London Government and with
  780
  officials to explore the way in which we can facilitate the passage of the Bill through the House. Clearly, we are neutral on such measures, and we want effective powers that enable local authorities to take action against the kind of problems that have been highlighted.
  We are also acting to improve and speed up the process of dealing with abandoned vehicles, which is also one of the subjects of the Bill to which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton just referred. We have had very positive discussions with the Association of London Government about that particular part of the Bill. Our consultation on measures to reduce the notice periods before abandoned vehicles can be cleared off the streets finished on 31 January, and there was widespread support for our proposals. We shall introduce legislation shortly.
  The Government also strongly support the capital standards programme, a four-year pan-London street cleaning campaign that was launched earlier this month. That is an excellent example of the Mayor, the ALG and the London boroughs working together to improve the quality of life for people in London.
  Finally, in thinking about the future of London or any large city, we need to be aware of the threats as well as the opportunities for improvement. The terrible events of 11 September demonstrated the importance of thorough and comprehensive preparation of preventive measures and contingency plans to cope with any eventuality. Over the past six months, the London resilience sub-committee, which I chair, has been overseeing detailed work to identify the full range of potential vulnerabilities as well as drawing together all the parties who need to be involved, including the emergency services, transport providers, utilities, local authorities and others to address them.
  Mr. Hammond: In view of the Minister's obvious concern about the threat from terrorism to London, does he not find it odd that the Metropolitan police is now proposing to sell one of its three helicopters? That will leave only one machine available, at any one time, to cover this very large city.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Metropolitan police service has been closely involved with all our discussions about London's preparedness to cope with any eventuality. It has not indicated a particular operational reason to raise the issue of a helicopter with me in that context. This is an operational matter for the Metropolitan police, and a matter for its judgment. I assure the House that the Metropolitan police is fully engaged—and very much in the driving seat—in the arrangements to ensure London's preparedness to cope with any eventuality.
  All of us who have the honour to represent this part of the country know full well that London is a great city and that there is much to be proud of in the quality of life that people enjoy in London and the south-east. We know that there is still an enormous amount to do to reinforce London and the south-east's strengths and to overcome their weaknesses, and we are determined to achieve this. Working with the Greater London Authority, local authorities and others, we are tackling the problems

  781
  caused by years of chronic underinvestment in our public services. Putting right that underinvestment lies at the heart of ordinary people's concerns.
  Mr. Simon Burns rose—
  Sandra Gidley rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: We are providing substantial extra funding for health, education, housing, transport, fighting crime and to make sure that our most deprived communities share a better future and have better services. After years of Tory failure, marked by recession, unemployment and underinvestment, in which our public services were run down and devastated, in which our environment was despoiled and in which the people of London and the south-east saw their hopes and aspirations betrayed time and again, we are at last now seeing the real benefits of a Labour Government working with others to secure a bright future and a better quality of life for all in the south-east and London.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) in two respects. First, I congratulate him and his colleagues on calling this debate. It is important that we focus on the quality of life in London and the south-east because it affects our constituents in the varied ways that he and the Minister have mentioned. I was surprised, however, that neither of them concentrated on issues involving the south-east and linked them to London. The Minister touched on that, but he did not make it the main focus of his speech. I shall try to correct that omission in my remarks.
  We support the Opposition's motion even though it is very mild. It contains serious omissions—I shall come to them—but it would have been churlish to amend it. I reassure the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that the Liberal Democrats will support the motion in the Lobby tonight.
  Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: In a moment.
  It is important that we send the united message that Labour is letting down London and the south-east. We heard that story in the remarks of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar. The streets of London are filthy, public services in London and the south-east are breaking down and crime on the streets is rising. Those fair and valid criticisms can be targeted at the Labour Government, and the House must send the message to the people of London and the south-east that those are our complaints and that we will campaign hard until the problems are put right.
  Mr. Rammell rose—
  Bob Spink rose—
  Mr. Davey: I give way to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).
  Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman has referred to omissions, but did he note that we did not hear a single
  782
  word from the Minister about pensions and the special plight of the elderly in London? I hope that, like us, the hon. Gentleman will consider that issue.
  Mr. Davey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he should be careful on that point. I cannot remember the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar mentioning pensioners, either.
  Some of us are not surprised that Labour has let London down. The Cabinet is made up of people who are anti-London. Time and again, by their policies, the Government have undermined the share of funding available to London. I do not know why the Cabinet is so anti-London but, as London is the most dynamic, diverse and successful city not just in this country but probably in the world, it is madness that the Government are not backing London and the south-east.
  I also want to congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar on his bare-faced cheek. There was not a single apology for the part that the Conservatives have played in the problems facing London and the south-east. What about the rail fragmentation, which is one reason why our railways and transport system are in such a mess? What about the cuts in the national health service and in police numbers that occurred under the Conservatives? What about the underfunding of councils from which so many councils in London and the south-east have suffered? Moreover, the hon. Gentleman provided no alternative. There is a serious case for reallocating the number of Opposition days to give more to the Liberal Democrats. If the Conservative Opposition cannot propose a decent alternative, leave it to the Liberal Democrats, because we will certainly provide one.
  As I have said, there were major omissions not only in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but in the motion. For example, it does not mention housing. As all Members from London and south-east constituencies know, housing is utterly central to the quality of life. The lack of affordable housing is undermining our public services. If we cannot give nurses, police officers, teachers and many other public sector workers who are serving our people decent housing, how can we improve their quality of life? That is an appalling omission.
  A second major omission is poverty. Although London may be one of the richest cities in the world—the Minister said that inner London, as a sub-region, is one of the richest, if not the richest region in the European Union—some parts are among the poorest in the European Union. Many of our fellow citizens suffer from grinding poverty and huge levels of inequality, and it is outrageous that Conservative Members did not mention that in the debate or in their motion.
  Mr. Randall rose—
  Mr. Davey: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he, at least, talks about poverty in a caring way.
  Mr. Randall: If the Conservative motion has all those glaring omissions, why did not the Liberal Democrats propose their own amendment? Were they too busy toadying to the Government, as usual?
  Mr. Davey: I am not disappointed in the hon. Gentleman, because normally he is not only a good

  783
  attender and a thinking Conservative Member, but someone who listens to other Members' speeches. I said at the beginning of my speech that I wanted a united message to go out from the House about the Government's failure. Labour has been letting the country down.
  Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. The Minister compared today's economy with that of 10 years ago. The hon. Gentleman may recall that about 10 years ago, 38 per cent. of pensioners were on means-tested benefits—yet, according to the Library, under this Government the figure will rise to about 57 per cent. by next year. That is poverty under a Labour Government.
  Mr. Davey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the number of pensioners on means-tested benefits in London and the south-east is increasing. However, I have not heard Conservative spokesmen on pensions say that they mean in any way to change the situation. The hon. Gentleman is right to make the criticism, but unfortunately it could be pushed back on to his colleagues.
  I want to mention three key issues, none of which were touched on by the Minister or the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, but all of which are fundamental to a debate on the quality of life in London and the south-east. First there is population growth, secondly, funding for public services and, thirdly, the environmental concerns and constraints that determine whether we can deliver proper quality of life for our citizens.
  On population, yesterday the Mayor of London's office published a document called "Planning for London's Growth". It is a serious document, which I recommend to right hon. and hon. Members. It suggests that population growth in London will be faster than was previously forecast. One estimate is that in 15 years' time there will he 700,000 more people living in Greater London, which is equivalent to adding a city the size of Leeds. That is a shocking forecast that we must discuss. In the past two years alone, 190.000 people have moved to or been born in London. Since 1989, the population of London has grown by about 600,000—the population of Sheffield.
  That is a huge growth in population. It is impossible to debate the quality of life in London and to devise policies to improve it without focusing on that underlying factor. If the population of London is growing by so much, many policies will have to be rethought. To put the growth record in context, in 1945 there were about 8 million people in London. That fell dramatically in the post-war years, so that by 1983 there were about 6.8 million. If those forecasts from the Mayor's office prove right, the population of London will be 8.1 million in 2016. That huge increase presents us with some serious challenges.
  Hon. Members may wonder where that increase will come from-50 per cent. will be indigenous to Greater London; 25 per cent. will come from British nationals repatriating to Greater London; and the other 25 per cent. will be made up of other European Union citizens moving to the area on work permits and asylum seekers.
  Those are the dynamics of London's demography, but the situation is, if anything, slightly worse in the south-east, where the population growth is probably even greater. Using the Government office for the south-east's definition of the region, its population was 8.75 million
  784
  last year and is forecast to be 9.4 million by 2016—again, an increase of nearly 700,000. Those huge movements of people affect everything that we are talking about today.
  I am concerned about some of the ideas coming from the Mayor's office and the Greater London Authority because we have to decide whether to adopt the strategy of predict and provide or that of alert and avoid. Should we say, "These are the forecasts; we can't do anything about it, so we'll try to increase the infrastructure hugely and manage things by building over all the open spaces in London and the south-east"? Or should we say, "Hold on—yes, we want growth; it's natural and we can't stop all of it"? However, should we also adopt offsetting, dispersal policies, such as those used after the second world war?
  The Mayor has set his sights against dispersal policies and opposes them. He is saying that the huge increase in population—it is of historic proportions—should be dealt with in the confines of Greater London because he is a committed defender of the green belt. Therefore, land in Greater London has somehow to accommodate that huge population growth, but I do not think that that is possible because it would seriously undermine the quality of life for our citizens in Greater London.
  We will not be able to stop that population growth—we have not even managed to deal with the growth that has taken place in recent years—but we have to try to manage it and invest in London to try to maintain the quality of life. We have to combine that with dispersal policies, central to which are policies to decentralise political, financial and economic power throughout the regions and nations of our country.
  If dispersal and decentralisation policies are taken seriously, as the Government have begun to do with Wales and Scotland, the economic fortunes of the regions can be transformed. Surely it is no mistake that Cardiff and Edinburgh are two boom cities in the regions. They have a focus for government, which then attracts business and the financial sector. So decentralising political and economic power can ensure that we have balanced growth, and I suggest that it will help London and the quality of life of Londoners. Londoners need to work with other regions and nations in the United Kingdom. All that makes perfect sense.
  My second point concerns the underlying trends that affect the quality of life in London. I wish to talk for a few moments about public funding. All hon. Members know the history of public finance cuts, whether under the Conservative party or in the first three years of the current Labour Government, and we know the effect of those cuts on our health services, police forces and councils. The question is whether those cuts have been any worse in London and whether the problems in London and the south-east are any worse than those in other parts of the country.
  I suggest that the particular problems in London and the south-east need a public finance response. Of course, they primarily involve land and house costs. The huge increase in housing costs has had an effect on vacancy rates and recruitment and retention problems, primarily in our public services. It is no coincidence that the vacancy rate for teachers in London is two and a half times the national average. It would be even greater were it not for the fact that many young teachers come to London, usually from Commonwealth countries, to teach for two

  785
  years before continuing their travels around the world. The needs of our children, who are the future of London, are not being met because of those vacancy rates.
  Although the Minister talked about increasing police numbers, he failed to say that the Met is losing 40 experienced officers every month to other forces, which is destabilising it. No wonder street crime has increased. Even if the number of officers increases, the new policemen and policewomen are rookies, straight out of police training college. We are losing the experienced officers who know how to organise and how to catch criminals. Unless the Government deal with retention, they will not tackle street crime. It is crucial that we deal with the problem of retention.
  Let us consider just one profession in the health service—nursing. The vacancy rate for nurses in London is 6.5 per cent. compared with a national average of 3.4 per cent. We cannot pretend that we are running sustainable public services with problems of that nature. Some 151 Filipino nurses work in my local hospital in Kingston. They are excellent nurses who have been recruited as part of a good programme that checks their language and nursing skills. However, they are on short-term contracts and can return to Manila and elsewhere in the Philippines after two years. That is not a way to plan and run a service or to ensure that the London health service has a base knowledge. If the Government do not wake up to those problems in public services in London and the south-east, our services will continue to decline.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is right to raise that concern about nurses and the need to recruit internationally to plug the gaps in the national health service. Given that London accounts for well over half the spend on agency nurses in this country, does he agree that we are wasting money on paying for agency staff because it would be better spent paying better wages so that we retain nurses permanently on the payroll?
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is right. That is why Liberal Democrats in this and the last Parliament have argued for a proper measure of the difference between living costs in London and other regions. That would allow us to work out what the extra allowances should be, to tackle the problems of low pay in London, to have a permanent solution for the problems and to stop chucking money away on agency nurses and teachers.
  Mr. Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman include the south-east in that? Increased pay in London has a ripple effect on the whole region, as my hon. Friends know only too well.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right. I suggested that there should be an index of the cost of living in London and other regions so that we get a handle on the differences between areas. I know that there are hot spots in other regions. Cities that are undergoing huge economic development also have increasing house prices and problems with recruiting staff—
  Mr. Don Foster: Like Bath.
  Mr. Davey: Yes, and many other successful cities, too. However, although there are hot spots, I do not think that
  786
  other regions have a hot spot that covers the whole region homogenously. There is a particular problem in the south-east to which the Government have not faced up. They need to re-examine regional government and regional pay bargaining. Unless we decentralise pay bargaining in the public sector and allow regions to negotiate in light of the real costs in their regions, we will never sort out the problem.
  As evidence, I cite a recent report by NERA Economic Consulting, which bears close scrutiny. It tries to get the best measure for the real costs of employing people in the public sector in different regions. To do that, it rightly uses private sector wages as a proxy for the state of regional labour markets. NERA's analysis shows that wages in outer London should be 20 per cent. higher than the average for the rest of the country, whereas the Government use a figure of 15 per cent. The figures for inner London are 40 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively. Those are large differences that have major public finance implications. The Government have to take a closer look.
  When considering mechanisms that they might use, whether regional pay or allowances, the Government must take that type of analysis into account. If they do not, Londoners' long-term quality of life will again be undermined because we will not have public servants in the numbers that we need, and we will not benefit in terms of the quality of service they provide.
  Incidentally, I was surprised that the Conservative spokesman did not mention the NERA report. Councils throughout London and the south-east are relying on that sort of analysis to ensure that in future they get a better grant funding deal from the Government. The fact that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar failed to mention it will be noticed by those councils, which will ask why the Conservatives are not speaking up for them. Yet again, the Conservatives have let down the councils in the regions and it has been left to the Liberal Democrats to argue for fair funding.
  The third major factor is environmental constraints in London and the south-east—basic constraints such as land for housing, business, and green open spaces, and air and water quality. The Minister mentioned a few of those factors, and under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 the Mayor has to devise strategies for them. However, I suggest that there are other factors responsibility for which has not been given to the Mayor and of which the Minister and his colleagues should take cognisance.
  First, there is the danger of flooding. I am told by people who know about these things that the need to plan for a second Thames barrier is not far off. If that is not done, the threat to London will be significant. Secondly, although the Mayor has policies on waste he does not appear to have got them right yet, and progress on recycling in this country is poor. In connection with that—even though he answered none of my questions—let me respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who is no longer in his place, about Sutton council's recycling figures.
  There was a problem with the figures on recycling for Sutton council. On the insistence of councillors, an inquiry was held which found that a council officer had made an error; that was investigated and the figures have now been corrected. Even according to the correct figures, Sutton has an amazing record on recycling, so it was

  787
  rather unwise of the hon. Gentleman to pick on Sutton council, which is an environmental beacon council. In May last year, it won the EMAS—eco-management and audit scheme—award, the first London borough to gain the award, and one of the first recipients in Europe.
  The GLA has powers in environmental matters, but two years on—early days yet, I admit—the Minister must be rather disappointed by the effect that the GLA has had. The GLA model is flawed: the authority has proved to be not powerful enough. I bet that during the Committee stage of the 1999 Act the Minister did not expect that the public-private partnership for London Underground would not have been signed by spring 2002. Night after night, he and his colleagues assured the members of the Standing Committee that PPP was the way forward and that it would bring investment quickly, but three years later not a dime has been invested in London as a result of it. It has been a total failure.
  Let me give two other examples of the way in which when we discuss quality of life in London and the south-east we need to take a broader view than has hitherto been taken in this debate.
  Mr. Don Foster: My hon. Friend was commenting on the GLA model and structure. I hope he agrees that it is very much to be hoped that when they eventually get around to publishing their White Paper on regional government, the Government will reveal a model for regional government that is very different from the one used for the GLA.
  Mr. Davey: I agree with my hon. Friend, and commend to the Minister his ably written paper on regional government; it provoked a lively and well-informed debate at our recent Manchester conference.
  One of the examples that I wish to discuss is the terminal 5 decision, about which many of my hon. Friends are concerned. Considering the environmental pressures on the capital, the Government's decision is surely flawed, as it will massively increase those pressures. Will the Minister tell the House whether or not he and his colleagues will give the go-ahead for a third runway at Heathrow? We are waiting to hear the result. The announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on terminal 5 was instructive because he failed to rule out the prospect of a third runway at Heathrow. If the Government go ahead and permit all that development to be concentrated in a small sub-region of London, they will create even greater imbalance in our regional and national economies. They do not understand the constraints that the environment places on an economy and a region.
  I wish to raise briefly a number of issues; my hon. Friends will go into greater detail if they catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. Front-Bench spokesmen have mentioned them already, so it is right for me to deal with them briefly. First, I am concerned that the Government have not worked effectively enough with the Metropolitan police authority and the Mayor to try to tackle the rise in street crime. Although there has been an increase in police numbers, it has been insufficient. The extra costs on the MPA following l1 September have not been fully funded. The Government have not provided as much support for local authorities on lighting and CCTV as they could have, and need to do far more.
  Jane Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman referred to CCTV—almost its first mention in our
  788
  debate—and called for more support for local authorities to introduce it, which is fine and good. He lauded the record of Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities, but is he aware of, and will he join me in deploring, Liberal Democrat-controlled Wokingham district council, which forgot to bid for CCTV money last year?
  Mr. Davey: May I correct the hon. Lady? If she bothers to look at the detail of what happened in Wokingham, she will find that, when Liberal Democrats took over after the resignation of the Tory chair of the environment committee, they found that the Conservatives had failed to put in an application. The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the matter, but she should have aimed her remarks at Conservative Members. Liberal Democrats in Wokingham have been picking up the pieces of the failed Conservative administration and will no doubt be returned in large numbers in due course.
  My second example is the appalling state of our transport system. To hear the Minister talk, it was if nothing had happened to worry commuters in the past few months or the past year. He hardly touched on the problems. Listening to him, it was as though nothing was wrong; everything was rosy and successful. He did not once mention the strikes, the lack of investment or all the delays. He should apologise for that record, not try to put a spin on it.
  Mr. Raynsford rose—
  Mr. Davey: Are we going to get some more spin?
  Mr. Raynsford: When the hon. Gentleman looks at the record tomorrow, he will see that throughout my speech the main theme was underinvestment. I hope that he will not make completely unfounded allegations that I did not raise the issue.
  Mr. Davey: I shall certainly look closely at the record, but I do not think that the Minister said that his Government had under-invested in the transport system. We believe that they have. If the Minister had given the figures, they would have shown that his Government have, on average, spent less in the past five years than was spent in the last five years of the Conservative Administration.
  My final point on quality of life concerns the NHS and the social care sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has done a fantastic job in highlighting many problems, not just in London and the south-east, but across the country. In London, I am sure he agrees, we have particular problems, primarily because of staff shortages, wages and property prices; many care home owners have sold their property to developers for residential use. That has meant a massive reduction in the number of care home places in London and the south-east, which has had a knock-on effect on the NHS. To date, the Government have done almost nothing about it. It is Liberal Democrats who have raised the issue on our Opposition days, and we will continue to harry the Government until they start to tackle the problem. Until they do so, we will never be able to get the NHS right in London and the south-east.
  If my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that he intends to speak about

  789
  the problems of abandoned cars, graffiti and the failure to keep the streets of London clean. As he has said on previous occasions—asn I agree with him—those are fundamental to improving the quality of our citizens in this great capital and the great region of the south-east.
  If we are to have a serious debate about the quality of life in London and the south-east, and if we are to get away from banging statistics across the Dispatch Box, as the two previous speakers did, we must discuss the underlying issues so that we can produce long-term analysis and strategic planning. We must adopt policies to ensure that we take power out of Whitehall and distribute it across the country, to give our regions strong government and to give London stronger government, thereby enabling our local communities and our regions to build a better quality of life for all our citizens.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I was fascinated by the fact that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) opened the debate by seeking consensus but subsequently reverted to the Tory knee-jerk response.
  We need consensus on the key issues that determine the quality of life in London and the south-east. For my constituents in Harlow, and, I believe, elsewhere throughout London and the south-east, such issues are whether people have a job, whether they have enough income to keep them out of poverty, whether they have a roof over their head, whether they feel confident sending their children to the local school and whether they feel that their local hospital is improving.
  I am not one of those party politicians who says that everything is perfect under my Government and everything was disastrous under the last lot, but if we examine the evidence on those key criteria, it is clear that things are significantly better, or at least moving in the right direction, compared to the situation four and a half or five years ago. I shall highlight some of the aspects where I believe that to be the case.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government spoke about unemployment and what has happened over the past four and a half years. My constituents still remember Norman Lamont singing in the bath and speaking about unemployment being a price worth paying, and the economic philosophy whereby if a measure was not hurting, it was not working. We saw the results of that. In my constituency in 1983, under the last Conservative Government, unemployment rose to 4,700. In 1993, it got as high as 5,200. In all those 18 years, unemployment was never lower than 1,500, yet in September last year, it was as low as 978, and it is only marginally above that figure now. For the thousands of my constituents who had their lives blighted by unemployment, that was a huge improvement in the quality of their life.
  To get to first base in terms of a decent standard and quality of life, people need a roof over their head. Thousands of my constituents experienced negative equity or housing repossessions in the late 1980s and early 1990s because of the Conservative mismanagement of the economy. They will be incredulous or angry beyond words to hear the Conservatives now speaking about quality of life.
  790
  We need to remind ourselves how serious and pernicious the situation was. At one stage in the early 1990s, 1.8 million households in Britain were experiencing negative equity, and 1 million of those were in London, the south-east and the eastern region. That had a devastating effect on people's quality of life, their confidence, their security and their ability to plan their lives.
  A decent quality of life also means having a local state school to which people feel confident about sending their children. On that criterion, parents are in a much better position—even if it is not perfect—than they were four and a half years ago. Despite what the Conservative party says, with some support from the Liberal Democrats, school funding has increased considerably since the Conservative years, especially on school building: building, repairs, maintenance and renovation have tripled. Every time I visit a school in my constituency, I am told about a new science block, classroom or playground—the reality of that increased investment.
  Mrs. Laing: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but is it not even more important that there are enough teachers to do the job that must be done in the schools to which he refers? Schools in his constituency and mine do not have enough teachers, and the main reason for the shortage is that the Government have not funded them.
  Mr. Rammell: The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point in an absurd way. There are pressures on recruitment in my constituency and hers and elsewhere in the south-east, but they must be put into context: we have more teachers in schools today than at any time since 1984. One of the reasons for the excess of demand over supply is that the Government are putting more money into revenue budgets for schools, which means that they can employ more teachers. The issue is difficult and we need to think it through carefully and face up to it. It must be recognised that the Conservative party's simplistic claims that the pressure on demand is due to the policies of this Government do not bear any scrutiny.
  It is not only on the funding front that improvements are being made in our schools. The focused strategy of target setting and monitoring, as well as the literacy and numeracy strategy, have ensured an attainment increase of almost 50 per cent. among 11-year-olds in four and a half years. Parents in my constituency and elsewhere in the south-east value that significant advance very much indeed. Furthermore, at long last the national health service is increasing its capacity to deliver health improvements, in contrast with the reductions in capacity that occurred under the Conservatives.
  Mr. Burns: Does the hon. Gentleman remember attending the 1999 Labour party conference, at which the Prime Minister promised the country that under Labour everybody would have access to an NHS dentist within two years? Will he please explain the written answer given by Health Ministers last week, showing that 49 per cent. of children in London were registered with an NHS dentist in March 1997, while the latest figure for this year is 37 per cent?
  Mr. Rammell: As I said, I do not claim that everything is perfect in terms of taking forward the improvements

  791
  that we need in our key public services. When I talk to my constituents, I see that they have frustrations and concerns about the pace of change and the improvements that the Government are taking forward, but they know in their bones that the investment is now being made and the change is being delivered in a way that was not even considered during the 18 years that the Conservative party was in power.
  Let me focus on the health service from a constituency perspective. In Harlow, £1 million has recently been allocated for the modernisation of our maternity unit, which is the same today as when my 12-year-old son was born in it. That shows the scale of the lack of investment in the past, whereas £1 million has now been allocated. We also have a new GP walk-in centre, providing access to a GP or a nursing service when the patient wants it—a development that is hugely popular with my constituents. Whatever the Conservative party says about funding, the North Essex health authority has had a 10.5 per cent. increase this year—a substantial increase in anybody's book. We need that funding to be sustained, as is now happening under this Government.
  We need a debate on the national health service that is based on facts, not spin. I say that to all politicians in all parties. One of the key claims that the Government have rightly made concerns the need to increase nursing numbers and the reality of making that happen. Since 1997—I have obtained these figures not from the Government, but from the Library—the total number of nursing, midwifery and health-visiting staff has increased by some 28,000. That is a point that we need to force home.
  I was watching the television at the weekend, and saw an advert for The Mail on Sunday, advertising one of its weekly stories on the alleged crisis in the national health service. I do not know whether hon. Members saw it, but at the end of the advert there was a picture of a hospital bed with a graph at the end of it entitled "Nursing numbers", with a bar chart showing the figure going down. That is a complete and utter lie. It is Conservative party spin. The Labour Government have been accused of spinning on these issues, but our opponents must recognise that they need to get their facts right. Not for nothing did Michael Foot refer, justifiably, to the Daily Mail as "the Forgers' Gazette".
  Another aspect of the quality of life of people in London and the south-east is their ability to have access to art and culture. There was an attitude under the Conservative Government that interest in art and culture stopped at a certain point going down the socio-economic scale. This Government have rightly taken a different view. They have invested significantly in that area and brought about policy changes that benefit our constituents in London and the south-east, particularly the introduction of free access to museums to which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government referred. That has been a huge and popular success. Attendances at our national museums since the policy was fully implemented at the beginning of December are up, on average, by about 100 per cent. It is children the elderly and poor families, in particular, who benefit from that enrichment of their lives.
  We are on the point of introducing another significant change that will benefit the arts and culture in London and the south-east, namely the substantial and unprecedented increase in funding for regional theatre starting on 1 April
  792
  this year. The increase for theatres in the eastern region, through East England Arts, is £1.3 million over two years. That is a 110 per cent. increase in funding, and there is a similar picture in London, which will get a 92 per cent. increase. That demonstrates an unprecedented degree of funding, opening up our arts, culture and theatres and enriching the quality of life for people in London and the south-east, and throughout the country.
  On many of the issues affecting the quality of life, most reasonable people would conclude that the Government are facing up to the concerns and making substantial progress, although there is always much more to be done. In that regard, I find it puzzling that the Liberal Democrats will be supporting the Conservatives on this issue in the Lobby tonight. I think that that decision has little to do with political principle and a great deal more to do with the tactical repositioning that appears to be under way by the Liberal Democrats at the moment, in which a crude and cynical calculation is being made about which seats are on their hit list and which menu of political policies they therefore need to put to the electorate. I would welcome an intervention from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on this. I tried to intervene on him earlier, but he would not let me.
  I have charted some of the improvements that have taken place, but I do not claim that everything is perfect. Clearly, as time goes on, there will be new times and new challenges. The Governments who endure and retain popular support have to face up to those new challenges. I want briefly to sketch out some of the challenges that we are facing in London and the south-east. First, the need for a better rail and tube service is paramount, as has been loudly trumpeted on the Opposition Benches. I also know this from my constituents, particularly those who commute into London.
  When I discuss these matters with my constituents, as I do regularly, they are unconvinced by the Conservative bluster on the issue. They know that the situation we are in is a result of decades of under-investment in the railways and the tube service. They certainly have long memories: they remember that it was a Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher who came up with the policy of completely removing public subsidy from Network SouthEast and British Rail, as they then were.
  My constituents also remember that it was the Conservative party that drove through the flawed and ideologically driven privatisation of British Rail that got us into this situation. However, they remain to be convinced—they want to be convinced—that the Government have the plans and the strategy to repair our rail and tube networks. People feel instinctively that we have taken the right decision on Railtrack. If there is a criticism, it is that the decision was not taken sooner. People desperately want the not-for-profit company to be up and running and improving our rail infrastructure as quickly as possible. They also want the PPP to be up and running, and to see the reality of the increased investment.
  The second major challenge that we must face up to is the need to improve the quality and volume of homes to rent in London and the south-east. No area of public spending under the Conservative Government was cut as much as that on council housing. They had a right-to-buy

  793
  policy, and nothing else. This Government have made a good start with a 50 per cent. increase in housing investment.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman could have made that point 10 minutes ago. He has had nothing to say, and should sit down.
  Mr. Rammell: If the hon. Gentleman cares to intervene on this issue, I will be happy to take his intervention. The issue of homes to rent is important to constituents in Harlow and elsewhere in the south-east, and they want to hear it articulated in the House of Commons.
  That point needs to be made in a constituency context. In my constituency, the local authority has a waiting list of more than 3,000 people, some of whom have waited five or 10 years for a decent home to rent. We must face up to that problem. There is a huge north-south divide: this is a much bigger problem in London and the south-east than it is elsewhere in the country.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman regret the fact that the Government put a cap on council tax benefit and housing benefit? As a result, many people who require affordable housing in London and the south-east do not have the rent subsidy to enable them to get that housing.
  Mr. Rammell: The Government are reforming the system, and intend to reform it further. All of us in the Chamber need to face up to the problem of an acute lack of rented housing. Linked with that is the difficulty in recruiting key public sector professionals in London and the south-east. I share the view of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). However, the solutions that he proposes, which merely tinker with the cost of living allowance and the London allowance, lack credibility. If the salaries of teachers or nurses in London and parts of the south-east were doubled overnight, they would still not be able to afford the cost of homes in those areas. We need a far more radical strategy to deal with that problem.
  The final quality of life issue that I want to highlight is community safety. One of the dispiriting aspects of the debate is that we all bandy about the figures on crime levels, instead of reaching cross-party consensus on the fact that crime was falling under the last years of the Conservative Government, and has continued to fall under this Government. However, the real concern of my constituents is not about the absolute level of crime but about what I would describe as low-level, neighbourhood nuisance, aggravation and vandalism, which blight the lives of so many people. In my community and elsewhere, people too often feel that the police and the local authority do not give those problems a high enough priority. The Home Office needs to move forward on that issue, and I know that it is doing that.
  Much has been done, but we need to face up to other problems. Those watching the debate and the public at large will form a judgment on whether the Government are moving forward credibly—I think that they would say that they are—and whether the Conservative party has a credible alternative. From what we have heard in the
  794
  debate, I think that a credible alternative is singularly lacking. We have not heard one substantive proposal. The only alternative on offer for the underground is privatisation. The Tory party is stuck in the days when the answer to every question was to cut taxes and public spending, and to move towards 35 per cent. of gross domestic product. That provides none of the answers to the problems that we face.
  5.44 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: The first duty of any Government, no matter which party, is to protect their citizens from harm. The Government are signally failing to do that in London and the south-east. As we sit here in relative comfort, bandying statistics, the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, especially but not exclusively on the big inner-city council estates, are being made a daily hell by thuggery, intimidation, violence, vandalism, drugs, threatening behaviour and neighbourhood disputes. That is going on in a concentrated fashion on big estates, and in a less concentrated but still distressing fashion in rural areas. It seems to me that every agency shrugs, and no one gets to grips with the problem.
  Statistics bandied across the House are not the answer to any of these problems. We must ask ourselves how we tackle such crime. Much of that crime—not all of it—is carried out by young people, some of whom are below the age at which the courts have sufficient remedies to deal with them. Why is that coming about? Part of the problem stems from family breakdown. Many of the youngsters who get into that way of life have not had a father or have had a succession of men called "uncle" passing through their household. They have precious little parental supervision, and from the moment they are old enough to go to school unaccompanied they start to play truant, missing vital education. They fall between all the agencies, none of which take absolute responsibility. They learn to idle before they are even at secondary school, and some bunk off secondary school altogether.
  When I have visited the education department of Her Majesty's prisons, I have seen fully fledged adults doing the modern equivalent of "the cat sat on the mat". I ask them, "What happened at school?" and I wish I had the smallest coin from the poorest realm for everyone who said, "Didn't go to school, Miss". That is a crying indictment—I am not saying that it is specifically and exclusively an indictment of the Government—of our failure to get to grips with that problem.
  Truancy enforcement should be a major priority and concern for any Government if we are to get on top of this problem. If kids want any dealings with the labour market, and are not so rooted in crime that they do not prefer that way of making money, they will have difficulty if they have no skills and are illiterate or innumerate. The labour market increasingly wants the skilled and semi-skilled, and has fewer and fewer jobs for the unskilled. Idling, truancy and an inability to present for jobs when the time comes add up to crime and trouble. Those youngsters find ways of tilling their time that make them menaces, nuisances and sometimes serious threats to the law-abiding in their area.
  We must get on top of that problem. We must ensure that, when those young people are apprehended and brought before the justice system, adequate remedies are

  795
  available to deal with them that will get them away from the environment that is causing them a problem and in which they are causing a problem, and that will give them secure training that is specifically directed at the needs of the child. They must have a shared interest in the outcome, which can be built into the system through incentives. We must make some attempt to put those youngsters back into a better way of living. If we do not do that, the quality of life for the people who have to live in their neighborhoods will continue to deteriorate.
  People who live on those big, inner-city council estates have an ambition to lead a normal and decent life. But they cannot escape from what are sometimes very troublesome and threatening neighborhoods, because they have not the necessary resources. They have a fraction of the resources possessed by those of us who stand here pontificating today. They are trapped. I am not talking just about the archetypal old lady who is afraid to go out after 6 pm. In the run-up to the last election, I traveled up and down the country meeting people living on estates, not only in London, who simply could not live in that environment any longer.
  In Hartlepool I met not the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), but a young man who had bought a modest little house on the edge of a council estate. It was all he could afford, although he had aspirations. He had experienced so much antisocial behaviour—there had been graffiti, vandalism and attacks on his property, just because he owned it and was trying to make a better life for himself—that on the morning I met him he had put the keys of his house through the door of the building society, although he knew that that would prejudice his chances of ever owning a house again. He could no longer live in that house, and he could not sell it for exactly the same reasons.
  Two hours after I left, there was a shooting on another estate. I do not think it was a case of cause and effect. I spoke to a large number of people—and I mean a large number—who told me that each time they tried to create a pleasant little front garden it immediately became a target for every vandal in the neighbourhood, not because they had made enemies of the neighbours but simply because it was a nice little front garden.
  What are the Government doing about that sort of thing? One answer, although it is not the only answer, is highly visible policing. The Minister spoke of strategies to deal with graffiti. I am all for that, but the best strategy is to have a few policemen about when it is happening. Many people living on estates, including rural estates, complain that they never see a policeman in the neighbourhood. Worse still, when they summon the police they do not arrive.
  That is not because the police are not interested. It is not because they do not care tuppence. It is because the police are so overstretched that they must prioritise constantly. Nevertheless, people's confidence in the rule of law is lessened, and as a result their whole quality of life is diminished. The main thing that citizens need to feel—something we all used to take for granted; many of us still do, but too many cannot now—is that they are safe in their own neighborhoods. They need to feel that they can venture abroad from their own houses, and live in harmony with their neighbours. That basic quality of life should not be beyond realisation, but for far too many people it is.
  796
  I think that John Stevens is one of the best things to happen to London. We should listen to him when he says that no end of police effort will work unless it is backed up by the courts and, moreover, is sustainable because there are enough police to sustain it. I am not going to oppose the proposals for community support officers in a knee-jerk fashion, but they are not and never will be a substitute for proper policemen with proper powers, properly trained, properly funded and available in sufficient numbers to make neighborhoods safe, reliable and pleasant again.
  So far I have concentrated on inner-city estates. As some Members will know, that is partly because in a previous incarnation as shadow Home Secretary I took a particular interest in the Arden estate in Hackney. Although it is by no means the worst example, it has enormous problems. Time and again, what I heard from those living there was, "No one cares, no one is here, no one is doing anything. We have been asking for closed-circuit television for goodness knows how many years, and we still do not have it. We have been asking for extra coppers for years, and we still do not have them." It was a crime that no one listened. If we are serious about improving quality of life, that is the issue with which we must deal.
  Let me say something about rural areas, and about my constituency. I hear increasingly about problems there. There are farmers living in remote farmhouses who say that people brazenly steal farm vehicles, knowing that even if the farmer can see them and is telephoning the police, it will be a nice long time before the police arrive—unless they are exceptionally unlucky and there happens to be a police car in the neighbourhood. Then there are villagers who say that, particularly in the evenings, people do not feel comfortable moving around the village after dark. What sort of indictment is that? The English village used to be a haven of safety; now too many have become seas of vandalism and antisocial behaviour.
  I do not entirely buy the Government's line that antisocial behaviour orders are a rip-roaring success. How many were imposed in the first three years of their existence? The Government have finally, grudgingly conceded that they got it all wrong and must handle it differently in the hope that it will work in future, but only last week—not in my constituency, but nearby in Kent—three 13-year-olds who had defied an ASBO were due to appear in court. They face a period in detention if they are found guilty, but the fact that they defied the order raises serious questions about how effective such orders are in cases of that kind. Again, policemen are needed to ensure that people do not break ASBOs.
  Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Lady may be referring to the Malling area in my constituency.
  Miss Widdecombe: Gillingham.
  Mr. Shaw: In the Mailing area, young men the same age have been the subject of ASBOs, have offended against them and have been taken to court. It is the first time that that has happened in the community involved. If a custodial sentence is imposed, a message will go out

  797
  to other young people. In some circumstances, is it not necessary to demonstrate the effect that this can have on individuals?
  Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my earlier comments, he would have noted my specific observation that young people should be taken out of the environment where they are causing a problem and a problem is being caused to them, and should be put into secure training. I devoted a substantial section of my speech to that. Intervention would happen earlier than it does in the case of ASBOs: until an ASBO has been seriously breached, nothing is done.
  My point is that the tendency to breach ASBOs would probably be reduced by more visible policing. I am trying to present common-sense solutions to problems that are not easy to deal with, and have multiple roots. I said specifically, not just today but—to make a party political point—well before the last election, when it was a crucial plank of my policy, that youngsters should be taken into secure training if they were causing a neighbourhood menace.
  Mr. Mark Oaten: I thank the right hon. Lady for that point. She is making a strong case for more police and greater police visibility, but is it not the case that studies by the Audit Commission and others show that that only provides a comfort factor, and that having police walking the beat and police in cars is not as effective in tackling crime as she may be suggesting?
  Miss Widdecombe: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong and the reason for that stems from what I saw in New York, where, as he knows, there has been not only a zero tolerance policy but a huge hike in the number of police and a huge concentration on visible policing. Visible policing has lots of positive benefits, one of which, as the hon. Gentleman identified, is that it reduces the fear of crime. The second is that it enables police to interact with the community.
  I cannot imagine anyone flagging down a police car to say, "Excuse me, officer; I am not certain, but I think that I may have seen something odd two nights ago." However, if there is a man walking the beat at a fairly slow pace, looking interested and, in particular, looking around, that sort of interaction takes place. Just as CCTV is a deterrent to opportunistic crime but not as much to planned and organised crime, a visible policeman is a deterrent to opportunistic crime.
  Therefore I do not believe for a moment that visible policing is simply a comfort factor. If one chooses to make comparisons between a police car responding immediately to a call some way off and a policeman who may or may not see something of interest as he wanders along a street, one can reach the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman has drawn, but if one takes a broader view, one reaches a different conclusion.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I think that the right hon. Lady will appreciate my argument when I have made it. When Mayor Giuliani was asked, when he was in London recently, what was the key aspect of his fight against crime, he said that it was not just the number of police
  798
  but the way in which they interacted with intelligence gathering and a database. What mattered was the way in which those police were deployed. What is needed is intelligent policing—more police, but more intelligently deployed.
  Miss Widdecombe: That is undeniably the case. Mayor Giuliani had another 11,000 policemen and I am not suggesting that they were all walking up and down streets; they were doing all sorts of things, but they were also walking up and down those streets. In New York, one need not look far to see the visible presence of a policeman. In London, one can sometimes walk quite a long way before seeing one, and in a rural area, or in some villages in my constituency, one will never see a policeman.
  I am not saying for a moment that there is a simplistic relationship between the number of police officers and crime. Rather, I am saying that although the number of police may not be a sufficient condition of fighting crime, they are certainly a necessary condition of it, and that if there are not enough policemen, the fight against crime is doomed to failure. That, sadly, is what is happening at the moment.
  In addition to policemen there are of course the special constables. When I asked a question about the number of special constables, it apparently constituted such a detailed request that the Minister brushed it away. It is not a detailed question. Special constables are the reserve that the police fall back on. The police are facing an ever-increasing amount of bureaucracy—much, but not all, imposed by the Labour Government—with fewer active numbers and less of a reserve to fall back on. That is obviously totally counter-productive if we want to control crime.
  Another aspect of quality of life has nothing to do with crime but causes me considerable irritation and probably causes a great many people to raise their eyebrows and wonder why it only appears to happen in London and not in other capital cities. I am referring to the sheer quantity of litter that blows and flows around London. There are the awful, rotting black bags that sit on pavements and street corners, and which one has to wend one's way round when going out in London in the evening. Why is it that we appear, uniquely, to be unable to control litter and rubbish in London when other capital cities have done it extremely effectively? It impacts on the quality of life and lets the capital down, especially in the eyes of visitors, who are used to completely different standards.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the points that I have raised and that he will not interpret them as being made in a purely party political spirit. I hope that he will acknowledge that statistics are not the answer; real policemen on real beats, doing real jobs, are.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. David Lepper: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that the emphasis of the discussion has shifted away slightly from London. I feared, soon after the debate started, that we would discuss nothing but London and ignore the rest of the south-east of England. Most of my remarks will be about the experience of my constituency, on the south coast.

  799
  Quality of life means different things to different people. To some of my constituents, the fact that a Labour Government are likely to approve a national park for the south downs will be a big boost to their appreciation of the area in which they live and their feelings of well-being. To others, the fact that our Dome concert hall has just reopened after a major refurbishment, financed partly by the local council, partly by national Government funding, partly by English Heritage and partly by the lottery, and the fact that that will lead eventually to refurbishment and an entirely new library and museum in the centre of our city, will be key factors in judging the quality of their life.
  For others, quality of life will be headlines such as the following, which appeared in the Brighton daily newspaper, the Argus, on 8 March 2002: "Big fall in crime". The article read:
  "City crime has dropped to its lowest point since 1999… Totals"
  for burglaries and car crime
  "late last year were more than 2,000 per month compared to more than 3,000 in 1999. The biggest fall has been in car crime, down to 300 a month compared with 700"—
  still too many, but a major drop. That was partly the result of special funding directed by the Home Office to the Brighton and the—still existing but soon to be former—Hove and Shoreham divisions to enable them to concentrate on tackling car crime.
  However, to many of my constituents, the prime criterion that they would use is whether they have a job. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) spoke about changes that had happened nationally and in his constituency over the past four and a half years. Throughout the Brighton and Hove city area, in January 1997, there were 14,415 people out of work. That figure has now been reduced to 5,531. In my constituency, the January 1997 figure was 5,721 and now the figure is 1,845—a drop of 66.8 per cent.
  I would argue that that drop is mainly attributable to skilful management of the economy by the Labour Government and to other policies, which have been opposed by the Opposition —policies such as the new deal for the unemployed. The new deal first helped young people—young people exactly like those that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) talked about. It has helped young people exactly like those whom I saw in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a teacher in a secondary school on a council estate in Brighton, who were leaving school at age 16 without hope of employment. The new deal has given them a new kind of hope, but not only hope: it has given them jobs.
  The new deal has provided support, encouragement and training for many people who had been considered unemployable by the previous Government because of a disability, or because they were lone parents. They were encouraged to be benefit-dependent, whereas our policies have encouraged them to find the potential within themselves and to use it very positively.
  Mrs. Laing: I cannot sit here and listen to the hon. Gentleman saying something about the last Government that is not true. Exactly the reverse is true. No Conservative Government ever encouraged any sector of society to be benefit-dependent.
  Mr. Lepper: The hon. Lady is welcome to her opinion. I have listened to a number of untruths from Opposition
  800
  Members about the policies of this Government, and I stand by my statement. Whereas the previous Government encouraged benefit dependency, with incapacity benefit being the prime example, this Government have encouraged people through training and the sheer shift of emphasis within the Employment Service. The Government have provided opportunities through their management of the economy, and the creation of jobs that that has helped to engender, for people to move off benefit and into work.
  Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman's Government are so keen on reducing benefit dependency, why was it that when we introduced the jobseeker's allowance, which required people to look for work, it was opposed by the then Opposition? Why was it that when we made amendments to incapacity benefit—precisely because it was so abused and used for dependency—were they opposed by the then Opposition? Why did they oppose all those measures when in opposition if they are genuinely opposed to benefit dependency?
  Mr. Lepper: That was a long intervention from the right hon. Lady. I stand by my statement. We have attempted to shift away from benefit dependency, not just through the new deal. My constituency and the rest of the Brighton and Hove city council area has benefited from being an employment zone. We also have the working links organisation, which has taken a more flexible approach to training and getting people into jobs.
  Assisted area status has been given to parts of the Kemptown constituency and my own, as well as parts of the wider Newhaven to Shoreham area. That is also helping to bring jobs to my part of the south coast. I well recall the days before I was a Member of Parliament when, as a Brighton councillor, I came up to London with a delegation from the Brighton borough council, as it then was, and from East Sussex county council, with which we were then linked, to make a plea to the then DTI Minister—who was at the time the Conservative Member for Hove—for Government support for assisted area status.
  We could see the effect that the two recessions—we will not quibble about whether it was two or three—were having on our area. We had seen the way in which they had decimated a once-thriving manufacturing base on the outskirts of Brighton and Hove and the way in which we lost about 6,000 jobs throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s.
  We made a plea for Conservative Government support for assisted area status and despite the fact that his own constituency would have benefited, the then Minister did not feel able to persuade the Conservative Government to back our bid for that status. It has taken a Labour Government to support that bid and we are now beginning to see some of the fruits of it.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who is no longer with us, talked about the need for strategies and for analysis leading to strategies. In terms of the south-east, I draw his attention and that of other hon. Members to the document "A Better Quality of Life in the South-east", produced by the south-east regional assembly, the Government office for the south-east, the South East England development agency, the Environment Agency and the national health service.

  801
  The document was published in June last year and carries out exactly the kind of analysis for which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was pleading, and develops a strategy for improving the quality of life. The authors of the document—not the Labour Government—say that the single most significant tool in terms of addressing the objective of tackling deprivation and its associated targets is the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. That is a strategy of this Government, and I am pleased that part of my constituency, the Hollingdean area, will benefit from being part of the strategy, which concentrates on the poorest constituents and brings in funding from the mainstream budgets of public agencies. Perhaps most importantly, it involves the local community in planning the way in which that funding will be used
  Underlying some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald—I may be misinterpreting her—was a view that somehow communities were waiting for things to be done to them by outside agencies. I agree that the quality and level of policing is important, but what has been overlooked for too many years—another hallmark of this Government is that we are shifting the emphasis—is the involvement of local people at community level in deciding how additional funding should be used.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lepper: I will give way for the last time to the right hon. Lady.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I will not trespass on his patience again after this. Does he accept that what he has just said was the exact basis of our single regeneration budget, an extremely successful initiative that the Government have carried on? Does he accept that neighbourhood involvement was the very essence of that?
  Mr. Lepper: The single regeneration budget was a late addition to Conservative policies, but I agree that my constituency has benefited in part from it. However, it did not look at the neighbourhood areas in the way that neighbourhood renewal does.
  I welcome the fact that we will benefit in parts of my constituency from being part of neighbourhood renewal. That same area of Hollingdean now has sure start funding, which will vastly improve the quality of life of the many families with young children under school age who are living in council estates or areas of private housing that currently have little in the way of community facilities that are sometimes taken for granted elsewhere. These are the kinds of streams of funding that are making a real difference to the lives of people in my community.
  I could mention also the increasing health authority allocations over the last five years, and the additional £800,000 given to our local hospital to modernise the maternity unit, much as happened in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow. I could mention also the opening of an NHS dental centre, providing dental treatment for many of those people who, because
  802
  of changes made by the previous Government in the early 1990s that helped to cut the numbers of dentists in the NHS, have not been able to sign up with an NHS dentist.
  Mr. Burns: I will paraphrase the question that I put to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell). Was the hon. Gentleman at the Labour party conference in October 1999? Did he hear the Prime Minister say that, within two years, everybody in the country would have access to an NHS dentist? Is he aware that, according to Government figures from the Department of Health, the number of people who have access to an NHS dentist amounts to just under 60 per cent? It is over two years since that promise. Could the hon. Gentleman explain why it has not been kept?
  Mr. Lepper: The NHS dental centre in my constituency, opened in the autumn of last year, is one of a number of such centres opened across the country since the Prime Minister made that speech at the Labour party conference to which the hon. Gentleman has twice drawn the attention of the House.
  While on the subject of health, I could mention the £675,000 of the local capital modernisation fund, provided to our local NHS trust for equipment and small building works. Perhaps most importantly, we have been given the go-ahead for a new children's unit on the site of the Royal Sussex county hospital to replace the 120-year-old Royal Alexandra children's hospital. That hospital was much loved by local families over the years, but as everyone recognises—particularly the medical staff and nurses who work there—the 120-year-old building has long since outlived its capacity for refurbishment and modernisation. I am pleased to say that the Government have brought forward the intended date of completion of the newly transferred children's unit from 2010 to 2007.
  Mr. Oaten: The hon. Gentleman mentioned several Government-funded capital projects, but does he acknowledge that, although the Government may have made some progress, a fundamental problem exists in the south-east in terms of the revenue required to bring certain projects on stream? In the south-east, there is a real difficulty in getting year-by-year allocations to back up capital projects.
  Mr. Lepper: In my experience, the problem that the hon. Gentleman describes does not apply to the projects that I listed.
  I shall finish my remarks on health by drawing attention to the new medical school—one of three in the country—that will open in Brighton this year. This joint project—involving the Government, the University of Sussex, the University of Brighton, and the Royal Sussex County hospital—will create one of the schools that will help to train doctors. Our national health service is still in drastic need of more doctors, and more nurses, because during the 1990s recruitment and training programmes for doctors and nurses were repeatedly cut back. I am pleased that my constituency will have one of the new medical schools.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald—in mentioning her, I risk her intervening again—rightly drew attention to the problems that can be generated by disaffected young people. As I said, I taught

  803
  for many years at a secondary school that served a council estate on the edge of Brighton, and I witnessed such problems again and again. That is why I welcome—as will she—schemes such as the positive futures initiative, which is funded by the Home Office. My area has been designated one of the 33 new areas that will form part of the positive futures network.
  This issue brings me back to the importance of involving local people in improving the quality of life. The scheme will provide funding for a local partnership—involving the local council, Brighton and Hove Albion football club, South East Dance, Brighton youth centre and Adventure Unlimited—that will work with precisely those young people, aged 10 to 16, who are in danger of falling into the trap of disaffection that the right hon. Lady described.
  I have sought to outline certain ways in which several Government policies are directly addressing improving the quality of life for many of my constituents. However, I want to make a plea to the Government that echoes the comments of some other Members. As I said, having a job is probably the most basic measure of one's quality of life, but having somewhere to live goes hand in hand with that. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will know from my correspondence and comments in the House that the problem of obtaining affordable housing is becoming increasingly acute, not just in my constituency but along the entire south coast. Indeed, I suspect that the same is true in London.
  I welcome the fact that my area is part of the key workers scheme, which involves the Moat housing association, and that East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority now has an additional allowance for nurses and other health service staff. It was excluded from that scheme on its introduction—until health service representatives, my hon. Friends and I undertook a great deal of lobbying. I also welcome the fact that my local council can now specify a proportion of affordable housing in new planning developments, and the many measures in the housing Green Paper and the urban White Paper—such as changes in VAT—that should help to free up empty property. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and others have referred to such measures. My own council has an empty property strategy, through which it tries to bring back into use some of the many—far too many—empty properties above shops and offices that could be used as flats.
  Measures are in place to make housing more accessible to the people who need it, but I renew my plea to the Government to look again at the housing benefit system. In my constituency, the housing benefit that is available to under-25-year-olds in no way compares to even the lowest rents that are being asked for the smallest privately rented properties. I do not want housing benefit to cover the whole of a person's rent, because that would invite landlords to increase rents. However, existing structures, the way in which the local reference rent is set and certain housing benefit restrictions are not helping many of my constituents, particularly the young. As I said, I ask the Government to look again at that issue.
  I finish with a slight warning. I hope that the remarks of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) are not widely reported outside the House. I say that not because of any personal animosity—I do not know him well enough to have strong feelings about
  804
  him one way or the other. However, last week I chaired a meeting of the all-party tourism group, at which the British Tourist Authority referred to the serious decline in tourism in this country, caused in part by foot and mouth disease and the aftermath of 11 September. Many people are working hard to counter that decline. Negative descriptions of London such as the one that dominated the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks will do nothing to help bring people back to our capital city, and to south coast resorts that MPs such as I represent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I should tell the House that, so far, Back-Bench speeches are averaging 20 minutes. That will prove the road to disappointment for many hon. Members, unless we can improve on that.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. John Randall: I shall endeavour to keep my comments to a minimum, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), but I am afraid that I intend to return to the subject of London. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on making an extremely thoughtful speech on a subject that she obviously cares about greatly, and on which she has a great deal of knowledge. Certain Members would be wise not to paint her as a caricature; they should listen to what she has to say on this important subject.
  I welcome the fact that this debate is being held on the Floor of the House, although we have had some interesting debates on London in Westminster Hall. I notice that some of the regular London debaters from Westminster Hall are not in their places today. That is possibly because hon. Members feel a little less constrained in what they say in Westminster Hall. For example, Labour Members have made some very intelligent criticisms of the Government. If the Minister has not yet read the speech made a few weeks ago by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on housing in London, I recommend him to do so. It was a model speech about the problems London faces.
  London is a great place to live if one is a have—usually the owner of a property—as opposed to a have-not. Middlesex is even better and in Uxbridge we benefit from a position that is close to the centre, being a good location for business and transport, as well as having easy access so that people can enjoy the countryside.
  London has much wildlife, and not only on the outskirts. I can recommend the Barnes wetland centre, which is not many miles from here. This season, three bitterns have wintered there. Before a Liberal Democrat jumps up to point out that the centre is in one of their constituencies, I should point out that the only feature they have in common with the birds is an ability to sit on fences.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Another thing that we have in common is that we have paddled through some very rough water.
  Mr. Randall: I shall endeavour to observe the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood

  805
  and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) about not being partisan. I just fell victim again to the temptation to be partisan about the Liberal Democrats—it is like retaliation on the football field, in that one feels like doing it even though one knows one should not and might get a red card for it.
  One of the problems with politicians is that we are always taking credit for things that our party has achieved. We also like to ignore those things that we did not get right or left undone. That is true of all parties. However, it is only fair to Londoners to say that London owes its position as a great city today more to the endeavours of Londoners—be they native Londoners, people who have come from elsewhere in the country or people from outside the country—than to any political party.
  London has some great universities and in Uxbridge we have Brunel university. Some of the problems we have mentioned with the cost of living—property prices, affordable housing and rents—impinge on students. If we want to encourage people to come to London to study, we must recognise that students face those problems, too.
  If everything is so wonderful, hon. Members might wonder what I have to complain about, but as well as some of the greatest advantages, London has some of the worst pockets of deprivation in the country. Hon. Members have mentioned the problem of affordable housing. Well, we want more houses, but we do not want to build on our open spaces. We must consider ways around that problem, including high-density housing, although we must be careful that we do not recreate the problem estates with the high-rise flats that were a big mistake. As we all now know, having a nice environment in which to live and work has a knock-on effect on how people behave.
  The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) mentioned The Mail on Sunday and its report on hospitals. I am not a regular reader of that newspaper, but I was told today by the Uxbridge Gazette that Hillingdon hospital got one star—the lowest rating. It does not merit such a low grade. Members of Parliament often receive the bad news on hospitals in complaints from constituents, but when we visit the hospitals we often see the reverse because things are laid on especially for us. I know from my family's experiences, and those of neighbours and fellow residents, that the hospital is not always so bad, but matters are not improving. Much of the problem is caused by staffing difficulties.
  I am sorry to see that the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), has left the Chamber briefly—even though he has left an admirable replacement—only because in a previous incarnation he dealt with health matters. I want to remind the House of the terrible decision to move Harefield hospital into central London. That sums up some of the problems we face. We are trying to stop people driving into London, but that hospital was moved from the outskirts to the centre. It is better to live on the outskirts of London, and I would have thought that convalescing in Paddington basin is a lot more difficult than in rural Middlesex.
  Antisocial behaviour and the general lack of visible policing is a subject on which I hear more complaints than any other at the moment. The problem is real. We have four police stations in Hillingdon borough and none of
  806
  them has a front counter that is open 24 hours a day. That worries people. Statistics show that not many people attend the front counter of police stations, but the lack of them is a psychological blow and people find it difficult to accept that the police station is open.
  The antisocial behaviour that other hon. Members have mentioned seems to be on the increase, although I congratulate the Hillingdon division, which is trying to muster as many men, women and vehicles as it can to go out on Friday and Saturday evenings to tour round looking for, in particular, youth crime. I went out with them recently, and West Drayton and Hayes on a Friday evening were everything that I dreamed they might be.
  The quality of life for the people who have, whom I mentioned earlier, can be very good. London can be a super place to live, but that quality can be fragile. Certainly for those who have not, London can be an unpleasant place to live. It has some of the worst accommodation and can be a very lonely place. We do no service to our constituents, or to Londoners generally, if we ignore those problems. I mentioned the problem of unemployment in an intervention during the Minister's speech and I accept his point that it is not the Government's fault. Although levels are relatively low at the moment, compared with other parts of the country, things could get worse quickly. More job cuts are on the horizon.
  We know about the problems of public service workers and the lack of affordable housing, but workers in the private sector—for example, in retail—also suffer. We cannot get enough bus drivers or postmen, and that affects the quality of life.
  I was disappointed by the Government's amendment, although I know that it is their job to respond to our motion. It is unfair to say that the Opposition are talking London down. We are not. We are trying to raise awareness, because the danger that might result from talking our capital city down could also arise if people who do not want to acknowledge that a problem exists continue to look through rose-tinted spectacles. There has been a hint of that among Labour Members this afternoon. Without awareness, we will never be able to address the problems that affect us all.
  6.40 pm
  Joan Ryan: I, too, shall concentrate more on London than on the south-east in general. I shall speak mainly about my constituency of Enfield, North, and about the borough of Enfield.
  I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) speak about abandoned cars. That is clearly a huge issue, as abandoned cars blight localities. I very much welcome the White Paper on abandoned vehicles, and it was interesting that the hon. Gentleman did not answer a specific question about whether the Opposition had responded to it. We must conclude that the answer is no, although we stand to be informed on the matter.
  However, I was surprised by the hon. Gentleman's remarks most of all because some months ago I raised the matter of abandoned cars at Prime Minister's Question Time. Opposition Members fell about laughing that afternoon, and I was greeted with a huge amount of derision. It was quite intimidating, but I continued with my question because the issue is so important. I am sure

  807
  that Opposition Members intended to be intimidating, but their reaction showed merely that they have—and have had for many years—a complete lack of regard for what I call the nitty-gritty issues to do with quality of life.
  I shall return to the bigger policy areas, such as unemployment and housing, but the real, nitty-gritty issues to do with quality of life are those that face people when they open their front doors. If people do not feel empowered to do anything about those issues, it is highly unlikely that they will engage in the bigger policy areas.
  Tim Loughton: I agree that the nitty-gritty issues are important to ordinary people in their own environment. Those issues include abandoned cars, fly tipping and the location of mobile phone masts. In their general election manifesto, the Conservative Opposition had detailed policies on all those matters, whereas the Government did not touch on them at all. It is not that we had no view on those matters: rather, we had a very detailed view on each of them.
  Joan Ryan: I said that I would return to the issue of crime, but the hon. Gentleman's intervention is a crime against reality. I do not agree with him at all. It is true that abandoned cars, litter, fly tipping, dog fouling, vandalism, graffiti, the antisocial behaviour of travellers and so on are very serious issues in local communities. However, my experience of the general election was that there were really two elections going on. On television, in the media and even locally, the Conservatives seemed to want to talk only about two issues—the euro and asylum seekers. In contrast, the Government—and, to be fair to them, the Liberal Democrats—talked about other matters as well, most notably public services.
  Local people made it clear to anyone who knocked on their doors that they wanted to talk about the issues that I listed earlier and about public services. I know that many other hon. Members had the same experience. People understood that those were the issues that affected their quality of life. They are concerned about what goes on in their street, their stairwell, their car park and their park. They are also worried about whether they have jobs, decent housing, and good health services and schools.
  However, the Conservatives did not want to discuss those issues in the election. Their manifesto may have tried to pay lip service to those issues, but lip service was all that it achieved.
  Tim Loughton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Joan Ryan: No, as I want to complete this point. This debate is striking for the absence of an awareness of reality among Opposition Members, and for the fact that they take no responsibility for their inaction when in government. The previous Conservative Government could have had an effect on these matters, but they chose to do nothing. Opposition Members want to jump on a bandwagon by tabling this motion for debate today, but where are they? They take no responsibility for the many problems that exist.
  This Labour Government are tackling those problems. They are making some progress, but the problems are deep-seated and have existed through many years of complete disregard and lack of investment by the previous Conservative Government. They will not be solved in a
  808
  five-year period. The Conservatives had 18 to 19 years in government last time, and they were in government for many more years of the previous century. They created the problems and ignored local people. For so long, they showed neither care nor consideration for local communities, yet they want the problems to be resolved in five years.
  I want the Government to continue to act. I want more action, and I want it faster. I want resource levels to be maintained and then increased. I do not accept that all the problems arose in the past five years, nor that this Government have done nothing to tackle them. The problems did not arise in the past five years, and the Government have acted to resolve them.
  Another matter that has not been mentioned forms part of the ethos of some political parties, hut not of the Conservative Opposition.
  Mr. David Cameron: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Joan Ryan: No, I will not.
  I wish to speak about consultation, the involvement of local people, and partnership. I was a local councillor from 1990 to 1998, with a Conservative Government in power for most of that time. In effect, "consultation" came to be a dirty word when it came to involving people in local authority and other issues, especially health. I remember all the meetings that were held about establishing an internal market for health. It appeared that local people were being consulted, but no one believed it. On the contrary, local people were being told what was going to happen, and that they could like it or lump it.
  That really damaged the involvement of local communities in local and national politics.
  Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Joan Ryan: I will when I have finished this point. We have paid a heavy price for that. I have heard nothing this afternoon to demonstrate that the Opposition have changed their approach. We have heard nothing about the many local community and voluntary groups which have to engage with local authorities and Government to make progress on these issues. In my constituency, we see such consultation in local strategic partnerships, the involvement of people on governing bodies, neighbourhood watch schemes and in voluntary groups. The Conservative party should take responsibility for the damage that it did to that process.
  Mrs. Laing: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying about consultation and involvement. Was it not a Conservative Government who were responsible for large numbers of school governors? Was it not a Conservative Government who introduced community health councils to involve the community in the health service? Did not the Labour Government try to get rid of community health councils and ignore the consultation process?
  Joan Ryan: The hon. Lady will know that even the national body for community health councils agrees that reform is needed. There is no point Conservative

  809
  Members wrapping themselves in a veneer of respectability, because if we scratch the surface we see that nothing is there.
  I fully accept people's right to be travellers and to pursue that lifestyle if they so wish. Problems arise because on many occasions—I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have experienced this—when travellers leave land that is inappropriate for human habitation and has no facilities, they leave behind a dreadful mess. Once they are there, it is very unpleasant for the residents of that area; the travellers are often on their only piece of open space. When they go they leave a mess, and local authorities or the private sector business which owns the car park or land in question is left with the bill for cleaning up after what is essentially antisocial behaviour. Will the Government look more closely at what we can do to assist local authorities and local people in dealing with the issue?
  Tim Loughton: I agree with the hon. Lady, but will she acknowledge that in 1998, the then Home Secretary—now the Foreign Secretary—by way of regulation enabled travellers of whatever description to encamp on derelict land in the ownership of local authorities, resulting in a 16-month encampment in my constituency? The change in the regulations for which her party was responsible led to an extraordinary increase in the problems of travellers in Sussex and the rest of the country.
  Joan Ryan: That is not the case—there was no change in regulation. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes back to the Library for some more detail.
  Consultation partnerships are important because they empower people. The hon. Gentleman mentioned fly tipping, which in many ways has the same outcome for local residents as visiting travellers. Will the Government consider what measures can be taken to combat this problem? I fear that it is on the increase; it is a scourge and a blight, and local authorities need support in dealing with it. It is a big issue for legitimate local businesses that manage their waste properly. They fear for the future of their business because of the state of the area in which they operate when fly tipping takes place.
  My local authority has put in place many initiatives that have made a big difference to local people's quality of life. Enfield council, in partnership with local residents, the police and business, has won almost £2.1 million in Government backing to help tackle crime and the fear of crime. Despite all that has been said, the British crime survey shows that there has been a 7 per cent. drop in crime. There is an issue surrounding street crime and mobile phone crime, which the Government have acknowledged as much as the Conservative party, but there has been a drop in crime overall. It is important to make that point.
  Enfield is one of the safest London boroughs. However, we can never afford to be complacent, nor would we want to be. It does not help to scaremonger. People can walk around the streets of Enfield 99 per cent. of the time and be perfectly safe, but the fear of crime is much greater than the likelihood of it happening. Although I support visible policing and believe that there should be more of it, it is also about intelligent policing. That is vital.
  810
  Enfield has benefited from an increase of almost 15 per cent. in police numbers from this April, which is very welcome. The £2.1 million from the Government for our CCTV monitoring station will make a tremendous difference in catching criminals and acting as a deterrent. I pay tribute to my local authority in being successful in its bid and to the Government for making the money available so that my local authority could bid for it.
  Ponders End and Edmonton have received more than £4 million this year for our neighbourhood renewal programme. That, too, is making a tremendous difference. The way that money will be spent is in direct response to residents' involvement and wishes. It will be aimed at improving quality of life.
  On employment, my constituency lost 9,000 manufacturing jobs between 1992 and 1997. That is a huge number. I acknowledge that there are difficulties in the manufacturing sector, but that is not to say that manufacturing cannot succeed, because it can and does. The difference that the Government have made to Enfield is that we now have the lowest unemployment rate for 25 years, and youth unemployment is down by some 83 per cent. That is something to celebrate.
  There is a scheme in Enfield that combines housing and jobs. It is a partnership that deals with the catch-22 situation for young people who lack relevant experience and qualifications and are unable to secure that vital first job. The partnership is between Enfield council, the Young Builders Trust and the Lee housing association. Young people build their own homes; they learn construction skills while they do so and, at the end of the process, they have the opportunity to take up a tenancy. They also have the skills to acquire a job. That is an innovative scheme; people could learn a lot from it and I recommend it to my right hon. Friend the Minister. He is nodding—he is clearly aware of such schemes. That came about following a successful bid to the Housing Corporation. More of these schemes are needed.
  In conclusion, it is good that we have debates about these issues with regard to London and the south-east. Although issues such as litter, dog fouling, and the state of stairwells and pavements have been treated with derision by Opposition Members in the past, they are very important to our constituents. It is a shame that the Conservatives are Johnny-come-latelys on these issues, but it is no surprise. It is easy for them to pick up these issues now that they are in opposition—they did not bother to do anything about them when they had many years of opportunity to do so—because they do not have to take responsibility for anything whatever.
  7 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I want to pick up the theme of quality of life and the environment. I shall restrict my comments to the counties around London. In the context of the south-east regional planning committee—this may surprise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—Essex, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire are considered to be part of the south-east rather than the eastern region. For the purposes of my speech, that is exceptionally convenient and useful.
  Everyone seeks to have the best quality of life that they can enjoy, particularly with regard to their housing. Over the last few years, the way in which Serplan, the Crow report and the Government have sought to establish

  811
  figures to dictate to the home counties and beyond the number of houses that they must build over the next decade and up to 2021 has been nothing more than a shambles. No reasonable person would deny the responsibility of local communities, through local authorities and, up to a point, through central Government, to consider demographic changes. As a result of those changes, there is a need to provide extra housing for young people and others, because more and more people in society are living in single-parent households or on their own. However, because the process is statistically flawed, I question the way in which central Government seek to dictate to local authorities what they are expected to do with regard to house building.
  After a series of false starts—and of taking two steps forward, and one step back—the regional planning guidance of December 2001 stated, in effect, that until 2006, 39,000 houses a year must be built, and, thereafter, 43,000 houses a year. If my mathematics are correct, the counties concerned must therefore build a total of just under 880,000 houses over a relatively short period of time. I question whether the way in which those figures have been arrived at, and the basis for the calculations, is correct. The sad fact of life is that if the figures are wrong, and the houses have been built, it will be too late to get that land back.
  The Government have continued the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment in insisting on 60 per cent. brownfield build. I applaud that. However, there is a problem in certain areas, which I am sure that the Minister, with his experience, will accept. Some areas do not have 60 per cent. brownfield sites on which to build. My local authority in Chelmsford is one such authority. The Deputy Prime Minister, in a previous incarnation, said that that figure should be flexible, so that it could be traded around the country. Therefore, theoretically, if an area had 80 per cent. brownfield sites, it would be able to build more, whereas an area that had a figure of less than 60 per cent. would be able to build less. I do not disagree with that at all. It is a sensible approach. In reality, however, it seems that nothing is being done to bring that policy, and the mechanisms for it to work, into force. Therefore, a rigid target of 60 per cent. must still be met, even though some areas do not have 60 per cent. brownfield sites to meet it.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: On my hon. Friend's point about the target, is it not extraordinary that that target has been fixed so early in the cycle, before information is available from the national census? The results of that census, which clearly identify housing formation and housing need, will not be available until next year.
  Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. It is characteristic of the cock-eyed way in which the system has operated in the past five years that something as crucial as the census report will not be included in the basis for the figures.
  Mr. Chris Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: I shall make some progress.
  812
  Another problem is that in almost all of these areas—there have been examples in West Sussex, around Stevenage in Hertfordshire and in Hampshire—the local population are being ignored. If the Government paid more than lip service to their rhetoric, that local population should be empowered. However, the building programme is being forced on them with the full arm and might of the law. No account is being taken of local views. Even more disturbingly, if the Government's White Paper proposals for reform of the planning laws go ahead in their current form, the viewpoint and wishes of local communities will be reduced even more by the diktat of this Government and their control freakery.
  As I said, that has caused considerable problems in West Sussex, around Stevenage in Hertfordshire and in Hampshire. It has also caused problems further afield, but I shall not test your patience on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as that is beyond the Serplan area. However, that policy is causing particular problems in my county of Essex, where we are expected to build 112,000 houses by 2011. In my local authority area, we must build just under 12,000 houses, but we do not have 60 per cent. brownfield land for that. Therefore, there will be more and more encroachment on the greenfield sites that everyone wants to maintain as far as realistically possible. That is a worrying problem, and my local authority is having to deal with it.
  Mr. Cameron: Will my hon. Friend remind us who controls Chelmsford borough council and what their view is on this matter?
  Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, as he raises a highly relevant point. Although—for reasons that will become apparent shortly—my local authority is a hung council, it is controlled by the Liberal Democrats. The performance of Liberal Democrats in Chelmsford over the past three or four years has been extraordinary. If one were sad enough to read Liberal Democrat press releases and the ghastly dishonest issues of Focus that Liberal Democrats spew around our constituencies in the run-up to elections, one would conclude that they believe that the green belt is crucially important and should be sacrosanct, and that greenfield sites should be protected where possible.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) had the audacity at the beginning of his speech to say something that Labour and Conservative Members have heard frequently over many years. He said that the Liberal Democrats are not like the other parties and that they do not like nasty bickering. They want to consider the truth and come up with a sensible argument. However, as we all know, the one party that descends first and quickest into the gutter is the Liberal Democrats. We know that they have the audacity—I suppose one has to say also the skill—to go down a row of 30 houses where 30 different opinions are held and give 30 different answers to satisfy all 30 households. We have faced that problem in buckets in Chelmsford.
  Liberal Democrats claim to represent the party that believes in the green belt, to be the party of the environment and to be the greens of this Parliament. However, they wanted to put housing on green belt land in the small village of Margaretting in my constituency. Naturally, the proposal caused uproar, but they saw no contradiction between their views on the green belt and

  813
  plonking 1,500 houses in a village with a population of just more than 1,000 that is totally surrounded by green belt land.
  The Liberal Democrats' chairman of planning made the mistake of turning up to a public meeting. The meeting had to be abandoned after 15 minutes. I am told that he was last seen being separated from a member of the public by another member of the public as he got involved in a heated discussion. At that point, even the Liberal Democrats had the common sense to back off.
  The Liberal Democrats then had to look round the rest of the borough to find somewhere for the housing, and what happened was breathtaking. Unfortunately for them, as I heard on the grapevine, their councillor for the seat of Boreham in Chelmsford was dissatisfied with the Liberal council, so he decided—inconveniently for the Liberal Democrats—to resign his seat and force a by-election. In July 2000, we had an interesting by-election campaign in which the Conservative candidate was, ironically, the only one who lived in the village.
  The Liberal Democrats brought in a high flier who had been defeated in the previous borough elections in the town of Chelmsford and they fought the campaign by pledging that there would be no house building on greenfield land around Boreham. They were so insistent on protecting the environment and the quality of life of the people of Boreham that even the Liberal Democrat leader of the council turned up. There was a photo opportunity that appeared in Focus and they claimed that they would protect Boreham. They said, "Vote Liberal Democrat, return this councillor and Boreham will be saved from the house building that all the people of the village loathe."
  Amazingly, there was a 30 per cent. swing from the Liberal Democrat to the Conservative candidate, who also fought the election by opposing the house building. However, within six months of polling, the Liberal Democrats produced their master plan of where the houses would be built in the Chelmsford local authority area. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Boreham."] My hon. Friends and the Minister know the Liberals only too well. Surprise, surprise: 2,000 houses are being inflicted on the village of Boreham despite all the Liberal Democrats' promises—at least, that is where they hope they will be built. A process must be gone through and the people of Boreham have united and set up a committee to fight the proposal. They look forward to the public inquiry that will take place next year.
  I have a final remark on the Boreham story. Despite what the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) might have thought about her general election campaign, it was a pleasure to canvass as a Conservative candidate in Boreham in June last year.
  Tom Brake: Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the House what percentage of building took place on greenfield sites under the last Conservative Government?
  Tim Loughton: None in Boreham.
  Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend upstages me. He is absolutely right. For one fleeting moment, I thought that
  814
  the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) was going to apologise for the performance of Liberal Democrat councillors in Chelmsford, but then I thought, "Don't be silly, Simon. He's a Liberal Democrat." As my hon. Friend rightly said, there was no building on greenfield sites in Boreham before the Liberal Democrat council took the decision that they are hoping to get through.
  This is a serious matter. It is wrong that the south-east and the counties covered by Serplan are having such a large amount of house building on greenfield land forced on them. That land will never be recovered once it has been built upon. Given the analysis that is the basis for determining the number of houses that must be built, I fear that by 2021—and, I suspect, long before that—we will have already destroyed the environment before the flaws in the figures become apparent.
  Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend mentioned West Sussex. In my constituency, the inspector's report replying to the Worthing local plan has identified areas of greenfield land that touch areas of outstanding natural beauty on the Sussex downs. Local people and the local council want them to be kept as greenfield land, but the downs are now being identified as potential house building sites because of what the Government have done and what the Deputy Prime Minister instructed local councils to do. He told them to build on greenfield sites in places such as Worthing if the brownfield sites are not available. That is increasingly likely to happen.
  Mr. Burns: I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has raised that important point. It is time that the Government were prepared to think again and to listen to the people in places such as West Sussex, Boreham in Chelmsford and Hertfordshire. Why do the Government not reconsider and trust the people and introduce a system that is bottom up rather than top down? Why are the Government not prepared to let local communities, who are far more familiar with the requirements of their area, determine future house building and the needs of the local environment? Instead, the Government are forcing the policy on those communities as a diktat from the centre. I fear from the way in which the Minister shakes his head that my suggestion will not be accepted but, sadly, I am used to that.
  This is a Government of control freaks who do not simply control their press officers and news management. They want to control every nook and cranny of our lives. Their policy is deeply unpopular and the statistics show that it is unnecessary. Long after the Minister has had responsibility for local government or housing, he might in the small hours of the night, as he reflects on his career, come to regret the decisions that he took, particularly when he was the Minister for Housing and Planning in the previous Parliament.
  7.19pm
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). His speech was very well delivered but, at one point, I wondered whether he was describing the life and times of the Chelmsford Liberal Democrat party. He seemed to know such a lot of detail about it that I thought that we were about to hear when its latest whist drive or jumble sale would be held. However, I have sympathy for some of the points that he made.

  815
  I want to talk about the county of Kent and my constituency in particular. People's quality of life turns principally on their work, income, holidays and family, and there has been enormous progress on many of those fronts during the past few years. Many of my constituents never got paid holiday under the previous Conservative Government; now they do, because we signed up to the social chapter. Many of them earned as little as £1 an hour; no longer, because we now have a statutory minimum wage. Maternity leave has been increased. A whole raft of measures have not been mentioned during the debate, but they are important to people's lives.
  The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned pensioners. When I knocked on doors during the election, some of those people told me, "I'm getting £200 now" or "I'm getting a free TV licence now." As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) knows, a combination of the Government's policy on cut-price fares and a local Labour initiative led to a flat-rate bus fare of 20p in the Medway towns. Those are quality of life issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) said, they are the nitty-gritty details that affect people's day-to-day lives. People worry about whether they can afford a holiday or need to find the money for their television licence. They do not if they are over 75, because it is provided by the Labour Government.
  Mr. Fallon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the principal elements of the quality of life for his and my constituents in Kent is being able to travel to one's place of work? Does he think that commuting to London has improved under the Labour Government?
  Mr. Shaw: Fifty per cent. of people who live in the Medway towns travel outside them to work. The hon. Gentleman is right that there have not been vast improvements in commuter trains, although when I traveled up from Chatham today I was in one of the new air-conditioned Networkers with other passengers from the Medway towns. More of those trains are on order from Connex. Difficulties have arisen because Railtrack and Connex have failed to provide sufficient power for all those trains. I admit that I often still have to use slam-door trains, but there is a programme to phase them out and to introduce more trains like the one that I traveled on this afternoon.
  Mrs. Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that investment in new rolling stock, and Connex's very existence, would not have come about had it not been for the Conservative Government's privatisation of British Rail?
  Mr. Shaw: "All hail privatisation"—that is the mantra of Conservative Members. If they persist with it, they will continue to do as well as they have done in the past few years.
  The problem with privatisation is that it was focused on the short term. On the Connex South Central line, the franchise ran for only seven or eight years. Who on earth wants to invest in a franchise of that length? No wonder the company lost that franchise. In future there must be longer franchises of 25 or 30 years, with proper penalties if quality is not delivered and the requisite improvements are not made. There is no point in saying that everything
  816
  is marvellous after privatisation, because that is clearly not so. Even if there is no consensus on that in the House, there certainly is in the rest of the country. Once longer franchises are introduced, investment will start to come in. The present arrangements are unsatisfactory.
  I want to talk about the effect of education on the quality of life. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made a passionate speech about certain communities that we all have in our constituencies and how to tackle some of the deeply entrenched problems. I did not hear all of her speech, but she painted with a broad brush in mapping out the issues. The Government are introducing tangible initiatives and policies to deal with specific problems.
  One of those is the sure start programme, which in my constituency provides funding of about £2 million, concentrating on the most deprived areas. It benefits around 1,300 children under the age of three, and works with their parents to tackle deprivation cycles. By creating artificial situations, it is possible to improve the relationship between parents and young children at an early age. That improves the children's emotional development, which means that they are more likely to do well in pre-school. In 2000 there were about 200 pre-school places for three-year-olds in the Medway towns; we now have more than 2,000. That is the direct result of Government money and the development of local infrastructure. If youngsters have good pre-school education they do better when they move on to primary school, and if they get a good grounding in primary school—the numeracy hour, the literacy hour and reduced class sizes have assisted in that—they will do better in secondary school. If they do better in secondary school, we will start to move away from the disfranchisement and disenchantment that they often feel.
  Sandra Gidley: I am a great supporter of the sure start scheme. Hoping that I would be able to speak in the debate, I accessed the sure start website. Is the hon. Gentleman proud of the fact that the Government have few schemes in the south-east, but a huge number in the north and north-west? We are discussing problems in the south-east; sure start is an example of an area in which the south-east is deficient in services and funding.
  Mr. Shaw: I do not have a map in front of me showing the various deprived areas. If the hon. Lady wants a sure start programme in her area, I am sure that she will articulate that on behalf of her constituents. The programme targets the most needy areas that cover 30 per cent. of the country. Sometimes we are winners in the south-east; sometimes we are not. That is the purpose of a national Government. We cannot have every single programme in every single constituency. I do not know the hon. Lady's constituency well, but I am sure that it has particularly needy areas.
  The foundations have been laid at primary school level and we are moving on to the 14 to 19-year-old agenda. For far too long, there has been a fixation with academia whereby every youngster has to get academic qualifications. It is not surprising that if the national curriculum is purely academic, many youngsters do not fit into that. If they are already feeling disaffected and have no connection with the curriculum, it is not surprising that they fall into truancy and bad behaviour. It is incumbent on us, as policy setters, to provide a

  817
  curriculum that does more to meet youngsters' needs and aspirations. The curriculum should fit them; they should not have to fit into the curriculum. That is an important part of tackling current problems, as opposed to finding long-term solutions.
  Investment is being put into our schools. During the general election, parents told me that they approved of what they had seen in schools—the installation of computer suites, the reductions in class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, and the capital developments. However, there is much more to do.
  Mr. Mark Hoban: Does the hon. Gentleman share the disappointment of many parents, which was articulated by Mike Tomlinson, the chief inspector of schools, that after five years the Labour Government have failed to narrow the gap between the best-performing and worst-performing schools?
  Mr. Shaw: The Ofsted report shows that all schools are improving. The gap is not widening, but there are disaffected groups in our secondary schools, so we must consider what to do about that. Do we just blame the Labour Government?
  Mr. Hoban: Yes.
  Mr. Shaw: That is it then; the hon. Gentleman simply blames the Labour Government, but we should start to talk about policies to find a different curriculum to meet the needs, especially those of young men, in the schools in our constituencies. I would have hoped that, instead of just blaming the Government, the hon. Gentleman had something a little more constructive to contribute on an important issue that affects many young people and parents in his constituency.
  We must also recognise that we need to deal with literacy issues. The Government's programme of providing more basic adult literacy and numeracy skills is absolutely crucial. As Opposition Members have said, finding or holding down jobs is enormously difficult when people do not have basic skills. It is not just a case of finding jobs; people often have hurdles to overcome to secure those jobs. If there is a downturn in an area, the people without basic numeracy and literacy skills will be the first go. The Government's target of training 750,000 people is very ambitious; nevertheless it is right and proper.
  I want to talk about a couple of infrastructure issues in the south-east before I conclude my speech, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak. We live in a crowded country. Indeed, the south-east is one of the most heavily populated and crowded areas in the United Kingdom. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, there are always competing demands in providing affordable housing for the indigenous population, teachers, social workers, nurses and all sorts of other key public sector workers, but finding the solutions to those demands is enormously problematic.
  Those competing demands require us to consider the availability of brownfield sites. Until the Labour Government were elected, we did not know the full extent of our brownfield land. We fully understood where
  818
  housing could be built, other than on greenfield sites, only when the Government undertook a proper audit. The 60:40 split will present different pressures to different areas. Some areas will be able to deliver without a great deal of problems. There are many brownfield sites throughout the Thames gateway area in north Kent, and they have been earmarked for large-scale development.
  In every inner-city constituency, there are many rundown properties, and it is right to reduce VAT on renovating properties. With the competing demands of protecting the countryside and providing enough housing for people, it is perverse that VAT for new build on greenfield sites, which builders find cheapest, convenient and most attractive, is zero rated, yet 5 per cent. VAT is still charged on renovating properties, which is expensive on contaminated land and logistically difficult in inner cities. At some point in the future, that scale must be tipped the other way. Logic demands that we make more use of what we have already, so there has to be a fiscal incentive to renovate rather to build new.
  I have spoken mainly about Kent—the county that I have lived in all my life. In the constituency where I was born, the primary and secondary schools and the very poor areas, which I know very well, have made important advances in the past few years, under the Labour Government. We have run the economy well. My constituency has the third youngest population in the south-east, but let me tell the House about one of the key things that people told me during the election campaign. Some 80 per cent. of my constituents have mortgages, and they all vividly remember the affect of 15 per cent. interest rates and the recession. They lost their jobs; then they lost their houses; and then they found out that their houses were worth less than they paid for them, and they told me that they put the blame at the foot of the Conservative party.
  7.35 pm
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I am pleased to support the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), whose constituency neighbours mine. The Minister besmirched his name, so let me begin by answering that. I have checked in the intervening hours between the Minister's insults to my hon. Friend and now, and I can assure the House that there are no fleshpots in Brentwood and Ongar—at least, not yet—so whatever the reason for my hon. Friend's move from his previous abode to the south-east, it was not in search of fleshpots.
  It is good to have this debate. The Government often initiate debates about Scotland, Wales and different industries in various parts of the country, yet we rarely have an opportunity to speak about London and the south-east. We have the opportunity to raise such issues on the Floor of the House today only because we have used our Opposition time, and I greatly welcome the opportunity.
  The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) said that the motion is negative, but it is very positive. We all know that there great advantages to living in and around London, but there are also some problems, which is what the motion highlights. I have lived in other parts of the country and I know the different lifestyles of people in other areas, so I can compare where I live now with other parts of the country.

  819
  Hon. Members will not be surprised if I assure them that the towns and villages around Epping Forest are certainly the best places to live in the United Kingdom today. However, I object to the assumption, often made by Labour and Liberal Democrats and members of other parties, that there is only affluence in London and the south-east. There is no doubt that that part of the country has many advantages, but I have been astounded at the complacency of Ministers and many Labour Members who have spoken this evening about planning, housing, transport, crime, health and education. The people who live in my constituency have considerable problems with those issues.
  When considering what I would say this evening, I did not look up any statistics—I did not have to. I have merely reflected on the lifestyles and the daily lives of the people who live in Epping Forest, and I know what those problems are. I shall begin with planning. We are fortunate that the forest in and around Epping is protected land, but it is protected by ancient laws whereby it is owned by the City of London corporation and protected by laws made 150 years ago. It is not protected by modern planning laws, so we have to fight right, left and centre to keep the green belt and to preserve the rural areas on the edge of London.
  Nowadays, we have to fight the Government's ridiculous ideas on housing to try to preserve the little bit of rural land that still exists. Queen Victoria gave Epping Forest to her people for the enjoyment of the people of London, so that they could get out of London and the areas with no green belt and no trees and go to a place where children could play, which would be pleasant to live in and visit and where people and wildlife could breathe and prosper. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) so eloquently put it, the Government are trying to dump thousands of houses on the green belt without considering what effect that will have on the areas immediately around London.
  Mike Gapes: Is the hon. Lady saying that the Government propose to build on Epping Forest? Can she clarify that? I grew up in Essex and know Epping Forest well. The argument about marginal changes on the edge of the green belt is one thing, but there is no suggestion that Epping Forest is to be built on.
  Mrs. Laing: Certainly not, and I apologise if I have not made myself clear. The forest is protected because of ancient laws made more than 150 years ago, but the rest of the area is not because of the Government's negligent attitude towards planning, as witnessed in the desire of the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers to dump houses regardless of the opinions of local people.
  The cost of private sector housing in London and the south-east is another problem. I agree with much that the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) said about the need to build more social housing, council housing and starter homes. However, stamp duty and house prices also need to be addressed. They are not popular issues. Indeed, when I raised them in my maiden speech nearly five years ago, Labour Members laughed at me. I said that the cost of an average three-bedroomed house in my constituency went beyond the stamp duty threshold and that that
  820
  affected middle-income, middle-class families who wanted to buy a house that was big enough for them to live in without any grandeur.
  In the five years since then, house prices in my part of the world have more or less doubled, so the point that I made then is relevant now. The cost of buying property in and around London makes it impossible for people on average incomes to get on the housing ladder. That is not fair. Of course, the Government cannot control everything that has caused the rise in house prices. However, there are some things on which they can take immediate action and make a huge difference to purchasers, especially first-time buyers. Stamp duty is one such thing. I appreciate that the Minister cannot speak on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it would be good to know that Ministers are aware of the problem.
  The massive rise in house prices makes it difficult for first-time buyers to get mortgages. Many mortgage companies believe that today's inflated house prices do not reflect the actual value of houses. The housing market in and around London is becoming distorted and is not working as it should. Some of that is down to the Government's negligence, and they should do something about it.
  In addition, if a house is the main asset that is passed on from one generation of a family to another and its value is above the stamp duty threshold, the duty is payable on the whole of the asset. Stamp duty has become nothing more than an extra inheritance tax for many ordinary families in and around London. The Government could solve that problem with the stroke of a pen.
  Transport was well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar. I will not reiterate his points except to say that the tube is important for my constituents. They have waited five years for the Government to do something about it, but they have taken no action. They have done nothing to improve the journey to work that thousands of people from my part of the world have to make every morning.
  On crime, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made an excellent speech and I would not dream of gilding the lily. I agree with every word that she said, as would all right-thinking normal people in Britain. It is time that the Government woke up and listened to her.
  I am especially worried about education and the disgraceful way in which the Government have handled teachers. Teachers need to be told that they are respected professionals and that their work is valued. Parents in my constituency and Conservative Members value it, but the Government do not. They have handled teachers so badly that they are going on strike the day after tomorrow. That poses huge problems for children, who will miss a day's schooling, and for mothers who depend on their children attending school so that they can go to work. On Thursday, those mothers will discover that there is no school for their children to attend, and that missed schooling will make a difference. It will cause enormous disruption to families. The problem is not funny. It is not just about dogma or about pay and conditions; it is about how badly the Government handle people who are doing professional jobs.

  821
  Teacher shortages pose a particular problem in my area. Epping Forest is not part of London; it is part of Essex. Teachers, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital workers, local government officers and those on an average salary in my constituency do not get a London allowance—
  Mike Gapes rose—
  Mrs. Laing: For the sake of time, I am afraid that I cannot give way. I must finish so that other hon. Members can speak.
  People who work in my constituency do not get a London allowance, but they have to pay London house prices, London transport prices and all the other high costs of living that are borne by people in and around London. That has caused particular problems with teacher shortages and with recruitment and retention in other public sector jobs. We are reaching crisis point. It is not surprising that people travel the extra couple of miles down the road to work if they can earn an extra £5,000 for doing so.
  I do not think that the Government are even aware of the problem. They like to draw lines around areas so that they can point to London and the prosperous home counties, but they forget that there is a bit in between. It is not just the green belt that we have to protect; the communities in the towns and villages around Epping Forest need to be protected as well. It is important that the Government recognise the particular problems that we face because we have to cope with London's economic conditions even though we are not part of it.
  The Government can deal with those problems. That is the theme of the debate. Problems are inevitable in some aspects of everyday life, and successive Governments have tried to tackle them with varying degrees of success. However, in some areas, a simple stroke of the pen would change Government policy and make a difference. My hon. Friends have mentioned many such areas this evening, and I have drawn attention to further examples. I sincerely hope that the Minister and his colleagues will listen to what we have said when using Opposition time to highlight the problems of London and the south-east.
  7.50 pm
  Mike Gapes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). I lived in Debden in her constituency from the age of one, having spent my first year in Woodford Bridge—I believe it, too, falls within her constituency—where my grandmother lived all her life. I attended Buckhurst Hill county high school—also in her constituency—which is now the Guru Gobind Singh Khalsa college. Our constituencies are in close proximity to each other.
  I remember the hon. Lady's predecessor, the would-be Mayor of London, Steven Norris, campaigning vigorously with local Epping Forest Conservatives against the boundary change proposal made before the 1992 to 1994 boundary changes to the London boroughs. They campaigned to keep 10,000 people in the Epping Forest constituency out of London—there were placards on Fencepiece road on the border between Redbridge and Epping Forest saying, "Keep us out of London! We don't want to be moved into London!" Perhaps some of those
  822
  people who do not get London allowances now—the ones on whose behalf the hon. Lady complains—would have acted differently had they known that one of the consequences of staying in "leafy Essex", as the campaign put it, would be that they would lose out financially. The campaign was a nonsense. Not least among its effects was that pensioners lost out on concessionary bus fares. Another effect was that the London borough of Redbridge went from three parliamentary constituencies down to two, and the former Conservative Chief Whip had to decamp from Wanstead and Woodford to become a Hampshire Member of Parliament—but that is another story, and not one for this debate.
  The terms of the motion, which refers to
  "Council Taxes…rising even further",
  are interesting. I do not know whether when drafting the motion the parliamentary Conservative party consulted the Conservative group on Redbridge council, which, with its Liberal Democrat allies, increased council tax in Redbridge from 2.3 per cent. to 6.2 per cent. at last week's budget meeting. We in Redbridge have a hung council, and the Labour group's proposals were defeated. A second meeting was necessary—the first having ended in disarray at 2 o'clock in the morning—to get the budget through. That was the result of the Conservatives and the Liberals, as they have on so many borough issues over the past few months, working in league against the Labour council, which has no overall majority, although that might change in May.
  In this debate on London and the south-east, I shall focus on Redbridge. Often there is a polarisation of views, with an image produced of the south-east that has in the middle the great wen—the urban centre, London. In fact, many outer-London boroughs, including mine, have areas with inner-city problems as well as areas that are among the most affluent in the country. Woodford Green, which the hon. Member for Epping Forest will know well, is an example of such an area. Analyses to determine the location of areas of deprivation generally take a borough approach, so Redbridge loses out.
  The Conservative Government kept Redbridge out of the LIZ—London implementation zone—for the health service: we got nothing directly from that. We received money only as a side-product of the joint Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority, even though at the time our mental health services were deplorable. We got some help, but only incidentally, on the back of Waltham Forest. We have not had a successful single regeneration budget bid, but again we got some money because of the joint health authority links.
  We are not in the Thames gateway, although our local borough authority is part of the Thames gateway group of authorities, so we get none of that funding. Redbridge is not in the Lea valley. Unlike our neighbouring borough, Newham, we are not able to siphon millions of pounds of European money each year, so regeneration in Stratford, which I welcome, cannot be matched by regeneration in Ilford town centre, which around the railway station has problems that need serious attention.
  I therefore welcome the fact that in the sure start scheme at least, the Government have recognised our problems. Loxford ward in my constituency is receiving sure start money. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) mentioned that, so I will not repeat it, save to say that it is an extremely

  823
  important initiative. Furthermore, when we compare the data on central Government support for Redbridge borough under the annual local authority settlements we find that, overall, the revenue spending allowed to Redbridge has increased from £207.5 million in 1997 to £273.5 million in the current financial year ending next month. That is an excellent improvement brought about by a Labour Government.
  It is interesting to note that the annual central Government grant to Redbridge was cut by the Tories from £160 million in 1992 to £142 million in 1997, whereas Labour has not only restored the grant, but increased it so that we now get £181 million—an extra £37 million on the amount left us by the Conservatives. When Conservative Redbridge councillors and their little Liberal Democrat echoes complain about lack of funding forcing them to push up local council taxes, they should remember that the Labour Government have given more money than the Liberal Democrats ever asked for, and certainly more than would have been given by the Conservatives, whose record is one of cuts to the provision available to the people of my borough. In some years, Redbridge was actually capped during the extremely difficult period in which we faced changing social needs, greater demands, and additional burdens imposed by the Conservative Government.
  Those restrictions are gone and my borough is receiving more central Government funding to meet the needs of its people. Of course, it is not enough—it is never enough. We can always say we do not have enough to do everything, but I am pleased by the Government's actions. I praise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for his work to give greater emphasis to local government and his support for local government since taking up his current post. The media would do well to comment on that, rather than on tittle-tattle and personalities and all the garbage that we have seen in the Daily Mail and other publications in recent weeks.
  Redbridge has also benefited from increases in capital expenditure. The Labour Government have increased education capital spending from £9.3 million in 1997 to £27.5 million in the current financial year. The new private finance initiative-built Oaks Park secondary school is open, with pupils, even though it was delayed a year because the Tory-Liberal coalition on the council objected to the terms of the contract, so the kids started in portakabins—another victory resulting from the Liberal Democrats' ability to swing decisions in a hung council.
  Redbridge has benefited from the valuable support that the current Secretary of State for Education and Skills gave when she was a Minister of State at that Department to the Ilford Ursuline high school. That school, a Catholic girls' high school, chose to leave the independent sector and come under the local authority as a voluntary aided faith school, whose admissions criteria state its desire to be a school that reflects the community. The school's policy is that 23 of the 90 children admitted every year are non-Catholics. If I had been able to speak in the debate on faith schools a few weeks ago I would have pointed out that the school, which has a Catholic ethos, provides facilities for Hindu, Sikh. Muslim, Jewish and Christian young ladies.
  I have to declare an interest, as I have three daughters in different schools in the London borough of Redbridge. All of them are doing well; Redbridge's education results
  824
  are the best in London and the third best in the country because of the excellent work of local teachers, support staff and people in the local authority who care about those matters. The Labour council assumed minority control in 1994, after the one-party East German-style regime that we had for 30 years. When it did so, there were virtually no nursery places in Redbridge; for the first three years, it made enormous efforts to put its own resources into nursery provision. With the support of the Labour Government, we have been able to accelerate that programme and now have nursery units and nursery classes in all the borough's primary schools; Redbridge now supports a much larger proportion of its young people in nursery education, whereas it had a deplorable record under the Tory council for many years.

  The Tory philosophy in Redbridge was low spending, low provision and keeping the council tax down; that is how the Tories ran the borough, with serious consequences. The demography has changed—the population has become younger in the south of the borough, whereas there is an ageing population in other areas—but we have not had support from social services and have not had resources generally to deal with those problems. Historically low levels of spending have had a knock-on consequence over the years. We hope that that is now beginning to be put right: the Government are putting more resources into Redbridge and recognise its social needs. I hope that the 2001 census will provide further ammunition for arguments about rapid social and demographic change, particularly in Ilford.
  I want to make two or three further points. As has been mentioned, there is a serious problem with housing in London. Redbridge has a high level of owner-occupation; in fact, my constituency has 78 per cent. owner-occupation. We have almost no social housing. Local government boundary changes made in 1994 meant that much social housing—council housing on the Becontree and Padnall estates—was taken out of the borough and put under the control of Barking and Dagenham. The Tory philosophy in Redbridge was to sell council housing, even before that became the general ethos; Tory councils were doing so in Redbridge in the 1960s. The Tories did not build any council houses for years, and refused to have social housing of any form. Only in the 1990s did they accept the advent of housing associations.
  We therefore have a serious lack of housing, and many of the new developments have been in private housing. Land has been sold, so few sites are available for new social housing; on top of that, there is serious demand for such housing. When I first became an MP, people from inner-London boroughs such as Westminster, Hackney and Tower Hamlets who had been placed in private rented accommodation in Redbridge came to me with their problems. I now have constituents who are homeless through no fault of their own—the landlord sells the property or there is some other change—and are placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Westcliff-on-Sea and Southend-on-Sea; I even had one case in Great Yarmouth. As a result of those changes, there is disruption to people's education, as well as social, environmental and economic consequences. There should be greater priority for social housing in London and help should be provided, not just in areas with big brownfield sites, but in areas such as mine, where local authorities want to buy up private rented accommodation and bring it into the public or socially owned sector, where housing associations operate

  825
  renovation schemes—a foyer is opening in my constituency to advertise such a scheme—and where there are attempts to introduce affordable housing for key workers.
  The problem is difficult because, as has been revealed this week, there has been a significant increase in the number of people moving to London from other parts of the country. As usual, I see that there are no members of the Scottish National party in the Chamber. Interestingly, a report published the other day said that people are fleeing Scotland—I do not know whether just from SNP constituencies—to live in London.
  Mrs. Laing: Perfectly reasonably.
  Mike Gapes: At least I agree with the hon. Lady about that.
  There is immigration to London from the rest of the United Kingdom. The European market entails a lot of mobility; many British people go to work in European capital cities, and many Europeans come to work in London. There is migration from Commonwealth countries and historically large numbers of asylum seekers and refugees have come to the capital city. If that is added to housing shortages, we can see that difficult issues have to be addressed. As a result of the policy of the Conservative party over the years not to provide social housing, rents in the private sector are astronomic. People with average incomes, even with London allowances, cannot afford to buy homes in London. If they are outside the social housing sector, they face weekly private rents of £150, £160, £180 and £200 for half-decent accommodation. They have the uncertainty of six-month or one-year leases; within a few months, they may have to disrupt their children's lives and risk homelessness and bed-and-breakfast accommodation until they find somewhere else. The issue must be pushed up the agenda; there are no easy answers, but we must tackle the problem soon.
  I want to make some remarks about Ilford station. A few weeks ago, the chair of the Metropolitan police authority, my long-standing friend Lord Harris, came to our borough to talk with the police commander and the local safer communities partnership. We have a crime hot spot in the centre of Ilford. Redbridge is generally a low-crime borough, despite the unfortunate headlines and a few horrible events, including the murder of a young Pakistani law student, Sajjid Chisti, by a gang last May. Generally, however, Redbridge is not an area with high crime. The railway station is owned by Railtrack and operated by Great Eastern Railway; it is badly designed and a magnet for undesirable people, who hang around, begging for travelcards and money. The place is not very nice because of its design.
  I urge Railtrack, which owns the station, and Great Eastern Railway, which operates it, to do some serious work to improve Ilford station and make its environment better. We can design out crime to some extent and introduce modern approaches to staffing; there are issues, to which I shall not refer in detail, concerning the station staff and the way in which they dealt with an incident that led to that murder last year. We must take account of those problems in future.
  Finally, I raise the problems of other stations. I asked the Library to produce a note for me on the secure stations scheme, which was introduced by British Transport police
  826
  and Crime Concern in April 1998. I am extremely disappointed that although Liverpool street station is one of the stations that meets the criteria, none of the stations from Liverpool street down to Southend through Ilford, Seven Kings, Goodmayes, Chadwell Heath, Romford—I shall not name all the stations along the line, as some are outside my constituency—through Shenfield to Southend is in the scheme. I want to know why not.
  We need to raise standards of security and people's confidence when they travel on our public transport—on the underground, on the overground railway and on buses. I intervened on the speech of the Opposition spokesman and commented on congestion charging. My views are on the record at my website, www.mikegapes.org.uk, and they can also be read in the Official Report of the debates in Westminster Hall, where I spoke in January. The Mayor's scheme is the wrong scheme in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it will have serious detrimental consequences for people who live in outer London.
  I congratulate the Opposition on their choice of subject for today's debate. It gives me the opportunity to point out the damaging behaviour of the Conservatives and Liberals in Redbridge council, and the opportunity to praise the Government's record in giving greater support to my borough over the past five years.
  8.11 pm
  Tom Brake: I begin by apologising for missing some of the opening speech from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman. Perhaps surprisingly, I am in total agreement with the Conservative motion, but I must comment briefly on what it does not recognise: the fact that the Conservatives share some responsibility for the poor quality of life that we experience in London and the south-east.
  Private affluence and public squalor were not invented back in 1997. The problems are deep-seated. I have lived in London for more than 20 years, and it is clear that under-investment in our transport and other infrastructure and a lack of vision for London have existed for many decades. I understand that the failures of Conservative policy were not recognised in the opening speech, but there will be an opportunity, perhaps in the summing up, for those failures to be recognised, and I understand that at least one Conservative Back Bencher acknowledged in his comments the responsibility that Conservatives share for the present poor quality of life in our capital city.
  The person who drafted the Labour amendment obviously has a sense of humour. The Government's amendment welcomes
  "the restoration of democratic city-wide government to the capital",
  but which capital are we talking about—not London, surely? The Government are not willing to give the capital's directly elected authority and Mayor the power they need to fulfil Londoners' wishes. The Government have not restored democratic citywide government to the capital. In some ways, they have created something that resembles a South African homeland, hemmed in legislatively and unable to make the decisions that really matter—on PPP, for example.
  Clearly, the state of the tube is fundamental to the quality of life of the 800,000 people who commute into London, so why do the Government persist in imposing on London a plan for the part-privatisation of the underground, which nobody believes will improve the

  827
  quality of life of Londoners? London's elected representatives will be stuck with trying to manage the scheme as best they can for 30 years, even though the current Mayor was elected specifically in opposition to the plan. Londoners are still wondering why they bothered to vote.
  The statutory consultation period for the part-privatisation has been a farce. Last November, during the Transport Committee's hearings into the matter, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions promised that there would be a full consultation with all interested parties before any final decision was made, so that he could form what he described as
  "a decision informed by the views of a whole variety of other people and not just by myself."
  The consultation that emerged has been a travesty of that promise. The only consultation that has taken place has been the one that the Government are legally bound to undertake with the Mayor and Transport for London, and as much as possible has been done to hamper that consultation. The bare minimum of time was allowed for Transport for London to examine contracts which, we were told, are unique and among the longest and most complex of their type in the world. Even worse, vital documents were withheld from TFL for a considerable period, and only the threat of legal action brought them to light. Perhaps the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs can explain how such activity helps devolved government work properly, and in what respect it will improve the quality of life of Londoners.
  The consultation might be more meaningful if the Government followed the Labour-dominated Transport Committee's recent recommendation, which stated:
  "It is essential that the Government allow Members a debate and vote in the House of Commons on a substantive motion on the future of London Underground and the PPP."
  I hope that the Minister will undertake to speak to his colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to ensure that such a debate takes place on a free vote, so that Members of all parties can express their views as part of the consultation on the Government's plans for the London underground.
  If we are to address one of the key concerns of Londoners in relation to the tube, and one which has a major impact on their quality of life, another question that the Minister will have to answer is exactly what new tube capacity will be created in the first seven and a half years of the PPP contracts. It is the new trains that will make the difference. The £16 billion figure that is repeated ad nauseam sounds impressive, but if one analyses what it will mean in respect of overcrowding, for instance, it does not look impressive at all
  Another aspect of transport that has a significant impact on people's quality of life is train services. Will the Minister comment on the concerns expressed in the Evening Standard today about the possibility of a huge rise in fares, and how that will impact on people's quality of life? There is a clear link between the level of service that people receive and how much they have to pay for it—that influences their perception of their quality of life. If there is a significant increase in fares at the end of the seven-year period during which fare increases were limited to the level of inflation or less, we want to hear
  828
  from the Government how they think commuters will respond—commuters who live in London and those who travel into London.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: As a Member of Parliament for a Yorkshire constituency, I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says. It seems to be one long whinge about unfair treatment of London and the south-east. Many of my constituents, and many people living in the three northern regions, look at the 70 per cent. of resources in the strategic rail plan that will be spent in London and the south-east and compare it with the tiny amount that is to be spent in the three northern regions. The debate is not particularly edifying for most people living in other parts of the country who look at the affluence and splendour of public and private investment in London and the south-east.
  Tom Brake: Perhaps I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman, who has only just appeared in the Chamber. The important point about the tube—it is not a whinge—is that although his Government have apparently devolved power to London, they have devolved none whatever on one of the most critical issues that it faces and are unwilling to give up the reins on the future of the tube.
  More general environmental issues, other than the travel experience, are also important for quality of life. Several hon. Members referred to abandoned cars, litter and so on. I remind the Minister of the recent debate on graffiti and the cost to the boroughs of cleaning it up: they have to pay about £3.5 million across London, and transport providers face a similar cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) challenged the Minister for Local Government about his view on the London Local Authorities Bill. Indeed, I challenged him a couple of weeks ago during the debate about graffiti. He may have had time to reflect further on the matter, on which he said he was neutral.
  Perhaps the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs will tell us whether he personally—he need not necessarily express a Government point of view—thinks that there are good grounds for stopping the sale of graffiti products to under-18s whom the retailer suspects will use them to deface each and every flat surface in the vicinity. I hope he will respond, as he should not underestimate the importance of the issue, which is very significant in terms of quality of life. Indeed, the crime and disorder audit produced by my local authority refers to graffiti as a key issue raised during a two-month period last year. Police visibility was the first concern, but the second major issue was graffiti and vandalism, so it is clear that people want the problem to be dealt with.
  I would have liked to deal with many other issues, but I will listen to what the previous occupant of the Chair said about keeping my speech short. I wish that other hon. Members had done so. I should like briefly to draw attention to a police issue and mention concerns about a potential shortage of detectives in the Met. Detectives work unpaid overtime, but sergeants coming up through the ranks do not want to take on such a work load and can see their colleagues working seven days a week. A problem may be building up, as there will be a significant impact on quality of life if those ranks are not being filled.
  Hon. Members also mentioned the need for affordable housing. The Government's key worker schemes are welcome, but they do not scratch the surface of the

  829
  demand that is out there. My local authority has very few housing places; there is perhaps one place for the police and 10 for teachers, but we need fifties or hundreds of them. The Government clearly need to consider the matter, as lack of housing affects quality of life severely.
  On airports, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton tried to clarify the position in respect of London's third runway at Heathrow. If the development proceeds, it may have a significant impact on the quality of life not only of the people who live around the airport, but of everyone who lives in London.
  This debate has highlighted many of the concerns of Londoners and others in the south-east, including crime, fear of crime, streets that are dirtier than those in Lusaka, according to a report published yesterday, and high pollution and congestion. It has also highlighted the advantages of living within easy reach of our capital city. Quality of life in London and the south-east will improve only once transport, affordable housing and health care provision show signs of improvement. The Government's actions have so far made little or no difference, and the quality of life monitor continues to flat-line.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Chris Pond: I hoped that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) would develop his theme about public squalor and private affluence as it existed before 1997. Listening to some of the speeches made from the Opposition Benches, one would think that Britain before 1997 resembled Roy Plomley's desert island—Sue Lawley's version might be a bit too modern. Under the Tories, this was not an island with a few seagulls and records, the Bible and complete works of Shakespeare; it was one where people's personal security was threatened by rising crime and their financial security was affected by job insecurity and negative equity. It was indeed an island of private affluence and public squalor.
  Many of the social attitude surveys carried out towards the mid-1990s showed that the degree of acceptance of inequality that people were prepared to give in the 1980s had evaporated and that there was a genuine aversion to the inequality that had been created. That aversion was greatest among the highest socio-economic groups, because their quality of life was also being diminished by the sort of society that had been created in London and the south-east, as well as throughout the rest of the country. It was not only the poorest who were affected. In London and the south-east, however, the pressures were even sharper, because the inequality was greatest there. The prosperity, where it existed, was at its greatest, but the squalor, poverty and deprivation were very often at their sharpest.
  I wonder whether anyone remembers the words of a former Minister for Housing and Planning about the homeless; I think that the hon. Member in question entered the Chamber at one stage during the debate. I refer to the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government who complained at having to step over the homeless on his way to the opera. Even his quality of life was diminished by the inequality that had been created, but what about the quality of life for the homeless themselves, the 4 million children living in
  830
  poverty and the pensioners who were fearful of using heating during the winter months in case they could not afford to pay the bills?
  In the past few years many of my constituents have at long last started to see the improvements in quality of life for which they have waited too long. Most important is growing prosperity, underpinned by careful economic management that has delivered the lowest mortgage rates for a generation, low and sustainable inflation and rising employment. That has ensured that we have real security in relation to our homes, living standards and jobs, and there has also been major inward and public investment in our public services. The overall result is a 10 per cent. growth in employment in Gravesham. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) would wish me to point out—he cannot do so himself, for reasons that the House will understand—his constituency, which is next door to Gravesham, has seen a 19 per cent. increase in employment under the current Government.
  In sectors such as construction, employment has increased by 56 per cent., and it has increased by 25 per cent. in transport and by 45 per cent. in other services. Again, the overall result is a halving of unemployment and a decline in youth unemployment of almost three quarters. Quality of life for those people has been immeasurably improved by what has happened to the economy locally and nationally—an improvement that is underpinned by increasing security.
  Getting a job was not always a route towards a better quality of life. We all remember the old Conservative mantra of "low pay or no pay". That was the only choice on offer: people either had a job that was pitifully badly paid, or they were threatened with having no job at all. We have broken through that to ensure that millions of our fellow citizens can have a job with dignity, a decent wage—through the minimum wage—and a decent level of income to meet the cost of their children, through the working families tax credit, which is soon to be replaced by a system of new tax credits that will make a real difference to their living standards and quality of life.
  Many hon. Members have referred at some length to crime, which is the main determinant of a poor quality of life for many of our constituents. I will not go into great detail about my constituency, because we had a full debate on this issue on Friday, to which I was able to contribute, although others were not. I was able to point out in that debate the achievements that we have made in reducing the level of crime and social disorder in Gravesham through investment in the police and in resources such as closed circuit television.
  I will, however, give one example of a particular estate in my constituency, Lorton Close, which has a high proportion of pensioners and people with disabilities. Real fear existed there when I was first elected to represent Gravesham in 1997—not of their new Member of Parliament, I hasten to add, but of crime and social disorder. I am pleased to say that, in that small area of my constituency, there has been a 75 per cent. reduction in crime over only five years. For the first time, many of the residents feel that they have real quality of life, and the ability to go out, even after dark, without fear of being subjected to crime and disorder.
  We are not complacent, however, and we know that a major factor in reducing the quality of people's lives is the fear of crime, if not crime itself. That fear is enhanced

  831
  because we still have a major problem with youth disorder, vandalism and intimidation in the streets. That problem may not be serious enough—certainly in the case of some decisions by the courts that I have regretted—for the people involved to be brought to justice. Nevertheless, it creates a climate of fear.
  Dr. Tonge: I ask this question in all sincerity. The hon. Gentleman said that there had been a 75 per cent. reduction in crime in a particular area of his constituency. For the benefit of all our constituents, can he tell us exactly how that has been achieved?
  Mr. Pond: I certainly can. Part of the measures involved the police working in partnership with the local authority and the residents. One of the important lessons that we have to learn from the achievements so far is that, unless we get that sort of partnership involving the residents themselves, the extra investment in policing and CCTV will not achieve the significant reductions in crime that we want to see. It is that lesson about partnership that is so important. It has certainly worked in Lorton Close, and elsewhere in my constituency.
  I welcome the announcement in the past few days that there is to be greater emphasis on victims and witnesses throughout the criminal justice system and policing generally. That, too, will be important in ensuring that the downward trend in crime can continue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) made clear, however, it is the nitty-gritty issues that are so important to all our constituents in determining their quality of life. Abandoned cars, graffiti, vandalism, litter and dog-fouling are not issues that detain the House for many parliamentary hours, but they are the issues that are important to all our constituents.
  We have sought to tackle those issues and, through investment in public services—particularly in education and the health service—we are beginning to see an improvement in the life chances of my constituents and the population as a whole. That means that, in the longer term, they will have the opportunity for a better quality of life. Other hon. Members have referred to the fact that, only five years ago, half of our 11-year-olds had not reached basic standards of literacy and numeracy. That meant not only that they were being disadvantaged at that point, but that their quality of life and standard of living were likely to be diminished and damaged throughout their working lives as a result. We cannot be complacent; one fifth of our 11-year-olds are still not reaching those basic standards, and we need further reform and investment in education to ensure that we give those young people the chance that they deserve.
  We are moving in the right direction, but that will require further investment in schools, the national health service, transport and roads. An issue that is prominent in my constituency at the moment is the need for a relief road in Denton. Such a road would dramatically improve the quality of life for people living on the estate there. It would also provide the possibility of creating or maintaining 600 jobs and allow the regeneration of a very deprived area.
  Our aim, as a Government, is to build prosperity while maintaining and improving the environment and the quality of life. In Gravesham, and elsewhere in the south-east, we enjoy a balance of countryside and urban
  832
  areas. They are interdependent, and it is critical for the quality of life of all my constituents that we ensure that the rural areas meet the objectives published in the rural White Paper of having a living, working, vibrant countryside. We must also ensure, through the urban regeneration that we have been pursuing, that the town centre is an attractive place to live, by building on the history and heritage of which we are so proud. We must, of course, do that in such a way that we enhance the quality of life well into the future, and we are trying to ensure that we maintain that balance.
  Bearing in mind that a number of Members still want to contribute to the debate, I shall briefly conclude by referring to the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). She referred to an estate in Hackney that she had visited in the run-up to the election.
  Miss Widdecombe: Several times.
  Mr. Pond: Several times, I am sure. She reported that the residents of that estate were concerned that nothing was being done for them to improve their circumstances. Other hon. Members have pointed out to her that the most important factor in the quality of people's lives is the power that they feel that they have over their lives. The concept of people in such a community having something done to them is one of the reasons why they felt so powerless in the past. It is not what we do to residents in such circumstances, but what we can do with them. Giving them the power to improve the quality of their lives is the key to regeneration and to improving their living standards.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman has completely distorted what I said. For a start, I did not say "done to them": I said "done for them". The way to achieve any advance is to work with those people. One half of the partnership is the Government, and that is what they were complaining about. They have set up a residents association and undertaken initiatives, but they cannot conceivably provide themselves with CCTV or a policeman. They were complaining that they could not get those things. The hon. Gentleman should stop distorting what I said, stop belittling the people on that estate in Hackney, and start telling the facts instead of making it all up.
  Mr. Pond: I thank the right hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene on her intervention. I think that she understands the point fully, which is clearly why I rattled her cage. Those people want the Government, the local authority and the voluntary sector to work in partnership with them to achieve these things. They want to be active citizens. They do not want to be the dependent recipients of welfare or patronage from this or any other Government. It is by ensuring that they are given responsibility for their own lives that they will feel that their quality of life has been enhanced.
  I shall conclude on that point. There has been much discussion about the impact of the policies of previous Conservative Governments measured against the impact of the policies that the present Government have implemented. The big difference is not between the impact of those different policies, but between the present Government who are determined to improve the quality

  833
  of life for the majority of our citizens and previous Conservative Governments who I do not believe had that as one of their priorities.
  8.41 pm
  Bob Spink: In the south-east, taxes have risen and regulation and bureaucracy have grown like Topsy, yet our public services are failing. Clearly, the quality of life of people in the south-east is worse under the Labour Government. The statistics show that, and even Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are beginning to admit it when pressed at the Dispatch Box.
  Rail capacity is too low. Reliability, punctuality, costs and services have all fallen since Labour took power. Roads are even more congested now than they were in 1997. Health care is worse, waiting lists are up, a visit to the accident and emergency department is a lottery, bed blocking is up because the Government are trying to destroy the residential care sector, and last week we heard that the wait for cancer treatment is now longer than it was three years ago. That is outrageous, and should not be tolerated by the people of this country.
  In education, class sizes are up in secondary schools. Every secondary school in Essex has an extra child in every class. Average class sizes in Essex have increased from 16.8 to 17.7. The Prime Minister certainly did not promise the people of Essex that when he went to the polls. Teachers are overburdened with bureaucracy: more and more form filling, and less and less teaching. It is no wonder that so many of them are leaving the profession and retention is so difficult. The Government have followed their political correctness handbook and have tried to destroy discipline in schools, which has put more pressure on teachers and forced them to leave the profession.
  However, I do not want to rant about the Government's performance generally. I want to focus on the quality of life of pensioners and people in the south-east who are over 50 years old. There are many such people, and they are listening carefully to this debate. They have been hit worse by Labour policies than any other group in the country.
  Miss Widdecombe: Is not it especially nauseating—I cannot think of a better word for it than that—that Labour Members, particularly the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, apparently find the plight of pensioners funny?
  Bob Spink: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Labour Members do not realise that it was the pensioners who made this country what it is. They gave this country its wealth.
  Mr. Clive Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Bob Spink: No, I will not give way. As a result of the Labour Government's policies, pensioners do not enjoy a
  834
  fair share of the wealth of this nation. Pensioners' share of the wealth of this country has fallen since Mr. Blair took office in 1997.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Member should use the correct parliamentary language.
  Bob Spink: I apologise. I should have said the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Bob Spink: No, I will not give way.
  The insulting 75p that the Prime Minister gave pensioners a few years ago has been just one of the factors, but the biggest factor to hit people over 50, and everyone in society, was the £5 billion Labour stealth tax on pension funds. The Government's removal of the 20 per cent. credit on dividends was probably the nastiest and most damaging of all Labour's stealth taxes. It is a key cause of the worsening quality of life for elderly people, and it is entirely of the Government's making.
  That measure has fuelled pensioner poverty, which has increased under a callous Labour Government. In 1979, after a Labour Administration, 57 per cent. of pensioners were being means-tested. By 1995 that was down to 38 per cent., thanks to sound management by Mrs. Thatcher. According to the House of Commons Library, the figure will have returned to 57 per cent. by 2003. Pensioners need protection from this Government, and we Conservatives will provide it.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Bob Spink: No. Many Members wish to speak, and many others have spoken for 20 minutes. We need short, sharp speeches in this place.
  Pensioners in particular suffer as a result of council-tax rises while local services are cut, especially in Labour-controlled authorities such as the one in Castle Point. Many Castle Point pensioners will not even receive a pension increase sufficient to cover the rise in their council tax this year. The council-tax rise in Castle Point will amount to an incompetent four times inflation. That is Labour councils for you.
  Mr. Davey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to talk about pensions when the motion tabled by his Front-Bench colleagues does not even mention their plight?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a wide-ranging debate. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is certainly in order.
  Bob Spink: If the hon. Gentleman does not think that having for the first time in their lives to pay more than £1,000 for living in an average band D house will affect the quality of life of the many pensioners whose council tax will rise to that amount, he is living in cloud cuckoo land along with his Liberal Democrat colleagues

  835
  The council tax rise is yet another dishonest Labour stealth tax, as a result of which councils such as Basildon will be returned to sound Conservative control very soon.
  It would help pensioners and people over 50 in the south-east if the Government accepted the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), whose private Member's Bill would give pensioners more freedom and choice—words that Labour does not understand—to invest their pension funds as they wish, once they have bought, at 65, an annuity sufficient to prevent them from qualifying for state benefits. The Government's nanny-state approach, which forces pensioners to use their pension funds inappropriately at the age of 75, is dramatically lowering their quality of life.
  Pensioners also get a rough deal from the Government when it comes to crime, disorder and street nuisance, all of which have escalated under Labour. The solution is obvious: we need more policemen on the streets—higher visibility policing. That means cutting the bureaucracy with which Labour keeps burdening the police. Labour cut the number of officers in Essex, as has been confirmed by the chief constable and even, recently, the Prime Minister.
  We must create an environment in the south-east in which bad behaviour, nuisance and crime are not tolerated at any level. That will improve the quality of life for young and older people alike. It will provide safer communities for all, as Mayor Giuliani has shown in New York, where the streets are much safer than they are now in London.
  Another problem that is depressing the quality of life for pensioners is the unrestrained influx of asylum seekers. Yesterday, we learned that the number of asylum seekers trying to get into the south-east from France has tripled in the past year, and French police expect the number to grow even faster during the current year. That damages everyone's quality of life, but especially that of genuine asylum seekers, whom we should be caring for better. It is a direct result of yet another Government refusal to listen.
  Time is short, so I shall mention just a few more of the many problems that we face in the south-east as a result of Government policies. One problem is the overdevelopment of our communities that Labour has forced on Castle Point borough council, forcing it, through Serplan, to build an extra 2,400 houses—houses that we need in Castle Point like we need a hole in the head. These will increase congestion and decrease the quality of life for all my constituents, and they will punish the Government for that.
  The Government's failure to provide money for infrastructure, such as Canvey Island's third road, is yet another problem. It is high time that the Government started to improve infrastructure and the public services, not just for the community's sake but for the sake of the excellent and dedicated doctors, nurses, teachers, police officers and ambulance drivers. All those superb people who work in our public services deserve better than they are getting from this Labour Government.
  8.51 pm
  Hugh Robertson: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  836

  Much of tonight's debate has centred on London and its suburban boroughs. However, a large part of the south-east, outside that area, is essentially rural in character.
  Geraint Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I simply ask, having been in the debate for over three hours, why I was not called after the previous Opposition speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot ask that sort of question. This is a matter for the Chair.
  Hugh Robertson: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, a large part of the south-east, outside London and its suburban boroughs, is essentially rural in character. My constituency of Faversham and Mid-Kent is such an area. It is a largely rural constituency, taking in much of the northern downs and the eastern end of the Weald. It clips the eastern suburbs of Maidstone and has in it the market town of Faversham, but it otherwise contains 39 parish councils, spread across the heart of rural Kent. Therefore, for many of my constituents, the quality-of-life issues mean something very different from those in constituencies elsewhere in Kent, and indeed the south-east of England.
  However, quality of life is based on two common principles: the quality of the environment and the availability of services. I shall take the quality of the environment first. That, in my case, is entirely defined by the countryside. Kent is, after all, the garden of England, yet it is threatened as never before. Having grown up in the area, that threat is something that I saw as a young child and now see at first hand as the constituency MP.
  The countryside is under threat from Government housebuilding targets—plans to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has alluded. We are simply trying to push too many people into too small an area. That leads directly to capacity problems. Already, villagers in parishes such as Leeds and Langley are holding demonstrations against heavy vehicle traffic. Villagers in Bearsted complain to me about mobile telephone masts, the plans for whose installation were the direct result of demand caused by an increase in population. They have worries about health and safety. Local residents do not want to see those mobile telephone masts near schools, medical facilities or residential areas.
  There are traffic worries brought on by an increase in the number of vehicles. Eight parish councils in my constituency are currently campaigning for interactive speed signs, and a number of others feel that the existing roads are now inadequate to deal with the current volume of traffic.
  There are too few police. They are never seen in rural areas. Kent county council is doing something to make up the shortfall with its rural community wardens, but they can be no substitute for real policemen.
  The railways are in crisis. There are three train lines to London from my constituency—from Faversham, Maidstone East and Headcorn. All are subject to regular delays and I receive endless complaining letters about them.
  There are also problems caused by our close proximity to the channel. Cheap beer importers and bootleggers sell their alcohol to underage children. We have problems

  837
  with illegal immigrants. Hollingbourne parish council has written to me this week about lorry drivers who regularly drop off illegal immigrants in a lay-by near the M20. They then wander through the village, frightening old people late at night, and jump a train to London.
  Finally, there is the state of the rural economy. In my capacity as secretary of the parliamentary fruit group, I will touch on this briefly. The fruit industry defines our part of Kent. The fruit fanning industry is wholly unsubsidised, and is good for the environment and the landscape. It produces high-quality food that is good for people, yet it is being suffocated with endless regulations, such as the environmental impact assessment, the EU marketing standards, the seasonal regulations for labour and part-time workers and the recent banning of Thinsec. To put it simply, if we allow our fruit industry to wither, the landscape of Kent and the quality of life for its residents will be destroyed for ever.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The hon. Gentleman included in his list of problems part-time workers. Is he opposed to equal rights for part-time workers and, for that matter, to the minimum wage?
  Hugh Robertson: I am not in the slightest opposed to rights for part-time workers. I am opposed to the mass of regulation that makes it impossible for fruit farmers to employ them in the first place.
  The second area of concern is the availability of services. I will only say a little on this, as I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak tonight. However, one issue dominates for my constituents; the plans to downgrade the Kent and Canterbury hospital. The hospital is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), but it supports the whole of the population in the northern part of my seat. My seat has a number of elderly people and a number of people who live in deprived areas; the seasonal fruit pickers who come to settle in our part of Kent. They are all heavy users of the NHS.
  There are three critical facts that affect those people. The first is the transport links from Faversham and the North Downs to the replacement hospital at Ashford, once Canterbury is downgraded, which are poor. If one has to travel by public transport, they are atrocious or non-existent. As I have said, there are large numbers of elderly and disadvantaged people who have always been heavy users of the health service and the public transport system, and they will be effectively disfranchised by the proposal.
  Secondly, there is the fate of the cottage hospitals; Faversham cottage hospital in my constituency is a good example. It should have been built up before the plans to downgrade the Kent and Canterbury were put in place. There are no plans to do that and it is not part of the resulting private finance initiative.
  Thirdly, there is the question of cancer care, which is of critical importance for all elderly people. The model proposed is something called an ambulatory model, in which 20 per cent. of patients—all the in-patients—are transferred to Maidstone. The model has been rejected by every single cancer consultant across Kent and by the Royal College of Radiologists. It does not exist or work anywhere in the UK and is simply dangerous.
  838
  The problems in Faversham and Mid-Kent are different from those of London and the south-east. However, they are similar in that they revolve around two key facts; the quality of the environment and the availability of services. My constituents are particularly concerned about the plans to downgrade Kent and Canterbury hospital and the implications for cancer care across Kent. I urge the Government to act on this and the other problems that I have mentioned in the rural economy before it is too late.
  8.58 pm
  Geraint Davies: I am glad that my tie has caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I want to speak briefly about Croydon and, more generally, about the problems and opportunities that face our great capital. The one key feature that has affected the opportunities and the problems is the miraculous change of fortune in the economy, which has seen an extra 250,000 people getting jobs in London. However, those extra people are putting pressure on the transport system, and the popularity and economic success of London is putting pressure on house prices, which, in turn, have brought their own pressures to bear.
  The investment has delivered results, including higher standards in our schools and smaller classes, particularly in our primary schools, where nearly every class has fewer than 30 pupils. There has been targeted investment in such things as education action zones. In New Addington in my area—where standards were not being delivered and levels of poverty and unemployment were high—we have seen a miraculous renaissance.
  I realise that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is a bit of a social anthropologist, having been to Hackney once or twice. She knows a bit about these things, but the people who live and breathe in those areas can see the changes brought about by economic opportunities, transport links and investment in imaginative education systems. These systems give new self-esteem to children who, in many instances, come from backgrounds where they are told that they cannot succeed.
  I am concerned about the issue of affordable housing. It is central to the debate, and as former leader of the largest council in London and former chair of the London boroughs housing committee, it is worth my commenting on it. The Government face strategic issues such as how to balance investment in quantity with investment in quality. We have chosen to raise standards through a 10-year plan, and I certainly favour a switch to quality at the margin, where demand in London and the south-east is particularly high.
  There has also been investment in key workers. We all know the problems associated with recruiting more nurses and teachers, although we have been successful in that regard. I ask the Government to reconsider an audit of all public land in London—particularly that owned by the Ministry of Defence, the police and rail services—to establish whether it is being properly used. Indeed, in the private sector we should consider compulsory purchase orders, so that land that is not properly used—I refer not to traditional brownfield sites, but to land that is not being invested in optimally—can be released and a balance can be struck in terms of affordable housing. In that regard, planning is key. The Mayor is pressing ahead with plans to establish a 40 per cent. level of affordable housing in

  839
  various areas. It is important that the Government and the Mayor support boroughs in their negotiations with private sector developers who want to minimise their investment in affordable housing.
  Although people migrate to London, some migrate from London because the urban townscape does not meet their concerns about the environment, educational opportunities and personal safety and security. Meeting such concerns is key to ensuring that people remain in an urban environment in which they want to live, and where the quality of life is good. I shall return to those issues in a moment.

  On the delivery of health in our capital, it is worth noting that enormous extra sums are being invested. In Croydon, we are investing an extra £18 million a year, and since 1997 waiting lists for treatment have reduced by a third. Waiting lists for appointments with consultants have reduced by two thirds, and the length of wait has been halved in the past six months. Such reductions have been achieved partly through investment and partly through person power. An extra 250 nurses in Croydon's Mayday hospital are doing a tremendous job in delivering an additional 2 million operations every year. Although the media may choose to highlight inevitable individual problems, and although people have a perception that the health service is in crisis, in practice consistent improvements are being made in London and locally. Problems exist, but we are finding solutions to them.
  People moan about transport, just as they moan about the weather, and difficulties do exist. However, in Croydon a new tram link, involving 28 km of light rail, is transporting 18 million people a year. Bus use in London has risen by 6 per cent., and underground use has risen by 25 per cent. It is true that we need more investment, but such plans are in place. The Opposition say that £20 billion is not enough, but how much more would they spend and from where would they get it? How does that extra expenditure stack up with their commitment to cut tax? The figures do not add up—they are just hot air. The reality is that more people are using public transport systems. We are getting there, but the big problem—it is also an opportunity—is that the enormous number of people now in work is increasing transport demand. However, investment will settle the problem down in the medium term.
  Crime is obviously on people' s minds. Overall crime has declined by 12 per cent., but street robberies—particularly in relation to mobile phones—are escalating. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir John Stevens, made several assertions on crime recently. In short, he said that more people should be denied bail, more people should be loc ked up and that there should be more witness protection.
  Mr. Cameron: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the Government will address those shortcomings in the criminal justice system, given that they have thrown out their proposed criminal justice legislation for this Session?
  Geraint Davies: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question, because it has used up some more time. I am about to come to that point.
  On the issues that Sir John Stevens has placed at the top of his agenda, his assertion that more people should be given bail is a strange one. It implies that we should
  840
  reform the Bail Act 1976 and compulsorily deny bail to people. At the moment, hon. Members will know that bail is granted at the discretion of judges and magistrates. It can be, and is, denied if there is a threat of reoffending or witness intimidation. It is not the role of politicians to stick their noses into that subject. Those people who should go to jail should go to jail, and there should be enough space in our prisons to deal with them.
  At the same time, we should not forget that we have 70,000 people in our prisons and that no country in Europe jails the same proportion of its population, other than Portugal. We must ask why so many people are in jail. Should some of them not be in jail, such as people who commit housing benefit fraud—for argument's sake—and who do not pose a threat of violence on the streets? They are simply being dislocated from the employment market. Perhaps instead we should consider the root cause of serial offending and tackle that.
  Mr. James Paice: I happen to have Sir John's speech in front of me and what he said was:
  "It is not uncommon in London to have muggers released on bail eight or nine times before they face trial for their first attack."
  Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that Sir John was telling an untruth?
  Geraint Davies: Not for a moment, but the issue is what we should do about the problem. Should Sir John look over the shoulder of every judge and magistrate and insist that they lock everybody up? If mistakes are being made by judges and magistrates, we need to confront that, but it is not for politicians to prescribe that no one should be granted bail. [Interruption.] I am sure that there are many anecdotal examples, but we should not interfere with the granting of bail. We should provide enough room in jails and analyse why people are there.
  The figures show that 75 per cent. of people in British prisons have previously been permanently excluded from school. Those people who are troublemakers in the classroom are thrown out, perhaps to keep standards up or to prevent the disruption of classes—a good reason—and end up on the street after five hours of education. What do they do? Is it a surprise that a proportion of them shoplift or steal mobile phones? When they try to return to school, having found it difficult to have their behaviour controlled, they cannot catch up and are excluded again. Ultimately, they end up in jail. They serve a year or two and, within two years of their release, 76 per cent. of males reoffend and are sent back to jail. The overall average is 58 per cent. Those people enter the university of crime—our prison system—learn some new tricks and find it even more difficult to break out of that vicious circle.
  Such people need proper, intensive, full-time education in small classes. They need to be forced to learn to read and write. It costs £34,000 a year to keep someone in jail. Would not that money be better spent giving them a proper education, which would keep them off the streets and prevent them from ending up as serial offenders?
  Other problems have to do with ethnic composition. For reasons that include social exclusion, there is a greater probability, other things being equal, that people from ethnic minorities—and especially young Afro-Caribbean men—will be excluded from school. That ethnic

  841
  composition is reflected in the numbers of people in prison, and it is echoed in the difficulties that people face in society when they come out of prison. The problem involves the denial of a person's opportunities and human rights, and it will only grow bigger for everyone unless we confront its causes.
  The Government have decided to invest in pupil referral units from September. Instead of being permanently excluded from school, pupils will go to the referral units and receive intensive education. I should prefer the units to be called something else, as at present they sound a bit like borstals. They should represent an alternative schooling system, with intensive education.
  As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have taken part in interviews with the head of our prison service, Mr. Narey. What he has to say is of special interest to people involved in the debate about crime in London.
  People reoffend for three reasons. The first is that they do not have a home to go to on release. Forty per cent. of people leaving prison are homeless, so it is no surprise that they go back to offending. Secondly, their social networks have been disrupted. Some 25,000 inmates are placed in prisons situated more than 50 miles from their homes, while another 10,000 are in prisons more than 100 miles away. It is therefore no surprise that their links with spouses and families are broken. The absence of that communication also leads to serial offending.
  The third reason for reoffending is that people leaving prison cannot find employment. Why can they not get work? In part it is because they have been in prison, but the main reason is that they are not educated. Ten per cent. of the total number of people targeted by the Government's numeracy and literacy strategies are prison inmates. They have no opportunities, and I hope and expect that the Government will turn the problem around at its cause.
  Finally, I repeat that prisons contain a number of people who would not be dangerous to others on the street.
  I turn briefly to the problem of graffiti, which is of great concern to people, in Croydon and elsewhere.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that his thoughts on graffiti will be as profound as his thoughts on everything else, but does he recall the conversation that we had only last week, when he was unfortunate enough to be the only hon. Member to be squeezed out of a debate? Will he bear in mind the remarks made on that occasion as he frames and times the rest of his contribution, given that many Opposition Members would like to contribute to the debate?
  Geraint Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who refers to the debate on the police last Friday, in which many hon. Members wanted to speak. I sat for three and a half or four hours, but remained the only hon. Member not called to speak. The hon. Gentleman said at the time, helpfully, that I should not worry, as I could always give the speech on another occasion. This is that other occasion, and I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his help.
  842
  The problem of graffiti is difficult. In Croydon, we are making some headway through the use of closed circuit television. A strategy of "bang 'em down and lock 'em up" is not always appropriate. By ensuring that the youth service and the police service work hand in hand, we can take a CCTV video of a youth spraying graffiti to his parents. We can then say, "Here's Johnny, doing this. Unless you get him to clean that off, with the council, we'll take him to court." We do not want to force people into the judicial system and the university of crime. We want them to face up to the consequences of their mischief and clean up the graffiti. That is happening, and it is working.
  Drug use is a massive cause of crime and a massive problem in prison. Croydon is running a treatment and testing pilot scheme. Instead of going to jail, people given treatment and testing orders have training and education for five days a week and are tested for drugs. If they are not clean, they go to prison. Most of these people have been in prison and know how awful it is. The scheme is keeping people out of prison and helping them to stop their habit. In prison they would continue taking drugs because it is easy to get them. The scheme is working very well.
  I understand that in Birmingham, intensive supervision and surveillance programmes that are an alternative to prison are working remarkably well. They give people back their self-esteem by investing in education, giving them work habits and getting them back into normal life. We should be considering that sort of programme.
  Mr. Cameron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just referred to Birmingham. Is that not outside the ambit of the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter of debate, not a matter for the Chair.
  Geraint Davies: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is that London can learn things from Birmingham and Birmingham can learn things from London. We must be open-minded.
  The final area that Sir John Stevens considered was witness protection. That is a key issue. If witnesses are too scared to go to the trial because they will be intimidated or beaten up, we must deal with that. Section 68 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provides protection for children under 17, people with mental illness and rape victims. They can give evidence behind screens, there can be video links, evidence can be given in private and witnesses can be interviewed by intermediaries. Will the Government consider extending those provisions to violent offences and wherever it is believed that there is the prospect of significant witness intimidation? This is a serious issue and we know, empirically, that there is a problem. We have the means at our disposal and we should move forward. I am interested in what my right hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.
  Sir John suggested that witnesses and others using the criminal justice system were badly treated. Again, he has a point. People turn up at court as witnesses and defendants to find on the day of the trial that the case has been adjourned or dismissed. These are not lawyers; they go in fear to the court, after building up their courage, only to be told to come back next week. That is appalling.

  843
  Witnesses must be kept informed of the progress of the case. They need to know about the people who have committed the crime—where they live, for instance, otherwise witnesses can be intimidated. We need a system under which witnesses are welcomed, and that is being introduced in Croydon.
  I am aware of the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have promised to keep my comments to a bare minimum of absolute quality. In short, school standards in London are up, waiting lists are down, jobs are up and take-home pay is up by 10 per cent. We have more police and the number is increasing faster than ever. We are on the up—things are getting better. There are challenges in transport and elsewhere, and more investment is being made. However, the people of London know that things will get better under Labour and that they would be a darn sight worse under the other lot.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Mark Hoban: I saw the sands of time slipping by during the brief speech—some 20 minutes—of the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies). I shall keep my remarks brief because other Opposition Members wish to speak. I want to raise an issue of fundamental concern to my constituents in relation to the quality of life in my part of south-east Hampshire—housing development.
  In the past 20 years, the amount of housing in Fareham has increased dramatically. Twenty years ago, the part of the constituency in which I live was comprised purely of strawberry fields. Now the only indication that strawberry fields were there is a road called Strawberry Fields. The growth in housing has put immense pressure on Fareham's infrastructure. There is chaos at junctions 9 and 11 of the M27 and development in the Gosport peninsula has caused traffic problems in Gosport and Fareham, and has exacerbated problems at junction 11. The infrastructure needed to support the housing development projected by the Government and imposed on the borough to date is simply not following that housing development.
  Mr. Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hoban: I will not. It is 9.21 pm, and other hon. Members are waiting to speak.
  Infrastructure is required to support the housing development that is in progress and is projected, but the Government are not delivering it. A light rail system is planned for the area between Fareham and Portsmouth, but it will not address traffic issues in the west of the constituency, where many people live.
  The other problem is the pressure on schools. Brookfield school, a very good comprehensive in my constituency, has reached its capacity of 1,750 pupils. Pupils who live close to the school have to be bussed across junction 9 of the M27, along the main route from the west of the constituency into Fareham, to another school. Valuable educational resources are therefore being absorbed by school transport costs. Traffic problems in the area are being exacerbated by the number of children who have to be bussed from their homes to the school, simply because the secondary school infrastructure is not in place to cope with the expansion of the population in the west of the constituency.
  844
  The problem with the way in which the Government fund the increase in school places to reflect housing development is that it is piecemeal. Sufficient resources are provided to deal with the financing of primary schools but not to deal with the financing of new secondary schools. The west of the borough is in need of those resources.
  My argument is that control of housing development should rest with the local council. For far too long, there has been interference from central Government—of both persuasions—in housing development. The Government have increased by 25 per cent. the number of houses that should be built in two developments on sites in my constituency. That puts more and more pressure on the infrastructure. Control of how many houses should be built and where they should be built should be given back to local councils. It is disappointing that the Green Paper on planning advocated more centralised control of the planning system, removing from local councils and local people the power to decide what housing development is best for their area. People in Fareham want a system that achieves a better balance between the infrastructure that is available and the housing that is imposed on the borough by Government plans. That would be an important move forward. The way to improve the quality of life in the south-east is to restrict housing development and to allow the infrastructure to support the existing housing.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. David Cameron: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). I wish that I could say that I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies)—who is no longer in his place—but I do not want to mislead the House.

  I welcome this debate on the quality of life in the south-east. I want to mention two key problems in my constituency, Witney, in Oxfordshire, which falls within the south-east region. First, I want to refer to the state of the public services, and particularly the problem of recruitment and retention of staff, which is the biggest difficulty that we face. Secondly, I want to refer to the issue of housing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham just mentioned. There is a conflict between the need to protect the countryside and the need to build affordable housing at the same time.
  Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cameron: I will not give way, because we have very little time left.
  I shall briefly argue that, in many ways, the answer to both problems is a form of devolution, but not the devolution that the Government are talking about. The regional development agencies and the regional assemblies are a waste of money. They are talking shops, and they do not solve problems but add to bureaucracy. The real answer is proper devolution of power and authority in the public services so that teachers, doctors in hospitals and police forces have greater power and responsibility.
  The Thames valley has the third lowest number of constables per 100,000 of population in the whole country. We keep trying to recruit more policemen under

  845
  the crime fighting fund and all the other initiatives, but we have fewer policemen now than we had a year ago. They are travelling to low-cost areas, such as Cornwall, north Wales and Northumberland, or to the Metropolitan police where they can earn another £6,000 and the Met can pay the cost of their travel. We face a real problem in that regard, and I can say the same about nurses and social services. The answer is devolution and the end to national pay scales. We must give devolution and devolved power to the public services.
  The same points apply to housing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham said, we all want greater provision of social housing. My local authority, West Oxfordshire district council, is spending £20 million on social housing, but why cannot it be given the responsibility for deciding on housing needs in the area? We had Serplan and the Crow report; then we had the Prescott scheme and now we shall have the Raynsford scheme under which 39,000 houses a year are to be built. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) spoke movingly about this issue. Why do we need centralised targets? Why do we not give power to local authorities? That would be proper devolution, and not the false devolution of regional development, regional assemblies and the vast cost that they involve.
  When Conservative Members draw up policies, we should concentrate on considering how we can improve the quality of life for people in the south-east by devolving power. The quality of life is all right for the better-off in the south-east, because they can buy their way out of lousy public services and they can afford the house prices. However, the less well-off in our constituencies suffer because we have not devolved power in the way that I have suggested. That is what we should do.
  9.27 pm
  Angela Watkinson: I shall be extremely brief.
  My main concern is house prices in my outer-London constituency, which are high because of its proximity to central London.
  Mr. Love: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Angela Watkinson: No, I will not, but it is always a pleasure to meet one of nature's gentlemen.
  Since mortgage interest tax relief was abolished, stamp duty has gone up by an average of £650 on a band D house and the council tax is rocketing in Upminster. Those factors combine to squeeze out Upminster families. The people who have lived in Upminster all their lives now have to leave the area, because they cannot afford to stay. The same applies to teachers. When a teaching post is advertised in Upminster, the only people who apply or who can afford to take the post are teachers from another school in Upminster. Therefore, there is no net gain to the teaching body in the constituency.
  We face a parallel problem with hospital staff. We expect a new hospital to be finished in 2005 and a housing development will be built on the site of the existing hospital, which will be demolished. I hope that that housing development will contain affordable housing for
  846
  hospital staff so that, at least, the new hospital can run at full complement. The existing two hospitals have nothing like a full complement of staff.
  Another problem that we face is commuter parking. Residents in my constituency have commuters parking outside their houses from dawn till dusk five days a week, often blocking their drives. The iniquitous congestion charging scheme will exacerbate the problem, because people who have hitherto driven into London will look for a convenient place to stop along the line. Upminster is a sitting target for those who wish to avoid the a day charge. It is yet another tax on the motorist from the anti-car Government; it will do nothing to tackle pollution or congestion in London.
  My final comments are about the proposal in the Police Reform Bill to employ community support officers at two thirds of the salary of a real police officer. The Bill does not make it clear whether that proposal will be imposed or whether chief constables will have the choice of employing four real police officers instead of six community support officers.
  9.30 pm
  Sandra Gidley: Unfortunately some of the earlier speeches were lengthy and somewhat costive, so I shall be brief.
  I want to highlight policing problems in Hampshire. I realise that, compared with London, we are lucky in Hampshire—the crime rate is relatively low. I am especially aware of that fact as my daughter is currently a student at King's college. However, according to the 2001 crime survey, 4 per cent. of adults in the south-east were victims of violence in 1999–2000, which is higher than the national average.
  The problem for my constituents is that—as has been mentioned—there has been an increase in petty crime, youth nuisance and rural crime. Vandalism and youth nuisance may not sound like huge problems but they can have a severe impact on the quality of life of home owners and affect people's feelings about their environment.
  The problems have been exacerbated by the establishment of a call centre. Unusually, I agreed with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when she talked about prioritisation. People are encouraged to call the police; the calls are prioritised and the police arrive two hours later when the problem has been cleared up. Residents therefore believe that there is no point in calling the police because they turn up too late to do anything about the problem. The reduction in reported crime is thus partly due to public disenchantment—they think that the police will not be there when they are needed—although the police work hard and do the best they can.
  Last year, the chief constable of Hampshire, Paul Kernaghan, wrote to me and other Hampshire Members about recruitment problems. Although he supports the concept of a national salary for policing, he feels that
  "an allowance is required to reflect local economic and recruiting circumstances."
  Historically, police officers received a rent allowance based on the cost of accommodation in their force areas. That varied throughout the United Kingdom and broadly reflected the economic circumstances of the officers. The allowance was abolished in 1994, so officers carrying out

  847
  the same work can receive very different rates of pay. The impact of that is illustrated by the fact that 48 Hampshire officers have opted out of the police pension scheme.
  In 2000–01, Hampshire constabulary received funding for 3,573 officers, including 82 additional officers through the Home Office crime fighting fund. However, during that period, the chief constable noted that
  "we have found it impossible to recruit the additional 82 officers and have had no choice but to request deferral of 62 of these additional officers to the next financial year…I acknowledge the national recruiting initiative, but frankly do not see it producing sufficient numbers of quality recruits, given our current terms and conditions."
  The Government should take note of the chief constable's remarks.
  In the current year, the target was 330 recruits but after extensive national and local advertising only 210 officers were recruited.
  Next week, the Association of Chief Police Officers is due to present a paper to the Police Negotiating Board suggesting that the national regional allowance should be examined. Statistics are not yet available, but the aim of Hampshire police is to secure an allowance of between the £1,000 that they receive at present and the £6,000 plus received by the Metropolitan police. There are six police forces in the south-east: three of them receive an extra allowance of £2,000, while the other three receive only £1,000. The £1,000 received by Hampshire officers offers no realistic help towards the comparatively expensive cost of living in the area.
  I shall draw my remarks to a close, so that other hon. Members can join in the debate. Will the Minister undertake to provide fair police salaries for Hampshire? After all, that is in the best interests of the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs, because he also represents a Hampshire constituency.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. James Paice: When my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) opened the debate, he referred to the need for a constructive approach and not yah-boo opposition, and the speeches of Conservative Members have largely fulfilled his expectations.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) spoke with passion, as she always does, about crime and its roots from her knowledge of much research in Hackney and elsewhere. She spoke about the weaknesses in the proposals for community support officers and about rural crime and the need for visible policing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) spoke about the importance of the countryside and wildlife, even in London. My hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) spoke about the Serplan proposals and the fact that the Government had overruled Serplan and local opinion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford also managed momentarily to unite the Government and the Opposition in mutual opposition and hatred of Liberal Democrats' duplicity in the way that they seek to build on the green belt while proclaiming their support for the environment. Things are exactly the same in
  848
  Cambridgeshire, where the Liberal Democrat-controlled city council is trying to build on the green belt in my constituency.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) spoke about house prices and the impact of the rise in stamp duty and the fact that the average first-time buyer now pays £685 more than previously. They could have added that the council tax for an average band D property has trebled under this Government, and that excludes any increase that may occur in the next couple of weeks. A point that could have been made about housing involves the alleged changes by the Inland Revenue.
  Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Paice: No, of course I will not.
  The Inland Revenue is putting obstacles in the way of private landlords by classifying maintenance as improvements.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) spoke cleverly and wisely about pensioners. He reminded us of what the Government have done in relation to £5 billion in tax and red tape. He could have gone on to talk about the collapse of final salary schemes and the Government's refusal to shift the rules on annuities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) spoke about housing numbers and said that his constituency was the front line for illegal immigrants.
  In riposte, the Minister in opening for the Government kept on about money, and that is what we have heard from many hon. Members. One might have thought that, after five years, the Government would realise that people judge output, not input. People want services, not a series of figures to which they cannot easily relate. A plethora of initiatives and funds in many penny packets may be good for soundbites, but a huge, unconstructive effort is involved in claiming those moneys and in designing bids. The Government will be judged on the results.
  Peculiarly, the Minister chose a 10-year time span in his reply. He talked about all the improvements that have taken place over 10 years. I do not know why he chose 10 years—presumably in doing so, he was attributing many of the improvements to John Major and his term in office. Failing that, he could have chosen a five-year period, but of course that may have produced a different picture.
  Let us ignore this Government's first two or three years and consider the past 12 months or so. Whatever hon. Members may think about the changes that took place pre-1997, let us consider what has happened now that they have been in office for three or four years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar said transport, is getting worse. Train delays have soared since Railtrack was taken into administrative receivership. They have increased by 46.9 per cent. on the Connex South Eastern Kent link, 77 per cent. on South West Trains suburban and 95.6 per cent. on First Great Eastern.
  On development, the Government proclaim that they are in favour of local decision making, but ride roughshod over local people's proposals in Serplan for housing in the south-east, as many of my hon. Friends explained.

  849
  Abandoned vehicles were also mentioned, and there has been a 25 per cent. increase in malicious vehicle fires in the past 12 months.
  The Minister referred to museums. We did not hear, however, about the impact of the Government's policies on the London art market. That £8 billion European market—30 per cent. of which used to belong to the United Kingdom and London in particular—has been devastated by the Government's activities and has greatly reduced in size.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke about crime. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald posed the Minister a question, to which he did not know the answer. I can tell him that the number of specials in the Metropolitan police service is 753, the lowest on record. Although I am the first to recognise that the number of police officers has risen in the past few months, the fact remains that in the last full year for which the figures are available—up to March 2001—the number was at its lowest for 10 years in England and Wales, including in the Met.
  The picture is the same in the south-east in general. Violent crime in the past two years has followed the trend set in London. It is up in Kent and Sussex. Indeed, in the Thames Valley area, it is up by 38.2 per cent. In London, street crime rose by 39 per cent. in the last nine months of last year.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has made clear in the House, we support the Government's proposals for stop and search because it is important for policing. Perhaps the Minister, who is responsible for that, can tell us when he responds about the technology that the Home Secretary thinks police officers will use when they stop someone and request all the information that they have to obtain. Is the technology available? How much will it cost? Who will pay for it? We understand that it is not available, so all the Home Secretary's talk about police officers filling in their palm-pilot in the street might prove to be fatuous.
  Several hon. Members referred to criminal justice and what happens to people once they are arrested. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said, the Government have dropped their proposals for criminal justice legislation in this Session. I am sure that the Minister will repeat what he said on Friday and stress that that is due to pressure of work in the Home Office. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends suggest even more nefarious reasons for it. I suspect that it is also to do with a turf war between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. If that is the case, we side with the Home Office. We want criminal justice legislation changed. I repeat our offer to help the Government get the non-controversial part of the relevant Bill, which is the bulk of it, through the House.
  We read in today's Evening Standard that a senior aide of the Prime Minister has said:
  "He"—
  the Prime Minister—
  "will show there is still life in the project after five years."
  The project—whatever that may be—has not yet delivered on its promises. I question whether there are any principles behind it. The Government rubbish the private
  850
  sector when it is involved with Railtrack, yet they seek to embrace it when they want it to be involved in the public-private partnership. The Government say that they will reduce police red tape and bureaucracy, yet they throw more at them in their proposals for stop and search. There will almost certainly be fewer stops as a result. The Government talk about regional decision making, but ride roughshod over Serplan when it makes decisions for its region.
  The Government promised to be whiter than white, purer than pure, but they retain the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) in charge of our transport. I suggest that the reason they are in such difficulty in so many areas is that they have no principles—indeed, that is the gripe of many Labour Back Benchers who have retained their own. The Government have done some things right—of course they have—but in so many areas there remains so much to do. Health, transport, violent crime—all are getting worse. If the Government really want a reputation for honesty, they should start by admitting the truth of the situation as it really is. Until they do, they stand to be criticised. I commend the motion to the House.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): When the Conservative party lost the last two general elections, some were unkind enough to suggest that it was out of touch. This afternoon, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) tried to put that right by speaking movingly about travelling to work on the tube during the rush hour. What a shame he thinks that rush hour is half-past 9 in the morning. No doubt the Conservatives are still working on the latest issue of "Intouch". My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) got the Government's position just right. Our argument tonight is not that there are no problems, no issues, no challenges in the south-east of England, but that since 1997 we have made real progress in the areas that matter.
  As one would expect, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was one of the few Conservatives to display any sense of the broad sweep of issues. She made some excellent points about prison education which I acknowledge, but she will acknowledge that we are trebling the number of people who will get level 2 qualifications in the prison system to 36,000 in the coming year. Furthermore, 10 per cent. of all the qualifications gained in the first six months of the Government's campaign on basic skills were achieved by people within the prison system. There is progress to be made, but we are moving in the direction that the right hon. Lady wants.
  The theme of housing, affordable housing and housing for key workers ran through the debate, but the confusion among Opposition Members was amazing. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) wanted more affordable housing, and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) wanted tax changes that would fuel house price inflation but vigorously condemned anyone who would build a new house in which someone might live. Opposition to building new houses was voiced by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who criticised the Liberal Democrats, and by the hon. Members for Castle Point (Bob Spink), for Fareham

  851
  (Mr. Hoban) and for Witney (Mr. Cameron). All opposed there being any houses in the south-east of England for key workers to live in. That confusion—
  Mrs. Laing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: That confusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way!"] I will give way as many times as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) did.
  To press on, my hon. Friends understand how the different issues link together. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) understands the need for development in the north Kent gateway area, where there are brownfield sites that can be developed, and the way in which that links to the Government's success in developing the channel tunnel rail link—a project that completely failed under the Conservatives.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow and for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) talked about the importance of investing in social housing: they will welcome the extra £300 million that we are putting into that. They, too, emphasised the importance of development on brownfield sites. None the less, I acknowledge the comments made about the continuing need to encourage investment in older properties. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has been listening to those comments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) also spoke of housing, but she made the crucial link to the development of employment skills among young people. That underlines the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), who spoke of the Government's success in getting people back into work, tackling social exclusion and ending the dependency culture that formed so large a part of our inheritance in 1997.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) began promisingly by attacking the Conservatives' failure to say anything about poverty or housing, but, like most Liberal Democrats, he failed to live up to his early promise and said that his party would vote with the Conservatives tonight. He talked about the important issue of wastage in the Metropolitan police. The indications that I have for the current financial year show that the level of wastage appears to be the same for the Metropolitan police as it is for the rest of the police service in England and Wales; it is less than 5 per cent, as it has been for the past few years.
  Mr. Cameron rose—
  Mr. Boris Johnson rose—
  Mr. Denham: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire did not give way to Members wishing to intervene. I should like to give Members who have been present throughout our debate and made speeches the courtesy of reply, rather than respond to Members who have not been here all evening.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister who has discourteously refused
  852
  to reduce his reply to the time to which the Opposition spokesman reduced his speech to refuse to give way to people whom he has named in his summation?
  Mr. Speaker: That is entirely up to the Minister.
  Mr. Denham: I take the length of the point of order by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) as a sign that he is uncomfortable about my being allowed to speak further in this debate.
  I was moving on to the speech of the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), who told the House that his parish council objected vigorously to lorry drivers dropping illegal immigrants off in a lay-by in his constituency. The Conservative party, however, has vigorously opposed us taking any action at all against lorry drivers who bring illegal immigrants into the country and let them out in lay-bys in Kent. Again, there is utter confusion among Opposition Members.
  I do not know if my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) is a supporter of proportional representation, but—I hope he does not mind my saying this—I congratulate him on delivering what could be described as a single transferable speech. Although he could not make it on Friday, none the less, he made some good points about the criminal justice system.
  Mr. Boris Johnson rose—
  Mr. Denham: Well, the hon. Gentleman has been here for a long time.
  Mr. Johnson: I am grateful to the Minister for interrupting his hymn of praise to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies). Will he break off from his glutinous complacency about everything that Labour has done and explain to the House why, if things are so much better, violent crime has gone up in the Thames Valley area by 38 per cent? I have yet to hear him address that point and should be grateful if he would do so now.
  Mr. Denham: If the hon. Gentleman had not intervened, I would have moved on to issues involving crime, and shall do so shortly.
  Our debate has been about one of the world's greatest cities in one of Europe's most prosperous regions. It is a part of Britain in which millions of people enjoy more successful and more prosperous lives than they or their families have ever enjoyed before. Of course, the capital and the region face real challenges, some of which stem from the very success, prosperity and attractiveness that make many people want to visit, live and work here.
  There is a saying, "Out of sight, out of mind." The Opposition are out of power and largely out of sight. Thankfully, however, they are not forgotten. People know that since 1997, the number of people in work in the region has gone up by 500,000 and that unemployment is down by more than 40 per cent. in London and the south-east. People know—many remember only too well—that a year of mortgage rates of more than 10 per cent. plunged them into negative equity, and that that cost nearly 30,000 families in London and the south-east their home in 1991.

  853
  Yes, it can be hard today for first-time buyers to enter the housing market, which is why over the next three years 4,600 key-worker households in London, and 2,500 in the south-east, will be helped through the starter homes initiative in London.
  Mrs. Laing rose—
  Mr. Denham: That is why the NHS housing co-ordinator will identify another 2,000 accommodation places for NHS staff and why his work is also being extended to police officers.
  Mrs. Laing rose—
  Mr. Denham: That is why nurses and police officers in London and the south-east have received regional pay allowances. We should not forget that for millions of home owners in London and the south-east, mortgage rates are at their lowest since the 1960s.
  It is true that crime in London and the south-east—
  Mrs. Laing rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way !
  Mr. Denham: No, I am responding to the intervention from the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) about crime in London and the south-east. Crime in London and the south-east is down overall. Let us not forget that under the last Conservative Government, police numbers began falling in London in 1991, in Surrey in 1992 and in Thames Valley in 1994. It is our crime fighting fund that has put things right and brought 3,240 more police recruits into London and the south-east than would otherwise be recruited.
  Mrs. Laing rose—
  Mr. Denham: We have reversed that long-term decline and we are on the way to record police numbers. It is because we will have record police numbers in this country, and because numbers are increasing in London and the south-east, that we will be able to tackle the crimes that cause concern—street robbery, hard drugs and antisocial and yobbish behaviour. That action is already under way. Operation Safer Streets in London is hitting the rise in street crime and we will support the Metropolitan police service in its work. The new moves on antisocial behaviour orders will help to tackle loutish and yobbish behaviour, graffiti and other issues that were raised during the debate.
  In the wider sense, in cleaning up the environment and removing abandoned cars, local councils will be able to move much more swiftly than they can at present, because the delays have been taken out of the system. The improvements will become apparent not just in crime reduction, housing and prosperity. Our children—the children of the families of London and the south-east—are doing better in our schools than ever before. Literacy and numeracy results of primary schools in London have risen—for literacy, from 64 per cent. to 74 per cent. Last
  854
  year, and in the south-east from 67 per cent. to 76 per cent., and there were similar improvements in numeracy results.
  Mrs. Laing rose—
  Mr. Denham: More children are getting five high grades at GCSE than ever before. Over the past three years the number of children attaining key stage 2 in English has risen by 6 per cent.; in maths the figure is 3 per cent.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this gross example of misogyny to be allowed to continue?
  Mr. Denham: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) seems to have lost interest.
  In transport—
  Mrs. Laing: I thank the Minister for giving way after my sixth time of trying. Does he not appreciate that there are enormous teacher shortages in London and the south-east because he is taking no action whatever to put that right? He is doing nothing about house prices. He is doing nothing about finding accommodation for public servants. He is talking statistics, and he is ignoring the most important one of all. Where does he propose that teachers should live?
  Mr. Denham: Having heard the hon. Lady's contribution, the one place where we can be certain that teachers will not live is in Epping Forest, as she condemned any plans to build any housing anywhere near her constituency. More importantly, there are 3,430 more teachers in London and the south-east than there were in 1997. So much for the idea that we have not taken action.
  A world city—
  David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 315.

  Division No. 191]

  [10.1 pm

  ayes

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brake, Tom

  Allan, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Burnett, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burstow, Paul

  Bacon, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Barker, Gregory

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Baron, John

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Barrett, John

  Cameron, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Boswell, Tim

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Cash, William

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Chope, Christopher

  Brady, Graham

  Clappison, James

  855

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Norman, Archie

  Conway, Derek

  Oaten, Mark

  Cotter, Brian

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Cran, James

  Öpik, Lembit

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Page, Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Paice, James

  Doughty, Sue

  Paterson, Owen

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Prisk, Mark

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Evans, Nigel

  Randall, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fallon, Michael

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Rendel, David

  Flight, Howard

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Flook, Adrian

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Francois, Mark

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Ruffley, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gibb, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gidley, Sandra

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Goodman, Paul

  Selous, Andrew

  Gray, James

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

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

  Grieve, Dominic

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Spink, Bob

  Hancock, Mike

  Spring, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hayes, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Heath, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hoban, Mark

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Swire, Hugo

  Holmes, Paul

  Syms, Robert

  Horam, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Thurso, John

  Keetch. Paul

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Key, Robert

  Tredinnick, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Trend, Michael

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Tyler, Paul

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lamb, Norman

  Walter, Robert

  Lansley, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Laws, David

  Watkinson, Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Webb, Steve

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Whittingdale, John

  Lidington, David

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Wiggin, Bill

  Loughton, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Luff, Peter

  Willetts, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wilshire, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Maples, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mercer, Patrick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Moore, Michael

  Dr. Julian Lewis.

  856

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ainger, Nick

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

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Allen, Graham

  Dawson, Hilton

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dismore, Andrew

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dobbin, Jim

  Austin, John

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Baird, Vera

  Doran, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benton, Joe

  Edwards, Huw

  Berry, Roger

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Betts, Clive

  Etherington, Bill

  Blackman, Liz

  Farrelly, Paul

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fisher, Mark

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E& Wallsend)

  Foulkes, George

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Galloway, George

  Bryant Chris

  Gapes, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burnham, Andy

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gilroy, Linda

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cairns, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grogan, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Challen, Colin

  Hanson, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Chaytor, David

  Havard, Dai

  Clapham, Michael

  Healey, John

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hermon, Lady

  Clelland, David

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heyes, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hill, Keith

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hodge, Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Crausby, David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Illsley, Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  David, Wayne

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  857

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pearson, Ian

  Joyce, Eric

  Picking, Anne

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Hesston)

  Pike, Peter

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pollard, Kerry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pond, Chris

  Kidney, David

  Pope, Greg

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Price, Adam

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lammy, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Purchase, Ken

  Laxton, Bob

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lepper, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rapson, Syd

  Levitt, Tom

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Linton, Martin

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  Lucas, Ian

  Ross, Ernie

  Luke, lain

  Roy, Frank

  Lyons, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Ryan, Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  MacDonald, Calum

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonnell, John

  Sawford, Phil

  MacDougall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McFall, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sheerman, Barry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sheridan, Jim

  McKechin, Ann

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Singh, Marsha

  McNamara, Kevin

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Mallaber, Judy

  Southworth, Helen

  Mann, John

  Squire, Rachel

  Marris, Rob

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Meale, Alan

  Stringer, Graham

  Merron, Gillian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Miliband, David

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mole, Chris

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Timms, Stephen

  Morgan, Julie

  Trickett, Jon

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Truswell, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Norris, Dan

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  O'Neill, Martin

  Walley, Ms Joan

  858

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Winterton, Ms Rose (Doncaster C)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wood, Mike

  Watson, Tom

  Woolas, Phil

  Watts, David

  Wray, James

  White, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Winnick, David

  Angela Smith.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 180.

  Division No. 192]

  [10.14 pm

  ayes

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ainger, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Cousins, Jim

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cranston, Ross

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Crausby, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cruddas, Jon

  Austin, John

  Cummings, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Beard, Nigel

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Berry, Roger

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Betts, Clive

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blackman, Liz

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  David, Wayne

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davidson, Ian

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

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

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bryant, Chris

  Dismore, Andrew

  Burden, Richard

  Dobbin, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Burnham, Andy

  Doran, Frank

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Cairns, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Etherington, Bill

  Caplin, Ivor

  Farrelly, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caton, Martin

  Fisher, Mark

  Cawsey, Ian

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Challen, Colin

  Flint Caroline

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Chaytor, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Foulkes, George

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Galloway, George

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Gapes, Mike

  Clelland, David

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Gerrard, Neil

  859

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gilroy, Linda

  McDonnell, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  MacDougall, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  McKechin, Ann

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hanson, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McWalter, Tony

  Havard, Dai

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mann, John

  Heppell, John

  Marris, Rob

  Hermon, Lady

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heyes, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hodge, Margaret

  Meale, Alan

  Hoey, Kate

  Merron, Gillian

  Hood, Jimmy

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Mole, Chris

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Julie

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Mudie, George

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jenkins, Brian

  Norris, Dan

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Picking, Anne

  Joyce, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pike, Peter

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pond, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pope, Greg

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Lammy, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Laxton, Bob

  Rapson, Syd

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Lepper, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Levitt, Tom

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Rooney, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony

  Roy, Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Ruane, Chris

  Lucas, Ian

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Luke, lain

  Ryan, Joan

  Lyons, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCafferty, Chris

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  860

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Singh, Marsha

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Watson, Tom

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watts, David

  Soley, Clive

  White, Brian

  Southworth, Helen

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Squire, Rachel

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Winnick, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wood, Mike

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Woolas, Phil

  Stringer, Graham

  Wray, James

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Timms, Stephen

  Angela Smith and

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. Tony McNulty.

  noes

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Doughty, Sue

  Allan, Richard

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Amess, David

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Fallon, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Bacon, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Barker, Gregory

  Flook, Adrian

  Baron, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Barrett, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Francois, Mark

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gibb, Nick

  Brady, Graham

  Gidley, Sandra

  Brake, Tom

  Goodman, Paul

  Brazier, Julian

  Gray, James

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Burnett, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Burstow, Paul

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hammond, Philip

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Hancock, Mike

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Harvey, Nick

  Cameron, David

  Hayes, John

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Heath, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hoban, Mark

  Cash, William

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Chope, Christopher

  Holmes, Paul

  Clappison, James

  Horam, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Collins, Tim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Conway, Derek

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cotter, Brian

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Cran, James

  Keetch, Paul

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Key, Robert

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  861

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Lamb, Norman

  Simmonds, Mark

  Lansley, Andrew

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

  Laws, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lidington, David

  Spink, Bob

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Loughton, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Luff, Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Stunell, Andrew

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Swire, Hugo

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Syms, Robert

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mercer, Patrick

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Thurso, John

  Moore, Michael

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Oaten, Mark

  Tyler, Paul

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Walter, Robert

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Watkinson, Angela

  Paice, James

  Webb, Steve

  Paterson, Owen

  Whittingdale, John

  Price, Adam

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Prisk, Mark

  Wiggin, Bill

  Pugh, Dr John

  Wilkinson, John

  Randall, John

  Willetts, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Rendel, David

  Willis, Phil

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Wilshire, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Yeo, Tim

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ruffley, David

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Selous, Andrew

  Dr. Julian Lewis.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes pride in London's great heritage and its status as a major international capital city; notes that London remains the heart of global financial markets, a world centre for arts, music and fashion, a leader in higher education, medicine and scientific research, and home to the most diverse tapestry of cosmopolitan culture in Europe; welcomes the Government's commitment to London's continued success, demonstrated by sound economic management, substantially increased employment opportunities, record levels of funding in health, education, crime prevention, transport and other key public services, the promotion of sustainable development, the enhancement of London's environment, cultural diversity and the living standards of its
  862
  population, as well as the restoration of democratic city-wide government to the capital; and unreservedly condemns the Opposition strategy of talking down London and the South East.

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

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    That the draft Audit Commission (Borrowing Limit) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    Question agreed to.

    DEREGULATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

    EDUCATION
    That the draft Regulatory Reform (Voluntary Aided Schools Liabilities and Funding) (England) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Free Prescriptions
    10.28 pm
    Mr. Humfrey Matins: I am honoured to present a petition initiated and organised by my Woking constituent, Mrs. Eriksson-Hills, of Goldsworth Park, Woking, to whom many congratulations are due. This petition has been signed by more than 3,000 people and, in the petition, they request a change to legislation to allow free prescriptions for all transplant patients to fall into line with other patients who receive free prescriptions.
    The petition concludes:
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to review as a matter of urgency the ailments to which the concession on prescription charges applies and to extend the scope of this concession to include the category of transplant patients.
    To lie upon the Table.

  E-Democracy
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: I would like to use this debate as an opportunity for the Minister to update the House on where the UK Government—and its wholly-owned subsidiary, the UK Parliament—are on the exciting but dangerous road of e-democracy. Access is the key to e-participation. Just as the majority of people in the world have never made a telephone call, so the majority of my constituents have never sent an e-mail. They are in the poorest third of our community in the UK, with only one in nine households having access to a personal computer. However, one of the answers to that, and to participation in democracy, is not ownership of a PC but access to one. Involvement through a group is just as valid. Indeed, arguably, in the practice of democracy, it is more effective than one of the atomised.
  The Government have produced many initiatives in this area, including the wiring up of schools, the development of UK online and the setting of targets for online Government services. However, I hope that the Minister will tonight report to the House on the latest progress of the e-democracy Cabinet Committee. I hope that that Committee is not limiting itself to the nerdy issues, but will take head on the key problems of access, especially pricing and restrictive practices. It is no good wishing the ends and then dodging the means. The Committee must take a view and act on some serious issues.
  BT and the cable companies should make all local calls free to give a massive boost to internet usage. Some 90 per cent. of the cost of a local call is either in billing or in metering. Broadband technology, which allows extremely fast internet connectivity, is becoming increasingly affordable but has to be more so. Even those who want broadband in most rural areas cannot get access to it. If the Government are serious about access, they must ask Oftel to examine and, if necessary, restrict BT's sale of lower grade ISDN lines, so as to boost broadband.
  The Office of Fair Trading should investigate the BT monopoly of leased lines, especially outside the major cities, so that we can open up those systems. The Government must be far more creative in providing computer access for poorer families. The computers within reach scheme was confined to a few small local pilots, because of underfunding. If Microsoft Windows changes versions again, it may be highly profitable for the company, but it will mean the replacement of perfectly adequate computers by faster ones and the further purchase of expensive software—and that often excludes poorer people.
  The piece of kit that most people are familiar with and find easy to access is the television. I hope that the Minister can tell us if interactive digital television will provide access for those parts of British society that are currently on the outside but who need public e-services the most.
  The e-democracy Cabinet Committee was charged with producing a consultative paper last summer and I hope that it tackles the supply and access issues that I have mentioned. I hope that the Minister will give us a date for the publication of that long-anticipated consultative paper.
  864
  The opportunities are immense. New technology offers exciting prospects in many areas. For example, we need to create a joined-up e-democracy, involving central, regional and local governments and to ensure that online voting, when it happens, is not only secure and trusted but adds educative value to the voting experience. Crude e-plebiscites are not the way forward. We also need to create quality content for digital television, including citizens channels and links between constituents and their representatives. Leading on from that will be the provision of e-service delivery, in which public services of value to my constituents—including education, training, child care and job placements—get to those who need them.
  Given the shortness of the debate tonight, I shall concentrate on only one area—the impact of e-democracy on parliamentary democracy. As much is expected of the new digital technologies as was expected of television in the 1930s, and rightly so. The e-revolution, if it is to mean anything, must deliver for our democracy. It must produce ambitions that match the reach of that technology. It must be bold enough to strike at the heart of political cynicism. It must create something that revives our tired, downtrodden Parliament and makes us, once again, the forum of our nation. It must make quake the rotten duopoly of the media and an over-centralised Executive.
  That is a tall order, but there is a way to deliver all the above. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has pushed forward the concept of pre-legislative scrutiny, in which the principles and practicalities of a Bill can be examined for, say, eight weeks by a group of Members of Parliament taking evidence openly and without votes. It is a brilliant innovation, worthy of my right hon. Friend, which will transform Members of this House from rubber stamps to something almost akin to real legislators.
  However, we can take the proposal one step further, and invite the public—our electors—to the party. If the proceedings of those Committees are webcast, with the schedules known well in advance, any group or individual with a PC will be able not only to see live TV coverage, but to respond to the evidence or the debate by e-mailing the address running across the bottom of the screen as the sitting is televised. That could be done immediately, or after reflection and consideration.
  Such thoughts and insights would be e-mailed back to the Committee and go to a mediator. His or her task would be to filter out the e-garbage familiar to all hon. Members, and distil the essence of the responses, the bright ideas and the experiences of those responding. The mediator would then report to the Committee, which would consider the responses and, where convinced by them, incorporate them in its report, and then perhaps in legislation. As knocking on doors and passing resolutions fade into political history, democrats can use the new technology to realise a dream—that electors can help make better laws.
  I led for Labour on the Bill establishing the Child Support Agency. All parties agreed on the principles of that Bill, but the absence of an effective parliamentary or public process put into law an insensitive, unamended, Whitehall Bill. It caused suffering and suicide, as many hon. Members know. Online pre-legislative scrutiny would have prevented much, if not all, of that anguish. It would have meant that we listened to the right people before deciding the contents of the Bill.

  865
  Such scrutiny must be undertaken seriously. Respondents must be acknowledged, given feedback and referred to relevant parts of the final report. Some respondents should even be personally acknowledged and publicly recognised for especially useful or insightful contributions. The result will be better service delivery, more value for money, healthy participation in our democracy, and better law.
  However, if the process is not undertaken properly, or if the House merely goes through the motions, it will add to, rather than diminish, cynicism about our politics. Members of Parliament may be content to be rubber stamps, but the public will walk away from such a charade, and from us. It is possible, too, that they will walk away from our democracy.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that we should seize the moment. If we can overcome the electorate's fear and take people with us, we will be on the edge of a new era of genuine participation in our democracy. Using new technology in the way that I have described would strengthen our democracy and be a bold and creative step. The UK Parliament could be the first parliamentary institution in the world to meet that challenge. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me when we can make a start.
  10.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this important Adjournment debate which, as he said, gives me an opportunity to set out the progress being made by the new e-democracy Cabinet Committee. I am pleased to take up his challenge that our Committee should avoid being nerdy on these issues. Anyone who knows my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who chairs the Committee, or myself will realise that neither of us is in any danger of being a computer nerd or, I hope, nerdy in other respects.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the intense interest and great commitment and enthusiasm that he has shown in electronic democracy and, more broadly, in taking up issues relating to the renewal of our democracy. It is a timely debate, because the new Cabinet Committee on e-democracy met yesterday for only the second time. We are working towards publishing the consultation document to which my hon. Friend referred. I am afraid that I have to disappoint him as I am not in a position to take up his challenge to give the date of the report's publication. However, I can say with some confidence that my hon. Friend should not have to wait too long, and neither should others in the House. This consultation is an important opportunity for us to take the debate out into the wider public arena.
  My hon. Friend is absolutely right to seek to place this subject in the broader political context. In many debates in this House, reference is rightly made to the low turnout in recent elections. Most notably, the turnout at last June's general election fell to 59 per cent.—the lowest since universal suffrage was introduced in this country. Especially disturbing was the fact that turnout fell most dramatically and to an all-time low among young people who were entitled to turn out and vote for the first time
  866
  in their life. Surveys suggest that among 18 to 24-year-olds, the numbers voting were probably fewer than two in five. The problem is not confined to this House or this country, but is being witnessed across the democratic world, with significant declines in turnout in general and among young people in particular.
  Against that background, my hon. Friend is right to say that when we look at e-democracy, we are looking at how to renew interest in our politics and in this place so that Parliament can once again be seen to be at the centre of these debates in our country. How best can we harness advances in technology to strengthen democracy?
  We are all aware of the technological background—the context, technologically—with the growth of the internet and mobile phone use. About two households in five have the internet at home, widening the possibilities of public access to information. The average adult will spend something like eight years of their life watching television. I understand that more telephone votes were cast in the recent final of "Pop Idol" than were cast in total for the Conservative party at the 2001 election. To be fair to the Conservative party, I suspect that people voting Conservative last year voted only once, whereas those voting for Will or Gareth had the opportunity to vote many more times, and I know that many did.
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: Fortunately.
  Mr. Twigg: I assume that my hon. Friend means that it was fortunate that people could not vote more than once for the Conservative party, or indeed for other parties.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Unfortunately.
  Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend rightly prefaced his remarks by highlighting the threat posed by the digital divide. I have already said that two households in five are signed up to the internet. My hon. Friend pointed out that access to personal computers at home in his constituency is barely more than 10 per cent. In my constituency, which is very different, the figure would be well above 50 per cent. It is of great importance that we do all that we can, in Government and in Parliament, to hit the target that has been set by the Government and extend access to the internet to all households by 2005. That will not be easy: it is not simply about access but about ensuring that people have the skills and confidence to use the internet. The Government, partly through the Office of the e-envoy, are tackling that as a matter of priority.
  E-democracy is often seen simply as internet voting, giving people the chance to cast their votes over the internet, over the telephone or by text message. Clearly, that is part of the process, but it goes much wider than that. As my hon. Friend suggested, the key issue in e-democracy is participation and involvement by using the new technologies as a way to enhance opportunities for citizens to participate in the democratic process.
  That can be achieved in three ways. First, new technologies can facilitate participation by making it easier for citizens who otherwise are not involved to access information, follow the political process, scrutinise Government and other public bodies and, of course, to vote in elections. Secondly, we can use the new technologies to broaden participation by opening up new

  867
  channels of communication so that involvement in democratic activity can he increased especially, as my hon. Friend suggested, among those previously excluded. Thirdly, we can harness technology to deepen participation and to strengthen some of the connections between citizens and levels of representative institutions.
  We can cite many examples of that, and I shall refer to just one or two. Parliament has its own website, and webcasting is being trialled in the House of Commons and the House of Lords and a specific experiment will run until the end of the year. The Scottish Parliament provides live audio-visual coverage of all its proceedings in its Chamber and main Committee Rooms.
  In terms of broadening participation, the Hansard Society has an e-democracy programme that involves several successful and excellent projects. I refer, for example, to one that has been mentioned many times in debates and questions in this Chamber. The online consultation that the society conducted in partnership with the all-party group on domestic violence considered the thorny question of domestic violence. About 1,000 messages of evidence were received from women, many, if not most, of whom would not have come forward otherwise and certainly would not have been prepared to face the great personal risk of coming to Parliament to give evidence in public.

  Another recent Hansard Society consultation before the last election with the then Select. Committee on Social Security considered the issue of people receiving the working families tax credit. It gave those receiving the credit an opportunity to give online evidence direct to the Committee. About 75 per cent. of those giving evidence said that they had never previously been involved in any form of consultation exercise.
  Mr. Allen: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the invaluable work of the Hansard Society and of Dr. Stephen Coleman and his team. They have pioneered many of the techniques that we are debating and have drawn the wider public's attention to the fact that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, webcasting is already taking place in the House. The only thing that is missing is the return path. People can see Committees or the Chambers in this House or the other place in action, but they do not have the return path to e-mail their views back. I am talking about a very simple add-on to the webcasting of pre-legislative scrutiny.
  Mr. Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, to which I shall return in a moment.

  Another aspect of the issue is seeking to deepen participation. For example, my constituency is in the London borough of Enfield, which is represented by three Members of Parliament. The local branch of the United Nations Association has recently launched an interactive website in which it conducts what it describes as "MP Watch". It sounds rather ominous, but the three of us have signed up to it and, every fortnight, we receive a question from the group to which we reply. A discussion group and forum then follow from that. The project is in its early days, but it is a positive and innovative example of a local voluntary organisation harnessing the technologies to seek to deepen participation and the connection between political representatives—in this case Members of Parliament—and local people with a particular interest in a policy matter.
  868
  The Government are keen for such initiatives to be taken up throughout the country so that we can learn from best practice, and strengthen involvement in democratic activity. My hon. Friend referred to UK online, which includes the CitizenSpace area where people can already take part directly in Government consultations and discussion forums. We want to consider how to take that forward—partly through our consultation document—to make CitizenSpace a showcase of e-democracy.
  The substantial part of my hon. Friend's speech addressed the question of how, as part of the modernisation of this place and the wider reform of Parliament, we could harness new technologies to increase citizen involvement and our responsiveness to citizens. In his proposals to the Modernisation Committee in December, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House put great emphasis on strengthening pre-legislative scrutiny. Technology can play an important part in achieving that.
  I welcome the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North that we harness new technology to enhance pre-legislative scrutiny and, as he said, to realise a dream that electors themselves can help to make better laws. I shall pass on his specific proposal to my right hon. Friend and to the Modernisation Committee.
  I am well aware that the Committee is determined that the debate on modernisation should not simply be for those of us in this place—the Westminster village—but must be taken outside. The best test of a more effective Parliament is whether we are held in higher esteem and have greater credibility with the public.
  Mr. Wyatt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene, as I had not asked Mr. Speaker for permission.
  The advertising industry bases its assessment of television watching on 1,000 telephone interviews. That is a very concentrated process for providing ratings. Is it possible to feed such a system into the e-democracy debate? We could invite an outside agency to telephone 1,000 people to test a debate or an issue. It has been statistically proven that that is the best method. The current system is often only one-way.
  Mr. Twigg: That is a welcome idea and I shall be happy to pass it on for the consideration of the Modernisation Committee.
  Similar ideas have been brought to my attention during the debate. For example, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations suggested that we might set up a citizens panel to which we could refer major questions in Parliament. Departments could also refer to that panel and the consultations could be conducted partially or fully via new forms of technology.
  Several Select Committees are considering ways in which they can use new technology to reach out to smaller voluntary organisations that might not be able to give evidence in person, but could provide it through the web or e-mail. Greater access for the public could be a great gain. However, I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North that we must do that

  869
  properly or we shall increase the cynicism that we want to dispel. If we ask people to respond through new technology but fail to acknowledge those responses or take them into account, it would be preferable not to ask for those views in the first place. We must ensure that systems are in place to deal properly and fully with the concerns that people raise—whether in this place or with the Government.
  The Select Committee on Procedure is currently holding an inquiry into parliamentary questions which will report later this year. I understand that there is overwhelming support among Members for e-tabling of parliamentary questions.
  Let me move on briefly to e-voting by the electorate. There is great potential for us to use new technology to make the voting process in elections more convenient to the elector, more accessible to all sections of the electorate—particularly those who are less likely to vote, such as young people—and more efficient, thus possibly leading to greater turnout at elections. There are obvious areas of caution such as security issues involving the internet, let alone telephone voting and, of course, the digital divide issues, to which my hon. Friend referred. That is why the Government are moving forward with caution on such matters.
  Last month, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced 30 pilot schemes for this May's local elections. Those schemes range from all-postal-vote elections in certain authorities; some trial use of mobile phone text messaging and local digital television for voting; trials of internet voting from home, local libraries and council information kiosks; early and extended voting; and electronic counting. The Electoral Commission is giving financial support and advice to the pilot authorities.
  870
  The aim of those pilot schemes in new forms of voting is to help to develop secure online voting, so that we can open the possibility that e-voting will play a role in a future general election after 2006—roughly translated, that means not at the next general election. Nevertheless, that is something to which we can all aspire.
  In consulting on the various issues of e-democracy, it is very important, as my hon. Friend implied at the beginning, that we reach out beyond the usual suspects, whether computer experts—my hon. Friend had another word for them—or constitutional reformers, who may take a certain view on the wider context of such issues. We want the consultation to reach the wider public. That is why we want to ensure that we get the consultation document absolutely right when we launch it.
  Finally, I pay tribute to all those who worked hard on such issues inside and outside the Government, the e-envoy and his team, various hon. Members on both sides of the House and, in particular, the Information Committee. I see in his place its former Chairman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who has been a trail-blazer on many of these issues. I also pay tribute to many people in the wider civil society—notably, as my hon. Friend said, the Hansard Society, which has done so much take this issue forward.
  We have the potential, as a country, to be at the cutting edge on this issue and, as a Parliament, to be ahead of many other Parliaments in other advanced democratic countries. The consultation document, which will be issued shortly, will enable the public to have their input into that debate, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has given me the chance to update the House on how our discussions are going.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Consignia
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
9.30 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving up your time this morning to enable this debate to take place; I also thank the Minister. I know that many Members will wish to speak this morning, and I think that, by reducing the length of our speeches, we should try to ensure that everyone has a chance to do so. It is unfair that hon. Members should have to wait so long, when we often seem to repeat ourselves.
I emphasise the importance of today's debate, which is about the future of Consignia and postal services—the name Consignia is not appropriate, but we have to use it, at least for today.
Proposals for the introduction of competition in the United Kingdom postal services, forwarded by Postcomm—the Postal Services Commission—are currently out for consultation. The closing date is this Friday, 15 March. If the proposals are not altered—and all the indications suggest that they will not be—they will have a huge impact on our postal services. I, and other hon. Members, many of whom are here today, have a number of concerns that need to be highlighted.
I shall give the Chamber a good example of why I believe that Postcomm is not for change and does not want to extend the consultation period. One of my local councillors, Mr. Molyneaux, is a member of Chorley district council, which covers a rural area. He wrote to Postcomm asking it to consider extending the consultation so that everyone would have time to digest its proposals and put forward their views. The sympathetic listening ear of Postcomm replied, "Sorry, no change." That is not good enough, as it sets us worrying about the future of the people involved.
It is necessary to run through Postcomm's proposals first. In phase 1, from 1 April 2002, Postcomm will grant licences for operators wishing to provide large bulk mailing services with a minimum of 4,000 items. In phase 2, from 1 April 2004, licences will be granted for operators wishing to provide large mailing services with between 500 and 1,000 items. Phase 3, from 1 April 2006, will see the complete liberalisation of all UK postal services. In practical terms, phase 1 will open up the market to the extent of 30 per cent. of Consignia's inland letters revenue—40 per cent. of its volume—and phase 2 will open it up for 60 per cent. of inland letters revenue, or 70 per cent. of its volume.
Two questions, which are linked, arise immediately. First, one must seriously question the pace at which competition is being introduced. Secondly, the way in which the market is to be liberalised will, in my opinion, cause far more damage to the consumer and the Post Office. We are opening up the most profitable part of the
176WH
postal service at the expense of the least profitable part. Logic should apply, and there should at least be a balance. In my opinion, the unprofitable part should be tested first. In any event, Postcomm should certainly not allow cherry-picking. That is the danger; that is why Postcomm is wrong.
I have grave concerns about the impact of competition on our postal network. Private companies will want to operate only the profitable services, which will result in cherry-picking. The unprofitable rural services will then lose the cross-subsidy from the profit made by the urban services, and prices for consumers will inevitably rise. That will be combined with a fall in the standard of service. In simplistic terms, in rural areas the price will rise and the level of service will drop. That is where the suffering will start.
The universal postal system, with its uniform tariff, is something that we should cherish. We should not allow it to be abandoned under Postcomm's proposals. Postcomm will argue that everything is in writing so we need not worry, but it cannot say how the service can be sustained. It worries me that Postcomm seems to think that it can sustain the cherry-picking of the most profitable areas, expect next-day delivery in all the rural areas, and still make a profit somehow. Only two things can happen. Either the rural service will begin to drop away or the price will go up so much that we will have to have a uniform price of about £1. That is when the cherry-picking will start, with competitors coming from outside to provide services much more cheaply.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: So far, the hon. Gentleman has been very persuasive in his anger at the regulator's suggestions. Will he explain, therefore, why he voted to set up the regulator? There was no regulator until the Government introduced the legislation under which the Post Office currently operates.
Mr. Hoyle: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman can still make political points, even if he came here to be constructive and helpful. Never mind; if he wants to play politics, let us deal with his point. We knew that there would have to be competition, and that something like Postcomm would come along. We set up Postcomm in the belief that it would help the consumer. That was the idea, but Postcomm has got it wrong and is working against the postal service and the consumer. We did not realise that it would understand its terms of reference differently from everyone else. I think that that deals with the silly point that the hon. Gentleman made.
One does not have to look too far to see that there will be problems. There are harsh lessons to be learned from countries that have already introduced liberalisation and competition. Sweden is a good example. Since 1993 the number of post offices there has fallen by 52 per cent., the public letter price has increased by 60 per cent. in real terms, and the Swedish post office is in financial crisis, having lost 1 million kronor in the first quarter of 2001. Since 1990, people in the smaller towns in New Zealand have been waiting an extra one, two or three days for mail. The market in Spain—for which the Government seem to have an affection—has been fully liberalised since 1960, but less than 70 per cent. of letter mail was delivered on target in 2000.

177WH
We should let those examples speak for themselves; they should act as a warning to Postcomm not to let such things happen here. Unfortunately, that warning has so far gone unheeded. We have all begged for an extension of the consultation period. Let us hope that ears are listening today.
I do not see how the problems that I have described can be avoided under Postcomm's present proposals. Indeed, Consignia has already let it be known that, on the basis of experience in Sweden, competition in the UK could increase the price of the first-class stamp from 27p to 40p and that of the second-class stamp from 19p to 30p. People may be willing to pay more if they get a better service, but that will not happen, particularly if they live in rural areas. If the profitable services are removed, Consignia will be left to pick up the pieces of the unprofitable services; unlike its competitors, it will be unable to refuse delivery. That will add further to the losses incurred over the past two years, and to the possibility of large job losses and post office closures. We are all well aware of that.
The Government, too, have a role to play. They are the major shareholder, and I urge the Minister to consider suspending their dividend requirement to help Consignia through this testing period, because Consignia is being hammered from both sides. Postcomm in helping no one—neither the postal service nor the consumers. The Minister should withdraw Consginia's obligation to pay off the Government every year, so that it will be able to use plenty of financial muscle in taking on the competition.
It should be remembered that such concerns are held not only by hon. Members here today; both the trade unions and Consignia have grave reservations about Postcomm' s proposals. A National Audit Office report entitled "Opening the Post" stated:
"the introduction of competition could result in a breakdown in the delivery of the universal service at a reasonable uniform price".
The NAO was sending everyone a warning shot. The report stated further that Postcomm needed to make a
"convincing case to demonstrate that any steps they take to introduce competition will not endanger the continued delivery of universal service."
An article in The Economist stated:
"By exposing Consignia to competition so quickly, Postcomm runs the risk that it will further weaken an already shaky service by allowing a challenge from strong European competitors…whatever Postcomm says, the price of sending a letter would increase significantly, while profits would go abroad."
Those concerns have rightly been voiced about the pace of change and the way in which competition will be introduced. The European Commission proposals for liberalisation are different in two fundamental ways. First, the Commission has introduced competition by lowering the weight and price threshold, which covers all categories of mail and user, whereas Postcomm is opening up bulk mailing. That conflicts with the Commission's approach and relates only to large business. Secondly, the pace of liberalisation is more gradual, which I believe needs to be the case in the United Kingdom, given Consignia's present position.
Sir Robert Smith: When the Select Committee on Trade and
178WH
Industry visited the Commission recently, the Commission said that it was not up to it to tell any country how to run its service. However, it observed that the pace was much faster in the UK, and suggested that we might ask the Government how they expected a company that lost £ I million a day to sustain a universal service obligation.
Mr. Hoyle: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted those worries. We all share them, and I know that he has talked about them recently.
Although I am not wholly convinced by the proposals forwarded by the Commission, in terms of the mechanics and the timing, they are greatly preferable to those that we are currently considering. That is another message to Postcomm. Its proposals for competition, and eventually full liberalisation of the postal network, constitute a major threat to the universal postal service at a uniform tariff. I have grave concerns about the future of Consignia if the present proposals are allowed to go through.
If we are not careful, Postcomm could turn a great public service into another Railtrack. I therefore urge Postcomm initially to extend the period of consultation so that more time can be taken to consider in detail the proposals and all replies from interested parties, which are still being written to Postcomm. We must ensure that the present proposals are altered, so that companies cannot cherry-pick services and leave others to suffer.
I urge the Minister to use his influence and powers, and those of the Secretary of State, to ensure that Postcomm reforms its present proposals, so as to help the Post Office by supporting local post offices and avoiding more closures. An equal service in towns and rural areas must be assured. I also urge him to use his influence to scrap the name Consignia. The Royal Mail is the best known name in the UK after Coca-Cola, and it still sticks in my throat to say Consignia. Consignia the name to the dustbin and bring back the Royal Mail.
I urge the Minister to suspend the Government's requirement for the dividend and work with Consignia, the trade unions and Members of Parliament to build a constructive relationship, so that the Post Office can again be a successful, profitable company that delivers an essential and much cherished service.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I understand that my hon. Friend was motivated to introduce the debate because he represents a rural area. Does he understand that there is considerable concern in urban areas, such as my constituency, too? Although the quality of Royal Mail services is improving in those areas, there is still concern about it, which has been exacerbated in our area by Consignia's apparent plans to slash the number of pillar boxes so as to save £1 million.
Mr. Hoyle: I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem that we face is that there is no relationship between the consumer and what is taking place; that is my worry as well.
I represent a rural area with an urban core—a town of 35,000 people—so I shall take Chorley and the districts around it as typical, and outline the situation that I do not want to see. I am sure that everyone can envisage it.

179WH
In the commercial sector, lots of people will be running up and down in different coloured striped suits and different hats to deliver the mail at different doors. Then one or two of those people, in their different outfits and different little vans, might bring competition to the areas just outside that sector; Postman Pat might be consigned to them as well—but who will want the rural areas? Who will want to deliver to a farm on the moor near Chorley? No one.
All the firms will want the commercial sector, and that is where all the competition will be, as it was when the buses were deregulated. In the city centres one could not move for bus after bus, whereas the rural services were like a forgotten species. The same thing will happen with postal services if we are not careful, and that is why I hope that we will change direction—that we will scrap the name Consignia, bring back the Royal Mail brand and ensure that all services are protected in both urban and rural communities. We must ensure that the services provided by the good people who work for the Post Office in Chorley can continue, without the worry that Postcomm is causing them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is evident that many more hon. Members wish to speak than signified a wish to do so before the debate. I remind hon. Members that notification is helpful, because it allows some selectorial wisdom to be applied.
9.45 am
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on raising this important subject, which is of concern to many hon. Members, as the attendance at today's debate shows. However. I also gently chide the hon. Gentleman, because when he talks about Postcomm being his Government's Railtrack, he must remember that the man who wound up Railtrack is the same man who, when he was Secretary of State for of Trade and Industry, originally created Postcomm. That man is presently the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and he has a track record of this sort of thing.
It is no pleasure to anybody in the House to see the Post Office in the state that it is today, with the problems that it faces. Those problems are disturbing because, as has rightly been said, the universal service is well regarded throughout the country, and its continued maintenance is considered essential. When the Minister sums up the debate, no doubt he will tell us that we should all relax, because for the first time, the universal service has been enshrined in legislation. However, its provision was never in doubt before, whereas now there are doubts about whether the Post Office will still be able to afford it.
I am sorry—I keep referring to the Post Office, but I should, of course, be saying "Consignia". I join the hon. Member for Chorley in his plea about the silly name that the organisation has adopted. Nobody recognises it, and the change was a useless waste of money. Perhaps the organisation could go back to its original name, which was well understood and respected.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that in many parts of the country people
180WH
are not receiving the basic universal service at the moment, because of union intransigence, managerial incompetence or a subtle combination of both? Indeed, Consignia is in danger of being penalised by the regulator because it is already failing to provide the service that people have a right to expect.
Mr. McLoughlin: I always agree with my hon. Friend. He is right about the services in certain areas of the country with specific problems. In my constituency, which is a large rural one, the Post Office is held in high regard and so are the postmen who deliver our mail. The uncertainty that they currently face is very worrying for them.
The situation has not been helped by certain remarks. The Secretary of State, in a recent debate on the Floor of the House, accused some Conservative Members of scaremongering about the future of the Post Office—but the scaremongering has been done by some of the senior management in the Post Office. When the chief executive appeared before a Select Committee just before Christmas, he let slip that there might be 30,000 redundancies. If that was not scaremongering, I do not know what is.
I want to keep my contribution short and to the point. The Post Office provides a good service, but that does not mean that it cannot adapt. It needs to adapt. Some time ago, when I occupied the position now occupied by the Minister, I had responsibility for it and it was well aware of the challenges presented by e-mail and the faster communications that we all want. How the organisation raises its game to respond to that challenge is vital, and I urge the Minister to treat the management of the transition with great care. Perhaps he will tell us what powers he has over Postcomm, the regulator. I know that that is a moot point; one is never sure what powers Secretaries of State have over regulators. Listening to the Secretary of State for Transport, one might think that he had never interfered with Tom Winsor, but Tom Winsor gives a different account. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says.
The speed of change worries the many postmen who deliver our service, and who are welcomed when they do so. The Government must keep that in mind; it is no good their saying, "It's the regulator," because they created the regulator in the first place. Some hon. Members who are complaining about the regulator now voted to have one, and for this system of running the Post Office. What we have now is the Government's great third way, which they are coming to regret, because it does not seem to be working very well.
There is also great concern about the future of the post office network. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the speed of post office closures, which has increased dramatically over the past few years. The Government will say that there were many closures during 18 years of Conservative Government—but I have never argued that post offices would never close. They will close because people retire and sell the premises, and it is sometimes difficult to replace them. However, the number of closures last year—some 500—is way beyond what happened before. If the Minister chides me about the number of closures under the Conservative Government, I shall reply that over the five years that this Government have been in office,

181WH
closures have run at double the rate that they did at any period during our 18 years. The Government's record is not good.
There is wide support for the Post Office in the House. However, that does not mean that it does not have to recognise and manage change and become more competitive. If it does not, the huge price rises that the hon. Member for Chorley suggested might be in the pipeline as a result of the changes that the Post Office faces will take place, and it will go into terminal decline. That will not be good for the country, and it certainly will not be good for the many rural areas that rely on their postal service.
9.52 am
Dr. Gavin Strang: I am afraid that time will not allow me to respond to all the interesting points made by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on having initiated this timely debate on the Post Office and the Royal Mail, and thank him for the tremendous job that he has done in campaigning to try to retain this vital public service. He has articulated the sense of alarm and foreboding that pervades the people of this country at the prospect of the road that we are taking. There is a fear that enormous damage will be done, and a British institution that provides a great public service will wither away. The concern not only is felt by trade unions and people in the Labour party, but extends throughout the population.
I shall quote a paragraph from a document produced by Postcomm in June 2001, called "Promoting Effective Competition in UK Postal Services":
"In introducing competition, Postcomm must act in a manner best calculated to ensure the provision of a universal service. Postcomm notes that this is not necessarily the same as ensuring Consignia provides a universal service if it could be provided in other ways, nor does it imply that the universal service is equivalent to Consignia's current range of products. For instance, Consignia's current operations and range of services generally do more than the minimum required to satisfy the universal service requirement in the Postal Services Act 2000".
I repeat:
"Postcomm notes that this is not necessarily the same as ensuring Consignia provides a universal service".
What does that mean? I grew up in rural Scotland, and my hon. Friend is well aware of the situation there. Does it mean that in rural areas the royal mail will be delivered by someone who is not a postman or postwoman? Are we talking about privatisation? That would be utterly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of people who reside in rural areas.
We have heard alarming stories to the effect that some people's post may not be delivered to their doors, so presumably some pensioners will no longer receive that universal daily service. I do not believe those stories, but it is important that my hon. Friend the Minister should knock any such rumours on the head today, and confirm that the Government will not allow postmen and postwomen to be replaced by people from a private company. It is vital that the universal service, at a universal price, should remain.
182WH
The Minister may have read the article in The Scotsman the other day by Bill Jamieson, a great liberal free-market thinker. He says:
"Scare stories abound of no post before lunch-time (a state some say has already arrived), of 70p letters and the end of all mail deliveries north of Watford. Why can't the Post Office just stay as it is? Because it's bad, its broken, and its bust. That's why."
The majority of British people totally reject that. My experience of the Royal Mail in my constituency, where I have lived for more than 30 years, is that it provides an excellent service. I have lived in two locations and our mail has always been delivered in the morning. In fact, most people in Edinburgh have their mail delivered in the morning. We do not have a second delivery at Newcraighall, although there was one at Portobello. I am very much in favour of a second delivery, which should be introduced in areas where it is not already provided. The internet is fine, but it is no substitute for a decent Royal Mail delivery. We cannot possibly argue that we are delivering better public services if we eliminate the second delivery in some areas. Providing better services means extending the second delivery as far as is practical, although I accept that will happen only in densely populated areas within a certain distance of the local post office depot.
Ever since my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions made his original announcement, I have maintained a long correspondence on the future of the sub-post office network. The most recent letter that I received from the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is dated 22 November 2001. It relates to a concern of which the Minister will be aware, because of the situation in his own constituency—the fact that although the Government have taken significant action on rural post offices, they have not done the same for the sub-post offices most at threat. Those are the sub-post offices a high proportion of whose business is benefits business, and they are often on peripheral council estates, where the whole business depends on the footfall—to use the jargon—generated by people coming to claim their pensions and other benefits.
I am worried about the fact that a reduction in the geographical distribution of the sub-post office network is envisaged. My aim—and, I am sure, the objective of other hon. Members in the Chamber—is to ensure that that does not happen. The Prime Minister sent out the message that the Government's objective was not only to halt the decline of rural post offices but to deal with the problems affecting urban post offices.
I wanted to talk about the universal bank, plans for which have been curtailed, and to say something about making Post Office services universal, because some sub-post offices offer some services and others offer other services. However, time does not allow me to go into those matters, so I shall conclude by saying that the Post Office is a great British institution. That is not to say that it cannot be improved—but I trust that we will not go down the road proposed by Postcomm.
9.59 am
Sir Robert Smith: Fortunately, a last-minute change in my diary enabled me to be here, because I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)

183WH
on the excellent timing of the debate. The Minister has some questions to answer, which could help at least to reduce some fears.
Mine is a rural Scottish constituency in an area where there are many other rural constituencies. Hon. Members have already outlined how worrying Postcomm's proposals are for us and our constituents, and have talked about our great respect for the individual people in Royal Mail who deliver the post and provide a good service. In speaking of the universal service obligation, it is important to recognise that such areas are already penalised by the digital divide, as the Minister knows only too well. Yesterday, a constituent at my surgery said that BT had told him that the fact that his computer hangs up all the time on a bog standard modern was not its problem. Apparently, BT only has to get his voice through the line, because that is its universal service obligation. The worry is that competition will lead to the downgrading of the universal service obligation.
That is the most feared part of the current consultation. If one presses the regulator on how the circle will be squared if Consignia cannot cope after losing so much money, and on the fact that its understanding of how competition works will damage the universal service obligation, the regulator's terrifying response is, "We can always redefine the universal service obligation"—the obligation to our constituents, that is—"and reduce the burden." The idea that there is a threat to reduce the service to our constituents is not scaremongering; it comes from the consultation document.
Even more frightening for sensible, rational decision making, is the fact that the Government have published a document that is meant to guarantee the universal service obligation when there is competition, yet they have still to consult on how that obligation should be defined. That will be addressed in the next phase of consultation. It would be far more sensible to consult the public about what they require from the universal service obligation, and then consider how that can be delivered and maintained.
I confirm what has already been said by the European Commission: it is perfectly in order to levy the other operators that are allowed to compete to cross-subsidise the universal service obligation, if that remains with Consignia. Apparently the regulator does not have the power to do that at the moment, and it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed how such a power could be provided. Would primary legislation be necessary to confer it, or could that be done by statutory instrument? It would be even more reassuring if the Government confirmed that they are drafting the necessary legislation at least to ensure that the full range of options is available.
Finally, it is important that the Minister should explain in what form the Government envisage the universal service obligation surviving. Will he confirm that it will be retained—and not merely as a basic minimum to keep everyone happy and enable the Government to tick the box that says that there is a universal service obligation? We want a real universal service obligation that delivers to our rural constituents.
10.2 am
Geraldine Smith: In making this brief contribution, I shall confine my remarks to the Postcomm proposals that are currently the subject of consultation. I firmly believe that the proposals are ill founded and premature, and if implemented, will have a devastating effect on British postal services. Both the universal service obligation at an affordable price and the Post Office Counters network will be put at risk. Equally important is the fact that thousands of postal workers' jobs will put in jeopardy. Let us remember that that is in addition to the 30,000 jobs that are already threatened—a threat that has nothing to do with the postal regulator. Extra job losses would arise as a result of the regulator's actions.
As I said, the proposals are premature and will be implemented well in advance of the European proposals, which extend at least until 2009, and would provide for some sort of review before full liberalisation went ahead. That is not the case with Postcomm's proposals.
Postcomm's proposals come at a time when Consignia's financial position is already unsustainable. It is losing in excess of £1 million a day—the latest figure that I saw was £1.5 million—because it costs 28p to sort, distribute and deliver a letter bearing a 27p stamp. Yet when Postcomm said to the regulator last year that it wanted to put up the price of a first-class stamp by a penny, the regulator refused to allow that.
Sweden is often cited by Postcomm as an example of a liberated market that retains the universal service. If we followed the Swedish example, the price of a first-class stamp would be about 39p, but Postcomm has not said how much the ordinary public should pay for a stamp if competition is introduced into the postal service.
When the Post Office is losing money, it is ludicrous to propose that it open up one third of its most profitable business to competition in April. Let us be clear: we are not talking about fair competition, or ensuring a level playing field. The Post Office's competitors will not be required to provide a universal service at a uniform affordable tariff, nor will they have to sustain the unprofitable network of sub-post offices—not to mention the post bus service and all the other activities that the Post Office has taken on. On the contrary, they will be allowed to cherry-pick the most profitable town and city services that currently fund the unprofitable areas by cross-subsidy. Those competitors could include European postal operators, who will be able to cherry-pick our best services, yet their markets will still be closed to us. Their markets will not be opened up by European liberalisation. In my view, that demonstrates yet again the ill conceived nature of the proposals.
I am well aware that the Government take the view that the universal service obligation is not at risk because it is enshrined in legislation. They have formally committed the Post Office to maintaining a network of rural post offices and to preventing avoidable closures. I am sure that the Minister will reiterate those points in his reply to the debate. Upon examination, however, those commitments are not quite as good as they are cracked up to be. The standard of service apparently offered under the universal service obligation is substantially below that currently provided by the Post

185WH
Office. The obligation requires only one collection from all post boxes on every working day and one delivery to each home or premises in the United Kingdom.
All hon. Members will be aware that the vast majority of post boxes are cleared several times a day, especially those in major city centres, where boxes are cleared almost continually. The primary reason for clearing post boxes is not because they would overflow with mail if not cleared, but because it enables mail to be processed and sorted ahead of the evening peak period. If mail could not be cleared throughout the day, the postal service would not be able to cope with the evening peak, which would cause delays in delivering mail.
Although the other obligation is to provide a daily delivery to homes and premises, most urban areas, including Morecambe and Lancaster, in my area, receive two deliveries a day, not one, so the obligation would guarantee only a reduced service. That is all that the universal service obligation would give us, so it cannot be claimed as a benefit.
Mr. McLoughlin: One of the other Post Office proposals is for later deliveries to households. Does the hon. Lady agree that that would be dangerous for the small businesses in our constituencies? It would be yet another argument against small businesses locating in the countryside. They would want to be in the towns, which goes against some of the Government's other policies that are intended to spread the load in the rural areas.
Geraldine Smith: I agree. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That would lead to a reduction in services, and businesses would feel it.
We should remember that under the universal service obligation, the average household would be lucky to receive a delivery every other day, because mail would be caught up in the system. The primary duty of the regulator is to protect the universal service obligation, and to introduce competition only if it could benefit the consumer. We need to send a clear message to the regulator, to ensure that the Post Office's competitors are not businesses that are simply looking for an easy profit. It is my constituents, and the vast majority of British citizens throughout the United Kingdom, who rely upon the postal services. They are the real consumers. They do not want to see the postal service run down or post offices closed, nor do they want to see postmen and postwomen thrown on the dole.
I make my final point directly to the Minister. The Post Office is a publicly owned company, and the Government have responsibilities. It is not good enough for them simply to say, "There's an independent regulator so we can't do anything about it." I hope that he will tell me that he has made strong representations to the regulator, that common sense will prevail and that the British postal system will provide an excellent service to the public.
10.10 am
Mr. Michael Weir: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing this excellent debate. It must be rare to have near unanimity in the Chamber, and I hope that the Minister takes note of it.
186WH
Those who argue for greater competition within the postal service should reflect on how many operators are likely to want to take on deliveries to rural areas, especially the highlands and islands of Scotland. There may be a universal service obligation, but there is probably already much less of a service in those areas than in many other rural areas. In some island areas, the universal service obligation is little more than a joke.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several island communities, including some in my constituency, are already exempt from the universal service obligation? We are concerned, because we see the deregulation proposals as the thin end of the wedge.
Mr. Weir: Indeed, I was referring to that.
Even firms that already deliver parcels to the highlands and islands of Scotland charge much more than the charges in urban areas. That can only become worse under Postcomm's proposals. The universal service obligation may be enshrined in statute, but it is doubtful whether even that restricted obligation could survive the present proposals. In any event, current legislation would not prevent a substantial rise in prices or cut in deliveries. Consignia is no angel, as it has already considered ways of cutting deliveries, and one suspects that it would not be entirely unhappy if the universal service obligation were restricted. We are here to defend the Post Office and the delivery service, not Consignia.
I appreciate that the Government have suggested that they would insist on the retention of the universal service obligation, but I ask the Minister specifically: how will that be done if Consignia is losing business and haemorrhaging money? In the face of full-scale competition in which competitors cherry-pick the profitable parts of the business, how would one insist that a carrier continue with that obligation? Would the Government be prepared to give massive subsidies to a private company to continue that service? If the proposals go ahead, after Railtrack we could have Mailtrack.
The international comparisons are not encouraging. The Swedish example has already been cited. Prices there have increased by 72 per cent., and deliveries in rural areas are not made to the door, but residents collect mail from cluster points on the postman's route. The number of post offices in Sweden has halved from 1,900 to 900 in 10 years. The profits of the Swedish post office peaked in 1999, but it now runs a deficit that approaches £20 million a year, and staffing has been reduced by 20 per cent. In New Zealand, which is similar to Scotland in many ways, people in smaller towns now wait an extra day or two for mail.
The changes proposed by Postcomm would have a dramatic and detrimental effect on the rural areas of Scotland, which have suffered badly from the impact of foot and mouth and the downturn in the tourism industry—and I suspect that that is true of other parts of the United Kingdom as well. It is hard enough to find alternative employment in such areas, without our sacrificing services that already exist.
The Post Office is part of the fabric of rural life. We have already heard about the continuing threat to sub-post offices. It has been calculated that 80 per cent. of

187WH
rural sub-post offices could go in some areas of Scotland, as a result of a combination of Postcomm's proposals and the proposals for automated credit transfer.
As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) said, the Post Office runs a post bus service in many rural areas. The impact would therefore be not only on the postal service but on rural transport services. Under the proposals those would go, because they would be uneconomic for Consignia to continue. How do the Government propose to upgrade transport in rural areas to take account of falling services?
The proposals for the future of Consignia are thoroughly bad and should be rethought. The idea of a cheap universal postal service was introduced in 1840 because of the number of individual carriers who charged what they liked and caused distress. That postal service is now under threat, and ending it would be a disaster for Scotland.
10.15 am
Mr. John Grogan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on his vigorous and passionate introduction to this debate. I shall make three brief points on Postcomm, Postwatch and good practice in Selby.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) had it right when he said that Postcomm's first duty and responsibility should be clearly to define the universal service obligation and how we deliver it at an affordable and geographically uniform price. The idea that consultation should follow in the autumn clearly gets things the wrong way round and beggars belief.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley in that I believe that there is still hope of persuading the regulator to change its mind. Indeed, there must be hope, because the regulator must listen to parliamentary opinion, whether it is expressed here or in the three early-day motions. We want a steady-as-she-goes, cautious, unspectacular regulator that carefully and cautiously opens the postal market to competition. We do not want a gung-ho regulator. The decisions that the regulator makes in the next few weeks will define its role and how it is seen.
There is hope. The Financial Times carried a quote from Graham Corbett, the chairman of Postcomm, but no relation to Railtrack's Gerald:
"I don't think we are going to stand absolutely rigid…if we are presented with good reasons for changing our minds."
The article goes on:
"Postcomm said there had been discussions with civil servants at the Department of Trade and Industry, but insisted no direct pressure was applied."
I hope that those discussions were, and continue to be, robust. Indeed, the language beloved of Richard Mottram might not be entirely inappropriate, because it is crucial that Postcomm listens to parliamentary opinion.
An organisation called Postwatch is the voice of the consumer, and it, too, must be much louder and clearer in the next few weeks. Postwatch has nine regional councils, and I rang the northern council in Bradford yesterday. It is administered by the Bradford chamber of
188WH
commerce, which is a fine, upstanding body that does a great deal for the city. It is crucial that Postwatch in the north shows that it is not a prisoner of big business interests, but that it will represent the whole north. I note that Postwatch has particular responsibility o serve the interests of the disabled, the chronically sick, pensioners, people on low incomes and those who live in rural areas.
Postwatch in the north of England has invited all Members of Parliament to its annual public meeting on 19 March—next week, after the consultation ends. I asked what views it would put to Postcomm, but it said that it could not tell me because it was going to feed them to national Postwatch, which would amalgamate those with other regional views and pass the results to Postcomm. I call on Postwatch in the north clearly to declare its regional views, because the age of devolution has come. It must present those views to next week's public meeting. There are rumours in the north that Postwatch there takes a slightly less gung-ho attitude than national Postwatch, which, however, seems to be a bit of a lapdog in certain respects. Let us prove that and get those views out in the public domain.
I want to draw attention to an example of good practice from Selby, because this has been a rather pessimistic debate in many ways. I must praise a gentleman called Bill Earnshaw, who is the business development manager—I think that is his title—for Consignia in the north. His job is to act as an entrepreneur and to reopen rural sub-post offices. In the Selby area, he regularly holds meetings with the Countryside Agency and the Village Enterprise and Rural Shops Association, which is run by a lady called Dorothy Muir and aims to help village post offices and shops. As a result, action is being taken on the three post offices that have closed in my constituency since 1997. One has reopened in Drax. We are having a meeting about another—Appleton Roebuck—on Friday and there are still problems with finding a new postmaster or postmistress for Sillingfleet. Co-operation between agencies can make a difference, and the Post Office is to be commended for that. The danger is that such initiatives will be swamped if the proposals go through unamended.
10.19
Hywel Williams: In the 1960s and 1970s, people in Wales campaigned tirelessly to have swyddfa post, which means post office in English, studded above the door. That is understandable. Consignia, however, is a nonsense word, and I do not know what it means in English, let alone Welsh. While Consignia is a nonsense word, the Postcomm proposals clearly are not nonsense. As other hon. Members have said, they are a threat to the universal service and the universal tariff. I want to consider the effect on rural areas such as my constituency, Caernarfon.
Under legislation, there must be a delivery and a collection every working day, but what does that mean for small, rural businesses such as those in my constituency? People who have set up new businesses there represent the cutting edge of rural life—they are the entrepreneurs of the future and they depend on the post—but the proposals are a serious structural threat to those businesses.

189WH
The problem is not just the cost of individual letters, but the fact that the terms will be skewed. There will not be a level playing field. The situation in my constituency regarding sorting and delivery is bad enough. Community councils and individuals in my area have raised the issue of the number of letters taken to Chester—and, at the weekend, to Manchester—to be sorted. A letter from a community such as Sarn Mellteyrn is delivered to Rhoshirwaun, just up the road, after being taken to Chester or Manchester.
Chris Ruane: I, too, represent a north Wales constituency and I know that the postal service in north Wales has been centralised in Chester. Will the hon. Gentleman congratulate Consignia on having made some sop to Welsh pride? It has located the toilet block for the Chester offices in Wales.
Hywel Williams: That is welcome, if minor, news.
Will a commercial organisation cherry-pick the service? Would the French, the German or even the Swedish post office deliver a letter from Rhostryfan to Rhosgadfan for 27p? I doubt it tremendously.
The other effect that I worry about is that on sub-post offices. After a huge effort, the people of Llithfaen in my constituency bought their local post office and shop. This is not a private finance initiative venture or a public-private partnership; the local community is taking responsibility and working to counter out-migration and to revitalise the community. People from other communities in Wales visit Llithfaen to see what is happening there—some came from Cefn Pennar recently. It is a model for small, rural communities, and it is under threat.
Sweden is quoted by some as an example of which to beware, but is discounted by others. The discounters—the supporters of liberalisation—say that Sweden is a small country. So is Wales. Sweden, they say, has a large rural hinterland. So does Wales. They also say that Sweden has a right-wing Government who are fundamentally at odds with the values of the community that they govern. I shall say nothing about the situation in Wales.
The Minister will reaffirm the Government's commitment to the vitality of rural life, but the Postcomm proposals represent one more pressure on rural communities. They are not welcome in Wales and they should be withdrawn.
10.23 am
Geraint Davies: Consignia faces losses of £1.5 million every day, as well as the loss of 30,000 jobs, and the regulator is to introduce changes in April—a year ahead of the European Union. It is estimated by Consignia that the EU liberalisation measures alone will cost the company £500 million a year. On top of that, the UK regulator will cost it an extra £250 million. Those extra costs are additional to the job losses that have already been announced. Although our European counterparts are ready to go in April, there will be no reciprocal opportunity for Consignia to compete in mainland Europe. Frankly, that smacks of unfair competition in its worst form.
190WH
Studying the EU proposals, one finds that they are characterised by progressive lowering of prices and weights in order to introduce competition gradually so that the impact on universal provision at a uniform price in terms of the customer can be examined over time. If one compares that approach with that of the regulator in Britain, the difference is that between a gradualist, sensible approach with the customer in mind and a big bang, the outcome of which is unclear in terms of market meltdown, services and prices. The regulator should definitely think again.
The National Audit Office has already done some work, which resulted in the report, "Opening the Post: How Postcomm are Regulating Postal Services", which suggests that the current regime of reducing real prices, requiring universal provision at a uniform tariff and accelerating competitive access will not hold up. It asks many questions about the sustainability of the universal service.
The regulator is completely unsatisfactory, even on the question of who would pick up the pieces in the event of Consignia's collapse. He seems to think that someone would pick them up, realising that there was a real opportunity. Martin Stanley, chief executive of Postcomm, said that cherry-picking would be impossible, because of the requirement to deliver to all households. When a member of the Public Accounts Committee pointed out that one simply had to deliver 90 per cent. oneself and the remaining 10 per cent. through Royal Mail so as to cover the rural areas, he seemed surprised at such great business insight on competitive activity.

I have no faith in the regulators; the propositions are completely untested and constitute a massive risk to the British public. There are no safeguards akin to those elsewhere in the EU and the Government should demand harmonisation with our EU counterparts in terms of liberalisation of the marketplace, so that we have a level playing field.
It is outrageous of the regulator to allow only six weeks for consultation, in breach of the Government guidance, which stipulates 12 weeks. That means that the Public Accounts Committee can interview the regulator, but not Consignia, because that interview is scheduled for after the consultation closure deadline. Hon. Members and the Government should demand an extension to the consultation, given the extent of public interest.
Members should also demand that the liberalisation reforms be delayed and restructured so that we can go hand in hand with our EU counterparts. Nine out of 10 people in Britain think that they receive from the Post Office a good service that provides value for money, so why destroy it? I call on the Government to act. They have been standing by, as the single shareholder, waiting for the regulator to produce its proposals. We have had the proposals, and they are unacceptable.
10.28 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on introducing an excellent debate. He made his points sharply and captured a consensus that I largely endorse.
The regulator has come in for a certain amount of caning, but one must say that the consultation exercise has had two beneficial effects. It has opened up a public

191WH
debate on the desirability of competition in the Post Office—how much there should be and how quickly it should happen—and stirred up a debate on the nature of the universal service obligation. What does it mean? Is there a social obligation? The radical and rather contrarian views of the regulator have, at the very least, helped us to focus on those questions.
As to whether there should be competition in the Post Office, most of us would argue that, in most markets, competition is desirable. It improves performance and makes people more conscious of costs. There is certainly plenty of inefficiency in the Post Office. I was recently taken round a highly mechanised sorting office in which a large group of postal workers were sorting envelopes. When I asked what they were doing, I was told that, when the machinery was ordered, someone forgot to specify the need to sort A4 envelopes, so they have to be taken out by hand and sorted separately.
The system is replete with such incompetence. A degree of competition to force Post Office management to pay attention to issues of efficiency is surely right, but the problem is that this is a peculiar industry in that it operates on a network, like the railways. If one reduces volumes in a network, one drives up unit costs. One cannot duplicate a network, which is a problem that was unforeseen when the railways were privatised. The more cream-skimming or cherry-picking that is allowed, the greater the danger that competition will push costs up rather than cut them. Price capping, such as applies in the postal service, means that the Post Office, rather than earning profits, suffers increasingly large losses.
How fast the growth of competition should proceed is an issue for debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Chorley that the balance struck by the European Union is probably about right, but the British regulator seems to have guessed the competition sustainable in the industry. Consignia argues—rightly or not I do not know, but the matter needs clarification—that the limit of 4,000 bulk items proposed by the regulator would account for half the Post Office's business. The regulator, on the other hand, seems to believe that it would account for only 25 to 30 per cent. That is a massive difference that would make an enormous difference to the economics of the Post Office. Will the Minister clarify his understanding of the new competitive threshold?
If the regulator pushes ahead with maximum competition, some consequences are inevitable, as we are already seeing. First, the Post Office will not be able to proceed with investment, because it will not have the cash to fund it. I can cite a good example from Twickenham, where a post office with a TW postcode is the only one in London that delivers within the first-class mail target of 92 per cent. It is a very efficient sorting office, but the machinery is antiquated and must be replaced within two years.
As a result of that, the Post Office sought planning permission a few years ago for a new development. The matter is controversial and I shall not go into the details. The new sorting office has been built and is sitting there, but the Post Office is not moving in. When I asked why, I was told that the Consignia board has frozen the investment because it does not have the cash. The postal service has suffered 20 years of the Treasury taking out dividends, which is now being compounded by a profit squeeze.
192WH
The cut in services is another damaging consequence of the way in which the competitive regime is evolving. We may consider the more dramatic possibilities, such as the withdrawal of elements of home-to-home delivery. The single delivery pilot scheme at first sight seems innocuous, but the feedback that we are receiving from a large number of self-employed people working at home is that enormous damage could be done. Segregating the bulk business of large-scale companies and giving them priority service disadvantages not only households, but small companies. There will be a lot of fallout from that decision.
We need to take a balanced view about the competition that the Post Office can reasonably sustain. That is the first issue. My second point relates to the meaning of the universal service obligation. I am increasingly confused by the arguments made by people in the industry. Many hon. Members have said that our understanding of that obligation is that it is a social obligation to protect rural areas, such as the far-flung parts of Scotland, which are costlier to service than urban areas. That is the right thing to do, but the message I have had from the regulator and his staff is that they reject that argument completely. They say that it is just as easy to deliver in Orkney and Shetland as in central London and that there is no problem associated with rural areas.
I have not been able to analyse the data, but I would like the Government to explain their understanding of the problem. If they share Postcomm's analysis, the basis on which the universal service obligation has been predicated for many years falls to the floor.
Mr. Carmichael: Some of my hon. Friends and I recently met Martin Stanley, chief executive of Postcomm, who told us that that part of Consignia's loss amounts to a mere £80 million a year. His argument was that the universal service obligation would be safe in a deregulated market because banks, building societies and credit card companies would want the same standard of delivery. He said that those big mail users would be the saviours of the universal service obligation in communities such as mine. Does my hon. Friend agree that that represents breathtaking complacency from Postcomm, which is surely born out of sheer ignorance?
Dr. Cable: It is certainly highly optimistic. I seriously wonder about the sustainability of rural areas if it rests on such acts of faith.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to correct what he said a moment ago, as he was either wrong or does not understand. He said that universal service protects rural deliveries in Scotland, but it does not apply only to Scotland. Huge rural and remote areas of the United Kingdom outside Scotland rely on universal service.
Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood. I referred to Scotland, which provides perhaps the most extreme example of geographical spread.
David Hamilton: I represent not a far-flung place in Scotland, but a semi-rural area with small villages. Following bus deregulation, our local authority

193WH
spends £1 million a year on subsidised transport. The proposals would have an effect not only on far-flung areas, but wherever there are villages in Great Britain.
Dr. Cable: I entirely agree. The problem is subtle, as the hon. Gentleman rightly emphasises. As a result of taking those interventions, I have used my 10 minutes, so I shall wrap up with two quick points.

The regulator brought to the surface the question of how the universal service obligation would be financed. The assumption all along has been that Consignia covers the cross-subsidisation, but as it makes losses it has found that impossible. I have asked why the new competitors cannot pay a levy to the Government that they would use to fund the universal service obligation. Mr. Corbett asked the same question on the "Today" programme on the morning that he launched his consultation, but he has never asked it publicly since. I have been told by the industry that someone from the Department of Trade and Industry rang him up to tell him that he was treading on thin ice and that it would be a good idea to say no more about it. The argument is that the Government forgot to create legislative powers to impose such a levy.
I would like clarification from the Minister. Were it possible, it would be sensible for the new cream-skimming competitors to pay a levy to contribute to the maintenance of the universal service obligation. They pay VAT, of course, but VAT goes to the Treasury, not the industry. Have the Government considered that option? What are the legislative possibilities for introducing it?
Another speaker touched on my final point: we talk about the universal service obligation, but the real need is not in the mainstream Consignia or Post Office business, but in that of Post Office Counters. That is where the threat to rural areas and small communities lies. The debate is separate, as that is a separate part of the Post Office, but it is worth flagging up the fact that the doubts remain as big as ever, despite all our discussions on the subject.
We still face a looming disaster. In a year, the counters business will have lost more than £400 million with no obvious sign of replacement income. Unless the Government clarify quickly how many people will be given the new post office card account to keep them in the network, there is a danger that that part of the Post Office will collapse, quite apart from the Royal Mail business.
10.39 am
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing the debate, which has been interesting. Many concerns have been expressed about the state of our postal services by hon. Members from a range of parties and parts of the country. At times, however, I thought that I had blundered into a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party. There are clearly marked differences of view among Labour Members on the future of our Post Office and Consignia.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, including the Liberal Democrats, have spoken on the
194WH
general theme that having competition is fine, but not too much and not yet. We must consider the background to the debate on the Postcomm proposals. The European Union has already agreed to phase in much greater competition in postal services from next year, so the only real debate is on how quickly or slowly that is done. The hon. Gentleman made a case for extending the consultation period, but even if it were extended by a month, six months or 10 years, I doubt that he or his hon. Friends, who make the same arguments, would change their views.
Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Postcomm's economic analysis has been published only in the past few days? It is unrealistic and unfair to expect the Government or Consignia to have made a rational appraisal of it.
Mr. Waterson: The problem is that the postal service and Consignia do not have any time left to get their act together. The arguments of the hon. Member for Chorley would be much more persuasive if our postal services were not in such an appalling mess. The theme of improved service to consumers peppers the Postcomm proposals and I remind him that Consignia is still miserably failing to hit its modest delivery targets—except in Twickenham, apparently.
Consignia has the worst industrial relations of any organisation in the economy. It loses £1.5 million a day and 1 million items of mail a week—it is simply in a mess. Hon. Members do not have to listen to me; they could listen to the regular interviews with Allan Leighton, the chairman of Consignia, on the "Today" programme.
Geraldine Smith: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Post Office is in a mess; it provides a good service to most areas of the country. I have had only one complaint about the Post Office from my constituents since I became a Member of Parliament. The Post Office provides the cheapest service in Europe. It is losing £1.5 million a day because the regulator will not allow it to put up the price of stamps. Its hands are tied behind its back.
Mr. Waterson: That says it all. During the debate, many crocodile tears have been shed about how awful it would be if the proposals were introduced, because they will put up the price of stamps. Two bodies are rather keen to put up the price of stamps: the trade union—which, incidentally, sponsors the hon. Lady—and Consignia's management.
Geraldine Smith: The Communication Workers Union does not sponsor me. There is no direct sponsorship of Labour Members of Parliament, but I do have an interest; I was a postal worker for 18 years. I think that I understand the industry.
Mr. Waterson: I am prepared to give way to the hon. Lady again if she is willing to contest the list that I have,

195WH
which counts her among a number of hon. Members who are constituency-supported CWU Members of Parliament.
Geraldine Smith: The hon. Gentleman made the point that I was sponsored by the CWU. I am not; I have no interest to declare, and never have done. I would be grateful if he withdrew his remarks.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Order. May we return, broadly, to our business?
Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Atkinson. A serious allegation has been made against an hon. Member. It should be withdrawn, because it cannot be substantiated. That would be the right way to make progress. The issue should not be left in this manner.
Mr. Waterson: The issue is one of Members' interests, and the hon. Lady has made her position perfectly clear. What the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said is not unparliamentary.
Mr. Hoyle: I think he should do the decent thing.
Mr. Waterson: I am happy to withdraw the suggestion that the hon. Lady is sponsored by the CWU, but I notice that she did not contest my assertion that her constituency party is supported by it.
Postcomm's proposals are designed to help the consumer, and it believes that
"customers' interests will generally be best served in a competitive market…Competition promises to give most customers improvements in service quality.
Consignia's current monopoly in the letters market is not working in the best interests of postal users or Consignia".
It adds that
"Consignia has consistently failed to meet its own delivery targets."
It is worth reminding hon. Members that, for each year of the previous Conservative Government, the Post Office as it then was—and, I hope, will be again—made profits. Problems are arising because it is making substantial losses.
Mr. Colin Challen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Post Office is making losses because it faces a huge investment backlog that was created by 90 per cent. of its profits under the Conservative Government going to the Treasury?
Mr. Waterson: On those matters, I am happier to listen to the views of the chairman of Consignia. He admits that costs are out of control, which is why Consignia has a programme to save £1.2 billion of costs and to shed some 30,000 jobs. Attacks on the regulator have peppered the debate, but this Government set up the regulator two years ago and all Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Chorley, voted to set up Postcomm.
Mr. Carmichael: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman for seven minutes, and I am still no wiser. Is the Conservative party in favour of implementing the Postcomm deregulation proposals?
Mr. Waterson: May I come to the main part of my argument? The regulator was set up by this
196WH
Government, not by the Conservative party. The consultation process ends this Friday, I think, at which time Ministers must make a decision about Postcomm's proposals. I agree with the point that was made about the dividend. When will Ministers recognise the fact that they cannot legitimately expect to take a dividend from Consignia while it is making such substantial losses?
The universal service obligation is not being met and in parts of the country people are not receiving daily deliveries. In many other areas, the obligations on next-day delivery of first-class mail are not being met. Sooner or later, irrespective of the competition proposals, the regulator may have to take action against Consignia because of its failure to meet its current obligations. Again, Postcomm, the regulator, makes it clear in its proposals that the universal service obligation must be protected. That is a central, statutory obligation on the regulator. I do not think that the Government would allow anything that would scrap the universal service obligation. Indeed, if they tried to do so, we would oppose them.
We have heard about the continuing closure of sub-post offices although, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, that is a separate debate. Last year, a record 547 post offices closed throughout the country. We are experiencing the aftermath of legislation passed by the Government that allegedly gives Consignia commercial freedom, but in reality allows Ministers to interfere in every level of Consignia's management. Only last Friday, The Times reported that Ministers were said to be deliberately interfering with Consignia's wish to get on with announcing proposals to bring itself back to profit. I turn now to the role of the union.
Mr. Carmichael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Waterson: I shall not. I am running out of time.
The union is rather like the Bourbons: it has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. In an interview in The Times, Mr. Billy Hayes was quoted as saying that the union may consider withdrawal from the Labour party at its annual conference. We are witnessing a debate on internal strife in the Labour movement rather than the interests of consumers, but the real issues are improving postal services for consumers, improving the reliability of postal services throughout the country, protecting Consignia's dedicated staff who deliver the mail to our homes and securing a future for our Post Office in the 21st century.
Postcomm's proposals require serious consideration, and we look forward to the Minister's decision on them. Whatever happens must happen quickly, or there will be no Consignia or Post Office for us to debate.
10.49 am
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Like so many others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to his long-standing interest in postal matters.
My hon. Friend and other hon. Members raised a huge number of important points, and I shall endeavour to cover them during the last 10 minutes of the debate.

197WH
Given the turnout, it almost goes without saying that there is real strength of feeling among hon. Members of all parties about the proposals. I shall address commercial freedom and then move on to the dividend, the name and the substantive question of Postcomm's proposals.
Mr. Carmichael: Does the Minister accept that today's turnout and the number of hon. Members who attended but could not be called to speak show that the subject should not be dealt with in Westminster Hall? Will he ask the Leader of the House to find time for a proper debate on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Alexander: I welcome the opportunity to have the debate. All hon. Members had the opportunity to attend and its virtue was established by the contributions that were made.
Many of the observations reflected the fact that in March 2001, for the first time, Consignia became a plc operating in a regulated postal market with a newly defined relationship with the Government, as sole shareholder. That decision was taken against the background of the Post Office in the latter years of the Conservative Government. I remind Opposition Members that it was deprived of investment and direction during many of those years.
As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) pointed out, the Post Office slipped behind its competitors and also allowed its relationship with its work force to deteriorate to the extent that over half the United Kingdom's industrial action occurred in the company. The market is growing increasingly competitive, with competition from new forms of communications ranging from courier and express services to the progressive opening of the letters market. Consignia's problems are, therefore, deep seated and long standing, and its current poor performance results from its failure to resolve such problems over many years.
The explicit aim of Government policy, which was embodied in the Postal Services Act 2000, is to give the Post Office greater commercial freedom. Not only Post Office management, but the unions called for such freedom and believed it vital if the organisation was to address the needs of a changing marketplace and invest in new services. Other elements of that freedom included a new dividend regime that gave Consignia the right to retain a greater share of profits that could be reinvested in the core business and the ability to borrow to finance strategic investments.
At least two hon. Members mentioned the dividend payment. I confirm that, at present, the Government have not decided whether to accept a dividend from Consignia for 2001. A decision will be taken in the context of the forthcoming strategic plan and the review of capital structure that is due in the weeks to come. Additionally, the dividend regime is based on Consignia's own strategic plan and was designed, subject to Consignia meeting its profit target, to be half the rate at which profits were moved from the business under the Conservatives.
The new commercial arrangements of the business and the new arms-length relationship with the Government are designed to give Consignia the
198WH
commercial freedom to develop new products and services, to invest, to price commercially for business users and to borrow for growth investments. That freedom was, and is, necessary to enable the business to respond to competition and to meet changing consumer demands in a better way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley raised the name and offered a view that has widespread appeal—my discussions with my constituents show that. However, the decision to use "Consignia" was a commercial decision taken when the company was established as a plc. As such, it continues to use its Post Office and Royal Mail brands throughout the country. However, my hon. Friend may be comforted by the fact that Allan Leighton, the interim chairman, has made his explicit view on the name clear. He said that, although it is not his first priority because of the company's circumstance, he is reviewing all aspects of the business.
Chris Ruane: Is the Minister aware that the Government are considering a supermarket regulator? One name that has been bandied about is Offtrolley. If Postcomm were to consider a change, does he think that that would be more suitable and appropriate?
Mr. Alexander: As several hon. Members pointed out, the consultation ends on Friday, so I suggest that my hon. Friend endeavours to bring the matter to the attention of Postcomm's commissioners before then.
Mr. McLoughlin: Can the Minister help us out? I believe that he referred to Allan Leighton as the temporary chairman. When do the Government expect to announce a full-time chairman?
Mr. Alexander: I used the term interim chairman. A process to appoint the permanent chairman of Consignia is under way, but we are constrained by the timetable operating on that, given that it is a public appointment and that we must follow the Nolan recommendations. We are making as much progress as possible, consistent with our obligations under the Nolan processes.
A further feature of the structures established in the 2000 Act—the basis of today's debate—is the regulatory reform necessary to promote and protect the consumer's interests. The Act established not only an independent regulator, Postcomm, but Postwatch, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said, is specifically charged with responsibility for dealing with consumer needs. Given the tenor of some contributions, I must emphasise that the approach to establishing an independent regulator was widely sought, not only in the House, but beyond.
In a document circulated to all hon. Members in September 1998, the CWU, the union representing many postal workers, urged the Government to establish exactly such an independent body. Recommendation 9 from the CWU states:
"A Regulatory agency to be known as Ofpost—comprising a small panel supported by specialist staff—should be created by statute and appointed by Government and act as independently as the public sector status of the Post Office legally permits."
Consumer interest remains of principal concern to the Government and is the central feature of postal services reform introduced by the Act. The maintenance of that

199WH
universal service, about which many hon. Members spoke, is of the highest priority. Our commitment is well demonstrated by the 2000 Act, which, for the first time, enshrined the universal service obligation in United Kingdom law, as several hon. Members made clear. In response to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), I reiterate that the legal obligation to maintain a universal service is the primary duty of the regulator.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine that the daily postal delivery service to every address, irrespective of location in the United Kingdom and at a uniform tariff, remains at the centre of our approach to the postal service.
Mr. David Kidney: Is there a lacuna in the legislation that prevents the regulator from charging a levy on incomers to subsidise the universal service?
Mr. Alexander: The terms of the 2000 Act are well known. Consideration was given by my predecessors at the Department of Trade and Industry to determine an appropriate financing arrangement to secure the universal service obligation. As many hon. Members have made clear, there is scope for the regulator to raise prices. Under the previous proposal introduced by Consignia, a decision was taken by Consignia to withdraw that application. That should not prejudge any future application by Consignia in relation to pricing, however. Postcomm is an independent body regulating the United Kingdom postal market.
Sir Robert Smith: Is the Minister saying that, if Postcomm misjudges the market and Consignia cannot deliver the universal service obligation under the regime proposed, the only option will be sticking up the price
200WH
and doing exactly what everyone fears? Prices will go through the roof to maintain the universal service obligation.
Mr. Alexander: No. I made it clear that there is scope in the 2000 Act for applications to be made to increase the price charged by Consignia for first and second-class stamps. Any determination would be made on the basis of merit and a decision would be forthcoming should any application be made.
I shall deal with the specific point regarding the timing of the consultation, given the strength of feeling communicated in today's debate and in an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies). The proposal document on which consultation is taking place follows a document issued by Postcomm in June 2001, which set out options for liberalising the market. That document established a timetable, including a 12-week consultation on those initial proposals to start in June 2001, and that such a proposal document would be set out at that stage.
In response to Opposition Members' observations, I emphasise that the regulatory body is independent and will be guided by representations made during the consultation. The Government must be mindful of the regulator's position, and of the regulator's primary duty to uphold the universal service obligation. I understand that, as of the start of the debate, neither Consignia nor the CWU had formally responded to Postcomm's proposals.
I turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham. With regard to the proposals, we would urge Consignia and Postcomm to see whether reconciliation can be achieved.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Order. We must move on to the next business. Before I call Mr. Oaten, I ask hon. Members who are leaving to do so quickly and quietly.

NHS Funding (South-East)
11 am
Mr. Mark Oaten: I welcome this opportunity to discuss funding for health services in the south-east. The debate is not a bid for more money for the health service; although I passionately believe that more money should come into the health service, the debate has narrow confines and I do not want to get into a party political argument about the extra resources that the national health service needs to enable it to deliver high-quality services. The debate is intended to examine how to allocate the existing money that the Government have to spend on health services—and, specifically, to raise my concerns about funding allocation in the south-east.
The debate is also not intended to present an argument against the well-travelled principle that we need to try to target the parts of the country that have greater needs. I am not saying simplistically that the north is getting too much and the south should get more because I recognise that whatever formula the Government have in place should include a needs assessment. When they came to power in 1997, the Government were right to decide that certain areas in the north of England had great health care needs, and that the formula should reflect that. However, I am concerned that the balance has shifted since then, and that the formula no longer offers a satisfactory way of assessing the health needs of the south-east.
At present, we have a formula that ranges from 83 to 134 per cent., depending on where in the country one is located. North and Mid-Hampshire health authority, which serves my constituency, is at the bottom of the range—it is the lowest funded health authority in the country—and that is why I, and several of my hon. Friends, are here today.

However, the changes in the way that the formula is assessed, and in the way that money will flow down to the primary care trusts and the various new structures, offer an opportunity to review the formula, and that is why the debate is timely. I also stress that there is cross-party support for some of the things for which I am arguing. With regard to the early-day motion, we struggled a bit for that support, but I managed to find the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson), along with many Conservative Members who represent constituencies in the south-east and other Liberal Democrat Members who feel strongly about the issue.
Where is the evidence? What can I do to persuade the Minister that there is a specific problem in the south-east that needs to be addressed? Let us start with the argument that hospitals need to become more efficient. The south-east has some of the most efficient and high performing hospitals in the country. With regard to all the various Government standards and targets, those hospitals have been awarded beacon status, and they have been able to get the three-star status.
There are many high performing hospitals in the area. My local hospital, the Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS trust, has three-star status. It has achieved all the Government's significant targets. It is a beacon site for personnel, information technology and shared services. Auditors have awarded it excellent
202WH
financial control, and it has above average reference costs. However, although it is, by all accounts, one of the highest performing hospitals in the area, it faces financial difficulties. Therefore, the problem that we face is not about hospitals failing to perform, as they are meeting Government targets.
My next point addresses their financial performance. Can they meet their targets within budget? No. There have been significant financial pressures on health services in the south-east. My hospital has achieved all the objectives to which I referred, and it has been financially prudent, but in 1999 it overspent by £1.4 million, and in 2001—the current financial year—it is £1.2 million overspent. For the next financial year, the projected overspend is £500,000, despite savings of £1.45 million. Many high performing hospitals in the south-east face serious budget difficulties.
Demographic arguments are involved that the formulae have not picked up to the extent that they should have. One relates to the elderly population and is evident in the problem of bed blocking and its associated difficulties.
I am aware that the Government have provided some new money. The Hampshire area received one of the highest allocations to tackle intermediate care and bed blocking. There is no doubt that the crisis is enormous. There is what has been described as a Berlin wall culture between social services and health services, driven by a desperate need to tackle the problem of taking people out of hospital beds and getting them back into the community. The difficulty is that some new money from the Government is capital money that relates to building new facilities, but the revenue required to support those new facilities will be extremely hard to find under the current formula.
The area has an additional problem. Bed blocking is often the result of people trying to access nursing homes and finding that such residential care no longer exists. For some people running such homes, it makes financial sense to sell the home off. Because of current property prices, they can earn much more if the plot of land is converted into houses or flats. I should like the Minister to address the problem of the demographic change involving the elderly population and the acute difficulties of bed blocking.
Mr. Archie Norman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in west Kent the revenue that we receive per elderly person is one third of that received in parts of east London for care homes? As a result, Kent and Sussex hospital has to open up extra wards for patients who should otherwise be released into care homes. In the past year, the number of patients who had to be brought back for extra treatment following operations rose by 18 per cent., which is among the highest figures in the country. As the hon. Gentleman says, the NHS hospital must pay the price and use its resources and revenues to make up for the fact that we have lost so many care homes in west Kent.
Mr. Oaten: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. The conclusion that I would draw is that the world has moved on. When the formulae were set and the system was devised, we did not have the difficulty of care homes shutting to the extent that they are now. We now have a phenomenal property boom, and land prices in the south-east put extraordinary pressure on the area.

203WH
I shall give further examples of why we are under such pressure. The recruitment crisis is particularly acute in the south-east and relates to the difficulties affecting care homes and the cost of living in the area. I am sure that hon. Members present in the Chamber can cite examples of hospitals that have had to recruit from abroad. Although the formula includes a market forces element, I do not believe that that element is keeping pace with the reality of the day-to-day pressures that exist, especially in relation to recruitment. Things are extremely difficult in my constituency because of property prices. With a flat costing £120,000, it does not take a genius to work out that a nurse's salary cannot be multiplied enough to secure a mortgage on a property in the area.
One example of the impact that that has on patients worries me greatly—waiting times for radiotherapy treatment, particularly radiotherapy for head and neck cancers and subsequent treatment. In my area at the moment, not a single patient has radiotherapy treatment within the recommended good practice guideline or what is described as the maximum acceptable waiting period. There are similar stories for other procedures in radiotherapy, and I am extremely concerned about what is happening. The linear units that provide radiotherapy in Southampton cannot cope with the pressure, so Southampton patients have to go to Midhurst, but the machine there has broken down. Many people in the Hampshire area are simply not receiving radiotherapy treatments within the recommended time scales and that scares me. If I were ill, I would be extremely concerned, as many of my constituents are. That is another example of the pressures that we face.
Let me give three more examples. There is also pressure on GP practices. In the last month, three GP practices in my constituency have closed their books. Two reopened their books last week, but they say that they cannot physically accept the number of applications from patients that they are receiving.
One practice in Wickham is located next to the new village of Knowle. The pressure on the south-east to take more homes impacts on the ability of GPs to take new patients. Surely there is a crisis if GPs in the area say that they cannot physically take any more patients. Many GPs link that situation to new developments. If the Government's target of 900,000 homes for the south-east is to be met, surely that influx of people must be reflected in the formula that the Government devise for the future. GPs tell me that if the situation continues, they will desperately need more resources to be able to keep their books open.
Mr. David Rendel: I have a personal interest in this matter in that my wife is a GP in the south-east. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a problem not only with GPs' having to close their books, but with their ability to recruit new GPs to their surgeries? That ties in with the issue of property prices, because of course surgery values have increased. If a GP has to buy into a practice when they join it, they have to pay into the capital value of the surgery to buy out whoever is leaving, but a new GP often simply cannot afford to do that. One or two practices in my constituency have recently been trying to recruit, but
204WH
have had not one applicant. They are attractive surgeries, and one might think that, on the whole, surgeries in the south-east were quite prosperous.
Mr. Oaten: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which is linked to market forces and the cost of living. The problem has various impacts. The example that he gives of GPs' inability to buy into practices is just another one.
I hope that I have shown that, although we have efficient hospitals, budgets are under stress. A demographic change is causing bed blocking, and there is a difficulty with nursing homes being sold to purchase property in the area. We would all regard the waiting times for radiotherapy as unacceptable. There is a particular problem with GPs' inability to take more patients, and a recruitment crisis. At the same time, we face the prospect of more housing in the south-east.
Those are the difficulties, but what is the solution? I shall suggest some possible ways forward. The Government have changed the way in which funding of the health service will operate in the local region, and the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation is considering how the formula can be changed. Will the Minister confirm that there is an opportunity to debate how the formula will be set in future?
Another opportunity for change concerns the census data. Many of us in the south-east feel that things have moved on a lot since the last census. I hope that the Minister will confirm that any new formula or system being devised by the Department of Health will be based not on the 1990 data, but on the latest census data available, which I think is the 2000 data. That would help to make the case for some of the demographic changes that have taken place.
Will the Minister comment on the suggestion that fixed costs and administration charges be removed from the formula? Let me explain what I mean. Under the NHS plan, all health areas are required to consider GP appraisals and to have in place good human resources practices. In the Hampshire area, there may be about 100 GPs; in Doncaster or elsewhere in the north, there may be 60. The health authority or primary care trust has a duty to carry out those appraisals whatever, but my authority has only 83 per cent. of the funding to do that, based on the formula.
I am concerned that many of the fixed costs, which have nothing to do with need and which every authority has to deal with, are still based on the formula. Could we not take some of those fixed costs from the formula to assess the need element? At the moment, all the fixed administration costs are based on the formula so that a reduced amount based on need is being given for expenses that are not need-related. I would also like the Minister to look again at the market forces element. It needs to be adjusted; it is too narrow and does not reflect the current property difficulties. A possible solution may be to narrow the current range of 83 per cent. to 134 per cent. Unfairness will exist at both ends of the range and it would be fairer to narrow the range of the formula.
My final plea to the Minister is to implement some of the proposed changes, many of which I welcome. The primary care trust, as I know from my discussions with it, also welcomes many of the changes, while recognising the many transitional costs involved in some of the

205WH
structural changes that will take place in the health service over the next two years. Will the formula recognise those transitional costs and the fact that some of them are fixed and need additional provision?
I hope that I have, in the 15 minutes for which I have spoken, demonstrated the demand and the need that exist, and suggested a way forward. The matter is critical. The Government have continually to find pots of money to fire-fight and throw at problems in the south-east. Why not get it right in the first place so that the south-east has a decent level of funding, my constituents can feel secure rather than constantly having to panic about health needs, and health authorities in the area are not constantly having to come to the Government and demonstrate a case—which the Government nearly always accept and throw money at? We should put our effort into the formula. We have a unique opportunity and I hope that the Minister will have some suggestions about the way forward.
11.16 am
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on securing the debate. I want to support, and amplify, some of his comments.
First, I support the hon. Gentleman's argument that we should use the most accurate census figures. As the Minister will know, Milton Keynes is the fastest growing city in the United Kingdom, so I have a particular interest, with all public services, in ensuring that the most up-to-date population figures are used.
Secondly, I shall comment on the hon. Gentleman's remark about demography. It is often argued that the ageing population in the UK adds costs to the health service, most obviously by increasing the number of delayed discharges. However, we also need to consider the health costs of other population groups. Milton Keynes has a particularly young population. We have a high rate of teenage pregnancy and a need for much improved services for sexual health generally—not services that are much used by the most elderly. It is not only the elderly who place additional burdens on the health service, and the formula should take account of that.
Before I comment on the formula, I remind hon. Members of the enormous change for the better in NHS funding in the south-east since the election of a Labour Government in 1997, which I shall illustrate with examples from my constituency. We should not always concentrate on the ways in which the health service does not deliver; we should remind ourselves and our constituents of the improvements that have occurred.
As I said, Milton Keynes is the fastest growing city in the UK. For the past two decades we have had population growth of between 2 and 5 per cent. per annum. Despite that growth, in the decade to 1997 no extra beds were provided at Milton Keynes general hospital. Huge pressure built up on the hospital and its beds over those years, resulting in the usual problems of long waiting lists, high cancellation rates and unacceptably high levels of cross-infection when medical cases were mixed up with other cases.
Since the 1997 election, new beds have been provided at Milton Keynes general hospital and the community hospital, additional consultants have been recruited in
206WH
particular specialties and additional nurses have been employed. Unfortunately., the nurses have had to come from abroad because there are not enough trained nurses in this country; it takes time to train new nurses. Extra facilities have been provided for ophthalmology and orthopaedics to shorten waiting times, especially for cataract operations and hip replacements. The situation is still not as good as I would like it to be, but we will have a 28-bed unit in the summer, and a diagnostic and treatment centre is planned for 2005.
Waiting times are shorter—for example, the average time that a woman with suspected breast cancer in my constituency waits to see a consultant has more than halved in the past year—but they are still not good enough and more money is needed. We are going in the right direction, however, and people working in the health service in my constituency say that at least they can see light at the end of the tunnel, even if they are not sure how long the tunnel is.
I stress the fact that when we talk about the health service, we need to think beyond hospitals, as well. In the past the lack of resources for the hospital was mirrored in other parts of the NHS. In 1997, for example, Milton Keynes had fewer community psychiatric nurses per head of population than the rest of Buckinghamshire, despite having the highest rate of mental illness in the county. The child and adolescent psychiatry services were so stretched that young people with psychiatric problems had often seriously deteriorated before they received medical help. The provision for young adults with learning disabilities was so poor that the parents of teenagers with those difficulties besieged me with anxieties about what would happen to their children when they became adults, as there was no hope of supported accommodation for them in the community.
The extra resources provided by the Government have started to make a difference—Buckinghamshire had an extra 10.2 per cent. this year—but it cannot make good in five years the consistent underfunding of the previous 18 years. As the Minister knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) and I complained bitterly about the unfair distribution of resources in Buckinghamshire, which discriminated against Milton Keynes compared with south and mid-Buckinghamshire. I am pleased that gradually that situation has been reversed and extra Government funding has allowed the health authority to provide for Milton Keynes without having to take money away from south or mid-Buckinghamshire.
Against the background of a significant increase in capital and revenue funding, I, too, am concerned about the funding formula, to which the hon. Member for Winchester referred. It is reasonable that the funding formula should reflect need and I am mindful that the south-east is the most affluent region in the country.
The recent report of the director of public health for Buckinghamshire shows that the standardised death rate for the county is 670 per 100,000 compared with the UK average of 729. I commend the director for not resting on his laurels. To provide himself with a benchmark against which Buckinghamshire could measure improvement, he sought comparisons across the rest of Europe and tried to find other regions of similar affluence as a spur to reduce the death rate in the area further. On the basis of need, it is not unreasonable

207WH
that Buckinghamshire should receive less funding than other parts of the country where the need is much greater.
The real problem for the NHS in parts of the south-east, especially Buckinghamshire, is the high cost of living and the difficulty of recruiting and retaining staff. The extra allowances for some nurses and other staff were helpful, but there is a problem from the bottom to the top: for example, there is great difficulty in recruiting carers and care assistants in Milton Keynes. The council and the primary care trust launched an excellent initiative to reduce delayed discharges, using extra funding from the Department of Health to set up a home care team to rehabilitate people at home after hospital treatment. That project was funded, but there was difficulty in recruiting the necessary home care assistants.
The local economy is extremely buoyant, and there is an active retail sector; the shopping centre has expanded by 40 per cent. in the past year, which has had a huge knock-on effect on employment. Care worker pay rates of £5.70 an hour are uncompetitive locally. Residential care homes in the private sector cannot recruit staff either. Retention and recruitment is a real problem. The formula needs to take account of the comparative wage levels in the local economy because the NHS is competing with the private sector for staff at all levels.
The second problem is the lack of affordable housing. A joint initiative between the hospital trust and a housing trust to provide affordable housing for rent and shared ownership near the hospital has enabled the hospital trust to recruit people for occupational therapy or physiotherapy posts from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Those people could take the jobs because they knew that they could find affordable housing.
We cannot keep producing ghetto housing for public sector workers. As well as examining whether the funding formula can recognise the extra housing costs, will the Minister talk to her colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about the need for more affordable housing, and for more housing generally in the south-east? Unless more land is released for housing, the gap between the affordable housing sector and the private market sector will grow to such an extent that affordable housing will not offer a way for people to step into the private market, but will be a ghetto in which they are maintained for the whole of their working lives.
11.26 am
Mr. Mark Hoban: First, I congratulate my neighbour, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on raising the topic in debate this morning. Fareham falls under the Portsmouth health area. I notice that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson) also wants to speak. I suspect that many of our concerns are the same. Our local hospital, the Queen Alexandra hospital in Cosham, is in his constituency. I should like to talk about some of the funding issues that we encounter in my part of Hampshire and the knock-on effects on the care that my constituents have received.
The Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust announced last October or November that it had a £5 million deficit on expenditure for the financial year. It was able to broker
208WH
£3 million of that deficit but had to find cost savings to recover the other £2 million. At the time the management identified that it would have to lose 150 jobs through natural wastage, some of which would be in front-line medical services. That is of great concern to local people at a time when health needs are increasing and, judging by some of my correspondence from local people, the level of health care in Portsmouth and Fareham appears to be declining.
In its financial report towards the end of last year the Fareham and Gosport primary care group highlighted the problems that it anticipated. It projected an overspend of £1.4 million and identified ways in which it could reduce that to £620,000, partly through allocation of reserves and partly through savings. Interestingly, because the local hospital had outperformed the national targets for waiting times, it thought that it could save £250,000 by allowing waiting times to slip from 15 to 26 weeks. I do not think that the Government gave it that money to cover deficits elsewhere. It is interesting that hospitals can reallocate money given to them by the Government for specific initiatives to cover shortfalls elsewhere. Even having identified various savings, it is still left with an overspend of £620,000 and, again, it will try to broker the limit. That means that the deficit will roll forward to next year, when perhaps there will he an overspend, too, so the process of deficits will continue to roll on from year to year.
Much has been made of the way in which the Government have increased spending in real terms, but it is interesting to examine how some of that money has been spent. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked a parliamentary question on 5 March about administrative expenses as a proportion of health authority spending. The answer was revealing: the health authority covering the constituency of the hon. Member for Winchester spent £6.8 million on administration in the financial year 2000–01, which was 1.6 per cent. of its total expenditure. In the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire local authority area, the administration costs for the same financial year were £10.4 million, 2.6 per cent. of that health authority's expenditure.
It could be argued that there had been economies of scale, which accounted for some of the differences between the two health authorities, but the spending on administration was much the same. The difference between them was only £4 million. We must consider the best practice of health authorities in their expenditure on administration. From 1 April, the health authorities will be swept away by strategic health authorities for Hampshire and primary care trusts in Portsmouth to cover Fareham and Gosport. I want to ensure that, in that reorganisation, the money spent on administration decreases, thus enabling more money to be spent on health care. The £4 million difference in administration costs between the two health authorities would have covered most of the deficit on spending for the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust of £5 million, so the health authorities and PCTs must consider administration finances as the new structure is introduced.
Hon. Members will have received, as I did, a list of complaints and problems from constituents about the services that they do not receive. Recently, Fareham

209WH
experienced the withdrawal of podiatry services to a wide range of elderly people, who will need to find private chiropodists. That will badly affect those in their late 80s, who are not sure to whom they can turn to receive that care. There is only one NHS dentist in Fareham, whose lists are now closed to NHS patients. A dental access centre has opened in the town, which has been welcomed by many people who have no NHS dentist. However, the centre does not have a patient list, and people can only make appointments on the basis of needing treatment. I am looking forward to visiting it a week on Friday to see what demand there is in Fareham for that service. I suspect that I shall find that demand exceeds supply.
Recently, the Blackbrook maternity home in my constituency was closed. It was a local facility and greatly relied on by mothers in Fareham for post-natal and antenatal care, as well as for delivering their babies. It is meant to be a temporary closure; it is the second temporary closure in two years and it is causing real worry. The problem was caused in part because maternity care in Portsmouth has been under pressure. When arriving at Portsmouth hospitals to have their babies delivered, women have been turned away and told to go to Chichester or Southampton. That is not an acceptable level of service.
Despite the Government's message about real increases in health spending, the experience of my constituents is that they have not seen that flowing through. That is a fundamental issue, because they are trying to match up their tax increases and the level of spending on the health service with what, to their minds, is the health service's failure to deliver the care that they expect to receive. That goes for all age ranges. I have talked about the closure of the maternity home in Fareham. The hon. Member for Winchester highlighted the issue of nursing homes. That is a real problem in south-east Hampshire.
One of the problems facing the owners of care homes is the impact of the change in standards for nursing and residential homes. In February 2001, I met a group of nursing home owners who said that they were under financial pressure. They viewed the high land values and the offers from property developers as a way out of their personal crises. They were not able to generate the revenue needed to pay for improvements to their homes that had to be made in order for them to stay in business and make a reasonably profitable livelihood.
Most of the dozen care home owners who attended were at the small end of the market, with homes providing up to 20 beds and offering more personal attention and care. Half of them thought that they would sell up in the next five years. More importantly, they believed that their businesses would not be bought as going concerns to provide care for the elderly, but would be sold to property developers, as that is simply the only economic answer for them and for those who want to enter the health care market.
I congratulate Hampshire county council on the work that it has done to try to secure nursing home beds in the county. In the past financial year, it increased nursing home fees by three times the rate of inflation. That was funded not by Government grants but by council tax payers' resources to try to maintain the supply of
210WH
nursing home beds in the county. The council has done the elderly of Hampshire a great service and should be commended. However, I share its concern that it cannot continue to do that ad infinitum. The Government need to consider the revenue funding for nursing and residential homes to ensure that there is adequate availability of beds in future. As the health service changes, we will need to rely much more on nursing homes.
When I went to the Queen Alexandra hospital last summer to discuss the new hospital plans, it was considering a decrease in the number of acute beds in line with the model proposed by the national beds inquiry. However, that was predicated on the existence of intermediate care beds, either in hospitals or residential and nursing homes. If there are no such homes, we will end up with a much greater problem with bed blocking, as there will be fewer acute beds and more patients experiencing delayed discharges.
There is a fundamental funding problem in Hampshire. We can talk all we want about changing the formulae, but we must also consider how health care is delivered. The Government speak of the link between reform to the NHS and increased funding, but people on the sharp end of the health service in my constituency have noticed that although taxes have risen and health care spending has gone up, reforms to improve the health care that they get have not been introduced. The Government should consider carefully the reforms that they are pushing through to ensure that we free up more money for health care and spend far less on administration.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Peter Atkinson (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson), I must tell hon. Members that I propose to start the winding-up speeches at 12 o'clock, so if the three hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye keep their speeches to about seven or eight minutes, they can all be called.
11.38 am
Syd Rapson: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on securing the debate, which is about the south-east region, as opposed to the parochial areas that we represent. Like the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), I shall concentrate on what we know and have to deal with. I have an inherent distrust of formulae; having been in local government and having created annual budgets, the potential for manipulation is quite well known to me. We must consider carefully how the formula is structured, and I welcome the words of the hon. Member for Fareham on the subject.
There is tremendous potential for economic expansion in the south-east. It will be the area that everybody looks at. That expansion produces benefits and disbenefits, such as pressures on housing, which can lead to difficulties in getting new general practice surgeries, for example. With regard to that, the cost of property in and around my constituency is so high that accommodation is hard to find. Therefore, economic expansion can also work against us.

211WH
We are proud that there have been several major Government announcements about Portsmouth: shipbuilding is returning, space exploration companies are winning major contracts and the Navy is re-gravitating to Portsmouth. Those are good things, and I am making the most of them in political terms, but they produce the same knock-on effect, because house prices rise dramatically due to the pressure caused by people moving in—and all the other problems that have been mentioned also get worse.
I have the greatest admiration for our local health groups. The health authority—as it was—did a tremendous job, and established good relationships. The new primary care trust and the trust are doing a marvellous job, in light of all of the pressures. They are loyal, and they are working within the realms of their ability, but they have worries about constraints on the budget, which restricts what they can do, and they express their concerns to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), the hon. Member for Fareham and me, who have regular meetings.
I wish to focus on the small point that the formula must be reconsidered, and the demographics must be looked at. The expansion of the economy, and the benefits that will flow from that, will make things worse. We must to try to re-balance that. If the Minister were to address that point, I would be grateful.
11.41 am
Mr. Archie Norman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on introducing the debate. It is of great relevance to constituents of hon. Members throughout the south-east of England.
With regard to the issue under debate, the case has been ably made, so I will focus my remarks on the key points. The first and most obvious point is that the crisis in heath care in the south-east was predictable. All the factors that we have talked about are capable of being forecast and understood. During the past three or four years, hon. Members warned the Department and its Ministers that this crisis was likely to arise—particularly with regard to bed blocking. Therefore, the Minister must answer a key question. Does the Department have any radar at all? If it has any capacity to forecast the extent of the problems as they arise, what does she envisage is likely to happen in the coming years? Currently, it is difficult to see why the situation with regard to bed blocking, for instance, might improve in the next two to three years; all the signs are that it will get worse.
Every hon. Member who has spoken has raised bed blocking, and in Kent the problem is on the verge of crisis. There are clear diseconomies: the Department is underfunding care homes and as a result, the NHS is having to take the strain. That has serious knock-on implications for the standards of clinical care in areas such as readmissions and the inability to give people the right level of intermediate care after they have had serious operations.
The problems are being driven by the implementation of new regulations. We have all heard that at first hand, from our visits to care homes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) has said. We know that the problems are a result of the introduction of
212WH
measures such as the minimum wage, and of the squeeze between the rising cost base and the opportunity cost of better property prices.
I and most other hon. Members know that, currently, there are care homes that are contemplating going out of business, and some of them are likely to do so in the coming months. Therefore, the problem will get worse, rather than better. In the whole of west Kent, I do not know of a single example of an entrepreneur or businessman who is planning to set up a new care home, so it is extremely difficult to see why this situation will not get worse. The problem goes straight back to the question of subsidies. That was predictable. The Minister might like to comment on that. As she will know, in Kent the Government elderly residential standard spending assessment—the formula per resident over 65—is £351. In Islington it is £917. That produces the appalling inequity in the system whereby London boroughs can purchase the best care homes in west Kent. As a result, patients released in west Kent into care homes must take the second choice of care homes and are often moved a long way from where they live or from their relatives. It is not merely that we do not have enough care homes. We have the second-best care homes. That is creating tremendous resentment among patients and immense frustration among NHS professionals.
The figures show the knock-on effect on the NHS. Last year, there was an 18.9 per cent. increase in delayed discharges in the south-east, which is appalling. It means that the percentage of delayed discharges in relation to the total number of patients is now 9.5 per cent., the highest in the country. What clearer statistical illustration can there be of the extent of the problem and the knock-on implications for the NHS?
The same applies to readmissions. As I said earlier, last year, west Kent had the second largest rise in readmissions in the country, because patients have to be sent home too early without adequate care. The result is predictable. They come back into hospital for further treatment later. There is real suffering among patients and real costs. The problem must be addressed. It is a crisis. It is not something that can be glazed over. It is obvious that the system of funding for care homes needs to be reviewed and that the interface between the two departments needs to be addressed. The crisis needs to be tackled now.
I do not have the figures, but on balance it is probably true that in the past few years the weight of capital expenditure in the NHS has gone into the north and the midlands. If that is true, that has happened for entirely understandable reasons. We understand that there are well deserving cases for new hospitals elsewhere in the country. However, the result is that we have a growing problem in the south-east.
We now have in principle a green light to proceed with a new hospital in Tunbridge Wells for the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust and more investment in Maidstone. That is entirely welcome. It is a big leap forward. However, it is happening treacly slowly. I ask the Minister to consider how fast capital expenditure is being brought to bear. We first submitted a proposal for a new hospital in Tunbridge Wells in 1997. We now have the green light to proceed, but it is five years later. Even on the best possible time scale, that hospital is unlikely to open for another five years, so we are looking at a

213WH
10-year lead time to tackle the problem. Can the process of investment in new hospitals and facilities in the south-east be accelerated so that we can have new capital facilities and so that doctors, nurses and staff can start working in conditions fit for the 21st century instead of for the 19th century?
11.48 am
Sandra Gidley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on having secured the debate. Most of my focus will be local. I also congratulate him on being timely. The issue was taken up by last week's Health Service Journal, which states:
"The projected deficit, submitted to regional offices at the end of last week as part of the annual service and financial framework round, has arisen because the demands on the service are running far ahead of the large increases in funding."
Health Service Journal goes on to discuss the south-east, where the problem is most acute. Chris Hurst from the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust said that mental health and information management and technology were likely to suffer as attempts were made to balance budgets, as they were generally seen as soft targets. He did not know how the gap between demands and funds would be bridged. Closer to home, Ian Marriott of Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority said:
"For the whole of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, there is a potential deficit of £76m…that comprises a split between the NHS trusts of £17m and primary care trusts of £59m. On top of the £76m"
it is being asked to find
"about £30m of cost savings. The confidence on this is variable. My submission says the level of savings is daunting. We are not going to magic these figures away. In any budget there is a margin of error, but not £100m."
That comes from a journal that understands such things.
On the issue of local prescribing, I received submissions from local primary care trusts. Advice from the south-east regional office during 2001–02 was that an increase of 5 per cent. would be appropriate. Local people warned that it was more likely to be 8 per cent., and, in effect, the outturn was approaching a 10 per cent. year-on-year increase. There is no sign that those increases in drug spending will be taken into account.
The pressure, however, has been almost entirely caused by certain Government initiatives. The single therapeutic area currently responsible for the greatest increase in expenditure is lipid lowering drugs or statins. The Government rightly boasts of their success in increasing the prescription of such drugs. However, they must appreciate that that comes at a price.
Another pressure is the mandatory implementation of National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines. I have no problem with that, because they are funded. However, there is still a robust denial that that will have an impact on spending on other drugs. Perhaps it will lead only to a greater year-on-year deficit.
I echo the sentiments already stated that it is right and proper that areas in greatest need receive most money, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester
214WH
pointed out, it cannot be entirely fair that the range of funding is so wide—83 per cent. to 134 per cent. An adjustment of only 5 per cent. at each end of the scale would go a long way towards helping the Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS trust, for example, without imposing any significant challenge for the highest funded, which would still receive 50 per cent. more per capita. That problem must be addressed.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: The hon. Lady makes important points in an important debate. Does she agree that, although it is clear that people in the area in which we live—Hampshire—are healthier and have better longevity, a certain level of health care, including the time in which one can expect to be treated and a manner of treatment which one ought to be able to expect, should be taken into account in a civilised society when developing a health funding formula?
Sandra Gidley: I entirely agree. It is telling that the majority of hon. Members taking part in the debate are from Hampshire. That must say something.
The Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS trust has three-star status, so it could be argued that it does not need the money. Putting aside for one moment the argument that the star ratings are based on selective and arbitrary measures, the system is badly overloaded. Most people wait 18 months for a hip replacement, which is also the case in Southampton and South West Hampshire health care trust. Consequently, in order to meet targets, the Winchester and Eastleigh trust spent approximately £1 million accessing private health care. "Aha," I hear hon. Members say, "The Government provide money for that very purpose." They do, but not enough. They provide funding only to the tune of £500,000.
The waiting list for orthopaedics is unfortunately—or fortunately, in a way—a result of the population living longer. We have a long life expectancy in the south of England, and have reached the stage of replacing hip replacements because people are living so long. People should not be penalised for living longer. However long they live, they deserve access to prompt and high-standard health care. That is rapidly becoming more difficult to provide.
Analysis of recent NHS performance indicators shows that the performance of Winchester and Eastleigh trust is below average for both delayed discharges and improvement of 13-week out-patient waits. That shows that the south-east's health care system is creaking under the strain. It is more worrying that although my local trust has retained better than average outcomes for most types of cancer, its performance is slipping from year to year. That aspect cannot be totally unrelated to the difficulty of access to radiography treatment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester highlighted.
I want to mention primary care trusts because, theoretically, they will be in control of a huge proportion of health spending. I have a real fear that much of that money will come with strings attached, and there will be little freedom to spend it. PCTs are set and ready to go. I gather that few of them have appropriate financial expertise available to help them. They have

215WH
been forced to accommodate a share of the current health authority deficits. Does the Minister agree that that is no way to launch a new organisation? Will she undertake to find funding so that new PCTs start with a clean balance sheet and do not struggle to address problems that are no fault of their own?
The Government have a golden opportunity to redress existing inequalities and to come up with a fairer funding formula that takes into account not only the specific problems of the north, but specific problems of the south and, especially, the deprived rural areas in the south that receive little attention.
11.56 am
Dr. Evan Harris: I am delighted to add my tribute to those paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). He set out a cogent case for the need for more funding for the health service in the south-east. He drew our attention to demography, the problems of the shortfall of social services funding and the problem that much funding that enters the health service is non-recurrent, which makes planning difficult and stores up pressures for the future. He mentioned, as did other hon. Members, the problems of recruitment and retention in the south-east, and discussed waiting times for cancer treatment. He also made an important point about whether fixed costs—administration costs—which should be the same for every head of population, should be subject to the formula.
I want to address many issues that my hon. Friend raised, but he was a little too charitable, in his diplomatic manner, toward the Government when discussing overall funding levels. It must be recognised that almost every—if not every—health authority and trust throughout the country is facing huge pressures. It is difficult to know the areas from which we can take funding in order to improve funding for the areas that south-east Members, including myself, represent.
The health service has been chronically underfunded for not only 18 years, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, but for 20 or 21 years. The step change in funding that people thought that they were voting for in 1997 did not occur until 1999–2000. Figures show that the settlements in 1997–98 and 1998–99 were among the most miserly real-term increases of the past few decades. That cannot be disguised and history cannot be rewritten by people who continually talk about 18 years of underfunding, but know that that occurred for 20 years.
It is clear that we were right when we said—both times—that taxation should rise fairly to fund a bigger cake. We could then discuss how the cake should be divided, but a bigger cake is needed. When the Government are faced with that point, they cannot get away with arguing that they have given the health service more funding than our party called for. If one looks at the arithmetic, that is nonsense. We committed ourselves to the Government's spending plans plus extra funding from specific taxation increases. To argue that that is less than the Government would spend implies that, if we were in office, we would simply get a pile of cash and burn it, rather than add to the spending through specific, fair and targeted increases in revenue raising. More funding is required in the overall system.
216WH
Then there is the question of how one divides the cake. I think that the Government accept that a formula-based allocation of all the funding does not seem reasonable. I am referring to the fixed administrative costs, which are not related to some of the demography on which the formula depends. The Government top slice funding from the cake and allocate it in their own way, rather than according to a formula. That represents an inherent recognition that the formula-based allocation is not always the best way to allocate funding.
I am a little more cautious than other hon. Members about calling for the difference in funding levels between needy and less needy areas to be narrowed. One could not necessarily justify that before seeing a narrowing of health inequalities. One sad aspect of the Government's record is that we have not seen the narrowing of health inequalities that we all want as quickly as we might have. However, if the Government can deliver on that, the difference in funding levels could be narrowed.
Of course, the Government recognise that the formula sets only the target funding. The allocations then move towards that target as quickly as growth allows. In years of low growth, there is little movement towards the target because the allocations are so flat. I am interested to know whether the Government believe that they are doing enough to move authorities that are underfunded according to the formula more quickly towards their target. These health authorities and primary care trusts will exist throughout the country, and a number in the south-east feel that, if the formula exists, they should at least be moving towards the target more quickly.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West made a number of good points. I know Milton Keynes general hospital well and am also aware of the pressure that it is under with the area's expanding population. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, the hon. Lady talked about the need to use the new census figures as soon as they are available. Similarly, she made important points about creating a housing ladder, not just of affordable housing but from which people can move up.
There is a problem with saying that one area is underfunded because another is overfunded. I remember hon. Members from the Northampton area complaining in 1997–98 that Northamptonshire health authority was allocating all the growth money that they had expected to the Kettering area. Rather than blaming the Government, however, hon. Members from the Kettering area claimed, in an almost simultaneous press release, that Kettering was not getting the extra money because it was all going to the Northampton area. That "robbing Peter to pay Paul" mentality simply will not do.
I believe that similar things have happened in Buckinghamshire, where other hospitals, including those in Aylesbury and Wycombe, are also under pressure. I accept that demographic growth there has not been as great as that of Milton Keynes.
Dr. Starkey: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the extra money for Milton Keynes has come only from growth money. We have been complaining because we did not see why our historic underfunding should

217WH
continue, but the fact is that the money came only from growth money and was not taken from other parts of Buckinghamshire.
Dr. Harris: I accept that, but two points need to be made. First, money can be taken from growth money only when there is growth money, and the hon. Lady will accept that, in the first two years of the Labour Administration, there was precious little growth money. Secondly, if money is taken from growth for one area, less is available from growth for another. That is a fact of life, and all areas are suffering extreme pressures. If those hon. Members who represent other parts of Buckinghamshire were here, they would not tell a happy story about full funding.
The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) rightly questioned whether it is sensible to lose front-line staff when there are so many pressures on the health service. How can the Government justify hospitals having to make huge cuts—they are not efficiency gains, cost savings or cost improvements—when they are under such pressure?
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) made an important point. Even where places in care homes are available, often better-funded social services authorities can pay a higher price and outbid those in the local area. That is a particular problem on the south coast, where London social services authorities buy beds because it is perceived to be a nice place for people to spend time in rehabilitation, long-term care or residential homes.
It is bizarre that the Government should allow any delayed discharges, which are an abuse of people stuck in hospital beds and a huge waste of resources. That is the nub of the problem; it is not simply a matter of more money. The money could be better spent if funding were given to social services to obliterate delayed discharges, which tie up large amounts of NHS capacity. Money is paid over the odds, particularly on the south coast, for people who could be treated locally to go to France for treatment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) mentioned the problems of areas that are not Government targets losing out. She quoted the director of finance at the Oxford Radcliffe hospital on the subject of mental health and information and communications technology who said, rightly, that they are soft targets. There are no targets in the Government's performance-indicator game in such areas; they are de-funded to meet other targets. My hon. Friend spoke of her direct experience of the huge pressures caused by demography and the pressures on drug budgets of prescribing new and effective drugs.
There is general underfunding, and more resources are needed. Clinical priorities are distorted because of the Government's insistence that certain targets are met, which means that anything that is not targeted is de-funded and, as The Sunday Telegraph reported, surgeons are asked to do less clinically urgent operations before those that are more urgent. Mr. Rawlins of Bedford hospital said that that distortion of clinical priorities "may be unethical". It is unethical; I have asked the British Medical Association to consider
218WH
whether it is ethical for doctors to go along with a central diktat to treat less clinically urgent cases for political reasons, rather than on the basis of patient need.
Money could be better spent if it were directed in large amounts to the needs of social services authorities to enable them to afford to place people in care homes. In my constituency, it is not so much a Berlin wall, as the Government said, as a Berlin trench. Both sides are digging for funds; they are both significantly over budget; they get on well together and there is excellent joint working, but if they do not have the funds, there is little they can do.
The Government must recognise that there is a false economy in failing to deal with recruitment and retention problems, especially in the south-east, as hospitals are forced to pay over the odds for agency nurses. Paying nurses a decent amount, or providing increased amounts—more than what is promised—for housing costs and living allowances would be a more cost-effective way of generating a home-grown work force that could afford to stay in the service and was prepared to do so. Those are significant problems, which the Government must face now.
12.9 pm
Tim Loughton: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on securing this interesting and well-informed debate and on his early-day motion drawing attention to the problems of funding health care in the south-east.
I stray into the debate, which has referred mainly to Hampshire health care, with trepidation. However, the points that have been raised will be familiar to all hon. Members in the Chamber. They certainly apply to my constituency of East Worthing and Shoreham. The speeches this morning also show how large and diverse the south-east is. It includes Milton Keynes, Winchester, Fareham, Portsmouth, Tunbridge Wells and my constituency on the Sussex coast. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) mentioned the public health director in Buckinghamshire: I should be interested to know what part of continental Europe he contrasts with Milton Keynes when he goes further afield in his comparisons of the success in her county.
The debate has also shown that it is not just a question of funding, important though that is, but that much more complex issues are at work such as the cost of living and recruitment problems. Life is not a bowl of cherries in the south-east as is so often thought. We have great contrasts. Arundel is the healthiest place to live in the United Kingdom and is one of the more affluent parts of the country, but just along the coast, Hastings, with all its health care and social problems, is one of the most deprived areas in the south-east. One of the wards in Worthing is in the top 10 per cent. of deprived wards in the country.
The south-east is the largest region in the country, accounting for 13.5 per cent. of the population. As the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned, it is set to grow disproportionately with the building of at least 900,000 new houses over the next 15 years. It is the fastest

219WH
growing economic region and the Government intend it to be one of the top 10 economic regions of Europe; but that will not happen with our current infrastructure problems, not least the shortfalls in health care provision and the associated cost of living limitations.
We have a very elderly population and, coming from Worthing, I know more about that than most. Sussex alone has eight constituencies among the top two dozen with the largest number of older people. In West Worthing 42.6 per cent. of constituents are of pensionable age and in my constituency the figure is 32 per cent. Older people bring more health funding requirements with them. It is not just a question of the orthopaedic costs, although I speak as someone whose father has had a hip replacement of a hip replacement and he is only 67. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West mentioned, we also have a young population in the region. The younger and older age groups impose the biggest strains on the health service and the funding requirements that go with it. We are seeing the consequences at both ends.
There are enormous discrepancies in the amount of per capita funding that we receive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) mentioned. In the forecasts for 2002–03, the per capita funding through health authorities is £1,204 for Camden and Islington, £1,041 for east London, £1,002 for Manchester and £940 for Sunderland. Yet it is £741 for west Kent, £745 for west Surrey and £790 for west Sussex. Those are enormous discrepancies, which cause great problems in our constituencies. There are also great discrepancies within social services funding. Much of it goes towards the elderly. My authority spends an enormous amount above its standard spending assessment. Authorities throughout the country spend £1 billion above what the Government fund them for and think they should spend. It largely goes on extra care for the elderly. The demographics of the situation mean that that problem is getting worse.
As hon. Members have said, the imbalance of the system where the NHS takes the strain for the underfunding of social services, leading to the delayed discharges and bed blocking is worse in the south-east than in any other area. It is more than double what it is in the north-west. Premature discharges from hospitals because of the shortage of beds result in people coming back into hospital as emergency admissions only a few days or weeks later. Again in the south-east we suffer from that more than any other region as figures released just the other week show. Hospital emergency readmissions are climbing all the time.
The position will get worse in the south-east. There is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, a crisis in care and the health service, particularly in our region. Because of the extra capitation for funding social service places in London, for example, London boroughs place their elderly people into nursing and residential homes in Kent and Sussex. Our local authorities cannot afford to place our own people in local residential homes.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), I congratulate Hampshire county council, which has bucked the trend by increasing the number of available residential places—but at great cost to local council tax payers. Other figures, such as those on hospital waiting times and waiting lists, show that, not
220WH
surprisingly, the south-east again bears the brunt of the problems. The percentages of people waiting for more than 12 months are 10.9 per cent. in west Surrey, 8.7 per cent. in east Surrey and 9.3 per cent. in west Sussex. Disproportionately, three hospitals in the south-east are among the bottom five in the national tables on in-patient waiting times: the Royal Surrey county hospital in Guildford, the Princess Royal hospital in Haywards Heath and the East Surrey and Crawley hospital in Redhill. Which hospitals and health care trusts are among those with the longest trolley waits? They are all within the south-east: Brighton, Surrey and Sussex, Dartford and Gravesham, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells, and the Royal West Sussex hospital all have well above average trolley wait times. I fear that the situation is getting worse.
We have all heard about pressures on GPs. Worthing has had some of the biggest pressures in the country. Almost a year ago we had a debate in Westminster Hall on the subject and in the summer the Minister kindly came down to Worthing to see the problem at first hand. I fear that nothing has been done and the problem is getting worse. Just about every GP surgery within Worthing has closed its lists. New GPs and practice nurses cannot be recruited to help with that worsening work load.
GP vacancies across the region have leapt up disproportionately in the past year. In east Kent, GP vacancies have gone up from 13 to 29 per cent. In Oxfordshire, the area of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), they have gone up from 24 to 62 per cent. In west Kent it has doubled, from 31 to 60 per cent. That is a common problem across our region.
Nursing vacancies have similarly increased, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson) said. He also mentioned the problem of GP surgeries. The surge in property prices has meant that people are being priced not only out of buying residential homes but out of buying and extending new surgeries. The cost of living in the south-east also means that we have some of the highest figures for nursing vacancies and ancillary staff in the country. As the Audit Commission found, the additional cost of employing agency staff is excessive. Agency staff now cover one in 10 daily shifts in the NHS. The cost to the NHS of employing temporary nurses rose by a record 20 per cent. in 1999–2000 because agency staff typically earn nearly 20 per cent. more than NHS nurses. That is not an ideal situation.
There are also vacancies in social services. If one does not get the social services right, people are neglected, particularly elderly people and they end up as emergency admissions, placing additional pressure on hospitals. Kent, in particular, which is the largest authority in the country, currently has social worker vacancy rates of around 20 per cent. I could touch on many other areas. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West mentioned the enormous gaps in mental health care, particularly for adolescent mental health services, which is a particular problem in the south-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham referred to the enormous variation in management costs across the country, particularly in our region. It is not surprising that just a few weeks ago the Department of Health had to admit that we have a record number of managers, a

221WH
record number of low bed numbers and a ratio of 1.15 administration and estate management staff for every one bed in the country. That situation is getting worse and the discrepancies between the regions are enormous.
It is therefore no surprise that in January a leaked memo from Ruth Carnell, the chief executive of the NHS in the south-east, showed an overspend of at least £60 million in health care in the south-east. That money will have to come from somewhere. We have a real problem in the south-east and we need a fair assessment of the demographic and population density pressures on our services. Above all, we need a joined-up approach, not the existing fire-fighting approach mentioned by the hon. Member for Winchester.
12.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): In the short time available to me, I shall endeavour to deal with the majority of points raised by hon. Members. If I do not have time to deal with specific points, details or technicalities, I undertake to write to hon. Members.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) not only on securing this debate, but on the way in which he presented his case. It was a pity that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) should have accused him of being over-charitable. A debate is obviously taking place between the two hon. Gentlemen on where they eventually want to position themselves, and we will all be delighted to see the result.
The hon. Member for Winchester made some important points. Indeed, hon. Members representing seats throughout the region raised issues that we all see on our visits and experience in the community. He made some suggestions about the formula, and I shall respond to them in detail.
I pay tribute to the Winchester and Eastleigh trust. It is doing an excellent job; I have seen the presentation made by Mr. David Livermore, the chief executive, on the funding pressures faced by the trust. It is a beacon site, and I am delighted that it is delivering all its targets. I acknowledge Mr. Livermore's drive to try to deliver on budget, and his difficulties in achieving it.
The hon. Member for Winchester asked for the new census data to be used as quickly as possible, as it would ensure a more accurate formula. I am told that we will be using the new census data, but that the administrative processes involved will mean that it is likely to take another two years for it to be fed fully into the formula. However, if I can shorten that time, I shall do so. It is important to all hon. Members that that up-to-date information should be available. Most of us know how fast our communities can change during a 10-year period. It is therefore important to make sure that the information is up to date.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could take the fixed administrative costs out of the formula, so that it was targeted at health needs rather than administrative functions. It would probably be a difficult task—these things always are, and formulae are complex—but I could ask the review body to consider that aspect. I
222WH
would welcome suggestions from the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members on what fixed costs might be taken into account.
The hon. Gentleman asked about market forces and the pay element of the formula. I am told that the university of Warwick was asked to review the number of pay zones incorporated in the formula this year, and I am told that the number of zones has increased. The market forces factor has been updated as a result, so that it is a little more sensitive to the wage rates that are being paid.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the transitional costs of shifting the balance of power and whether they would be met. I am informed that £55 million will be provided transitionally in 2002–03 and 2003–04 to meet those costs. Pressure on the delivery of health care would be lessened as a result of being able to meet the inevitable transitional costs. Once the shift in the balance of power is completed, administrative savings of about £100 million will accrue from the reduction in the number of health authorities, but transitional costs are inevitable.
Mr. Oaten: I am grateful to Minister for answering those points so clearly. Will she confirm that although there may be a review to consider the impact that market forces have on wages, the market forces element of the formula should consider also some of the other issues that have been mentioned this morning, such as property prices, because market forces have an impact not only on wages, but on many other aspects of health care provision?
Ms Blears: I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Some factors in the formula relate to housing, but they are based more on people's access to basic facilities such as central heating, indoor sanitation and other traditional factors of deprivation that have been included in Government formulae for many years. However, housing costs are not specifically included. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) made the interesting point that, in addition to the number of elderly people in communities, the health needs of young families are also a factor. I hope that hon. Members will be aware that there are competing internal tensions and contradictions in trying to provide fairness for different areas of the country, for different groups in the population and for those with different health needs.
Although many hon. Members have mentioned the increase in the number of elderly people who are living longer and, therefore, causing health costs to rise, life expectancy is lower in some areas of the country than in others, which require extra funding to address the social deprivation that leads to lower life expectancy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West and the hon. Member for Winchester recognised, including health inequality in the formula and directing funds towards areas of greatest need is entirely proper, although staff recruitment and retention, housing costs and economic pressure in the south-east must also be taken into account.
I hope that hon. Members of all parties will recognise that in devising a formula, it is important to target resources on the areas of greatest need. It is a matter not

223WH
of counting heads, but rather of directing health service resources to the places where people are more ill more often and die earlier, as well as providing the continuing care that is important for communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West acknowledged the progress that has been made on extra capacity in the past few years. To set the debate in context, there has been an increase this year in health service spending nationally of almost 10 per cent., an extra £601 million this year for the south-east, and an increase in social services spending over the past five years of about 20 per cent. compared with an increase in the last five years of the previous Administration of only 1 per cent.
There are pressures. Far too many people wait too long for treatment, far too many people wait in hospital to be discharged and I accept that there are huge pressures in the south-east, but that must be seen in the context of significant and substantial increases in national health service investment. I hope that hon. Members will build a consensus around the need for increased and sustained investment in the health service, not just in the next few years but hopefully, for a long time to come, so that we can redress decades of underfunding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West is right that we must do more to encourage imaginative housing schemes to give people a first step on the housing ladder. That is incredibly difficult when one considers the average house price in the south-east. NHS Estates is now involved in a large-scale programme of shared ownership and shared equity schemes, trying to utilise parcels of NHS land together with developers so that part of the development provides affordable housing units for staff. We are facing exactly the same problems with teachers, police officers and other public sector workers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson) made some extremely good points on behalf of his community, which took into account the
224WH
economic expansion in the south-east. That is a driver and the engine of our economy, so it is vital that we deal with the issues of housing and recruitment.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) must be set in the context of the increased investment in his local area of £48 million this year. He mentioned chiropody and dentistry. I am afraid that hundreds of dentists withdrew from the national health service when their contracts were changed in the early 1990s. That decimated NHS dentistry. We are doing a great deal to bring those dentists back, but it is not easy. I am pleased that he has a dental access centre in his constituency and I hope that he will visit it. We shall do what we can to increase the number of NHS dentists.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) was especially concerned about delayed discharges. I am pleased to be able to tell him that delayed discharges in the south-east have decreased by 183 since last September as a result of the extra £100 million invested last year and the extra £200 million that will be invested in the forthcoming year. I think that, in his area, £2 million was invested this year and £4.5 million will be invested next year. I am not saying that that will solve the problem because we all know what problems exist, but there is increased investment. It is not only about providing increased investment for bricks and mortar. It is also about providing more domiciliary care support in people's homes to keep them independent. An awful lot of elderly people do not want to go into residential care; they want support at home, which is what we are trying to provide.
The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) commented on the funding of primary care trusts. They have been involved in the whole service and financial frameworks round. They will inherit health authorities' assets, as well as their liabilities. From now on, they will be the power and the driving force in health communities. It is right that they will make decisions about priorities in consultation with their local communities.

Housing (Hyndburn)
12.30 pm
Mr. Greg Pope: I am grateful to have secured this debate on housing in Hyndburn, which is undoubtedly the most important issue facing my constituency. I am also grateful for the opportunity to place on record my thanks to my noble Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, Lord Falconer, for visiting my constituency at my request in October 2001. He also visited the neighbouring constituencies of Blackburn, Rossendale and Darwen, Burnley and Pendle, which have virtually the same housing problems as Hyndburn.
It is fair to say that my noble Friend was shocked by what he saw. Of course, he met councillors, Members of Parliament and local authority and private sector representatives, but, most importantly, he met people who live in my constituency. I took him to Lonsdale street in Accrington, once a sought-after place to live, but now a place where decent families try their best to bring up their children in the most appalling housing conditions. I showed my noble Friend an abandoned and derelict housing block, which has been vandalised, which is regularly set on fire and which is infested with rodents. Yet, houses in the middle of the block and facing it are occupied. In 2002, people are living there in the most appalling conditions.
The raw statistics make pretty grim reading. In the borough of Hyndburn, 9,000 houses are unfit for human habitation. Of those, 8,000 are privately owned. Some 2,700 houses have been abandoned. They have no value, and people simply walked away from them when they could not sell them.
In the statistical appendix to its 2001 housing investment programme bid, Hyndburn council estimated that the cost of making fit the unfit private homes in the constituency was about £180 million. In the last year for which I could obtain figures, the council was spending slightly more than £1 million on the problem. In best value performance indicator BVP162, the Government asked what percentage of unfit private houses the council had made fit or cleared during 2000–01—the last year for which figures are available—and the council's answer was 1 per cent.
It would be easy for me as the Labour Member of Parliament for Hyndburn to point the finger of blame at Tory-controlled Hyndburn council, particularly as we have all-out elections in early May. I shall not do that, however, for two reasons. First, the people who live in such housing deserve better from their elected representatives than cheap point-scoring. On such issues, it is better for us to forget our politics. I, the Government and Hyndburn council—whoever runs it—should work together for the good of those people.
Secondly, the problem is not really the council's fault, because it does not have the resources to put right the problems that my constituents face. The majority of homes in Hyndburn—more than four out of five—are privately owned. Of those, 30 per cent. are unfit for human habitation and another 10 to 15 per cent. are becoming unfit. As Lord Falconer would testify, the statistics do not do justice to the scale of the problem. One needs to meet the people who are trapped in those houses—people like Robert Treasure of Steiner street in
226WH
Accrington, whom I had the privilege of meeting last year when I went to his home. The conditions in which Mr. Treasure lives are almost unimaginable. It is not an exaggeration to say that he exists in the sort of Victorian squalor that most people would have thought had been swept away generations ago.
An elderly lady from Accrington came to my advice surgery close to tears. She had moved into a property on Pearl street when she got married, after the second world war, then a nice part of Accrington, but now something approaching a war zone. Houses are abandoned and wrecked, and unscrupulous landlords buy up properties for next to nothing and put in them people with drink and drug problems. She cannot move—she is trapped; nobody would give a mortgage on a property in Pearl street. Her only chance of getting out is if the council demolishes the street—I hope that that will be done soon and think that it will be.
During the general election, I met a lady living on Garbutt street and asked her for her vote. She said that she would not vote for me or my opponent; she had been let down by everybody of every conceivable political party. She was right—if I had lived in her house I would not have voted for me. It is a badge of shame on the reputations of all who seek to represent people like that lady that she is still living in those conditions. We have seen a complete collapse in the housing market in parts of my constituency. There is a cycle of despair in which the prices of properties are so low in some areas that they are completely worthless.
In Lambeth, not far from where I have a London flat, there is a terraced house for sale with an asking price in excess of £300,000. In parts of my constituency, that property would not be worth a tenth or even a hundredth of that. People are trapped in negative equity. They are unable to sell or to move and houses are abandoned; there is a surplus of houses in the market. We have a doughnut effect: in the inner parts of towns, the market is collapsing or has collapsed, and on the edges of towns, new build is very popular. My constituency is a collection of small mill towns that are proud of their historic distinctions. Residents do not want to see a blurring between Great Harwood and Clayton, Clayton and Rishton or Oswaldtwistle and Accrington. However, there is huge pressure on new build on the green belt areas between the towns, whereas in the centres of towns the housing market has collapsed.
In parts of my constituency, renovation will not be enough. The houses are just too poor to repair. In other areas it is not worth repairing them because there is no market for that kind of housing. It is increasingly clear that we shall have to demolish a large number of houses. That should have been done in the 1960s, as it was in places such as Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and all the major cities. Demolition did not happen in east Lancashire partly because of the structure of local government. In my constituency alone, there were half a dozen tiny urban district councils, which did not have the resources to clear those properties. They have been replaced by slightly larger district councils, but they, too, are far too small—Hyndburn council does not have the resources for clearance, nor does Pendle or Rossendale. The irony is that city authorities are now getting grants from the

227WH
Government to knock down the houses with which they replaced the terraces—in east Lancashire we have not even replaced the terraces.
Last summer saw large-scale disturbances in the neighbouring constituency of Burnley. There is no doubt in my mind—and none in the minds of anyone who has been to Burnley and knows east Lancashire—that the appalling housing conditions were a contributory factor to those disturbances. We were extraordinarily lucky that those disturbances did not spread to neighbouring boroughs, such as Hyndburn to the west and Pendle to the east. The taskforce report on the disturbances states:
"In almost every sense it is clear that, whilst Burnley is not a city, it experiences all of the chronic problems associated with inner city deprivation."
That is true for not only Burnley but Accrington, Nelson, Colne and large parts of Rossendale and Blackburn. If we do not want a repetition of those problems, we must face the fact that we need to invest in those areas.
When Lord Falconer visited east Lancashire, he invited the local authorities to submit a 10-year bid. It is clear that we could double the amount of money that Hyndburn council has next year, or triple or quadruple it, and that it would not make that much difference. A one-off payment will not resolve the problems. We must have year-on-year investment, for which we need a 10-year programme of housing renewal.
This is not simply a Hyndburn problem; it would be appalling enough if it were confined only to my constituency, but all the neighbouring towns and constituencies have the same problems. Throughout the sub-region, which includes Blackburn, Hyndburn, Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale, half the houses were built before the first world war. We have twice the national average of private homes that are empty and abandoned and a quarter of the housing stock is unfit for human habitation. It was with that background that the east Lancashire partnership, acting on behalf of all the local authorities in east Lancashire, submitted a 10-year bid, which will cost in total some £670 million.
If that bid were successful., we would be able to remove the surplus housing stock by clearing the worst of it. That would enable us to remodel the housing market, which we desperately need to do to stop the doughnut effect and make it worth while to live in the inner part of Accrington or any of the other towns in east Lancashire. It would also enable us to improve our neighbourhoods with grants and loans and some environmental work. Therefore, I cannot impress enough on the Minister how important it is that the bid be successful. My purpose in securing the debate is to urge the Minister and the Government to support the bid. We can make a huge difference to the lives of tens of thousands of people in my constituency and east Lancashire as a whole.
The lady whom I met during the general election said that politicians of all parties had failed her, and she is absolutely right. A Conservative-controlled council is failing her, but she was equally failed by Hyndburn council when it was a Labour-run authority. She was failed by a Conservative Government for 18 years and she is being failed by this Government. She was failed by my predecessor, Ken Hargreaves, who was a good
228WH
Conservative MP, and she is being failed by me as well. We have a once in a generation opportunity to put the matter right and make a difference to that lady and others like her who are living in unfit housing in my constituency and in other constituencies. I urge the Minister to join me to make a difference.
12.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) on securing the debate and describing eloquently what is, for him and other hon. Members, a pressing and important matter that touches the lives of many of their constituents. The Government fully share his concerns, and I am glad to have the opportunity to set out the Government's view. The hardship that my noble Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning saw in the Lancashire towns when he visited them impressed itself upon him. I have not visited Hyndburn, but I have certainly seen similar areas in the north and in parts of the midlands as well.
The issue of housing in Hyndburn is part of a broad east Lancashire housing problem. East Lancashire towns in general are characterised by high proportions of aged, privately owned terraced houses in poor condition. More than 60 per cent. of the stock was built before 1919—my hon. Friend referred to somebody who moved into such a house after the war. Presumably, over the years, the structural state of that house will not have changed much. I am sure that people will have made many improvements, but not such as to deal with some of the structural difficulties of that type of housing.
The continued existence of such housing means that there are surplus supplies of obsolete housing. My hon. Friend referred to the problems in Burnley and elsewhere—the disturbances during the summer—and it is clear that housing was an important contributory factor. Housing issues, including housing disadvantage and decay, are overlaid by racial and ethnic divides.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the problem of low demand is not unique to Hyndburn—it is shared with neighbouring areas in east Lancashire and other areas throughout the north and the midlands, particularly in parts of the east midlands. It is, in many respects, a reverse image of the difficulties in London and the south-east. The challenge for the Government in the low-demand areas is to deal with obsolete housing and recreate value where the housing market has completely collapsed, whereas the problem in London and the south-east is to mitigate the effect of very high values in areas of high demand such as the part of Lambeth described by my hon. Friend. The Government have to deal with both of those problems, recognising that they require different solutions but are both intensely human.
The Government are committed to tackling low demand and we have set ourselves the target of reversing declining demand by 2010. One of the main reasons why we attach so much importance to that is that low demand blights communities and people's lives. The symptoms are cruel and immediately apparent in east Lancashire and elsewhere. As my hon. Friend said, people no longer want to buy or live in the mostly terraced housing, so row upon row of houses are boarded up, vandalism is rampant and crime is increasing

229WH
Once decline sets in, it is hard to reverse. The people who are left feel under siege in their own communities and are unable to move out. Unfortunately, we are faced with this kind of decline in too many communities throughout the country. The housing problems caused by low demand are overwhelming the capacity of all agencies to respond to this and other aspects of regeneration.
It might help my hon. Friend if I set out some points about the Government's contribution before talking about the housing market renewal fund, which is extremely important.
Nationally, as we made clear in our housing policy statement in December 2000, we are committed to addressing housing problems across private sector tenures, which are particularly prevalent in my hon. Friend's constituency, and those in the public sector, as part of our strategy for housing renewal and tackling social exclusion. Local authorities have a vital role to play in that and we have substantially increased the resources available for housing investment. Allocations to authorities for the coming year will total £2.6 billion, three times the amount provided by the last Conservative Government.
I understand why my hon. Friend made certain points about his constituents having been failed, but the Government recognise the difficulties and we have policies in place to tackle them. It should be borne in mind that the problems were a long time coming and that resolving them fully will be a difficult, long-term job. A large part of the overall spending will go towards delivering our commitment to bring all council housing up to a decent standard by 2010. However, authorities' housing programmes fund a significant amount of private sector housing renewal work—local authorities currently spend more than £250 million a year on more than 70,000 dwellings.
We are providing considerably more funding this year for the north-west—an extra £55 million through the housing investment programme—and some £9.7 million has been allocated to east Lancashire local authorities this year for improving housing through the housing investment programme. This investment programme is due to increase by nearly 20 per cent. in England during the next three years.
Some 21 authorities in the north-west region will share an extra £243 million over the next three years through the neighbourhood renewal fund, which deals with some of the wider regeneration issues in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other towns in the north-west. In east Lancashire the neighbourhood renewal fund will provide an extra £20 million for regeneration during the next three years. That extra funding will enable those authorities to make significant improvements to living conditions in their area and give homeowners the incentive to invest in their homes.
Apart from neighbourhood renewal and the increased funding from the housing investment programme, there are also proposals, which my hon. Friend rightly identifies, for a market renewal fund that will deal specifically with the need to restructure the housing markets in some areas, particularly in the north-west, and create value where presently there is none. That is
230WH
the nub of many of the problems in my hon. Friend's constituency. Many people have come to the view that combating low demand will require intervention, particularly at the sub-regional level.
We have received comprehensive proposals for a housing market renewal fund from several different authorities and we are considering them as part of the current comprehensive spending review. The review will conclude in the summer and at this stage I cannot say any more about the prospects of finance for the proposals, although this debate will help to raise the profile of the issue and underline the importance of ensuring that difficult housing issues are properly understood by the Government.
However, whatever the outcome of the spending review, action should not be postponed, and we look to local authorities to make a start. Inevitably, there are difficult choices to be made. Restructuring the housing market can mean managing the decline of an area, removing obsolescent housing and reducing the scale of new building. That requires engaging people in a real and honest debate about the future.
It can be very uncomfortable for people to think in terms of their house or housing in their community or area being either demolished, partially demolished or substantially changed. The situation requires stakeholders to work together in a genuine partnership. Hyndburn must, of course, play its part in that. I acknowledge the work of the east Lancashire partnership, which provides a sound foundation on which to build, and it might be of help to set out some of its work to find a long-term strategy for the problems that it faces.
The east Lancashire partnership and the east Lancashire housing forum have been considering new ideas and jointly devising some ways forward. My hon. Friend has made the case well that the problem does not exist solely in one area, so the solutions will not be found inside one local authority boundary. The east Lancashire partnership strategy was launched almost two years ago. It sets out a vision for east Lancashire in 2020 and identifies the significant challenges that the sub-region faces in tackling the problems of a declining, low-wage, low-skill economy, with the attendant problems of poor health and housing, dilapidation and crime. The vision is of east Lancashire offering city living in a rural context, with services for the 500,000 inhabitants planned accordingly.
The strategy envisages a new, integrated transport system run along the lines of those in metropolitan passenger transport authority areas, an expansion of cultural and sporting activity and of higher education opportunities and higher retention rates. However, it is also clear that the number one priority will be to tackle the acute housing problems. The strategy has been produced as part of the Local Government Association's new commitment to regeneration programme, and east Lancashire is one of the 22 pathfinders nationwide.
The Government office has played a part in advising on and supporting development of the strategy, including regular review meetings with the partnership. The strategy is a voluntary document, as there is no statutory requirement to produce it. However, local

231WH
strategies are becoming increasingly important in combating problems such as those faced by my hon. Friend's constituency.
The east Lancashire partnership housing strategy was published a year ago, following detailed research by consultants and extensive consultation. It sets out an appreciation of the demographic, physical, economic, social and environmental factors that are the main drivers of the sub-region's market across all housing sectors. Its proposed solutions are very much in line with Government policies and mirror ideas on urban regeneration and emerging initiatives, including neighbourhood renewal and the new deal for communities. Those largely depend on successful lobbying for new resources, and the strategy provides a framework that should help the partnership to make a more cogent case. I am sure that my hon. Friend and Members of Parliament for neighbouring constituencies will play an important part in that.
Partnership between authorities and other agencies in the area is key if we are to make an impact on the problems. I urge my hon. Friend to encourage people in his constituency to strengthen further the ties between different parts of east Lancashire, for the good of the whole area.
It might help my hon. Friend if I say something about his local authority's housing performance. The local authority has made considerable progress. I take his point about his constituents feeling that they have been failed by it, but it is important to give due credit for its efforts to overcome problems. Officials conduct annual assessments of all local authorities' housing performances, and Hyndburn has some strengths. It is to be commended for the inclusive nature of its housing policies. The council manages 3,800 homes, which are distributed across the borough. There have been some clear achievements, partly as a result of a policy for
232WH
ethnic minority groups. I am sure that that policy went a considerable way to ensuring that my hon. Friend's area did not see problems of the sort that occurred elsewhere in the summer.
Mr. Pope: I deliberately did not attack Hyndburn council. Its officers do a good job, especially Ken Bury, the director of housing, so I am grateful for the Minister's points about the council's record. Its difficulty is one of resources.
Ms Keeble: When a local authority has such massive problems but is clearly taking steps to deal with them, it is important that it is given some credit. It has also done some good partnership work and has made progress on providing decent homes. There is scope for improvement on some issues, as it would be the first to recognise, but it is important that the council continues its constructive and long-term strategic approach towards tackling some problems.
I said at the outset that we were dealing with serious and long-term problems to which there are no easy or quick fixes. There is a clear role for the local authorities to work with others, including regional partners. The Government are committed to playing their part in tackling the real but often under-recognised problem. We need to ensure that people with roots in those communities and a long-term commitment to them, who have seen the area's decline over the years, do not feel let down by their council, Government or MP. They must be able to see that policies are being put in place to deal with their financial security—after all, most people who buy their homes see them as their bedrock financial security. They must also see a way forward for their community, so that it can be restored to the kind of condition that they often look back to. They can then lead much more constructive, safe and secure lives.

NHS Waiting Times
1 pm
Mr. Gregory Barker: I was grateful to be drawn in the ballot for debates, because escalating NHS waiting times are a matter of extreme concern to my constituents, and I am grateful to the Minister for taking time out of her day to reply to me.
Since I entered Parliament last June, many of my constituents have entreated me to take up their cases. Some, of course, are trivial, but many are important—often desperately so—to the person writing. All hon. Members must find that many people turn to them as a last resort. Despite a huge mailbag, however, nothing has moved me more than the plight of cancer patients in my constituency, who now face the most dreadful and stressful wait for treatment following surgery.
The issue was first brought to my attention by a remarkably brave and sensible lady, who was diagnosed with breast cancer on 21 November. To the Government's credit, she was referred promptly for surgery, but what followed was totally unacceptable. Her surgeon advised her that she would need to begin radiotherapy within four to six weeks. Six weeks elapsed, but her calls to the hospital did not result in an appointment. She went back to her surgeon, who said that he was powerless to begin radiotherapy and that the decision lay with the hospital managers. Eventually she was told that she would begin treatment on 25 March, a full 16 weeks after surgery. At a time when she should be focusing all her energy on healing, her condition is being compounded by having to deal with NHS bureaucracy. She has had to face yet more stress and anxiety, which can only have hindered her recovery. She has still to begin her radiotherapy treatment.
When the issue was first brought to my attention, I wrote immediately to the Secretary of State to seek his intervention. Such was the urgency of the case that I not only wrote, but faxed the letter to his private office. My office followed that up with a telephone call on 8 February. The issue was clearly urgent, but despite raising it on the Floor of the House and chasing an answer to a parliamentary written question, I succeeded in securing an answer from a Minister only on 4 March. I appreciate that many increasingly vocal demands are being made on the Government by people who are competing for Ministers' attention, but given the personal nature of my intervention, the Government's response time was nothing less than disgusting. I hope that the Minister will deal with that specific point.
Since I first highlighted the case, other people have contacted me. My constituent's experience was not an isolated incident. Sadly, she is just one of the many victims of a system that, under a Labour Government who are approaching their sixth year in office, faces chronic shortages of staff and equipment.
Britain has about half the number of radiotherapy machines per million people that France and Germany have and a third the number that the United States has. The problem is compounded by a national shortage of radiographers. There are about 500 vacancies across the country, including five at the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust in my area. This morning, following a meeting, I received a letter from the trust's chief executive, which concludes:
234WH
"We are also suffering with the additional constraints of the lack of medical manpower, currently 40 per cent. mean national vacancy and 33 per cent. local vacancy. The frustration"—
that of my constituent and others—
"is shared by us all, and whilst we are trying to improve matters, I am sorry that I cannot be of much help in reducing your constituent's wait for her Radiotherapy treatment at present."
We are told that, historically, we have failed to train enough specialists and that it takes time for them to come through the system. However, a third of the people who train as radiographers never enter the profession because of pay and conditions in the NHS. Of the 34 new radiotherapy machines acquired by the NHS in the last two years, most have been used to replace existing equipment, rather than to provide a material increase in capacity.
The experience of my constituent is typical of that of thousands of cancer patients throughout the country who find themselves quickly referred into the system. However, once they have ticked the box to hit the headline target of prompt referral, they are starved of the necessary care and treatment to be certain of full recovery—driven, effectively, into a deadly bottleneck. I know that Ministers work long and hard to try to deliver a better health care system, but the new Labour preoccupation with just a few selective headline targets is conning the British public into a false sense of security. A quick first-rate referral is vital, but it is by no means the whole picture.
It is no wonder that Britain still boasts among the worst cancer survival rates of any country in Europe. At the cancer care summit in November 1999, Britain was famously described as having a third world level of cancer care. Other countries in Europe spend far more per head of population on cancer drugs than the UK does. According to a report in the British Medical Journal, chemotherapy spending in the UK works out at only 95p per head, compared with £3.31 in Italy and £6.24 in Germany, and the Royal College of Radiologists reports that the number of patients waiting for a dangerously long time for treatment has doubled in two years. The number of patients starting radiotherapy within the Government target of four weeks since their consultant recommended it has fallen from 68 per cent. in 1998 to 32 per cent. in 2001. The author of the report, Dr. Nick James of Birmingham university's institute for cancer studies, has said that patients are dying while they wait, due to widespread failure to meet waiting time targets. According to the royal college's report, waiting times for radiology are rising in all parts of the UK, apart from Wales and Northern Ireland.
The average wait rose from 5.1 weeks in 1999 to six weeks last year. However, as evidenced by my constituent's experience in the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust, there are huge regional variations. It is particularly bad in the south-east—I believe that there was a debate earlier today about the funding and resourcing of health care there. Rather than confront the appalling situation head on, Ministers have consistently tried to hide behind other, more flattering, statistics. When questioned in the House of Commons on 6 March concerning this genuine crisis in radiology, the Prime Minister immediately fell back on referral statistics for surgery, rather than face up to the difficult issues of chronic waiting times for follow-up treatment, particularly radiology.

235WH
Sadly, the Government's prioritisation of cancer has done little to improve the care of cancer patients. In the recent study by the Royal College of Radiologists, 21 per cent. of lung cancer patients who were curable when diagnosed were found to be incurable by the time that treatment began, and it was found that, on average, patients' tumours tripled in size while they waited for their radiotherapy to begin. The same report also chronicled doctors complaining that they had to lie to patients because, although they knew of drugs that could help sufferers, they also knew that they could not afford them.
Whereas 20 per cent. of breast cancer patients in Europe receive drugs to alleviate the side effects of chemotherapy, in Britain only 5.9 per cent. do. Cancer patients in the UK have their chemotherapy doses reduced to avoid the onset of neutropenia—which reduces protection against infection—in order to ensure that they do not need the expensive drugs required to counteract it. A study by doctors at Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge showed that 32 per cent. of breast cancer patients receive sub-optimal treatment as a result of the rationing.
Results collected by the recent World Health Organisation survey are expected to show that as many as 10,000 lives could be saved each year in the United Kingdom by raising cancer care to the European Union average. But cancer is not the only area that is affected by chronic waiting lists. More than five years on from that modest 1997 pledge to reduce in-patient waiting lists by 100,000, that famous Labour pledge remains broken. According to the January figures, more than 1 million patients are still waiting for treatment, despite unprecedented attempts to massage down the figures, including the creation of waiting lists to get on to waiting lists.
Pressure from Whitehall to reduce headline figures at all costs found its nemesis at the end of last year when the National Audit Office exposed a record of what it called "deliberate manipulation" of waiting lists over four years at hospitals throughout Britain. The NAO report found that one in five of 300 hospital consultants who were interviewed said that they had frequently prioritised patients not according to medical need, but to meet waiting list targets. Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS trust put only urgent patients on waiting lists and offered appointments at short notice or when patients were on holiday.
One of my constituents in Bexhill had a similar experience. She was left perplexed and angry after she had filled in a form for treatment at the Conquest hospital in Hastings last autumn, only to be promptly offered treatment in the one specific period that she had ruled out while she took a long awaited week's holiday abroad. St. Bartholomew's hospital was reported as having amended patients' records to make it look as though they had been treated on time. The BBC reported that more than 6,000 patients were affected. The NAO said that the condition of many
"may have deteriorated during the wait."
Figures released last week, on which I hope we can rely, showed that more than 36 per cent. of NHS trusts still had patients waiting for more than 15 months for in-patient treatment. I have spoken a great deal so far about the plight of cancer patients, but that is by no
236WH
means the only area that is affected. In advance of the debate, the Patients Association provided me with information from its report on NHS ophthalmology waiting times. It found that, in the United Kingdom as a whole, only 1 per cent. of authorities and boards can offer patients a routine appointment with an ophthalmologist within a month.
The average waiting time throughout the United Kingdom for routine referral to an ophthalmologist is three to six months, during which time a patient's eyesight can seriously deteriorate. Furthermore, the report found many cases of the waiting time governed not by clinical need, but by trivial indicators such as postcodes. In March 2000, it was reported that the number of heart bypass operations fell for the first time in 25 years as a result of a shortage in intensive care and recovery beds. At the time, Mr. Jules Dussek, president of the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons, speaking on Radio 4, said:
"This kind of operation is not one you can wait for…there is a risk of dying while waiting."
He said that doctors were twiddling their thumbs while waiting for the necessary beds to be made available.
A recent survey found surgeons operating at 25 per cent. below usual rates. In 2000, the average surgeon carried out 170 coronary artery operations compared with 250 in 1995. What should the Government do to drive down the dangerous and unacceptable level of waiting lists in Britain? First, they should have the honesty to acknowledge their failure to make real headway over the past five years and cease hiding behind selective targets that do not tell the whole story. Karol Sikora, the professor of cancer medicine at Hammersmith hospital where radiotherapy waiting times currently stand alongside those in Brighton and Maidstone at three months, told The Observer on Sunday 3 March:
"Waiting times are getting worse, but because of the government spin, expectations are getting so much higher."
Secondly, the Government should give doctors and surgeons greater autonomy to tackle clinical priorities. They should stop imposing artificial targets to flatter Labour's selective election promises. Thirdly, the Government should address the chronic regional imbalance in waiting times. My constituents are routinely referred to either the Conquest hospital in Hastings, Eastbourne district general hospital, or the hospitals of the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust. All those hospitals face an average occupancy of about 95 per cent.—way above the Government's optimum occupancy of 82 per cent. No wonder waiting lists in the south-east, and particularly East Sussex, are spiralling.
The Government's cash for change programme offered some temporary relief from regional bed blocking, but I understand that it expires at the end of the month, and there is no sign of further funding to replace it. I should welcome a comment from the Minister on the future of cash for change. Most of all, the Government need to change the way in which the NHS works. Ministers are still running that vast organisation on lines that would be only too familiar to its founders in post-war Britain. The working habits of Britain have moved on, but not those of the Whitehall-dominated NHS.

237WH
People are dying because they cannot get the necessary treatment in time, yet right across the health service valuable equipment procured at great expense to the taxpayer—equipment for which there is huge demand—sits idle at weekends and in the evenings. In the 21st century we can do our supermarket shopping 24 hours a day and our banking round the clock. Shops and services are increasingly available on Sundays, but our hospitals close promptly at 5 pm on a Friday. We can go to Tesco at the weekend and can change our direct debits out of hours, but we cannot get life-saving medical treatment. Too many hospitals close for all but emergency treatment at 4 pm at the end of the week.
My constituent with breast cancer had the misfortune to require treatment shortly before Christmas, just as the system was beginning the big seasonal shutdown. Although the rest of Britain is able to cope with the flexibility of the demands of the 24–7 consumer—evenings, weekends and bank holidays—the NHS seems stuck in a 1940s time warp. It is time to throw open the doors of the NHS and allow patients round-the-clock access to vital equipment and services. The Prime Minister told the country in 1997 that it had just 24 hours to save the NHS, but as Labour approaches its sixth year in office, waiting lists are worse and the number of trained medics coming into the system is failing to rise to match the needs of today's NHS.
I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity in wanting to improve the NHS, but until the Government have the guts to admit their failures and confront the scale of the problem in an honest and transparent way, patients will continue to suffer.
1.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) on securing a debate on NHS waiting times, which is clearly an important issue not just for his constituents but for people throughout the country. Surveys of public opinion have repeatedly shown that waiting times are a key concern of NHS users. We recognise that concern, and as part of the commitment to building a modern NHS it is important that access to services becomes faster and more convenient. Reducing waiting times is a main priority for the Government and lies at the heart of the NHS plan.
The Government have already made significant progress in reducing waiting times for secondary care, and, as part of the NHS plan, the maximum in-patient waiting times will fall on a staged basis in the next few years to reach six months by 2005. Similar reductions are planned for out-patients too. Most out-patients are already seen within six months. By the end of March that will be an absolute requirement, and by the end of 2005, the maximum waiting time for a routine out-patient appointment will be halved from more than six months to three months. Under those new guaranteed maximum waiting times, patients will continue to be treated according to individual assessment of clinical urgency.
Two things are needed to improve waiting times. Capacity must be increased, and the NHS and its processes must be reformed. To increase capacity,
238WH
additional investment in the NHS is needed. That is why the Government have put record levels of additional investment into the NHS during the past few years, and we must continue to do that.
The East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority was given £596.7 million for the current financial year, which is a 5.8 per cent. increase in real terms and an 8.4 per cent. increase in cash terms. Overall, investment has doubled during the past few years, compared with the historical average increase in investment. That is because, historically, the NHS has been underfunded; it has had a legacy of long-term underfunding, and it needs additional investment, which it is now receiving.
Additional investment is not the only necessary measure. The way in which the NHS provides care must also be reformed. The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about cancer care. The key issue with regard to that is to shorten waiting times at every step along the way, and to ensure that patients have access to top-quality care. The Government have drawn up the first national cancer strategy—"The NHS Cancer Plan". It is a 10-year plan, and it is part of the NHS 10-year plan. For the first time, we have a national strategy to deal with cancer all the way through from prevention, to diagnosis, to treatment, to palliative care.
With regard to waiting times for cancer care, the key issues concern not simply the time to in-patient treatment, as they do in some other areas. For cancer sufferers, it matters how long one has to wait to see a specialist and to undergo diagnostic tests, and how long one has to wait for different stages of treatment. This information has not previously been gathered in the NHS—previous Governments have not done that—and targets on the whole cancer process have never previously been set. It is important that that has now happened, as part of the NHS cancer plan, because we need to improve the cancer care that people receive throughout the country.
That requires improving the information that we gather on cancer care. It also requires improved investment and reform. There will be extra capacity for cancer services and extra cancer specialists—by April, there will be 428 extra cancer consultants, compared with April 1999. There will also be new cancer equipment—27 new MRI scanners, 66 new CT scanners, and hundreds of extra new pieces of breast cancer equipment. We must continue to increase capacity with regard to specialists and equipment.
It is also necessary to reform the way in which people are provided with cancer care, and that is why the cancer collaboratives were established. They have been doing impressive and innovative work, by reforming the way in which care is provided and by focusing on patients and their needs. For example, the cancer collaborative in west London has cut the diagnosis time for prostate cancer from 20 weeks to 14 days, simply by changing the way that it provides the service. Wirral hospital has halved the waiting time for treatment for prostate cancer. On average, since the cancer collaboratives were introduced, there has been a drop of two and a half weeks in waiting times for treatment.
The overwhelming majority of cases that are urgently referred to specialists are seen within two weeks. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of the increase in the speed of referral, but I wish to impress

239WH
upon him that that was not easily achieved. Huge improvements have been made as a result of considerable work by not only specialists, but GPs and support staff throughout the country. He is right to say that it is essential that people are seen speedily. It is also essential that they are diagnosed speedily, and that we speed up time to treatment. That is why we introduced the new target for the time taken to see a specialist, and it is why we are also gradually introducing new targets, stage by stage, for every other section up to treatment.
New targets for times to diagnosis and treatment are already being introduced. From last December, there has been a maximum one-month wait between urgent referral from a general practitioner to treatment for children with cancer and patients with acute leukaemia and testicular cancer, and a target for women with breast cancer of a maximum one-month wait from time of diagnosis to beginning of treatment. We need to improve treatment times across the board, which is why we put in place new targets and extra investment. It is not possible to do that without extra investment in capacity.
The hon. Gentleman asked about radiotherapy. From the beginning of the cancer plan, we had particular concerns about radiotherapy. The number of therapy radiographers is inadequate, and we need to improve facilities. Considerable work has been going on to try to improve difficult circumstances. The number of patients referred for radiotherapy has increased rapidly during the past few years following the establishment of specialist cancer teams. Radiologists have increased by 14 per cent. since 1997, and we are increasing training places for therapy radiographers at universities. Training places increased by 62 per cent. between 1996–97 and 2001–02, and by 2003–04, the projected increase will be up 120 per cent. over 1997. The numbers are increasing, but we need to go further.
We also need to consider different skill mixes in trying to improve and speed up treatment. Different skill-mix programmes are already being piloted, including the creation of a new grade of assistant practitioner, perhaps through vocational routes. The pilots continue in 10 centres, and early indications are positive.
Huge additional investment is being made in radiotherapy facilities, with replacement and additional linear accelerators being brought into operation. However, there is much to do, and we need to go further.
240WH
The hon. Gentleman referred to cancer treatment. For the first time we have national guidelines on treatment and drugs as a result of the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Improving cancer treatment in our 10-year plan needs extra capacity and extra reforms.
The hon. Gentleman was full of complaints and laments about the NHS and cancer care, but his diagnosis and prescription were fundamentally lacking. Throughout the country, there are NHS patients who are receiving excellent care. However, it is also true that many patients wait too long for their treatment. We do not have sufficient capacity, and we need to keep increasing it. We need to continue the reforms that are making excellent progress in some areas of the NHS, and spread them nationwide.
In his diagnosis, the hon. Gentleman quoted Karol Sikora, who has said that he wants more people to pay privately for cancer care. I believe that we should provide free care according to need, not ability to pay. If the hon. Gentleman recognises the need for extra investment in cancer services and across the board to improve capacity, he needs to say where those resources should come from. The Government have set out a major programme of investment and reform not only for cancer but across the board. I hope that he will support that and the extra investment in cancer care, and the measures being taken to continue to increase resources for the NHS. If he does not, he will need to say how improvements in cancer care should take place and where he expects the additional resources to come from. For most people who suffer from cancer, it is simply not an option to pay for their own cancer drugs or treatment. The cost of providing cancer care for an individual is extremely high, and it would be morally wrong to expect cancer patients to have to pay out of their own pockets rather than receive care on the NHS.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that waiting times are important. They are clearly more important in cases of cancer and coronary heart disease than in other areas, and that is why we made those the clinical priorities.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the need to increase the number of coronary heart disease operations. The number of revascularisations increased substantially between 1995–96 and 1999–2000—from 34,000 to 41,000—and in the first 10 months of 2000–01, more than 45,000 procedures were performed. Revascularisation is an important, life-saving procedure, which is why we have put extra money into increasing the number of operations.

National Asylum Support Service
1.30 pm
Mrs. Helen Clark (Peterborough): For more than a year, I have been concerned about aspects of the organisation and operation of the National Asylum Support Service, especially in my constituency. I sought this debate because I am concerned that problems remain, despite many measures already taken or proposed by the Government. Only yesterday, Harmesh Lakhanpaul, director of Peterborough's racial equality council, told me that, in his opinion, many problems are worse.
The local authority in Peterborough estimates that approximately 2,000 asylum seekers live in Peterborough. NASS accepts that estimate, although that took some time to establish. I emphasise that it is only an estimate, because it is impossible for the council or NASS to determine exactly how many asylum seekers there are, who they are, where they have come from and where they live. That has nothing to do with the asylum seekers themselves but everything to do with the system that sends them to the city, and the reasons for that go to the heart of the problems that I wish to debate today.
The first problem that we encountered in Peterborough, was the misinformation or lack of information concerning how many asylum seekers were to be dispersed to the city and when. Sadly, extreme language was used, promoted and published by certain individuals with a narrow and politically motivated agenda. I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the House can imagine the scenario: words such as "floods" and "swamped" were used to describe the refugees' potential impact on local services.
My office attempted to clarify the position with a NASS official on the telephone, and I was assured that no decision had been taken concerning dispersal to Peterborough. I wrote to the local paper, the Peterborough Evening Telegraph, to set the record straight. Fortunately my letter was not printed; because the following day the council heard that the first contingent of people was due to arrive shortly. Throughout the following months, I wrote to the Home Office several times suggesting that, at the very least, stakeholders such as local Members of Parliament should be kept informed of NASS decisions. Much more is necessary, but I shall return to that later.
Another fundamental flaw in the system is that county councils such as Kent, Essex, Cambridgeshire, and Lincolnshire, and London boroughs such as Westminster, have taken advantage of the relatively low rents in Peterborough to house asylum seekers sent to their areas. Once housed in Peterborough, it becomes the responsibility of the local authority to provide health education and other social support services.
Although NASS advises that it is best practice for local authorities to inform destination authorities that they are housing asylum seekers in their area, that does not always happen and there is no legislation to enforce it. Furthermore, when asylum seekers are housed in private accommodation, the local authority has found it impossible to obtain details of their names and identities. Private landlords have not been willing to share information on asylum seekers that they accommodate, and have challenged the local authority's
242WH
need to know. Private landlords are required to identify properties being used to house asylum seekers but local authorities have no powers to prevent their use.
Local authorities cannot influence where asylum seekers are housed or ensure that appropriate facilities are locally available. Those include public transport, which is often expensive, language classes and interpretation services. Many asylum seekers are highly skilled and trained but need locally available language tuition and language support to access other services. Peterborough has a relatively large private rented market, and there has been a knock-on effect on rents. That creates problems for those moving on once asylum claims have been determined. They have to start to look after themselves, albeit with support from benefits.
I recognise that the Labour Government have done much to improve systems for dealing with asylum seekers, which were in utter disarray when we inherited them in 1997. In fact, they practically ground to a halt with a massive backlog. In April 1997, it took 20 months on average to make a decision, yet the Tory Administration planned to cut more than 1,000 posts at the immigration and nationality department. Following the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, councils in London and the south-east faced huge financial burdens as they struggled to support those making asylum claims from within the UK.
The new Labour Government substantially increased the human and other resources of both the immigration and nationality department and the Immigration Appellate Authority. They tackled the problem of unscrupulous, often unqualified, immigration advisers, and in 1999 they set up the centrally administered NASS to provide an integrated system of support for asylum seekers. It was to be based on enforced dispersal to the regions, and most subsistence support was to be supplied in the form of vouchers. NASS was due to take over support functions from local authorities next month, but the period has been extended to April 2004—a further two years.
Last October, the Government announced the results of two internal reviews of NASS that acknowledged the hitherto "poor service"—their words—provided to asylum seekers. The combined report of the two reviews acknowledged real problems with the system and made many specific recommendations to ensure that in future NASS would offer
"a better service to asylum seekers and other stakeholders".
Those included the replacement of the much-criticised vouchers with a more robust but less socially divisive scheme that involved the piloting of asylum reception centres from late 2002 and administrative reforms of case-management systems.
Only last month the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain" on nationality, immigration and asylum matters was published, and comments on it are due next week. I have read it carefully, and it seems to contain very little that will substantially improve the operation of NASS. I am not alone in that estimation. Expectations that vouchers will be replaced with a smartcard that delivers subsistence by automated credit transfer have been disappointed. From 8 April, vouchers exchangeable for cash at post offices will be issued, but the system will use existing NASS delivery mechanisms.

243WH
The new asylum accommodation centres due later this year are unlikely to provide lodging and support for more than a small percentage of asylum seekers at any one time—3,000 out of a total of 100,000, according to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. That means that for some time to come most will continue to be supported under the existing NASS-administered dispersal-based scheme. For all those reasons, it is still highly relevant and necessary to debate the inadequacies in NASS, which are causing continuing problems for local authorities, host communities and, most importantly, asylum seekers. We should also suggest ways in which the system might be improved through a more fundamental re-organisation of NASS.
Last month, NACAB published a report entitled "Process Error: CAB Clients' Experience of the National Asylum Support Service". It is based on the day-to-day advice work of citizens advice bureaux. The report describes serious shortcomings in the administrative performance and accessibility of NASS. Asylum seekers and advice workers—I would add Members of Parliament, too—experienced serious delays and extreme difficulty in contacting NASS officials.
Since April 2000, when NASS began operating, citizens advice bureaux have dealt with increasing numbers of inquiries from NASS-supported asylum seekers. Many people needed help contacting NASS to obtain their full entitlement to subsistence support, others to resolve accommodation problems. Some, having been granted refugee status or other leave to remain, had been left in limbo between the NASS system and the mainstream benefits system. Cases described reveal families left for days or even weeks without the means to buy food and other necessities.
The report quotes an adviser, who said:
"We have spent hours on the phone to NASS trying to resolve what should be straightforward matters. For NASS-supported asylum seekers, most of whom have limited English and little cash for phone calls, the system is totally inaccessible."
I am sure that NACAB will submit evidence for the Government's White Paper, because citizens advice bureaux often provide services that should be provided by NASS.
What needs to be done? Peterborough city council, in its excellent briefing to me, which I have sent to the Home Secretary, advised that
"communication and consultation must be greatly improved;"—
I emphasise the words "and consultation"—
"secondly, local authorities must be obliged to declare their support for asylum seekers to other authorities when placed out of their area. All private sector landlords accepting asylum seekers must declare names and addresses on a register held by the relevant local authority; benefit agencies must appoint a liaison officer to work with local authorities and private landlords to resolve and expedite claims; additional grants for move-on accommodation and support services should be made to local authorities on the basis of resident asylum seekers. £100 is suggested. This should not be made available to local authorities placing asylum seekers out of their area".
Why should they cash in?
"Finally, there should be a national forum for the control and direction of NASS. Local authorities, health authorities and the police should be represented with the power to make recommendations on this body."
244WH
Those ideas would make a great improvement, but, sadly, I have received absolutely no response to the suggestions from the Home Office, despite commissioning the briefing specifically for the purpose, and sending it to the Home Office on two separate occasions.
NACAB suggests a more fundamental reorganisation of NASS. The White Paper sets out plans already under way to decentralise NASS operations, thereby creating a service that is more responsive to regional issues. The Government propose that more resources should be deployed regionally and existing resources should be used more effectively. The move-on period will be extended from 14 to 2ldays for asylum seekers receiving a negative decision and from 14 to 28 days for those who are granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. However, as the Refugee Council and NACAB pointed out, the White Paper provides little detail about how that will be achieved.
I want to put on the record some specific proposals made by NACAB and the Refugee Council: NASS should be expanded, decentralised and regionalised in order to provide a responsive and accessible local service; NASS should establish adequate counter or drop-in services for supported asylum seekers—staff providing those services will need appropriate language skills; performance targets should be set and published for each main aspect of NASS's administration of the support system and those targets should be adequately monitored, which will require effective case management and recording systems; at local, regional and national levels NASS must be appropriately managed to ensure that all its performance targets are met; and NASS must establish effective stakeholder groups locally and nationally to enable communication with all partners including the citizens advice bureaux and local authorities.
Councillor Harmesh Lakhanpaul, of Peterborough's racial equality council, and, no doubt, the Refugee Council, would also enter a plea for more resources, another stream of funding, to support refugees—asylum seekers whose claims have been accepted—who have a right to education, health and social services but who still need additional transitional help, especially in such matters as language classes. However, strictly speaking, that is outside my brief today.
All new immigrants need help of many kinds to get to grips with a strange culture. However, almost by definition, asylum seekers have additional problems, which result from the situations in the countries that they have left behind. The Government have made good progress to ensure that they receive a better welcome today than hitherto, and they promise to do more. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the serious recommendations by some of the major players in the delivery of the improved policy and that she will include them in the forthcoming evaluation of responses to the White Paper.
NASS was an improvement, but it needs more fundamental reform than appears to be intended. I reiterate that the principal needs are closer collaboration and local counter services. Obviously, resources are always limited, and I am not advocating the establishment of dedicated NASS outlets throughout the country; 70 to 80 should be sufficient to cover the main dispersal areas. In other places, a regular

245WH
NASS clinic in the local benefits office would be a possibility. Surely some of the cost would be met by greater efficiency elsewhere in the NASS system.
No one would countenance the idea of the Department for Work and Pensions closing local benefits offices and operating from a central office, or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office closing its foreign embassies and doing all its business from Whitehall. The same should apply to NASS.
To date, the experience of asylum in Peterborough has been miserable for all concerned. I hope that this Adjournment debate will mark the beginning of a fresh approach that will benefit not only my constituency, but everywhere else in the country.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) on securing this debate on an important subject, which has clearly concerned her and her constituents for a while.
First, I shall give some facts about the asylum seekers who are supported in Peterborough and the rest of the east of England region, in which Peterborough is one of the main towns. As of 31 December, the National Asylum Support Service was supporting 320 asylum seekers in accommodation that it had booked in the whole region. There were 280 asylum seekers in NASS-supported accommodation in Peterborough and 30 in Ipswich. Ten so-called disbenefited asylum seekers were also being supported in the region. We do not accept the figure of 2,000, therefore, and I am not sure where my hon. Friend got the idea that we do.
The amount of accommodation available to NASS in Peterborough would allow us to house hundreds, but certainly not thousands, of asylum seekers, so I can assure my hon. Friend that any worries that may have surfaced in the local media about the imminent arrival of thousands of new asylum seekers are misplaced.
Unfortunately, until now—this may explain some of the confusion—local authorities have had to provide information only for the number of support weeks for which they wish to claim. My hon. Friend will recall that that interim scheme was put together rapidly after a series of adverse judgments in the High Court on the Conservative Government's approach, which was to ban anyone who had not applied for asylum at a port from public support—a ban that the courts overturned. The interim scheme was organised by local authorities and had to be drawn up at very short notice. That is why we do not have the names and addresses of those in the scheme.
We are, however, undertaking an audit whereby we want local authorities to give us addresses instead of the number of support weeks for asylum seekers for which they are claiming Government grant. We hope that once the audit has finished, we will be much better able to establish precisely how many people are in particular areas because they were placed there under the interim scheme. Again, as my hon. Friend should know, the scheme is organised not by NASS, but by local authorities.
246WH
In Peterborough in the financial year 2000–01 there were claims for 3,436 support weeks for single adults and 1,458 support weeks for families. We cannot say accurately what that means in terms of the true number of asylum seekers that Peterborough was supporting, for the reasons that I have just explained to my hon. Friend. However, we can make assumptions. If, for example, we assumed that those support weeks were allotted for people who stayed in the area for a year, that would give a figure of 66 single adults. The large numbers that have been bandied around in the local press are therefore fairly wide of the mark. Following the audit, we should be in a much better position to establish not only the NASS numbers—which we can do with great accuracy—but the numbers in interim schemes.
I hope that that will comfort local Members who have been told that there are far larger numbers of asylum seekers in their areas than our figures show. We should be able to reconcile such discrepancies. As for future demand for accommodation in Peterborough, it has been made clear to my hon. Friend in correspondence that we have no plans to send another 2,000, or any other large number of asylum seekers, to Peterborough— certainly not without its co-operation.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of the NASS review and some of the changes to administration systems. I would be the first to acknowledge that when NASS was set up, under great pressure and with rising numbers, it did not always get dispersal right. Peterborough has had some experience of that. I will not defend everything that happened in the early days of NASS, but things are getting better and there have been major changes both in practice and in administrative systems. The issues involved in dispersal are being dealt with, and under a new system, cash chits rather than vouchers are being given to people. From 8 April they will be able to cash them in at the local post office.
We are also considering how to regionalise NASS to allow far more local problem-solving. Once reporting centres are up and running, NASS officials will regularly visit people who have been dispersed to ensure that everything is working well. When the induction centre process comes in—all the information on that is contained in the White Paper—it will enable us to spend time at the beginning of asylum seekers' claims explaining far more fully and effectively than we have been able to do in the past how the process will work, and who they should contact if things go wrong. I hope that a lot of the confusion to which my hon. Friend alluded in her speech, which occurred a year or so ago when the system was beginning, will be managed down to a much more acceptable level.
NASS aims to have good co-operation with local authorities. We work with the local authority regional consortiums, most of which provide accommodation for NASS-supported asylum seekers, and all of which aim to co-ordinate the input of local services and support for asylum seekers. A national consultative group for the consortiums meets regularly and is chaired by a senior NASS official; any concerns can be raised there for referral back to NASS headquarters. I hope that there will be feedback loops that my hon. Friend will have plenty of time to use if particular issues arise in the Peterborough area.

247WH
The private accommodation providers for NASS are required to consult the relevant local authority when they have more than six bed spaces, and we seek to develop a way of dealing satisfactorily with consultation on smaller properties. As at the start of the NASS scheme, we will also consult regional local authority consortiums about proposals for further cluster areas. My hon. Friend's suggestion that there could be large-scale swapping of personal information on asylum seekers and on where they live would fall foul of the Data Protection Act 1998. I hope that we can find ways of consulting on practicalities for local service provision without compromising the confidentiality of those who are claiming asylum, so that we can continue to comply with our duties of confidentiality. There are ways of doing that.
My hon. Friend asked about counter services. We do not intend to set up such services as part of the regionalisation of NASS. I hope that she will recognise that some of the improvements that I mentioned earlier, such as outreach and more local problem solving, will address some of the problems that have been experienced in Peterborough. We hold effective discussions with stakeholder groups, and we are currently consulting them about the terms of reference and the composition of a national asylum supporters forum. That would be another welcome feedback loop.
My hon. Friend mentioned some issues concerning the White Paper. She said that there was disappointment that the smartcard—I think she was referring to the applicant registration card—that will be used to pay cash was not going to be in place. This morning I moved the regulations to abolish vouchers. Everyone currently on vouchers will begin to be paid in cash, initially using the same distribution system as vouchers, via post offices. That will cause the least disruption to systems that are already in place, and existing asylum seekers already know the ropes by now. That will all happen from April.
We hope that the applicant registration card, which is being issued even as we speak, will have been issued to all NASS asylum seekers by September. We certainly hope that we can begin to use some of the more secure features of that card as a form of identification and a mechanism for paying cash. Again, that will be done through post offices, perhaps even before September for those who have an existing card. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the rapid progress in that area. We abolished vouchers five months early to enable the transition from the current voucher system to the new
248WH
cash-based system to run more smoothly. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will ensure that our administrative systems are robust enough to deal with it.
I do not want to spend the remaining four minutes going through the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report and the criticism of past performance on a point-by-point basis, although I am happy to let my hon. Friend have some of our response to it. We recognise that there were teething problems with NASS when it was first set up and that performance has had to be raised. We are considering what more we can do about that.
For example, NASS has just published, on the immigration and nationality directorate website, contact and phone numbers for all its sections. People who wish to contact NASS can now do so more effectively. A dedicated voucher inquiry helpline has been in place since early last year. Asylum seekers who have been left without vouchers, which did happen at the beginning of the process, can now usually get emergency vouchers within 24 hours, and within a maximum of 48 hours those problems are rectified.
In the last few months NASS has reduced by 70 per cent. the backlog of problems arising after initial allocation of support. The backlog is now equivalent to two days' intake. There have been some substantial improvements in the way in which NASS works. Clearly, the key to increasing the efficacy and effectiveness of the new system will be the role of induction centres. Instead of being put into emergency accommodation, people will be put into induction centres for between one and seven days. They will be taken through the process and told about where they are going, and where they can access what will then be cash payments. There will be a much more managed system. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that these changes substantially improve the administrative systems that we originally set up.
There were complaints about the £50 supplementary payments, which were often late. We now normally deal with those within two days, which beats NASS's target of five days. My hon. Friend will see a substantial increase in the effectiveness of NASS. That ties in with the more managed approach that we are taking with the induction centres. Accommodation centres are being trialled. It has always been clear that the 3,000 places are a trial. If the trial is successful we will consider extending accommodation centres to take more people. Clearly, until then it is important that we improve the effectiveness of NASS, and I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that we are doing that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Russia
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is providing for the regeneration of Russia. [39573]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We provide regenerational support to Russia worth £40 million this year in three ways: as a leading shareholder in the World Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; as a major contributor to the EU's Technical Assistance programme; and through a substantial bilateral development programme.

  War on Terrorism
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on their role in the coalition against international terrorism. [39575]

  Mr. Straw
  We regularly discuss the progress of the international campaign against terrorism with our partners within the EU.

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States Administration about recent developments in the international campaign against terrorism. [39587]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We regularly and frequently discuss the campaign against terrorism with the United States Administration. For example, the Foreign Secretary met Colin Powell on 31 January and discussed this dossier.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation of(a) Mr. Feroz Abbasi from Croydon and (b) other UK citizens being held at Guantanamo Bay. [39576]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A team of British officials paid a second visit to Guantanamo Bay between 26 February and 1 March. All five British detainees, including Feroz Abbasi appeared to be in reasonable health. Mr. Abbasi's solicitors have made an application for judicial review in relation to his detention and access to legal representation. As this is currently before the UK courts, It would not be right for us to comment on this further.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the detaining power at Camp X Ray has indicated to him(a) the status of British nationals held there and (b) whether they will face the
  860W
  tribunals the detaining power has proposed; and what representations he has made to the detaining power over this issue. [40617]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The status of the British detainees and the legal procedure to which they might be subject is complex. The British Government have asked the US authorities to clarify these matters and will continue to do so. In response to our approaches, the US Government have given us the assurance that they would treat the detainees humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva convention.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether UK intelligence and security officials have had access to(a) British nationals detained at Camp X Ray and (b) evidence gathered from them by the detaining power. [40569]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement in the House on 21 January 2002,Official Report, columns 623–24W and to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson) on 4 March, 2002, Official Report, columns 69–70W. Access to evidence gathered by the detaining power is a matter for that detaining power, in this case the US.

  St. Helena
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit the Island of St. Helena for the celebrations to mark the 500th anniversary of the island's discovery. [39577]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Secretary of State has no plans to visit St. Helena during its quincentennial year.

  The House will be pleased to note that the Overseas Territories Bill, which received Royal Assent on 26 February, will enable St. Helenians to become British Citizens by the time they celebrate their Quincentenary.

  EU Overseas Aid
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts regarding the EU overseas aid package. [39578]

  Peter Hain
  At the General Affairs Council on 18 February 2002.

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the right for self-determination for British overseas territories. [39579]

  Peter Hain
  Our relationship with the Overseas Territories is one of partnership, founded on the principle of self-determination.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Pakistan Government on the impact on Pakistan of the conflict in Afghanistan. [39580]
  861W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met President Musharraf on 23 November in Islamabad. He also met Foreign Minister Sattar there and again in Istanbul on 12 February. He discussed Afghanistan and the situation in Pakistan. He expressed our continuing appreciation for President Musharraf's courageous stand against terrorism and underlined our long-term commitment to Pakistan.

  Sudan
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Sudan to discuss the implications of the civil conflict. [39581]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have no plans to visit Sudan in the near future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development visited Sudan in January. The UK Special Representative for Sudan, Alan Goulty, will represent me during a trip to Sudan later this month.

  Middle East
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. [39582]

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Sharon on the peace process in the last two months. [39599]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker).

  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with peace groups in Israel on the peace process. [39583]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had the first meeting between the new peace coalition and a visiting Foreign Minister when he was in Jerusalem on 14 February. I met peace camps when I was in the region in February. We support efforts to bring people on both sides together in the search for peace.

  Kashmir
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan about the future of Kashmir. [39584]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary remains in close contact with his Indian and Pakistani counterparts and discusses a range of issues, including Kashmir, with them. He most recently met the Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh during his visit to Delhi on 27 February. He met the Pakistani Foreign Minister, Abdul Sattar, in Istanbul during the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Conference) Conference on 12 February and during his visit to Islamabad on 862W
  23 November 2001. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also discussed Kashmir during his visit to the region in January 2002.

  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with India and Pakistan on the subject of Kashmir. [39590]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We remain deeply concerned at the continuing tensions between India and Pakistan. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary remains in close contact with his Indian and Pakistani counterparts and discusses a full range of issues, including Kashmir. We will continue to urge both countries to resolve all outstanding issues, including Kashmir through dialogue. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made this clear during his visit to the region in January.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Zimbabwe. [39585]

  Mr. MacShane
  It is no secret that Britain's relations with Zimbabwe are at their lowest ebb since independence.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in the Southern African Development Community to help maintain democracy and secure economic recovery in Zimbabwe. [39588]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was unable to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Coolum on 2–5 March. But my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my noble Friend Baroness Amos discussed the situation in Zimbabwe at length with Southern African Heads of State.

  Colombia
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to support the peace process in Colombia. [39586]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK strongly support the Colombian peace process, as I made clear in a press release on 23 January. We are particularly active in the EU. We have invited the Colombian presidential candidates to the UK to exchange views on the situation in Colombia, including prospects for the peace process.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will use the forthcoming session of the UN Commission on Human Rights to promote human rights in Colombia, with special reference to(a) the safety of human rights defenders and (b) groups at particular risk; [41619]

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure that this year's UN Commission on Human Rights adopts a resolution calling for the Colombian Government to implement fully the recommendations made by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights in Bogota. [41620]
  863W
  Mr. MacShane
  We are currently discussing preparations for the forthcoming session of the UN Commission on Human Rights with EU partners. We will be contributing fully to a range of EU initiatives, including a chairman's statement on the situation in Colombia. Our concerns about human rights violations in Colombia, and especially the threats to vulnerable communities, trade unionists and human rights defenders, will be reflected in this statement.

  World Cup
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions she has had with the Japanese Government in connection with preparations for the world cup. [39589]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  When he visited Japan from 25–29 January, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs held a number of meetings on the World Cup. He assured the Japanese Government that we will continue to co-operate closely with them to ensure that preparations are in place for a successful tournament. Our posts in Japan have been in close contact with the Japanese world cup organising committee, stadium authorities, police and security authorities, to provide advice and assistance. They have also facilitated contacts between the Home Office, police and other relevant agencies and their Japanese counterparts.

  Central America
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to support the work of organisations helping street children in central America. [39591]

  Mr. MacShane
  We regularly raise our serious concerns on child rights issues with all the Governments of Central America, where our Missions monitor the situation closely. We work closely with Casa Alianza, a non-governmental organisation, and support its efforts to protect street children in Central America.

  Nepal
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the situation in Nepal since the recent rebel attack in the Accham district; and if he will make a statement. [39592]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We were appalled by the barbaric attacks on the Nepalese Army and Police by the Maoists in Achham on 16 February. I discussed the attacks with the King of Nepal, the Nepalese Prime Minister and the Nepalese Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs when I visited Kathmandu on 19–20 February. The situation in Nepal is extremely serious, and the UK is supportive of the efforts of the democratically elected Government of Nepal to bring security to its people. Without security, the Nepalese people will not be able to achieve the development and prosperity that they need and deserve.

  EU Accession
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions are 864W
  taking place between his Department and the countries applying for entry to the EU; and if he will make a statement. [39593]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for Lewes. (Norman Baker).

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the implementation of the Bonn agreement with respect to women's human rights. [39596]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since the signing of the Bonn Agreement on 5 December, progress has been made in restoring rights to women in Afghanistan. We have encouraged the involvement of women in the Afghan Interim Administration and the Special Commission for the Convening of the Loya Jirga, established under the Bonn Agreement. We welcome the appointment of two women to the Cabinet of the Interim Administration, including Dr. Sima Samar as Vice Chair and Minister for Women, and three women to the Loya Jirga Commission.

  Women have begun to return to work and girls are going back to school. We welcome the commitment made at the Tokyo Donor's Conference by Hamid Karzai, Chair of the Interim Administration, to ensure that the needs of women are a high priority in the reconstruction process. Life for women in Afghanistan has always been difficult. Afghanistan has more than a million war widows. NGO and UN run projects to get women back to work will have a huge impact on the lives of many Afghan women and children.

  But more needs to be done. We have long said that we would expect any Afghan Government to recognise international human rights norms, including women's rights. We believe that adherence to international human rights norms, including the UN Charter and CEDAW (the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which the then Afghanistan government signed on 14 August 1980, but did not ratify) are key to restoring the rights of women.

  Iraq
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Iraq. [39597]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Iraq's human rights record is appalling. We remain commmitted to doing what we can to bring about improvements in the human rights situation in Iraq and take every opportunity to raise this issue in international fora.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 731, on Iraq, if he will specify to which diplomatic ploys by Saddam Hussein he was referring. [39724]
  865W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Recent moves by the Iraqi regime include:Demarching the EU to establish high-level EU-Iraq relations. We have made clear that this would not be appropriate while Iraq remains in breach of its international obligations.
  Resuming dialogue with the UN. While we commend the UN Secretary-General's efforts to persuade Iraq to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions, including by allowing in the UN weapons inspectors, we note that the Iraqi regime has so far made no concrete commitment to do so.
  Announcing, via the Iraqi media, that a British team is welcome to visit Iraq to prove that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Although we have received no such offer, we have made clear that we regard this as a propaganda stunt. Iraq is obliged to grant full, unconditional access to UN weapons inspectors.

  We regard these moves as diplomatic ploys because we have yet to see any sign that the Iraqi regime is genuinely intending to co-operate with the UN. It will take actions, not words, to persuade us otherwise.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his US counterpart concerning American policy towards Iraq. [39603]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly discusses a wide range of issues with his US counterpart including policy towards Iraq. He last visited the US for policy discussions on 31 January.

  India
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to advance proposals in the Delhi declaration, and in particular the recommendation that India take up a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. [39598]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In the last two months I have visited India once and met twice with India's External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh. We have discussed a number of areas of partnership including terrorism, peacekeeping, defence relations, and Afghanistan and other regional issues. The two Prime Ministers' Personal Envoys, David Manning and Brajesh Mishra, also met on 4 February.

  I discussed Security Council reform with Jaswant Singh on 27 February. We looked forward to progress on this issue at the United Nations.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the India-UK Round Table's contribution to furthering the partnership in education and science and technology. [39594]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The India-UK Round Table has produced wide-ranging and constructive recommendations which complement the British and Indian Governments' efforts to develop a strong partnership. HMG, with the British Council, have taken many of the Round Table's recommendations into account, including those aimed at attracting more Indian students to the UK, and developing closer links between Indian and UK universities and research institutions in areas such as information technology. The Round Table meets again in April 2002.

  Drug Trade
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in the international fight against the drug trade. [39600]

  Mr. MacShane
  The international fight against the illicit drugs trade requires political commitment, and practical co-operation. We work bilaterally and multilaterally through the EU and the UN International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) in our efforts to combat the illegal drugs trade.

  The FCO's Drugs and Crime Fund (£7.3 million in 2001–02, rising to £10 million in 2002–03), supports a broad range of project work overseas, including counter-drugs work and capacity-building for law enforcement in all of the key countries concerned in the supply of heroin and cocaine to the UK and Europe. FCO-funded training for overseas law enforcement agencies and UK operational co-operation with them has led to some notable drug seizures, removing some of the heroin and cocaine consignments destined for the UK and Europe. We have just strengthened our financial commitment to the work of UNDCP with a further contribution of £2.34 million for counter-narcotics and capacity-building project work in Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, South-eastern Europe, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to discuss the future status of Gibraltar. [39601]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I met the Chief Minister of Gibraltar most recently on 25 January. We are in regular contact with the Chief Minister in writing and through the Governor of Gibraltar.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a draft copy of the Anglo-Spanish Comprehensive Agreement over the future of Gibraltar before the House. [42692]

  Peter Hain
  We have kept the House fully informed at every stage of the Brussels Process, including in the Government Adjournment debate on 31 January, and we will continue to do so. Copies of the communiqués from the three Brussels Process Ministerials that have taken place since July 2001, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Iran
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK relations with Iran. [39602]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK, through critical engagement, aims to support reform in Iran while maintaining a robust dialogue on issues of concern. These include Iranian support to terrorist groups in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran's reported development of weapons of mass destruction and aspects of its human rights record.
  867W
  We hope to continue to engage Iran on a wide range of issues of common interest, including bilateral co-operation in the fight against drugs and international support for the Interim Administration and reconstruction in Afghanistan. However, Iran's rejection of David Reddaway as our ambassador has had an impact on the conduct of our bilateral relations.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress the Indonesian Government have made towards reform of the security sector in Indonesia, with specific reference to the(a) accountability of the armed forces to the civilian authorities, (b) territorial structure of the armed forces, (c) accountability of security forces personnel for human rights violations and (d) business interests and non-budgetary funding of the armed forces. [40680]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Indonesian Government have made progress in the reform of the security sector since the democratic elections of 1999.

  Civilian oversight of the armed forces has been put in place by the nomination of a civilian Defence Minister and the agreement to end military representation in the DPR (Parliament), by 2004 and the MPR, (Parliament, regional representatives and professional leaders) by 2009.

  With the exception of the recent establishment of KODAM (the regional military command) in Aceh, there has been no significant changes in the structure of the military.

  Accountability of the security forces for committing human rights abuses has increased by the establishment of ad hoc human rights courts.

  The KPN (Supreme Audit Authority) are now starting to audit charitable foundations controlled by military.

  There is now active debate in the Indonesian media and civil society about the need for security sector reform. We remain engaged through our Global Conflict Prevention Pool Security Sector Reform programme.

  We also continue to apply pressure on the Government of Indonesia bilaterally and with our European partners, particularly on the issue of human rights.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Department. [41039]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 687W.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of the gender pay gap among staff in his Department. [40995]
  868W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  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 all equal pay gaps. The Cabinet Office issued comprehensive guidance in January 2002 to assist Departments and agencies in carrying out these reviews.

  Shafiq Rasul
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his most recent assessment is of the health of Shafiq Rasul, at Camp X-Ray; and if he will make a statement. [40826]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A team of British officials visited Guantanamo Bay between 26 February and 1 March. They met the British detainees separately, including Shafiq Rasul. All the detainees appeared to be in satisfactory physical health. Releasing further information about the condition of individual detainees would not be appropriate without their permission.

  Madagascar
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent coup in Madagascar; what discussions he has had with(a) Government and (b) opposition on the prospect of another presidential poll in Madagascar; and what representations he has made to other Governments in the area on the situation in Madagascar. [41126]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK, along with EU partners, the US, the Organisation of African Unity and the UN, continues to encourage the two parties, at both local and international level, to find a common solution to the impasse. Resident Ambassadors in Antananarivo, including the UK's, have been following developments closely, and maintain contact with representatives of both sides.

  Medical Insurance
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the availability of insurance cover for medical treatment overseas for injuries received from terrorist activities. [41190]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None.

  Gujarat
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the Indian Government about the violence in Gujarat. [40969]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our High Commission in Delhi has been in contact with the Indian Home Affairs Ministry to seek their support in ensuring the protection and safety of British nationals. Our consular staff in Mumbai are in constant touch with the police and the local authorities. Following a meeting with representatives of Muslim organisations on 5 March, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated that he was "greatly concerned and saddened at the deaths in both communities in
  869W
  Gujarat, and hoped that calm would be restored as quickly as possible". He also said that he "appreciated the efforts of the Government of India to this end".

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to answer the question of 13 February from the hon. Member for Buckingham regarding staff involvement in union duties. [41579]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The hon. Member received an answer to his question on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 202W.

  European Commission
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is intended that votes taken at the proceedings of the European Commission should be recorded. [41646]

  Peter Hain
  We are not aware of any proposal to record the votes of the College of Commissioners. The treaty establishing the European Community states that the rules governing the internal procedure of the Commission are a matter for the Commission.

  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a verbatim report of the proceedings of the European Commission. [41645]

  Peter Hain
  The Commission does not publish verbatim reports of their meetings. But since 1 January 2002, the Commission publishes summary records of the meetings of the College on its website. These can be accessed at www.europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat—general/meeting/archives—en.htm for a period of three months following the date of the proceedings.

  Investment Dispute
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he intends to take to inform British(a) missions and (b) international investors of the consequences of the World Bank's Ad Hoc Committee's decision to uphold the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes judgment in the case of WENA Hotels against the Government of Egypt. [39723]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes publishes awards rendered in its proceedings on its website (http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/) and in its journal, provided it has the consent of both parties. Either party may also decide to publish awards on its own initiative.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 21 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Houria Meziani. [42796]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I regret that, due to an administrative error, my right hon. Friend has not yet received a reply to his letter of 21 January.
  870W
  The matter is being checked urgently and a reply will be sent in the next few days.

  General Affairs Council
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether a Scottish Executive Minister will be a member of the UK delegation to the forthcoming General Affairs European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 11–12 March; and what information is being provided by his Department to guarantee effective pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [42686]

  Peter Hain
  I attended the General Affairs Council on 11–12 March, representing all parts of the UK.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 February 2002, official Report, column 66W, which appeared on 4 March 2002.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what role British forces are playing in the destruction of the Afghan opium poppy crop; [40387]

  (2) what instructions have been given to British forces in Afghanistan in respect of preventing the export of heroin to the United Kingdom; [40388]

  (3) what role British forces are playing in the tracking down and destruction of heroin stockpiles in Afghanistan; [40386]

  (4) how many tonnes of heroin stockpiled in Afghanistan have been destroyed by (a) British forces and (b) the Afghan Government. [40391]

  Mr. Ingram
  The International Security Assistance Force's role in Afghanistan is to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in providing security and stability in Kabul. Some opiate stockpiles may have been destroyed during coalition military attacks on terrorist targets. I understand that the Afghan Interim Authority is planning to destroy the opium crop this month.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the Afghan Government about the role of British forces in Afghanistan. [39595]

  Mr. Hoon
  I met the Afghan Defence Minister in London on 31 January 2002. I also met members of the Afghan Interim Administration (AIA) in Kabul on 5 February 2002, notably the Chairman of the AIA and the Interior and Defence Ministers. We discussed a variety of issues, including the role of British forces in Afghanistan.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which consultant was used to advise on the installation of air conditioning during the recent refurbishment of(a) his Department's main building and (b) RAF High Wycombe. [41171]
  871W
  Dr. Moonie
  Main building will be comfort cooled using a chilled beam system. This system incorporates heat recovery on both air and water systems. The Ministry of Defence's advisers were Roger Preston and Partners.

  TPS Consult advised the Ministry of Defence on the chiller replacement project in the Strike Command Operations Centre at RAF High Wycombe.

  A400M
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors will be considered in the decision about which company will supply the A400M engine for the European project; and if he will make a statement. [41602]

  Dr. Moonie
  The prime contract with the Airbus Military Company is for the development and production of the A400M, including its engines. The contract specifies overall performance guarantees that the company must achieve. It is for the prime contractor, therefore, to define the selection criteria against which to judge potential engines and engine manufacturers; but among these would undoubtedly be performance and cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Government Costs
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the cost of governing Northern Ireland(a) under devolution excluding the cost of reserved matters and (b) under direct rule. [36707]

  Dr. John Reid
  (a) The cost of governing Northern Ireland after devolution is a matter for the Assembly—however, the Department of Finance and Personnel provided the following NI Block totals.

  (b) The table shows the cost of governing NI in the year before devolution began (1998–99), and the years in which devolution/suspension took place (1999–2000 and 2000–01).

  £ million

  NI Block

  year

  NIO WW

  DEL

  AME

  1998–99

  975

  4,687

  3,534

  16

  1999–20001

  11,026

  4,914

  3,631

  37

  2000–011

  1,138

  5,249

  4,965

  39

  1 Devolution began in December 1999 and was suspended between February and May 2000, with the result that in:

  1999–2000 £4,221K for NI Assembly was included in the NIO totals.

  2000–01 £1,733K for NI Assembly was included in the NIO totals

  Ministerial Private Offices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the running costs were of(a) his Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) his Department in each year from May 1997 to the nearest date for which the information is available. [40983]

  Dr. John Reid
  For the 1997–98 financial year, no breakdown is available from May, therefore the total is for the whole year. For the 2001–02 financial year—the total spend is not yet available, therefore the figure is an estimate based on spend to date.

  Details of the Department's (including it's agencies, but excluding NDPBs as we do not have access to a breakdown of their expenditure) total expenditure on:

  £

  (a)

  Ministers

  Staff

  1997–98

  3,218,755

  1—

  1998–99

  2,109,653

  1,317,114

  1999–2000

  1,810,886

  1,319,753

  2000–01

  1,897,659

  1,209,805

  2001–02

  1,163,7502

  21,186,332

  1 Total—including staff

  2 Est

  (b) The Northern Ireland Office

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  1,012,450,000

  1998–99

  985,989,705

  1999–2000

  1,044,332,169

  2000–01

  1,199,617,636

  2001–02

  1,120,667,473

  1 Est

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the annual budget for communications activities, including press, public relations, marketing and internal communications, was for his Department for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02. [39913]

  Dr. John Reid
  Details of the Department's (including its agencies, but excluding NDPB's as we do not have access to a breakdown of their expenditure) total expenditure on:

  Press/public relations/marketing

  £

  1997–98

  1,077,706

  1998–99

  2,466,691

  1999–2000

  695,017

  2000–01

  591,075

  2001–02

  11,201,623

  1 To date. Estimated total is £1,441,173.

  It is not possible to identify separate costs for internal communications (i.e. staff magazines or press cuttings).

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many days have been lost owing to industrial action by staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [36195]

  The Solicitor-General
  In my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, no days have been lost owing to industrial action by staff in each of the last four years.

  In the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  There has been only one instance of industrial action in the Crown Prosecution Service in the last four years. On that occasion, in January 2000, 2,079 days were lost.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  There have been no instances of industrial action in the Treasury Solicitor's Department since 5 November 1993.

  Serious Fraud Office

  There have been no instances of industrial action in the Serious Fraud Office in the last four years.

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what legal costs have been incurred by her Department in each of the last four years. [34345]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The legal costs incurred by my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, are included in the Crown Prosecution Service and Treasury Solicitor's Department figures.

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The legal costs associated with Counsel fees, witness expenses and other prosecution costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service in each of the last four years were as follows:

  £95.2 million in 1997–98

  £98.1 million in 1998–99

  £99.4 million in 1999–2000

  £107.8 million in 2000–01.

  'Other prosecution costs' includes costs awarded against the CPS, which in each of the last four years were as follows:

  £0.3 million in 1997–98

  £0.9 million in 1998–99

  £0.3 million in 1999–2000

  £0.3 million in 2000–01.

  Expenditure on administration related legal costs, comprising Lawyer Agents and Treasury Solicitor's fees, was as follows:

  £3.8 million in 1997–98

  £4.3 million in 1998–99

  £5.3 million in 1999–2000

  £6.3 million in 2000–01.

  874W
  The cost of employing Counsel and Solicitor advocates in the Crown and Higher Courts increased by 6 per cent. in real terms in 2000–01 compared with the previous year. The increase is a result of greater complexity of cases and length of trails, largely as a result of the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department provides legal services to other Government Departments. The legal costs incurred in the last four years were as follows:

  £20,063,000 in 1997–98

  £20,179,000 in 1998–99

  £22,408,000 in 1999–2000

  £26,743,000 in 2000–01

  £22,340,000 in 2001–02 (to 31 December 2001).

  In the course of its work over the last four years, the Treasury Solicitor's Department has also incurred costs instructing barristers and solicitor agents, expert witnesses, inquiry agents and other case expenses. These costs were as follows:

  £16,672,000 in 1997–98

  £25,945,000 in 1998–99

  £25,795,000 in 1999–2000

  £31,564,000 in 2000–01

  £22,470,000 in 2001–02 (to 31 December 2001).

  The vast majority of these costs were recovered through payments from other Government Departments, and were accounted for by them. The Treasury Solicitor's Department incurred the following costs on legal services on its own account for cases undertaken in the general public interest:

  £5,307,000 in 1997–98

  £3,874,000 in 1998–99

  £4,244,000 in 1999–2000

  £6,113,000 in 2000–01

  £2,139,000 in 2001–02 (to 31 December 2001).

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office makes use of external legal services as part of its normal operational and administrative functions.

  The Serious Fraud Office's legal costs fall broadly into three areas:

  1. The instruction of counsel in cases;

  2. Specific advice from external firms;

  3. Other civil litigation work carried out by the Treasury Solicitor's Department.

  875W
  The legal costs incurred in each of the last four years were as follows:
  Instruction of Counsel

  £2,563,795 in 1997–98

  £2,789,951 in 1998–99

  £2,460,647 in 1999–2000

  £3,315,211 in 2000–01

  £3,568,958 in 2001–02 (to date).

  Advice from external firms

  £0 in 1997–98

  £3,373 in 1998–99

  £13,185 in 1999–2000

  £43,699 in 2000–01

  £19,990 in 2001–02 (to date).

  Civil Litigation Work by Treasury Solicitor's Department

  £86,229 in 1997–98

  £46,447 in 1998–99

  £36,036 in 1999–2000

  £1,650 in 2000–01

  £2,686 in 2001–02 (to date).

  Fair Trade Goods
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Solicitor-General, pursuant to her answers of 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 895W, and 27 November 2001, Official Report, column 745W, on fair trade goods, if she will review during Fair Trade Fortnight the amount of fairly traded goods used in her Department. [35451]

  The Solicitor-General
  In my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, there are no plans to review the amount of fairly traded goods used in the Department but it is always ready to use fair trade products when these represent good value.

  In the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  A review undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service and its catering provider regarding the use of fair trade products, led to a proposal to promote fair trade confectionery in the staff restaurant facility.

  In response to earlier parliamentary questions from the hon. Member, the Crown Prosecution Service reviewed its suppliers' use of fair trade products. This review found that, although the supplier was willing to switch to fair trade products as ingredients in foods, this would mean that the overall cost of meals provided would no longer be competitive with other providers in the area. Therefore it was decided that Fair Trade confectionery items would be sold (on a promotional basis), within the canteen facility.

  The Crown Prosecution Service's involvement with fair trade is in relation only to its catering supplier, which manages the canteen in Crown Prosecution Service headquarters at Ludgate Hill. There are no other canteen facilities elsewhere in the Crown Prosecution Service. Therefore, the overall value of the contract is very small.

  However, the Crown Prosecution Service encourages ethical purchasing as part of it's purchasing policy.
  876W
  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has no plans to review the amount of fairly traded goods used in the Department, but is always ready to use fair trade products when these represent good value.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department encourages ethical purchasing as a part of it's purchasing policy.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office has no plans to review the amount of fairly traded goods used in the Department.

  When purchasing goods the Serious Fraud Office supports the principles of Government procurement, which means ensuring that the Department obtains overall value for money.

  The Serious Fraud Office encourages ethical purchasing as a part of it's overall purchasing policy.

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General 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. [36219]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: In my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, no staff receive paid leave to undertake trade union duties.

  In the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Facility time allocation in the Crown Prosecution Service is in the form of a block allowance to the two recognised trade unions and it is for the unions to allocate the allowance to their accredited representatives. In each of the last four years, the unions have received a block allowance of 2,674 days. The number of staff receiving paid leave to undertake union duties and the cost to public funds in each of the last four years are as follows:

  £

  Number of staff

  Cost

  1997–98

  74

  175,984.46

  1998–99

  92

  122,797.73

  1999–2000

  99

  192,346.36

  2000–01

  129

  213,683.55

  The cost of facility time as a percentage of the total salary bill for the last four years has been a constant 0.1 per cent. (rounded up).

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Seven members of staff in the Treasury Solicitor's Department receive paid leave to undertake union duties. The total allocation is 40 days per year. The cost to the public funds in each of the last four years was as follows:

  £9,943.79 in 1997–98

  £11,348.83 in 1998–99

  £11,689.57 in 1999–2000

  £12,096.37 in 2000–01.

  877W
  Serious Fraud Office

  No staff in the Serious Fraud Office receive paid leave to undertake trade union duties.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General 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. [36220]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The Attorney-General has not made or laid any statutory instruments before Parliament in the last 12 months.

  In the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  No statutory instruments have been issued by the Crown Prosecution Service in the last 12 months.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  No statutory instruments have been issued by the Treasury Solicitor's Department in the last 12 months. Members of the Department have however assisted in the preparation of statutory instruments issued by the Departments they advise.

  Serious Fraud Office

  No statutory instruments have been issued by the Serious Fraud Office in the last 12 months.

  Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the publications issued by her Department in each of the last four years; and what the(a) circulation, (b) cost and (c) purpose of each was. [34201]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The Attorney-General each year lays before Parliament the Law Officers' Departments Departmental Report setting out the Government's Expenditure Plans and Main Estimates for the Departments for the coming years. The costs of production are not borne by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and the circulation figures are not known.

  In August 2000 the Attorney-General published a Report by His Honour Gerald Butler QC on the future and role of Treasury Counsel at the Central Criminal Court and published a Government Response to that report in November 2000. Both reports were copied and bound within LSLO. The cost was met within the budgets held for photocopying and stationery and is not separately available. About 100 copies of each were produced.

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The publications issued by the Crown Prosecution Service in each of the last four years were as follows:

  1997–98

  Departmental Report (Crown Prosecution Service entry in Law Officers' Spring Departmental Report)

  Circulation: 250

  Cost: £6,838

  DPP's Annual Report to the Attorney-General

  Circulation: 4,500

  Cost: £17,480

  878W
  1998–99

  Departmental Report (Crown Prosecution Service entry in Law Officers' Spring Departmental Report)

  Circulation: 250

  Cost: £5,900

  DPP's Annual Report to the Attorney-General

  Circulation: 4,500

  Cost: £22,695

  1999–2000

  Departmental Report (Crown Prosecution Service entry in Law Officers' Spring Departmental Report)

  Circulation: 250

  Cost: £6,851

  DPP's Annual Report to the Attorney-General

  Circulation: 4,500

  Cost: £17,574

  Business Plan 1999–2000

  Circulation: 1,500

  Cost: £8,300

  2000–01

  Departmental Report (Crown Prosecution Service entry in Law Officers' Spring Departmental Report)

  Circulation: 250

  Cost: £7,024

  DPP's Annual Report to the Attorney-General

  Circulation: 4,500

  Cost: £26,208

  Business Plan 2000–01

  Circulation: 2,500

  Cost: £9,251.

  For the purposes of this answer, publications have been taken to mean those significant documents that are issued by the service as a whole to serve both an internal and external audience.

  Publication of the "Departmental Report" is mandatory. It is one of the key mechanisms through which Departments demonstrate their accountability to Parliament and the public. The CPS distributes copies to senior management within headquarters, libraries, business managers and to the Chief Crown Prosecutors in the 42 areas across England and Wales. Copies are also sent to the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General and to the Parliamentary Clerk for laying in both Houses, for the benefit of Members.

  The purpose of the "Business Plan" is to set out clearly the vision, aim and objectives, and priorities of the CPS, what it wants to achieve with the resources it has been given and the actions it needs to take in order to deliver the plan. They are the blueprint for all other plans in the CPS so that staff know how their day to day tasks fit in with the bigger picture. And, to inform counterparts in other criminal justice departments and their agencies and service, and those with an interest in criminal justice about the direction and priorities of the CPS.

  The Crown Prosecution Service's one year "Business Plan"; and the "Director of Public Prosecutions' Annual Report to the Attorney-General" are circulated to all middle and senior managers in the CPS with a summary going to all staff; they are circulated to criminal justice departments and their agencies/services both nationally and locally; to some members of the judiciary; and to those with an interest in criminal justice.
  879W
  The Director of Public prosecutions is required by statute to produce an "annual report to the Attorney-General" on the performance of the CPS. The report is laid before Parliament.

  Because of uncertainties associated with the election of 1997 and the Gildewell Review of the CPS, which did not report until June 1998, no Business Plans were published for 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The publications issued by the Treasury Solicitor's Department in each of the last four years were as follows:

  1998

  Departmental Report (Treasury Solicitor's Department entry in Law Officer's Spring Departmental Report)

  Circulation: Parliament, Law Officers, Treasury Solicitor's Department management and the general public.

  Cost: £500

  Purpose: To present the Department's spending plans to Parliament and the public.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department Annual Report 1996–97

  Circulation: Parliament, Law Officers, Treasury Solicitor's Department management and staff.

  Cost: £12,000

  Purpose: Executive Agency requirement.

  Government Legal Service Journal (two editions)

  Circulation: All Government Legal Service lawyers.

  Cost: £3,000

  Purpose: To strengthen the corporate identity of and communication within the Government Legal Service.

  Government Legal Service Recruitment Brochure

  Circulation: Universities and other educational establishments; inquirers and potential applicants.

  Cost: £18,500

  Purpose: To raise the profile of and attract recruits to the Government Legal Service.

  1999

  Departmental Report (Treasury Solicitor's Departmental entry in Law Officer's Spring Departmental Report)

  Circulation: Universities and other educational establishments; inquirers and potential applicants.

  Cost: £18,500

  Purpose: To raise the profile of and attract recruits to the Government Legal Service.

  Government Legal Service Journal (two editions)

  Circulation: Universities and other educational establishments; inquirers and potential applicants.

  Cost: £3,500

  Purpose: To raise the profile of and attract recruits to the Government Legal Service.

  2000

  Departmental Report (Treasury Solicitor's Department entry in Law Officer's Spring Departmental Report)

  Circulation: Universities and other educational establishments; inquirers and potential applicants.

  Cost: £3,500

  Purpose: To raise the profile of and attract recruits to the Government Legal Service.

  880W
  Government Property Lawyers' Annual Report and Accounts 1997–98 and 1998–99

  Circulation: Parliament, Law Officers, Treasury Solicitor's Department management and staff.

  Cost: £7,000

  Purpose: Executive Agency requirement

  Treasury Solicitor's Department Annual Report 1999£2000

  Circulation: Parliament, Law Officers, Treasury Solicitor's Department management and staff.

  Cost: £10,000

  Purpose: Executive Agency requirement

  Government Legal Service Journal

  Circulation: Parliament, Law Officers, Treasury Solicitor's Department management and staff

  Cost: £2,500

  Purpose: Executive Agency requirement

  Government Legal Service Recruitment Brochure

  Circulation: Parliament, Law Officers, Treasury Solicitor's Department management and staff

  Cost: £8,000

  Purpose: Executive Agency requirement

  2001

  Departmental Report (Treasury Solicitor's Department entry in Law Officer's Spring Departmental Report)

  Circulation: Parliament, Law Officers, Treasury Solicitor's Department management and staff

  Cost: £8,000

  Purpose: Executive Agency requirement

  Treasury Solicitor's Department's Resource Account 1999–2000

  Circulation: Parliament, Law Officers, Treasury Solicitor's Department management

  Cost: £1,000

  Purpose: Departmental requirement

  Treasury Solicitor's Department's Annual Reports for 2000–01

  Circulation: Parliament, Law Officers, Treasury Solicitor's Department management

  Cost: £7,500

  Purpose: Departmental requirement

  Government Legal Service Journal (four editions)

  Circulation: Parliament, Law Officers, Treasury Solicitor's Department management

  Cost: £12,000

  Purpose: Departmental requirement

  Government Legal Service Annual Report for 1999–2000

  Circulation: Law Officers, senior Government Legal Service management and all Government Legal Service lawyers

  Cost: £21,000

  Purpose: To report on key Government Legal Service issues such as recruitment, retention, mobility and diversity.

  2002

  Government Legal Service Recruitment Brochure

  Circulation: Law Offices, senior Government Legal Service management and all Government Legal Service lawyers

  Cost: £10,000

  Purpose: To report on key Government Legal Service issues such as recruitment retention, mobility and diversity.

  This list includes only professionally produced publications for external use. Publications produced in-house have not been included.
  881W
  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office has three major publications which are the Annual Report, the Departmental Report and the Resource Accounts. The total cost of publications over the last four years is as follows:

  £54,448.63 in 1997–98

  £28,219.34 in 1998–99

  £22,440.36 in 1999–2000

  £49,498.62 in 2000–01

  £64,072.64 in 2001–02.

  Owing to the nature of the Serious Fraud Office's records relating to its publications, individual costs and circulation figures could not be made available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Publicity
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment she has made of the total real terms expenditure of her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity in each of the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year; and if she will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (A) advertising and (B) press and public relations. [36156]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, keeps no separate figures for expenditure on publicity but the sums involved are minimal.

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The total real terms expenditure by the Crown Prosecution Service on publicity broken down by (A) advertising and (B) press and public relations for each of the years (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01, and (e) 2001–02 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year is as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  Advertising

  83,000

  Press and public relations

  59,000

  Total

  142,000

  1998–99

  Advertising

  101,000

  Press and public relations

  108,000

  Total

  209,000

  1999–2000

  Advertising

  105,000

  Press and public relations

  179,000

  Total

  284,000

  2000–01

  Advertising

  195,000

  Press and public relations Total

  109,000

  Total

  304,000

  2001–02 (to date)

  Advertising

  566,000

  Press and public relations

  140,000

  Total

  706,000

  2001–02 (estimated for whole year)

  Advertising

  688,000

  Press and public relations

  168,000

  Total

  856,000

  882W
  Responsibility for advertising expenditure rests with local managers in CPS areas and functional managers in CPS headquarters.

  Responsibility for expenditure on press and public relations rests with the Head of Communications Division with budget approval by the CPS board. Expenditure is primarily associated with promotional material for distribution at recruitment fairs and conferences and to raise the profile in local communities.

  Advertising expenditure is restricted to recruitment of new staff. The marked increase in expenditure in the current year is a result of additional investment in the CPS from SR2000 and a nationwide recruitment drive to achieve the target in 'The Way Ahead', of employing 300 extra lawyers by 2004.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The expenditure on advertising and publicity by the Treasury Solicitor's Department in the last four years is as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  Advertising

  40,196

  Press and public relations

  33,376

  Total

  73,572

  1998–99

  Advertising

  20,177

  Press and public relations

  44,364

  Total

  64,541

  1999–2000

  Advertising

  12,021

  Press and public relations

  6,401

  Total

  18,422

  2000–01

  Advertising

  68,647

  Press and public relations

  19,611

  Total

  88,258

  2001–02 (to date)

  Advertising

  72,310

  Press and public relations

  20,250

  Total

  92,560

  Expenditure on advertising by the Treasury Solicitor's Department is directly related to the recruitment of lawyers to the Government Legal Service (GLS) and administrative staff.

  Publicity costs cover GLS representation at careers fairs, printing and publication of the GLS Journal and printing and publication of annual reports and departmental reports.

  In addition the Bona Vacantia division of the Treasury Solicitor's Department regularly places advertisements in the press seeking kin in cases where individuals have died intestate with no apparent claimants to the estate under administration. Over the period in question the real terms expenditure has been as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  173,576

  1998–99

  149,273

  1999–2000

  189,868

  2000–01

  189,805

  2001–021

  192,800

  1 To date

  883W
  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office is a small department with no agencies or non-departmental bodies. It has a press office capability which is small in relation to its high public profile, achieving good value at a reasonable cost. The Serious Fraud Office does not run advertising campaigns.

  Expenditure on publicity by the Serious Fraud Office in each of the last four years was as follows:

  Actual £

  Real terms1 £

  Growth (per cent.)

  1997–98

  171,565

  171,565

  0

  1998–99

  144,637

  140,704

  -17.99

  1999–2000

  128,900

  122,440

  -28.63

  2000–01

  172,184

  160,718

  -6.32

  2001–022

  177,918

  162,020

  -5.56

  2001–023

  200,000

  182,129

  6.16

  1 GDP deflator.

  2 To date.

  3 Estimated for whole year.

  The above figures represent direct costs including staff salaries and publications relating to press and public relations for the Serious Fraud Office.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost of refurbishing each Ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37822]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The Ministerial Private Office at the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers is decorated and refurbished as part of a rolling programme of redecoration and refurbishment of the entire premises in accordance with the terms of the building's lease. No separate figures for the costs involved in refurbishing and redecorating the Private Office are available.

  Empty Paper
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the total area in square feet of all empty properties owned by(a) her Department, (b) her agencies and (c) other public bodies for which she has had responsibility was in each year since May 1997. [37808]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, does not own or lease any empty properties and has not owned or leased any empty properties in each of the last four years.

  In the Department for which the Attorney-General is responsible, details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The total area in square feet of all empty property owned by the Crown Prosecution Service in each year since May 1997 is as follows:

  24,720 square feet in 1997–98

  24,720 square feet in 1998–99

  51,809.4 square feet in 1999–2000

  19,851.1 square feet in 2000–01

  19,288.4 square feet in 2001–02.

  884W
  The Crown Prosecution Service currently has direct financial and managerial responsibility for offices in 108 locations. This comprises four freehold sites, 25 buildings were the leasehold interest relates to the whole property and a further 63 buildings where the leasehold interest only relates to part of the premises.

  In May 1997, the Crown Prosecution Service had contactual commitments on six empty office buildings with a total floor area of 24,720 sq ft.

  This increased to nine buildings by may 199, and an additional 27,089 sq ft.

  This reduced by May 2000 to a total of 19,851 sq ft in six premises.

  By May 2001 there were six empty office buildings which the Crown Prosecution Service had as leasehold interests, with a total floor area of 19,288 sq ft.

  Expressed as a percentage against the total floor area under Crown Prosecution Service stewardship, the amount of vacant office space decreased between May 1997 and December 2001 from 4.6 per cent. during financial year 1997–98 to 2.2 per cent. for financial year 2001–02.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has not empty properties. The Treasury Solicitor's Department headquarters building (Queen Anne's Chambers, SW1) is fully occupied, but some small shop units in the frontage, let to commercial concerns, have been vacant from time to time as follows:

  291 square feet in 2000–01

  478 square feet in 2001–02 (to date).

  In 1999, following closure of the Government Property Lawyers, the building they used was largely vacated. The following square feet of space was vacant space in 1997–98 and subsequent financial years:

  zero square feet in 1997–98

  zero square feet in 1998–99

  15,950.67 square feet in 1999–2000

  24,913.33 square feet in 2000–01

  10,136.47 square feet in 2001–02 (to date).

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud office does not currently own or lease any empty property and has not owned or leased any empty property in each of the last four years.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the extent to which fuel poverty has changed in Great Britain as a result of recent changes in gas charges to domestic consumers. [36782]

  Mr. Wilson
  The increases in gas prices have largely been offset by decreases in electricity prices and therefore should not adversely affect the numbers in fuel poverty at present.
  885W
  The Government have recognised in their fuel poverty strategy the importance of fuel prices in tackling fuel poverty and will monitor the situation carefully as part of its overall monitoring of progress towards its fuel poverty targets.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assumptions about(a) energy prices, (b) improvements in energy efficiency standards and (c) household incomes were used to arrive at the reduced incidence of fuel poverty cited in the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy document published in November 2001. [42198]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The estimates of fuel poverty in England in 1998 were based on income and energy efficiency information collected from a sample survey (the Energy Follow UP Survey to the English House Condition Survey (EFUS)). The estimates for 1999 and 2000 were based on the results from the 1998 EFUS, but taking account of estimated changes in incomes and fuel prices. No account was taken of changes in energy efficiency since 1998. The detailed assumptions underlying these estimates are set out in the "Fuel Poverty in England in 1999 and 2000" document which, as stated in the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, was published at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/fuelpoverty/index.htm.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to her Department of the parental leave directive. [42491]

  Ms Hewitt
  The costs of implementation of the parental leave directive to my department have been nil.

  Post

  Advertised

  Cost (£)1

  Chief Executive Insolvency Service

  Financial Times

  5,770.00

  Director, Industrial Development Unit

  Sunday Times/Times/Financial Times

  17,865.00

  Chief Executive, NWML

  Sunday Times/Times

  7,195.00

  Solicitor and DG, Legal Services

  Sunday Times/Times

  7,320.00

  Chief executive, Companies House

  Sunday Times/Times

  12,805.00

  Regional Director, GO-NE

  Sunday Times/Times

  11,058.00

  Director, Future and Innovation

  Sunday Times/Times

  11,105.00

  Chief Executive, SBS

  Sunday Times/Times

  9,770.00

  Chief Economic Adviser

  Sunday Times/Times/Financial Times

  19,220.00

  Director, UK Foresight Programme

  Sunday Times/Times

  11,732.50

  Environmental Specialist/Senior Manager

  New Scientist

  6,715.00

  Ends Report

  1,450.00

  Aberdeen Press and Journal

  3,672.00

  Aberdeen Press and Journal

  2,700.00

  Library Information Professionals

  LA Record

  1,222.00

  Administrator/Admin. Assistant, Cardiff

  Western Mail/South Wales Echo

  11,107.80

  Technical Advisers

  Daily Telegraph

  5,964.00

  Investigation Officers

  Police Review

  4,600.00

  Guardian

  2,400.00

  Finance Managers, London

  Accountancy Age

  3,000.00

  Financial Times

  6,000.00

  Administrator/admin. Assistant, London

  Ethnic Media Group

  4,028.40

  The Voice

  2,080.60

  Ready, Willing and Able

  300.00

  Metro

  3,314.40

  Evening Standard

  5,285.04

  886W
  The benefits for the department's staff are further opportunities to take leave for the care of their children which gives greater flexibility when balancing their responsibilities at work and at home.

  The benefits to the department include enhancing the DTI's reputation as an employer of choice and contributing to the diversity of the work force; benefits which are directly passed on to our customers.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what proportion of the staff of her Department are(a) job sharing, (b) term working and (c) engaged in another form of flexible working. [42430]

  Ms Hewitt
  Currently in DTI HQ there are 28 job shares; there are no individuals working school term times only and the staff survey shows that 78 per cent. of staff state that their managers allow working patterns to help them balance work and home life.

  Currently our data is limited, as many flexible working patterns are negotiated locally. However, on 2 April of this year the department will be launching a new flexible working policy (including full guidance for managers and staff) to ensure that new ways of working are available to all individuals and that the benefits to stakeholders, customers, managers and staff are fully maximised. We will also be putting in place mechanisms to monitor the increased take-up of flexible working.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the job advertisements placed by her Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39055]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested is in the following table.
  887W

  Post

  Advertised

  Cost (£)1

  Administrator, Edinburgh

  The Scotsman

  4,395.40

  Security Inspectors, Harwell

  Telegraph

  8,521.60

  Administrator, Edinburgh

  The Scotsman

  5,402.80

  Personal Assistant, Harwell

  The Wantage and Grove Herald

  874.80

  Newbury Weekly News

  786.80

  Secretarial Support, London

  Disability Now

  1,792.56

  Evening Standard and Metro

  8,538.16

  Ethnic Media Group

  4,142.64

  Ms London and Nine to Five

  2,650.80

  Administrator, Watford

  Watford Observer

  900.48

  Porter/Messenger, London

  Evening Standard

  1,892.08

  Admin. Assistant, Birmingham

  Birmingham Mail

  3,427.28

  1 Excluding VAT

  Cowboy Builders
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has for the future of the Quality Mark to combat cowboy builders. [43124]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am pleased to announce that the Quality Mark is going to be rolled out across the country over a three to four year period. The progressive rollout will begin with urban areas in England and Wales and districts that have already demonstrated interest in the scheme.

  The Quality Mark was established to combat the problem of cowboy builders by creating a list of approved tradesmen. Homeowners can call the Quality Mark hotline on 0845 300 8040 or log on to www.qualitymark.org.uk to find an independently assessed tradesman in one of 18 trades to work in their home. The scheme was piloted for six months in Birmingham and Somerset. 150 tradesmen have achieved the Quality Mark and 25,000 consumers have phoned or logged on to access the list of approved tradesmen.

  The pilot has been evaluated by a review group including industry, consumer and regulatory interests. The group published their report on 28 February and found that:
  Quality Mark meets the broad aims of the Cowboy Builders Working Group report which originally recommended the scheme;
  the mechanisms, standards and independent audits work and are set at the right levels; and
  the partnership with industry and stakeholders works well.

  The review recommended that a shadow ownership group, featuring the main partners, and working with DTI, should be established quickly to drive forward the implementation of Quality Mark. Membership and terms of reference of the group will be outlined shortly. There will also be a launch event in the coming weeks.

  Finally I would like to make it clear that reputable tradesmen all over the country can join the Quality Mark scheme immediately through the hotline or website. This is the only scheme that gives reputable tradesmen the opportunity to demonstrate their professionalism and separate themselves from the cowboys. I encourage tradesmen and local authorities to get behind the Quality. Mark so that people around the country can benefit from the scheme as homeowners in Birmingham and Somerset have.

  Small Businesses
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support will be made available to small businesses to enable them to comply with the legal requirement to provide disabled access once the extension of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is implemented in October 2004. [39770]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service is currently working with the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) to produce a factsheet and audio guide informing small businesses about the requirements of the DDA, including the requirement which will be implemented in October 2004.

  The DRC published a revised Code of Practice on rights of access to goods, facilities, services and premises for disabled people on 26 February 2002. This statutory code explains the law and provides practical guidance for service providers on their current duties and those that will come into force in 2004.

  As well as the code, the DRC have recently published "A practical guide for small businesses and other small service providers". The guide offers advice on how small businesses and service providers might meet the needs of their disabled customers. A range of leaflets focusing on specific types of business is also available from the DRC. Advice and information on all aspects of the DDA is available via the DRC helpline.

  The Government are also working on raising awareness of the DDA among small businesses. In January we launched a large national campaign which featured small businesses in seven adverts on the theme of "How well do you serve your disabled customers?"

  Engineering Industry
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on the references in the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's digest of engineering statistics, "Engineers for Britain—The State of the Profession Towards 2002", as to(a) the general trend in the industry being for reduction and (b) the levels of dissatisfaction employers have with the skills of engineering graduates; [39704]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the conclusions of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council in its digest of engineering statistics, "Engineers for Britain—The State of the Profession Towards 2002",

  889W
  (a) that British engineering industry may suffer from a concealed skills shortage and (b) on the role for technological change and education in the process of economic growth; [39528]

  (3) if she will respond to the recommendation of the Engineering Council and Physical Sciences Research Council in its digest of engineering statistics, "Engineers for Britain—The State of the Profession Towards 2002", on the availability of information on the contribution to the economy of the engineering profession. [39531]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The Government are aware of the importance of the contribution that the engineering and technology community makes to the UK economy and that it has the potential to make a greater contribution in the future. That is why we supported the work led by Dr. Robert Hawley, the last Chairman of the Engineering Council, that has led to the establishment of the Engineering and Technology Board (ETB) chaired by Sir Peter Williams. We are also supporting the ETB in the work it has embarked on to make itself more relevant to the concerns of all in the wider engineering and technology community.

  It is also why, in the last Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced that they had commissioned Sir Gareth Roberts, President of Wolfson College Oxford, to undertake an independent study into the provision of skilled scientists and engineers in the UK. Sir Gareth's report is expected shortly.

  Many of the matters raised in the Engineering Council's Digest of Engineering Statistics will be considered by the Government in the context of Sir Gareth's Report and I anticipate that they will inform the future work of the ETB.

  Enterprise Grant Scheme
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many bids under the enterprise grant scheme have been made by businesses within the former South Yorkshire coalfield area since 1999; and what the value and the details of the grants awarded are. [41481]

  Alan Johnson
  The Enterprise Grant Scheme (EGS) has been operational since 1 January 2000. It is available to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) with fewer than 250 employees to support capital investment projects of up to £0.5 million.

  The whole of South Yorkshire is covered by the EGS where grant can be awarded of up to 15 per cent. of eligible capital expenditure up to a maximum of £75,000. Since 1 January 2000, 116 EGS applications have been received from South Yorkshire companies resulting in 86 formal offers of grant with a grant value of £2.1 million against estimated capital costs of £18 million. These projects are expected to create or safeguard 530 jobs. Separate statistics are not available for the former South Yorkshire coalfield areas but approximately half of the offers relate to businesses in these areas. Details of the individual grant offers made to companies are commercially confidential.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the contracts agreed by her Department with the five largest accountancy firms since May 1997; and what was the total value of contracts with each. [42096]

  Ms Hewitt
  Contracts agreed with Arthur Andersen were listed in my reply to the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 61W. Their total value was £4,917,000. Detailed information on contracts agreed with the other four largest accountancy firms is not centrally available for the earlier years and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; but for the calendar years 2000–01, central records indicate the following numbers of contracts and total values:

  £

  Accountancy firms

  Number

  Deloitte & Touche

  12

  6,489,547

  Ernst & Young

  59

  1,708,722

  Pricewaterhouse Coopers

  33

  1,597,403

  KPMG

  7

  133,783

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who(a) owns and (b) runs the wind farms in the UK; and how much has been paid by the Government to develop wind power in each of the last three years. [41328]

  Mr. Wilson
  Wind farms in the UK are commercial developments, usually owned and run by the project developer. The table below sets out public support for approved wind energy projects given through the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) and the comparable arrangements operating in Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is public expenditure, but paid for by the electricity consumer through the Fossil Fuel Levy.

  £million

  NFFO

  SRO

  NFFO-NI

  1998–99

  35.1

  7.2

  7.3

  1999–2000

  7.3

  8.1

  7.8

  2000–01

  6.8

  7.1

  7.3

  Support from NFFO is lower after 1998–99 because NFFO 1 and 2 contracts terminated on 31 December 1998.

  Spend on research projects into wind energy from my Department's Sustainable Energy Programme has been running at close to £1 million each year, and there may be other relevant research funded by the Research Councils.

  Wind farms will also benefit from the proposed Renewables Obligation now before Parliament. Again the cost will be borne by the electricity consumer.

  LNM Holdings
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Government Departments or agencies have conducted an assessment of the background of Mr. Mittal of LNM Holdings in the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [38504]
  891W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 4 March 2002, Official Report, column 67W.

  I can also confirm that no such assessment was carried out by my own Department or its agencies.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those items valued at less than £50 each which have been stolen or lost from her Department in each of the last four years. [34206]

  Clare Short
  There were no reported thefts of official property valued at under £50 during the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2001. A small number of items of personal property were reported as having been stolen during this period.

  Burkina Faso
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what charities and NGOs her Department funds in Burkina Faso. [34649]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is currently supporting the work of five non-governmental organisations in Burkina Faso. Through our Small Grants Scheme we assist the work of the Association Kobinkale. We are also supporting the work of Action on Disability and Development, Anti-Slavery International, PLAN International and ACCORD through the Civil Society Challenge Fund (CSCF) and the Joint Funding Scheme (JFS).

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much private sector investment has been committed through the PPP of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. [41985]

  Clare Short
  CDC was transformed in 1999 into a public limited company which as yet remains wholly Government-owned. CDC already joint-manages a number of funds containing private capital.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the(a) existing and (b) target rate of return is on development projects undertaken by CDC Capital Partners. [41986]

  Clare Short
  Since CDC was transformed into a public limited company in 1999, no target rate of return has been set by the Government. The existing rates of return on CDC's investments vary between industry sector and region. CDC invests in commercially viable businesses and aims to generate attractive rates of return.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 5W, how much of each sum invested in poorer countries by the
  892W
  CDC was invested in countries in sub-Saharan Africa in the five years from 1996 to 2000; and if she will break these investments down by country. [34314]

  Clare Short
  The total value of CDC's investments in sub-Saharan Africa in the five years from 1996 to 2000, broken down by country, was as follows.

  £million

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Malawi

  9

  10

  7

  4

  —

  Mozambique

  2

  3

  8

  17

  6

  Zambia

  17

  13

  5

  14

  11

  Zimbabwe

  10

  4

  5

  7

  3

  Kenya

  2

  1

  7

  7

  10

  Tanzania

  6

  13

  21

  3

  18

  Uganda

  4

  8

  3

  —

  —

  Swaziland

  19

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Cote d'Ivoire

  11

  2

  4

  14

  3

  Ghana

  7

  17

  11

  4

  3

  Nigeria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Sierra Leone

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Total

  87

  73

  72

  74

  56

  Strategic Export Controls
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for what reason her Department is no longer a signatory of the annual report on Strategic Export Controls. [36510]

  Clare Short
  To date, my Department has not been a signatory to the four annual reports on Strategic Export Controls that have been published.

  I made this decision on the basis of the few export licence application my Department advises upon in relation to the number passed by the Department of Trade and Industry to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence and the fact that no licences have been refused under the sustainable development criterion.

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by her Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost to public funds in each case is. [38936]

  Clare Short
  The following equipment has been leased to my Department:

  £000

  Reproduction/photocopying equipment

  1998–99

  88

  1999–2000

  76

  2000–01

  102

  2001–02

  110

  Air conditioning equipment

  2001–02

  16

  Ethiopia
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how aid to Ethiopia is linked
  893W
  to (a) the restoration of civil liberties and (b) the independence of the courts there; and if she will make a statement. [40822]

  Clare Short
  We are developing a partnership with Ethiopia to help reduce the very high levels of poverty there. In building this partnership we are encouraged by the Action Plan presented to the Ethiopian Parliament by the Ethiopian Prime Minster in October last year which has an emphasis on the improvement of democratic governance and which recognises the need to make progress on issues such as civil liberties and the independence of the judiciary.

  DFID's expectations of a development partnership, which include the pursuance of policies that promote responsive and accountable government are set out in the 1997 White Paper on International Development.

  Ministerial Private Offices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the running costs were of(a) her Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff and (b) her Department in each year from May 1997 to the nearest date for which the information is available. [41038]

  Clare Short
  The gross running cost for DFID from 1997–98 to 2000–01 (the last year for which figures are available) were as follows:

  £million

  1997–98

  1998–999

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Staff Costs

  32

  37

  37

  40

  Other

  24

  22

  28

  30

  Total

  55

  59

  65

  70

  Figures for the running costs of Ministers' private offices are not recorded separately.

  LNM Holdings
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will place in the Library the briefing provided to Mr. John Kerby at the EBRD on LNM Holdings. [39139]

  Clare Short
  No. All such briefings are provided on a confidential basis between officials.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department made of LNM Holding's credit rating before supporting their application for a £70 million bank loan. [39145]

  Clare Short
  Adherence to sound banking is one of EBRD's three core principles. The bank routinely prepares rigorous financial analysis for all investments. DFID does not duplicate EBRD systems, as this would be wasteful and unnecessary.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she had discussions with the Prime Minister's Office before supporting the £70 million EBRD loan to LNM Holdings. [39108]
  894W
  Clare Short
  As I have made clear, the proposed loan was uncontroversial and within published and approved EBRD and UK objectives. Officials therefore did not consult Ministers.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether officials from her Department consulted the British Embassy in Bucharest before approving the £70 million EBRD loan to LNM Holdings. [39138]

  Clare Short
  No.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she was informed of LNM's application for a loan from the EBRD when officials from her Department asked Mr. John Kerby to support it. [39144]

  Clare Short
  As I have repeatedly made clear, Ministers were not consulted about this loan because it was judged by officials to fall within published EBRD and UK objectives and was uncontroversial.

  AMO Congo
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds her Department directs to AMO Congo. [32117]

  Clare Short
  My Department is not funding any projects with AMO in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Records show that our embassy in Kinshasa donated some computer equipment to AMO in April 1998.

  Litigation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many cases(a) her Department and (b) its agencies have defended in (i) industrial tribunals and (ii) the courts in each year since 1997; how many were concluded in their favour; and what the total cost to his Department of litigation was in each year. [41107]

  Clare Short
  Details of the number of cases DFID (there are no agencies) has defended in industrial tribunals and court cases since 1997, and showing the numbers of outcomes in our favour are contained in the table.

  Industrial tribunal cases

  Court cases

  Numbers concluded in DFID's favour

  1997

  1

  0

  1

  1998

  1

  0

  1

  1999

  0

  0

  n/a

  2000

  1

  0

  On-going

  2001

  1

  0

  On-going

  The Department pays for on-going legal advice by arrangement with Scottish Executive/Treasury Solicitor etc. However, there are no central records of the costs.

  Refurbishment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development who provided, or is providing, the(a) windows and (b) doors for the refurbishment of the International Development building on 1 Palace Street. [41348]
  895W
  Clare Short
  The replacement secondary glazing units were supplied by Sealtite Ltd. Doors were supplied by Shadbolt International.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what organisation provided the certification for the doors and windows for the refurbishment of the International Development Building on 1 Palace Street to show that they were produced from sustainably managed sources; and if she will place a copy of these certificates in the Library. [41347]

  Clare Short
  There were no timber-framed windows fitted as part of the recent refurbishment of 1 Palace Street. Doors were supplied by Shadbolt International. Details of this company's environmental procurement policies are set out on their website at www.shadbolt.co.uk, and these were followed during the 1 Palace Street refurbishment contract. The company is a member of the WWF95+ Group, which supports the use of independent third party certification and labelling of forest products.

  Public Appointments
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many appointments to public bodies have been made through her Department(a) from April 2000 to March 2001 and (b) since 31 March 2001; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women. [42157]

  Clare Short
  My Department has made the following appointments to public bodies:

  Male

  Female

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission

  April 2000—March 2001

  1

  2

  Since 31 March 2001

  8

  2

  The other two active DFID public bodies, apart from the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission, are the Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board and the Overseas Service Pensions Scheme Advisory Board—neither of them have recruited during the relevant periods.

  The Commonwealth Development Corporation became a public limited company on 8 December 1999 but the Secretary of State has retained the right to appoint two non-executive Directors on the board. The first two (both male) were appointed on 8 December 1999 but following the resignation of one of the two HMG Directors in early 2001, a new appointment (male) was made on 25 June 2001.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many answers to parliamentary questions have not been answered by her Department under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in each year since 1994. [29416]

  Clare Short
  No questions have been unanswered by my Department under this exemption since 1994.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures were taken by her Department to ensure that the consultant advising on the installation of air conditioning during the recent refurbishment of 20 Victoria Street, London was aware of the Government's policy on the use of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants in air-conditioning; and if she will make a statement on the measures taken by the consultant to source practical and safe alternatives to hydrofluorocarbon-based air-conditioning. [41175]

  Clare Short
  The consultants used in the design and selection of the water source heat pump installation confirmed to DFID that the exercise was undertaken in the full knowledge of the Government's policy on the use of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant in air conditioning, the Kyoto agreement, the latest ACRIB recommendations (Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Industry Board) and BS EN378. The specification of a water source heat pump installation at 20 Victoria Street made the best use of the existing risers and plant space. This system also contains a small amount of refrigerant in each heat pump unit and so avoids any refrigerant leaks from the pipework, which contains only water.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which consultant was used to advise on the installation of air conditioning during the recent refurbishment of 20 Victoria Street, London. [41174]

  Clare Short
  John Melville Partnership (JMP) were the mechanical and electrical consultants employed on behalf of DFID by our project managers, Debenham Tie Leung (DTZ).

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether an installer capable of installing not-in-kind air conditioning was invited to quote for the recent refurbishment of 20 Victoria Street, London; and if she will make a statement. [41176]

  Clare Short
  One supplier expressed an interest in tendering and offered a propane-based refrigerant for the project.

  This was not taken due to:

  (1) Propane systems carry an inherent fire risk when installed in an office environment such as 20 Victoria Street, and consequently the danger from leaks of propane are more serious than that of R407C.

  (2) Propane systems are still relatively new to the UK air conditioning market unlike the R407C units specified.

  (3) Propane systems require additional maintenance to ensure that safety checks/measures are in place, which increases the running costs of a building.

  (4) The received quotation from the supplier for the propane-based equipment was significantly in excess of the specified system.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many special advisers were employed by her(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive; and what the total amount spent on special advisers by the Department was for each of those years. [41252]
  897W
  Clare Short
  Two special advisers have been employed by DFID in each year since 1997. The salary costs set out are held by financial year.

  £

  1997–98

  43,250.04

  1998–99

  61,386.87

  1999–2000

  72,885.00

  2000–01

  72,292.77

  Other costs are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate expense.

  HIV
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the UK's overseas aid budget is given to addressing global HIV. [41751]

  Clare Short
  In 2000–01, my Department invested over £150 millions in HIV/AIDS related programmes out of total UK Government development assistance expenditure of £3.2 billion.

  Global Fund for AIDS/TB/Malaria
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of GDP is given to the Global Fund for AIDS/TB/malaria by(a) the UK and (b) other member states of the EU. [41783]

  Clare Short
  The UK's contribution of US $200 million over the next five years to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria (GFATM) represents 0.002 per cent. of estimated GNI over that period.

  The same information for the other member states of the EU could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the contracts agreed by her Department with the five largest accountancy firms since May 1997; and what was the total value of contracts with each. [42105]

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

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what events(a) she is and (b) other Ministers in her Department are planning to attend as part of the Golden Jubilee celebrations; and what events her Department is planning to arrange to celebrate the Golden Jubilee. [33254]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport gave on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 58W.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press
  898W
  conferences which have been sponsored by her Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in each of the last four years giving the title, purpose, date and cost of each. [34297]

  Clare Short
  This information is not held centrally and it would incur a disproportionate cost to provide it.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41058]

  Clare Short
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in her Department. [41049]

  Clare Short
  My Department currently employs 18 job sharers on official job share contracts.

  We maintain a job share register where staff can find potential job share partners or new job share opportunities. We have also provided guidance to all our employees which commend the value to both the organisation and the individual of job sharing and other flexible working patterns.

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff in her Department's press office have received(a) termination and (b) redundancy payments in each of the last four years. [41087]

  Clare Short
  No such payments have been made to press office staff in the last four years.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money has been given by the United Kingdom to the Zimbabwean Government as support of their Land Acquisition Act 1991; and for what reason the United Kingdom ceased making payments in support of the Land Acquisition Act 1991. [42697]

  Clare Short
  The Land Act 1992; which allowed compulsory land purchase for resettlement after the expiry of a 10-year constitutional limitation to the acquisition of agricultural land from willing sellers; was not in itself an obstacle to UK funding for land reform. The UK Government spent £44 million on the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme Phase 1 between 1981 and 1996.

  The UK and other donors made clear their willingness to support transparent land reform that took full account of the needs of poor Zimbabweans since 1996. This failed to find favour with the Zimbabwe Government. The Land Reform and Resettlement Programme Phase 2 proposed in 1998 was not supported by the UK as it has not been

  899W
  implemented in a transparent, fair, orderly, or sustainable manner. It has not attracted support from the international community for the same reasons.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the extent of the gender pay gap among staff in her Department. [41006]

  Clare Short
  The Department undertook a review of its pay systems in 2001 and implemented a range of measures to deal with the historical anomalies of the system which affected both sexes. The major change was the introduction of guaranteed progression for satisfactory performers to the top of the pay range. We now propose to undertake a formal Equal Pay Audit during the next 12 months to identify any other action required to address unjustified gender pay gaps. We have already embarked upon a diversity audit to ensure that all our systems, including those which ultimately link to our pay system such as postings and promotion arrangements, are free of gender and other bias.

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in her Department. [41030]

  Clare Short
  Our policy is to offer support for the additional costs staff necessarily incur in relocating. The level of support, which is currently under review, depends on the nature of the relocation, particularly whether it is in the UK or overseas. Relocation assistance normally includes the costs associated with preparing for relocation, securing accommodation, and a range of travel, freight, storage and other necessary expenses.

SCOTLAND

  Unsung Heroines Award Ceremony
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total cost to her Department was of hosting the Unsung Heroines' awards ceremony at Edinburgh Castle on 7 March. [42527]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The reception, which honoured Unsung Heroines in the context of International Women's Day, will cost approximately £3,900.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list those hon. Members who submitted nominations for the Unsung Heroines awards ceremony. [42528]
  900W
  Mrs. Liddell
  All right hon. and hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies were invited to submit nominations. The Members representing the following constituencies put nominations forward:

  Aberdeen Central (Mr. Doran)

  Aberdeen North (Mr. Savidge)

  Aberdeen South (Ms Begg)

  Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell)

  Angus (Mr. Weir)

  Argyll and Bute (Mr. Alan Reid)

  Ayr (Ms Osborne)

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Viscount Thurso)

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)

  Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington)

  Clydesdale (Mr Hood)

  Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Tom Clarke)

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna)

  Cunninghame South (Mr. Donohoe)

  Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)

  Dumfries (Mr. Russell Brown)

  Dundee East (Mr. Luke)

  Dunfermline East (Mr. Gordon Brown)

  Dunfermline West (Ms Squire)

  East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram)

  East Lothian (Ms Picking)

  Eastwood (Mr. Murphy)

  Edinburgh Central (Mr. Darling)

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Mr. Strang)

  Edinburgh North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz)

  Edinburgh Pentlands (Dr. Lynda Clark)

  Edinburgh South (Mr. Griffiths)

  Falkirk East (Mr. Connarty)

  Falkirk West (Mr. Joyce)

  Glasgow Anniesland (Mr. Robertson)

  Glasgow Maryhill (Ms McKechin)

  Glasgow Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy)

  Glasgow springburn (Mr Speaker)

  Gordon (Mr. Bruce)

  Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Cairns)

  Hamilton North and Bellshill (Dr. John Reid)

  Hamilton South (Mr. Tynan)

  Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart)

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Des Browne)

  Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)

  Livingstone (Mr. Cook)

  Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy)

  North East Fife (Mr. Campbell)

  Paisley North (Mrs. Adams)

  Paisley South (Mr. Alexander)

  Ross, Skye and Inverness West (Mr. Kennedy)

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)

  Stirling (Mrs. McGuire)

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons)

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith)

  West Renfrewshire (Mr. Sheridan).

  vin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons)

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith)

  West Renfrewshire (Mr. Sheridan).

  Public Appointments
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appointments to public bodies have been made through her Department(a) from April 2000 to March 2001 and (b) since 31 March 2001; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women. [42152]

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

  I have made no appointments to public bodies since that date.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Business Contracts
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list the(a) title, (b) date of award, (c) length of contract, (d) cost and (e) terms of reference of research or other contracts awarded since (i) 1 May 1997 and (ii) 1 January 2001 by (A) his Department and (B) the Health and Safety Executive to (1) Balfour Beatty plc, (2) Bombardier Transportation (formerly Adtranz), (3) WS Atkins plc, (4) Amey/Amec, (5) Bechtel-Halcrow, (6) Jarvis and (7) AEA Technology; [38962]

  (2) if he will list the projects on which (a) Balfour Beatty plc, (b) Bombardier Transportation (formerly Adtranz), (c) WS Atkins plc, (d) Amey/Amec, (e) Bechtel-Halcrow, (f) Jarvis, (g) Seeboard Group plc, (h) Thames Water plc and (i) AEA Technology are engaged (i) for and (ii) with his Department; [38988]

  (3) if he will list the (a) title, (b) date of award,(c) length of contract, (d) cost and (e) terms of reference of all technical support framework agreements since (i) 1 May 1997 and (ii) 1 January 2001 between (A) his Department and (B) the Health and Safety Executive with (1) Balfour Beatty plc, (2) Bombardier Transportation (formerly Adtranz), (3) WS Atkins plc, (4) Amey/Amec, (5) Bechtel-Halcrow, (6) Jarvis and (7) AEA Technology; if he will list all (x) published documentation and (y) unpublished written reports; and if he will place copies of related documentation in the Library. [38970]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. With reference to information on published and unpublished documentation, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 4 March 2002,Official Report, columns 90–91W.

  Resignations
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date his Department received a written letter of resignation from(a) Jo Moore and (b) Martin Sixsmith. [40211]

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his statement of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 563–64, on the resignation of Mr. Martin Sixsmith, what evidence he has collated that (a) at least one of his officials briefed the press that the line used by
  902W
  the Prime Minister's official spokesman on 14 February was incorrect and (b) an official said that he was ringing on behalf of Mr. Sixsmith; and whether he knows the identity of those officials. [39905]

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when Mr. Martin Sixsmith's three conditions for resignation described in Sir Richard Mottram's statement of 25 February were met. [39906]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 563–64, and that of Sir Richard Mottram, the Permanent Secretary of my Department, made on Monday 25 February, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the date was on which Mr. Martin Sixsmith ceased to be employed by his Department. [39511]

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his oral statement on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 574, if he will place in the Library the letter of resignation from Mr. Martin Sixsmith dated 15 February; and by what means Mr. Sixsmith formally tendered the resignation announced on the same day. [40081]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement of Sir Richard Mottram, the Permanent Secretary of my Department, made on Monday 25 February 2002. A copy of this is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) whether Mr. Martin Sixsmith was receiving a salary from his Department on 26 February; [40088]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the investigation into authorised briefings by civil servants in his Department; and by when he expects the investigation to be completed; [40097]

  (3) if he will publish the terms of Mr. Martin Sixsmith's resignation; [40094]

  (4) whether the investigation into authorised briefings by civil servants in his Department is confined to his Department's press office; [40096]

  (5) whether Mr. Martin Sixsmith is to receive a one-off payment from public funds in relation to his resignation. [40093]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by Sir Richard Mottram, the Permanent Secretary of my Department, on Monday 25 February 2002. A copy of this is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) on what date Mr. Martin Sixsmith's employment ceased; [40087]

  (2) what (a) direct and (b) indirect involvement he had in the negotiations with Mr. Martin Sixsmith over one-off payment from public funds in relation to his resignation. [40095]
  903W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 26 February 2002,Official Report, columns 463–64, and that of Sir Richard Mottram, the Permanent Secretary of my department, made on 25 February, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Poverty
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of fuel-poor households in the social rented sector occupy dwellings which comply with the proposed thermal comfort criteria as set out in his Department's consultation paper on the Decency Standard. [39891]

  Ms Keeble
  Social landlords are working towards the target to ensure that all social housing is brought up to a decent standard by 2010, which includes a requirement for the dwelling to provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. But investment will not be focused solely on bringing non decent homes up to the minimum decent home standard. Where landlords carry out work to heating and insulation, the published guidance will encourage them to maximise the energy efficiency of the dwelling.

  The 2001 baseline for the decent home target will come from the 2001 English House Condition Survey, which will be available later this year. This will also provide data on the level of fuel poverty in the social rented sector.

  Press Office
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the standard contract for full-time employees within his Department's press office. [40099]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: All DTLR contracts are in line with the framework set out in the Civil Service Management Code, a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the standard notice period is in the employment contracts of press officers within his Department. [40092]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The central framework for the terms and conditions of resignation is set out in the Civil Service Management Code. Departments and Agencies are responsible for ensuring their own arrangements comply with the central framework.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will(a) list the advertisements that his Department has placed publicising vacancies in the press office since June 2001 and (b) estimate the total cost of such advertising. [40108]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: DTLR has placed the following external advertisements for press officers in The Guardian.
  904W

  Press officers

  24 September 2001

  Grade 7, Senior Press Officer, Press Officer, Assistant Press Officer

  1 October 2001

  Head of News

  8 October 2001

  Senior Information Officer

  Note:

  The dates given are those when the advert first appeared

  The cost is £32.3 thousand.

  Disciplinary Code
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will place in the Library the disciplinary code of conduct that operates within his Department; [40100]

  (2) if he will list the basis on which civil servants under their terms of employment could be (a) disciplined and (b) dismissed for making unauthorised briefings to the press. [40101]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The central framework for the rules and codes of practice relating to discipline are set out in the Civil Service Management Code. Departments and Agencies are responsible for ensuring their own disciplinary arrangements comply with the central framework.

  Special Advisers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish a list of the special advisers in his Department, indicating which Minister they are assigned to and their responsibilities. [40085]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: DTLR's special advisers are Dan Corry and Michael Dugher, who cover the range of departmental responsibilities.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the standard notice period is in the employment contracts of special advisers. [40091]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: Copies of the special advisers model contract are available in the Libraries of the House and it is also available on the Cabinet Office website.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he intends to replace Jo Moore with a new special adviser; and whether the post will be advertised and selected through open competition. [40086]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: I will give consideration to the appointment of a new special adviser in due course.

  Trade Union Representation
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the employees in his Department are represented by a trade union. [40098]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The Department does not hold records on the proportion of its staff represented by trade unions. However, the Department

  905W
  considers effective consultation and involvement of staff important. It is a personal decision whether or not to join a trade union; but the Department encourages staff to join an appropriate trade union and to play an active part within it, making sure their views are represented.

  Dismissal Complaints
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many complaints of(a) constructive and (b) unfair dismissal were brought against (i) his Department and (ii) the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions since May 1997. [40109]

  Mr. Byers
  [Holding answer: Monday 4 March 2002]: The following numbers of complaints of (a) constructive and (b) unfair dismissal were brought against the Department since May 1997.
  i) DTLR

  (a)0

  (b)4 (of which 1 case withdrawn by complainant.)

  ii) DETR

  (a)2 (of which 1 case withdrawn by complainant)

  (b)24 (to date 10 cases found in favour of Department).

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41065]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The costs of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home are not held centrally and so cannot be determined without disproportionate cost.

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in his Department. [41021]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department's policy on the payment of relocation expenses is set out in Chapter 9 of the DTLR(C) Staff Handbook which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Passenger Rights
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the(a) voluntary agreements and (b) legislation in place regarding passenger rights relating to (i) delays, (ii) cancellations and (iii) overbooking for (A) air passengers, (B) rail passengers, (C) ferry passengers and (D) coach passengers; what changes have taken place since 1997; and what further changes are planned. [40956]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In respect of air passengers, European Voluntary Commitments on air passenger rights came into effect on 14 February 2002. The commitments include notifying passengers of known delays, cancellations and diversions, assisting passengers facing delays and reducing the number of passengers involuntarily denied boarding.906W
  All major full service UK airlines and most airports have signed up to the Commitments. European Council Regulation 295–91 provides a certain level of protection for passengers denied boarding due to overbooking, establishing common rules for a compensation system in scheduled air transport.

  The European Commission has recently published a proposal to update the Regulation and to extend it to cover cancellation and delay. In addition, the 1929 Warsaw Convention on air carrier liability, which has been ratified by the UK, provides rights to passengers suffering damage caused by delay. Air passengers travelling as part of an inclusive tour are also covered by a European Council Directive on Package Travel (Directive 90–314) which was implemented in the UK by SI 1992–3288. This Directive provides certain rights relating to delays and cancellation.

  The rights of rail passengers to compensation for delays and cancellations are covered through the National Rail Conditions of Carriage (NRCoC), which set the minimum standards, and through individual train operator charters which often provide more generous entitlements. Since 1997 the standard of compensation provided by many train operators has improved through franchise agreements. For the future, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is working with the Rail Passenger Council (RPC) and the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) to review Passenger Charter compensation arrangements. They are looking to develop recommendations for an improved comprehensive system of compensation for poor punctuality and reliability that can be applied across the network. The first step in this process is to carry out research among passengers. This is currently being commissioned and should commence shortly.

  All ferry passengers have rights under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. This requires a trader to carry out a service with reasonable care and skill and, where it is not specified, within a reasonable time. If the trader fails to comply with these requirements the law treats the matter as a breach of contract and a consumer could, if necessary, pursue a claim for redress through the civil courts. No changes in the statutory rights legislation have been taken since 1997 nor are any planned.

  In respect of coach passengers, scheduled operators do not operate a policy of overbooking. Passengers' rights in the event of delays and cancellations are covered by the conditions of carriage of the operator concerned. These conditions are governed by fair trading legislation, and have generally not changed significantly since 1997.

  Performance Indicators
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date he decided to develop a quarterly set of key indicators against which progress on improving the railways could be measured; what process of consultation his Department undertook when developing these indicators; which individuals and organisations were consulted with regards to the development of these indicators; and if he will make a statement. [40957]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State announced on 23 January 2002 that his Department would publish a set of benchmarks against which progress and improvements
  907W
  in delivering a better railway could be judged. The set of indicators focuses on the issues that matter most to passengers: punctuality, reliability, safety and quality. The Strategic Rail Authority was consulted on the choice of indicators.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the indicators of delivery in the railway industry published in Fact Sheet 4: General Railway Facts for the National Rail Summit 2002 are being monitored; and if he will make a statement. [41118]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table denotes' where information on each of the items listed in the delivery section of Fact Sheet 4: General Railway Facts for the National Rail Summit 2000 is regularly provided. All the publications are placed in the Library of the House at the time of publication.

  SRA annual report

  National rail trends

  On track

  DTLR performance measure scorecard

  Investment

  2—

  1—

  —

  —

  Passenger journeys

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  Punctuality

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Train miles

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  Additional train services

  1—

  —

  1—

  —

  improvements to station facilities

  1—

  —

  1—

  —

  New stations opened

  1—

  —

  1—

  —

  Rolling stock

  1—

  3—

  1—

  1.4—

  1 Information regularly provided in publication.

  2 Includes information on franchise payments.

  3 Planned for future publications.

  4 In the form of average age of stock, from 18 March.

  London Commuter Services
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he collates regarding delays and cancellations on London commuter rail services; and where it is available. [40951]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is responsible for the Public Performance Measurement (PPM) which measures the performance of train operating companies. The SRA publishes information quarterly in 'National Rail Trends' and six-monthly in 'On Track'. The information is also on the SRA web site. The March and subsequent publications of National Rail Trends will include information on the individual train operating companies.

  The PPM information in the Department's rail performance scorecard is provided by the SRA. It can be accessed on the Department's website—www.dtlr.gov.uk. The next scorecard will be published on 18 March alongside National Rail Trends.

  Railways
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to address skill shortages within the railway industry. [40945]
  908W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) will take the lead on proposals for a National Rail Academy, to promote the development of the key skills and competencies needed to run a railway on a safe and effective basis. The SRA will also become a member of the Rail Industry Training Council and will work jointly with the Department of Education and Skills to promote an action plan on manpower planning, recruitment and training and development.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the £8.1 billion of uncommitted public investment in rail in the 10 year plan is intended to meet repayment and interest due as a result of private sector investment in the plan. [41762]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The £8.1 billion of uncommitted public capital funding, along with the rest of the £33.5 billion of public sector funding, will work in partnership with the private sector investment to deliver our Ten Year Plan objectives for rail. It will be allocated in the most cost-effective and efficient way to deliver much needed investment in the railways.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the responsibilities held by his Department which will be transferred to the European Railways Agency. [41757]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The European Commission's draft Regulation to establish a European Railway Agency (COM(2002)23 Final) indicates that the Agency will have no autonomous decision-making powers and that its responsibilities will be limited to carrying out technical work on behalf of the European Commission and the member states.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the Department's modelling of rail demand for the 10 year plan period took into account differing levels of service reliability and overcrowding. [41655]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Yes, with the results of their impact under the basecase and our Ten Year Plan investment case outlined in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Ten Year Plan Background Analysis document.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the total 10 year plan spending targets will be taken up by revenue support for private investment. [41664]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 10 Year Plan assumes that £8.5 billion of the £134 billion of public expenditure in the Plan provides revenue support for £56.3 billion of private investment. However to avoid double counting when adding public expenditure and private investment together, revenue support for private investment is not included in the 10 Year Plan total of £l181.9 billion. Therefore it is not appropriate to provide a figure for revenue support as a proportion of this total figure. However revenue support for private investment represents 6.3 per cent. of public expenditure in the plan.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the working groups for the TSIs on European rail interoperability have met; and if he will make a statement. [41734]
  909W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The working groups that are responsible for drafting the rail interoperability Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs) have been meeting since 1996 when the high-speed rail interoperability Directive (96/48/EC) came into force. These working groups have now started work on TSIs for conventional rail, following adoption of the conventional rail interoperability Directive (2001/16/EC) last year. The interoperability "Article 21 Committee", the committee comprising the European Commission and the member states that formally adopts the TSIs, has also met regularly since 1996.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who will be representing the UK on the working groups on the TSIs on European rail interoperability. [41735]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The working groups to draft the rail interoperability Technical Specifications Interoperability (TSI's) have been set up under the auspices of AEIF, the European Association for Railway Interoperability. AEIF comprises representatives from the UIC (the International Union of Railways), UNIFE (the Union of European Railway Industries) and UITP (the International Union of Public Transport) and the working group representatives are drawn from these organisations based on individual nominations by member companies.

  The UK is well represented on these working groups, from both railway companies including Railway Safety and manufacturing industry. The UK is also represented on the interoperability "Article 21 Committee", the committee comprising the European Commission and the member states that formally adopts the TSIs. Until the end of 2001, representation was provided by the Department, but the Strategic Rail Authority has now taken over this role.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how often he receives reports on(a) punctuality, (b) cancellations, (c) investments made and (d) the safety record of the railways. [41291]

  Mr. Spellar
  I receive a range of reports and information, in the course of day to day business, on the operation of and investment in the railways.

  Rents
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) of 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 871W, on rents, if he will provide similar estimates to those he provided for Hendon for the real terms percentage changes in each year he predicts for formula rents for council tenants in (a) Selby and (b) York until 2011. [41264]

  Ms Keeble
  As I said in my answer of 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 1004W, to my hon. Friend, the underlying increase in "formula" rents will be the same for all local authorities.

  It is possible to make estimates of how average "actual" rents might change in real terms between 2001–02 and 2011–12 if the national average local authority formula rent were to increase by an average of about 1.5 per cent. per year, and each local authority were to move its actual average rent to its average formula rent over that period
  910W
  (ignoring the impact of rent caps and the limit on annual rent changes for individual tenants). This was the basis of the figures given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 12 December 2001, Official Report, column 871W. On the same basis, the figures for Selby and York would be as follows:

  Percentage

  Selby

  York

  Estimated real increase

  2002–03

  1.3

  0.7

  Estimated average real increase

  2001–02 to 2011–12

  1.8

  1.3

  Average real increase

  1991–02 to 2001–02

  3.1

  4.3

  However, these figures are only estimates based on a number of assumptions. Ultimately the level of "actual" local authority rents over the next ten years is a matter for the local authority. The level will depend, among other things, on the outcomes of future spending reviews, changes in property values and the decisions taken by individual local authorities.

  Asbestos
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to review Health and Safety Executive regulations on(a) blue, (b) brown and, (c) white asbestos. [41356]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have no plans for a fundamental review of the asbestos regulations.

  The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has recently consulted on proposals to amend the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987, which govern work with all types of asbestos.

  The Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983, which require most work with asbestos insulation, asbestos coating and asbestos insulating board to be carried out by an HSE licensed contractor, are soon to be subject to a routine periodic review by the HSC (next year). If amendments are proposed the HSC will consult upon them.

  Proposals to amend The Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992, which ban the marketing, supply and use of all types of asbestos, are currently being reviewed to consolidate them and ensure that they are fully consistent with EC Directives

  Once the HSC has considered the results of any of these consultations they will put their proposals to me for consideration.

  Research Documents
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 813W, on research documents, what criteria the Department uses when defining a research programme; who within a programme is responsible for selecting the best method of publication; if he will list the types of publication available to programmes; and for whose needs availability on demand of programme details can be tailored. [41389]
  911W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department's research programmes are defined by the evidence needs of policy areas and listed in the Departmental website (annexe A of the DTLR(C) Research Overview). As previously indicated, publication methods for the dissemination of research results are chosen by the relevant research programme manager and the policy area responsible. Contact points for the individual programmes are also listed in the website.

  There are many publication methods including formal Government publication routes, academic journals, and reports by private sector research contractors. Publications from individual programmes may be checked through their areas on the website or through the listed contact points. Methods may be specific to individual projects or follow standard practices developed for particular audiences (e.g. Local Transport Notes and traffic advisory leaflets, Road Safety research series, Building Regulations' Approved Documents and Housing's Research Summaries). Where targeted at specific groups of users—for example road safety officers, local government officers, cycling groups—the results of research may be distributed through advisory leaflets or best practice guidance.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 813W, on research documents, in which locations a record of research is held; on what date work started on improved database facility; what form it will take when completed; and on what date the improved database facility will be completed. [41390]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Records of research are held within the policy divisions and their research management teams. The staff and records for DTLR(C) research programmes are largely accommodated in four London buildings—Eland House, Ashdown House (Victoria), Great Minster House and Horseferry House. Some work is also undertaken at Moreton-in-Marsh. HSE and Agencies—who are located in other buildings—handle their own research.

  Work started to improve access to records of research in the former DETR in March 2001. The aim was to provide a unified database of information about all research projects in the former Department. The work has been taken forward within DTLR. The initial development phase of the database software was completed last month. The extensive job of populating the database for the year 2001–02 is now under way aiming at completion within three months. A specification for further work to present this information in a form suitable for access through the DTLR website is in preparation.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 784W, on Railtrack, what action was taken by his Department in response to the examples of key areas of failure highlighted by the report of the Environment,
  912W
  Transport, and Regional Affairs Committee, 'Rail Investment: Renewal, Maintenance and Development of the National Rail Network'; and for what reason Railtrack was not placed into railway administration until October 2001. [41331]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's response to the main conclusions and recommendations of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's report was presented to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 15 October 2001 (Cm 5283). The Government's response drew the Committee's attention to the reasons behind the placing of Railtrack plc into Railway Administration on 7 October 2001.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost has been to the Government of meeting Railtrack plc's operational bills. [41581]

  Mr. Jamieson
  £1.96 billion.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost has been to the Government of advisers involved in Railtrack administration. [41582]

  Mr. Jamieson
  From 7 October 2001 to the end of February 2002, the cost of advisers working for my Department on the administration of Railtrack and on the process of exiting administration was about £5.6 million.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions from which organisation he has obtained legal advice about a possible challenge from Railtrack shareholders. [41583]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has instructed the Treasury Solicitor to act on his behalf in relation to threatened action from Railtrack shareholders.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which companies tendered for the public relations work on Railtrack administration. [41765]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Finsbury were originally engaged by Schroder Salomon Smith Barney (SSSB) on their own account, to assist them in their work as the Department's banking advisers.

  At the end of December 2001, it was decided to extend Finsbury's involvement. They now work direct to the Department. The extension of Finsbury's involvement was by single tender in view of the knowledge and expertise they had accumulated at that stage.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many rail investment projects of over £5 million have been started by Railtrack in administration since the appointment of the administrator. [41301]

  Mr. Spellar
  Twenty.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money has been(a) granted and (b) lent to Railtrack in administration. [41300]
  913W
  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack plc has received £162 million of grant and £1.8 billion under the Government loan facility.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what estimate his Department has made of the cost to Government of underwriting the debt of the successor company to Railtrack in administration; [42806]

  (2) what steps the Government will take to ensure that the receiver company to Railtrack in administration has a minimum BBB credit rating. [42811]

  Mr. Byers
  Bidders for Railtrack will need to put forward their proposals for the financing of the successor company. These proposals will need to demonstrate how bidders will ensure that the successor company will have a sufficiently high investment grade credit rating to raise the necessary finance for its activities in an efficient and cost effective manner. They will also need to set out any proposals for Government support.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the data room for Railtrack in administration will be open to bidders. [42626]

  Mr. Byers
  This is a matter for the Administrator.

  Agencies and Organisations
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the public sector agencies and organisations that receive funding from his Department. [41740]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The following public sector organisations receive funding from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: -

  Housing Corporation

  The Commission for Local Government in England

  Regional Development Agencies

  East of England Development Agency

  East Midlands Development Agency

  North East Development Agency

  North West Development Agency

  South East England Development Agency

  South West of England Development Agency

  West Midlands Development Agency

  Yorkshire and Humberside Development Agency

  Strategic Rail Authority

  Local Government Standards Board for England

  Valuation Office Agency

  Valuation Tribunals

  Audit Commission

  Health and Safety Commission (a Crown NDPB) incorporating (Health and Safety Executive/Health and Safety Laboratory)

  English Partnerships

  Urban Regeneration Agency

  Commission for New Towns

  914W
  Housing Action Trusts

  Castle Vale HAT

  Liverpool HAT

  Stonebridge HAT

  Tower Hamlets HAT

  Waltham Forest HAT

  Civil Aviation Authority

  London Underground

  Improvement and Development Agency for Local Government

  Employers' Organisation for Local Government

  The Fire Services Examination Board

  The National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales

  The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education

  The Local Government International Bureau

  The Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards

  Public Private Partnerships Programme

  National Youth Agency

  All local authorities in England.

  The Department also has a number of grant regimes that are open to application by both private sector and public sector organisations. information on the nature of recipients is not collated across regimes.

  London Underground
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if final agreement has been reached with tube lines and Metronet over risk transfer under PPP. [41580]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground is responsible for negotiation of contracts with tube lines and Metronet for the modernisation of the underground's infrastructure. Final contracts can only be agreed following the completion of consultation with the Mayor and Transport for London.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the sections of the London Underground which are forecast to see significant reductions in crowding levels as a result of the PPP. [41650]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 731–32W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many trains will be refurbished or replaced in the first seven and a half years of the London Underground PPP. [41742]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer to my answer to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 88W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what instructions London Underground has received about the phasing of spending plans under the PPP; and what spending projects London Underground must include in the second 15 year period. [41743]
  915W
  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground is responsible for the development of PPP contracts for the modernisation of the underground's infrastructure. The Secretary of State has set out proposals on the level of grant that can be provided to support London Underground over the next seven and a half years, but has issued no instructions to London Underground about the phasing of spending plans.

  The draft contract sets out detailed requirements for the whole 30 year contract period, and that periodic reviews every seven and a half years will allow London Underground to revise its requirements to reflect changing circumstances.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether final contracts have been agreed with tube lines and Metronet. [41682]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground is responsible for negotiation of contracts with Tube Lines and Metronet for the modernisation of the underground's infrastructure. Final contracts can only be agreed following the completion of consultation with the Mayor and Transport for London.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what role his Department has played by means of(a) legislation and (b) direction in ensuring that London Underground makes the contractual documentation relating to the PPP publicly available following completion of the competition. [42118]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: None.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 88W, on PPP contracts, for what reason the acceptance of a safety case as a condition precedent is a matter for London Underground Ltd. and the bidders. [42177]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The modernisation plans can only proceed if London Underground's revised safety case is accepted by the Health and Safety Executive. The decision to include this legal requirement as condition precedent to a contract between London Underground and the bidders is a matter for the parties to the contract.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the provision for taking over the work of Infracos under the London Underground PPP if the consortiums fail; and with whom this provision will lie. [42120]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: London Underground is responsible for the development of contracts for the modernisation of the underground's infrastructure.

  The contract provides powers for London Underground to step in to take over the work of the infrastructure companies for health, safety or security reasons or if the infrastructure does not comply with a corrective action notice in relation to a failure to perform its obligations. If an infrastructure company defaults on the contract there
  916W
  are provisions for the contract to be transferred to another party or, if no suitable party is found, for London Underground itself to take over the contract.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 169W, on London Underground, under what powers he is able to put in place interim staff for an arbiter before a permanent appointment can be made. [42292]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Under section 227 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his reply of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 86W, on value for money and safety assessments of the London Underground PPP contracts, if he will provide a list of the other information sent to the Mayor and Transport for London on 7 February; and how long before the LT board meeting of 7 February the value for money analysis was completed. [42112]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: Information provided to the Mayor and Transport for London in relation to consultation on the modernisation proposals is a matter for London Transport. The exact timing of the completion of London Transport's value for money analysis is a matter for London Transport.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 87W, on PPP cost overruns, what would be regarded as inefficient or uneconomic behaviour. [42267]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: London Underground is responsible for the development of contracts for the modernisation of the underground's infrastructure.

  The Greater London Authority Act 1999 requires the PPP Arbiter, among other things, to promote efficiency and economy in relation to a PPP agreement, and to take into account factors notified by the parties to the agreement or specified in the agreement.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what role his Department has played in setting the level of performance required for the Infracos under the London Underground PPP. [42117]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The Secretary of State wishes to see a comprehensive modernisation of the underground with increased capacity, improved reliability and higher quality. The detailed level of performance required from the infrastructure companies has been set by London Underground.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the(a) status of and (b) expected date for finalising each of the bids to operate trains on the London Underground under the proposed PPP scheme. [42812]

  Mr. Byers
  The proposed PPP contracts are for the modernisation of the underground's infrastructure. London Underground will continue to operate the entire tube network, including trains.
  917W
  London Underground is responsible for the contracts. Final contracts can only be agreed following the completion of consultation with the Mayor and Transport for London.

  Congestion Charging
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what work his Department has done to assess the impact on the targets in the 10-year plan if local authorities fail to implement congestion charging schemes as outlined in the plan. [41657]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Modelling by the Department of the results of implementing the 10-year plan, but omitting the eight road user charging and 12 workplace parking levy schemes that the plan assumed local authorities would introduce outside London, shows that congestion would reduce to 5 per cent. below 2000 levels, compared with a 6 per cent. reduction if the assumptions in the plan are met

  A number of local authorities are actively examining possible schemes. Whether they go ahead will be a matter for them, taking into account local factors. We would, in any case, expect most schemes to come forward towards the end of the 10-year plan period.

  The assumptions in the 10-year plan will be reviewed as part of the first review of the plan. We will publish the results later this year.

  East Thames River Crossings
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for new East Thames river crossings; and on what time scale. [41649]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The proposed East Thames river crossings are a matter for the Mayor and Transport for London.

  Road Noise
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent estimate he has made of the cost difference between low and high noise road surfaces. [41653]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A recent estimate by the Highways Agency suggests that there is very little difference in whole life cost between low and high noise road surfaces. This estimate takes account of both the initial cost and the expected life of the surface, which can both vary between individual products and applications.

  Inter-Urban Road Travel
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether it is his policy to charge for inter-urban road travel. [41662]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have no plans at present to introduce general charges for road users to travel on the inter-urban road network, although we are looking seriously at plans to ensure that foreign hauliers pay their fair share of costs on our roads.

  Airport (South-East)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the sites under consideration for a new airport in south east England. [41744]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There will be a full public consultation on possible sites before Ministers come to conclusions. Consultation is scheduled for Spring 2002.

  10-year Plan
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the sustainable distribution strategy set out in section 12 on page 45 on the 10-year plan background analysis. [41660]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The assumptions about developments in the distribution industries listed on page 45 of "Transport 2010: The Background Analysis" were informed by polling experts in the haulage/logistics industries, academics and vehicle manufacturers.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the policy changes that will be required to deliver land use planning directed at increasing the attractiveness of public transport, walking and cycling as described in section 12 on page 44 of the 10-year plan background analysis. [41659]

  Mr. Spellar
  In developing the 10-year plan, the Department assumed that land use planning would contribute to lower traffic growth (and thus greater use of other modes) by promoting accessibility to development by public transport, walking and cycling. The Government issued Planning Policy Guidance note 13 (PPG13) on Transport in March 2001, setting out national land use planning policy on transport, to support the integrated transport strategy and 10-year plan. Other PPGs support the same objective of promoting sustainable transport choices.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the amount transferred from the unallocated budget in the 10-year plan to the rail budget has been moved from the years in which it was originally allocated. [41666]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The revised amounts and profile of the unallocated budget and the rail budget are shown in the revised version of Table A3 from the 10-year plan, copies of which were placed in the House Library on 25 February.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide a schedule of budget allocations to the 10-year plan at constant 2001 prices. [41665]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested for transport spending plans expressed in 2001–02 prices is shown in the table.
  919W

  Transport spending review 2000 plans: 2000–02 to 2003–04

  £ million, 2001–02 prices

  2000–01 plans

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Three year totals

  Total

  5,018

  6,056

  7,324

  8,879

  22,260

  of which:

  Capital

  2,391

  3,258

  4,410

  5,883

  13,551

  Resource

  2,627

  2,798

  2,914

  2,996

  8,709

  of which:

  Strategic roads

  1,548

  1,632

  1,759

  1,832

  5,222

  Local

  1,203

  1,788

  2,035

  2,207

  6,030

  Railways

  1,508

  1,607

  2,266

  3,398

  7,271

  London

  578

  826

  1,045

  1,222

  3,093

  Other transport

  181

  204

  220

  220

  645

  Notes:

  1. The table is based on Table Al (p98) in 'Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan' which is expressed in outturn or cash prices.

  2. Both tables exclude £2.7 billion of transport-related Revenue Support Grant funding for local authorities, but include £37/139/209 million (cash) of other public funding for transport compared with the Transport spending totals shown in Treasury's Spending Review 2000 White Paper.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate the 10-year plan model made of the impact of changes in average non-regulated rail fares on demand for(a) rail and (b) road traffic. [41656]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 10-year plan rail demand modelling work assumed that non-regulated fares would increase in line with inflation. As there is no real change in non-regulated fares they had no impact upon changes in either rail or road traffic demand in the model.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the starting date was for the 10 years of the Transport Plan. [41302]

  Mr. Spellar
  The start date for spending under the 10-year plan was the beginning of the current financial year on 1 April 2001.

  Road Journeys
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of road journeys that will be saved as a result of the rail measures in the 10-year plan. [41652]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We estimate that just under two-thirds of the increased passenger rail demand will be from car users switching to rail. However, this shift does not translate directly into a saving in road journeys, as the reduced level of road traffic will be partly offset by other travellers attracted to the less congested roads.

  Channel Tunnel
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has assessed(a) future capacity levels in the channel tunnel and (b) the need for a new tunnel in the future. [41745]

  Mr. Jamieson
  At the end of 1999 Eurotunnel sent to the Governments of France and the UK, through the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission, a package relating to two tunnel projects, one road and one rail. Eurotunnel submitted this package in order to discharge an undertaking entered into when the Concession Agreement was signed in 920W
  1986. At that time Eurotunnel stated that according to its traffic forecasts, the capacity of the existing tunnel would be sufficient to meet demand for the next 20 years.

  Ministerial Travel
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when(a) he and (b) his ministerial colleagues last travelled by bus on departmental business. [41680]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Cabinet Office Guidance on ministerial travel states that Ministers should use the most efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. Ministers have travelled on buses during a number of visits and are keen to encourage their use.

  Local Government Finance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total value is of PPP schemes launched by local authorities since 1997. [41678]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is not held on PPP schemes other than those which receive central Government support for the capital element under the Private Finance Initiative. The total capital value of PFI schemes signed by local authorities since 1997 is £2.8 billion. Schemes worth another £1.4 billion are in procurement.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to change the system of financial credit-rating of local authorities. [41729]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have never required or encouraged local authorities to seek commercial credit ratings and have no plans to do so. All local authorities are rightly regarded as highly creditworthy and do not need credit ratings to obtain loans.

  Rail and Bus Passengers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what work the Department carries out to monitor rail and bus passenger satisfaction. [41663]
  921W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) commissions a bi-annual National Passenger Survey. The results are published in "On Track" in June and December. The SRA also publishes information on customer complaints about rail services, quarterly in "National Rail Trends" and six-monthly in "On Track". These documents are placed in the Library of the House each time they are published.

  For local bus travel, since April 2000, the Department has carried out quarterly surveys of passenger satisfaction in England outside London. A similar survey is carried out in London by Transport for London. The results are published by DTLR each quarter in the Transport Statistics Bulletin "Bus Quality Indicators: England". Copies of each quarterly report are in the Library of the House.

  DTLR also commissions more general research into public attitudes to transport issues. Questions about perceptions of local buses and of rail services, covering both users and non-users of services, were asked in the Omnibus Survey of households run by the Office for National Statistics, in January 2001. Results were published on the Department's website in an article "Attitudes to Local Transport Issues", a copy of which I am arranging to place in the Library of the House. Further questions on buses were asked in the British Social Attitudes Survey 2001, but results will not be available until autumn 2002.

  Crossrail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) whether his estimate of the impact of the delay in the construction of Crossrail on crowding levels on the London Underground takes into account forecast growth in underground usage during the period of the 10-year plan; [41651]

  (2) what impact the delay in Crossrail, as envisaged in the SRA Strategic Plan, has on the modelling described in the Background Analysis of the 10-year plan. [41648]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Modelling work undertaken for the 10-year plan considered the broad strategic impact on crowding on rail and tube services of a Crossrail type link which opened at the end of the 10-year plan period. A later opening date would have no direct impact on these results. The separate modelling work reported in the Background Analysis of the 10-year plan was undertaken to assess growth in passenger kilometres. This did not assume the construction of Crossrail because it is primarily intended to relieve overcrowding, and is not expected to contribute greatly to passenger growth.

  South West Regional Assembly
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to vary the numbers of members at present sitting in the Shadow South West Regional Assembly; and how many members will be elected to the proposed South West Regional Assembly. [41393]

  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 a922W
  possible future elected regional assembly for the southwest, but a voluntary body which has been recognised by Ministers for the purposes of scrutiny of the South West Regional Development Agency. The number of members of the assembly is therefore primarily a matter for the assembly.

  The forthcoming Regional Governance White Paper will set out our proposals for elected regional assemblies in future, including their number of members.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a) salaries and (b) expenses are available to members of the Shadow South West Regional Assembly; and if he will make a statement on the remuneration of members of the proposed assembly. [41394]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Salaries and expenses of the existing the South West Regional Assembly are a matter for the assembly. The forthcoming Regional Government White Paper will set out our proposals for elected regional assemblies in future.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what role RDAs will play in shaping a new EU regeneration framework. [41482]

  Ms Keeble
  We will be consulting the RDAs and a range of other organisations working in the regeneration field about our proposals to ensure that regeneration schemes are state aid proof, including the possibility of a new framework.

  Refuges
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those local authorities which have refuges which are(a) 100 per cent. funded and (b) part-funded by his Department; and if he will list other sources of funding and limits which apply. [41671]

  Ms Keeble
  This Department does not fund refuge provision directly.

  Refuge accommodation is mainly owned by registered social landlords (57 per cent.) and local housing authorities (32 per cent.). Most of the remainder are owned by refuge groups and the private sector.

  Revenue support for refuges is provided principally through transitional housing benefit, social housing management grant, local authority funding plus a range of charitable sources.

  The Department does not hold information about the funding of refuges in individual local authority areas.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those local authorities which(a) have refuge provision at the rate of one place per 10,000 of population and (b) do not meet this target. [41667]

  Ms Keeble
  There is no target for refuge provision.
  923W
  There is a best value performance indicator, (BVPI 176) which is—"the number of domestic violence refuge places per 10,000 population, which are provided or supported by the authority". Local authorities are required to set their own performance target against this indicator, which appeared in the indicator set for the first time in 2001–02 and remains in the 2002–03 set of BVPIs. No data on local authority performance against this indicator are available yet; local authorities will provide their performance data for BVPI 176 to the Audit Commission for 2001–02 after 31 March 2002. The data will then be audited and will be available in autumn 2002.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list per(a) constituency, (b) local authority area and (c) region those areas which have refuge provision which does not meet the target of one place per 10,000 population as recommended in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [41672]

  Ms Keeble
  There is no target for refuge provision contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  There is a best value performance indicator, (BVPI 176) which is—"the number of domestic violence refuge places per 10,000 population, which are provided or supported by the authority". Local authorities are required to set their own performance target against this indicator, which appeared in the indicator set for the first time in 2001–02 and remains in the 2002–03 set of BVPIs. No data on local authority performance against this indicator are available yet; local authorities will provide their performance data for BVPI 176 to the Audit Commission for 2001–02 after 31 March 2002. The data will then be audited and will be available in autumn 2002.

  Landlords
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the British Federation of Landlords and Private Tenants groups on bringing small landlords within the same tax regime as other small businesses. [41670]

  Ms Keeble
  There have been no discussions recently between these bodies and Ministers of this Department on the tax regime for landlords. Tax matters are, in any event, a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  A34
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when construction of the A34 Alderley Edge bypass will begin. [41392]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East Manchester Multi Modal study covers the A34 Alderley Edge bypass.

  I am currently considering this report and the North West Regional Assembly's recommendations and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 93W,
  924W
  ref. 38443, what criteria are used to determine (a) unacceptable numbers of applicants accepted as homeless and (b) numbers accommodated under the legislative provisions by a local authority. [41430]

  Ms Keeble
  There are no criteria for determining that the level of applicants accepted as statutorily homeless is unacceptable. A range of information about local housing authorities' activities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 and the Housing Act 1996 is submitted quarterly by authorities to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. A summary of this is published by the Department in a quarterly statistical release. The data published include the number of households being accommodated in temporary accommodation, pursuant to a duty under the homelessness provisions, at the end of the relevant quarterly period.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 93W, ref. 38444, if he will publish the guidance used to determine the trigger point at which he should intervene to secure an authority's compliance with its statutory duty to house the homeless. [41431]

  Ms Keeble
  We have agreed a protocol with the Local Government Association that sets out the key principles and procedures for the use of the best value intervention powers. The protocol has been published as Annexe D of the Department's Circular 10/99. Copies of the circular have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Weight Limits (Bridges)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he takes to ensure that maximum weight limits on local bridges are enforced; and if he will make a statement on the penalties applicable to those in breach of those limits. [37634]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The police are responsible for enforcing these limits. Weight limits on bridges are notified by traffic signs, and failure to comply with such signs is an offence under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding £1,000 plus a three point endorsement.

  Wembley Park Underground
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how he plans to respond to the London Development Agency/London Underground report on the options for increasing capacity at Wembley Park underground station. [43231]

  Mr. Byers
  I welcome this report, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. It demonstrates that it should be possible to make real improvements to capacity and access—particularly for disabled people—without the need to rebuild Wembley Park Station.

  While the report's proposals are significantly less expensive than rebuilding the station, they cannot be accommodated within the £20 million which the Government have already agreed to make available for infrastructure improvements. In the light of this new

  925W
  evidence, I have now decided that if the stadium development proceeds, I should make available additionally up to £7 million from my transport provision. This would make it easier for people travelling to the new stadium, as well as those living and working in the area. I understand that the Mayor of London has also agreed to make available a similar sum.

  Multiple Occupation
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the reason for the delay in the drafting of legislation for the regulation of HMOs. [42229]

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

  The Government are also currently supporting my hon. Friend for Brighton, Kemptown's Home Energy Conservation Bill. This Bill would introduce reforms to the current discretionary HMO registration regime, most notably by making it mandatory and providing for a revised definition of an HMO.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002, ref. 37622, on reputational externalities, what is the size of the adjustment made for reputational externalities in the calculations underlying the final assessment report; and if he will make a statement. [41396]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 83W.

  Public Bodies
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many appointments to public bodies have been made through his Department(a) from April 2000 to March 2001 and (b) since 31 March 2001; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women. [42150]

  Ms Keeble
  Ministers in this Department have appointed or reappointed(a) 116 people in the year April 2000 to March 2001 (i) 82 of whom are men and (ii) 34 women and (b) 100 people since 31 March 2001 (i) 58 of whom are men and (ii) 42 women.

  Transport and Telecommunications Council
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether a Scottish Executive Minister will be a member of the UK delegation to the forthcoming Transport and Telecommunications European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 25–26 March; and what information is being provided by his Department to guarantee effective pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [42690]
  926W
  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans for a Minister from the Scottish Executive to be a member of the UK delegation to the Transport and Telecommunications Council on 25–26 March.

  In developing the UK position, there is regular contact between Ministers and officials of the Department and the Scottish Executive on those issues in which there is a Scottish interest, as required by the memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the three devolved Administrations. The then Transport Minister in the Scottish Executive attended the Transport Council on 28 June 2001 as part of the UK delegation.

  Councils
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of(a) district, (b) county and (c) Metropolitan councils he estimates will be judged as coasting. [42628]

  Mr. Byers
  No such estimate exists. The categorisation will be for the Audit Commission.

  Vehicle Registration
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to move to a system of continuous registration of all motor vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [42558]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A proposal to introduce continuous registration—under which the keeper of a vehicle would retain a statutory responsibility to license it until DVLA was notified of a change of keeper—was one of a number of proposals set out by the Government in its consultation document on abandoned vehicles in October 2001. My right hon. Friend intends to make an announcement on the outcome of the consultation shortly.

  National Celebrations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what arrangements his Department has made to celebrate(a) St. Patrick's Day, (b) St. George's Day, (c) St. Andrew's Day and (d) Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and how his Department celebrated St. David's Day. [42301]

  Dr Whitehead
  [Holding answer: Monday 11 March 2002]: The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has fully supported the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in making suitable arrangements for Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations. Details of those events may be found on the Golden Jubilee website at www.goldenjubilee.gov.uk.

  My Department has no specific arrangements to celebrate St. Patrick's Day, St. George's Day or St. Andrew's Day. My Department did not specifically celebrate St. David's Day.

  Shoreham Harbour
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the dates and minutes of meetings of the Maritime Vision for Shoreham Harbour Steering Group since its inception. [42357]
  927W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Shoreham Maritime Regeneration Strategy was set up in May 1998 to foster the regeneration of Shoreham Harbour. The Shoreham Maritime Steering Group is seeking to implement this strategy and has since been holding regular meetings. Although the Government Office for the South East is a partner of the Steering Group, it is not within the remit of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to publish the dates and minutes of these meetings.

  Shoreham Harbour Link Road
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what feasibility study he has carried out into the provision of a road link between the A259 at Shoreham Harbour with the A27; and when he plans to publish the findings; [42390]

  (2) what discussions he has had with Shoreham Port Authority about the provision of a link road between the A259 at Shoreham Harbour and the A27. [42356]

  Number of fire stations in England and Wales at 1 January 1997–2002

  Fire authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Avon

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Buckinghamshire

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  Cheshire

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Cleveland

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  Cornwall

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  County Durham and Darlington

  16

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  Cumbria

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  Derbyshire

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  Devon

  58

  58

  58

  58

  58

  58

  Dorset

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  30

  East Sussex

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Essex

  51

  51

  51

  51

  51

  51

  Gloucestershire

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Greater Manchester

  43

  43

  43

  43

  43

  43

  Hampshire

  54

  54

  54

  54

  52

  52

  Hereford and Worcester

  26

  26

  26

  26

  26

  27

  Hertfordshire

  32

  32

  32

  32

  32

  32

  Humberside

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  32

  Isle of Wight

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Isles of Scilly

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  Kent and Medway Towns

  66

  66

  66

  66

  66

  66

  Lancashire

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Lincolnshire

  37

  37

  37

  37

  38

  38

  London

  113

  113

  113

  113

  112

  112

  Merseyside

  27

  27

  27

  26

  26

  26

  Mid and West Wales

  57

  57

  57

  57

  57

  57

  Norfolk

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  North Wales

  44

  44

  44

  44

  44

  44

  North Yorkshire

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  Northamptonshire

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  Northumberland

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  Nottinghamshire and City of Nottingham

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  Oxfordshire

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Royal Berkshire

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Shropshire

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  Somerset

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  South Wales

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  South Yorkshire

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  Suffolk

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  Surrey

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Tyne and Wear

  18

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  928W
  Ms Keeble
  No discussions have been held with Shoreham Port Authority regarding the provision of a link road between the A259 and the A27. There is no Government-led study into such a link road but there is a wider local authority study currently taking place. This work includes a variety of separate work streams looking at the regeneration potential for the port area, and the feasibility of facilitating much of the future potential for local and port development.

  Fire Stations
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many functioning fire stations there were, broken down by fire brigade area, in each year since 1997. [42235]

  Mr. Byers
  The number of fire stations in each fire authority area in England and Wales as at 1 January from 1997 to 2002 is in the table:
  929W

  Number of fire stations in England and Wales at 1 January 1997–2002

  Fire authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Warwickshire

  20

  20

  20

  19

  19

  19

  West Midlands

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  West Sussex

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  West Yorkshire

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  Source:

  DTLR calendar year returns.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the annual budget for communications activities, including press, public relations, marketing and internal communications, was for her Department for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02. [39921]

  Dr. Howells
  The spend in my Department on communications activities including press, public relations, marketing and internal communications from 1997–98 to 2001–02 was:

  year

  £

  1997–98

  493,098

  1998–99

  471,303

  1999–2000

  762,438

  2000–01

  775,904

  2001–02

  1602,700

  1 Estimated outturn

  Film Production
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which film production

  Production Name

  Production Type

  Production company

  Start

  End

  Ludwig's First at the Fair

  Short film

  Tyne Castle Film and Video

  31 May 1995

  31 August 1998

  Dance For A Stranger

  Short film

  Ipso Facto

  5 January 1996

  15 January 1996

  Untitled

  Short film

  Studio Arts TV

  24 June 1996

  24 June 1996

  Refuge

  Short film

  Lightyears Films

  29 August 1996

  4 September 1996

  The Creatives

  Short film

  Absolutely Productions

  26 October 1996

  26 October 1996

  Looking

  Short film

  Purple Film Productions

  8 January 1997

  13 January 1997

  An Egg's and Egg

  Short film

  Ipso Facto Films

  24 February 1997

  25 February 1997

  Four Hours Insecurity

  Short film

  Chariot Productions

  1 July 1997

  8 July 1997

  Wasps

  Short film

  Ipso Facto Films

  29 August 1997

  6 September 1997

  Untitled

  Short film

  Roy Martin

  16 September 1997

  17 September 1997

  Untitled

  Short film

  Carpet Films

  20 September 1997

  20 September 1997

  Built for the Stone Age, Living in the Space Age

  Short film

  Wishful Thought

  29 September 1997

  5 October 1997

  Bird

  Short film

  Zoo Films

  28 October 1997

  1 November 1997

  Chariots of Desire

  Short film

  Odd Couple Productions

  25 January 1998

  29 January 1998

  Sleep

  Short film

  Airship Films

  1 March 1998

  7 March 1998

  Panino

  Short film

  Bridge and Tunnel Films

  26 April 1998

  1 May 1998

  The Block

  Short film

  Shiney Beast

  6 July 1998

  15 July 1998

  In Between

  Short film

  Indica Films

  15 July 1998

  21 July 1998

  Wing

  Short film

  Miranda Tuffnel

  31 July 1998

  23 September 1998

  Flying Home

  Short film

  Hard Place Productions

  1 August 1998

  5 August 1998

  The Gatherers

  Short film

  Cumbria Film Independents

  2 August 1998

  6 August 1998

  Psyche Out

  Short film

  Pilgrim Films

  20 August 1998

  23 August 1998

  Orpheus

  Short film

  Ad Hoc Films

  31 August 1998

  30 January 1999

  Mrs. Buchan

  Short film

  Ipso Facto Films

  1 September 1998

  7 September 1998

  Ravine

  Short film

  RVK Productions

  24 September 1998

  27 September 1998

  Heads (Tease)

  Short film

  Hard Place Films

  13 October 1998

  14 October 1998

  Untitled

  Short film

  Ipso Facto

  31 October 1998

  31 October 1998

  Safe

  Short film

  Y I Productions

  25 January 1999

  29 January 1999

  Nasty Neighbours

  Feature film

  Ipso Facto

  22 February 1999

  23 February 1999

  Untitled

  Short film

  Canny Productions

  1 March 1999

  7 March 1999

  Untitled

  Short film

  27 May 1999

  30 May 1999

  930W
  companies in the north-east received grants from the UK Film Council; and how much they received in the last 12 months. [40630]

  Dr. Howells
  One Lottery grant has been made to film production companies in the north-east in the last 12 months of £40,000 to the Northern Production Fund. The Film Council has also funded Northern Film and Media (through its Regional Investment Fund for England), which has enabled that organisation to invest non-Film Council funds in the region. This includes a total of £213,629 to film production companies and individuals for production and development activity.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many films were produced by film production companies in the north-east in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001. [40632]

  Dr. Howells
  I understand from Northern Film and Media that 78 films were produced in the north-east in the period 1996 to 2001, 50 of which were produced by companies based in the region. The following list shows the start and end dates of the 50 productions.
  931W

  Production Name

  Production Type

  Production company

  Start

  End

  Rob of the Rovers

  Short film

  Pinball Films

  28 June 1999

  1 July 1999

  Mavis and the Mermaid

  Short film

  Shoreline Films

  23 September 1999

  1 October 1999

  The Good, the Bad and the Feathered

  Short film

  Eagle Films

  13 October 1999

  19 October 1999

  Millennium Movies

  Short film

  A19 Films and Video

  1 November 1999

  29 November 1999

  Stars in Her Eyes

  Short film

  Ethel Factor

  6 November 1999

  10 November 1999

  Going, Going

  Short film

  MJW Productions

  5 December 1999

  8 December 1999

  Whipped Cream

  Short film

  Packham Pear Productions

  26 February 2000

  29 February 2000

  Gabriel and Me

  Feature film

  Samuelson Productions/IMP

  19 June 2000

  26 June 2000

  Fish

  Short film

  Pilgrim Films

  26 July 2000

  30 July 2000

  Stix

  Short film

  Little California Films

  22 September 2000

  29 September 2000

  Playback

  Feature film

  Canny Pictures

  15 January 2001

  28 January 2001

  Grainger Town Poetry Films

  Short film

  International Media Productions

  26 February 2001

  26 February 2001

  Flickerman and the Ivory Skinned Woman

  Short film

  Pilgrims Films

  26 March 2001

  29 March 2001

  Ticket to Ride

  Short film

  Ipso Facto

  24 April 2001

  29 April 2001

  Star Man

  Short film

  Yipp Films

  3 June 2001

  10 June 2001

  Momentum

  Short film

  24:25 Films Ltd.

  16 July 2001

  20 July 2001

  Sweet Dreams

  Short film

  International Media Productions

  14 June 2001

  19 June 2001

  Danny and his Amazing Teeth

  Short film

  Ipso Facto Films

  29 July 2001

  2 August 2001

  King of the Road

  Short film

  Pilgrim Films

  18 July 2001

  23 July 2001

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41068]

  Dr. Howells
  In DCMS travel and subsistence administration is contracted out and there is no electronic record of hotel accommodation. To provide this information would involve a manual check of each travel and subsistence claim which could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the extent of the gender pay gap among staff in her Department. [41002]

  Dr. Howells
  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 and prepare any necessary action plans to close any equal pay gaps by April 2003. The Cabinet Office issued comprehensive guidance in January 2002 to assist Departments and agencies in carrying out these reviews. DCMS will be carrying out its review within the next six months and the Royal Parks Agency will be building it into their programme.

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in her Department. [41033]

  Dr. Howells
  The underlying principle of DCMS's policy on the payment of relocation expenses to staff is that reasonable costs associated with a compulsory permanent transfer to a new workplace will be reimbursed; and anyone joining DCMS from other locations does so on purely voluntary terms. To date there has been no call to use this policy primarily because DCMS is a London based organisation.
  932W
  In the Royal Parks Agency where Parks Managers are required to relocate to Parks Lodges they receive a relocation package of £2,500 and reimbursement for removal expenses.

  Images of England Website
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) whether(a) owners and (b) tenants will be informed in writing if their properties are to be listed on the Images of England website being established by English Heritage; [40838]

  (2) what representations she has received on the publication of details of listed private properties on the Images of England website and (a) the Data Protection Act 1998 and (b) the ECHR; [40839]

  (3) whether owners and tenants may permanently remove their property from the Images of England website being set up by English Heritage to catalogue listed buildings. [40840]

  Dr. Howells
  English Heritage undertook a comprehensive and successful series of regional press campaigns to publicise the "Images of England" project. They made it clear that it was their intention to photograph every building on the statutory list for the project; owners or occupiers will not therefore be informed individually. Owners who do not wish their building to appear should contact English Heritage, but they should bear in mind that information on every listed building is already in the public domain. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received two letters about Data Protection and Human Rights legislation in this context.

  National Collections
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) whether overseas loans are taken into account when her Department assesses the proportion of total collection on display to the public; [40333]

  (2) what loans from the Royal Armouries collection have not been returned after a period of three years. [40334]
  933W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 6 March 2002]: The number of overseas loans varies substantially from one museum to another and is not a key performance measure used by my Department.

  I shall place in the Library details of loans made from the Royal Armouries' collections over three years ago that have not yet been returned.

  Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether funding for the heritage economic regeneration scheme is allocated only to areas of deprivation; and if she will make a statement. [40968]

  Dr. Howells
  The heritage economic regeneration scheme was set up by English Heritage in 1998 to boost the country's deprived urban and rural communities. English Heritage issues guidance to local authorities which explains the funding criteria. They advise that this does not preclude them from assisting schemes in areas which do not rank highly in the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Region's deprivation indices, providing there is a clear regeneration need.

  Litigation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many cases(a) her Department and (b) its agencies have defended in (i) industrial tribunals and (ii) the courts in each year since 1997; how many were concluded in their favour; and what the total cost was to her Department of litigation in each year. [41116]

  Dr. Howells
  During the period in question:The Department for Culture Media and Sport defended no cases in either industrial tribunals or the courts;
  The Historic Royal Palaces Agency defended one industrial tribunal in 1997 which found in its favour. There were no cases which went to the courts;
  The Royal Parks Agency defended one industrial tribunal in 1997 which found against it and compensation of £3,500 was awarded. The agency defended two industrial tribunals in 2001 both of which were found in its favour. There ere no cases which went to the courts.

  Other than the compensation figure, no information is available on the cost of the litigation.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many special advisers were employed by her(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive; and what the total amount spent on special advisers by the Department was in each of those years. [41249]

  Dr. Howells
  Details of special advisers employed in the Department are shown in the table.

  Special advisers

  Period year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  19971

  2

  0

  2

  1998

  1

  1

  2

  934W

  Special advisers

  Period year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1999

  1

  1

  2

  2000

  2

  0

  2

  2001

  3

  0

  3

  1 1 May to 31 December 1997

  The information about the total amount spent on special advisers by the Department could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  NESTA
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to review National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts funding programmes. [41338]

  Mr. Caborn
  NESTA has established itself as a significant supporter of creativity and innovation over the past two years and is currently undertaking evaluation studies of its three funding programmes. The Department is taking a close interest in the outcome of this work and this evidence will be taken into account in the Quinquennial Review of NESTA, which is scheduled to take place in 2004–05.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the NESTA-funded projects in the last two years; and what assessment she has made of NESTA projects. [41339]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since its inception, NESTA has made more than 200 awards, totalling over £15 million. These awards range widely across the arts and sciences, and have made some interesting connections between the two. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport takes a close interest in NESTA's progress and believes that it is making a valuable contribution in line with its objectives. I am asking the chief executive of NESTA to write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible with the details of each award made so far and shall ensure that a copy of the letter is placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  North West Arts Board
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the proposed transfer of the North West Arts Board's staff, assets and liabilities to the Arts Council of England. [40405]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: The proposed transfer of the North West Arts Board's staff, assets and liabilities to the Arts Council of England is a matter for the North West Arts Board and the Arts Council of England. I understand that North West Arts Board agreed the resolution to proceed with the transfer to the Arts Council of England at their meeting on 4 March.

  Free Television Licences
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners in Telford are in receipt of free television licences. [41425]
  935W
  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers the free television licence scheme for the BBC as licensing authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 3,200 people aged 75 or over in the Telford constituency.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners in Clwyd, South are in receipt of free television licences. [41900]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers the free television licence scheme for the BBC as licensing authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 4,800 people aged 75 or over in the Clwyd, South constituency.

  Portable Antiquities Scheme
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to announce future funding plans for the portable antiquities scheme. [42367]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for the Arts expects to be able to make an announcement about the future funding of the portable antiquities scheme when she attends the Standing Conference on Portable Antiquities on Thursday 14 March. Copies of this announcement will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Broadcasting Restrictions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the groups and organisations which are restricted from being able to broadcast by radio and television; and on statutory restrictions on material which can be broadcast. [41370]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: In relation to ownership, the statutory rules broadly have the effect of disqualifying the following groups from holding licences;
  non-EEA individuals and bodies (except licences to provide television multiplex services, national or local radio multiplex services, digital additional services, local delivery services, non-domestic satellite or radio services, licensable programme services and licensable sound programme services)
  local authorities
  political organisations
  religious organisations (regulators have discretion to waive this in relation to cable/satellite TV and local analogue, cable or satellite radio services)
  certain publicly funded bodies (this applies only to radio licences, apart from radio restricted service licences)
  advertising agencies
  a person who is, in the opinion of the regulators, subject to influence from a body which is itself disqualified, the effect of which is, or is likely to be, adverse to the public interest.

  The Government's proposals for media ownership are set out in the consultation paper on media ownership rules published by DCMS and DTI in November 2001.
  936W
  In terms of material which by statute may not be broadcast, the broadcasting regulators, for example the ITC, are required to publish rules on a number of matters which are set out in the current Broadcasting Acts. They include material which is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder, and the advertising of specific products, including tobacco and prescription drugs.

  Community Land Purchases
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport under which section of its remit funds from the National Lottery are provided for funding community land purchases; and how much has been used for this purpose in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK to date. [42529]

  Mr. Caborn
  Statutory policy directions set by the Government determine the type of activities the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) can support under its programmes.

  Under its directions for the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities programme NOF has committed £10.78 million to the Scottish Land Fund, administered for NOF by Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Since February 2001 the Scottish Land Fund has awarded 17 grants for acquisition purposes totalling £4,084,613. This programme is exclusive to Scotland and no other NOF funds have been allocated for community land purchases in the UK.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Multiple Food Retailers
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has given to establishing an independent regulator for multiple food retailers. [42170]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: We have no plans to establish an independent regulator for multiple food retailers. The Code of Practice on Supermarkets' Dealings with Suppliers, which applies to supermarkets that have 8 per cent. or more of the market, provides for independent dispute resolution. The supermarkets currently falling above this threshold (Asda, Safeway, Sainsbury and Tesco) have all given legally binding undertakings to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to abide by the code and it will now come into force on 17 March 2002. In addition, we are encouraging wider adoption of the code in the food chain on a voluntary basis.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish a strategy for increasing levels of organic farming. [42169]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The development of the organic farming sector will be carried forward in the context of an organic action plan, taking account of the recommendations of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the dates and locations of spot checks on illegal meat imports carried out by her Department in the last two years. [38842]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Responsibility for enforcing legislation on imported meat rests with the local and port health authorities not with my Department. All Customs officers dealing with passengers look for the range of restricted and prohibited goods, including meat, as part of their normal duties. DEFRA's State Veterinary Service staff are responsible for enforcing rules on imports of live animals and animal products not intended for human consumption. Officials from the three bodies co-operate from time to time on special joint exercises to deter and detect illicit imports in passengers' baggage, including meat.

  Since April 2001, members of the State Veterinary Service have been involved in around nine joint exercises at Heathrow (covering 20 flights). They have also participated in some of the exercises organised by Crawley borough council who have responsibility for Gatwick airport.

  Information for 2000 and other locations is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Waste
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on research being undertaken by the Environment Agency concerning the health effects of bioaerosols arising from the incineration and composting of waste. [41218]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 31 January 2002, Official Report, column 473W, on the health effects of bioaerosols from composting. Bioaerosols are not the subject of specific research by the Environment Agency in relation to incineration because the micro-organisms do not survive the incineration process—the residues are essentially sterile in a biological sense. The Environment Agency is, however, currently undertaking a research project relating to waste incineration entitled "Human Health Review of Incineration and Combustion Techniques". The aim of this project is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the nature and degree of any human health impacts of substances released to the environment, from a range of combustion and waste incineration processes burning a range of virgin and waste derived fuels.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the Waste Electrical Electronic Equipment Directive's requirement for manufacturers to be responsible for the treatment and collection of historic waste; [38120]
  938W
  (2) if she will make a statement on financial responsibility for collecting waste electrical goods from households under the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive; [38119]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the feasibility of a visible fee for new electronic and electrical goods, levied at the point of sale, to fund the collection, disposal and treatment of waste electrical goods. [38122]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Trade and Industry is preparing an updated Regulatory Impact Assessment on all costs and benefits associated with the WEEE Directive. I will be depositing this in the Libraries of the House during the next month.

  The directive as currently drafted states that producers will, as a minimum, be responsible for the collection costs of WEEE when deposited at a central point. A final decision on implementation cannot be taken until the directive is adopted and we have consulted business again.

  The Government will consider the possibility of visible fees alongside other options for fulfilling the financial obligations of the WEEE Directive, as long as the adopted text provides for this.

  Local Produce
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the economic impact of initiatives promoting local produce within the respective areas. [39410]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has not itself undertaken any assessment of the economic impact of initiatives promoting local produce. However, the Countryside Agency, which we grant-aid, is contributing to the funding of the New Economics Foundation's Plugging the Leaks programme. Among other things, the programme is piloting a tool which allows local groups to measure the economic impact of various activities including local food initiatives.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what initiatives her Department is supporting to promote local produce in the south-west. [39411]

  Mr. Morley
  Through Food from Britain and the Countryside Agency, the Government have contributed to the funding of the Regional Food Group, Taste of the West. Taste of the West provide various business support and promotional activities including, "Meet the Buyer" events, the publication of regional food and drink guides, attendance at local, regional and national shows, the holding of workshops and seminars and the promotion of farmers' markets. We have also provided funding for the National Association of Farmers' Markets which promotes the development of farmers' markets throughout the country.

  In addition, the Department has awarded grant under the Agriculture Development Scheme, the Rural Enterprise Scheme and the LEADER+ initiative to a variety of projects that involve the promotion of local food and drink within the region. One example is the recent award under the third round of the Agriculture

  939W
  Development Scheme to the South West Regional Food and Drink Group to support a pilot model for a regional food trade organisation.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire which was acknowledged on 11 December, reference 162918. [36401]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]: I am sorry for the delay in replying to my hon. Friend. His letter raised issues that are for the Treasury to answer and it has been passed to them for reply.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to reply to the letter of 20 December 2001 from the hon. Member for Totnes regarding constituent Mr. Trevor Pennington and a declaration by Devon county council on 27 February 2001. [36394]

  Mr. Morley
  A reply to the hon. Member's letter was sent on 6 March 2002.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [37496]

  Mr. Morley
  Unfortunately it is not possible to provide this detailed information without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in her Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40431]

  Mr. Morley
  Section 8 paragraph 8.2.1 of the Civil Service Management Code requires Departments and agencies to ensure staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel in the circumstances, taking account of any management benefit or the needs of staff with disabilities. These central principles are repeated in departmental and agency staff handbooks which also stress that official journeys may be taken only after other options of conducting official business (such as via telephone, email or video conferencing) have been considered unsuitable. These rules ensure that any official journey is undertaken only when appropriate and by the most appropriate means.

  Following the creation of DEFRA my officials are reviewing a wide range of travel policies and procedures to take account of our responsibilities towards the environment. Indeed, the Department is developing a new framework, provisionally titled "Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate", that
  940W
  will cover key operational areas across Government and, among other things, require Departments to promote greener modes of travel.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the extent of the gender pay gap among staff in her Department. [41005]

  Mr. Morley
  As part of a review of its pay system, DEFRA commissioned two pay equality audits by independent consultants (the Institute for Employment Studies). These were carried out between July and October 2001. The consultants were aware that the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) Task Force "Just Pay" report had been issued. They were provided with a copy of that report and a draft version of the Cabinet Office's Equal Pay guidance (which was subsequently finalised and issued in January 2002).

  The purpose of the two audits was to assess existing and any continuing pay equality issues "before and after" implementation of proposed changes to the pay system. The reports provided a range of statistical studies, including pay level analysis by gender.

  The first audit provided baseline information by assessing DEFRA's current pay system and staff pay levels. The second audit then reviewed pay levels (projected through three years) following assumed implementation of pay system proposals. The results indicated that the changes proposed to the pay system would bring about improvements.

  DEFRA is aware that 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 information from these earlier audits will provide essential background for a more comprehensive equal pay audit.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with EU(a) member and (b) applicant states on CAP reform; and if she will make a statement. [40707]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had discussions on CAP reform with colleagues from Spain, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Poland since 1 January 2002.

  Ruddy Duck
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent on the campaign to eradicate the ruddy duck in Britain; how much is expected to be spent by the conclusion of the campaign; and if he will make a statement. [39533]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are undertaking a control trial to test the feasibility of eradicating the UK's population of ruddy duck within 10 years, determining
  941W
  the financial cost of such a programme and indicating the number of birds needed to be culled each year to achieve this.

  The control trial is being undertaken to investigate the best possible way for the UK to conserve the globally threatened white-headed duck which is threatened by the ruddy duck. The control trial has not yet concluded and no decision has yet been taken on whether to proceed on a campaign to eradicate the ruddy duck.

  The total cost of the control trial is approximately £900,000 (this has increased slightly as a result of disruption to the work programme caused by foot and mouth disease). Payments of approximately £140,000 remain before the control trial concludes on 30 June 2002.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated population of the ruddy duck in Britain was at the start of the campaign for their eradication; what the population is; and if he will make a statement. [39535]

  Mr. Meacher
  No decision has yet been taken on whether to undertake a campaign to eradicate the ruddy duck in the United Kingdom. Figures are given in relation to the Government's control trial.

  The Wetland Bird Survey (WeBs) data are the best source of information for ruddy duck numbers. During the winter of 1998–99, prior to commencement of the control trial, these counts identified a minimum of 3,641 birds (although this does not include information from one important site). The most recently published WeBs counts are for 1999–2000. These found a minimum of 4,565 birds.

  The Government consider that action needs to be taken to ensure that the globally endangered white-headed duck, the only native European species of stiff-tailed duck, does not become extinct. The success of the control trial however should not be judged simply on the number of ruddy ducks controlled. The contractors must design a population model to establish the feasibility of eradication, estimate the cost of such a strategy, carry out population counts at various sites and test methods of control at various habitats and during various seasons, including the examination of trapping as an alternative to shooting at sites where shooting is not feasible.

  Salmon Fishing (Severn Estuary)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the Blackrock Lave Net Salmon Fishermen's Association about the future of salmon fishing in the Severn estuary; and if she will make a statement. [40711]

  Mr. Morley
  We have received a number of representations on behalf of the Blackrock Lave Net Salmon Fishermen's Association in connection with the Environment Agency consultation on a Salmon Action Plan for the Severn estuary. The plan seeks to ensure the long-term sustainability of salmon stocks and the fisheries it supports. Views have been sought on several options to reduce the numbers of salmon caught and so protect stocks. The agency will take into account all comments received and aims to publish the final plan in the summer.942W
  Should this recommend fishing restrictions these would be subject to a further public consultation and require DEFRA approval.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will issue her draft combined heat and power strategy for consultation. [41129]

  Mr. Meacher
  We will issue the draft strategy for consultation shortly.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department plans to take to achieve the Government's target to double the UK use of CHP by 2010. [40940]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department is developing a CHP strategy in close collaboration with other Government Departments. This will set out the measures needed to achieve the target to double installed Good Quality CHP electrical capacity to at least 10,000 MW by 2010. We will issue the draft strategy for consultation shortly.

  Flooding (Lee Valley)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the Environment Agency to publish its pre-feasibility report on the Lower Lee Valley Flooding Strategy. [40679]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department provides grants for flood and coastal defence capital works, and associated studies, which meet essential technical, economic and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score. Further to increases in spending plans in the last two spending reviews, additional funding of £51 million over the four years from 2000–01 was announced in November 2000 following the severe flooding that year. An increased priority was given to urban flooding defences and the grant rates for all river flood defences were increased by 20 per cent.

  Operational responsibility for flood management measures rests with the local operating authorities, normally the Environment Agency and local councils, who decide which projects to promote and their timing. I understand that the initial scoping report for the Lower River Lee Flood Defence Strategy is currently being reviewed by the agency and they plan to publish a summary of it in April this year. The purpose of the report is to identify flooding problems and key issues.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies she has made of the way in which other EU states implement directives and regulations affecting farmers and food production; and what assessment she has made of the compliance costs in each country. [36583]

  Mr. Morley
  The responsibility for monitoring the regulatory situation in member states and for maintaining a level playing field through the proper implementation and enforcement of EU legislation is a matter for the European Commission. In developing its own regulatory
  943W
  reform plan, DEFRA does have regard among other matters, to practice in other member states where appropriate.

  Welfare of Laying Hens Directive
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will review the impact of the welfare of laying hens directive 1999/74/EC on the British egg industry five years after its implementation. [41229]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The directive makes provision for a review in 2005.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she intends to incorporate directive 1999/74/EC (welfare of laying hens) into domestic legislation. [41225]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Directive 99/74/EC will be incorporated in England by amending the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000. Separate regulations will be made to implement this directive in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if all the systems detailed in the welfare of laying hens directive 1999/74/EC will be available to UK producers. [41224]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Yes: English implementing legislation will include all the systems detailed in the welfare of laying hens directive 99/74/EC. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will follow suit.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her counterparts in each EU member state on the welfare of laying hens directive 1999/74/EC; and what her estimate is of the(a) speed and (b) vigour with which the directive will be implemented in other member states. [41227]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Member states are responsible for bringing into force the necessary regulations to comply with this directive and for communicating the main provisions of national law into the EU Commission.

  The EU Commission is responsible for monitoring enforcement by member states.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the impact on(a) jobs, (b) productivity and (c) profitability of the welfare of laying hens directive 1999/74/EC; [41223]

  (2) what assessment she has made of how much the welfare of laying hens directive 1999/74/EC will cost the British egg industry. [41228]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: A regulatory impact assessment has been produced, following public consultation. It will be published to accompany the statutory instrument to implement the welfare of laying hens directive.
  944W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what mechanisms for appeal will exist against legal enforcement of the welfare of laying hens directive 1999/74/EC. [41226]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The regulations implementing the laying hens directive are made under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. A person can be convicted of an offence under this legislation; the appeal mechanism is to a higher court.

  The regulations could be challenged in the ECJ as not correctly implementing the directive; through judicial review proceedings; or by a challenge on human rights issues.

  Pig Farming
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the rearing of pigs in factory farms. [40465]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: There is comprehensive legislation to protect the welfare of pigs on farm. In particular, the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 specify detailed conditions under which pigs must be kept. There is also a code of practice.

  Last October the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers adopted a pig welfare directive which will eventually bring conditions in all other member states up to British pig welfare standards.

  Farming and Food White Paper
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her plans to implement the recommendations of, "Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future". [40464]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The Commission's report will make a substantial contribution to a new strategy for sustainable food and farming, which we aim to launch in the autumn. We will work with a wide range of stakeholders to determine how best to take forward the Commission's ideas and deliver positive changes on the ground. As responsibility for addressing the Commission's recommendations rests with industry and other organisations as well as Government, we will be looking for their active involvement. Before Easter we will publish a steering document which will inform and guide this and launch the stakeholder engagement process.

  Meat Exports
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the future viability of the UK export market; when she expects actual exports of livestock and animal products to resume; and if she will make a statement. [37920]

  Mr. Morley
  It is for industry, rather than the Government, to assess the viability of export markets, although the Government have an important role to play in helping to secure the removal of barriers to exports. Indications from the UK industry are that many traditional
  945W
  overseas buyers are keen to resume business, although it will take time to regain and exceed the level of business (£1.37 billion in the livestock and livestock product sector) seen in 2000.

  The European Commission has now lifted restrictions on exports of meat, animal products and live animals. Exports to other EU member states can thus resume and have already done so in many cases. Exports to third countries can also recommence as soon as we have received the requested confirmation from the importing countries of their import conditions. We are actively pursuing such confirmation from priority export markets.

  Olive Oil
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to impound olive oil that is suspected of being contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. [6055]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  On 4 July 2001, the Food Standards Agency was notified of the contamination of Spanish olive-pomace oil with high levels of benzo(a)pyrene, a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon that could cause cancer. To protect consumers, the agency advised retailers to withdraw all Spanish olive-pomace oil from the UK market and recall fat spreads and dressings containing olive-pomace oil as an ingredient. This advice does not apply where it can be shown that the olive-pomace oil or products in which it is used contain acceptably low levels of benzopyrene.

  On 14 August 2001, the agency alerted the public following notification of high levels of benzo(a)pyrene in two batches of olive-pomace oil produced in Greece. The UK distributor withdrew the batches and any remaining in circulation should not be used. The agency is continuing to be notified where high levels of

  Inward secondees from private sector from May 1997 to date

  Name of parent organisation

  Responsibilities

  Grade

  Funding arrangements

  Start/end Date

  Ernst and Young

  School Leadership Division, Policy adviser

  Consultant

  DfES

  9/10/2000 to 31/3/2001

  International Computers Ltd.

  UfI Transition Team, Assisted in establishment of UfI organisation as a public private partnership

  G7

  Parent Organisation

  2/6/1998 to 30/11/1998

  Aqumen Services

  Private Finance Division, Advising Department on public/private finance.

  Adviser

  DfES

  10/4/1998 to 1/11/1998

  Ernst and Young

  Teachers Pay and Pensions, Policy Adviser

  Consultant

  DfES

  1/1/2000 to 31/12/2000

  Pannell, Kerr, Foster

  Private Finance Division, Finance Adviser

  G7

  DfES

  30/7/1997 to 31/3/1998

  The Link Group

  Workplace Learning Division, Head of Learning Projects

  G6

  Parent Organisation

  2/4/2001 to 31/3/2002

  XANSA

  New Deal Task Force, Co-ordination of Ambition IT Project

  G7

  Parent Organisation

  1/1/2001 to 30/9/2001

  Ernst and Young

  National College for School Leadership, Consultant

  Consultant

  Parent Organisation

  15/5/2000 to 14/11/2000

  Next Employment Agency

  Member of the Secretariat for the National Disability Council

  SEO

  Parent Organisation

  1/9/1998 to 31/8/2000

  Ernst and Young

  Transforming Secondary Education, Policy adviser

  Consultant

  DfES

  3/10/2000 to 22/12/2000

  Enigma Productions

  Financial and Analytical Services, Financial adviser

  Consultant

  DfES

  13/3/2000 to 12/3/2001

  946W
  benzopyrene are found in olive-pomace oil produced in the European Union. Where these products are sold in the UK they have been removed from sale.

  On 29 November 2001, the agency completed a survey of olive and olive-pomace oils to determine the levels of benzo(a)pyrene in oils sold in the UK from Greece, Italy and Spain. Where elevated levels of benzo(a)pyrene were found during the survey in some samples of olive-pomace oils, action was taken to prevent the sale of the product and the European Commission notified.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Student Drop-out Rates
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students have dropped out of university at the end of the first year for each university; and of those how many were subsequently re-admitted or started a new course at another university in each of the past three years. [36624]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The available information on the non-continuation of students beyond the first year in each university, and the proportion who resume after a year out, is contained in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education in the UK" published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, a copy of which is available from the House Library.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the names of staff who have been seconded to her 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 her Department, (c) the organisation responsible for paying their salary and (d) the start and end dates of their secondment. [35839]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: Since May 1997 23 staff have been seconded to this Department from the private sector. The following table sets out (a) the names of the relevant private sector organisations, (b) the secondees' responsibilities and their grades, (c) the organisation responsible for paying salary and (d) the start and end date of the secondment.
  947W

  Inward secondees from private sector from May 1997 to date

  Name of parent organisation

  Responsibilities

  Grade

  Funding arrangements

  Start/end Date

  National Westminster Bank

  Financial and Analytical Services, Adviser on Communications

  G6

  Shared

  6/3/2000 to 5/3/2001

  Ernst and Young

  Transforming Secondary Education Delivery, Unit Policy Adviser

  Consultant

  DFES

  10/1/2000 to 22/12/2000

  Nationwide Anglia Building Society

  People Skills Division, Assistant Director developing the Work-Life Balance Campaign.

  G7

  DfES

  5/9/2001 to 4/9/2002

  Ernst and Young

  Teachers Pay and Pensions, Policy adviser

  Consultant

  DfES

  27/9/2000 to 31/1/2001

  Glaxo Wellcome

  Schools Directorate, Adviser on best practice in Science

  Adviser

  Employing Organisation

  3/11/1998 to 31/1/2000

  National Westminster Bank

  Business Manager

  Adviser

  Shared funding

  13/3/2000 to 12/3/2001

  Centre for British Teachers

  Schools Impact and Feedback Division, Policy Adviser

  G6

  DfES

  1/4/2001 to 31/3/2004

  Price Waterhouse Cooper

  Surestart Unit, Providing financial and audit advice

  G7

  DfES

  1/10/2000 to 30/9/2001

  National Westminster Bank

  Performance and Innovation Unit, Project Manager

  G7

  DfES

  6/3/2000 to 23/6/2000

  Centre for School Standards

  Pupil Standards Division, Support on delivery and operational matters.

  EO

  DfES

  14/1/2002 to 12/7/2002

  International Communications Ltd.

  Lifelong Learning and Technologies Division, Assist with the operation of Learning Direct and the Ufl launch 2000

  G6

  DfES

  1/2/2000 to 31/3/2001

  Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research

  Research for Analytical Services

  SRO

  DfES

  6/1/1997 to 21/10/1997

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff in her Department have been seconded to jobs in the(a) private and (b) public sector in each of the last four years. [31768]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 7 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1129–30W.

  Departmental Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of her Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32832]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Within my Department, all staff outside the senior civil service can choose to retire between 60 up to a maximum retirement age of 65. This is subject to satisfying fitness and efficiency requirements. Staff in the senior civil service grades retire at age 60. Out of a total of 4,258 staff, 109 are in the senior civil service grades.

  My Department's policy on flexible retirement is intended to improve opportunities and choice for people aged 50 to 65 in the Department and to support the Department's equality strategy.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether her duty under section 10 of the Education Act 1996 extends to the promotion of education for asylum seekers in detention and reception centres. [37278]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: No individual or class of persons is owed a specific duty under section 10 of the 1996 Act. The Secretary of State does not have a specific duty to promote education for asylum seekers in detention and reception centres. The duty is very wide and general and applies to "the people of England and Wales". However, one of the Secretary of
  948W
  State's roles when exercising this duty is to work with all bodies and institutions with education responsibilities and to assist them to provide effective education. The Department has been in contact with the Home Office and local education authorities and encouraged them to work together to provide facilities and services that are appropriate to meet the educational needs of the residents of these centres.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether education provided to asylum-seeking children in accommodation centres will deliver the national curriculum. [42408]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Under the current legislation the national curriculum applies to schools maintained by local education authorities. This Department is working closely with the Home Office on issues relating to the education of children of asylum seekers in accommodation centres. A final decision has yet to be made about the detail of the education provision that will be made available in accommodation centres.

  Human Rights
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the activities undertaken by the UK in the framework of the Decade for Human Rights Education. [40527]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are a number of activities undertaken by the UK which promote human rights education relevant to the UN Decade for Human Rights. These include:the introduction of citizenship education, which teaches children about legal and human rights, as part of the Personal, Social and Health Education and Citizenship framework in primary schools. This will be a compulsory subject in the National Curriculum from September 2002 in England. Citizenship education is also available within the curricula of Wales and Scotland.
  the introduction of a human rights perspective into the Department for International Development's work, as set out in DFID's Target Strategy Paper, "Realising Human Rights for Poor People".

  949W
  a "human rights helpline" and website managed by the Home Office on the Human Rights Act. National roadshows have also been held to explain its implications to a wider audience.
  the website developed by the British Council, which provides a news service on human rights issues in the UK. It also contains information on international developments on civil and political rights, the rights of children, and the rights of minority groups. A set of booklets on Citizenship Education and Human Rights Education has also been distributed to UK and overseas audiences.

  Opportunity Bursaries
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many opportunity bursaries were awarded in each university in England in 2001–02. [40559]

  Margaret Hodge
  Of the 6,580 opportunity bursaries allocated to participating institutions, a total of 6,129 had been awarded by December 2001. Information is not held about the number of opportunity bursaries awarded by individual institutions. The following table shows the number of students with an opportunity bursary in attendance at each institution as at December 2001. Students awarded a bursary by one institution who took up an HE place elsewhere are counted within the total for the institution they transferred to.

  The 451 opportunity bursaries that were not awarded from the initial allocations were redistributed to institutions in January 2002. We expect all opportunity bursaries available in 2001–02 to be taken up.

  Institution

  Number of opportunity bursaries initially allocated 2001–02

  Number of opportunity bursary holders attending each institution 2001–021

  Universities

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  64

  53

  Aston University

  46

  37

  University of Bath

  27

  23

  University of Birmingham

  96

  85

  Bournemouth University

  36

  36

  University of Bradford

  63

  72

  University of Brighton

  45

  27

  University of Bristol

  33

  26

  Brunel University

  59

  56

  University of Cambridge

  53

  40

  University of Central England

  95

  89

  University of Central Lancashire

  126

  127

  City University

  23

  27

  Coventry University

  109

  119

  De Montfort University

  152

  169

  University of Derby

  85

  85

  University of Durham

  54

  58

  University of East Anglia

  34

  15

  University of East London

  71

  76

  University of Essex

  31

  31

  University of Exeter

  30

  19

  University of Gloucestershire

  34

  23

  Goldsmiths College

  23

  18

  University of Greenwich

  78

  95

  University of Hertfordshire

  88

  88

  university of Huddersfield

  118

  118

  University of Hull

  72

  67

  Imperial College

  33

  31

  Keele University

  36

  38

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  40

  21

  King's College London

  53

  35

  Kingston University

  69

  63

  Lancaster University

  57

  55

  University of Leeds

  124

  97

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  92

  96

  University of Leicester

  58

  62

  University of Lincoln

  89

  85

  950W

  Institution

  Number of opportunity bursaries initially allocated 2001–02

  Number of opportunity bursary holders attending each institution 2001–021

  University of Liverpool

  93

  98

  Liverpool John Moores University

  145

  127

  London Guildhall University

  79

  77

  Loughborough University

  62

  75

  University of Luton

  91

  91

  University of Manchester

  102

  90

  UMIST

  40

  32

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  188

  188

  Middlesex University

  115

  114

  University of Newcastle

  74

  62

  University of North London

  80

  38

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  115

  104

  University of Nottingham

  55

  57

  Nottingham Trent University

  133

  135

  University of Oxford

  45

  36

  Oxford Brookes University

  32

  26

  University of Plymouth

  80

  73

  University of Portsmouth

  78

  84

  Queen Mary, University of London

  54

  42

  University of Reading

  35

  34

  Royal Holloway, University of London

  24

  26

  University of Salford

  121

  107

  University of Sheffield

  83

  83

  Sheffield Hallam University

  158

  158

  University of Southampton

  55

  19

  South Bank University

  81

  73

  Staffordshire University

  133

  140

  University of Sunderland

  139

  118

  University of Surrey

  21

  19

  University of Surrey Roehampton

  27

  26

  University of Sussex

  30

  23

  University of Teesside

  88

  78

  Thames Valley University

  43

  43

  University College London

  47

  54

  University of Warwick

  43

  37

  University of West of England, Bristol

  84

  84

  University of Westminster

  72

  73

  University of Wolverhampton

  153

  159

  University of York

  38

  31

  Bath Spa University College

  14

  15

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  49

  28

  Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College

  39

  36

  Canterbury Christ Church University College

  20

  20

  Chester College of Higher Education

  21

  21

  University College Chichester

  13

  13

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  36

  30

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  15

  15

  Liverpool Hope

  40

  49

  University College Northampton

  69

  51

  St. Mary's College

  13

  14

  Southampton Institute

  71

  67

  University College Worcester

  19

  20

  York St. John College

  22

  23

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  11

  10

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  11

  8

  Cranfield University

  11

  6

  Cumbria College of Art and Design

  11

  7

  Dartington College of Arts

  11

  11

  Falmouth College of Arts

  11

  11

  Harper Adams University College

  11

  11

  Kent Institute of Art and Design

  17

  16

  University of London

  11

  0

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  11

  6

  The London Institute

  44

  43

  Newman College

  11

  11

  Northern School of Contemporary Dance

  11

  8

  Norwich School of Art and Design

  11

  11

  School of Oriental and African Studies

  11

  4

  School of Pharmacy

  11

  11

  Ravensbourne College

  11

  11

  RCN Institute

  11

  0

  Rose Bruford College

  11

  1

  Royal Academy of Music

  11

  11

  Royal College of Music

  11

  7

  Royal Northern College of Music

  11

  11

  Royal Veterinary College

  11

  0

  St. George's Hospital Medical School

  11

  9

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  11

  15

  St. Martin's College

  18

  17

  951W

  Institution

  Number of opportunity bursaries initially allocated 2001–02

  Number of opportunity bursary holders attending each institution 2001–021

  The Surrey Inst of Art and Design University College

  15

  15

  Trinity and All Saints

  17

  16

  Trinity College of Music

  11

  9

  Wimbledon School of Art

  11

  5

  Writtle College

  11

  1

  Total universities

  6,370

  5,900

  Further education colleges

  Barnsley College

  34

  32

  Birmingham College of Food

  47

  52

  Bradford College

  57

  58

  Newcastle College

  32

  33

  Stockport College of FE and HE

  23

  23

  St. Helens College

  17

  15

  Total further education colleges

  210

  213

  Other UK institutions

  0

  216

  Total (all institutions)

  6,580

  6,129

  1 Data as at December 2001

  2 16 students were awarded a bursary by one of the institutions participating in the scheme

  but subsequently took up a place in a non-participating institution. Arrangements allow these students

  to continue to receive their bursary at the institution they are studying.

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in her Department. [41027]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Relocation expenses are paid to the Department's staff if the move is considered to be in the public interest.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what impact the "Those who can, teach", advertising campaign has had on teacher recruitment. [41886]

  Mr. Timms
  Since it was launched in January 2001, the Teacher Training Agency's "Those who can, teach" campaign has had a positive impact on recruiting teachers. Last September, recruitment to initial teacher training courses rose for a second successive year, while the number of graduates who have applied to train as teachers so far this year is 22 per cent. higher than at the same point in 2001. Last year, the total number of inquiries about careers in teaching received by the agency's Teaching Information Line was 48 per cent. higher than in 1999–2000. Between September 2001 and March 2002, 10 per cent. more inquiries were received than in the corresponding period the previous year. The Teacher Training Agency will launch the next phase of the current advertising campaign later in the spring.

  LEA Spending
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the spending is(a) per pupil and (b) per head of population in each local education authority in the south-west of England. [41964]
  952W
  Mr. Timms
  The following table contains information relating to expenditure per head of population based on total net current expenditure after recharges for 2000–01:

  £

  LEA name

  NCE per pupil rounded

  NCE per person rounded

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2,820

  450

  City of Bristol

  3,110

  430

  North Somerset

  2,790

  420

  South Gloucestershire

  2,760

  470

  Cornwall

  2,680

  440

  Isles of Scilly

  4,990

  700

  Torbay

  2,790

  450

  Plymouth

  2,800

  490

  Devon

  2,720

  400

  Bournemouth

  2,770

  400

  Poole

  2,530

  360

  Dorset

  2,800

  420

  Gloucestershire

  2,690

  440

  Somerset

  2,790

  430

  Swindon

  2,760

  480

  Wiltshire

  2,790

  440

  Notes:

  1. NCE data obtained from S52 outturn statements, table 3. These data are provisional and as such are subject to change.

  2. 2000–01 expenditure per pupil is based on NCE in primary, secondary and special schools after recharges per FTE pupil. Pupil numbers are obtained from Form 7 returns.

  3. Total 2000–01 expenditure per head of population is based on total NCE after recharges ie covering all LEA education spend per head of population. Population estimates cover resident population as at mid-2000 based on the 1991 census.

  Connexions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Connexions Service has power to obtain information about individual young people from(a) the Benefits Agency, (b) youth services,(c) social services departments, (d) local education authorities, (e) youth offending teams and (f) the police. [42131]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The Learning and Skills Act 2000 enables all these organisations to provide information to Connexions.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which information local provider databases within a Connexions partnership they are required to retain about 13 to 19-year-olds, which they are required to pass on to the partnership, regional databases and national database; and what right individual data subjects have to prevent information being passed on. [42135]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Local providers are required to provide information to Connexions partnerships according to the terms of section 117 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000.

  There is no current requirement for Connexions partnerships to pass any individual data to a regional or national database. Aggregated information is required to be provided for management information purposes.

  The rights of individual subjects to prevent information being passed on are safeguarded by the Data Protection Act.
  953W
  We are looking to improve the information that is available to Connexions partnerships and personal advisers, to support their service to young people while respecting the principles of the Data Protection Act. This will be done through the introduction of a new Connexions Customer Information System, which is currently being developed.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information is collected by the Connexions service about children and young adults(a) with and (b) without the agreement of the data subject; from what sources; and whether data will be (i) retained and (ii) passed on to other agencies without the agreement of the data subject. [42145]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Local Connexions partnerships are building the information systems needed to offer the most effective service to young people. Their activities take place within the framework of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, and partnerships also need to observe the principles of the Data Protection Act. Partnerships are data controllers in their own right; my Department supports them with advice and guidance.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills with which other Government operated databases the national Connexions database will be cross-matched; and if data subjects on those databases will(a) be informed and (b) have the right to opt out of such matching. [42332]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: We are examining what national approaches will be appropriate to support the work of local Connexions partnerships. Feasibility testing is at an early stage. In part this involves looking, in co-operation with the office of the Information Commissioner, at how to make best use of the Child Benefit Register and schools data sources.

  Arson
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps the Government are taking to reduce malicious fires and arson in schools; and if she will make a statement. [42226]

  (b) Cost to DfES (£)

  Initiative

  (a) Purpose

  (i) 2000–01

  (ii) 2001–02

  Higher Education Reach-out to Business and the Community Fund (HEROBC)1

  To develop the capability of higher education institutions to respond to the needs of business of all sizes and sectors and a range of bodies within the wider community

  18,600,000

  20,000,000

  Business Fellowships

  To focus on recognising and developing creative activities carried out within HEIs to build their response to the needs of business, across the full range of their academic activity.

  n/a

  103,125

  1 From 2001–02 HEROBC was sumsumed in the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) whose purpose to build capacity of higher educations institutions to work this business, in small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

  954W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Most arson attacks take place when schools are closed, but all of them have the potential to cause considerable damage and disruption. Buildings may be destroyed, and irreplaceable records, teaching notes and course work lost.

  Officials from my Department sit on the Arson in Schools Working Group, a group of experts representing the insurance industry, the fire and police services, local authorities and Government Departments. One of its outputs has been the publication of the guide "How to Combat Arson in Schools", which is available free and has been well received by schools.

  My Department has also published the guide "Fire Safety", which includes advice on how to reduce the risks of arson attacks. This complements our guidance on reducing crime in schools, such as the booklet "Improving Security in Schools" and the video "Can You See What They See?" A school security website has been established.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether funds provided to schools for payment of the upper spine of teacher remuneration can be used for other purposes. [42239]

  Mr. Timms
  Schools will be able to use the new special grant for performance pay progression to pay for performance points awarded to teachers on the upper, leadership and advanced skills teacher pay scales and for double increments awarded to teachers on the main pay scale. The grant cannot be used for other purposes. The existing special grant for threshold payments (which take teachers to point 1 of the upper pay scale) can be used only for that purpose.

  Knowledge Transfer
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the(a) purpose and (b) cost of knowledge transfer initiatives sponsored by her Department in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 200–02. [42596]

  Margaret Hodge
  The knowledge transfer initiatives supported by the Department for Education and Skills in 2000–01 and 2001–;02 are listed in the following table. These initiatives are partnerships with the Department of Trade and Industry; funding is routed via the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Only the cost to DfES is shown.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Public Appointments
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many appointments to public bodies have been made through his Department(a) from April 2000 to March 2001 and (b) since 31 March 2001; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women. [42153]

  Mr. Leslie
  The following appointments have been made to public bodies sponsored by my Department.

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  1 April 2001 to 28 February 2002

  Total public appointments

  72

  132

  of which:

  Men

  43

  10

  Women

  29

  22

  1 Includes 13 appointments to the Women's National Commission all of whom are women

  In addition, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made the following appointments to the Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside.

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  1 April 2001 to 28 February 2002

  Total public appointments

  15

  40

  of which:

  Men

  8

  18

  Women

  7

  22

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the instances in which his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2000–01. [32023]

  Mr. Leslie
  All Departments are committed to pay 100 per cent. of correctly presented invoices on time. My Department undertakes to pay all invoices within 30 days of receiving them. However, payment terms may vary between Departments.

  In the financial year 2000–01 the Cabinet Office and its agencies paid 96.36 per cent. of invoices within 30 days. This shows an improvement over the previous year.

  More detailed information on specific instances of failure to pay within 30 days is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Service Entrants
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of the senior civil service in each of the last four years has been(a) female, (b) members of ethnic minority groups and (c) former students of Oxford and Cambridge. [38315]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is as follows:(a) At 1 April each year, the percentage of the senior civil service who were female is shown.
  956W

  Percentage

  1998

  17.8

  1999

  19.7

  2000

  21.6

  2001

  24.2

  (b) At 1 April each year, the percentage of those in senior civil service posts or equivalent who were known to be members of ethnic minority groups is shown:

  Percentage

  1998

  1.6

  1999

  1.7

  2000

  2.2

  2001

  2.4

  This information is collected by Departments in a voluntary questionnaire and is known to be incomplete.

  At 1 April each year, the percentage of those in senior civil service posts or equivalent whose ethnic origin is unknown were as follows:

  Percentage

  1998

  13.9

  1999

  10.3

  2000

  11.7

  2001

  12.5

  Departments are currently re-surveying the ethnicity of their staff to bring the data into line with the Census 2001 categories.

  This information relates to those in the senior civil service and other posts of equivalent responsibility (ie includes the diplomatic service and a number of other specialist posts).

  (c) At 1 April each year, the percentages of the senior civil service who are known to have been to university and the percentages of those who are known to have been to Oxford or Cambridge are as follows:

  Percentage

  University status unknown

  Known to have been to University

  Known to have been to Oxford or Cambridgeas percentage of total

  1999

  32.9

  67.1

  24.1

  2000

  38.7

  61.3

  21.1

  2001

  43.2

  56.8

  18.8

  The information is not available for 1998.

  Officials are working with Departments to improve both the quality and coverage of the data.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the extent of the gender pay gap among staff in his Department. [40993]

  Mr. Leslie
  In response to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) Task Force 'Just Pay' report, the Cabinet Office and its agencies and the Central Office of
  957W
  Information are committed to reviewing their pay systems by April 2003 and preparing action plans to close any gender pay gaps.

  Regions White Paper
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reason for the delay in the publication of the Regions White Paper. [42174]

  Mr. Leslie
  We have always stated that the Regions White Paper will be presented to Parliament as soon as it is ready. That remains the case.

WALES

  Coal Communities (Regeneration)
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding the regeneration of former coal communities in Wales. [34843]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on a range of issues.

  In a relatively short space of time the Coalfields Regeneration Trust has established itself as a leading funder and partner in coalfield regeneration in Wales. All the £3.46 million available for Wales during the first three years has been committed to nearly 60 projects.

  Consignia
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with Consignia concerning the future of the postal service in Wales. [35639]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have had discussions with ministerial colleagues about this issue.

  Public Appointments
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appointments to public bodies have been made through his Department(a) from April 2000 to March 2001 and (b) since 31 March 2001; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women. [42148]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Information about numbers of ministerial appointments to public bodies is included in the Cabinet Office's annual report "Public Bodies". Copies are placed in the Library of the House and the report is published on the Cabinet Office website.

  My Department does not sponsor any public bodies; however, I am jointly responsible for some appointments made through other sponsoring Departments.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many interim payments have been issued to those whose benefit or tax credit awards have been delayed as a result of the recent PCS Union strike action. [30343]
  958W
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit claimants have received interim payments at an amount equivalent to the full benefit rate as a result of industrial strike action undertaken by Jobcentre Plus staff; and under what terms and conditions such interim payments are being made. [32641]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: As at January 28, there are around 4,700 customers in receipt of weekly or fortnightly interim payments. The payments are made at a rate equivalent to the income support rates. Interim payments are recoverable and will be off set against any benefit that is due once the claim is reviewed and assessed using the normal benefit rules.

  Tax credits, administrated by the Inland Revenue, have not been affected by industrial action in the Department for Work and Pensions.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of private rented sector tenants have had their entitlement to housing benefit restricted as a result of(a) local reference rent determinations and (b) single room rent determinations in each rent service area in the past 12 months. [34551]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what basis a student loan is classed as income for students applying for housing benefit. [36060]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Support for full-time students is generally provided through the educational maintenance system which is designed for their needs. However some full-time students in vulnerable groups, such as lone parents or disabled people, are eligible to claim income-related benefits, including housing benefit, in recognition of their extra needs.

  As with other people claiming income related benefits any income a student has is taken into account when assessing entitlement to benefit. Since a student loan is intended to help towards everyday living costs it is taken into account as income. However, before the weekly income is assessed £319 of the annual loan is disregarded towards the cost of travel and £260 towards the cost of books and equipment. In addition, any grants made specifically for these costs are disregarded in full. Once the weekly loan income has been calculated a further£10 a week is disregarded.

  To treat student loans in any other way would put students in a better position than people who have no access to these resources.

  Rent Service
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list by Rent Service area the localities used by the Rent Service in(a) September 2001 and (b) January 2002 to determine the local reference rent and single room rent; [34552]

  (2) what requirements the Rent Service has to consult on changes to the geographical extent of localities used to determine local reference rents and single room rents; [34553]
  959W
  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the internal memorandum issued to officers of the Rent Service following the introduction of Statutory Instrument No. 3561; [34554]

  (4) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Rent Service report on the impact on the number of localities of the introduction of Statutory Instrument No. 3561. [34555]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our policy is that local reference rents should reflect the generality of the market and must therefore be based on an area large enough to take account of the bigger picture which reflects a more generalised choice of housing. Localities are intended to reflect the qualities (both good and bad) of an area. Details of Rent Service localities are not published because markets can change rapidly rendering such information out of date and meaningless. Localities are necessarily fluid in order to reflect the housing market. Current Rent Service guidance states that localities should be reviewed on a monthly basis.

  Rent Officers determine localities by using their professional judgment, expertise and knowledge of the local housing market. There is no requirement for the Rent Service to consult formally about these arrangements.

  The technical advice and guidance circular on valuation good practice, which is used by rent officers in England, is the responsibility of the Rent Service. A copy of the circular, which has also been shared with Rent Officers in Wales and Scotland, has been placed in the Library.

  There has been no report from the Rent Service on the impact on the number of localities since the introduction of Statutory Instrument 3561. The amendments introduced by that instrument are designed to ensure that our policy is achieved and to restore certainty. They are not designed to change the way in which localities or local reference and single room rents are decided. The position for people claiming Housing Benefit is therefore unchanged.

  Performance and Verification Frameworks
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library the responses to the consultations on the performance framework and the verifications framework. [29484]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Local authority circular F25/2001 contains a summary of the responses to consultation on the Department's paper "Splitting the Verification Framework into Modules" issued in July 2001. A copy of this circular has been placed in the Library.

  A copy of the summary of responses to consultation on the performance framework has also been placed in the Library.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what progress has been made in discussions with the European Commission about the extent of the UK's legal obligations under European regulations on winter fuel payments; and if he will make a statement; [39988]

  (2) what plans his Department has to pay winter fuel allowance to British pensioners living abroad. [27598]
  960W
  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: Department officials met recently with officials from the European Commission, and as a result of that we expect to bring this matter to a close shortly.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department plans to spend on(a) winter fuel payments and (b) Warm Front plus grants in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [37640]

  Mr. McCartney
  The estimated cost of winter fuel payments for 2001–02 and 2002–03 is around £1.7 billion for each year.

  Warm Front plus grants are a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, I understand that the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) is now marketed as the Warm Front Team and that for the period April 2001 to January 2002, over £73 million was spent on HEES plus grants. The expected HEES plus spend for the remainder of 2001–02 is almost£8 million. For the 2002–03 financial year, it is estimated that the spend on HEES plus will be in the region of £50 million.

  Fraud
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1256W, in what format the information requested is available. [39869]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is available only on the total number of cases involving benefit fraud and claimant error. To produce a separate figure for the number of benefit fraud cases, and hence the proportion of these in which prosecutions were brought, each case would have to be re-examined individually.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his most recent estimate is of the level of benefit fraud in 2001–02. [39017]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) on 30 November 2001,Official Report, column 1166W.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what systems exist to enable members of the public to inform his Department of cases of benefit fraud. [38197]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Members of the public can inform the Department of cases of suspected benefit fraud by either telephoning the Benefit Fraud Hotline (0800 854 440); using the Targeting Fraud Website www.targetingfraud.gov.uk; or writing or calling in at their local Benefit Office or Jobcentre. All the information provided is strictly in confidence and members of the public do not have to give their name if they do not wish to do so.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assumption he has made about the proportion of pensioners receiving the minimum income guarantee(a) with and (b) without setting the basic

  961W
  state pension at the same level for (i) all pensioners, (ii) those aged over 75 years and (iii) those aged over 80 years. [29722]

  Mr. McCartney
  In August 2001 there were just over 2 million pensioners receiving the minimum income guarantee. This represents just under 17 per cent. of the total population of Great Britain who are aged over 60, further information is in the table.

  Total MIG caseload and the proportion of pensioners aged over 60 who would be on MIG if the basic state pension was set at the singles level of MIG for a) those over 60 b) those over 75 and c) those over 80.

  Total MIG caseload after up rating of BSP

  Remaining MIG caseload as a percentage of total 60+ population

  a) over 60

  1.1

  9

  b) over 75

  1.5

  12

  c) over 80

  1.65

  14

  Note:

  Numbers of pensioners rounded to the nearest 50,000 and given in millions of pensioners. Per cent. given to nearest 1 per cent.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Walthamstow are claiming the minimum income guarantee. [38470]

  Maria Eagle
  As at November 2001 there were 3,300 pensioners claiming the MIG in the Walthamstow constituency.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Power of Attorney
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the cost of obtaining power of attorney in each of the last five years. [40801]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Most people who make powers of attorney do so with help from legal advisers. We have no information about the cost to individuals as this is a private matter agreed between the individual and his or her legal advisers. Where the individual has made an enduring power of attorney, there is a fee to register the power of attorney if the individual becomes mentally incapacitated. The fee for registering an enduring power of attorney was £50 from 1997 and increased to £75 on 1 October 1999. The Public Guardianship Office (PGO) has recently conducted a review of the fees charged, including fees for registration of enduring powers of attorney, as the existing fees policy does not meet the full cost of the service delivered, as required by HM Treasury guidance. Fees charged by the PGO are set by the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the consent of HM Treasury, and will be laid before Parliament shortly.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in her Department. [41051]
  962W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 844W.

  City Status
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the announcement will be made as to which applicants have been granted the status of city to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Her Majesty The Queen's accession. [42146]

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she expects an announcement on the bestowing of city status to celebrate the Golden Jubilee. [41439]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor hopes to announce the results of the Golden Jubilee city status competition shortly.

  1901 Census
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she expects to place details of the 1901 Census onto the internet; and if she will make a statement. [41925]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 55W.

  Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [38928]

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

  Catering services to meet the Department's requirements are provided through contractual arrangements with specialist suppliers.

  (a) With reference to the first part of the question, the term "in-house canteen" is taken to mean facilities provided primarily for use by the Department's staff.

  Staff canteens are provided at a number of key central locations where staff are concentrated. These facilities are used regularly by staff from other locations and visitors to the Department's premises.

  Revenue from sales to staff and visitors is used to defray costs to the Department. However, it is necessary to support the service as outlined:

  Lord Chancellor's Department and associated offices

  £

  1998–99

  140,763.74

  1999–2000

  141,564.00

  2000–01

  213,794.86

  2001–02

  1161,362.92

  1 To January.

  963W
  (b) The majority of expenditure on catering services in the Department is required for facilities provided to jurors and other members of the public attending court buildings. Court staff, the legal profession and judges also use these facilities; use by these groups is around 10 per cent. of sales. Catering services are provided at 63 Crown and Combined Court Centres in England and Wales. Revenue from sales is used to defray cost to the Department. The remaining costs for each of the last four years is set out in the table:

  Court Service

  £

  1998–99

  1,027,011.00

  1999–2000

  1,442,516.00

  2000–01

  1,323,969.00

  2001–02

  1948,603.00

  1 To December.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41062]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not immediately available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The Department has authority to reimburse expenses incurred by LCD staff in connection with their employment subject to the conditions set out in section 8 of the Civil Service Management Code. However the Lord Chancellor's Department does not maintain separate data on the hotel element within the total of travel and subsistence costs.

  Lord Chancellor's Department staff can claim reimbursement of actual expenditure (subject to provision of receipts) within an overall ceiling of £100 per night in London and £90 per night in major cities and £80 per night elsewhere. This ceiling covers hotel bed and breakfast, lunch and dinner and travel between hotel and place(s) visited on official business.

  Personal Injury Cases
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish a consultation paper on periodical payments for future loss and care costs in personal injury cases. [43088]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor has today published the consultation paper "Damages for Future Loss: Giving the Courts the Power to Order Periodical Payments for Future Loss and Care Costs in Personal Injury Cases". The consultation paper proposes that the courts should have the power to award damages for future loss and care costs in the form of periodical payments. Responses to the consultation are sought by 7 June 2002. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Fatal Accidents (Bereavement Damages)
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will change the level 964W
  of bereavement damages awarded under section 1 A of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and Article 3A(5) of the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. [43087]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor laid before Parliament yesterday orders increasing the level of bereavement damages from £7,500 to £10,000 to reflect the increase in inflation since the figure was last revised in 1991. The orders will take effect from 1 April 2002.

  Citizen's Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what funding the Government provide each year to the Citizen's Advice Bureaux; and if he will make a statement. [41220]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  Individual Citizen's Advice Bureaux are funded through a variety of sources, including lottery money, and by local authorities who decide on the level of funding in the light of their own assessment of local needs and the resources available to them. Central Government provide support for local authorities in this area through general grant. The Legal Services Commission, a non-departmental public body, also provides funding to some Citizens Advice Bureaux through the system of contracting, introduced as part of the arrangements for the community legal service.

TREASURY

  Small Landlords
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the British Federation of Landlords and Private Tenants associations on bringing small landlords within the same tax regime as other small businesses. [41668]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Ministers and civil servants have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals as part of the process of policy development and analysis. I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 689W, stating that as with previous Administrations it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code", the "Civil Service Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists".

  Refurbishment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who provided, or is providing, the(a) windows and (b) doors for the refurbishment of the Treasury building. [41349]

  Ruth Kelly
  Oakmead have provided the new and replacement windows. Ruddy Joinery have provided the bulk of the new doors.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what organisation provided the certification for the doors and windows for the refurbishment of the Treasury
  965W
  building to show that they were produced from sustainably managed sources; and if he will place a copy of these certificates in the Library. [41350]

  Ruth Kelly
  A number of companies have provided the necessary certification for this refurbishment. A copy of the certificates will be placed in the Library at the earliest suitable opportunity.

  Inland Revenue
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Minister has responsibility for ensuring that the rules laid down by the Civil Service Management Code are observed within the Inland Revenue. [42054]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The direct responsibility lies with the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue as the Head of the Non-Ministerial Department. He exercises his responsibilities under the general direction of Treasury Ministers.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 5 March; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [42705]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Paymaster General and I attended the ECOFIN Council.

  ECOFIN agreed a Key Issues Paper on the 2002 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, which will be submitted to the Barcelona European Council. Ministers also agreed reports on structural reform, increasing labour market participation and promoting active aging and healthcare and care for the elderly. They also adopted an ECOFIN report on the integration of environmental and sustainable development into economic policy making.

  ECOFIN discussed the mid-term review of the Financial Services Action Plan and agreed that progress should be accelerated to meet the deadlines agreed at the Lisbon European Council.

  ECOFIN endorsed the European Commission's study on globalisation and development and agreed a statement on it. Ministers also considered a Commission report on the preparation of the International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey. I called for European Union member states to lead the way on global social justice, to set out a strong EU position in support of the aims of the conference, and specifically to make a new commitment to increasing overseas development assistance as a proportion of Gross National Product. This issue was discussed further at the General Affairs Council on 11 March.

  An opinion on the Danish Convergence Programme was agreed and the Commission's oral update on the transition to the euro was noted.

  ECOFIN agreed Council priorities for the 2003 budget. Ministers also noted the implementation of initiatives to improve management and accounting in order to combat fraud and irregularity, and consequently agreed a recommendation that the European Parliament grant discharge of the 2000 budget. The Commission outlined
  966W
  its Green Paper on the European Public Prosecutor. There was widespread agreement to see how the new Eurojust fared before considering alternatives.

  Ministers discussed a number of proposals for strengthening EU development assistance to the Mediterranean region. No agreement was reached at this stage on the potential role of a new financing institution, and ECOFIN will consider the matter further at its meeting on 14 March ahead of the Barcelona European Council.

  The Presidency presented a paper on administrative cooperation on tax matters. The paper will be considered further by the Fiscal Questions Group and ECOFIN will then be asked to adopt a report to the Seville European Council in June. The Paymaster General, in her role as Chair of the Code of Conduct Group, delivered an oral report on the Group's progress and its work programme under the Spanish Presidency. There will be a further update on the Group's work at the ECOFIN in June. No votes were taken at the meeting.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2002,Official Report, column 815, on stamp duty, what the value was of property transactions of less than £150,000 in the three months immediately prior to the introduction of the stamp duty exemption in the 2,000 most deprived wards. [42621]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the situation regarding Equitable Life. [42685]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Equitable Life's current situation is a matter for the society's board and for the members of the society.

  Self-Assessment
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people completed self-assessment income tax forms in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01. [42594]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No details are held of the number of people who completed self-assessment tax returns. The number of completed tax returns for each tax year received by the Inland Revenue in the following tax year is as follows:

  1998–99: Number of 1997–98 returns received: 8,374,888

  1999–2000: Number of 1998–99 returns received: 8,506,751

  2000–01: Number of 1999–2000 returns received: 8,795,949.

  Share Incentive Plans
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many share incentive plans have received Inland Revenue approval. [42001]
  967W
  Dawn Primarolo
  292 share incentive plans have received Inland Revenue approval up to 6 March 2002 and a further 140 plans are in the final stages of the approval process.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter dated 8 February from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding national insurance contributions. [42799]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have done so.

  Tax Referral
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is owed by businesses in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK in respect of schemes to defer liability for (i) PAYE, (ii) VAT and (iii) corporation tax to mitigate the effects of foot and mouth disease. [42000]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Between 21 March 2001 and 3 March 2002, the total amounts deferred in respect of PAYE, VAT and Corporation Tax came to £65.236 million, £109.598 million and £11.954 million respectively. These are gross figures and take no account of amounts subsequently paid. Businesses seriously affected by the foot and mouth outbreak have not been required to recommence payments of deferred liability and we do not have full details of payments received. It is, therefore, not possible to state how much is still owed by businesses in Scotland and England. However, a sample review of these cases in December 2001 suggests that as much as £78.45 million has been paid voluntarily.

  Aggregates Levy
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to make to the aggregates levy legislation. [43215]

  Mr. Boateng
  The primary legislation for the aggregates levy was included in the Finance Act 2001. Since the Act received Royal Assent, Customs and Excise have continued to consult the aggregates industry on matters of details, with a view to finalising the secondary legislation, which will be laid shortly.

  During those discussions a number of technical issues have been raised, and it is the Government's intention to make a number of small changes in this year's Finance Bill that will facilitate the smooth functioning of the levy. These are:
  To amend the definition of aggregate to include rock that has not been subject to an industrial crushing process
  To clarify the definition of dimension stone
  To extend the exemption for processing waste arising from the extraction of coal to the processing waste of all industrial minerals
  To clarify that for all mineral extraction, any aggregate contained in the overburden is taxable
  968W
  To extend the exemption for aggregate won from forest or farm land and used in adjacent land, to its use in land occupied with that forest or farm
  To extend the exemption for drill cuttings to include onshore drill cuttings
  To extend the penalty regime to customers of aggregate suppliers in circumstances where the customers give false information concerning the use of aggregate
  To introduce a number of minor technical amendments which clarify policy intention, close a potential loophole or bring the legislation into line with other taxes. These were detailed in Customs and Excise Business Brief No. 17/2001 issued on 28 November 2001.

  The Government also announced in the pre-Budget report that it was minded to phase in the levy for aggregates used in processed products in Northern Ireland. Enabling legislation for this change will also be brought forward in this year's Finance Bill.

  Public Service Agreements
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1326w, on public service agreements, if he will place the record of the performance of each Government Department held by his Department for each public service agreement target in the Library for each year for which outturn data are available; and if he will make a statement. [41395]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Departments have reported, and will continue to report, their progress against PSA targets in their departmental reports, all of which are presented to Parliament.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  "Safer Clubbing" Guide
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the "safer clubbing" guide. [42534]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The "safer clubbing" guide contains comprehensive new advice for club owners, dance event promoters and local authority licensing departments on how to ensure the health and safety of anyone attending dance events. It advises club owners on how to tackle drug dealing and recommends that clubs have police approved staff, searches and the use of metal detectors and regular patrols of all areas of the venue.

  The clear message to young people remains that they should not take illegal drugs, and that they are harmful. The new guidelines should help reduce the availability of these drugs at venues. We must also take steps to reduce the harm that drugs cause individuals. The "safer clubbing" guide aims to do just that—it does not condone drug use.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases which had been dealt with by the Criminal Cases Review Commission have been examined by the European Court of Human Rights in the last five years. [40867]
  969W
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. If applicants remain dissatisfied with the Commission's decisions on whether to refer their case to an appellate court, it is open to them to seek a domestic remedy by initiating judicial review proceedings. From the Commission's inception until 31 March 2001, four judicial review applications only have been granted leave: three were decided in the Commission's favour and one was settled on terms agreed by the Commission and the applicant.

  Baton Guns
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the use of baton guns by police forces in England and Wales; [40473]

  (2) what guidelines are in place governing the use of baton guns by police forces in England and Wales. [40474]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Baton rounds have been available to police forces in England and Wales since 1981, primarily for use in situations of public disorder.

  In August 1999 the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) reissued operational guidelines for the use of baton rounds in situations of public disorder which were approved by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary (Mr. Straw).

  ACPO also issued guidance on the use of baton rounds in situations where firearms would otherwise need to be used on 24 September 2001. This followed the then Home Secretary's announcement in April 2001 of the introduction of the L21A1 round which unlike its predecessor has a trajectory which is sufficiently predictable to be suitable for such use.

  Currently 36 forces, maintained under the Police Act, possess the new baton round and I understand that three others will shortly be acquiring it.

  EU Policy
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what co-operation exists between UK and French authorities in relation to asylum procedures; what plans there are to extend co-operation; and if he will make a statement. [29678]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]At the Franco-British summit in Cahors in February 2001 the United Kingdom and French authorities agreed to increase practical co-operation between our two countries through meetings on the Cross Channel Commission. This resulted in regular meetings throughout last year, to discuss practical measures on both asylum and migration issues of common interest to our two countries. The Cross Channel Commission will continue to meet in the coming year.

  EU Asylum Policy
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards European Union agreements on common 970W
  asylum policy; and if he will list agreements made to date and the areas of future work including timetables for (a) agreement and(b) implementation. [29679]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]The Treaty of Amsterdam committed member states to adopt by May 2004 a broad range of measures designed to establish minimum standards for asylum procedures and polices across the European Union. At the Tampere European Council in October 1999 member states agreed to look beyond the minimum standards established by 2004 towards the creation of a common European asylum system. After a slow start there is now increasing momentum on the first stage of the process to establish minimum standards. The United Kingdom has participated actively in this process and has opted in to all measures to date where the three-month time limit from formal presentation of the proposal has already expired.

  The following measures have been adopted to date: Council Regulation establishing the EURODAC electronic fingerprinting database (adopted 11 December 2000); Council decision for an agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the state responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a member state or in Iceland or Norway (adopted 15 March 2001); Council decision establishing a European Refugee Fund (adopted 28 September 2000); and Council directive on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in event of mass influx (adopted 20 July 2001).

  The following measures are under discussion but have not yet been agreed: Proposal for Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status; Proposal for a Council directive laying down minimum standards on the reception of applicants for asylum in member states: Proposal for a Council regulation replacing the Dublin Convention; and a proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards for the qualification as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection.

  The Laeken European Council in December 2001 called for the Commission to bring forward revised proposals for the measures setting minimum standards for asylum procedures and the regulation to replace the Dublin Convention by the end of April 2002.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors who went missing in the UK in(a) 1999,(b) 2000 and (c) 2001, broken down by (i) nationality, (ii) age at disappearance and (iii) gender. [29677]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The Home Office does not centrally record information on the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors who have gone missing in the United Kingdom, and no estimate has been made on this number.

  Information on the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors in 1999 and 2000, broken down by nationality, is published in the annual statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics 2000", a copy of which is available in the Library, and from the Home Office

  971W
  Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html. Annual figures for 2001 are not yet available.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how notification of appellants' representatives will take place under the rules contained in SI, 2001, No. 4014; by whom; at what point after promulgation by the adjudicator or tribunal of their determination this will happen; if an appellant is detained at the same time as service of the determination on them, what instructions there are to notify representatives of the fact; and whose responsibility it will be to do so. [27511]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: Appellants' legal representatives will be notified of determinations by Immigration and Nationality Directorate staff. For those served by post, a copy of the determination will be sent to the representative at the same time as the determination is sent to the appellant. In the case of determinations served in person, representatives will be notified by fax, normally on the same day, but in any case within 24 hours. It is for the appellants to advise their legal representatives that they have been detained, should they wish to do so.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the purpose is of the new asylum procedure rules in S.I., 2001, No. 4014 in regard to failed asylum appeals where(a) a certificate has been upheld and(b) leave has been refused to appeal to the IAT; which agency will be instructed to carry out service; what instructions have been given and are proposed to be given on (i) method of service, (ii) timing of service, (iii) entry/and search of premises, (iv) detention and (v) removal; and where those instructions will be published. [27510]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]The rules provide for asylum appeal determinations in cases where the appellant has no further statutory right of appeal to be sent to the Home Office by the Immigration Appellate Authority for service on the appellant. The purpose of this is to reduce the opportunity for absconding at this stage by enabling the Home Office to serve the determination in person where appropriate.

  Service is undertaken by the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate either by post or in person. Almost all determinations will be served within 48 hours of receipt in the Home Office: the remainder will be served within a further six weeks, to be exceeded only in exceptional circumstances. No new powers relating to entry, search, detention or removal arise from these rules.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the expected time delay is between the date of the determination of the adjudicator or tribunal and the date of service of the decision on the failed appellant under the rules contained in S.I., 2001, No 4014; and what the usual period of delay is between the date of the determination in a successful appeal and the sending of full refugee status papers to a successful appellant. [27513]
  972W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 February 2002]We anticipate that almost all determinations received by the Home Office under these rules will he served within 48 hours. The remainder will be served within a further period which would exceed six weeks only in exceptional circumstances.

  There have been delays in implementing allowed appeals but additional resources have now been provided and the majority of cases should now be being processed within 24 days of the date of determination.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that no removals will take place following service of the determination without(a) prior and reasonable notice being given to the appellant's representative and (b) the appellant being given the opportunity to receive legal advice following the introduction of S.I., 2001, No. 4014. [27512]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]Appellants' legal representatives will be notified of determinations at the same time as appellants for those served by post, and on the same day or within 24 hours for those served in person. The decision to obtain legal advice is a matter for the individual concerned but is open to appellants at that stage.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason a copy of the Procedure Rules relating to S.I., 2001, No. 4014 has not been placed on the HMSO website. [27515]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]A copy of the rules was placed on Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) website on 4 January 2002.

  Prisoners (Wrongful Convictions)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many funding applications have been received to operate aftercare services for wrongfully convicted prisoners; and what procedures have been used to assess them. [39695]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 1 March 20021 We have received one unsolicited application. No procurement exercise has been undertaken.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress the working party considering aftercare for wrongfully convicted prisoners has made; and if he will make a statement. [39696]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: Proposals for a support and advice service are being finalised by officials. Ministers will be considering these proposals shortly.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the instances in which his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2000–01. [32032]
  973W
  Angela Eagle
  Instances where the Home Office, its agencies or non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or paid after the agreed credit period in the 2000–01 financial year were:

  Percentage

  Main Home Office

  11.4

  Agencies

  6.9

  Non-departmental public bodies

  10.9

  Arthur Andersen
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost to his Department has been of services provided by(a) Andersen and (b) Accenture, Anderson Consulting for (i) accountancy services, (ii) consultancy work and (iii) other work in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [32104]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department has not used the services provided by(a) Andersen (b) Accenture or Andersen Consulting for either accountancy or consultancy work since 1997.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars,(c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by his Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in each of the last four years, giving the title, purpose, date and cost of each. [34179]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is not held centrally on sponsored events run on behalf of the Department on non-departmental premises.

  A breakdown of expenditure on this basis could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners (Wales)
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male prisoners from Wales are held in prison in England, broken down by offences for which they are held. [37119]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information can be provided only on the basis of a prisoner's court of first committal as home address is not consistently recorded on central records.

  Offence

  Number of male prisoners committed in Wales currently in custody in England

  Violence against the person

  402

  Sex offences

  245

  Burglary

  290

  Robbery

  155

  Theft and handling

  125

  Fraud and forgery

  13

  Drug offences

  191

  Other offences

  189

  Offence not recorded

  7

  974W
  The information given is for 31 January 2002 when there were altogether 3,358 male prisoners in England and Wales who were committed in Wales. There were 63,814 male prisoners in total.

  Advertising
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (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; [37396]

  (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. [37408]

  Angela Eagle
  For details of the Home Department's five largest campaigns I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 87W.

  During the financial year 1999–2000 the timing of major campaigns was as follows:

  Electoral Registration: August 1999

  European Elections: May 1999

  Fire Safety: Chip Pan Safety—September 1999; Pilot for Fire Escape Routes—March 2000

  Police Recruitment: Special Constables—February 2000; Fast Stream—on-going.

  During the financial year 2000–01 the timing of major campaigns was as follows:

  Police Recruitment: August 2000—on-going

  Fire Safety Escape Routes: September 2000

  Vehicle Crime: September 2000—on-going

  Electoral Registration: February 2001

  Postal Voting: March 2001.

  These campaigns cover England and Wales. The single exception to this was the campaign that ran to inform people about new voting procedures at the time of the European parliamentary elections in 1999, which also covered Scotland and Northern Ireland. All the Department's major campaigns deploy advertising on satellite TV and, for this medium, coverage is not restricted to England and Wales. Separate records of campaign expenditure in each country within the United Kingdom are not kept.

  Work Permits
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's policy is on issuing work permits to Lithuanian citizens; and if he will make a statement. [27830]
  975W
  Angela Eagle
  There is not a differential between nationalities when considering a work permit application. The decision is determined by whether the application meets the criteria of the work permit arrangements.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were issued by the Government in each of the last three years to Lithuanian citizens; and if he will make a statement. [27831]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of work permits issued to Lithuanian citizens in each of the last three years is 101 for 1999, 124 for 2000 and 411 for 2001, the total being 636.

  Global Crossing
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates of meetings that(a) special advisers and(b) Ministers in his Department have had since 1 January 1999 with representatives of Global Crossing; and if he will make a statement. [34057]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by myself on 8 February 2002,Official Report, column 1248W.

  Reception Centres
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the capacity of reception centre accommodation; and what financial provision he has made for this purpose. [22138]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in his statement to the House on 29 October 2001 plans for establishing induction centres, accommodation centres and removal centres. The estimated capital cost of providing the necessary facilities is £250 million over the next two years. Decisions about the long-term mix of facilities will be taken in the light of the emerging evidence about what works.

  Money Laundering
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports the National Criminal Intelligence Service received in respect of UK financial institutions being involved in money laundering activities relating to money transferred out of Serbia and the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [39005]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The National Criminal Intelligence Service has received reports in which Serbia and the former Yugoslavia are referred to in financial disclosures made by United Kingdom financial institutions. However the contents of such reports are confidential.

  Manslaughter
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the interdepartmental working group on the reform of manslaughter has met; how many further meetings of the group are expected; when he expects the group to finalise its report and proposals; when he expects to publish the digest of responses to the consultation paper; who is represented on the interdepartmental group; and if he will make a statement on progress. [37956]
  976W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]The interdepartmental working group was attended by representatives from: the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Attorney-General's Office, the Law Commission, the Cabinet Office, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Health, the National Health Service Executive Headquarters, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Food Standards Agency. Since the end of the consultation period, September 2000, the group as a whole has met three times. There were also several formal and informal meetings to take forward specific issues attended by the relevant representatives. There will be no further meeting of the entire group and I hope to receive their report in the near future.

  We will be publishing a digest of the responses to the consultation paper shortly.

  Genetically Modified Animals
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what safeguards the Government have in place to ensure the well-being of genetically modified animals being produced and maintained for experiments; and if he will make a statement; [41983]

  (2) what procedures are in place to regulate the transgenesis process used to create genetically modified animals; and if he will make a statement; [41982]

  (3) what (a) percentage and (b) proportion of genetically modified animals, which were killed during experiments, were classed as failures in those experiments in each year since 1987; [41981]

  (4) if he will amend the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to provide greater protection for genetically modified animals. [41980]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]The production, maintenance and use of genetically modified animals for experimental and other scientific purposes, once they are beyond a specified stage in their foetal, larval or embryonic forms, are controlled under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  For a decision to be made on whether and on what terms a licence might be granted to produce, breed or use genetically modified animals, the 1986 Act requires the same considerations to be taken into account as for genetically normal animals. These are that the likely benefits of the programme are weighed against the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned (the cost/benefit assessment), and that there are no alternatives which either replace animal use entirely, reduce the number of animals needed or refine the procedures to minimise pain and suffering (3Rs). Licence applicants must also demonstrate that the procedures are for a permitted purpose and are likely to achieve the stated objectives.

  It is not always possible to predict the likely welfare effects of novel genetic modifications. However, project licence authorities are framed to permit only apparently healthy genetically modified animals to be produced or maintained unless, and exceptionally, a specific scientific justification is made and accepted for the production of genetically modified animals whose welfare is expected to be compromised.
  977W
  Detailed codes of practice, produced under authority of the 1986 Act and laid before Parliament, set the minimum standards of housing and care for all animals produced and used in regulated procedures. Compliance with these standards is a condition of project licences, and is monitored by the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate.

  The Government are satisfied that the 1986 Act, and related guidance and codes of practice, adequately caters for the welfare of transgenic/genetically modified animals used in scientific procedures, and that there is no need in that respect to amend it to provide for separate or additional controls.

  Since 1988 annual statistics published by the Home Office have contained information on the overall use of genetically modified animals in scientific procedures. The detail provided has increased over the years, and the latest publication entitled "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2000" (Cm 5344) contains a great deal of related data (copies are available in the Library). The annual statistics do not record technical failures, and there is no other centrally held data on that. Information on the success rate of the techniques used is, however, widely published in scientific literature.

  Police Pension Scheme
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) under the post-1978 police pension scheme, what percentage of the contributions is calculated to cover payments to widows of retired officers; and what the actuarial estimate is of the number of widows as a percentage of total claimants of the pension; [38418]

  (2) what the average payment made to the widow of a retired police officer under the pre-1978 police pension scheme was in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [38407]

  (3) under the pre-1978 police pension scheme, what percentage of the contributions was calculated to cover payments to widows of retired officers; and what the actuarial estimate of the number of widows was as a percentage of total claimants of the pension. [38408]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures for the average payment to the widow of a retired police officer or for the number of such widows are not available centrally. From a survey undertaken in 1996 the Government Actuary's Department has estimated that 7 per cent. of actual pensions expenditure at the time represented payments to widows and widowers of former officers. It is estimated that the present-day figure would be about 8 to 9 per cent.

  As the changes to spouses' benefits over the final quarter of the last century feed through into payment, it is estimated that the proportion of pensions expenditure they represent will rise to over 15 per cent. over the next 30 years. The Government Actuary's Department estimates that the present cost of new-entrant benefits accruing to be 32 per cent. of pay of which about a third (11 per cent. of pay) is contributed by the officer in service. The total cost attributable to spouses' benefits is about 5 per cent. of pay.
  978W
  It is not possible to identify all the earlier corresponding figures, but the employee contribution rate in 1978 for male officers was 7 per cent. This rate was set in 1972 for benefits which included accruing thereafter a widow's half-rate pension. Before 1972 male officers were paying contributions either at a rate of 5 per cent. for benefits which included a widow's flat-rate pension, if they had elected to stay on this pre-=1956 benefit, or at a rate of 6.25 per cent. for benefits including a widow's third-rate pension.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the prison population was on the first day of each of the last 18 months. [38667]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]Information is held centrally for the last day of each month.

  Date

  Population

  31 January 2002

  67,870

  31 December 2001

  66,049

  30 November 2001

  68,452

  31 October 2001

  67,053

  30 September 2001

  67,465

  31 August 2001

  67,056

  31 July 2001

  67,092

  30 June 2001

  66,403

  31 May 2001

  66,012

  30 April 2001

  65,604

  31 March 2001

  65,394

  28 February 2001

  64,631

  31 January 2001

  63,403

  31 December 2000

  61,617

  30 November 2000

  64,075

  31 October 2000

  64,218

  30 September 2000

  64,960

  31 August 2000

  65,666

  Court Proceedings
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a court can proceed without a jury. [41366]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]In England and Wales, some 95 per cent. of criminal cases are conducted in magistrates courts without a jury. Criminal trials in the Crown court are conducted with a jury. Pre-trial issues such as bail or preliminary rulings are heard by the judge alone. He or she can also order an acquittal before the jury is empanelled. Once a trial has started, a hearing to consider the admissibility of evidence or a point of law is invariably heard in the absence of a jury. Sentencing is a matter for the judge alone. In the Coroner's court, the majority of inquests are heard without a jury.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total area in square feet of all empty properties owned by(a) his Department,(b) his agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility was in each year since May 1997. [37814]
  979W
  Angela Eagle
  The total area in square feet of empty properties in the Home Department's estate and the estate of its agencies and non-departmental public bodies for each of the financial years requested is as follows:

  Area (square feet)

  1997–98

  225,829

  1998–99

  1,108,477

  1999–2000

  1,923,759

  2000–01

  1,514,727

  Nearly all the vacant space is accounted for by buildings, which are held for refurbishment or redevelopment. This includes prisons or other secure facilities for which, town planning approval can be difficult to obtain. The 1999–2000 and 2000–01 figures also include Lunar house, Croydon, which is now reoccupied following a major refurbishment and 2 Marsham street which is being held for demolition and redevelopment. Figures on the floor area of empty residential homes are not kept and a meaningful estimate could be made only at disproportionate cost.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the official visits to(a) Paris and (b) Brussels made by each Minister in his Department in 2001 and the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in his Department on the choice of mode of travel for such visits. [38155]

  Angela Eagle
  Since 1999 this Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken since 1 March 2001 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists are available in the Library.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available.

  Child Pornography
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been charged with distribution of child pornography on the internet as a result of investigations by the Obscene Publications and Internet Unit in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [38138]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There is no separate offence of distributing child pornography on the internet.

  The internet investigations team of the Metropolitan police Obscene Publication Unit was established in September 2000. Distribution of child pornography by means of the internet is a relatively recent phenomenon and figures for the full period requested are not available. Figures for 1995–2001 are as follows:

  Number

  1995

  1

  1996

  9

  1997

  4

  980W

  Number

  1998

  1

  1999

  2

  2000

  16

  2001

  21

  These figures do not include offenders identified through investigations by the internet team of the Obscene Publications Unit who were outside the Metropolitan police area.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were convicted of distributing child pornography across the internet in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [38139]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Convictions for distributing pornography are not directly identifiable on the Home Office Court Proceedings database. This is because all offences under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 are covered in a single group.

  Obscene Publications and Internet Unit
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was spent on the Obscene Publications and Internet Unit of the Metropolitan police for(a) salaries, (b) technology equipment and (c) upkeep of facilities, in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [38137]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the information for the period requested is not available. However, expenditure of the Obscene Publications and Internet Unit between April 2001 to February 2002 was £775,000 on salaries and £25,000 on technology equipment and upkeep of facilities.

  Airguns
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the penalty is for carrying a loaded airgun in a public place. [38243]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Under section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968, it is an offence to carry a loaded airgun in a public place. This is a summary only offence for which the maximum penalty is six months imprisonment or a fine of the statutory maximum (£5,000) or both.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the British Association for Shooting and Conservation's campaign calling for the safe handling of airguns. [38241]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government believe that much can be done to tackle the unacceptable misuse of air weapons through rigorous enforcement of the existing law coupled with a programme of education on the safe and responsible handling of these weapons. To this end, the British Association for Shooting Conservation (BASC) campaign is welcome and has received the full support of the police. It will help to ensure that people who use airguns do so safely and with full regard to firearm and wildlife legislation.

  Policy Development Grant
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what press releases mentioning policy development grant his Department issued while it was responsible for electoral and political party regulation. [37876]

  Mr. Blunkett
  None.

  Charing Cross Police Station
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Charing Cross police station was accepting reports of minor crime over the telephone between 24 December 2001 and 11 January 2002. [35542]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis informs me that Charing Cross police station accepted reports of minor crime over the telephone between 24 December 2001 and 11 January 2002.

  Policing (Newark)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve policing in Newark and Retford. [39197]

  Mr. Denham
  The White Paper, "Policing a New Century" (Cm 5326), published last December, sets out the Government's plans for reforming the police service and improving policing throughout England and Wales, including Newark and Retford.

  The proposals set out in the White Paper will lead to a more professional and effective police service. This will be achieved through reformed management systems; modernised terms and conditions; better use of forensic and technological tools to aid crime prevention, detection and conviction; as well as greater visibility and accessibility of policing services.

  The Police Reform Bill, currently before Parliament, will provide the necessary statutory powers for these reforms.

  DNA Proofing Techniques
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how a convicted person claiming innocence and seeking review or appeal can ascertain whether new DNA proofing techniques would have relevance in his or her case; how he or she can ensure that it is applied to the evidence and the results made known; and if he will make a statement. [38995]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission has the statutory power to preserve any material, including forensic material, which it thinks necessary for a review of a case. The commission exercises this power as necessary in relation to applications made to it, where the process of normal appeal has been exhausted or where there are exceptional circumstances. It also maintains close contact with the Forensic Science Service so that the commission is aware of the latest developments in this field. The commission will determine whether DNA or other forensic tests are required in light of all the factors of a case and will authorise such tests as it believes necessary. The results 982W
  of any tests would be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and the commission's policy on disclosure.

  As for those who are seeking to overturn via the normal appeal process, any individual is free to commission the Forensic Science Service or other forensic science organisations to undertake further DNA profiling tests, providing there is a sufficient amount of retained material and provided payment can be met.

  The Forensic Science Service can give guidance as to whether there is sufficient material left to undertake further tests; and if further DNA profiling tests would provide more information than is already available. It will also provide an estimate for the cost of carrying out any further tests. The Forensic Science Service requires that any requests of this nature are communicated through a solicitor, who will be in a position to advise the individual. Individual contracts and terms of business are agreed with any instructing solicitors or legal representatives.

  Asylum Application (Southend)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to come to a decision on the asylum application made by Mr. Naveem Ahmed of Southend who claimed asylum on 26 May 2000, references TA 338/99 and A/1031630. [36377]

  Angela Eagle
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 11 March 2002.

  Child Entertainers
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to include child entertainers in the group of professionals working with children who are screened; and if he will make a statement. [38141]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The child protection provisions in Part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (CJ) (CSA) provide a new definition of working with children. It includes positions whose normal duties involve caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children, and positions whose normal duties involve unsupervised contact with children under arrangements made by a responsible person, for example a parent. Anyone whose paid or unpaid work entertaining children meets one of the definitions included in the legislation would already be covered by its provisions.

  These provisions form part of an integrated system for the protection of children. They enable the courts to disqualify unsuitable people from working with children as part of their sentence or the disposal of their case. Those who breach such a disqualification order commit a criminal offence.

  The relevant provisions in the CJ and CSA consolidate and strengthen the framework for protecting children. It is none the less important that parents remain vigilant about those circumstances under which they entrust their children to the care of an adult, particularly if they are not present to ensure their children are safe.

HEALTH

  Postcode Prescribing
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on postcode prescribing. [2934]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Government are determined to eradicate "postcode prescribing". We set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to help to achieve this. NICE provides clear advice to the national health service about the clinical and cost effectiveness of drugs and treatments.

  Prescription Charges
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the health impact on patients of having to pay for prescriptions; and if he will make a statement; [4630]

  (2) what plans he has to extend the existing exemptions from prescription charges; and if he will make a statement. [4644]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  I have at present no plans to change the current exemption and remission arrangements which are intended to ensure that no-one need be deterred from obtaining any necessary medication on financial grounds. Around 85 per cent. of items are dispensed free of charge and around 50 per cent. of the population do not have to pay charges.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and(b) evaluated on the (i) health benefits and (ii) safety of health and nutritional supplements. [3729]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Most people are able to meet their nutritional needs by eating a balanced, varied diet, and therefore do not need to take dietary supplements. Key exceptions are:
  Women intending to become pregnant are advised to take supplements of folic acid before conception to the 12 week of pregnancy to help prevent neural tube defects.
  984W
  As a safety net for children and women from low income groups, supplements of vitamins A, D and C are available on the welfare food scheme.
  Asian mothers are routinely advised to take supplements of vitamin D as they are more prone to deficiency.
  Iron supplements may be prescribed to women or children with iron-deficiency anaemia which was not found to improve with appropriate dietary advice.

  Research commissioned by the Food Standards Agency in relation to health benefits of nutrient supplements
  fish oil on cardiovascular disease risk factors calcium, vitamins D and K on bone health antioxidant vitamins (e.g. vitamin E and C) on reducing cell damage from oxidative stress (thought to be involved in the initiation of many diseases, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease)folic acid on risk factors for cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer.
  Some of these studies have finished while others are ongoing. Results from the finished studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals and placed in the public domain in the Agency library. The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition may consider the conclusions reached by these and the other studies.

  Evaluation of safety of nutrient supplements

  The Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals was established to review the safety of high dose vitamin and mineral supplements to ensure that the public is not put at risk.

  The Group expects to complete the reviews of the relevant scientific information on the safety of individual vitamins and minerals shortly. Following this, the Group will complete risk assessments for the vitamins and minerals reviewed. Its conclusions will be issued by the Food Standards Agency for public consultation with a view to publishing its final report in 2002. A copy of the final report will be sent to the Scientific Committee on Food to inform deliberations by that committee on a draft proposal for a European Union Council Directive relating to the addition of nutrients to foods.

  Evaluation of safety of health supplements

  The safety of individual health supplements are considered on their merits on a case by case basis according to available evidence base and when safety of these supplements are raised as a cause of concern. Routine safety evaluation of health supplements is not undertaken.

  Pancreatic Cancer
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review pancreatic cancer services in the northwest of England; and if he will make a statement. [5454]

  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.

  Following publication of the national guidance on the organisation of services for upper gastro-intestinal cancers in 2001, including pancreatic cancers, the three cancer networks in the north-west have been reviewing these

  985W
  services and are engaged in developing appropriate service plans as part of their overall Service Delivery Plans.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the record and policy of the Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool on the treatment of pancreatic cancer. [5457]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 20 July 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.

  The Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust provides a specialist referral service for pancreatic surgery to hospitals in Merseyside and Cheshire and beyond. The service plays a major role in research and audits its clinical activities regularly through the trust's clinical governance arrangements. Over the last twelve months, since introducing a four-bedded post operative critical care facility, the trust has not had to cancel any pancreatic surgery and waiting times for surgery have improved. The service will be externally appraised as part of the next round of the regional cancer services appraisal programme which is due to commence in June 2002.

  MMR
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of children aged(a) one to two, (b) two to three and (c) three to four years have been given MMR inoculations in Cumbria since May 1997. [5825]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to the right hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Percentage of children immunised against MMR

  By their 5th birthday1

  At 31 March

  By their 2nd birthday

  First dose

  First and dose second dose

  North Cumbria

  1998

  96

  —

  —

  1999

  93

  —

  —

  2000

  95

  98

  91

  Morecambe Bay

  1998

  91

  —

  —

  1999

  88

  —

  —

  2000

  90

  95

  83

  1 Information about uptake of MMR immunisation at age five was collected for the first time in 1999–2000.

  Source

  Department of Health, Statistics Division SD2B

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 5 October 986W
  from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire on the current position regarding single dose and MMR triple vaccinations. [21473]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply sent to him on 10 December 2001.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason there is no centre for the provision of digital hearing aids in the south-east of England. [60581]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the 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.

  There are currently three centres for the provision of digital hearing aids in the south-east region of the national health service. They are situated at East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust, Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust and Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will assess the needs of care home service users; who will pay for such an assessment as required under care home standards; and if he will make a statement. [80591]

  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.

  The national minimum standards require that prior to a service user moving into a home an assessment of his or her needs should be undertaken. In most cases this will have been undertaken either by social workers or nurses depending on where the service user is prior to moving. Where a self funding service user has not had an assessment this should be undertaken by the provider prior to that person moving into the home. Either the provider or at least one other member of staff should be suitably trained in conducting assessments. Since in the majority of cases the cost of assessing service users before they enter a home falls to local authorities or the national health service the cost impact on providers would be marginal. The regular review of assessed needs should be a normal part of the conduct of care homes.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations his Department has carried out into minimum data sets where care homes are concerned in the last five years. [8554]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.
  987W
  In October 2000 my Department published for consultation the Core Information Requirements for Children's Social Services, as part of the Quality Protects initiative. The resultant full set of children's services documents is available at http://www.doh.gov.uk/ qualityprotects/info/publications/coreinforma tionreq.htm.

  Version 1 of the Adults Aged 18 and Over Social Care Core Information Requirements was published in August 2001 for consultation and is available at http:// www.doh.gov.uk/scg/adultcoreinfo/index.htm.

  Revisions of both sets of documents are due to be published later this year. Although the information requirements documents are not specifically for care homes, there is mention of the current central statistical returns for care homes. The Department is also promulgating the Mental Health Minimum Data Set, covering information about patients who are subject to the Care Programmes Approach, some of whom may be resident in care homes. This is planned for implementation from April 2003.

  Orthodontics
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions are taking place between the Department of Health and representatives of the dental profession about orthodontic provision; and when he proposes to publish guidance on criteria for acceptance for orthodontic treatment under the NHS; [6360]

  (2) if he intends to change the criteria for acceptance for orthodontic treatment under the NHS; and what changes to NHS orthodontic services he plans. [6361]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Our national health service dental strategy "Modernising NHS Dentistry—Implementing the NHS Plan" set out our intention to reform orthodontic treatment to encourage the most appropriate treatment within the general dental service for patients, taking into account the approach being piloted using the index of treatment need which was already being widely used in the rest of the NHS. Officials have had very helpful discussions with the profession on changes to the current system to enable these valuable NHS resources to be targeted towards cases of greatest clinical need. We hope to reach agreement on charges, including any transitional arrangements, later this year.

  Departmental Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) building and (b) refurbishment projects are planned by his Department in (i) the current year and (ii) the next financial year; and what the costs will be of each project. [6585]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon.988W
  Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  There are two buildings where there are significant refurbishment projects being undertaken in this current year in relation to buildings occupied by or the direct responsibility of this Department or its agencies. The costs for both fall into this financial year. These are:

  2001–02

  £ million

  St, Nicholas Building, Newcastle

  1.2

  Goldings House, London

  2.2

  There are also a significant number of other buildings where there are works of a more minor nature and the fitting out of local offices in preparation for occupation by the National Care Standards Commission.

  This reply does not include information about the national health service.

  Devolved Administrations
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is with regard to(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department giving evidence to (i) Scottish Parliament, (ii) Welsh Assembly and (iii) Northern Ireland Assembly Committees; and to what categories of document he gives (A) full access, (B) restricted access and (C) no access to (1) Scottish Parliament, (2) Welsh Assembly, (3) Northern Ireland Assembly and (4) House of Commons Select committees. [7048]

  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.

  Devolution Guidance Note (DGN) 12—"Attendance of United Kingdom Ministers and Officials at Committees of the Devolved Legislatures" sets out general advice on attendance of UK Ministers and officials at committees of the devolved legislatures. The guidance applies equally to invitations from committees of the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly.

  The Department would respond promptly and courteously to each request for information as it is received. The important principle is that each legislature exercises authority over its Ministers. Subject to criteria as set out in DGN 12 it would be exceptional for Ministers from the Department to attend to give evidence to the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly of Wales and Northern Ireland committees.

  Copies of DGN 12 are available at: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/constitution/devolution/guidance/dgn12.htm.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra funding he will provide to extend the fast response paramedics service in the Lancashire Ambulance Service. [8417]
  989W
  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Lancashire Ambulance Service was among the first to achieve the 75 per cent. target for reaching category A calls within eight minutes. It did so by investing in fast response paramedic services. The Government provided funding towards this scheme as well as towards the purchase of defibrillators. The money was used to extend the fast response service.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make an assessment of the re-organisation of ambulance services in Hampshire. [11975]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer Friday 2 November 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.

  On 15 January 2002 I announced that proposals to merge ambulance trusts in the south-east would not go ahead.

  This decision was made in light of two policy initiatives "Reforming Emergency Care" and "Shifting the Balance of Power" that will help to make ambulance services more responsive to local needs. Health authorities together with their primary care trusts will review the position of their local ambulance services by September 2002. They will make recommendations to the director of health and social care in the south about how ambulance services should be organised in the future.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work has been undertaken and how much money has been spent to address the issues raised in the NCI report into suicide and homicide by people with mental illness; and if he will make a statement. [9513]

  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.

  The recommendations of the National Confidential Inquiry report are in line with the targets in the Mental Health National Service Framework and NHS Plan and implementation is taking place at local level.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many episodes of community psychiatric nursing care took place in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1999–2000. [14110]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 November 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
  990W
  my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  In 1996–97 there were 566,000 first contacts and 381,000 initial contacts and in 1999–2000 there were 586,000 first contacts and 348,000 initial contacts.

  First contacts refer to the numbers of different individuals receiving care—these figures indicate an increase in the overall numbers of individuals seen by community psychiatric nurses (CPNs) over this period.

  Initial contacts refer to the new episodes of care in any one year, and these figures indicate a reduction, suggesting the CPNs were seeing people for longer periods which would be compatible with the emphasis on providing services for the most vulnerable and those with enduring mental health problems.

  Cash for Change Initiative
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what formula was used to determine the councils targeted for extra help under the Government's cash for change initiative. [9060]

  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.

  All councils received additional funding through the Building Care Capacity Grant. Of the £90 million distributed to councils in 2001–02, £43.5 million was distributed to 95 councils on the basis of Standard Spending Assessment, and £47 million was targeted on the 55 councils with the most severe problems associated with delayed discharge. The extra funding to these councils reflected the rate of delayed discharge in each council's area in summer 2001.

  The same criteria were used to distribute the £190 million available for councils through this grant in 2002–03. £91 million was allocated to the 95 councils, and the balance (£99 million) to the remaining 55 councils targeted for extra help.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds are available in residential care in south Tyneside. [9985]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  There are currently 1,256 beds available in residential care in south Tyneside.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elderly people are waiting for beds in residential care in south Tyneside. [9984]
  991W
  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  There are currently five people waiting for beds in residential care in south Tyneside. Funding is available for them all; however, there are no vacancies in the residential care home of their choice.

  Heart Disease
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further steps the Government plan to take to reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease in men. [11178]

  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.

  The Government recognise that the death rate from coronary heart disease is significantly higher among men than women and have made it clear that tackling this disease is one of our top priorities. We are taking action through the NHS Plan, and the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease to tackle the main modifiable risk factors that are more prevalent among men, such as smoking and poor diet.

  A comprehensive smoking cessation service on the NHS is now available across England to support smokers who want to quit. We are also developing a five-a-day programme to increase availability and awareness of fruit and vegetables among groups with the lowest intakes, including men. In addition, we are developing work on exercise and working across Government to improve facilities to support active lifestyles, and the development of communities where it is easier for people to be active.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will conduct a review into waiting times for heart bypass operations in the Morecambe Bay Health Authority area; and if he will make a statement. [7515]

  Jacqui Smith
  [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.

  At present, most cardiac patients are referred to the Blackpool Victoria hospital where the maximum waiting time is between 15 and 18 months for routine surgery and up to nine months for urgent treatment. The Blackpool Victoria hospital NHS trust is on target to achieve a 15-month maximum waiting time by 31 March 2002.

  Caesarean Sections
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of births were by caesarean section in each health authority in England in each of the past five years. [10016]
  992W
  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The statistics are available as national totals, by regions and national health service trusts but not by health authority.

  The table shows national NHS hospital deliveries and percentage of caesarean section 1994–95 to 1999–2000.

  NHS hospital deliveries

  Total number of deliveries (=100%)

  Percentage of deliveries by caesarean section

  1994–95

  604,300

  15.5

  1995–96

  592,699

  16.3

  1996–97

  594,500

  17.0

  1997–98

  585,000

  18.2

  1998–991

  19.4

  1999–20001

  20.4

  1 provisional

  The last NHS maternity statistics including caesarean section rates was published on the 12 June 2001 showing data by trust. A copy was placed in the Library. It can also be found in Table 36 from the DH website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0114.htm.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets he has for the proportion of babies born by caesarean section. [12606]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 5 November 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.

  The Department currently does not have any targets for the proportion of babies born by caesarean section. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) are producing guidelines on caesarean section. It is also an area we would expect the forthcoming Children's National Service Framework to address.

  Casualty Waiting Times
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average waiting time at(a) Chorley and South Ribble NHS hospital casualty department and (b) Preston NHS Acute hospital casualty department in the last six months. [11546]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  This information is not collected centrally. However, in the week ending 24 February, 84 per cent. of patients attending at Chorley and 77 per cent. of patients at Preston departed from the accident and emergency departments in under four hours.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the annual real terms increase in NHS funding for each of the years(a) 1971–72, (b) 1972–73, (c) 1973–74, (d) 1974–75, (e) 1975–76, (f) 1976–77, (g) 1998–99, (h) 1999–2000, (i) 2000–01, (j) 2001–02, (k) 2002–03 and (1) 2003–04. [10747]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  NHS expenditure, 1972–72 to 1977–78

  Outturn

  Net NHS expenditure (£ billion)

  Real terms increase (Percentage)

  1971–72

  2.0

  —

  1972–73

  2.3

  5.5

  1973–74

  2.5

  2.6

  1974–75

  3.4

  11.1

  1975–76

  4.5

  5.6

  1976–77

  5.1

  0.4

  NHS expenditure 1997–98 to 2003–04

  Net NHS expenditure (£ billion)

  Real terms increase (Percentage)

  1997–98

  135.0

  —

  1998–99

  136.9

  2.7

  1999–2000

  140.2

  6.4

  2000–01

  244.6

  8.9

  2001–02

  348.8

  6.9

  2002–03

  353.5

  6.8

  2003–04

  357.0

  3.9

  1 Outturn

  2 Estimated outturn

  3 Plan

  Ciprofloxacin
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with(a) British pharmaceutical companies and (b) his United States counterparts, regarding the patenting of Ciprofloxacin penicillin supplies; and if he will make a statement. [11161]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  I have not had discussions with pharmaceutical companies concerning the patent of Ciprofloxacin.

  My officials have had general discussions with the manufacturer of Ciprofloxacin and several other manufacturers of key medical supplies as part of the medical countermeasures programme against the deliberate release of a biological agent.
  994W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently signed an agreement with his United States counterpart to explore opportunities for joint working across a range of issues concerning bio-terrorism.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to ensure supplies of the penicillin Ciprofloxacin are available in the United Kingdom. [11162]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  A substantial stockpile of Ciprofloxacin and other appropriate antibiotics has been secured, and stocks are being further augmented.

  Furthermore, appropriate emergency supplies of Ciprofloxacin and other essential antibiotics have been strategically placed across the UK to facilitate rapid deployment in an emergency.

  Nutrition
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the annual cost of under-nutrition to the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [12914]

  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.

  The number of finished consultant episodes (FCEs) of in-patient care in national health service hospitals in England in 2000–01 for malnutrition was 306. These figures do not represent the number of patients as a person may have more than one FCE in the year.

  This information is extracted from the Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) system, which contains details of patients admitted to and treated in NHS hospitals in England. HES does not hold data on cost of treatment for malnutrition.

  Figures for 2000–01 have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls (ie they are ungrossed).

  Herceptin
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the drug Herceptin in the treatment of breast cancer; and when the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is likely to make a decision on the licensing of Herceptin. [13380]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.
  995W
  The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales have asked the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) to appraise Herceptin for breast cancer, and to provide guidance on its use for the national health service in England and Wales.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is expected to give guidance on Herceptin by the end of this month, providing there are no appeals.

  NICE is not responsible for the licensing of medicines. Herceptin is a European licensed product whose licence was granted by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA). Medicines Control Agency licensing records the licence as granted on 28 August 2001.

  Bed Shortages
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research he has made into the(a) likelihood and (b) scale of bed shortages across London this winter; and if he will place a copy of such research in the Library; [13117]

  (2) what action he has taken to minimise the effects of bed shortages in hospitals in (a) London and (b) elsewhere in the United Kingdom this winter; what guidelines he has issued; and if he will make a statement. [13115]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 November 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.

  Health service circular 2001/014/local authority circular (2001)017 published in July 2001 gave guidance to the national health service in England on planning capacity. Under this guidance all health authorities established local capacity planning groups to plan capacity for winter 2001–02.

  As a result the NHS went into winter with 1,225 more general and acute and 198 critical care beds than the same time in 2000–01. And in the same period, London went into winter with 351 more general and acute beds and 27 critical care beds.

  The results of the bed census carried out at the end of November 2001 were published in "NHS Emergency Pressures—Making Progress" which was placed in the Library in December 2001.

  Elective Surgery
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at how many places elective surgery was available(a) in each health authority in England and (b) in total for England, in the last two years for which figures are available. [13613]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.
  996W
  In 1999–2000, 251 NHS trusts in England carried out elective operations. 245 NHS trusts carried out elective operations in 2000–01. The table shows the number of trusts in each health authority that carried out elective surgery in both of those years. Fourteen NHS trust mergers took place between these two years.

  Number of NHS trusts

  Health authority

  1999–00

  2000–01

  Hillingdon

  1

  1

  Kensington Chelsea and Westminster

  3

  4

  Enfield and Haringey

  1

  1

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  2

  2

  Bedfordshire

  2

  2

  Berkshire

  4

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  4

  Bexley and Greenwich

  2

  2

  Bromley

  1

  1

  Croydon

  1

  1

  East Kent

  1

  1

  West Kent

  5

  5

  Kingston and Richmond

  1

  1

  Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham

  3

  3

  Merton Sutton and Wandsworth

  3

  3

  West Surrey

  5

  5

  East Sussex Brighton and Hove

  4

  4

  West Sussex

  6

  6

  Barking and Havering

  1

  1

  Barnet

  2

  2

  Brent and Harrow

  2

  2

  Camden and Islington

  5

  5

  Ealing Hammersmith and Hounslow

  3

  3

  East London and The City

  5

  5

  North Essex

  4

  3

  South Essex

  2

  2

  South Lancashire

  1

  2

  Liverpool

  4

  5

  Manchester

  4

  4

  Morecambe Bay

  1

  1

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  1

  1

  Salford and Trafford

  3

  3

  Sefton

  3

  3

  Stockport

  2

  1

  West Pennine

  3

  3

  Northamptonshire

  3

  3

  Oxfordshire

  2

  2

  Suffolk

  3

  3

  Barnsley

  2

  2

  North Derbyshire

  2

  2

  South Derbyshire

  2

  2

  Doncaster

  1

  2

  Leicestershire

  4

  2

  Lincolnshire

  3

  1

  North Nottinghamshire

  3

  3

  Nottingham

  2

  2

  Rotherham

  1

  1

  Sheffield

  3

  3

  Bury and Rochdale

  2

  2

  North Cheshire

  2

  2

  South Cheshire

  3

  3

  East Lancashire

  2

  2

  North West Lancashire

  3

  3

  North and Mid Hampshire

  4

  3

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  2

  2

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  2

  2

  Isle of Wight

  2

  2

  Somerset

  3

  3

  South and West Devon

  3

  3

  Wiltshire

  3

  3

  Avon

  7

  7

  Birmingham

  8

  8

  Wigan and Bolton

  2

  3

  Wirral

  2

  2

  Bradford

  2

  2

  County Durham

  2

  2

  East Riding

  1

  1

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  2

  2

  997W

  Number of NHS trusts

  Health authority

  1999–00

  2000–01

  Leeds

  2

  2

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  1

  1

  North Cumbria

  2

  2

  South Humber

  2

  2

  Northumberland

  1

  1

  Sunderland

  1

  1

  Tees

  3

  2

  Wakefield

  1

  1

  North Yorkshire

  4

  4

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  3

  3

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  2

  2

  Dorset

  5

  6

  North and East Devon

  3

  3

  Gloucestershire

  3

  3

  Coventry

  1

  1

  Dudley

  2

  2

  Herefordshire

  2

  2

  Sandwell

  1

  1

  Shropshire

  4

  4

  North Staffordshire

  1

  1

  South Staffordshire

  3

  3

  Walsall

  1

  1

  Warwickshire

  2

  2

  Wolverhampton

  1

  1

  Worcestershire

  4

  2

  East and North Hertfordshire

  2

  1

  West Hertfordshire

  2

  1

  Cambridge

  5

  5

  Norfolk

  4

  4

  Total

  251

  245

  Note:

  The figures have been adjusted to take account of miscodings.

  Atypical Medicines
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received the provisional findings of NICE in respect of atypical medicines for the treatment of schizophrenia; and if he will publish them. [13780]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Department has received the provisional and final appraisal determinations. We expect NICE to produce guidance on atypical anti-psychotics within the next few weeks providing there are no appeals.

  Emergency Child Admissions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the public service agreement target to reduce the number of children admitted to hospitals as an emergency during their first year of life with(a) gastro-enteritis, (b) a respiratory infection and (c) a severe injury; [14018]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the public service agreement target for reducing low birth-weight babies. [14017]

  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.
  998W
  The public service agreement targets referred to are for Sure Start for the period 1998–99 to 2001–02. A statement on progress towards these targets will be published in the Department for Education and Skills' annual report in spring 2002.

  Patient Expectation
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to improve quality of expectation among NHS patients; and if he will make a statement. [14043]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002 Official Report, column 192W.

  The national health service plan set out a vision for creating a patient-centred NHS. The Government have already taken action to improve the quality of patients' experience through a range of initiatives: high quality standards of care through national service frameworks; better quality food and higher standards of cleanliness; measurement of performance from the patient's perspective, through a new system of local surveys and locally published patient prospectuses; new initiatives to strengthen the voice of patients and the public in the management and delivery of health services, as set out in "Involving Patients and the Public in Health Care: Response to the Listening Exercise".

  ME/CFS
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of his Department's working party on ME/CFS; and when he expects that working party will publish a report. [14708]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The independent CFS/ME working group was set up to review the field of CFS/ME with the aim of providing best practice guidance for clinicians, managers, patients, and carers to improve the quality of care and treatment. Their independent report was published on 11 January 2002 and is available on http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/cfsmereport/index.htm.

  The report has identified CFS/ME as a specific illness. The report makes a number of recommendations about recognition and definition of the illness: treatment and care; health service planning; education and awareness; and research. We shall be bringing this report to the attention of chief executives of health authorities, trusts and primary care trusts so that they can consider its implications when commissioning services.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what process will be used to evaluate the best methods of treatment for ME/CFS. [36384]
  999W
  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Clinicians face problems when treating patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, as there are neither agreed diagnostic criteria nor one form of treatment to suit every patient. We need to develop a greater understanding in this area. A useful way forward at a local level could be for clinicians and patients to develop clinical learning networks that will allow them to develop expertise.

  The Department has also asked the Medical Research Council to develop a broad strategy for advancing biomedical and health services research on CFS/ME.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which items of departmental expenditure fall within the category of miscellaneous services, referred to on page 30 of the 2001 Departmental report. [15251]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The category contains a wide range of activities including expenditure on certain public health functions such as environmental health, health promotion and support to the voluntary sector. The only common feature is that they receive funding direct from the Department of Health, and not via health authorities.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to public funds in 2001–02 of individual learning accounts to staff in the national health service. [15767]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are investing up to £10 million in 2001–02 to support the commitment in the "NHS Plan" (a copy of which is available in the Library) that national health service staff who do not have a professional qualification will have access to either a NHS learning account of £150 each or national vocational qualification training to level 2 or 3.

  Doctors (Retirement)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the information he has received from the NHS pensions agency concerning the retirement of general practitioners, which he referred to during the Second Reading debate of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill. [17418]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 November 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
  1000W
  my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 29 October 2001, Official Report, column 558W. I am advised that the data excluded those who take their pension before the pension scheme's normal retirement age of 60.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics he has collated on the spread of ages at which doctors have retired in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [13853]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 November 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.

  Data in the form requested are not readily available. The number of hospital and community doctors, including Principal and Assistant General Medical and Ophthalmic Practitioners, in England and Wales who have received a retirement pension before or after age 60 for each of the financial years 1997 to 2001 is in the table.

  Financial year

  Before age 60

  After age 60

  Total

  1997

  503

  959

  1,462

  1998

  547

  957

  1,504

  1999

  453

  866

  1,319

  2000

  403

  694

  1,097

  2001

  551

  978

  1,529

  Compulsory Retirement
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he issues to NHS authorities and trusts on the practice of compulsory retirement based solely on age. [20486]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 92W.

  Although there is no central guidance on compulsory retirement based solely on age, NHS organisations and their staff are encouraged to explore the available flexibilities and opportunities. The NHS pension scheme allows staff approaching retirement age and beyond to work more flexibly. This will enable the NHS to keep experienced staff, and their invaluable skills and knowledge.

  In the case of general practitioners health authorities are required under regulation 7(11) of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 to remove from their medical list any doctor who has attained the age of 70 years.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many, and what proportion of letters received by the
  1001W
  Department from hon. and Right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July were replied to in (a) under 15, (b) under 20, (c) under 30, (d) under 40 and (e) over 40 working days. [22002]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 December 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.

  The information is shown in the table.

  Ministerial replies—20 June to 20 July

  Replies sent within

  Number of replies

  Percentage

  15 days

  527

  34

  20 days

  436

  28

  30 days

  202

  13

  40 days

  186

  12

  Over 40 days

  202

  13

  Total

  11,553

  100

  1 In addition 199 letters were transferred to other Government Departments

  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the handling of the case of Mrs. Violet Christine Mitchell by the Royal Surrey County Hospital in September; and when he will reply to correspondence from(a) Jane Cole of 13 and 28 September and 15 November and (b) the right hon. Member for South West Surrey. [18888]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  I appreciate the considerable distress Mrs. Mitchell has suffered but I am assured that there was no negligence involved in the delay in diagnosing her injury. The nature of the injury could not be fully ascertained at the first examination and all necessary steps were subsequently taken to reach the correct diagnosis.

  My officials wrote to Ms Cole on 29 November in response to her letters dated 28 October and 15 November. My Department has no record of receiving any letters sent in September.

  My right hon. Friend, the Minister of State replied to the right hon. Member's letter on 4 December 2001.

  Nursing Homes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential and nursing homes have closed because an inspection highlighted inadequacies in their facilities. [23423]

  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.
  1002W
  In the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 (the most recent for which information is available) there were 140 closures of residential care homes and nursing homes (including children's homes) through cancellation procedures under the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of free nursing care on the level of charges to residents of nursing homes. [34856]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  We expect nursing homes to reduce fees in line with the Registered Nursing Care Contribution received. However, I am aware that a number of national providers have used the opportunity afforded by the introduction of free nursing care to increase fees levied on people funding the costs of their own care. I have written to those providers seeking clarification and justification for the level of increase that they propose. We will take further action if required.

  UK Human Tissue Bank
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the work of the UK Human Tissue Bank; if he will make a statement on their work; what advice has been issued to NHS trusts about the collection by the UK Human Tissue Bank of non-transplantable human tissue from hospitals nationwide; what has been done to encourage the use of human tissue by scientists operating within the UK; and what evidence he has collated as to the efficacy of using human tissue rather than animal subjects in tests. [25444]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  All Tissue Banks in the public sector supplying human tissues for therapeutic purposes to the NHS are required to be accredited by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) by 31 March 2003. An MCA inspection will determine whether the bank complies with the standards set out in—"A Code of Practice for Tissue Banks: providing tissues of human origin for therapeutic purposes."

  The UK Human Tissue Bank (UK HTB) is a not for profit organisation based at De Montfort university, Leicester. They collect, process and distribute non-transplantable human tissue for research purposes to scientists working in universities, medical institutions and the pharmaceutical industry. UK HTB have had discussions with Department officials, the Medical Research Council (MRC), and the MCA seeking clarification of departmental policy. They have not written or met with Ministers.
  1003W
  The MRC supports the principle of human tissue banks for research, and actively encourages the deposition and use of human tissue samples, where appropriate. The MRC Guidelines 'Human tissue and biological samples for use in research' observes that
  "use of such [human] material can … reduce both the research demands on patients and the need to use animals".

  In the light of Alder Hey and events elsewhere, we are committed to a fundamental review of the law concerning the taking, storage and use of human tissue from both the living and the dead, including organs and tissues for transplantation. The Chief Medical Officer made 17 specific recommendations regarding the removal, retention and use of human organs and tissue. An extensive programme of implementation is well under way, led by the Department of Health, which is working closely with other Government Departments and other agencies. This includes work to review the Human Tissue Act and the Human Organ Transplants Act and common law. A consultation document will be issued shortly.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent discussions he has had with those pharmaceutical companies that have developed beta interferon and other disease-modifying drugs for MS, concerning the terms on which these drugs may be made available on the NHS in the future; [18079]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with pharmaceutical companies that manufacture disease-modifying drugs for MS on their willingness to supply those drugs to the NHS at a price which reflects their efficacy, and if he will make a statement. [24980]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 8 February 2002, Official Report, column 1241W.

  Neuroleptic Drugs
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing the inappropriate over-use of neuroleptic drugs in homes for the elderly. [26030]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  A number of measures have been taken to ensure that there is no inappropriate or excessive use of antipsychotic drugs for older people. In particular, implementation of the National Service Framework for Older People will ensure effective prescribing and administration of medication for older people. The new national minimum
  1004W
  standards for care homes, for implementation from April 2002, include standards to protect older people from inappropriate medication.

  Latex Allergy
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking to protect health service staff and patients who are allergic to latex from exposure to it; and if he will refer the issue of latex allergy to the Medical Devices Agency Committee on Safety of Devices. [26124]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The Medical Devices Agency (MDA) regularly investigates the risks posed to patients and health care workers and, along with the Department, issues relevant guidance. Latex is recognised as a sensitiser or substance hazardous to health as defined by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH 1994) and HSC 1999/186 instructed that individuals who are sensitised to latex should stop using latex medical gloves and be provided with gloves made from an alternative material.

  It would be inappropriate to refer the issue of latex allergy to the MDA's Committee on Safety of Devices at the moment, because the MDA is actively involved in drafting European guidance for manufacturers on the regulations for medical devices containing latex. The European Commission group working on this document is expected to complete this work later this year.

  Lauren Wright
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans the Government have to hold a public inquiry into the death of Lauren Wright; [27238]

  (2) what measures have been put in place to ensure that there is no repetition of the events which led to the death of Lauren Wright. [27236]

  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.

  We have no plans to hold a public inquiry in this case. This does not ignore the tragedy that Lauren Wright's death represents, but we need to balance detailed investigation and inquiry with action that will ensure we minimise the possibility of such tragedies happening again.

  In Lauren's case, the independent review into the actions of health staff and organisations, which is due to report in March 2002; the robust oversight by the Area Child Protection Committee of the implementation by local agencies of the action plan produced to take forward the recommendations of the serious case review; the follow-up inspection of Norfolk's children's services by

  1005W
  the Social Services Inspectorate, which found substantial improvements in Norfolk's child care and child protection services; and the Social Services Inspectorate/Audit Commission Joint Review of Norfolk scheduled for March 2002, should together ensure that the lessons from this tragedy are learned and applied in practice in the future within Norfolk.

  We have already established a statutory inquiry into the death of another little girl, Victoria Climbie. The Victoria Climbie inquiry, being chaired by Lord Laming, is a wide ranging inquiry that will closely examine the working of our child protection system. We anticipate that this inquiry will produce recommendations that will be relevant to child protection practice and procedure across the country, and which, as far as possible, will prevent further tragedies of this kind. We look forward to Lord Laming's report and his recommendations with interest.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures of performance he uses to judge the quality of care in accident and emergency departments. [27716]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) review teams follow patients' pathways of care when undertaking clinical governance reviews of national health service trusts. Accident and emergency (A&E) departments are frequently included as a key element of a pathway of care.

  The review teams both interview A&E staff and observe A&E departments in order to examine how patients are cared for during their stay. Elements frequently reported on are issues about the quality of the environment, the maintenance of confidentiality, the provision of privacy which promotes dignity, the flow of care, including waiting times and how the department relates to other services.

  All CHI reports highlight both notable practice and issues that require the organisation's action. All action issues are followed up utilising the trust's own action plan, which like the report is published.

  In addition, the Government measure waiting times in A&E. Data on waits for admission post decision to admit are published quarterly. The NHS Plan set a new target for A&E, to reduce the maximum wait in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge to four hours by 2004. In line with this target, from August 2001, data on total time in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge have been collected. These data show that the NHS is currently on track to meet this target with 77 per cent. of A&E attenders spending four hours or less in A&E.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were required to work on Sundays in accident and emergency departments in each year between 1990 and 2000. [30938]
  1006W
  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Staffing of accident and emergency departments is a matter for the national health service locally.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of trolley bays is per thousand patients seen in accident and emergency departments in England. [36891]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Information on the number of trolley bays in accident and emergency departments is not collected centrally. In the year 2000–01 there were 12,953,000 attendances at accident and emergency departments in England.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for his Department in each of the last four years. [27907]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 30 January 2002, Official Report, column 406W.

  The table gives a summary of costs of taxis.

  Cost of taxis

  Year (April to March)

  £

  1998–99

  189,730.78

  1999–2000

  220,603.24

  2000–01

  250,321.97

  2001–02

  236,944.18

  Head Injuries
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will create a new social services user category for neurological conditions including acquired brain injury. [30838]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  It is not usual practice to instruct councils with social services responsibilities to provide services within specific categories and I do not at present intend to create a new user category for neurological conditions. However I recognise the importance of the provision of the right sort of services to meet the needs of people with acquired

  1007W
  brain injury. The National Service Framework (NSF) for long-term conditions will set standards for the care and treatment of various long-term conditions, including for acquired brain injury. This NSF will look at services and set standards in both health and social care.

  NHS Professionals
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take against those trusts which choose not to use NHS professionals to provide their temporary nursing staff. [30769]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Current advice to trusts about the use of NHS professionals is contained in HCS 2001–02.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require private sector hospitals to publish performance indicators on standards of patient care. [30856]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, at column 192W.

  National Care Standards Commission inspection teams will collect data on the performance indicators for the sector as laid out in regulation 28 of the Private and Voluntary Health Care Regulations. This data will be analysed and form part of the report from the Commission to the Secretary of State.

  The Commission is also examining other key clinical indicators that may be perceived to be a reflection on the quality of care received by a patient, and inspection teams will collect data on these issues in the first year of inspection experience. They will test the approaches to data collection to ensure that it is robust before publishing the results.

  Patient Treatment Statistics
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in the(a) NHS and (b) private sector (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage, in each of the last 10 years. [30565]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, at column 192W.

  This information is not available in the form requested.
  1008W
  Information on the numbers of NHS patients treated by hospitals in England is available from Hospital Episodes Statistics, published by the Department of Health. The Department of Health does not collect information on the overall number of patients treated in private hospitals.

  Food Products
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Food Standards Agency concerning manufacturers of food products who will not disclose when they use mechanically recovered meat. [32797]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer 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, at column 192W.

  I have been advised by the Food Standards Agency that a research project, to establish whether bovine mechanically recovered meat (MRM) was a significant source of human exposure to material infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy between 1980 and 1995, is currently being finalised with potential contractors. The agency has had preliminary discussions with the main meat trade associations who have said that they will help gather as much information as possible. The results of the study will be reported to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which advises the Government on matters concerning BSE and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, and will be made publicly available.

  NHS Direct
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls to NHS Direct are initially dealt with by a call handler who is not a qualified nurse. [33757]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  It is general practice for calls made to NHS Direct to be handled by call handlers before being passed on to a qualified nurse. Between 20 and 30 per cent. of NHS Direct's calls are health information calls and can be handled without any form of consultation with a nurse.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of time was for a caller to NHS Direct to speak to a qualified nurse in the last 12 months. [33758]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  For the calendar year of 2001, NHS Direct handled around five million calls. The average length of time for a caller to NHS Direct to speak to a nurse is not currently

  1009W
  available. However, 59.23 per cent. of all callers spoke to a nurse within five minutes, and 82.35 per cent. of all callers spoke to a nurse within 30 minutes.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls were made to the NHS Direct service during the year to 31 December 2001; and what the costs were of administering the service for that period. [30313]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  For the calendar year of 2001, NHS Direct handled around five million calls, averaging 96,000 calls a week. The cost of running NHS Direct in 2000–01 was £80 million.

  Consultation Documents
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 November 2001,Official Report, columns 476–77W, on consultation documents, how many of the consultation documents issued by his Department in 2000 defined a preferred option; and in how many of these the preferred option was adopted. [33536]

  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.

  Of the 31 consultation exercises that the Department conducted during 2000, six defined a preferred option and in five cases the preferred option was adopted.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34163]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Department's accounting system does not collect information in the form requested.

  Departmental Policies (Bristol, East)
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bristol, East constituency, the effects on Bristol of his 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. [35605]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon.
  1010W
  Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to her by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 4 March 2002, Official Report, column 80W.

  Further information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of milk tokens to mothers who are asylum seekers. [35007]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply he received on 10 January 2002, Official Report, column 1024W.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [36234]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  A list of all statutory instruments made by the Department of Health in 2001 and to date in 2002 has been placed in the Library. Information relating to the purpose and cost of each instrument can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  From March 2002, explanatory memoranda will be provided for all affirmative statutory instruments as announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 1 February 2002, Official Report, column 584W. Much of the information requested will be provided in this memoranda.

  Bed Blocking
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning bed blocking of old age psychiatry beds(a) in the UK and (b) in North Yorkshire. [36917]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Discharges from old age psychiatry beds can be delayed because of difficulties in finding suitable ongoing care for these patients. Standard 7 of the national service

  1011W
  framework for older people requires that older people who have mental health problems should have access to integrated mental health services provided by the national health service and councils to ensure effective diagnosis, treatment and support, for them and their carers. Implementing the requirements of Standard 7 will minimise the problems of delayed discharges from old age psychiatry beds. In addition, we are planning to encourage the provision of intermediate care services which meet the needs of people suffering from dementia.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the extent of bed blocking in the south-east; and what action he is taking to reduce it. [6257]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 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.

  Tackling delayed transfers of care is a high priority throughout the south-east region. Addressing delayed transfers of care features strongly in both performance improvement plans and local modernisation reviews in the south-east. To support this work, over £14 million of additional funding was allocated to local authorities within the south-east this year and over £36 million allocated next year to tackle bed blocking.

  A joint social care/national health service regional strategic group has been established to identify specific actions that can be taken to improve availability within the residential and nursing home market. It will also produce a planning model for intermediate care in the south-east.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of acute beds are blocked in each health authority in England. [37480]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Long-term Care Beds
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the need for long-term care beds in the(a) private, (b) voluntary and (c) public sectors. [35526]

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the need for long-term care beds in the(a) private, (b) voluntary and (c) public sectors. [36518]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Members for the delay in responding to this question. I refer them 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.

  I refer them to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 1 February 2002, Official Report, columns 626–27W.
  1012W
  All types of providers have a role to play in supplying services and we have not made separate assessments for different sectors.

  Strokes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many stroke cases have occurred in each health authority in England in the last three years(a) in total and (b) as a per capita figure; and how many stroke cases there were per consultant in each national health service region in the last three years. [37831]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested for consultants is not currently available centrally while essential validation work on data at consultant level is being carried out both centrally and locally at Trust level. It is planned that consultant level information will begin to become available in the summer of 2003.

  The information requested for stroke cases for the last three years has been placed in the Library.

  Pregnant Women (Exposure to Chemicals)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to minimise exposure of pregnant women to chemicals, including pesticides, that have the potential to disrupt endocrine systems. [38131]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department contributes to Government procedures for risk assessment and setting exposure limits for chemicals used in various areas. These procedures aim to protect the public, including pregnant women and the foetus. They include the approval of pesticide products following consideration of the advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

  The Department, together with the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Health and Safety Executive, and the European Chemical Industries Council, the Department is funding a £1.7 million research programme of epidemiological studies to investigate trends in male reproductive health, and the possible influences of occupational or environmental (or other) exposure to chemicals. The programme includes evaluation of effects of maternal exposures on the male foetus. Results from the four studies in the programme are expected to be available by the end of this year.

  The Department also participates in European risk assessments of chemicals; has contributed to the development of the European Commission Community Strategy for Endocrine Disrupters; and is contributing to a comprehensive assessment (through the World Health Organisation's International Programme on Chemical Safety) of the state of the science on endocrine disruption. In addition it supports the leading role which the United Kingdom plays in the test guidelines programme of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which aims to ensure that the harmonised test methods used internationally reflect best practical approaches for assessing the health effects of chemicals. This includes an active role in the work of the OECD Endocrine Disrupter Testing and Assessment Group which is taking forward the validation of new methods for detecting compounds with such properties.
  1013W
  Further information on this issue, and on Government action, is in the note "Hormone (Endocrine) Disrupting Substances in the Environment" at http://www.defra.gov.uk/nvironment/hormone/index.htm

  As the assessments progress and further scientific evidence becomes available, the Government, together with our European partners, will evaluate whether further action to limit exposure to chemicals is required.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the rate of admissions to hospital of children per 1,000 children under 16 that were the result of an unintentional injury resulting in a hospital stay of longer than three days was in 1999–2000. [5237]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs, Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The rate at which children under 16 are admitted into hospital as the result of an unintentional injury resulting in a hospital stay of longer than three days was 1.02 per 1,000 children under 16 in 1999–2000.

  National Alcohol Strategy
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on plans for a national alcohol strategy. [5565]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The NHS Plan says that the Department will be implementing the national strategy to tackle alcohol misuse by 2004. The Department is on course to achieve this target and we expect to publish a consultation paper for the strategy this summer.

  Transplants
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions there have been between the NSCAG and their Scottish colleagues on the new transplant centre in Glasgow. [4379]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 20 February 2002]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Discussions have taken place with Scotland and they are participating in the work to develop national standards for the service.
  1014W
  Specific decisions on the restart of the adult heart transplant surgery service at North Glasgow University Hospital NHS Trust are however a matter for the Scottish Executive Minister for Health and Community Care.

  Hinchingbrooke Hospital
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hospital medical staff, (b) consultants and (c) nursing and midwifery staff were employed at Hinchingbrooke hospital on (i) 31 March and (ii) in each year since 1996. [6174]

  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.

  The information requested is shown in the table.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): hospital medical staff, consultants and qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff employed at Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust as at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  All hospital medical staff

  of which Consultants

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  1996

  110

  50

  490

  1997

  120

  50

  510

  1998

  120

  50

  540

  1999

  130

  50

  540

  2000

  140

  60

  530

  2001

  140

  60

  490

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce cenus

  Huntingdonshire PCT was established on 1 April 2001 and some qualified nursing and health visiting community staff have transferred from the acute hospital which accounts for the apparent fall in the 2001 whole-time equivalents figure.

  Nursing Care (Financial Support)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of eligible residents in nursing homes have been assessed for the level of need for financial support for their nursing care. [32964]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 27 February 2002, Official Report, columns 1398–99W.

  National Service Framework
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the(a) revenue and (b) capital additional funding in 2001–02 to fast-forward the National Service Framework has been (i) allocated and (ii) spent. [35492]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Announced with the national health service plan was additional funding to fast forward the national service framework. In 2001–02 £12.35 million revenue and £68 million capital was originally allocated. £4 million capital has been reallocated to 2002–03. The revised allocations for 2001–02 are therefore £12.35 million revenue and £64 million capital.

  BCG Vaccination
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of vaccination coverage is among children who should have received the BCG vaccination in the last academic year. [38682]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Information about the numbers of children receiving BCG vaccinations is contained in tables 4 and 5 of the Statistical Bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 2000–01". A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library and can also be found on the Department of Health website www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0121.htm.

  Since the resumption of the schools routine BCG programme in March 2001, up to the end of January 2002, over 2.2 million more doses of vaccine have been distributed to co-ordinators around the United Kingdom compared with the previous year.

  Smoking
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the effect of rates of tobacco tax on levels of smoking. [40516]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Research has consistently shown that the demand for cigarettes is affected by their price. So it follows that tax levels can play an important role in determining levels of overall tobacco consumption.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from(a) Eternit of Belgium and (b) Saint-Gobain SA of France concerning the provision of asbestos substitutes. [39295]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) was in regular correspondence with Eternit UK, as a manufacturer of asbestos cement products, when it was planning legislation to prohibit the importation, supply and use of all forms of asbestos. Officials from HSE also met
  1016W
  representatives from the company in February 1997, when the availability of asbestos substitute materials was discussed.

  When the Health and Safety Commission consulted on draft Regulations in autumn 1998, Eternit UK commented on the proposals, giving their full support.

  I am not aware of any similar contacts with Saint-Gobain.

  Vaccinated Meat
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information the Government have received regarding the health implications of vaccinated meat entering the food chain. [2577]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to the right 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.

  I assume the hon. Member is referring to foot and mouth disease vaccines.

  The foot and mouth disease vaccines for use in any vaccination programme contain inactivated foot and mouth disease virus as their active ingredient. The FSA advise that there are no appreciable health implications of eating meat from animals vaccinated with the inactivated virus and there are no chemical safety concerns for human consumers associated with the use of the vaccines in food producing animals.

  National Cardiothoracic Transplant Service
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 149W, on the transplant service, what funds will be available to meet the costs of implementation of the Government's proposals for reorganisation of the National Cardiothoracic Transplant Service. [2840]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 July 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.

  The discussion document on the National Adult Heart and Lung Transplant Scheme was issued on 21 September 2001. From 1 April 2002 the Service will be commissioned by the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group who will be responsible for managing the service within funds allocated centrally.

  Accident and Emergency Centres
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used to judge whether accident and emergency centres remain functional. [2936]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon.
  1017W
  Friend the member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column
  192W.

  It is up to local health communities to determine the provision of services in line with clinical advice. The Government are keen to see that patients have access to services at as local a level as possible but against this desire must be balanced the need to ensure that patients receive the highest levels of clinical care, where ever that care is provided.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what critical mass is required to maintain an accident and emergency unit. [8416]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  It is up to local health communities to determine the provision of services in line with clinical advice. The Government are keen to see that patients have access to services at as local a level as possible but against this desire must be balanced the need to ensure that patients receive the highest levels of clinical care, where ever that care is provided.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the efficiency with which patient records are handled in accident and emergency departments. [12860]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The NHS Plan, "Information for Health" and "Building the Information Core", made a clear commitment to providing electronic records to everyone in England. The objective is eventually to provide on-line access to the patient record for all members of the national health service family including family doctors, hospitals, NHS Direct, ambulance services and mental health trusts, etc.

  One of the key targets in "Information for Health" requires all hospitals to have fully integrated systems meeting Electronic Patient Records (EPR) level 3 requirements, in place by March 2005 to support clinical activity.

  The successful implementation of EPR in acute, primary care and community social care environments are a pre-requisite to successful implementation of the first generation of Electronic Health Records (EHR) to support 24-hour emergency care. The EHR will be a summary of the data contained in the numerous organisational-based EPRs (hospitals, primary care, community, etc.) about an individual and will initially be used to support 24-hour emergency care. The ultimate aim is to make it available to all health care professionals to support routine care. The target in "Information for Health" called for the first generation EHR to support 24-hour emergency care to be in place by March 2005.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation will take place in relation to the future of hospital trusts. [2933]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  We are committed to ensuring that there are comprehensive mechanisms in place to ensure full and effective consultation on matters relating to the national health service.

  Currently the NHS has a duty to consult with community health councils on changes to the NHS. The NHS Reform and Healthcare Professions Bill, currently before Parliament, provides for the abolition of community health councils, which are to be replaced by a wider and more comprehensive patient and public involvement system.

  In the future the NHS will be placed under a duty to consult local authority overview and scrutiny committees on plans substantially to develop or vary health services, including hospital trusts. This duty is provided for in the Health and Social Care Act 2001.

  Additionally, section 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 places a duty on the NHS to involve and consult the public and its representatives on the planning and development of services, and to involve them in decisions affecting services.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the number of board meetings held without minutes being taken by the Chorley and South Ribble Hospital; [2932]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the emergency board meeting of the Chorley and South Ribble and Preston acute hospital trusts regarding merger, with particular reference to the notice given to board members. [2924]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  All formal meetings of the Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust Board have been properly minuted. The Chairs of Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust and Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust called an extraordinary joint meeting of Non-Executive, Executive Directors and senior officers who report directly to the Chief Executive, on 2 July 2001. The agenda was issued on 28 June 2001. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the appointment of a new Chief Executive, but the question of a possible merger was then raised. The subject was formally debated at the next meeting of the Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust Board which took place on 30 July 2001.
  1019W
  Consultation on the proposed merger of the Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust and the Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust is due to conclude on 10 March. A submission will then be put to Ministers in due course.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of people with advanced colorectal cancer that are being denied irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of their disease. [3288]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 11 July 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 129W.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recently published guidance on the use of irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer.

  Directions have been issued obliging health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for treatments recommended by NICE. From 1 January this year, the NHS will have three months from the date of publication of each technology appraisal guidance to provide funding, so that clinical decisions made by doctors involving NICE recommended treatments or drugs can be funded.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the new antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia have been tested for side effects; and what conclusions were made. [3453]

  Ms Blears: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2000, Official Report, column 192W.

  Companies applying for a licence to market a new drug are required to submit the result of clinical trials. These trials will include data on the side effect profile of the products under investigation.

  All recently introduced antipsychotics, which include clozapine, risperidone, olanzapine and quetiapine, have been tested in clinical trials on large numbers of patients in order to adequately characterise their side effect profiles.

  These drugs are recognised to produce side effects in some patients, most frequently extrapyramidal symptons, dizziness, postural hypotension, and weight gain. More rarely these drugs may produce more serious adverse effects including blood disorders or neuroleptic malignant syndrome, or serious movement disorders (tardive dyskinesia) with prolonged use. These side effects are described in the summary of product characteristics for the individual products.
  1020W
  The clinical data collected in the trials of these drugs indicate that these new antipsychotics are generally better tolerated by patients than the older drugs in that some side effects occur less frequently or with reduced severity.

  In all cases the information on adverse events related to use of the drug (side effect profile) must be considered in relation to the clinical benefit produced by the drug. The potential for harm from possible side effects must be weighed against the likely benefit to patients from the drug. Such a judgment is termed an overall risk to benefit assessment. For all new antipsychotic drugs which have been granted a licence, this overall risk to benefit assessment was considered to be positive.

  Rocky Bennett
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response the Government have made to the recommendations of Coroner William Armstrong at the inquest into the death of Rocky Bennett; and if he will make a statement. [5312]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Government's response to the issues raised in the Coroner's inquest following the death of Mr. David (Rocky) Bennett has been placed in the Library.

  North Cumbria Health Authority
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he received(a) before and (b) after the decision was made to move the headquarters of North Cumbria health authority; [5269]

  (2) what discussions he had with representatives of North Cumbria health authority (a) prior to and (b) after the decision was taken to move the headquarters to West Cumbria; [5268]

  (3) if he will reverse the decision by the Chairman of the North Cumbria health authority to move the headquarters to West Cumbria; [5266]

  (4) what the cost is of moving the headquarters of the North Cumbria health authority from Carlisle to West Cumbria. [5267]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]: I apologise to the right hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The North Cumbria health authority has not moved its headquarters.

  I am aware that the North Cumbria Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust, which was established on 1 April 2001, has based its headquarters at the West Cumberland hospital.
  1021W
  I understand that the Department has received representations at a local level. The decision as to the location of the trust headquarters was taken by the trust board and was taken in the interest of the whole organisation. No costs were incurred by the trust.

  Transplants
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the national specialist commissioning advisory group studied comparisons of success rates between transplant centres, contrasting percentage survival rates with the number of transplants performed in each centre each year; [4512]

  (2) whether the national specialist commissioning advisory group compared waiting times for pre-transplant assessment between transplant centres with the number of transplants performed in each centre each year; [4513]

  (3) whether the national specialist commissioning advisory group assessed existing figures on after-care services provided by centres in relation to the number of transplants performed in each centre each year; [4514]

  (4) whether the national specialist commissioning advisory group examined best practice in other countries with regard to transplants. [4515]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 July 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 long-term goal for the cardiothoracic service is to increase the number of patients who receive successful heart and lung transplants, to ensure that today's high quality service is sustained in the future and to improve the working lives of the professionals who provide this crucial service.

  To meet this goal, we issued a discussion document on 21 September 2001. It announces that all six cardiothoracic transplant units will continue to provide a service to NHS patients. To do so, they will need to meet the clear and explicit requirements set out in the new monitoring framework proposed in the discussion document. These requirements include staffing levels and qualifications, arrangements for retrieval of organs, the number of transplants carried out or the number of patients seen in follow-up clinics and survival and rejection rates. All six units will be inspected against these requirements.

  The new service standards and effective monitoring will help ensure continued improvement to the quality of cardiothoracic transplant services, and provide patients with a national service of the highest possible quality. A copy of the discussion document, which invites comments on the standards and specification for the service, is in the Library.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlay the recommendations by NSCAG about transplant centres in England and Wales. [4380]
  1022W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The key factor, which underlay the recommendations, was to ensure high quality clinical skills are maintained within our cardiothoracic transplant teams so as to ensure patients continue to receive the highest care possible.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health upon what evidence NSCAG based its recommendation concerning the number of transplants individual surgeons should perform each year. [4381]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The recommendation as to the number of transplants individual surgeons should perform comes from the Royal College of Surgeons Expert Working Party chaired by Professor Sir Peter Morris which reported in January 1999.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate NSCAG has made of patient outcome if a transplant unit performs(a) 40 and (b) 50 transplants per annum. [4382]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  In considering outcome data provided by United Kingdom Transplant Authority, NSCAG found that there is no statistically significant difference in the available outcome data between centres.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment NSCAG and the Royal College of Surgeons has made of the levels of skills required to perform(a) heart transplant operations, (b) heart valve operations and (c) lung transplants. [4383]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 July 200I]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  It is the responsibility of the Royal College of Surgeons to accredit those who seek to perform (a), (b) and (c) as with other forms of surgery.

  The responsibility of NSCAG is to offer advice to the Secretary of State in commissioning designated national specialist services.
  1023W
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate has been made of the number of heart and lung transplants that could be undertaken per annum by five national centres. [4385]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The number of heart and lung transplants that could be undertaken in any given number of centres depends on the availability of organs and the capacity within the centres. Over time capacity can be adjusted depending on the resources available.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group has given to the travel and transportation needs of patients following heart transplantation for follow-up care in the first 12 months following surgery. [4377]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  As part of the review of cardiothoracic transplant services, population access to centres for transplant services was one of the factors considered.

  Our proposals for new national standards are set out in the discussion document "National Adult Heart and Lung Transplant Service" and will be reviewed in the light of the comments received.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment NSCAG has made of the number of people in a unit needed to perform a given number of operations; and what factors underlay the assumptions involved. [4384]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The responsibility of NSCAG is to offer advice to the Secretary of State in commissioning designated national specialist services.

  The work force in each unit is determined not by NSCAG but by the service agreement between the unit and the Department of Health through negotiations.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will undertake a review of organ retrieval boundaries to reflect population size and ensure equal access. [4386]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that
  1024W
  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.

  Organ retrieval boundaries are continuously reviewed by the Cardiac Transplant Advisory Group, a subcommittee of the United Kingdom Transplant Authority. The directors of all the National Cardiothoracic Transplant centres comprise the membership of the Cardiac Transplant Advisory Group.

  Home Care
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the latest data on the number of households receiving more than 10 contact hours of intensive home care and over five visits during a survey week per thousand head of population aged 65 and over. [5852]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  In the autumn of 2000 survey week (the latest date for which data are available), 9.2 households per 1,000 population aged 65 or over in England were receiving intensive home care (more than ten contact hours and over five visits).

  Arthritis (Wales)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussion he has had with his counterpart at the National Assembly for Wales, concerning the development of a national strategy to deal with arthritis in Wales. [6430]

  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.

  The National Assembly for Wales is responsible for health matters in Wales. Department of Health officials continue to work with officials in the National Assembly for Wales generally on the development of health strategies.

  Family Doctor Practices
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy towards family doctor practices that wish to replace a full-time partner with two half-time doctors. [6761]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.
  1025W
  As set out in the NHS Plan (paragraph 13.11) the Medical Practices Committee will be abolished on 31 March 2002 and its functions devolved to Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). In future therefore PCTs will be responsible for determining these matters in line with our policy of devolving power and responsibility to the local level.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total amount of spending by his Department was in each nation and region of the United Kingdom, in the last year for which figures are available; what proportion of his Department's total spending this constitutes; and if he will make a statement. [6869]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The total spend by the Department of Health is shown in the tables.

  (i) Direct expenditure on health service provision via health authorities.

  Total expenditure—health authorities by regional office
  for 1999–2000

  England

  £000

  Trent and Yorkshire

  4,955,804

  Trent

  3,918,218

  Eastern

  3,721,362

  London

  6,458,945

  South East

  6,082,384

  South West

  3,527,739

  West Midlands

  3,933,614

  North West

  5,271,048

  Total

  37,869,114

  Notes:

  1. This information is provided on a resource basis.

  The majority of general dental services is not included in health authority accounts and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board. Pharmacedutical services accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority are also excluded. Total expenditure for England in respect of these two services for 1999–2000 was £2,233,288,000.

  2. There has been a change of accounting policy agreed after the submission of the 1999–2000 summarisation forms, relating to the treatment of fixed asset impairments. This would have resulted in lower expenditure figures for health authorities than that shown in the table. The amount involved on average is approximately £7 million per health authority.

  Source:

  Health Authority Summarisation Forms 1999–2000.

  (ii) Department of Health central expenditure on hospital, community health, family health, miscellaneous health and related services and on personal social services.

  Expenditure administered by the Department, by its regional office and by other related bodies for 1999–2000

  £000

  Central Department

  1,457,154

  Executive agencies

  304

  Non-departmental public bodies

  180,784

  Special health authorities

  227,941

  1026W

  Expenditure administered by the Department, by its regional office and by other related bodies for 1999–2000

  £000

  Other statutory bodies

  195,720

  Northern and Yorkshire regional office

  161,742

  Trent regional office

  156,734

  Eastern regional office

  94,815

  London regional office

  572,709

  South East regional office

  218,770

  South West regional office

  153,920

  West Midlands regional Office

  108,226

  North West regional office

  185,279

  Total

  3,714,098

  Notes:

  1. This information is provided on a cash basis.

  2. Expenditure shown is by administering and managing body.

  3. Expenditure of the Department and its executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and special health authorities is generally on an England-wide basis. Certain services are, however, provided to or on behalf of the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland. The proportion of expenditure on such UK-wide services is negligible in comparison to the overall quantum of expenditure.

  Source:

  The Appropriation Accounts for Class II, Votes 1 and 2 and the central accounting records of the Department of Health 1999–2000.

  (iii) Department of Health expenditure on the administration of services.

  Administrative expenditure of the Department, its regional offices and its executive agencies for 1999–2000

  £000

  Central Department

  207,457

  Executive agencies

  31,615

  Northern and Yorkshire regional office

  6,984

  Trent regional office

  7,151

  Eastern regional office

  6,888

  London regional office

  9,964

  South East regional office

  9,428

  South West regional office

  7,047

  West Midlands regional office

  7,057

  North West regional office

  7,443

  Total

  301,034

  Notes:

  1. This information is provided on a cash basis.

  2. Expenditure is utilised wholly within England.

  Source:

  The Appropriation Accounts for Class II, Votes 1 and 2 and the central accounting records of the Department of Health 1999–2000.

  Nursing Care (Elderly People)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents of nursing homes are receiving payments under the Government's new scheme for funding part of nursing care for the elderly. [8832]

  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.

  The survey of health authorities carried out in June 2001 identified 42,700 people in nursing homes responsible for paying all their care costs from their own resources.
  1027W
  By the end of February 2002, 95 per cent. had had their needs determined by a national health service nurse and the remainder should be completed by the end of March.

  All payments will be effective from 1 October 2001 or whenever the person became eligible for NHS funded care.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals are in operation which were financed by use of the Private Finance Initiative; what his estimate is of the number of beds in each hospital; and if he will make a statement. [10746]

  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 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Eight hospitals, financed by the use of the private finance initiative (PFI), are now fully operational. Listed are the details of the number of beds in each of these hospitals. The overall number of beds provided under the PFI is virtually identical to the number which would have been provided had they been built using public capital.

  Scheme

  Total Number of beds under previous provision1

  Total number of beds as proposed in OBC

  Total number of beds provided by PFI solution

  Dartford

  Total G&A beds

  416

  360

  362

  Maternity

  37

  40

  40

  Total beds

  453

  400

  402

  Carlisle

  Medicine

  —

  252

  216

  Total G&A beds

  452

  —

  —

  Surgical

  —

  155

  144

  Day case beds

  15

  —

  —

  ITU/HDU

  —

  10

  9

  Paediatrics/SCBU

  —

  37

  37

  Total G&A beds

  —

  426

  406

  Maternity

  —

  48

  38

  Total beds

  467

  474

  444

  South Bucks

  Acute

  304

  331

  331

  General

  193

  153

  158

  Total G&A beds

  497

  484

  489

  Maternity

  53

  53

  53

  Total beds

  550

  537

  542

  Norfolk and Norwich

  Intensive

  44

  53

  33

  General and acute

  855

  689

  833

  Total G&A beds

  899

  742

  866

  Maternity

  56

  67

  67

  Total beds

  955

  809

  953

  North Durham

  Total G&A beds

  464

  2533

  443

  Maternity

  263

  33

  Day case

  24

  32

  48

  Total beds

  551

  565

  524

  Greenwich

  Total G&A beds

  474

  504

  447

  Maternity

  37

  40

  37

  Mental health

  77

  77

  87

  Total beds

  588

  621

  571

  1028W

  Scheme

  Total number of beds previous provision1

  The total Number of beds as proposed in the OBC

  Total Number of beds provided by PFI solution

  Calderdale

  Surgical

  127

  116

  116

  Medical

  142

  122

  122

  Elderly

  177

  149

  149

  SCBU

  18

  14

  14

  ITU/HDU

  5

  16

  16

  Total G&A beds

  469

  417

  417

  Mental Health

  135

  78

  78

  Women/children

  100

  74

  74

  Day case

  46

  35

  35

  Private patients beds

  —

  10

  10

  Total beds

  750

  614

  614

  South Manchester

  Adult medical

  363

  313

  213

  Surgery

  363

  286

  286

  paediatric

  68

  60

  60

  Total G&A beds

  794

  659

  659

  Additional Surgical

  —

  —

  60

  Maternity

  39

  33

  37

  Medical rehabilitation

  82

  50

  33

  Mental health

  143

  77

  77

  Unallocated

  38

  63

  91

  Day case

  66

  66

  74

  Total beds

  1,162

  948

  1,031

  1 As a June 2000

  2 Includes day case

  Biological Agents
  Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has taken to prepare hospitals to deal with civilian casualties from an attack with biological agents. [12858]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Plans to deal with civilian casualties from a deliberate release of a biological agent have built upon guidance issued to the national health service and regional directors of public health, in 1998, entitled "Planning for major incidents". Specific guidance to help plan the NHS response "Deliberate release of Biological and Chemical agents" was sent out to regional directors of public Health in March 2000. Since 11 September, additional guidance has been sent to regional directors of public health and all health authorities to plan for mass casualty incidents and responses to chemical/biological incidents.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has sufficient stockpiles of vaccines, anti-toxin and antibiotics to protect the civilian population in the event of attack by susceptible biological agents; and if he would make a statement. [12859]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.
  1029W
  The Department of Health has extensive contingency planning in place. This includes arrangements to mitigate the effects of a terrorist act and to ensure response and recovery in conjunction with other Government Departments, the NHS and key public health agencies. Strategic stocks of vaccine and antibiotics are in place. We are securing stockpiles of anti-toxin, subject to limited availability worldwide. For security reasons, details of stocks will not be revealed.

  Infectious Diseases
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make funds available to the High Security Infectious Diseases Unit in addition to those specified under the Centrally Funded Initiatives and Special Allocations allocations. [12715]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 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.

  We already provide funding, based on past and current usage, to enable the high security Infectious Disease Units in London and Newcastle to remain in a state of readiness to receive and care for patients who may be suffering from highly infectious diseases.

  MS Treatment (Cannabis Derivatives)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the results of the trials of cannabis derivatives in the treatment of MS sufferers. [14800]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on 18 October 2001, Official Report, columns 1345–6W.

  NHS Magazine
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which officials in his Department are responsible for approving the content of NHS Magazine. [15323]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  A wide range of officials approve the content of the NHS magazine depending on the particular areas the articles cover. Ministers do not see the content of the magazine prior to publication.
  1030W

  Pneumococcal Vaccinations
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of older people(a) in England and (b) in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East who have benefited from (i) subsidised and (ii) free pneumococcal and flu vaccinations. [16211]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Final monitoring figures received from flu co-ordinators nationally report that, at 31 December 2001, 5,113,556–68 per cent. of those aged 65 years and over—received their flu immunisation. For the same period, Tees health authority report that 58,202 (67.8 per cent.) received their flu immunisation.

  Pneumococcal vaccine is recommended to those based on underlying ill health rather than age. The Department does not therefore hold data on the number of immunisations given by age group. Figures obtained from the Prescribing Analysis and Cost (PACT) system for the period December 2000 to November 2001 show that 486,000 prescriptions for pneumococcal vaccine were dispensed nationally and 4,800 for Tees health authority.

  CT Scanners
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many CT scanners there are per million of the population for(a) Merseyside and Cheshire, (b) Greater Manchester, (c) Lancashire and south Cumbria and (d) the north-west region. [19908]

  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.

  The information requested can be found in the following table:

  Area

  Number of CT scanners

  Resident population1(Million)

  Number of CT scanners per million population1

  Greater Manchester and Cheshire

  21

  2.7

  7.7

  Lancashire and south Cumbria

  8

  1.6

  5.0

  Merseyside and Cheshire

  16

  2.3

  7.0

  North west region

  45

  6.6

  6.8

  England

  285

  50

  5.7

  1 Approximate

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 17 October from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (reference POH(4)5009/19). [23276]

  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
  1031W
  my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  A reply was sent on 20 December 2001.

  National Clinical Directors
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the identity and sphere of competence of each tsar working on behalf of(a) his Department and (b) the NHS. [24600]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The seven national clinical directors and their spheres of competence are:
  Professor Ian Philp, the National Director for Older People's Services, is responsible for leading the implementation of the national service framework for older people which sets the Government standards for the health and social care for older people in England. Professor Philp is Honorary Consultant Physician, Northern General Hospital, with responsibility for the rehabilitation of frail older people. His team won the UK Hospital Doctor of the Year Award (Older People's category) in 1998. He continues to see patients at the Northern General Hospital one day per week. His research activity is on assessing the needs of older people and their family carers. He was Scientist-in-Charge of several large European Community-funded programmes and has published widely on this topic.
  Professor Mike Richards, is responsible for spearheading the development and implementation of cancer policy for the Department/NHS. Professor Richards has extensive experience in both medical oncology and palliative medicine. He was a senior lecturer and Reader in Medical Oncology before taking up the post of Professor of Palliative Medicine at Guy's and St. Thomas' in 1995.
  Dr. David Colin-Thome, is responsible for primary care. Dr. Colin-Thome's key role is to aid the development of primary care within the Department and in the national health service and to contribute to implementing the primary care elements of the NHS plan. Particular areas of work within the Department are: ensuring that the policy on general practitioners who have special clinical interests is implemented, as is the delivery of national service frameworks in primary care. He was a Fellow and proposed visiting professor at Manchester University and a former director of primary care at both north-west and London regional offices. Dr. Colin-Thome continues his GP work on a part-time basis.
  Professor Al Aynsley-Green, the National Clinical Director for Children is leading the work of the children's task force and the development of the children's national service framework (NSF). Professor Aynsley-Green is the Nuffield Professor of Child Health at the Institute of Child Health, University College London and a practising paediatrician at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust. He is a member of the team whose submission led to the Queen's Anniversary Prize being awarded in 2001 to the Institute of Child Health. He is also president of the Association of Professors in Paediatrics and an elected member of the Council of The Academy of Medical Sciences. He holds prestigious grants for his research in child life and health.

  Professor Aidan Halligan, has a dual role as National Director of Clinical Governance for the NHS and Director of the NHS Clinical Governance Support Team, now part of the Modernisation Agency. Professor Halligan was appointed in September 1999, and led the creation of a multi-disciplinary team to work with the NHS, to support the implementation of clinical governance. Professor Halligan has valuable experience of service
  1032W
  redesign and patient centred quality improvement from his work at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. Professor Halligan is Professor of Fetal-Maternal Medicine at the University of Leicester and prior to appointment was Head of Obstetrics at Leicester Royal Infirmary. He retains a clinical and research commitment and sees patients one day a week.
  Professor Louis Appleby, is Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Manchester where he leads major research units on suicide and on post-natal mental illness. Since 1996, he has been Director of the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness, whose recommendations formed the basis of standard 7 of the NSF on mental health—this standard is about suicide prevention. He has been a consultant psychiatrist since 1991, working in Manchester.
  Dr. Roger Boyle, is responsible for implementing the national service framework for coronary heart disease (CHD). Qualified from the London Hospital Medical College in 1972, Dr. Boyle has been a consultant cardiologist in York since 1983. He is a member of the Council of the British Cardiac Society and is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and the European Society of Cardiology. Dr. Boyle is a member of the external reference group that drew up the national service framework for CHD and chairman of the focus group on acute presentations as well as chairing the national task force for coronary heart disease.

  MMR Vaccination
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to study the incidence of autism in(a) children immunised with MMR and (b) children who have not been given MMR jabs. [24277]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The cause of autism is not yet known and many factors may play a role. The recently completed Medical Research Council (MRC) review of the epidemiology and causes of autism concludes that the strongest evidence to date is for a major genetic component. It says that methodological differences between studies, changes in diagnostic practice, and increased public and professional awareness are likely causes of apparent increases in prevalence but notes that it is not yet clear whether these factors account for it all.

  A number of studies, including one commissioned by the Medicines Control Agency have examined the postulated link between measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and autism and have found no association. Two of these studies (Fombonne et al, Paediatrics, 2001 and Hiejbel and Gillberg, Autism, 1998) have specifically looked at rates of autism in populations who have had MMR and populations who have not had MMR using consistent definitions of autism. These studies did not find an increased reported rate of autism in MMR immunised children when compared with children who had not had MMR. Taylor et al, Lancet 1999, looked at the rate of MMR immunisation in autistic children in north Thames and found no significant difference when compared with the rate of MMR immunisation among all children in north Thames. A follow-up study (Vaccine 2001) showed no temporal association between MMR and onset of autism at any time. In February 2002, the Public Health Laboratory Service published a further study investigating MMR, regressive autism and bowel symptoms. This study compared the proportion of autistic children with bowel

  1033W
  or developmental regression over a 20-year period from 1979, a period when MMR vaccine was introduced in the United Kingdom. They showed that there was no change in the proportion of children with regression or bowel symptoms during this time, irrespective of whether they had had MMR or not (Taylor et al, BMJ 2002, 324; 393–6).

  In addition to the above, an ongoing study funded by the MRC and led by Professor Andrew Hall, is investigating possible causes of autism. This study will examine whether autistic children have a history of other conditions or medical problems, for example, problems during birth. This study, which examines a representative sample of health records drawn from over two million people registered with 300 general practices across the UK, will also look at autism and the MMR vaccine.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on what guidance he gives to GPs seeking to expel patients from their list because of a refusal to accept the MMR vaccination. [35424]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The registration/de-registration of patients with a general practitioner is governed by the Doctor's Terms of Service. We strongly endorse the General Medical Council guidance "Duties of A Doctor" which says that it is unacceptable to discriminate against patients on grounds of lifestyle, culture, beliefs, race, colour, sex, sexuality, age, social status or perceived economic worth. Refusal to accept the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination should not therefore be regarded by a general practitioner as a reason for removing somebody from his or her patient list.

  Contingency Fund
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what criteria relating to bed availability are used to assess eligibility for funding from the Department's contingency fund; [27016]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 January 2002]I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Officials within the Department have control over a small fund to deal with particular pressures on local health services. Money is allocated in discussion with regional offices based on well established procedures for monitoring local health services. This monitoring includes information on bed availability.

  NHS Professionals
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures are in place to monitor the performance of NHS professionals; [30768]
  1034W
  (2) if he will list the performance targets that have been set for NHS professionals; [30770]

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) by what means he intends to(a) monitor and (b)) improve the efficiency of NHS professionals; [37374]

  (2) whether the Commission for Health Improvement will be able to inspect and report on the work of NHS professionals. [37373]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Members for the delay in responding to these questions. I refer the hon. Members to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  A national project board with representatives from the NHS and Department of Health is responsible for the extension and development of NHS professionals, including national monitoring and performance of NHS professionals providers. Regional project boards closely manage the development across regions. Also each site has its own project structure to manage and monitor implementation.

  A Code of Practice is being developed to provide a framework for the management of temporary staff to the NHS, including NHS professionals.

  The functions of the Commission for Health Improvement will cover NHS professionals.

  Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what protections are contained within NHS Professionals to ensure nurses do not exceed the 48 hour work week. [30766]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, column 192W.

  Health service circular 2001–002 and the guidance NHS Professionals—"A co-ordinated, NHS-led approach to temporary staffing" sets out national standards for good employment practice in the management of temporary staffing. This includes using the best of modern information technology and call centre technology within agreed national frameworks for terms and conditions of service, delivering high quality patient care through clinical governance.

  NHS Professionals uses software that automatically flags up any shift in which an individual could exceed a 48-hour working week, and this is then raised with the individual.

  Details of any current existing working arrangements are discussed during recruitment and the individual has a responsibility to inform NHS Professionals of any changes to these working hours.

  Also, nurses working periods between rest periods are monitored to ensure that they are getting enough rest between shifts and that their total hours worked are satisfactory. These measures safeguard both the staff and their patients.
  1035W
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses working through NHS Professionals in the week ending 19 January were in receipt of premium payments. [30773]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W).

  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the costs of(a) timesheet processing and (b payroll functions of NHS Professionals are identified and reported. [41728]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  HSC 2001–002 and guidance NHS Professionals—"A co-ordinated, NHS-led approach to temporary staffing" sets out national NHS Professionals standards for good employment practice, including provision for weekly payment upon submission of completed and authorised timesheets.

  Local, regional and national project boards are in place to monitor the implementation of NHS Professionals to meet the required standards.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the clinical guidelines on the assessment and prevention of falls in older people will include information on osteoporosis; and if he will make a statement. [31464]

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason osteoporosis has been left out of NICE's scope for the development of a clinical guideline on the assessment and prevention of falls in older people. [32856]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 November 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Members for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Members to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Following its consultation on the scope of the guideline I understand that NICE decided that osteoporosis could not be given proper consideration as part of a guideline on falls prevention. However, we are considering a proposal for a separate clinical guideline on osteoporosis.

  "The Bulletin"
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the respondents that have expressed concerns over the capacity and capability of primary care trusts to 1036W
  handle the functions to be devolved from the existing health authorities after April, according to Issue 7 of The Bulletin dated January 2002. [34139]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  In the "Shifting the Balance of Power" discussion period, over 400 responses were received from existing primary care trusts (PCTs), health authorities, national health service trusts, local representative committees, voluntary organisations, community health councils, local authorities, universities, royal colleges, major national representative bodies and numerous individuals. Several of these respondents were concerned to some extent that PCTs would not have the capacity or capability come April to undertake their new functions effectively. However, these concerns were raised in the summer of 2001, since then much progress has been made in the development and implementation of PCT policy.

  It would be wrong to expect PCTs to manage their enhanced role and new functions without support. That is why a number of central initiatives, for example the national primary and care trust development programme, have been established to help PCTs develop the expertise and the capacity they will need to take on these functions.

  At a local level PCTs are being encouraged to develop collaborative working arrangements with each other to pool knowledge, and share capacity and expertise.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made under the comprehensive development programme referred to in Issue 7 of "The Bulletin" dated January 2002 in ensuring that primary care trusts are able to handle functions devolved from health authorities. [34138]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  To ensure that primary care trusts are able to handle functions devolved from health authorities in April 2002, a number of central support and development initiatives were established through the primary care trust development programme, the leadership centre, the National Health Service appointments commission and the Modernisation Agency.

  A framework of organisational and person competencies for PCTs and their staff has since been identified after an extensive listening exercise with PCTs and other key stakeholders. This will shortly be available to all PCTs to use as self-assessment tool to help determine the organisation's competence and enable PCTs to build and develop the capability and capacity to deliver on their enhanced role. A series of events have also been held for PCT chief executives and some other senior staff to develop the ideas of PCTs collaborating on areas where self sufficiency is not possible. As a result network arrangements are being put in place over the country.
  1037W
  Appropriate induction and development programmes have also been developed for PCT non executive directors and similar programmes for other leaders are in progress. A number of specialist groups have been established to look in more detail at PCTs' competence on issues such as dentistry and nursing while teams of PCT leaders have also been recruited to look at the major PCT competencies in more detail.

  As more staff are in place and PCTs take on their new functions, development programmes will continue apace. Indeed, the primary care trust development programme has a three year future already planned out. PCT development will be linked increasingly to development initiatives for the new health authorities to ensure that changes across the NHS are delivered in a whole systems way.

  Intermediate Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the intermediate care joint investment plans have been agreed as set out on page 172 of the National Service Framework for Older People milestones. [34024]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  In the light of Shifting the Balance of Power and a government wide drive to reduce levels of bureaucracy, a new approach to planning in the national health service NHS) is being developed.

  Chief executives of the new strategic health authorities (StHAs) will be accountable for delivery of national priorities as part of three-year franchise agreements with the Department. Franchise agreements will be underpinned by an annual delivery agreement (ADA) that outlines the actions and investments required to deliver on the commitments outlined in the Planning and Priorities Framework (2002–03), of which the development of intermediate care services is a key deliverable. Taken together, the components of StHA franchise agreements, including the ADA, will form the key instrument of accountability between the NHS and the Department.

  In the light of these changes and the commitment by Departmental boards to reduce the health and social care planning burden, the NHS will no longer be required to produce either older people's or intermediate care joint investment plans. Any local planning of intermediate care services for 2002–03 that has already taken place will feed in to the new planning arrangements.

  This does not mean that the NHS will cease to plan or invest jointly-it will. Crucially though the quality and effectiveness of that planning will now become the responsibility of the StHAs, who will be responsible for ensuring that adequate mechanisms are set in place at a PCT and trust level to ensure effective joint investment and planning.

  NHS Employment Costs
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated additional cost to the NHS in England and Wales of the changes to employers' national insurance contributions for 2002–03. [34436]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  we are not aware of any changes to employer's national insurance contributions which will give rise to additional costs to the NHS in 2002–03.

  NHS Organisation
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to merge(a) existing and (b) proposed NHS (i) national directors posts, (ii) commissions, (iii) offices, (iv) types of trust, (v) types of authority, (vi) groups, (vii) boards, (viii) committees, (ix) forums, (x) councils and (xi) bodies. [35493]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Proposals for changes to existing NHS bodies were set out in "Shifting the Balance of Power—Securing Delivery", published in July 2002 and "Shifting the Balance of Power—The Next Steps" published in January 2002, copies of which are available in the Library.

  GP Targets
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets he has set for general practitioners to achieve(a) now and (b) by 2004. [36894]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The general practitioner (GP) pay system includes incentives for GPs to deliver targets on childhood immunisation and cervical cytology. These have been a feature of the pay system since 1990. The NHS plan sets targets for modernising primary care services where GPs are expected to contribute to their achievement, including in particular, the access target that by 2004 patients should be able to see a GP within 48 hours or another health professional within 24 hours. None of these targets are, however, for GPs to achieve on their own. It is for primary care trusts locally to lead, organise, support and resource delivery of the NHS plan targets for primary care.

  National Care Standards
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the National Care Standards Regulations. [37135]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: The Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Care Homes Regulations and National Minimum Standards for Older People and for Younger Adults was placed in the Library on 21 January 2002. We will be placing the Regulatory Impact Assessments for Care Homes and for other service areas on the Department of Health's NCSC website shortly.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title in each year since 1997. [26986]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, at column 192W.

  The table shows figures on total spend on advertising including promotional campaigns for the Department for the financial years 1996–97 to 2000–01.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Advertising expenditure

  1996–97

  2.50

  1997–98

  2.04

  1998–99

  8.53

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Antibiotics

  —

  —

  0.91

  —

  0.44

  Blood donation

  0.60

  1.70

  20.22

  —

  —

  CALM

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.05

  Drugs

  —

  —

  0.53

  0.5

  —

  Flu

  —

  —

  —

  2.01

  1.45

  Mind out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.13

  National health service including nurse recruitment

  1.30

  4.90

  4.21

  4.90

  5.0

  NHS direct

  0.12

  0.78

  1.24

  0.28

  1.25

  Organ donation

  0.02

  0.77

  0.47

  0.43

  0.18

  Prescription fraud

  —

  0.38

  —

  0.18

  nil

  Sexwise/teenage pregnancy

  —

  —

  0.39

  1.5

  2.0

  Sexual health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  Social worker recruitment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.0

  Smoking

  —

  —

  36.18

  8.97

  47.79

  Walk in centers

  —

  —

  —

  0.17

  0.02

  Winter

  —

  —

  1.16

  2.03

  0.2

  Total

  2.04

  8.53

  15.31

  20.97

  19.81

  1 Planned (to be updated)

  2 The Department's spend on blood donation advertising reduced in 1999–2000 because most of this activity was funded directly by the national blood authority, who took over full responsibility for this expenditure on 1 April 2000.

  3 Prior to 1999–2000 advertising on smoking was undertaken by the health education Authority (HEA).

  4 Including Asian specialist press.

  All of the above campaigns relate to England only

  A breakdown of expenditure by campaign by month can only be provided at disproportionate costs.
  1040W

  £ million

  Financial year

  Advertising expenditure

  1999–2000

  15.31

  2000–01

  21.97

  National, regional and local media, including newspapers, are considered for all of the Department's advertising campaigns. The selection of media will depend on a number of factors including the nature and complexity of the message and on the target audience.

  For national campaigns a mix of broad sheets and tabloids is frequently used. For regional advertising, space has been taken in many prominent regional newspapers and a number of local ones. A breakdown of expenditure on newspaper advertising by title could only be supplied at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (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) England, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland; and, for the last two parliamentary sessions and the current session, when each advertising campaign (i) began and (ii) ended in (A) England, (B) Wales and (C) Northern Ireland; [37417]

  (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. [37403]

  Ms Blears
  Major advertising campaigns commissioned by the Communications Directorate are tabled as follows (in £ millions).

  Medical Staff Numbers
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses, (b) doctors and (c) consultants

  1041W
  were employed by NHS trusts in Worcesteshire in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2000 and (iv) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [28357]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend 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.

  National health service hospital and community health services (HCHS) nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff and hospital medical staff by NHS Trusts in Worcestershire Health Authority as at 30 September each year from 1998 to 2001.

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  Whole time equivalent

  2,880

  2,790

  2,770

  3,020

  Headcount

  3,950

  3,620

  3,540

  4,020

  Hospital medical staff

  Whole time equivalent

  420

  410

  420

  440

  Headcount

  540

  530

  520

  540

  Medical consultants

  Whole time equivalent

  160

  160

  160

  170

  Headcount

  180

  180

  170

  180

  Notes:

  1. In 1999 and 1998, the HA was made up of the following trusts:

  Alexandra Healthcare NHS Trust

  Kidderminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Worcestershire Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  2. In 2000 the HA was made up of the following trusts which had merged:

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust which included the former:

  Alexandra Healthcare NHS Trust

  Kidderminster Healthcare NHS Trust (part)

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Surgical consultants, nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, support staff and administrative staff employed within Hillingdon HA as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  All Hillingdon HA

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  1,250

  940

  700

  1,180

  1,390

  of which

  Qualified

  1,180

  800

  700

  1,150

  1,360

  Unqualified

  80

  140

  1—

  30

  30

  Support staff

  100

  70

  80

  80

  70

  Administrative staff

  500

  340

  410

  580

  690

  All medical and dental staff

  590

  530

  550

  250

  280

  of which:

  Surgical group consultants

  40

  40

  30

  10

  20

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  910

  940

  700

  950

  1,040

  of which:

  Qualified

  910

  800

  700

  950

  1,040

  Unqualified

  1—

  140

  1—

  1—

  2—

  Support staff

  80

  70

  80

  80

  70

  Administrative staff

  340

  340

  410

  420

  500

  1042W
  3. Worcestershire Community and Mental Health NHS Trust which included the former:

  Kidderminster Healthcare NHS Trust (part)

  Worcestershire Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical work force census

  Department of Health medical and dental census

  The drop in nurse numbers observed between 1998 and 1999 are those for the total number of nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, whereas there was little change in the numbers of qualified staff. The figures also reflect that during this period three acute NHS trusts merged into one. In addition, the community and mental health services across Worcestershire merged into one trust.

  The implementation of recruitment and retention initiatives has increased the number of NHS nurses now working Worcestershire. The NHS vacancy survey shows that between 2000–01 the vacancy rate for qualified nurses in Worcestershire reduced from 1.3 per cent. to 0.8 per cent. The equivalent vacancy rate for consultants between 2000–01 reduced from 4.1 per cent. to 2.9 percent.

  The Government's comprehensive spending review delivered massive additional investment for the NHS. As part of this, we will see 20,000 additional nurses by 2004, 7,500 more consultants, 2,000 more general practitioners and 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were employed in each NHS hospital within the London Borough of Hillingdon in each year since 1997 as(a) surgeons, (b) doctors, (c) nurses, (d) other supportive medical staff, (e) administrative staff and (f) ancillary staff. [28536]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Department does not collect this information by borough. Information available is shown in the table.
  1043W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Surgical consultants, nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, support staff and administrative staff employed within Hillingdon HA as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  All medical and dental staff

  180

  200

  220

  240

  250

  of which:

  Surgical group consultants

  10

  10

  10

  10

  20

  Harefield Hospital NHS Trust

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  340

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  of which:

  Qualified

  270

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Unqualified

  80

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Support staff

  30

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Administrative staff

  160

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  All medical and dental staff

  90

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  of which:

  Surgical group consultants

  1—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Hillingdon PCT

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  3—

  3—

  3—

  230

  350

  of which:

  Qualified

  3—

  3—

  3—

  200

  320

  Unqualified

  3—

  3—

  3—

  30

  30

  Support staff

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  Administrative staff

  3—

  3—

  3—

  160

  190

  All medical and dental staff

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  10

  Surgical group consultants

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Surgical consultants, nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff support staff and administrative staff employed within West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust and its predecessors as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Mount Vernon and Watford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  960

  1,050

  950

  3—

  3—

  of which:

  Qualified

  940

  920

  880

  3—

  3—

  Unqualified

  20

  130

  70

  3—

  3—

  Support staff

  120

  110

  30

  3—

  3—

  Administrative staff

  630

  580

  500

  3—

  3—

  All medical and dental staff

  300

  320

  320

  3—

  3—

  of which:

  Surgical group consultants

  20

  20

  20

  3—

  3—

  St. Albans and Hemel Hempstead NHS Trust

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  780

  670

  840

  3—

  3—

  of which:

  Qualified

  760

  630

  770

  3—

  3—

  Unqualified

  20

  50

  80

  3—

  3—

  Support staff

  80

  70

  50

  3—

  3—

  Administrative staff

  300

  350

  370

  3—

  3—

  All medical and dental staff

  190

  170

  170

  3—

  3—

  of which:

  Surgical group consultants

  10

  10

  10

  3—

  3—

  West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1,670

  2,020

  of which:

  Qualified

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1,500

  1,660

  Unqualified

  3—

  3—

  3—

  170

  360

  Support staff

  3—

  3—

  3—

  60

  70

  Administrative staff

  3—

  3—

  3—

  850

  1,000

  All medical and dental staff

  3—

  3—

  3—

  480

  500

  Surgical group consultants

  3—

  3—

  3—

  40

  40

  1044W

HEALTH

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the questions from the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole tabled on 14 November, (ref 15786 and 15787). [20745]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave on 18 January 2002, Official Report, column 532W.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to answer the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Aylesbury on 26 November, Refs. 19317 and 19322. [25502]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Replies were sent on Monday 14 January and Tuesday 5 February.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the question of 5 December, ref. 21340, from the hon. Member for Buckingham on sickness absence. [24751]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 8 January 2002, Official Report, column 623W.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the written question tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil on 19 December 2001, Ref. 24038. [30316]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 425W.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the written question tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak on 9 January regarding roaccutane. [32725]
  1046W
  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that the under-secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for the under-secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), gave on 30 January 2002,official Report, column 425W.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the secretary of state for Health when he intends to reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead for answer on 18 January (ref 29229), on the Churches' Child Protection Advisory Service. [35243]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend 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.

  I replied to my hon. Friend on 26 February 2002, Official Report, column 1063W.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what target his Department has set for the time taken to answer written parliamentary questions; what the average time taken to answer all parliamentary questions has been in the last year; what assessment he has made of performance against the target for answering written parliamentary questions; and how he monitors the target. [42588]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department aims to answer named day written questions by the date specified, and ordinary written questions within one week, wherever possible. Performance is monitored using a record management database.

  I regret that the other information is not readily available in the form requested because the record management database from which it is drawn is currently not reliable, for the reasons set out in the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W, on parliamentary questions, how many (a) written and (b), pursuant written parliamentary questions have been asked by hon. Members since the start of Session 2001–02. [42618]

  Mr. Milburn
  I estimate that to date in this session, some 5,500 written parliamentary questions have been tabled for the Department, around 170 of which were tabled to follow up points made in previous answers.

  I regret that exact data are not readily available in the form requested because the record management database from which it is drawn is currently not reliable, for the reasons set out in the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Hospital Activity
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health apart from Derriford hospital, how many hospitals in England have activity levels at three times the national average and resources at less than twice the national average. [30709]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  HIV/AIDS
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budget was for HIV/AIDS awareness campaigns in each of the last 10 years. [25115]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend 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.

  Budgets for the last 10 years are shown in the table:

  £ million

  1991–92

  11.00

  1992–93

  11.23

  1993–94

  9.41

  1994–95

  9.87

  1995–96

  8.06

  1996–97

  5.20

  1997–98

  5.20

  1998–99

  4.80

  1999–2000

  5.90

  2000–01

  4.70

  2001–02

  5.05

  The figures provided are not on a consistent basis and for some years also include expenditure on contraceptive education. Prior to 1996–97 figures are based on health education of AIDS/HIV and sexual health plus some contraceptive education, and include a proportion of the health education authority's (as was) overhead costs.

  In addition, funding has been allocated to the NHS annually to carry out HIV prevention activities at local level, including local awareness campaigns. In 2000–01 £55 million was provided for this work.

  This year, further funding of £47.5 million was announced to implement the national sexual health and HIV strategy. This includes a commitment to a national safer sex awareness campaign which we aim to launch this autumn.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to compensate victims of the hepatitis C, who became infected as a result of NHS treatment. [5867]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.
  1048W
  There are no plans to provide financial support for haemophilia patients who became infected with hepatitis C through NHS blood products.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to answer parliamentary question ref. 24038, tabled for answer on 19 December 2001. [26811]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  A reply was sent on 21 February 2002, Official Report, column 424W.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole for answer on 21 November 2001, ref. 15786 and 15787, on NHS dentists. [26894]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  A reply was sent on 18 January 2002, Official Report, column 531W.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was, for each year since 1995, the total number of(a) letters from hon. Members, (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by his Department; what percentage took (A) more than one month and (B) more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and if he will make a statement. [7047]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is in the table.

  Total number of letters received

  Percentage of cases that took more than a month to reply

  Ministerial correspondence

  1995

  16,121

  21

  1996

  11,376

  13

  1997

  14,547

  24

  1998

  10,648

  39

  1999

  18,346

  53

  2000

  18,621

  50

  2001

  19,655

  40

  Correspondence from members of the public

  1995

  —

  —

  1996

  23,028

  —

  1997

  19,738

  96

  1998

  52,656

  37

  1999

  29,528

  44.3

  2000

  39,894

  19.4

  2001

  37,928

  12.5

  1049W
  I regret that, for parliamentary questions, exact data are not readily available in the form requested because the record management database from which it is drawn is currently not reliable, for the reasons set out in the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 24 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. S. Haslett. [42795]

  Ms Blears
  A reply was sent to my right hon. Friend on 12 March.

  Departmental Performance Targets
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each Minister in his Department the performance against target for(a) answering written parliamentary questions and (b) answering letters from hon. Members for each of the last 12 months. [30967]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The available information in relation to correspondence is in the table. The table shows the figures in percentage form.

  Month (2001)

  SOFS

  MS(H)

  MS(C)

  PS(L)

  PS(PH)

  PS(H)

  January

  11

  8

  42

  42

  9

  32

  February

  9

  23

  64

  63

  12

  31

  March

  7

  28

  68

  33

  7

  30

  April

  40

  32

  82

  45

  39

  59

  May

  28

  44

  72

  58

  45

  66

  June

  43

  64

  78

  82

  85

  97

  July

  96

  97

  90

  86

  76

  83

  August

  51

  65

  44

  71

  64

  64

  September

  65

  35

  39

  69

  29

  33

  October

  68

  68

  76

  77

  23

  9

  November

  56

  48

  80

  65

  5

  16

  December

  44

  54

  32

  38

  12

  18

  I regret that the information relating to parliamentary questions cannot be provided because the record management database from which it would be drawn is not now reliable for the reasons set out in 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.

  Mr. Shiblu Rahman
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons for the delay were in the emergency services provision in respect of the death of Mr. Shiblu Rahman on 1 April in Bow; and if he will make a statement. [2720]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the 1050W
  Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The first call received by the London Ambulance Service (LAS) from Mr. Rahman's family was categorised as amber two—serious but not immediately life threatening. The target for the LAS is to reach these calls within 19 minutes, which it did by dispatching a fast response unit to the scene.

  A second call to the LAS provided new information on Mr. Rahman's condition, at which point it would have been more appropriate to upgrade the call to red—immediately life threatening. However, the call was still allocated an amber response. This was an error for which the LAS has apologised. An incident debrief was arranged to establish the circumstances surrounding the call categorisation and ambulance despatch.

  The Rahman family have been kept updated on the investigation carried out by the LAS.

  Cancelled Operations
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list health authorities in England in order of the highest number of(a) cancelled operations and (b) patients not readmitted within one month following the cancellation of an operation. [5882]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The information requested is in the tables that follow. The information is for the latest quarter available, quarter 2, 2001–02.

  Operations should not be cancelled (for non-medical reasons) on the day patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital, and if this happens, patients should be admitted to hospital within one month of the first operation date.

  Cancelled operations for non-clinical reasons, health authorities in England, 2001–02, quarter 2

  Number of last minute cancellations for non-clinical reasons in the quarter

  England

  20,901

  West Surrey Health Commission

  2,290

  Birmingham HA

  1,214

  Avon Health

  951

  Barking and Havering HA

  695

  Oxfordshire HA

  624

  Manchester Health

  523

  Sheffield Health

  509

  South and West Devon HA

  479

  Cambridgeshire HA

  475

  Buckinghamshire HA

  449

  Camden and Islington HA

  420

  Leicester HA

  409

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  320

  North Essex HA

  307

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey HA

  292

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  292

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  279

  1051W

  Cancelled operations for non-clinical reasons, health authorities in England, 2001–02, quarter 2

  Number of last minute cancellations for non-clinical reasons in the quarter

  South Cheshire HA

  273

  St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  268

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  268

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  268

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  262

  Berkshire HA

  257

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  252

  Tees HA

  242

  Norfolk HA

  238

  North Yorkshire HA

  237

  Northamptonshire HA

  235

  Wiltshire HA

  227

  Brent and Harrow HA

  219

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  219

  Dorset HA

  218

  South Essex HA

  212

  West Pennine HA

  201

  Bedfordshire HA

  201

  North Cumbria HA

  196

  South Staffordshire HA

  191

  Worcestershire HA

  191

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  179

  West Kent HA

  179

  North West Lancashire HA

  178

  Leeds HA

  174

  Wakefield HA

  171

  Hertfordshire HA

  171

  North and East Devon HA

  170

  East Lancashire HA

  166

  West Sussex HA

  164

  Morecambe Bay HA

  162

  Shropshire HA

  160

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich HA

  149

  Bradford HA

  144

  Sefton HA

  143

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  142

  Nottingham HA

  141

  Suffolk Health

  134

  East Riding HA

  132

  Croydon HA

  127

  Lincolnshire Health

  127

  East Surrey HA

  120

  North Staffordshire HA

  118

  Liverpool HA

  118

  Somerset HA

  118

  Gloucestershire Health

  114

  North Cheshire Health

  106

  North and Mid-Hampshire HA

  101

  Doncaster HA

  101

  Southern Derbyshire Health

  98

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  97

  Coventry Health

  89

  South Lancashire HA

  89

  North Derbyshire Health

  82

  Cornwall and Isles Of Scilly HA

  81

  South Humber HA

  74

  Hillingdon HA

  73

  Herefordshire HA

  70

  Salford and Trafford HA

  67

  Countv Durham HA

  65

  Dudley HA

  61

  Sandwell HA

  55

  Wirral Health

  55

  East London and The City HA

  54

  Rotherham HA

  53

  Warwickshire HA

  53

  Sunderland HA

  44

  North Nottinghamshire Health

  42

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  40

  East Kent HA

  38

  Walsall HA

  37

  Stockport HA

  29

  Barnsley HA

  12

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  11

  Wolverhampton HA

  9

  1052W

  Cancelled operations for non-clinical reasons, health authorities in England, 2001–02, quarter 2

  Number of last minute cancellations for non-clinical reasons in the quarter

  Northumberland HA

  8

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  3

  Solihull HA

  —

  Source:

  Department of health form QMNG

  Patients not admitted within one month of cancellation for non-clinical reasons, health authorities in England, 2001–02, quarter 2

  Number of patients not admitted within one month of last minute cancellation

  England

  4,684

  Oxfordshire HA

  419

  Avon Health

  339

  Manchester Health

  256

  St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  233

  West Surrey Health Commission

  229

  Barking and Havering HA

  197

  Birmingham HA

  170

  Buckinghamshire HA

  115

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  100

  Wiltshire HA

  92

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  92

  South Staffordshire HA

  90

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  84

  Wakefield HA

  83

  Leeds HA

  82

  South Cheshire HA

  78

  Cambridgeshire HA

  78

  Brent and Harrow HA

  76

  West Pennine HA

  74

  Northamptonshire HA

  73

  Camden and Islington HA

  71

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey HA

  70

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  70

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  66

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  65

  Suffolk Health

  63

  South Essex HA

  59

  Norfolk HA

  59

  Berkshire HA

  58

  West Sussex HA

  57

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  53

  South and West Devon HA

  52

  North and East Devon HA

  52

  North Yorkshire HA

  49

  Shropshire HA

  45

  Morecambe Bay HA

  43

  Croydon HA

  42

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  41

  Tees HA

  39

  East London and The City HA

  38

  North Cumbria HA

  35

  Sheffield Health

  35

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  34

  Bedfordshire HA

  33

  Dorset HA

  32

  Worcestershire HA

  31

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich HA

  27

  Merton. Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  27

  North Staffordshire HA

  23

  Coventry Health

  23

  North Cheshire Health

  22

  Sandwell HA

  21

  East Kent HA

  20

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  19

  County Durham HA

  19

  East Riding HA

  18

  1053W

  Patients not admitted within one month of cancellation for non-clinical reasons, health authorities in England, 2001–02, quarter 2

  Number of patients not admitted within one month of last minute cancellation

  North and Mid Hampshirse HA

  18

  North Essex HA

  17

  East Lancashire HA

  16

  Cornwall and Isles Of Scilly HA

  14

  Rotherham HA

  13

  Warwickshire HA

  13

  Liverpool HA

  13

  Doncaster HA

  12

  Lincolnshire Health

  12

  Salford and Trafford HA

  11

  Herefordshire HA

  10

  Wirral Health

  10

  Gloucestershire Health

  9

  West Kent HA

  9

  Gloucestershire Health

  8

  West Kents HA

  8

  Hertfordshire HA

  7

  Nottingham HA

  4

  Stockport HA

  4

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  2

  Northumberland HA

  2

  Somerset HA

  1

  Sefton HA

  —

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  —

  East Surrey HA

  —

  Southern Derbshire Health

  —

  South Lancashire HA

  —

  North West Lancashire HA

  —

  North Derbyshire Health

  —

  South Humber HA

  —

  Hillingdom HA

  —

  Dudley HA

  —

  Sunderland HA

  —

  North Nottinghamshire Health

  —

  Walsall HA

  —

  Barnsley HA

  —

  Wolverhampton HA

  —

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  —

  Leicester HA

  —

  Bradford HA

  —

  Solihull HA

  —

  Source:

  Department of health form QMNG

  Transplant Centres
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what international models relating to the population size were considered by the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group in reaching their recommendations on transplant centres in England and Wales. [4378]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my light hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood ((Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The configuration and arrangements for cardiothoracic transplantation in United Kingdom are unique. NSCAG considered the research data available internationally and found that there was no comparator that gave useful evidence to determine the configuration.

  Information for Health
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 July 2001,Official Report,
  1054W
  column 664W, on Information for Health, what external appraisal has been completed of (a) the scale of investment required and (b) the feasibility of Information for Health being completed within the resources allocated. [6743]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend 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.

  There has been no external appraisal of the scale of investment required for the completion of the strategy. There are Outline Business Cases and Full Business Cases for the larger elements of the strategy; these are subject to external approval. Other elements of strategic implementation are subject to local choice and individual local health communities decide on the levels of local investment which match local priority. These decisions are subject to local standing financial controls.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of staff employed by his Department by region and nation of the UK; and if he will make a statement. [6864]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The information requested can be found in the table.

  Government office region (GORs)1

  Total

  London

  3,108

  South East

  182

  South West

  231

  West Midlands

  160

  North West

  810

  North East

  158

  Merseyside

  15

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,301

  East Midlands

  64

  Eastern

  131

  Grand total

  6,160

  1 Government Office Regions (GORs) as defined by Cabinet Office for official statistical returns. It excludes data where GOR information is not held.

  Figures relate to England only. The Department has no staff in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

  Source:

  Department of Health August 2001 payroll data

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total expenditure was on(a) advertising, (b) polling, (c) focus groups, (d) design consultants, (e) caterers, (f) production of departmental publications and (g) photographs/photographers by his Department for each year since 1995 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; what was (A) the annual percentage increase in spending on

  1055W
  each category and (B) spending on each category as a percentage of the total departmental running costs; and if he will make a statement. [6898]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The table shows figures on total spend on advertising including promotional campaigns for the Department for the financial years 1996–97 to 2000/01.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Advertising expenditure

  1996–97

  2.50

  1997–98

  2.27

  1998–99

  8.63

  1999–2000

  14.83

  2000–01

  21.12

  The information requested at (b) to (g) above is not collected centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much he forecasts will be spent in the current financial year by his Department as a direct result of measures associated with terrorism. [10234]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The measures we have taken are an essential part of the ongoing planning process, and are closely integrated into the general preparedness of the NHS to deal with a broad range of potential emergencies.

  The Department has also committed considerable staff time and effort into dealing with the consequences of the events of 11 September to which it would be difficult to attribute a specific financial value.

  The Department's annual report will be available later in the year.

  Departmental Promotions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in the financial years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99, (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [12270]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.
  1056W
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. Details of expenditure on advertising for the years 1996–97 to 2000–01 were provided in an answer to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) today.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expenditure has been incurred by his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [27942]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Copies of research reports are not routinely placed in the Library although a list giving details of market and opinion research undertaken by the Department is made available. A list of research projects carried out by the Department in the financial year 1999–2000 was placed in the Library in May 2000. A list of research projects undertaken by the Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies in 2000–01 and 2001–02 is being compiled and will be placed in the Library. These lists may not include all research projects, as some information is not centrally available.

  A list of the Department's expenditure incurred on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research for the last four years could only be provided at disproportionate costs.

  We are committed to consulting and involving the public to help inform both policy formulation and the delivery of better quality public service. Responsive public services are an important part of the Modernising Government initiative.

  We only conduct or commission market or opinion research when it is justified by the needs of the policy or programme and is the most economical, efficient and effective way to achieve the purpose.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions each Minister in his Department has refused to meet an hon. Member in each of the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement about the criteria used to make such decisions. [30966]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the whole ministerial team are happy to meet parliamentary colleagues who wish to see them and do so frequently in a variety of settings.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to extend to patients who are not formally detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 the right to review their admission; [32752]

  (2) if he will take steps to amend the Mental Health Act 1983 to ensure that patients who are formally detained in hospital benefit from the same rights as formally detained patients; [32749]

  (3) if he will make it his policy that disputed informal admissions to hospitals should be processed as though they were formal admissions. [32755]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer her to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  There are two groups of patients who may be treated for a mental disorder without being formally detained under the Mental Health Act 1983: those who have consented and are being treated voluntarily and those who are unable to consent and do not resist treatment.

  The Government are committed to reforming the Mental Health Act 1983 and a Bill will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  The Government do not plan to introduce any new rights for patients who are capable of giving consent to treatment and who do so, as they can stop consenting at any time. Neither detention in hospital nor treatment can lawfully continue if a capable patient withdraws consent, except where formal powers under the legislation are used. Once formal powers are invoked, patients have the benefit of the statutory safeguards which accompany the use of those powers.

  There has been concern about the position of patients who are not formally detained but who have not consented to their treatment. These are patients with long-term incapacity who are therefore unable to consent and young people under 18 who may be treated against their wishes if their parents consent.

  New legislation will bring in measures to protect adult patients who have a long-term incapacity to consent, who are in a hospital or nursing home receiving treatment for a serious mental disorder and who do not resist treatment. These safeguards will include, among other things, the right to challenge admission and treatment before a mental health tribunal. As, in practice, it is unlikely that such patients will be able to take advantage of safeguards for themselves, the legislation will also provide for a nominated person to act on the patient's behalf. Where such patients demonstrate resistance to detention or treatment, they will only be lawfully detained or treated under formal powers. New rights will also be introduced for young people with serious mental disorders who are, nevertheless, able to give a view about their own treatment.

  Surgical Instruments
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the excess(a) mortality and (b) morbidity figures associated with single-use instruments for tonsillectomy in 2001. [32780]

  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.

  The Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) does not collect details of instruments used during tonsil and adenoid surgery or the cause of death. The HES database does show that there were 41,483 finished consultant episodes in tonsil and adenoid surgery in 2000. From January to September 2001 figures show over 20,700 finished consultant episodes reported, but these figures are not complete.

  HES does not record deaths in hospital, but can give no information on cause of death or morbidity measures. As the number of deaths following tonsillectomy is so small (fewer than six), the Department is unable to publish these mortality figures for patient confidentiality reasons.

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the total real terms expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity in each of the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (A) advertising and (B) press and public relations. [36170]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Efficiency Taskforce
  Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 21 January 2002 to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), Official Report, column 673W, for what reason it is not possible to ascribe specific financial savings to the work of the NHS efficiency taskforce. [37431]
  Mr. Hutton: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.
  The taskforce and its members provided general advice on a range of issues relating to performance improvements. It would not be possible without

  1059W
  disproportionate cost to quantify the contribution of specific initiatives that the taskforce made to overall efficiency savings.

  Rehabilitation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve awareness of rehabilitation issues among trainee doctors. [11311]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The content and standard of postgraduate medical training is the responsibility of the UK competent authorities, the Specialist Training Authority (STA) for specialist medicine and, for general practice, the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice (JCPTGP). They are responsible for setting quality standards in postgraduate medical education and practice. They are independent of the Department of Health.

  In addition, the General Medical Council's Education Committee has the general function of promoting high standards of medical education. The committee also co-ordinates all stages of medical education, to ensure that students and newly qualified doctors are equipped with the knowledge, skills and attitudes essential for professional practice.

  NHS Budget
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the annual increase in the NHS budget needed to meet the higher costs associated with(a) an aging population and (b) improved healthcare technology; and if he will make a statement. [10818]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Since there is no single agreed methodology for estimating the impact of aging and improving healthcare technology on the cost of health care, the Department takes an alternative approach to estimating the underlying pressures on health care expenditure. The Department uses the trend increase in activity and expenditure for individual services as an indicator of likely future increases in costs. For example, the Department uses trend growth in the following categories of services:

  Expenditure on FHS drugs;

  Non-elective (emergency) hospital activity; and

  The number of patient visits by community staff.

  These trend increases include the impact of aging population and health care technology. They also capture the effect of other factors, such as changes in public expectations and changes in the underlying health status of the population.

  Treatment Abroad
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients have been sent abroad for operations over the last three months; in which countries they have been treated; what has been the cost saving to the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [11474]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Under the pilot scheme to send national health service patients abroad, currently under way in south-east England, 18 patients travelled for treatment in January and 41 in February. 11 patients travelled for treatment on Friday 1 March and a further 20 are due to travel in the week commencing 4 March. The patients are being treated in France and Germany. We expect up to 200 patients to travel overseas for treatment as part of the pilot.

  The prices for these procedures are commercially confidential. However, they are comparable to the prices charged for individual operations in the United Kingdom private sector.

  The Department has authorised a total of 252 E112 applications since the beginning of December 2001, permitting patients to receive treatment, maternity care or continuing care in other countries of the European Economic Area, funded by the NHS. 72 in December, 94 in January and 86 in February. (These figures are GB figures, as the Department administers this scheme on behalf of Scotland and Wales.) However, the fact that a given number of forms were authorised in a given period does not necessarily mean that the same number of patients actually travelled overseas in that period. The countries involved were Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Spain.

  No information on costs can be provided as invoices are submitted retrospectively.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 159W, how many individuals (i) of pensionable age and (ii) 75 years or older in each year since 1 May 1997 to the latest available date have been living in (a) residential care homes and (b) residential nursing care homes; and in each category how many were (i) self-funding the fees, (ii) partially funding the fees and (iii) being funded wholly by the state in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. [11945]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The information available centrally for people aged 65 and over in England is in the table. The number of people who are resident in residential care homes and paying for

  1061W
  their own care is not collected centrally. A survey conducted in June 2001 estimated the number of people in nursing homes who were paying wholly for their own care, but no information was collected on age.

  Number of places/registered beds in residential and nursing homes for older people (aged 65 and over)1 with Local Authority Supported residents in these homes, 1997 to 2001, England

  Rounded numbers

  As at 31 March

  19972

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number of places in residential care homes3

  261,600

  268,600

  265,100

  263,400

  260,100

  Number of LA supported residents in residential care homes4

  129,400

  135,300

  137,800

  140,100

  138,100

  Number of registered beds in nursing homes5

  154,200

  160,000

  153,500

  149,600

  142,500

  Number of LA supported residents in nursing homes

  60,800

  67,500

  67,500

  67,600

  65,500

  1 Includes older people who are mentally infirm.

  2 Refers to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997 for number of registered beds in nursing homes

  3 Residential places in local authority staffed, voluntary, private, small (homes with less than four places) and dual registered homes

  4 Local authority supported residents in local authority staffed and independent residential care homes. A local authority supported resident is a resident whose fees are paid in part or in full by the local authority. This does not include the number of people who are supported by the NHS or the Department for Work and Pensions.

  5 General and mental nursing homes including private hospitals and clinics.

  Source: Department of Health returns.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings he has had with representatives of the private residential care homes since April 2001. [24341]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  I have met with: Coalition on Charging on 4 September 2001; Rescare on 26 September 2001; and numerous individual care home owners.

  The Under-Secretary, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath met with Lord Haskel and Rosalind Preston, Chair of the Residential Nursing Home for the Jewish Community on Monday 30 April 2001.

  Influenza
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to minimise the effects of a flu epidemic on hospital resources; and if he will make a statement. [13116]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  As with winter 2000–01, we ran a high media profile publicity campaign targeting all those aged 65 years and over as well as those in at risk groups. These are people of all ages with: chronic respiratory disease, including asthma; chronic heart disease; chronic renal disease; diabetes; immunosuppression due to disease or treatment; and those living in long-stay residential and nursing homes or other long-stay facilities.
  1062W
  Information on the number of homes and beds in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

  These people would be most at risk of high morbidity, and would be the people most likely to need hospitalisation if they caught flu.

  We ran a national television advertising campaign, again featuring Sir Henry Cooper, following market research on last year's successful media programme. In addition, there were many other media adverts targeting people aged 65 years and over as well as people in the various clinical risk groups, encouraging them to be immunised.

  This year, 12.2 million doses of influenza vaccine were available for the United Kingdom, some 1.3 million doses more than last year, and enough to achieve our increased minimum target in England of immunising at least 65 per cent. of people aged 65 years and over.

  Final monitoring figures received at the end of December 2001 showed that 68 per cent. of those aged 65 years and over received their flu immunisation. This is three percentage points higher than the target set at the start of the campaign.

  Press Officers and Special Advisers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) press officers and (b) special advisers are employed by his Department; what the numbers were in each of the last five years; and what the cost was in each case. [24676]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Year

  Numbers

  Cost (£)

  Press officers

  1996–97

  15

  1—

  1997–98

  16

  1,061,664

  1063W

  Year

  Numbers

  Cost (£)

  1998–99

  18

  1,122,393

  1999–2000

  21

  1,252,509

  2000–01

  22

  1,232,937

  Special advisers

  1996–97

  2

  2—

  1997–98

  2

  2—

  1998–99

  2

  2—

  1999–2000

  2

  2—

  2000–01

  2

  2—

  1 Details of the costs for press offices are given for the periods 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01. For the period of 1996–97, could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  2 Details of costs for Special Advisers within the individual Departments are not given, in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Older People (Social Services)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the methodology used to derive the 2002–03 allocation as indicated in the document entitled "Improving Social Services for Older People". [28289]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  All councils received additional funding through the Building Care Capacity Grant. The 55 councils with the highest rates, and the most severe problems, with delayed discharge received extra funding. The extra funding to these councils reflected the rate of delayed discharge in that council's area in summer 2001.

  The same criteria were used to distribute the £190 million available for councils through this Grant in 2002–3.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what events(a) he is and (b) other Ministers in his Department are planning to attend as part of the golden jubilee celebrations; and what events his Department is planning to arrange to celebrate the golden jubilee. [33251]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 11 February 2002, Official Report, columns 58–59W.

  General Practitioner (Child Registration)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children aged(a) under five and
  1064W
  (b) five to 18 were known not to be registered with a general practitioner (i) in 2002 and (ii) five years ago; and what proportion they represent of the cohort. [35211]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The Department does not have any data on "non-registered patients".

  BCG Vaccine
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the availability of the BCG vaccine in schools in Buckingham. [5649]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The Government's policy is that all school children should be immunised with BCG between the ages of 10 and 14 if they have not previously been immunised. Initially, in Buckinghamshire, this vaccine was offered to those students who were due to leave school in summer 2001. Where there has been sufficient vaccine and resources, year 10 pupils were also offered testing and immunisation. Any current year 10 and year 11 pupils who have not been offered the vaccine will be offered testing and immunisation during this academic year.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will discuss with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the research of Professor Alan Ebringer of Kings College, associated with BSE, and its implications for multiple sclerosis. [27036]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) provides scientifically based advice to the Department of Health, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Food Standards Agency and the devolved Administrations on matters relating to spongiform encelopathies, taking into account the remits of other bodies with related responsibilities. At SEAC's meeting on 6 February 2002, Professor Ebringer and his colleagues gave a presentation outlining both the autoimmune hypothesis for the cause of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and the diagnostic test that had been developed on the basis of the proposed aetiology. Following a lengthy discussion, SEAC considered that Professor Ebringer supported his theory by using a limited choice of publications, and that he had disregarded much of the published literature.

  SEAC concluded that, on the basis of the results presented, there was little justification at this time for carrying out additional work. The minutes of SEAC's discussions can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/bse-publications/seac/mins06–02–02.pdf

  STI-571
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will ensure that patients participating in the UK trials for the drug STI-571, who receive proven benefits from the drug during the trial, will continue to have STI-571 made available to them, pending the appraisal of the drug by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence; [5667]

  (2) when he will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton on 17 July 2001 (ref: 5667) on STI-571. [19484]

  Ms Blears
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 November 2001, c.1200W]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  A letter about the future provision of Glivec (STI-571), agreed by Ministers and signed by both Neil McKay, the Chief Operating Officer, and Professor Mike Richards, the National Cancer Director, was sent on 24 October to all NHS Regional Directors.

  Novartis, the manufacturers of Glivec, made a limited free supply available for those patients on the Extended Access Programme (EAP) after which it was for health authorities and trusts to discuss the funding of the treatment. However, as the letter of the 24 October makes clear, there is no question of treatment being withdrawn from patients on funding grounds once EAP supplies ends. Treatment should cease only on clinical grounds.

  Those patients involved in trials of Glivec will continue to have their treatments funded by Novartis.

  Herceptin
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Herceptin has received approval from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; what plans he has to increase its availability to NHS patients; and if he will make a statement. [1416]

  Yvette Cooper
  An announcement will be made shortly.

  Hospital Trust Chief Executives
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the salaries of the hospital trust chief executives in England, including bonus payments; and what are the terms of their bonus/incentive schemes. [7597]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Information on the salaries of individual hospital trust chief executives is confidential. National health service trust summarisation schedules for 2000–01 contain information for total remuneration of NHS trust chief executives, which includes basic salary, benefits and
  1066W
  performance related bonuses. The basic salary may include compensation for loss of office. The table showing the breakdown of total remuneration by band has been placed in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2002, refs 40634–7,Official Report, column 343W, what consideration he gives to the application of the Ministerial Code of July 2001 paragraph I (iv), when answering written parliamentary questions. [42401]

  The Prime Minister
  Paragraph 1 of the Ministerial Code sets out Ministers' responsibilities in relation to Parliament and the public.

  LNM Holdings
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 13 February 2002,Official Report, column 198, by what means he was first informed of the donation by Mr. Mittal to the Labour Party registered on 20 June 2001. [41841]

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

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the statement of 5 March 2002, of the Secretary of State for Wales,Official Report, column 169, who, within his office, amended the draft of his letter to the Prime Minister of Romania concerning LNM steel. [41845]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 610–11W.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will extend the principles of ministerial conduct set out in the Ministerial Code to the giving of accurate and truthful information outside Parliament. [42839]

  The Prime Minister
  Paragraph 1 of the Ministerial Code sets out Ministers' responsibilities in relation to Parliament and the public.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement to the House of 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 297, in what form he plans to consult the House (a) before and (b) after commitment of British forces to action in Iraq. [42409]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my statement, and the answer I gave the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 287.

  UK European Commissioner
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Prime Minister what the procedure and timescale will be for the appointment of the UK's Commissioner to the EU in 2005; and if he will submit the role to his candidate for scrutiny by select committees. [42619]
  1068W
  The Prime Minister
  The procedure for selecting, in mid-2004, the President and members of the next European Commission are as set out in the EU Treaty. The role of national parliaments (and their Scrutiny Committees) in the EU generally will be considered in the 'European Convention' that has just started.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Cyprus
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to promote the entry of a reunited Cyprus to the European Union.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we believe that the best chance of a reunited Cyprus joining the European Union lies in supporting the current United Nations-brokered settlement talks in Cyprus. We and other member states are therefore working to support that process and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the Government's special representative, is active in that respect.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she recognise that the amount of time that has been lost as a result of the break in the UN-sponsored talks in the past 18 months means that they are a long way behind the accession negotiations and that it will be hard work to ensure that the two negotiations are within sight of each other when the accession negotiations conclude by the end of this year?
Will she accept that, if we are to ensure that the talks make rapid progress, active diplomacy is needed by the British Government and their new partners not only in the two halves of Nicosia but also in Athens and Ankara?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that it was unfortunate that the talks did not get underway in any real sense until the beginning of December. The noble Lord is right that the accession talks which Cyprus is undertaking with the EU are making good headway. However, now that the talks between the two sides—between Mr Denktas and Mr Clerides—are under way, good progress is being made.
I would not like the noble Lord to think that the EU or the United Kingdom Government were standing back. As I have indicated, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is actively involved in the process. Although neither the EU nor the United Kingdom can be a mediator or broker, we take an active part in advising on the way forward.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, will my noble friend reiterate the views of Her Majesty's Government and the rest of the European Union that the accession of Cyprus to the EU does not depend
678
upon reunification of the island, much as members of both Cypriot communities and others elsewhere want to see that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. However, the United Kingdom strongly supports the discussions under way between the two sides in Cyprus. We also strongly support the accession of Cyprus to the EU. But let me say categorically that neither we nor the European Union believe that such coining together in Cyprus is a precondition for accession. That was made abundantly clear at the Helsinki European Council, but for the purposes of further clarity I repeat that now to your Lordships.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, can the Government explain what incentive there is for Greek Cypriots to reach a settlement on the island when at the same time we are telling them that they can enter the EU without a settlement? Secondly, on the principle of the freedom of movement of persons, is it not inconsistent that in the EU we might have a member nation, the centre of which is patrolled by a United Nations peacekeeping force maintaining the peace between the two parts? Finally, would the Government be better advised to follow the example of the upper House of the Netherlands Parliament and decide not to support accession until there is agreement on the island?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords, emphatically not on the last point—emphatically not. Of course it would be better for the two sides to reach agreement and I believe that the statement of the two leaders, Mr Clerides and Mr Denktas, following the 4th December meeting, made clear that the talks in the United Nations framework at the invitation of the UN Secretary-General and with the help of the special adviser, Mr Alvaro de Soto, were talks in which they were prepared to engage in good faith.
The Secretary-General has requested that we do not discuss publicly the detail of the negotiations—either past negotiations or those currently under way. I believe that that request should be respected. Of course there are difficult issues and we all understand that. However, we have a specific request from the Secretary-General on this issue and I hope that the difficulties which the two sides face will be successfully resolved.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while the division of Cyprus must not be allowed to get in the way of progress in the accession talks to the EU, the accession talks and the EU issue must not be allowed to get in the way of the glimmerings of successful talks at last moving ahead between the North and the Government of Cyprus?
Secondly, if by some miracle after many years the talks make progress, are we standing ready to offer every possible assistance as regards the legal,

679
administrative and restitution issues and the meetings of vast complexity which will arise if reunification at last begins to move ahead?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that we should give all possible help. We have given a very good earnest of that intention in that one of the best diplomatic brains in the country—in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—is already involved. His standing is generally acknowledged and your Lordships do defer to the noble Lord, whom I can see blushing very prettily in his place at the moment. I agree that the accession talks should not get in the way of the talks between Mr Clerides and Mr Denktas. I am happy to say that the accession talks are well advanced. Seven chapters remain to be resolved, but the talks are making excellent progress.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, in echoing what has been said around the House, will Her Majesty's Government ensure that some sympathy is shown to the Turks, who suffered considerably in the 1970s coup d'état? Some regard should be paid to the fact that the problems in Cyprus were, to a large extent, created by the Greek Cypriot community which staged the coup d'état in the early 1970s. I do not wish to dwell on history, but Her Majesty's Government should pay regard to it because history has a nasty habit of coming back.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, attention should be paid to both sides of this difficult question. The workable solution needed cannot be imposed by outsiders. It has to be agreed by the two sides to the discussion and put to the two communities in separate referendums. There is no question of either community being forced into anything. I hope that it is a reasonable assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that not only the two political sides but the two communities must agree any settlement that is made.

Marine Mammals
2.44 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieuasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to reduce the number of marine mammals illegally killed in nets and trawls in British waters.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, research funded by the department has helped to demonstrate where particular problems involving marine mammal casualties occur in international fisheries managed under the common fisheries policy. To resolve this problem, action is required by the Commission. This is why my right honourable friend the Fisheries Minister has written to Commissioner Fischler explaining the trials on separator grids which the Sea Mammal Research Unit will be undertaking
680
on our behalf. He has also called on the Commissioner to be ready to take action to address the problem of cetacean bycatch in EU fisheries through gear adaptations and other restrictions.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Although I understand they are not compulsory, what conclusions have been drawn from the recent research project? As to the new net trials, with the season drawing to a close, when will the trials begin and when will the results be known? Similar schemes have not worked in New Zealand. Since 1st January, no fewer than 1,000 dead dolphins have been washed up on the shores of France and England. What measures have been taken to warn the public of the hazard of putrefying dolphins on the beach transmitting disease?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's final point, I have experienced the stench of rotting dead seagulls, and the smell of putrefying dolphins would make it unlikely that anyone would go near enough to them to constitute a health hazard. It is to be hoped that immediate action would be taken by local environmental health authorities to remove anything that was considered to be a health hazard.
As to the action being taken, since 1990 the UK Government have funded a scheme to investigate, through postmortems, the reasons for strandings. Alongside this, extensive research has been undertaken into bycatch problems with dolphins. That research has demonstrated that there must be international action. Trials of separator grids in the offshore bass fishery are currently under way. I cannot tell the noble Lord exactly when the trials will be completed, but the results will inform on-going work in the lead-up to the review of the common fisheries policy.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Can we be sure that the Government are sufficiently aware that the effect of pollution and legal activity is already a severe threat to the viability of the small marine mammal populations around Europe and our own islands and that illegal actions make matters a great deal worse?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, there is no evidence that the deaths which have occurred have been due to any illegal action by fishermen. That is not to underestimate the importance of supporting the habitats regulations of 1994 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 were anyone deliberately to kill a cetacean. Fishermen are involved, in great detail and very willingly, in the current separator grids trials in the bass fishery. This will help to inform future policy. As I said, there is no evidence at all that fishermen are in any way deliberately killing cetaceans.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that British fishermen are doing nothing illegal when, in the course of their legitimate

681
operations, they find marine creatures such as dolphins unintentionally caught and drowned in their nets, usually drift nets?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I can confirm that to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in regard to British fishermen. We have no evidence that other fishermen are in any way acting illegally. That is why the industry is co-operating in the work that is taking place, particularly in the pelagic water levels, such as the sea bass fishing level, which appear to be the most specific and harshly identified threat to dolphins.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, will the Minister join with me in congratulating the fishermen in Looe, in Cornwall, on their strong promotion of line fishing? Does she believe that consumers buying fish receive sufficient information as to exactly what "dolphin friendly" means?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I suppose that on one level the noble Baroness would expect me to say that the most "dolphin friendly" approach would be not to take the fish at all. I am sure that, as with other food production, consumers want up-to-date and accurate information on origin. I share the noble Baroness's support for the commitment of those fishing in the Celtic Sea in their attempts to overcome a serious problem in terms of the dolphin population.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, has the Minister taken into account research by the New Zealand Government on the use of special netting in an attempt to reduce the number of sea lions in the catch? Is such netting suitable for trials here; indeed, are we using the same type of trial nets? Some of the experiments were set up in 1990. That is a long time ago. Twelve years on, we are still catching hundreds of dolphins. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to examine the broader question of discarded fish? I understand that 25 per cent of our catch is discarded. Is it not time that the Government took action?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, my Lords, we all regret that this happens. We will support any successful action introduced to prevent unnecessary slaughter of fish stocks. Research indicates that the bycatch occurs in fisheries to which other EU vessels have access. Therefore, it is important that any action taken is at EU level. Under the terms of the relevant common fisheries policy legislation, any UK requirements could apply only to UK fishermen.
In terms of the work that is being done, yes, those involved in the research project are fully aware of the research undertaken in New Zealand. The work is of two types: one deals with sonic warning, which can only be effectively used to protect dolphins in the case of nets which are static; in the case of nets at the sea bass level and the pelagic level, it is important that the
682
grid net trials continue. My understanding is that those grid nets have been developed with the benefit of a knowledge of the work being done in New Zealand.

Middle East
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosbyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations have been made to the Government of Israel to cease attacks on the property of the Palestinian Authority, which is essential to its obligation to maintain law and order in its territory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we are greatly concerned by Israeli destruction of Palestinian Authority infrastructure and urge Israel to cease this action. It undermines the authority of President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority's efforts to dismantle terrorist networks, and disrupts Palestinian economic, social and humanitarian development. Following discussion by Ministers at the EU General Affairs Council on 28th January, the EU presidency has formally protested to Foreign Minister Peres over Israeli destruction of EU-funded infrastructure.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in a situation where much of the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority paid for by the European Union has been destroyed—a situation which is sickeningly and terrifyingly getting out of control, with both sides breaking United Nations resolutions and in some cases threatening the whole nature of human values—I suggest to the Minister with great respect that that Answer does not reflect the extreme urgency of the situation. We are looking at a situation becoming so extreme that it could risk a regional world war. In addition, any extension of the war to Iraq could bring about an intensification, and indeed a breach of the anti-terrorist coalition. Will the Minister consider suggesting to the Prime Minister and to others who will be attending the Barcelona summit that the time has come for an EU/United States/friendly Arab power intervention? Sometimes, in situations like this, neither country can move, yet it is desperately necessary for the world, for Israel and for the Palestinian Authority that someone brings this terrible situation to an end.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government are profoundly concerned at the continuing violence in the Middle East. At least 92 Palestinians and 20 Israelis have been killed in the past five days alone. We understand the intense political pressures on the Israeli Government to respond to repeated suicide bombings, and our condemnation of terrorism in all its forms is unequivocal. We look to the Palestinian Authority for a 100 per cent effort to deal with the terrorism. However, a strategy aimed at inflicting maximum pain

683
on Palestinian civilians is not acceptable. It is not an effective basis on which to build peace. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to bring all the pressure to bear that we can. We are doing that through our own efforts through the European Union. The United States is also engaged. But none of us underestimates the gravity of the situation.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I strongly endorse the wording of the Question. Does the Minister agree that there can be only an extremely negative impact on the international coalition, and on Muslim and Arab opinion generally, as a result of our apparent readiness to engage in discussions on an invasion against Iraq—apparently on the grounds that it has contradicted or ignored Security Council resolutions—when that is in contrast to our apparent inability and unwillingness to apply real and effective pressure to restrain Prime Minister Sharon from his appalling behaviour, his flouting of international law and Security Council resolutions and his disproportionate and provocative retaliation against Palestinian attacks?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that I have made it absolutely clear that we are profoundly concerned at the continuing violence and urge both sides to look for a peaceful solution. We are committed to the Tenet plan and the Mitchell plan. We cannot ignore the threat that Iraq poses to the international community, but, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, no decision has been taken to launch military action.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the only hope for the Middle East is if the parties are prepared to return to the negotiating table? Does she accept that attacks by both sides must stop if that is to happen? Has she considered the attacks by suicide bombers and other terrorists, unrestrained by the Palestinian Authority, before the attacks referred to by the noble Baroness? Does she consider that the suicide bombings occurred, and still occur, because the Palestinian Authority cannot prevent them, or could prevent them and does not wish to?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that I have made myself absolutely clear. The British Government consider that the actions taken by the IDF in the past week have been excessive and counter-productive. But we also feel that the Palestinian Authority must make a 100 per cent effort to curb the actions of the armed extremists and prevent ceasefire violations. Both parties should de-escalate the situation, exercise restraint and start the work of consolidating the ceasefire and implementing the Tenet security workplan. There is also some hope in the Saudi initiative that has been proposed.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, while the curtailment of Saddam Hussein and any possible
684
attack on Iraq is—as the Americans have made clear— some considerable time away and calmness and measured responses are needed on that front, I am sure that the Minister agrees, as we all do, that the hideous downward spiral of violence between Israel and Palestine is immediate and horrific, and that we must mobilise every effort to find a way forward. Does she agree that the Saudi Arabian plan seems to have a core of common sense to it? Is it supported by Her Majesty's Government? Does she agree that Ariel Sharon's concession that he will now no longer hold out for seven quiet days before he negotiates is worth building on? Finally, does she agree that in addition to anything that we may do through the European Union, we should use our own prestige, which is not inconsiderable, to build on the possible glimmer of hope that those two developments now provide?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I absolutely agree that we must mobilise every effort. We welcome the Saudi initiative, as I have said before. Crown Prince Abdullah has a vision of full peace between Israel and Arab states before withdrawals. That is a glimmer of hope in the current crisis.

Gibraltar
3 p.m.
Lord Waddingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have sought an undertaking from the Government of Spain that, in the event of the people of Gibraltar rejecting in a referendum any joint proposals put forward by Britain and Spain, Spain will respect that decision of the people of Gibraltar and will treat Gibraltarians as they are entitled to be treated and not interfere with their rights of free movement.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government of Spain are fully aware of the public statements made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers that in the event of the people of Gibraltar rejecting any joint proposals put forward by Britain and Spain, Her Majesty's Government will continue to stand by the people of Gibraltar politically, legally and morally. This is not a matter for negotiation with Spain.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Is she aware that the Government have tended to give the impression that they are more interested in building a firm alliance with Spain within the European Union than with looking after the legal rights of the people of Gibraltar in a British possession? The communiqué after the meeting in Barcelona referred to more telephone numbers, but not to free movement across the border. Would it not have been better to have made absolutely plain to Spain that there would be no chance whatever of the people of Gibraltar agreeing to a deal so long as

685
harassment at the border continued? Would it not have been better to have made plain at that stage that if harassment continued, we would have no option but to commence proceedings in the European Court under Article 227?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord should not underestimate the importance to the people of Gibraltar of the increase in the number of telephone lines available. Having so few lines has been a considerable difficulty for them. The increase from 30,000 to 100,000 is very welcome. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord that: the Government have given the impression that he imputes to us. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has gone out of his way to say that Her Majesty's Government will stand by the people of Gibraltar. I quoted his words exactly when I said that we would stand by them legally, politically and morally. The Government stand by that.
Of course, it must be common sense to our friends in Spain, as it is to us, that in order to get any referendum on joint proposals through, there must be attractions for the people of Gibraltar. They must see that it is in their interests. What happens in a referendum will be the great test. That is the ultimate safeguard for the people of Gibraltar.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, have the Government ever considered returning the sovereignty of Gibraltar to Spain in return for a long and renewable lease at a peanut rent? Has that suggestion been made to either Spain or Gibraltar?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lady knows, we are bound by the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht. Stepping outside the terms of that treaty is enormously difficult. I have often heard it suggested that, given how old the treaty is, we should not be bound by it. However, if we were to step aside from one part of the Treaty of Utrecht, we would thereby be giving up our rights in Gibraltar by another means. That would be as unacceptable to the people of Gibraltar as would giving away their rights through any sort of negotiation without a referendum. The position is clear. We are making progress with the negotiations and they will be put to the people of Gibraltar, but they must be put within the constitutional framework, which includes the Treaty of Utrecht.
Lord Brett: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding the assurances given, there is great concern on the Rock—so much so that there is to be a general strike on Monday of next week? Trade unions representing a spectrum of employment in Gibraltar are taking that action because of their concerns. A delegation from the Gibraltar Trades Council will be visiting the United Kingdom next week. Will the Minister receive that delegation to hear from its members at first hand and to repeat the assurances that she has given to the House?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware that there is a great deal of concern on the Rock
686
about the negotiations. We all understand that. The issue of Gibraltar has been a matter of enormous difficulty to the people of Gibraltar and to the governments of Spain and the United Kingdom for 300 years. That is why it is so important for us to pursue the negotiations, which, I remind the House, were set up under the Brussels arrangements, which were put into place by the Conservatives in 1984. My noble friend asks whether I would receive a delegation. It is the business of my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe to receive such a delegation, but should my right honourable friend be out of the country or unable for another reason to receive the delegation, I shall indeed do so.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, if the proposals for joint responsibility between Britain and Spain are to be carried forward any further, I suggest that the Government might study the example of the British-French condominium of the New Hebrides, now Vanuatu, which I had the privilege of bringing to independence 20 years ago, to see whether any lessons can be learnt from that rather unsatisfactory example.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are many examples of how different governments have dealt with our former territories. The problem with Gibraltar is that its position is virtually unique—I know that that cannot be right; either it is unique or it is not. I believe that it is unique because of the position of the Treaty of Utrecht. As I tried to point out to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, a few moments ago, because of that treaty we cannot cede independence to the people of Gibraltar, because the terms of the treaty mean that once we relinquish our rights in Gibraltar, they revert automatically to Spain. Although there are many interesting examples of what has been done by a number of countries, including our own experience of dealing with our territories, the position of Gibraltar is unique.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (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 CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 44 [Persons acting in an anti-social manner]:
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 270:
Page 38, line 28, after "orders))," insert "based on a complaint from any member of the public affected by the anti-social behaviour in question,"
The noble Viscount said: The amendment would restrict the power of a constable, when acting on a complaint about someone behaving in an anti-social manner, so that he could gain access only if a member of the public who was affected by the anti-social behaviour in question had complained. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: The amendment looks seductive, but we all know that anti-social behaviour can take many forms, sometimes involving the neighbours, or children of neighbours, of the person who is getting the rough end of the stick. Many people might think that any upstanding citizen would complain about that, but I do not think that that is so, simply because when the perpetrators live close to the victims they can intimidate them and make sure that the complainant knows that they know that the complaint has been made.
If police officers were reliant on a complaint being made before they could exercise the power, that would severely limit its effectiveness. I freely admit that antisocial behaviour orders got off to a slow start but they are certainly moving ahead now. The changes proposed in the Bill, and in the amendments I shall bring forward later, will enable them to have a much wider effect. We must enable police officers to intervene where they believe that anti-social behaviour is causing, or is likely to cause, distress rather than solely when there is a complaint. Seductive as the amendment is, I hope that the noble Viscount will not press it.
Lord Dholakia: A large number of neighbourhood watch schemes exist across the country. From time to time many of them liaise closely with police forces. If the amendment is not accepted, I believe that they will be ruled out as regards effectively lodging a complaint of anti-social behaviour.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: Circumstances arise, especially late at night but not only then, in which antisocial behaviour takes place within view of a constable. However, no member of the public may be about at the time to make a complaint. It would be totally unacceptable for the police to have in a sense both hands tied behind their back in those circumstances and to be unable to take the action expected of them to nip that anti-social behaviour in the bud.
Lord Borrie: It is a great pity that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, did not expand on his remarks. I was struggling to get into the Chamber and was not in my place. Therefore, I ask the Committee's indulgence for intervening at this somewhat late stage. I had hoped that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, would explain the amendment as the comments of my
688
noble friend Lord Corbett, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the Minister surely make clear that a victim, although being the most appropriate person to complain, often does not feel up to it or is too nervous. However, a police constable may have seen everything that happened. Why should not the matter be left at that instead of being confined in the way the amendment suggests?
Lord Renton: So far as I remember, the offence of behaving in an anti-social manner was introduced for the first time in our law by Section 1 of the 1998 Act. The question whether Clause 44 will operate as the Government hope must depend upon any interpretation that the courts have already given to Section 1 of the 1998 Act. Can the Minister give any indication of what has happened under that head?
3.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that in later amendments—their numbers escape me at the moment—the Government propose to extend antisocial behaviour orders across boundaries and make them travel with the person concerned. At that point I shall make a much more extensive speech about antisocial behaviour per se. So far, fewer than 500 such orders have been issued. They are becoming extremely successful, but I am aware from experience in my former constituency that they got off to a slow start.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: Does the Minister agree with me that the whole purpose of the anti-social behaviour order was to remove the difficulty of witnesses giving evidence in cases of anti-social behaviour? Anything that neuters that objective—as the amendment does—should not be proceeded with. Clearly, the police are independent witnesses, as it were. My understanding of the purpose of the antisocial behaviour order was that it should become easier to prosecute offenders without necessarily relying totally on the evidence of the people involved, for example, witnesses and the people living next door. The amendment seems to me to require those people to get involved again. In a sense it negates the whole purpose of the original anti-social behaviour order.
Lord Bradshaw: That intervention is unhelpful. The greatest danger the police face is that witnesses will not be willing to come forward to support an anti-social behaviour order because they fear intimidation. If people were willing to give such information to a police officer, they would constitute valuable witnesses. They should be encouraged to come forward.
Viscount Bridgeman: I have been interested to hear the contributions. With the leave of the Committee, I wish to speak of our intention to oppose Clause 44 standing part of the Bill. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that. I understand that the measure we are discussing is a new departure and that hitherto decisions on behaviour of this kind have been taken by the courts rather than by constables. The measure puts a large onus on constables. I was

689
interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said about the necessity of, and the desirability for, witnesses to come forward wherever possible.
Lord Elton: I am slightly confused as to what we are doing. Amendment No. 270 and the Question that Clause 44 stand part of the Bill are not grouped. I imagine that we shall have a separate debate on the Question that Clause 44 stand part of the Bill. If we are rather surprisingly to roll the two matters together, some Members of the Committee may want to repeat or embellish what they have already said. However, I imagine that when the Minister has replied again, my noble friend will withdraw Amendment No. 270 and we shall then discuss the Question that Clause 44 stand part of the Bill. Am I right?
Viscount Bridgeman: That is correct. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 44 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Bridgeman: I have already spoken briefly on this matter. It is our contention that this should be a matter for the courts rather than constables. I note that later the Minister will speak at length on antisocial behaviour. I shall be interested to hear his comments.
Lord Rooker: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I mention some points on Clause 44, but they are not the more substantive points I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, which will be discussed on Amendments Nos. 298A, B, C, D, E and F.
Clause 44 is included in the Bill as we know that antisocial behaviour blights lives and communities. We have already extended the range of tools to tackle such behaviour. There are new powers to curtail the activities of people who indulge in persistent antisocial behaviour. The courts have a wide range of sentences available.
Clause 44 is one of a number of provisions in the Bill for extending the armoury of powers to combat antisocial behaviour more effectively. The new power for a police officer to require a person acting in an antisocial manner to give his name and address will mirror the similar power to he afforded community support officers and accredited community safety officers. This will enable joint operations to be mounted by a mix of police officers, Specials and a designated or accredited person. The ability to ask for the name and address of a person believed to be acting in an anti-social manner—that is, in a manner that causes distress, harassment or alarm to one or more people—will enable them to identify the persons involved rather than relying on a visual identification. The fear of crime, which has been a thread throughout our debates in Committee, and the effects of anti-social behaviour can prevent witnesses coming forward, particularly if they have to live next door to the "yobs" who
690
intimidate them with their aggressive behaviour. The ability to identify those youths has obvious benefits in addressing anti-social behaviour. The mere fact of a police constable requesting that information may be enough to disperse the group and snuff out the antisocial behaviour in the bud. That has not been done before and we are determined to reduce the incidence. The proposal involves a modest extension of our powers in respect of anti-social behaviour orders. I reiterate that the power will be available to constables and to community support officers, which we have already discussed.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Lord Marlesfordmoved Amendment No. 270A:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
"POWER TO SEARCH FOR FIREARMS
If a police constable has reason to believe that a person or persons in a particular area may be carrying firearms, he may arrange—

(a) for the area to be sealed off; and

(b) for the searching for firearms of any people or vehicles in that area, by whatever means he considers appropriate."

The noble Lord said: My amendment has a very simple purpose. It is to assist the police to detect and remove guns before they are used. By "used" I do not mean before someone is shot; that, thank goodness, is still a very small part of gun crime, although the figures are rising in a most alarming manner. By "used" I mean before someone is threatened with a gun in a criminal act.
It is, of course, a probing amendment. I do not expect the Minister to leap up and say, "The amendment is exactly what we want and we shall include it in the Bill right away". Equally, I do not expect the Minister to say that there are already quite sufficient powers to stop and search and that the amendment is unnecessary. It is likely that the Home Office briefing, initially at least, will have been along those lines because the Home Office does not welcome outsiders' ideas on how to deal with crime. To Home Office officials, Members of Parliament are just as much outsiders as any other interfering member of the public. But I hope that the Minister is made of sterner stuff than that. There are of course powers to stop and search if a police officer thinks that someone may be carrying a firearm, but that is not what my amendment is about.
My amendment would do two things. First, it would send a message that the Government are deadly serious about the criminal use of firearms and that they are determined to take any action that will reduce it by making the possession of a gun—real or replica—on the streets a very risky undertaking for the person carrying the gun. Secondly, when and where there is reason to think that someone in a particular area may be carrying a firearm, the amendment would give the police the power to seal off the area and make a rapid scan. The area might be a street, part of a street, a club, a cinema or a platform or some other part of a station; in other words, any public place to which the public are admitted. I recognise that the amendment's wording in

691
that and other respects is probably imperfect. However, I hope that its suggestion receives serious consideration.
In the case of pedestrians, the use of hand-held metal detectors would be an obvious, largely foolproof and uninvasive method of detection. The searching of cars would obviously be harder and might be less effective. I also recognise that when those carrying guns become aware of a police operation, they may seek to dump the guns. That, in many cases, should enable the police to recover the guns, which, after all, is the primary object of the exercise.
The use of the powers would take time to develop. Although my amendment refers to "a police constable", the decision to seal and search would in practice almost certainly be taken at a much more senior level. All of that would be for chief officers to develop in their own areas. In due course, the techniques would be honed towards perfection for particular areas and problems. I am confident that police authorities would use their imagination, initiative and intelligence to develop the effective use of the power that my amendment would give them.
We also have to take into account the recent announcement by the Home Secretary about new police procedures to record stop and search. The only way in which that could be effective in practical terms would be for some people to have some form of machine-readable identity documents. The serious and growing threat to our inner cities from gun crime now requires dramatic action to get the guns and to reassure a very worried public.
There can be no greater testimony to the seriousness of the problem than that given by the Labour Member of Parliament for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, Ms Diane Abbott. Less than two weeks ago—on 28th February—she secured an Adjournment debate on gun crime. If I may, I should like to quote a little of her speech. She said,
"gun crime is casting a terrible shadow over my constituents. Hackney residents … are genuinely frightened … One stretch of road in Clapton in my constituency is known as murder mile.
My constituents are frightened of waking up to find a corpse outside their house … People pull guns in Hackney because of a dispute over a girl or merely to demonstrate how hard they are … Walking the streets of Hackney and elsewhere in London, we have the young man who is steeped in a gun culture. He is routinely armed and will use his gun not just to pursue a specific criminal activity but in domestic disputes, to show how tough he is and because he has lost his temper with someone in a nightclub".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/02; cols. 939–940.]
She went on to say:
"The police believe strongly that we need to raise the minimum sentence for possession of a firearm … We are talking about young men who swagger about all day long with firearms … If people knew that they would do a minimum of five years if they were found with a gun, they would be deterred from holding guns for others".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/02; col. 942.]
It is to deal with that chilling description, from someone who knows what she is talking about and who represents a part of an inner city in which this is a real problem, that my amendment seeks to make a contribution.
692
We also have to learn from the United States, a country in which, sadly—due to a misplaced comma in the original constitution—gun law still rules in many areas. In New York, however, the tough regime of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has meant that since 1994, 90,000 guns have been seized from the streets and shootings have plummeted by more than 74 per cent. Those of us who visit the Big Apple know that New York has gone from being the murder capital of the world to being the safest large city in America. Those noble Lords who have visited New York will have noticed that cabs no longer routinely have bullet-proof glass between passenger and driver.
Thank God we are not starting from anything like the level of gun crime that Mayor Giuliani inherited. But in New York gun crime is declining; in Britain, we are moving in the wrong direction. It is to changing that trend that my amendment is directed. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise to support my noble friend's amendment and to express the hope that the Government will consider the matter seriously. The Bill offers us an opportunity to do something about this problem. Bills of this nature that create such an opportunity do not often come along.
My noble friend said it all—that this is a problem that causes fear, anger and frustration in the community. It is no satisfaction to anyone that hardly a day goes by without one reading of a gun crime being committed somewhere—all too often in London, but London does not have a monopoly on such offences.
This is a serious matter and the amendment would require some additions. For example, one would definitely need to be able to search property in addition to "people or vehicles". The Home Secretary has, in a sense, already moved in that direction when he re-opened the question of stop-and-search powers. It is possible that the administrative burden that he has imposed on it will mean that, in practice, the police are reluctant to use it because of the time that they have to spend filling out the forms that result from using the power.
However, that is a separate matter. We are considering the ends. We certainly support the ends for which everyone is calling. I hope that the Minister will find it practical to consider this issue helpfully before we reach a later stage of the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: From these Benches we lend support for the amendment. It relates to a matter of serious concern to anyone who has opened the newspapers, particularly the Evening Standard, and has read the series of articles written about crime in London. The extent of gun crimes, which create so much insecurity among various communities, causes great concern to a large number of people. I believe that the noble Lord was right to draw attention to what Diane Abbott, the Member of Parliament for Hackney, said. Anyone who sees the photographs of the dead people will

693
understand the extent of black-on-black crime in London, which is also a matter of serious concern and, to a great extent, is limited to young people.
I ask the Minister whether we require an amendment to the Bill in order to put in place what the amendment seeks to achieve or whether it is possible, under the regulatory powers of the Home Secretary in relation to stop and search, to extend the provision in a way that would incorporate the noble Lord's suggestion. If that is not possible, then I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter seriously so that a more suitable amendment can be tabled for the Report stage, which we shall reach soon after Easter.
Lord Elton: I support the proposal with some hesitation because I find it difficult to believe that such powers do not already exist. If they do not, they certainly should.
Earl Attlee: I rise briefly to support my noble friend. I have a great fear that the police are losing control on this issue. My noble friend mentioned metal detectors. Can the Minister say what part back-scatter X-ray technology might have to play? I believe that Customs and Excise is using it at ports. Could it be used on the streets, perhaps as a random search facility for vehicles and pedestrians?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I believe that my noble friend has done the Committee a service in bringing this concept before us. He frankly acknowledges that the wording is not definitive. But I hope that the Minister will tell us to what extent, if any, these powers exist under present legislation. I should have thought that perhaps the first limb is already open to a police officer, but I am sure that it would be of great assistance to us all if the noble Lord could deal with that point.
The problem in relation to the power to search is, as we all know, that people do not like being searched, even if they are not carrying anything that would get them into trouble. Therefore, a balance must be struck between powers to search and respect for people's freedom in that regard.
My noble friend vividly drew attention to anxiety in London, in particular at the rising incidence of gun crime. I believe—it would be interesting to know whether the Minister supports this—that the public are now prepared to accept a proportionate diminution of their freedom in the light of this extremely worrying and dangerous development. To that extent, I support what is behind my noble friend's thinking, particularly in the second part.
It would be very helpful to know whether New York, whose example is cited so frequently nowadays, has a similar power in its range of legislation. Perhaps the Minister or my noble friend will be able to help us on that point.
In conclusion, as someone who had the privilege of serving in the Home Office, albeit something like 20 years ago, perhaps I may stand up for that department. I disagree with my noble friend in the
694
uncharacteristically harsh observations that he made about the Home Office being against any kind of innovation, particularly if it comes from outside or from a member of the public. I never found that in my time. Although I have cudgelled my brains in the past couple of minutes, I cannot think of an example.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I support what my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said. As a member of the trade union of ex-Ministers in the Home Office, I believe that one must question the views of my noble friend Lord Marlesford on this matter. I do not believe that the officials are quite so obstructive as he said. That apart, I considered that the rest of his speech was admirable in every way. It was unfortunate that he added that remark.
Surely we all accept that crime involving the use of arms is not only the most serious and terrifying offence but, at present, it appears to be the most worrying to people who live in suburban areas. I am sure that the Minister will agree that this is a matter in which it is right that the Government look at existing powers. Perhaps, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said, we already have those powers. But I hope that the Minister will say that, if we do not have them at present, he will find out whether the existing powers are adequate to stop people carrying guns and threatening and terrifying the lives of others.
Baroness Sharpies: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I wonder whether the noble Lord will now consider the introduction of a smart identity card. Surely that would be of great assistance to the police in any search that they may have to make.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I, too, support my noble friend Lord Marlesford in his modest and sensible amendment. It allows me to reflect for a moment on the habit of modern governments of stopping law-abiding people doing what they want to do and which they could well go on doing without harming anyone. At the same time, governments turn away from the phenomenon whereby criminals are open in their possession of guns but whereby the police, according to what the amendment seeks to achieve, are at present powerless to do anything about it.
Unless the Minister says that the police already possess those powers, I can see no possible reason why the Government should not accept the amendment or something very similar to it; otherwise, it would seem to be another indication of the dotty way in which we continue to raise our hands in horror and alarm at what is happening but do nothing about it and put elaborate fetters on the one set of people—namely, the police force—who might be able to do something if they were given the powers.
Viscount Slim: Sadly, the Minister was not present when we debated in your Lordships' House the taking away of firearms from those who were licensed to hold them. I shall not weary the noble Lord, but I spoke at considerable length in debate on that subject.

695
I believe that we have now reached such a state that no one knows how many illegal weapons are in this country. Is it half a million, or is it a million or more? Today, it is very easy to obtain a weapon if one is so inclined. As I see and hear it, the public perception is that the Government, as, indeed, did the previous government, take only a half-hearted view of this matter and that they are not really grappling with the problem. I urge the Minister to accept that the time has come when we must be strong and bold. We must take note and pass laws that make the use of weapons by criminals a matter that they will regret when they are caught or when the weapon is taken. Let us have proper legislation and not the ongoing half-hearted approach.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has sparked an encouraging debate on this issue for which I pay tribute to him. As ever, his prescient approach has anticipated some of my lines of defence. I also congratulate him on that. At one point we were in danger of developing a Home Office fan club. Ex-Ministers of the Home Office may have a vested interested in developing that and those who currently occupy Home Office ministerial posts will be pleased to hear about it too.
The debate has been balanced and proportionate—one of my favourite words. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is right that firearms are one of the scourges of our generation. It is understandable that we should consider ways in which to tackle the problem. Of necessity, it is right that your Lordships' House should consider what extra powers may be required. A battery of measures are available to the police, for which I pay tribute to previous governments, in particular the government who were in place in the 1980s and the 1990s. They put in place powers that deal with the problems by which we are currently confronted.
No representations have been made that our current legislation is wanting or failing in regard to the necessary powers for the police. That is a key point to take into consideration. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, is right that we need to look at gun control and firearms legislation to view the categories of dangerous weapons and to address the problems of firearms in the streets at source.
Noble Lords were keen that I advise on powers that are currently in place and available to the police. I shall go through some of them. The police already have powers to search people and vehicles for offensive weapons under Section 1(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Sections 1(2) and (3) of PACE provide constables with the power to search any person or vehicle or anything which is in a vehicle for stolen or prohibited articles where they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that stolen or
696
prohibited articles are to be found. A prohibited article includes an offensive weapon and an offensive weapon is clearly defined in Section 1(9) of PACE as,
"any article—
(a) made or adapted"—
I believe that that covers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford—
"for use for causing injury to persons; or
(b) intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person".
Section 60 of the 1994 Act provides the power under which uniformed police officers may be authorised to stop and search pedestrians or vehicles and their occupants for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments.
Under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 there are powers available to the police to stop and search pedestrians and vehicles within a specified area for the purposes of countering terrorism. A person in those circumstances can be stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion. The powers are time-limited, but usually they are authorised by an officer of ACPO rank. Under Section 33 of the Terrorism Act an officer of at least superintendent rank can designate an area as a cordoned area where he considers it expedient for the purposes of terrorist investigation.
Under Section 47(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 a constable can require the handing over of a firearm and any ammunition for examination so that he may ascertain whether a firearm is real or imitation, what type of firearm it is, whether—if it is not apparent—it is loaded, or whether the ammunition is suitable for use in the firearm.
Our particular concern about this amendment is that it would provide far-reaching powers and it would enable the police constable to arrange for an area to be sealed off simply on the basis that he reasonably believed that a person was carrying a firearm, irrespective of whether there was any imminent danger. In that sense it goes too far. I return to the use of the word "proportionate". We need proportionate powers and we believe that previous governments have legislated for that. From our contact with the police we understand that they are happy with the current range of powers that are in place. They do not see any need to extend them further. They believe that they are about right. Like the Government, they appreciate the widespread public concern over such matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is right that we need to send out a powerful, united message about the creeping nature of the gun culture. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the important debate raised by Diane Abbott in another place. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised the issue of metal detectors. We are aware that powers are in place to ensure that guns are detected, particularly at ports, by the use of metal detectors. I am uncertain how useful those powers may be if extended to the police service in the way that the noble Earl suggested. Logistically I believe that that would be rather difficult. The noble Earl raises a point that is worthy of consideration.

697
Another issue raised was ID cards. The Government intend to issue a consultation paper on this matter later in the year. No doubt careful consideration will be given to that and to the nature of any form of identification card, smart card or whatever. That may well have a bearing on this issue and assist the police. Of course, we want to ensure that the consultation is carefully managed and that we take on board a broad range of views.
On a comparator being sought between stop-and-search powers here and those available to New York police officers, in the time available I have not been able to undertake the serious research that the matter demands. I am happy to look at that point because it is an important one. In New York there have been considerable successes in countering the gun culture. We can always learn from others.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for tabling the amendment. It is an important point. We constantly keep such matters under review and he was right to raise it now. However, we believe that adequate powers are in place. Over the years they have been added to and we consider that they are effective for the purpose. To date there is no additional pressure from the police service to widen those powers. They believe that what they have to work with is fit for the purpose.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that when he rises to his feet he does not always give rise to strong feelings of hope within me. On this occasion, adjectives like "encouraging", "balanced" and "proportionate" applied to the debate start a burgeoning seed of hope in me. However, in rather a hurry he resorted to his brief, as one might have expected, and it was quite—if I can use a polite word—calming.
His perfectly courteous dismissal of the points made by my noble friend is rather a pity. I am not satisfied with his assertion that the police are not interested. I hope that he will take the matter back to the police and tell them of some of the points raised in this debate, which were designed to be helpful. As the noble Lord said, they are balanced, encouraging and proportionate—a wonderful mixture. Having crowned my noble friend's amendment with those wonderful' words, he should move a little way towards accepting something along these lines.
Lord Renton: In view of my long experience in criminal courts, I, too, support the amendment. I do so on the broad principle that, where possible, it is better to have prevention rather than cure. The amendment aims at prevention. But we need to be careful about one point. My noble friend used the expression "particular area". It could be a very large or very small particular area. I hope that he has in mind the very small particular area because that is the only way in which the provision would be enforceable. When the
698
Government consider the matter further and put down their own amendment, I hope that they will define the "particular area".
Lord Elton: I think that I have been studying the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for longer than my noble friend Lord Peyton.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: How do you know?
Lord Elton: I have come to a different and more accurate conclusion. I have observed that he always begins his replies to those who have taken part in the debate with the most courteous compliments on their skill and oratory and the clearness of their thinking. That is always a preparatory to disappointing them. Therefore, I am not hopeful when he utters those terms.
However, on a more serious note, I had thought that his grounds for resistance might be that there was a perfectly simple set of circumstances and powers already in place. We were given a matrix of interlocking and incomplete powers. Secondly, I thought that he might well and with truth say that frisking people for loaded weapons is a dangerous business and one needs to give a little more thought to how it is to be done before one legislates. I should have thought that such consideration could be given between now and the next stage, or in another place. I had thought that there would have been a good deal of enthusiasm for what my noble friend sought.
I was a little worried when the Minister said that at least they had heard nothing from the police to say that they wanted more powers. I was only partially reassured when the Minister said that he understood from the police that they needed nothing more. Have they been presented with the amendment and asked whether it is a provision they could do with? I think that we would be influenced by the answer. If the police have not turned it down and they could do with more powers, let us get those powers to them quickly. My noble friend has suggested a very good way of doing that.
Earl Attlee: The Minister touched on the 1968 Act. He referred to the police attitude to the 1968 Act and other powers. Is the Minister convinced that the 1968 Act meets all our requirements? I believe that the 1968 Act is a complete mess.
Lord Dholakia: The Minister generously explained the existing appropriate provisions. Is he able to write a note to that effect to those who participated in the debate? The situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, exists despite the powers which exist at present. Perhaps the noble Lord could identify whether those existing powers are adequate to deal

699
with the situation described. If they are not appropriate, it is possible for us to come back to the issue on Report.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord will forgive another intervention, I hope that the Minister will not cite the anti-terrorism Act because my noble friend is talking about criminal rather than terrorist activity.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Those further interventions have been helpful. They have given me the opportunity to explain further. During my responses, I rehearsed some of those powers. I am happy to set out a full rehearsal of the various powers. I am sorry I was unable to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I have been trying hard to make him happier during my time at the Dispatch Box. I shall continue perfecting my style. Perhaps at some happy time in the future I shall get there. I am happy to rehearse the powers and make the notes available to those noble Lords who have taken part in what I genuinely consider to be an important and useful debate.
With regard to the police attitude towards the amendment, it is not usually our task to go to the police and ask them specifically what they think about an amendment from an opposition Peer, tabled as late as it was. Perhaps the noble Lord might have thought it useful to consult with them as well. We shall happily take another view on it with the representative bodies of the police service but in the past we have not identified it as a specific problem. It has not been identified as a problem by the police service. We understand that the police believe that they have adequate stop and search powers. The amendment relates to areas as well; that is where the noble Lord is coming from. Although we believe that we have got it about right, we are always happy to have another look. One should always keep these matters under review not least because it is a compelling issue and a profound problem. The timing of Diane Abbott's debate in another place was well meant and effective.
Lord Condon: The spirit of the amendment is well put. The debate has illustrated the concerns about gun crime. If it helps noble Lords, I believe it is the view of the police service that there is an adequate menu of powers in relation to gun crime. Powers are not the real concern. The police are concerned that there may not be strong and sufficient partnerships within communities for condemnation of gun crime to lead to a willingness to give evidence against known carriers of guns within communities. That is linked to perhaps an absence of police confidence at present in their abilities to carry out stop and search in certain circumstances in certain areas. That in itself is linked to concerns about resourcing. Perhaps I may risk repeating what I have said previously, with regard to New York comparisons: London, 26,000 police; New York, 42,000 plus. Resourcing is as vital a concern as powers for stop and search. Finally, I refer to the relationship of sentencing being a force for good in preventing further gun crimes.
700
This well placed amendment has stimulated a timely debate. The question was asked whether the police are content with their menu of powers. The answer is broadly yes, although they are as concerned as noble Lords about the growth of gun crime.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps I may make a brief intervention. First, with regard to the technique of the Minister in commending everybody's performance and then saying that it was unnecessary, that is a well-known judicial technique in giving judgment. You know immediately that you have been praised that you have lost the case, and it is a nice way of doing it.
Secondly, I commend the Minister on recognising that which his department usually fails to recognise: that the powers that it frequently requests are already provided. That is shown frequently where extra powers of punishment are provided. Articles have been written indicating that the powers which are being sought vigorously have existed for years. I respectfully agree that the Home Office should provide in the Library a full particularised inventory of the sources, the legislation, which provides the powers which are being sought. If it is then apparent that powers exist, the statute book should not be burdened with further unnecessary repetition.
Lord Marlesford: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply and to noble Lords from all sides of the Chamber who have taken part in the debate and, in general, supported the thrust of my amendment.
I am perfectly prepared to accept that the powers for stopping and searching individuals and vehicles for guns already exist. That was only the second part of my amendment. The Minister interestingly pointed out that the powers to seal off an area in order to do that exist only under the terrorism legislation and therefore where terrorism is suspected.
I suggest that the people of this country, particularly those in the cities, and all ethnic groups—let there he no doubt about that—are deeply concerned. They would welcome powers to deal with gun crime which are as great as those for dealing with terrorism. It is not terribly comforting merely to be aware that a section of this, that or the other Act is available to fight gun crime, when gun crime does not appear to be being fought and when one reads about guns increasingly being used. Very often nowadays people actually have first-hand, or at least second-hand, experience of such incidents.
Of course I am prepared, ready and expect to withdraw the amendment. However, subject to what transpires from what is put in the Library, I believe that I have identified a lacuna in that the powers to seal off an area are confined to terrorism. I think that they should also be available in dealing with crime. Therefore, I hope possibly to bring back a more appropriate amendment at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Independent custody visitors for place of detention]:
4 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elton: I use this opportunity to ask the Government how the new independent custody visitors system relates to the old system which was set up under the Scarman report for lay visitors to police stations. Both systems have one principle aim, which is to either bolster or restore public confidence in the way that the police handle those who are charged with crimes. The lay visitors have now become tokens rather than forces for good. I stand to be corrected on that.
Paragraph 256 of the Explanatory Notes published with the Bill states:
"Custody visiting to police stations provides a means by which volunteers from the community who are independent of the police and the criminal justice system …".
Clause 45 states that the visitors will be appointed by the police authority. So where the police authority has a public profile—the Lawrence inquiry exposed that in most metropolitan areas, other than London, the police authority has none—the visitors are likely to be identified with the police. In the metropolitan area the recent birth and rather different composition of the police authority may give it a certain stature. But the experiment of producing these people will fail to achieve a degree of public confidence—if that is the purpose—if more is not done to connect the visitors with the public rather than connect them through the police authority.
In the past the noble Lord and his colleagues must have thought about this matter long and hard. I apologise for not giving prior notice of the matter. Of course I shall understand that any possible defects in the reply will be due to that. I await the noble Lord's reply with interest.
Lord Dholakia: I want to take the opportunity to say how much we welcome custody visiting finally being placed on a statutory basis. All police authorities consider that having proper custody visiting arrangements in place is an important aspect of their role in safeguarding the interests of the community. When I worked at the Police Complaints Authority a great concern of a large number of people, particularly the complainants, was that in many cases information was not available as to precisely what was going on in police custody. Having a system of checks and balances, particularly in relation to the statutory arrangement, is indeed a good thing. It certainly has our support.
Lord Rooker: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, need not apologise for speaking on Clause 45 stand part. We are in Committee. I welcome the opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has, in a way, made my point. The central change would be to put custody visiting on a statutory basis. Effectively it will become a compulsory matter for police authorities. Not all police authorities—anyone who has listened to the
702
debate over the past three or four days would think that they are all little guardian angels—are perfect, never make mistakes and are all fully committed. Life is not like that. It would become compulsory for every authority to provide and organise a scheme for independent custody visiting.
There is a contradiction in what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said about who appoints the custody visitors. Once the police authority appoint these people they will in no way be connected with the police or the criminal justice system. We believe that we can get good voluntary, independent people usefully to serve the system in that way. My own experience is that the system has been welcomed by the police in my former constituency. Importantly, putting the matter on a statutory basis will raise the status of the visitors. There will be a code of practice to provide for consistent standards across England and Wales.
Inappropriate procedures, such as people visiting on their own, would be dealt with in a code of practice. Therefore, we can get some commonality of rules. That is an important aspect. I make no complaints about visits that have been made or the actions of existing visitors. We can deal with situations where some inappropriate procedures have varied between police forces or police authorities. Above all, the statutory basis will raise the profile and competence of people in the system. It will be governed by independent people from the local community.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I wish this move well.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
Earl Attleemoved Amendment No. 271:
Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
"SALIVA TESTS
(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 6 (breath tests) there shall be inserted—
"6A SALIVA TESTS
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable cause to suspect—

(a) that a person driving or attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place has a drug in his body or has committed a traffic offence whilst the vehicle was in motion;

(b) that a person has been driving or attempting to drive or been in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place with drugs in his body and that that person still has a drug in his body; or

(c) that a person has been driving or attempting to drive or been in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place and has committed a traffic offence whilst the vehicle was in motion;

he may, subject to section 9 of this Act, require him to provide a specimen of saliva for a saliva drugs test.
(2) If an accident occurs owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, a constable may, subject to section 9 of this Act, require any person who he has reasonable cause to believe was driving or attempting to drive or in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident to provide a specimen of saliva for a saliva drugs test.

703
(3) A person may be required under subsection (1) or (2) above to provide a specimen either at or near the place where the requirement is made or, if the requirement is made under subsection (2) above, and the constable making the requirement thinks fit, at a police station specified by the constable.
(4) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen of saliva when required to do so in pursuance of this section is guilty of an offence.
(5) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a) as a result of a saliva test he has reasonable cause to suspect that that person has committed an offence under section 4 of this Act; or

(b) that person has failed to provide a specimen of saliva for a saliva drugs test when required to do so in pursuance of this section and the constable has reasonable cause to suspect that he has a drug in his body;

but a person shall not be arrested by virtue of this subsection when he is at a hospital as a patient or the drugs have been prescribed by a medical practitioner.
(6) A constable may, for the purpose of requiring a person to provide a specimen of saliva under subsection (2) above in a case where he has reasonable cause to suspect that the accident involved injury to another person or of arresting him in such a case under subsection (5) above, enter (if need be by force) any place where that person is or where the constable, with reasonable cause, suspects him to be.
(7) Subsection (6) above does not extend to Scotland, and nothing in that subsection shall affect any rule of law in Scotland concerning the right of a constable to enter any premises for any purpose.
(8) In this section "traffic offence" means an offence under—

(a) any provision of Part 2 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (c. 14);

(b) any provision of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27);

(c) any provision of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) except Part 3; or

(d) any provision of this Act except Part 5.""

The noble Earl said: I should think that this morning the Minister was wondering how on earth I had managed to get this issue on every broadsheet newspaper and on the front page of the Daily Mail. The truth is that the Minister need not worry. The first that I knew about this development was when I heard it on the news at breakfast time.
I originally drafted and tabled the amendment for our discussions on the Transport Act 2000. If any Member of the Committee is not convinced on that point, he or she should look at the Journal of your Lordships' House, where I had to go to get the drafting for my amendment. I did not move it at the time for reasons that might have come from an episode of "Yes Minister".
Society generally now takes a very dim view of drink-driving. There is no sympathy for a convicted motorist. However, many motorists are unaware of the effects of drugs—illegal or prescribed—on their driving ability. Millions of people take drugs, such as anti-depressants, painkillers, antihistamines and cough mixtures, all of which can have a sedative effect. Yet, most of these people probably think that it is totally safe for them to drive.
Many people lack knowledge with regard to the legal position in relation to drug-driving. In law drug-driving is considered as serious an offence as drink-driving. Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states:
704
"A person who, when driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence".
The law makes no distinction between illegal and prescribed drugs and does not state a limit for drugs levels as it does for alcohol. That is understandable given that there are numerous drugs but only one type of alcohol. I hope that the Minister does not use that argument to justify doing nothing about drug-driving.
According to my briefing from the BMA, the use of illegal drugs by the younger generation is frequent and increasing. Nearly half of 16 to 24 year-olds in England and Wales are reported as having used cannabis at least once. The Committee will be aware that that age-group experiences the highest fatal accident rate. Furthermore, 39 per cent were reported to have taken hallucinogens. There were fewer taking other drugs. According to a separate survey of club-goers in Scotland, 69 per cent had taken cannabis while 85 per cent had at some time driven after taking illegal drugs.
The impact of some prescribed drugs and treatments, such as sedatives, anti-depressants and even eye-drops is relevant also. Although patients are warned of their side effects, for example, drowsiness and impaired vision, research shows that they tend to ignore the advice of doctors, pharmacists and even information leaflets. Having said that, illegal drugs are a much more serious problem because of the uncertainty of the strength of the doses taken and the fact that the drug dealers do not often provide an information leaflet. The Minister and the police should be careful in how they approach the problem of therapeutic drugs.
The wider implications of drug taking are beginning to emerge. Recent research shows an increasing incidence of road traffic accidents involving people who have tested positive for drugs that may have contributed to the cause of the crash. The Transport Research Laboratory carried out tests to detect alcohol and drugs in people involved in fatal collisions between 1985 and 1987, and again between 1996 and 1999. The results showed that over that decade there was a fourfold increase, from 3 to 12 per cent, in people who tested positive for cannabis, with the detection of illegal drugs overall having increased from 3 to 18 per cent. The only qualification is that the tests are not directly comparable.
The known effects of cannabis are impaired coordination, visual perception, tracking and vigilance. Impairment is also shown when subjects are tested under simulated driving conditions. Studies report that in the majority of fatal crashes involving people with detected levels of cannabis, the effects are compounded by alcohol. Alcohol alone or in combination with cannabis increases impairment, the accident rate and accident responsibility.
The amendment is based precisely upon Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but, in addition to breath tests for alcohol, I suggest saliva tests for drugs. It is important to understand that the existing Section 6 and my amendment do not provide the necessary evidence for a conviction but are an objective test, allowing a police officer to arrest a suspect in order to further investigate a suspected serious offence. At

705
present, the police breath test for alcohol anyone who has been involved in a road traffic accident. Sometimes it is obvious that the driver is "on something", although he may be able to blow a clean breathalyser bag. Some drugs impair the mind only, adversely affecting judgement and anger control.
The Minister may be tempted to suggest that the necessary equipment has not yet been fully developed. However, if the Minister agrees the principle of my amendment and returns with an even better one, manufacturers will be prepared to expend more effort and money on perfecting that equipment if it does not meet the required standard. In addition, it is significant that the UK is a leader in developing the technology. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise to support another noble friend, who has shown remarkable timing in bringing forward the amendment. I hope that the Government will, at the very least, study the amendment. I must admit that I am not quite certain of the technology that is mentioned in the Bill. A saliva test might prove that someone had taken drugs, but I am unsure whether it would necessarily prove that someone had not. It would not therefore be entirely adequate for the purpose my noble friend Lord Attlee intends.
Drugs are a serious problem, particularly in certain sections of the community. The issue should be examined seriously. Even if it is not technically practical to proceed at the moment, a study is merited so that we can act as soon as we are certain that the technology is appropriate. To introduce a new part to the legislation, based on the hope of technology being developed, would not be the right approach. However, the issue is sufficiently grave in society to merit a serious study.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I hope that the issue can be examined, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I agree that it should not be included in this Bill. I declare an interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. We are concerned at the increased incidence of drugs use in fatal road accidents. The evidence shows increased use of illegal substances, contributing to a greater proportion of deaths. It is therefore important that the Government take seriously the question raised by the noble Earl. Lord Attlee. I do not know whether a saliva test is the best method. Like Lord Dixon-Smith, I am not sufficiently expert. However, the question of the effect of drugs on driving performance is important and should be further examined.
Lord Bradshaw: I too do not know whether a saliva test is effective. Additional to drug use is the question of impairment through illness. In September I had the misfortune to have a slight stroke, from which I recovered fully. However, the first thing the medical practitioner told me was that I was not to drive for at least four weeks. The practitioner has no statutory backing; he simply told me that. We should have regard to the many drivers whose faculties are
706
probably impaired. I hope that the Minister will respond by saying that the Home Office is behind the idea of education, that a person should not drive with drugs in his body, or while otherwise impaired, and that research is needed to find out which drugs impair people's ability to drive safely.
We are inclined to support the amendment, but, as I said, we cannot say for certain whether the saliva test is practical. However, we shall be most interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Lord Monson: The noble Earl's amendment is an excellent one in principle. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that this is not the right Bill for it. What better occasion can there be? If we have to wait for primary legislation, then we may have to wait for months or years.
As has been said, aspirin and paracetamol are surely drugs yet they do not adversely affect driving ability. In fact, in so far as they reduce somebody's headache they may improve driving ability. Similarly, illegal drugs such as amphetamines, if taken in small doses, would actually improve somebody's reaction time and would not adversely affect their driving ability. Nevertheless, in principle, Amendment No. 271 is an excellent one and I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration.
Lord Elton: The papers are full of suggestions that the Government are now going to be more tolerant of certain drugs. That means that there will be many more of them inside drivers and it makes me think that this is a very good time to introduce this legislation.
Lord Rooker: In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, it is true that there is a good deal of ignorance as to what people can do in terms of driving. Some people think that once they have obtained their licence and can drive, they can get on with it. I have experience in the past couple of years of having to go to the Post Office and of seeing a form there—DV100 or something. That form contains a list of medical conditions. Anyone who has suffered from or had treatment for any of those conditions is committing a criminal offence if he continues driving.
I was utterly ignorant of that fact until I saw it in writing. It ought to be more commonly known. It is not just a question of a doctor saying, "I do not think you should drive". In some cases they have to point out, "By the way, it is a criminal offence for you to drive. You need to tell Swansea what has happened and they may want your licence back for a period". So a good deal of ignorance exists in that regard.
We recognise the excellent intentions behind this amendment. The noble Earl rightly identified the need for the police to deal with the problem of drug driving. The Association of Chief Police Officers, the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Home Office have been working on the best methods of addressing this issue. This is not a situation where I am saying that everything is okay and we are satisfied. We are on the case.

707
The main objection to this amendment is that simply showing that a driver has drugs in his body is often not sufficient to achieve a conviction for drug driving. To do that it is necessary to show the court that the ability to drive is impaired by the drugs. The presence of a drug, as identified by a saliva test, does not do that.
I am almost reluctant to use this example after what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, but I just put it on the record. I am not an expert and therefore must take advice on these matters. The most prevalent drug abused—cannabis, which I am sure the noble Lord is not on at the moment—is traceable in the body for four weeks or more, long after it can cause impairment. So there is a major issue which needs to be addressed in that regard. We agree with the police that, at the present time, the best way of detecting impairment is with the drug recognition techniques and the field impairment testing. The drug recognition techniques allow the officers to assess more easily a driver's impairment by the physical signs—dilated or constricted pupils, facial itching or slurred speech. The field impairment tests are divided attention tests which allow the police to assess a driver's concentration and ability to perform simple tasks, which an unimpaired driver should have no difficulty performing.
I fully accept that these are low-tech tests. But they have been validated in the detection of impairment. At the present time the police can only request a driver to perform a series of impairment tests before deciding whether or not to arrest. We are currently considering giving the police powers to make that a requirement. I cannot say whether that will be at the next stage of this Bill in your Lordships' House. But we are in the early stages of this Bill and I cannot be more precise.
We are also looking at provisions which will allow for the future development of an approved type of roadside drug screening device. So work is continuing in that respect. Amendment No. 271 does not require the device used by the police to carry out the drug test to be prescribed and to be of a type approved by the Secretary of State. That may be a nit-picking point but the noble Earl will understand that it would be necessary to have that on the face of the Bill. The approval process would give an assurance to the courts and the public that the device in question is accurate, robust and reliable.
We are sympathetic to some of the intentions behind the amendment but we cannot accept it. Some practical issues need to be addressed before we can move forward on certain points. I hope I have indicated to the Committee that on those points we are moving forward with the police and the other government departments involved.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's response to this amendment. I was suggesting an objective test for the police officer to be able to decide whether or not he could arrest the motorist and take him to the police station in order to take a blood sample. The blood sample could then be analysed and the police could obtain an expert witness to say whether or not the motorist's driving would be impaired.
708
The Minister referred to the difficulties with cannabis in that it can stay in the body for quite a long time though the driving of the motorist is not impaired. However, saliva does not easily show cannabis. So if cannabis is detected, it is probably detected from the smoke in the mouth which would indicate that the motorist had recently been taking cannabis. It is a small point. But the other point to remember is that cannabis is not the only problem. I refer to drugs which can affect a motorist's anger control; in other words, his propensity to engage in road rage.
However, I am encouraged by what the Minister said in relation to other approaches to this problem. I hope we can do something before we send the Bill to the other place. If we fail in that, perhaps the other place will see fit to introduce something. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Specimens taken from persons incapable of consenting]:
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 272:
Page 41, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
"(d) the constable has reasonable grounds to believe that the incapacity of the person is attributable to medical reasons."
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 272 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 278. These amendments refer to one of the conditions under which a constable may make a request to a medical practitioner for him to take a specimen of blood from a person incapable of consenting: that is, if it appears to that constable that that person's incapacity is attributable to medical reasons.
We contend that this clause, as presently drafted, is obscure. The constable would seem to be entitled under the new power to commit what would otherwise be an assault on a suspect on the basis of what might be a wholly unjustified belief in incapacity for medical reasons. The new clause requires the officer to have reasonable grounds for the belief that the incapacity is indeed due to medical reasons and not to some other cause. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: The noble Viscount is commendably brief. But this is a serious issue that has exercised many Members of the other place in recent times, particularly following road traffic accidents where the driver may be unconscious but someone else has been killed. The driver is in no condition to give consent for blood samples to be taken and therefore one would not know what the blood contains.
I accept that the proposed amendments reflect the existing wording of the Road Traffic Act, which refer to the constable making a requirement to give a blood specimen having,
"reasonable cause to believe that for medical reasons a specimen of breath cannot be provided".
The exact wording of this provision was chosen carefully after consultation with the British Medical Association. So the provision with regard to breath

709
tests refers to the obvious phenomenon such as a mouth injury. On the other hand, to assess a person's general medical state and its effect on his capacity in the circumstances envisaged under this power—he could be delirious—would be more difficult and would require a degree of medical knowledge. A constable would not have that expertise and so could not base his judgment on reasonable grounds. However, it could appear to him that a person's medical condition rendered him incapable of consent—that is to say, unconscious. That is the provision that we have chosen.
For the avoidance of doubt, I would say that the medical condition and safety of an unconscious person would, at all times, be a paramount consideration. I want to make that absolutely clear. However, after tragic road accidents, in which people are killed, there can be problems with getting the necessary information about whether the driver was under the influence.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: I thank the Minister for that reply, in the light of which I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 273:
Page 41, leave out line 34 and insert—
"(b) to store the same at the place where the person from whom the sample has been taken is being treated.
( ) The sample shall be kept in a secure storage facility at the place where the person from whom the same has been taken is being treated and no person shall have access to the sample without the consent or the permission of the suspect from whom it was taken "
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 279. This is a question of practicalities. The new provisions are radical, because they entitle the police to take intimate samples without the consent of the subject. For that reason, the power should be carefully drawn and limited, as far as is possible without defeating the aim of the provision. It is likely that the subject will be unconscious when the sample is taken. To avoid the risk of any later challenge to the integrity of the sample, we should provide that, if a specimen is taken, it should not be delivered up to the police, after being split or otherwise, but maintained by the hospital authority until the subject is capable of consenting to its use and making arrangements for tests. The subject should know that the sample has been taken.
There is a further consideration. What is the purpose of handing it over to the police, if the police cannot use it until the subject's consent has been sought? I beg to move.
Viscount Simon: My amendment, Amendment No. 276, mirrors almost exactly part of the amendment to which the noble Viscount has spoken. I cannot add to that.
Lord Swinfen: I shall raise one point about the amendment. The sample should be kept not only in
710
secure storage but in a place where it will not deteriorate or its chemical properties change, for any reason.
Lord Rooker: The amendments rightly seek to prevent tampering with blood samples or analysis of them without the driver's consent, by requiring them to be kept at the hospital where the driver is. We have no evidence that tampering is a problem at present. Tampering by analysing without consent would be pointless, as the results would not be admissible in evidence anyway.
Subsection (4) of the new Section 7A already explicitly ensures that the sample cannot be used without the consent of the driver from whom it was taken. If the sample is to be used in evidence, the driver is party to that. By then, he will not be unconscious—in other words, he will be in a position to give consent. There would be a long evidential chain between the taking of the sample and the presentation of the results, post-analysis; it would not be just a day after the event. If the blood samples are sent to the forensic science laboratory for analysis, every step of that chain can be accounted for, if challenged in court.
It is crucial that the Forensic Science Service runs systems that are fully compatible with the requirements of the court, both for the defence and the prosecution. That is fundamental, so that the courts can rely on what they are told has happened to the samples during their analysis in the forensic science laboratory, including questions about whether they have been moved from room to room and who was responsible for them. All that information is recorded for the safety of the process in court. It would be unnecessarily complicated—and could result in cases being dismissed on a technicality—to require the breaking of that chain, by compelling hospitals to be in charge of the evidence.
The Forensic Science Service has advised against storing drivers' blood samples in hospitals. The practical difficulties for the hospitals would be considerable. I know that they have refrigerators and laboratories, but I assure noble Lords—particularly all the former Home Office Ministers present, who have, no doubt, been to the forensic science laboratories—that hospitals and forensic science laboratories are entirely different operations. We are dealing with a substance that must be locked in. We must be sure that everyone has absolute confidence in the procedure.
The amendments would also change and corrupt the practice of separating the driver's medical care from any possible prosecution. The British Medical Association is absolutely opposed to that. We should think more than once before proceeding down that road. So that we do not repeat ourselves in our discussion of other amendments, I must point out that the specimens taken will be divided into two. One will be made available to the driver and his representatives,

711
if they wish to get a second opinion. It is important to see how that works. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Viscount.
Viscount Bridgeman: The Minister has given a helpful reply and some useful information. In the light of his assurance that the Forensic Science Service is confident of its ability to maintain the integrity of the samples and his assurance that that system has the support of the British Medical Association, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I call Amendment No. 274. If the amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 275, owing to pre-emption.
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 274:
Page 41, leave out line 41.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 274 relates to a small point, but we consider that the line is inconsistent with subsection (6) of the same new clause. The offence is committed not by a mere failure to give consent but by a failure to consent "without reasonable excuse". The warning before the request to use should be framed in the same terms. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I hope that I can satisfy the noble Viscount. All the amendments in the group relate, essentially, to the same issue.
I accept that it is an innovative clause. I am also sympathetic to the underlying motive for the amendments as regards removing the suspect's absolute right to refuse consent for a blood sample to be used. The amendments would prevent the possibility that suspects would evade more serious charges by refusing to allow their sample to be analysed. However, when the new procedure for testing unconscious drivers for alcohol was devised, it was designed to match as closely as possible the procedure now in place for dealing with conscious drivers. Accepting the amendments would mean that, although conscious drivers could refuse consent, so that there could be no analysis results, such results would be available for unconscious drivers. That would be a difference in treatment. The unconscious driver would, in effect, have fewer rights than a conscious suspect.
Addressing that inconsistency would require a further amendment depriving conscious drivers of their right of refusal. That would be operationally difficult, especially if force had to be used, and would not be supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers. It would also raise serious human rights issues that we have taken care to avoid by the proportionate proposals in the Bill.
I hope that, seen in the round, the set of procedures for taking samples from drivers or other persons—it will not necessarily be only drivers—who are not capable of consenting in the kind of circumstances that
712
we have discussed ensure that they are fully protected. Their health is a paramount consideration, at all times, when the samples are taken. The health of the unconscious person is absolutely crucial. The be-all and end-all is not taking the sample: it is looking after the medical condition of an unconscious person. That is the number one priority. I want to make that clear. Nevertheless, if the information can be made available, it will solve a lot of distressing problems later on, some of which have already been brought to the attention of noble Lords.
Viscount Bridgeman: I thank the Minister for his reply. We shall read it carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 275 to 277 not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Equivalent provision for offences connected with transport systems]:
[Amendments Nos. 278 to 281 not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance]:
Viscount Simonmoved Amendment No. 282:
Page 46, line 31, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (8A) below,"
The noble Viscount said: Before the House was formed into a Committee I advised my noble friend the Minister that I did not intend to move this amendment. That is because those who asked me to table it asked me at 1.30 p.m. not to speak to it. However, I shall speak to Amendment No. 290 standing in my name. Clause 52 addresses the problem of the unsocial use of vehicles. We are all aware of the doctored noise exhaust systems and the entertainment systems, if I may use that word, going "boom, boom boom". In these enlightened times there are those who might well regard emergency vehicles as a source of annoyance, especially those living on main routes to or from a fire station, hospital or police station. Amendment No. 290 seeks to exclude emergency vehicles from the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps it would help if I explained the purpose of Clause 52. The clause gives the police the powers they need to tackle the anti-social use of motor vehicles to which the noble Viscount referred. Each decision by the police to exercise those powers will obviously turn on the facts they find when confronted with that situation. We take the view that rather than laying down blanket exemptions on the face of the legislation, we should trust the police to exercise their discretion operationally as to when seizing a vehicle would be appropriate.
As a consequence we do not expect the police to exercise their powers to stop and search in respect of emergency vehicles being used for legitimate purposes or others who may be using their vehicles to deal with

713
a genuine emergency. We believe that we have the matter right as it is and we do not see any particular need for the amendment, although clearly the noble Viscount has moved it in an attempt to be helpful.
Viscount Simon: I thank my noble friend for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 283:
Page 46, line 33, leave out "or 34" and insert "4, 5, 34 or 103(1)(b)"
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 285. As currently drawn, the new provision gives a power to seize in respect of the acts falling within Section 1, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has referred, whenever they may have been committed after the Act came into force.
One asks why the question is so wide. If the new provision, which will have a real impact only on the owner of a car that is free from hire purchase obligations, has to be included, what is the possible justification for the provision of no time limit for prior acts grounding the right to seize? It has to be limited in some way and we suggest that four weeks is a reasonable period. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have some sympathy with these amendments. We concede that they would usefully add to the circumstances in which a police officer would be able to stop and to seize a motor vehicle. But Clause 52 is about strengthening police powers to tackle the problem of motor vehicles, particularly cars and motorbikes, being used in a manner which causes nuisance or distress to others. It is for that reason that we intend to limit the powers to situations where a police officer believes that an offence under Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act is being committed, which is where a vehicle is being driven on a public road without due care and attention or proper consideration for others or where it seems that there is an offence under Section 34 of the Act, which is where the vehicle is being driven illegally off-road—for example, on private land— without the landowner's permission.
The sort of mischief that we are aiming to get at is the use of public roads around housing estates as illegal race tracks or the riding of motorbikes across public parks, village greens or the countryside. That is exactly the kind of mischief with which many of us in public life, particularly in local authorities, have been desperate to deal for a long time. It has given me pain and concern in the past as no doubt it has to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, as a representative of the local government world, in the past.
Drink and drugs driving, driving contrary to a disqualification and uninsured driving are altogether more serious matters and go well beyond the nuisance that we are concerned with here. We believe that the police already have the powers that they need to tackle these offences. It is already the case that where a driver
714
is suspected of being over the drink-drive limit—for example, after failing a roadside breathalyser test—or being suspected of driving while disqualified, then the police will take the necessary steps to ensure that the person does not continue to drive on a public road.
The motor insurers recently established a database, which the Government fully supported. We believe that it will lead to a significant reduction in uninsured driving as the police are now able to query insurance details immediately from the roadside. Police inquiries to the database are currently running at about 22,000 per day. That is a staggering statistic. We believe that Amendments Nos. 283 and 284 confuse these quite separate matters.
I turn to Amendment No. 285. We are not convinced about the wisdom of setting an arbitrary time limit to the application of the police powers provided by subsection (2) of the clause. Subsection (2) allows the police officer to exercise the power to stop and, where appropriate, to seize a vehicle where it is not, at that time, being driven in a manner that subsection (1) is intended to catch. That is because the powers in subsection (1) are what one might describe as being of an immediate nature. The officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is being used in the offending manner.
Inevitably, there will be circumstances where the police officer cannot exercise the powers at the time that the mischief is being done; for example, where the officer is on foot and the vehicle simply roars away from him at high speed. In such circumstances, the officer must be able to exercise the power at a later stage when the person concerned has been apprehended. We believe that that is important in achieving the purpose of the clause and in ensuring that the new powers act as a real and effective deterrent.
What is the purpose of setting a time limit for this? We would of course expect that the powers in subsection (2) should be exercised as soon as possible after the event in question. That is a reasonable assumption to draw. But that may not always be possible. To ensure that we do not add anything here which may subsequently amount to unforeseen or unnecessary barriers to the effective and sensible practical operation of these important new police powers, we consider it right to leave open-ended the question of time limits for the exercise of the powers in subsection (2), rather than to set some arbitrary time limit which would be the effect of this amendment. We want to get at the offence and the time limit could prevent effective police action in achieving that objective. I am sure that the noble Viscount sees the good sense of that argument.
Viscount Bridgeman: I wish that I could agree unconditionally with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Noble Lords on all sides of the Committee share his concerns about the nuisance that vehicles can cause. However, we are not convinced about the removal of the time limit. We shall study very carefully the noble Lord's remarks in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN]
[Amendments Nos. 284 and 285 not moved.]
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 286:
Page 46, line 44, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"( ) power to take possession of the motor vehicle and remove it to a police property centre or car pound;"
The noble Viscount said: This amendment seeks to clarify whether the Government are seeking to acquire too much power in respect of the removal of vehicles. Surely that only needs to be confined to removing the vehicle pro tem. On the face of it, the provision seems to suggest that there is something akin to a power to seize and to sell the asset. I presume that that is not the Government's intention. I would welcome the Minister's reassurance. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: The noble Viscount has not referred to the other amendments with which this is grouped, so, I, too, shall confine my remarks to Amendment No. 286. The noble Viscount has not explained why he wishes to substitute for the word "seize" the phrase "take possession of"; indeed, they may have the same meaning. If the word is altered, then, consequentially, the words in subsection (4) will also need to be changed. The noble Viscount seeks to confine the removal of a vehicle to,
"a police property centre or car pound".
I suppose that the latter are the most obvious places to take such vehicles, unless they are full. I am not sure whether we can really deal with this amendment on its own when there are others with which it has been grouped.
Lord Hardy of Wath: I wish to refer to the points I made during consideration of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Two or three years ago I watched young children being allowed to ride motorcycles—and, sometimes, people old enough to have more sense and doing so in a dangerous manner—on the public highway as well as open country at great risk to themselves and to others as they were not insured.
I took the view then that the law did not provide the authorities with an adequate response to the problem. Several children in Yorkshire have died during the past few years through this activity. It is essential to send out a suitable message, which I believe is in the Bill. I suspect that the noble Viscount's amendment would be seen as weakening the Bill's intention. I am pleased that the Government have put effort into dealing with the problem, and I would not wish to see the effect in any way diminished by such an amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for pointing out that I did not speak to Amendments Nos. 287 and 288, which refer to the power to enter private property. We consider that these powers should be drawn as narrowly as possible. The new wording would require the constable to hold an objectively reasonable belief as to the whereabouts of the vehicle before entering private
716
property to search for it. That is particularly important where the private property may not be that of the vehicle owner. The aim of Amendment No. 288 is simply to avoid an argument as to whether the part of a property where the vehicle is thought to be situated falls within the statutory power.
Lord Borrie: My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath has made an important point which bears on a controversy in which I have previously been involved with the noble Viscount. When he seeks to insert phrases like "reasonable cause to believe" and "make an objective test", he is hobbling the police officer involved. It is quite unnecessary. This is not some major interference with civil liberties; it is a very sensible power. If the constable believes that the car is in a particular place, why should he not exercise the power either to "seize" it, according to the Bill, or "take possession" of it, which is the preferred wording of the noble Viscount?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has been helpful in his description of what he seeks to achieve by way of these amendments. I shall try to be equally helpful in my response, especially on Amendment No. 287. We are not convinced that Amendment No. 286 would add anything to the Bill or that it would provide additional clarification. The amendment would replace "seize" with the words "take possession of". It may be mere semantics, but we are not convinced that it would make the point of the clause any sharper. We believe that the clause is perfectly fit as it stands and that it adequately describes the new police powers. I welcome the support from my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath, whose campaigning on these issues is well known. It is a nuisance that we urgently need to tackle, and I am pleased that we are now able to do so.
We believe that it is right for the clause to say no more than that the police should have the power to remove the vehicle in question. How the police arrange for that removal and where the vehicle is taken are, arguably, matters of detail. We shall set out such detail in supporting regulations, which is where the noble Viscount needs to turn his attention.
The regulations will be made under the provisions of Clause 53. They will cover detailed issues, such as the power of a constable to seize vehicles, the method of removing/seizing vehicles, the provision of secure storage arrangements for vehicles, the time periods before which and within which various actions can and must be taken, the identification of the vehicle owner, the manner of serving notice on the owner/keeper of the vehicle, the conditions (including means of identification) for reclaiming the vehicle, the fees to be charged to reclaim the vehicle, and, at some stage—perhaps when it is right and appropriate—the disposal of unclaimed vehicles. We need to look closely at the regulations. I invite the Committee to do likewise.
Amendment No. 287 relates to the police power to enter premises for the purpose of seizing a vehicle that has been misused in a manner that would be caught by Clause 52. It is right that the police officer would need

717
to have reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be on the premises in question—the purpose of the amendment—but that is not how the clause is presently drafted. We accept the principle behind the amendment. It must be right that the officer acts, at all times, on a belief that is reasonable.
Parliamentary counsel wishes to draft more precise wording to reflect what I believe the noble Viscount seeks to achieve in his amendment. Therefore, with the assurance that we shall seek to offer a government amendment at a later stage, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I believe that that would be helpful to everyone. We promise to bring forward such an amendment before Report.
Amendment No. 288 would, ostensibly, extend the police powers to enter premises provided by the clause. As presently drafted, the power to enter is related to the premises where the vehicle is known, or believed, to be. The amendment seeks to allow the officer to enter the premises, or, "any part thereof". The term "premises" includes "any part thereof". It follows, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary. Having explained our intentions, I hope that the noble Viscount will realise that we have already covered what he seeks to achieve.
Lord Swinfen: It seems to me that the Minister indicated that it is not the intention that the owner of the vehicle should be permanently deprived of it. However, when the noble Lord uses the word "seize", it brings to mind Customs and Excise officers seizing goods they believe to the contraband, with no intention of those goods being returned to the person who brought them into the country. I am not a lawyer, but I wonder whether the word "seize" actually means that the goods—in this case, the vehicle—will be permanently removed from the owner. Will the noble Lord reconsider the use of that word in the Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My noble friend Lord Rooker has provided me with the answer to the noble Lord's query. It is a question of two different uses of the same word. I am sure that the noble Lord followed my response. I said earlier that there will be circumstances in which the vehicle is returned. Regulations will cover that situation, and a fee may well be charged to reclaim the vehicle. Therefore, we envisage that there will be occasions when the vehicle is returned. After all, as the noble Lord said, it is the rightful property of the owner—the person who is the keeper.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his most helpful reply. I look forward to studying the amendments that will be brought forward. I am also grateful for his clarification that reference to "premises" does include "any part thereof". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 287 to 290 not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 53 [Retention etc of vehicles seized under section 52]:
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 291:
Page 47, line 41, at end insert—
"( ) The powers of disposal of vehicles under this Act shall not apply or arise unless and until the owner of the relevant vehicle has been convicted of a criminal offence in respect of the use of the vehicle which led to the seizure."
The noble Viscount said: This is a probing amendment. Presumably the new provision has its greatest impact on the person who works, pays taxes and owns a motor car outright. The clause appears to impose a power to forfeit the vehicle without compensation, irrespective of its value and the seriousness of the offence which led to its seizure.
Before such a power can be used, the taxpaying citizen, who is most likely to be affected by it, should at the very least have been convicted of a criminal offence in respect of the use of the vehicle, hence the amendment. Before the Secretary of State can start promulgating regulations to deprive a law-abiding and tax paying citizen of his property, the regulations should establish that the citizen in question has been properly convicted of a criminal offence. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I strongly support the amendment. Although I warmly support the principle of Clauses 52 and 53, I believe that we must be careful not to go so far as to deprive individuals of their human rights—or what most people would consider to be human rights. After all, we are talking about vehicles whose value may range from a couple of hundred pounds up to £10,000-plus. I venture to suggest that to be deprived of such a possession permanently would be disproportionate in almost all cases. The financial loss involved would be well in excess of any fine that might be levied.
Even to be deprived of the vehicle temporarily could cause considerable financial distress if the period in question were too long. However, the noble Viscount spoke of permanent dispossession and I support what he has said.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can understand the spirit and intention behind the amendment, which is to save owners from costs incurred by arbitrary seizure or disposal of a vehicle when nothing of a criminal nature is proved against them.
We argue that the amendment is unnecessary. The removal, retention, release and disposal of vehicles will, as I said in a previous debate, be subject to regulation. We will want to ensure that the regulations take full account of the considerations and circumstances to which the noble Viscount has given some thought. There is proper compliance with the human rights legislation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, drew attention, and provision to avoid embroiling the police in unnecessary civil proceedings.

719
We will give the regulations careful thought. We argue that it is inappropriate to constrain them by putting such a provision on the face of the Bill. We intend to protect the wholly innocent owners who were not using a vehicle when it was seized, did not know of or consent to its use and could not have stopped it being used. Clause 53(2) provides that the regulations must waive any charges that such owners might otherwise incur.
I hope that that explanation offers reassurance to Members opposite. The regulations will clarify the circumstances in which the police will be able to dispose of a vehicle which is not claimed by its owner. We will make matters plain when we have published the regulations and no doubt there will be an opportunity to view them. There will be consultation on their detailed content, which will cover some of the concerns that have understandably been raised today.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for the reassurance that the regulations will meet our requirements. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 292:
Page 47, line 46, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Viscount said: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 292, 294, 295 and 297. Other amendments in the group stand in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. Amendment No. 297 refers to,
"The burden of proof in any proceedings [lying] on the party who has seized or detained the vehicle, and not on the owner or person with a right to possession of and interest in the same".
That appears to us to be a perfectly reasonable provision. I beg to move.
Viscount Simon: I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 293 and 296 standing in my name. Amendment No. 293 is aimed at those people who have had their vehicle confiscated under an anti-social behaviour order. The amendment is explanatory in that in order for someone to recover their vehicle after it has been confiscated under such an order, it will be necessary for that person to prove that he already has the necessary certificate of insurance for it. In other words, he will not be able to drive away uninsured.
Amendment No. 296, which is almost a continuation of the amendment to which I have just spoken, also concerns vehicles confiscated under antisocial behaviour orders. It seeks to make allowance for a vehicle to be destroyed when it has no value and will never be claimed. It seems incongruous to leave a local council or police pound having to store lots of vehicles for ever when there is no residual value in any of them.
Lord Rooker: The clause as drafted allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of various issues. I realise that the points Members of the Committee have raised are important, but they are
720
more appropriate for the regulations. We need flexibility in drafting the regulations and expressing the issues. Amendment No. 292 would curb our freedom of action. Clause 52(8) contains an important safeguard in that the new police powers relating to the seizure will be exercisable only after the regulations have come into force.
As regards Amendment No. 297, the removal and storage of the vehicles would impose a cost on the police. The amendment would make it more difficult for them to recover that cost and therefore it would impose an extra burden on the police. It should not be too difficult for a person to prove that he was not involved in the misuse of his vehicle because normally he would not have been present when it was being misused. It would be more difficult for the police to show that he had some involvement if he denied it.
We do not see a need for Amendment No. 296. The regulations will prescribe the circumstances under which the seized vehicle can be disposed of. That would include, for instance, cases in which the seized vehicle was, in the opinion of a competent authority, in such a condition that it ought to be destroyed.
In respect of Amendments Nos. 293 and 294, the regulations will be able to specify what proof of ownership must be produced before the vehicle can be released. We must be careful about that. We need to examine the documentation that will be acceptable as proof of ownership. We ought to be concerned about the principle of releasing a vehicle to someone other than the owner, which could lead to further arguments. We accept that the owner and the registered keeper are not necessarily the same person, but that is a matter of detail which we shall address in the regulations.
Viscount Bridgeman: Will the Minister assure us of the procedure under which the regulations will be put into effect?
Lord Rooker: I was about to say, "As laid down in the clause", but that is not a satisfactory answer. I cannot see whether it is the negative or affirmative procedure. Perhaps I may put it this way: it fully conforms with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee of this House because we have accepted all its recommendations.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that he will write to us on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 293 to 297 not moved.]
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 298:
Page 48, line 34, at end insert—
"( ) A person whose vehicle has been seized under section 52 may apply to a magistrates' court within the relevant jurisdiction within 28 days for an order that the vehicle be released by the relevant authority.

721
( ) Upon such an application, it shall be for the relevant authority to show on the balance of probabilities that the relevant police constable did have reasonable grounds to seize the vehicle.
( ) Failure to satisfy the court will result in the vehicle being returned immediately to the applicant and the applicant's costs being paid by the relevant authority.
( ) If a court is satisfied that there were good reasons, it may order that the vehicle be returned but also that the relevant authority's reasonable costs be met for the seizure and storage of the vehicle.
( ) If a court is satisfied that it is in the public interest that a vehicle remain seized, it may so order but only for a total period of 6 months."
The noble Viscount said: The amendment refers to the powers in Clause 53 in regard to the removal and retention of vehicles which have been seized under Clause 52. As they affect the owner of a vehicle, the proposals are very draconian and we suggest that they should be matters for a tribunal rather than for the Secretary of State. The amendment seeks to design an appellate procedure for those who feel that they have been wronged by a local authority in circumstances where either the Secretary of State or the local authority is unlikely to create such an appellate procedure. This is similar to the provisions in the private security Bill as regards appeals against the grant of private security licences. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: Again, I support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. This is a well thought out and balanced amendment which introduces a much needed element of fairness into the clause. As I said before, I strongly support the principles of Clauses 52 and 53, but certain safeguards, such as this one, need to be incorporated into them.
Lord Borrie: I intervene on this occasion only because we did not have amendments dealing with particular aspects of Clause 52 and therefore we never discussed—we never had occasion to discuss—the warnings that have to be given by a police constable before he may seize vehicles. That warning—and a repetition of the offence—is necessary for the seizure to take place and is preparatory to using, in the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, this "draconian power".
Lord Rooker: It would be quite unfair—indeed, unjust—for the police to retain indefinitely vehicles that they had seized, but we do not consider that the procedures provided for in this detailed amendment, which would enable an aggrieved owner to have access to a court in the event of a dispute with the police, are necessary.
In such circumstances the vehicle owner could make use of existing civil procedures to gain access to the county court. Indeed, the civil courts have already determined similar disputes arising out of the removal, retention and disposal of vehicles seized by the police under their current powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. One example is the case of Service Motor Policies v City Recovery Limited 1997, which reached the Court of Appeal. So there is already a satisfactory procedure.
722
If the owner of the vehicle is subject to a criminal charge arising out of the circumstances in which the vehicle was seized, then an application under the Police Property Act may also be open to him. That procedure is often used by those who are subject to criminal charges to recover their property.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for his support of the amendment. I note what the Minister said—particularly his assurance in regard to the remedies currently available through the courts—and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 298A:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
"ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS
(1) Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) (anti-social behaviour orders) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (b) of subsection (1) (authority to be satisfied that order is necessary to protect persons), there shall be substituted—
"(b) that such an order is necessary to protect relevant persons from further anti-social acts by him."
(3) The words after that paragraph (which specify the authorities who, as relevant authorities, are entitled to apply for anti-social behaviour orders) shall be omitted.
(4) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) In this section and sections 1B and 1E "relevant authority" means—

(a) the council for a local government area;

(b) the chief officer of police of any police force maintained for a police area;

(c) the chief constable of the British Transport Police Force; or

(d) any person registered under section 1 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) as a social landlord who provides or manages any houses or hostel in a local government area.

(1B) In this section "relevant persons" means—

(a) in relation to a relevant authority falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (1A), persons within the local government area of that council;

(b) in relation to a relevant authority falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection, persons within the police area;

(c) in relation to a relevant authority falling within paragraph (c) of that subsection—

(i) persons who are on or likely to be on policed premises in a local government area; or

(ii) persons who are in the vicinity of or likely to he in the vicinity of such premises;

723

(d) in relation to a relevant authority falling within paragraph (d) of that subsection—

(i) persons who are residing in or who are otherwise on or likely to be on premises provided or managed by that authority; or

(ii) persons who are in the vicinity of or likely to be in the vicinity of such premises."

(5) Subsection (2) (which is superseded by the provision made by section (Consultation requirements) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.
(6) In subsection (3) (which identifies the court to which an application should be made), for the words from "the place" to the end there shall be substituted "the local government area or police area concerned".
(7) For subsection (6) (nature of prohibitions which may be imposed by order) there shall be substituted—
"(6) The prohibitions that may be imposed by an anti-social behaviour order are those necessary for the purpose of protecting persons (whether relevant persons or persons elsewhere in England and Wales) from further anti-social acts by the defendant."
(8) In subsection (12) of that section (interpretation)—
(a) after "In this section—" there shall be inserted—
"'British Transport Police Force' means the force of constables appointed under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix);"; and
(b) after the definition of "local government area" there shall be inserted—
""policed premises" has the meaning given by section 53(3) of the British Transport Commission Act 1949."
(9) Nothing in this section applies in relation to any application made under section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 before the coming into force of this section."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 298A, I shall speak also to the proposed new clauses in Amendments Nos. 298B to 298F. These are government amendments on the central issue that I flagged up at Second Reading. I said that we would be bringing forward these amendments, which I hope will meet with the Committee's approval. I do not want to delay our proceedings, but it is worth putting on the record the reasons why we have brought forward these amendments. I can do so fairly briefly.
The anti-social behaviour orders, known as ASBOs—I try to avoid jargon in this place because if it turns up on the telly people wonder what the hell you are on about, but it takes a long time to say without it—are an important tool in addressing anti-social behaviour. However, ASBO use varies between areas and agencies and, to aid the battle against anti-social behaviour, the Government wish to increase the effectiveness of ASBOs by introducing these six amendments.
The proposed new clauses will amend and add to the provisions of Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Amendment No. 298A seeks to enable the British Transport Police and registered social landlords to apply directly for anti-social behaviour orders by giving them "relevant authority" status. Each faces particular problems with anti-social behaviour and this proposed new clause will empower them to deal with such problems in an effective and
724
timely manner. It specifies that the British Transport Police and registered social landlords are able to apply for ASBOs to protect persons who are on their premises or in the vicinity of their premises.
Amendment No. 298A also seeks to extend the area over which an ASBO can be made. It allows for the protection of persons anywhere within England and Wales or a defined area within England and Wales and tackles the problem of an offender simply moving to another area to continue the anti-social behaviour. The applicant will not be required to name or consult each local government area to be covered by the ASBO; paperwork therefore will be kept to a minimum.
Amendment No. 298B seeks to add a new Section 1A to the 1998 Act which enables the Secretary of State to add other non-Home Office police forces to the list of relevant authorities should this be required in the future—for example, the Royal Parks Police—hence avoiding the need for primary legislation.
Amendment No. 298C seeks to add a new Section 1B to the 1998 Act which enables county courts to make anti-social behaviour orders where the person who is to be the subject of the ASBO is party to proceedings that involve anti-social behaviour—for example, in eviction proceedings. Relevant authorities must also be party to those proceedings in order to make the application for the ASBO. If the relevant authority is not party to the proceedings, it may apply to the county court to be joined in the proceedings. Introducing the ASBOs into the county court removes the need for a separate legal process and enables the community to be protected more quickly.
Amendment No. 298D seeks to add a new Section 1C to the 1998 Act which enables a court dealing with criminal proceedings to make an order equivalent to an anti-social behaviour order against a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence in addition to the sentence or conditional discharge. The court must be satisfied that the offender has acted in an anti-social manner that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress, and that the ASBO is necessary to protect persons in England and Wales against further anti-social acts. There is no requirement for a relevant authority to apply for the ASBO on conviction. The court will be able to grant the ASBO by its own motion. This amendment also removes the need for a separate legal process and enables the community to be protected more quickly.
Amendment No. 298E seeks to insert a new Section 1D into the 1998 Act which introduces an interim ASBO that can be made by the courts on application by a relevant authority. It is for a fixed period pending the outcome of a full hearing. The effect of the interim anti-social behaviour order would be similar, as regards the prohibitions it may impose and the sanctions for breach, to a full ASBO. It will provide faster protection to the community and is especially beneficial to witnesses.
Amendment No. 298F seeks to introduce a new Section 1E which amends the consultation requirements for relevant authorities applying for

725
ASBOs. The clause requires the Home Office police force or local authority to consult before applying for an ASBO. It also requires the British Transport Police and registered social landlords to consult both the Home Office police and the local authorities before making an application for an ASBO. It removes the requirement for relevant authorities to consult authorities in adjoining areas which may be covered by the ASBO.
I hope that that brief summary of the proposed new clauses will enable those who are experienced in this matter to realise that the provisions will give more teeth, and practicality, to the anti-social behaviour order. At meetings of one of my local police consultancy committees, which I attended on a regular basis, great hopes were expressed for the ASBOs. Their difficulty in getting off the ground caused a degree of discontent. At present, almost 500 have been brought into being. The proposed changes are highly practical. They will allow ASBOs to "take off". I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for his explanation. It will obviously take some time to read his answer tomorrow and to interpret precisely what it means, but I am grateful for the information.
I have no problem with amending Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act. However, there are two publications relating to the Bill: one containing comment by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; the other from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. My difficulty is that major amendments to the Crime and Disorder Act have not been through some of the machinery that was established to examine the implications. I wonder at what stage the Minister will take that factor into account. That would be helpful. At this stage, I shall make a note of the point and, if we are not satisfied, we hope that on Report a proposal from the committees will be forthcoming.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I thank my noble friend and welcome the provision in paragraph (d) of the proposed new clause to enable registered social landlords to apply to the courts for anti-social behaviour orders.
My noble friend will probably recall that the housing action trust for Castle Vale—which was a testament to civic neglect over many years—set about trying to rebuild that estate and the lives of the 10,000 people living there. It was a sign of the maturity and confidence of the people there that, when the housing action trust decided that anti-social behaviour orders should be applied for, it received the support of that community. One of the most gratifying events was that, when it turned to the community and asked for people to come forward as witnesses, the necessary number of witnesses appeared. If anyone had thought of acting in that way and giving support to the relevant authorities 10 years earlier, they would have had their windows put in at the very least.
My point is that the Castle Vale housing action trust, among other registered social landlords, found the procedure extremely cumbersome, because it was
726
not in charge of it. The trust had to persuade the local authority and the local police force to become involved. It was a bureaucratic nonsense to have to go through the local council when it was no longer the landlord of the homes involved.
One of the last tasks I carried out in my previous job at the other end of this building was to write a letter to the Home Office, on the back of this experience, urging the Government to make this among other changes to the way in which anti-social behaviour orders can be dealt with. On behalf of the Castle Vale housing action trust—I should mention that I am chairman designate of a neighbourhood management hoard which is being established there—and the people living on the Castle Vale estate, I thank the Government for bringing the amendment forward.
We should not be mesmerised by the number of anti-social behaviour orders that have been granted. There is some evidence that magistrates are sometimes reluctant to use them. But there is also evidence that when those accused of anti-social behaviour—I have seen documents running to 30, 40 or 50 incidents, all denied by the young man concerned, as it usually is, and his family—are confronted with that kind of documentation, it can achieve a change in behaviour. That does not happen in every case—and in my experience not in most cases—but in some cases the very threat of an application to the courts for anti-social behaviour orders and the knowledge of what can follow does indeed improve the behaviour. The real threat in the case of the Castle Vale housing action trust was that alongside the applications for ASBOs it applied for possession of the houses concerned. This is serious stuff; but it is serious action that leads public bodies to take such steps. I thank my noble friend again for bringing forward the amendment.
Lord Rooker: I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I know of the incredible efforts carried out by that community over the years. The estate, some 20 or 30 tower blocks, was built on the former Castle Bromwich aerodrome at breakneck speed. It was badly managed by the former managers; namely, Birmingham City Council. The estate was totally reformed. People are queuing up to live in the area now, whereas, in the past, when my own constituents were offered the opportunity to live there, they were horrified. I used to sit there in terror at my surgeries on Friday evenings listening to people saying that they did not want to go to Castle Vale. The exact reverse is now the case. I appreciate what my noble friend has said.
Turning to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, at Second Reading. I flagged up the point that we should bring these amendments forward. They were not ready for the Bill, and we did not want to delay the Bill. I should point out that they are being introduced in Committee, not on Report; so I shall not take too many complaints that we have not introduced them at the first available opportunity after the Bill was printed.
A further memorandum has been submitted to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee covering Amendment No. 289B. The Joint Committee

727
on Human Rights raised a question on the amendments. Its report is in the form of a long letter to me containing 17 questions, one of which I shall refer to. A reply should be sent to the Joint Committee tomorrow. The Government's view is that the amendments, and also the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act, are fully compatible with the Human Rights Act.
I have not yet taken advice on the matter or seen the detail of the reply. However, I was astonished to read the final question on Clause 54, relating to the British Transport Police, which is under the heading:
"Removal of truants to designated places".
The question I was asked, in paragraph 16 of the letter, was:
"What would the purpose of the removal of such truants be, and how would it relate to the legitimate grounds for depriving a person of liberty under Article 5(1)?".
I thought: has this committee taken leave of its senses? The only reason the British Transport Police are involved is that someone is on railway property. So how can we be depriving someone of his or her liberty under the Human Rights Act? If that question is what I think it is, it gives the Human Rights Act the exact bad name that we do not want it to have by making preposterous allegations or by raising issues in such a way that the general public would say that members of the committee are not living in the real world.
The British Transport Police are there to look after railway property. That is their role and function. Truants—people on the property—would be removed. That is what the clause is about—removing people. We are not depriving anyone of his or her liberty. Is it depriving someone of his or her human rights if we remove a truant from railway property? That sounds preposterous. I know that I shall get it in the neck from members of the Joint Committee, but that is up to them. I read the report as a reasonable person. I have not discussed it with the civil servants. I read the whole thing from cover to cover. It was, after all, a letter to me.
The members of the Joint Committee from this Chamber have a vested interest in the issue, but I do not know whether they are here at the moment. Looking at the list of members, I think that they are not here, so I shall not invite any comments. We will give a reasoned and substantive answer to all the questions—much more than was contained in my bellicose statements of a few minutes ago. I am sure that the Committee will be satisfied. We are not in the business of breaching human rights legislation. We are in the business of bringing some law and order to areas where we have discovered defects. One of those areas relates to truants on railway property.
The amendments will require some scrutiny because this is the first time that they have been available. It is important that the Committee of this House and the Joint Committee have an opportunity to look at them. We also have Report stage to come if noble Lords wish to tease out further aspects of them. The new clauses are important. I am not in any way suggesting that
728
they are not. It is because of their importance that I was so mystified by the last but one question of the Joint Committee.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: I had no intention of interfering in the Minister's robust answer to the Joint Committee whenever that is likely to be. My main intention was to point out that whenever such amendments are moved in Committee, an important stage is missed out. I simply want to be satisfied. We have no difficulty with the provision that the Minister is asking for.
Lord Rooker: I have moved the first of the amendments. If the Committee approves it, I shall move the others formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 298B to 298F:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
"POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO ADD TO RELEVANT AUTHORITIES
(1) After section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, there shall be inserted—
" 1A POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO ADD TO RELEVANT AUTHORITIES
The Secretary of State may by order provide that the chief officer of a body of constables maintained otherwise than by a police authority is, in such cases and circumstances as may be prescribed by the order, to be a relevant authority for the purposes of section 1 above."
(2) In section 114 of that Act (negative resolution procedure for orders) after "section" there shall be inserted "1A,"."
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
"ORDERS IN COUNTY COURT PROCEEDINGS
After section 1A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (which is inserted by section (Power of Secretary of State to add to relevant authorities)), there shall be inserted—
"1B ORDERS IN COUNTY COURT PROCEEDINGS
(1) This section applies to any proceedings in a county court ("the principal proceedings").
(2) If a relevant authority—

(a) is a party to the principal proceedings, and

(b) considers that a party to those proceedings is a person in relation to whom it would be reasonable for it to make an application under section 1,

it may make an application in those proceedings for an order under subsection (4).
(3) If a relevant authority—

(a) is not a party to the principal proceedings, and

(b) considers that a party to those proceedings is a person in relation to whom it would be reasonable for it to make an application under section 1,

it may make an application to be joined to those proceedings to enable it to apply for an order under subsection (4) and, if it is so joined, may apply for such an order.
(4) If, on an application for an order under this subsection, it is proved that the conditions mentioned in section 1(1) are fulfilled as respects that other party, the court may make an order which prohibits him from doing anything described in the order.
(5) Subject to subsection (6), the party to the principal proceedings against whom an order under this section has been made and the relevant authority on whose application that order

729
was made may apply to the county court which made an order under this section for it to be varied or discharged by a further order.
(6) Except with the consent of the relevant authority and the person subject to the order, no order under this section shall be discharged before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date of service of the order.
(7) Subsections (5) to (7) and (10) to (12) of section 1 apply for the purposes of the making and effect of orders made under this section as they apply for the purposes of the making and effect of anti-social behaviour orders.""
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
"ORDERS ON CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
After section I B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (which is inserted by section (Orders in county court proceedings)), there shall be inserted—
" 1C ORDERS ON CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
(1) This section applies where a person (the "offender") is convicted of a relevant offence.
(2) If the court considers—

(a) that the offender has acted, at any time since the commencement date, in an anti-social manner, that is to say in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself, and

(b) that an order under this section is necessary to protect persons in any place in England and Wales from further anti-social acts by him,

it may make an order which prohibits the offender from doing anything described in the order.
(3) The court may make an order under this section whether or not an application has been made for such an order.
(4) An order under this section shall not be made except—

(a) in addition to a sentence imposed in respect of the relevant offence; or

(b) in addition to an order discharging him conditionally.

(5) An order under this section takes effect on the day on which it is made, but the court may provide in any such order that such requirements of the order as it may specify shall, during any period when the offender is detained in legal custody, be suspended until his release from that custody.
(6) An offender subject to an order under this section may apply to the court which made it for it to be varied or discharged.
(7) In the case of an order under this section made by a magistrates' court, the reference in subsection (6) to the court by which the order was made includes a reference to any magistrates' court acting for the same petty sessions area as that court.
(8) No application may be made under subsection (6) before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which the order takes effect.
(9) Subsections (7), (10) and (11) of section 1 apply for the purposes of the making and effect of orders made by virtue of this section as they apply for the purposes of the making and effect of anti-social behaviour orders.
(10) In this section—
"the commencement date" has the same meaning as in section 1 above;
"the court" in relation to an offender means—

(a) the court by or before which he is convicted of the relevant offence; or

(b) if he is committed to the Crown Court to be dealt with for that offence, the Crown Court; and

"relevant offence" means an offence committed after the coming into force of section (Orders on conviction in criminal proceedings) of the Police Reform Act 2002.""
730
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
"INTERIM ORDERS
(1) After section 1C of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (which is inserted by section (Orders on conviction in criminal proceedings)), there shall be inserted—
"1D INTERIM ORDERS
(1) The applications to which this section applies are—

(a) an application for an anti-social behaviour order; and

(b) an application for an order under section 1B.

(2) If, before determining an application to which this section applies, the court considers that it is just to make an order under this section pending the determination of that application ("the main application"), it may make such an order.
(3) An order under this section is an order which prohibits the defendant from doing anything described in the order.
(4) An order under this section—

(a) shall be for a fixed period;

(b) may be varied, renewed or discharged;

(c) shall, if it has not previously ceased to have effect, cease to have effect on the determination of the main application.

(5) Subsections (6), (8) and (10) to (12) of section 1 apply for the purposes of the making and effect of orders under this section as they apply for the purposes of the making and effect of anti-social behaviour orders."
(2) In section 4(1) of that Act (appeals), for "order or" there shall be substituted ", an order under section 1D or a"."
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
"CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS
After section ID of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (which is inserted by section (Interim orders)), there shall be inserted—
"1E CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS
Before making an application for an anti-social behaviour order or for an order under section 1B—

(a) the council for a local government area shall consult every chief officer of police of any police force maintained for a police area within which any part of that local government area lies;

(b) any such chief officer shall consult that council and every other such chief officer; and

(c) any other relevant authority shall consult both that council and every such chief officer.""

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: Before the next stage of the Bill, will the Government consider whether the language of this group could be made briefer?
Lord Rooker: Each amendment is a brand new clause to the Bill. Clauses can be one line or 50 lines long. They are as brief as parliamentary counsel, in his or her wisdom, can make them.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 299 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Resignation in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness]:
[Amendment No. 300 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 300A:
Page 27, line 21, at end insert—
"(c) after subsection (5), there shall be inserted—
"( ) Before any action is taken under this section the Secretary of State shall take into account any representations by the appropriate police authority or Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.""
The noble Lord said: Part 3 deals with the power of the Secretary of State to require an authority to cause to retire the commissioner or deputy commissioner, in the case of the Metropolitan Police, or the chief constable in a shire constabulary. It is unlikely that such a situation will arise so precipitately that it will be a complete surprise to anybody. Our aim in tabling Amendments Nos. 300A, 301A and 305 is not to delay the proceedings or to prevent the Home Secretary from exercising his power. We simply want him to take into account the views of the authority—which, after all, is the employer of the man in question—before exercising his power.
In normal circumstances, such situations will develop. They may not develop over a long period, but they will develop. One would have thought that reinstating the triangulation of consultation in this small way was worth doing. We are devoted to the proposition that police authorities have a responsible role to play in the management of their forces. It is a co-operative role. The tripartite arrangement depends entirely on co-operation between all its parts if it is to work. We thought the amendments worth tabling because, so far as we could tell, although the persons affected can make representations that have to be considered by the Secretary of State, the authority seems to be no more than a posting box for a requirement for action. We thought that authorities were entitled to have their views listened to. We do not intend to prevent the Secretary of State taking the action if the situation is at that point. We simply want to be sure that all views are properly considered on the way. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I agree with my noble friend. I have two very civil amendments in this group, motivated by the same intention. One hopes that the Home Secretary will not reach this point too often, because it is difficult to exaggerate the importance of a chief officer of police and the authority under which they serve.
I hope that the Home Secretary does not get into the habit of ordering people about. That would not generate the trust and mutual respect that are essential in the present very difficult circumstances in which all three parties work.
My amendments are not flippant. Good manners and courtesy can make very awkward situations less uncomfortable and a little easier to handle than under the procedures laid down in Acts of Parliament.
Lord Bradshaw: Amendment No. 304 is also in this group. Clause 30 is one of the most important in the Bill. It goes to the heart of one of the core principles underpinning the constitution of policing in this country, which is the operational independence of the
732
chief constable. The current proposals would undermine that principle. They require very detailed scrutiny.
The Secretary of State already has the power, under Section 42 of the Police Act 1996, to require a police authority to exercise its powers under Section 11 of that Act to call upon the chief constable to retire in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. They are long-stop powers, or a safety net, for situations in which it is clear that the police authority is not carrying out its responsibilities properly to deal with the unsatisfactory performance of the chief constable and, as a result, policing in the area not being efficient or effective.
The Government propose to extend those powers in the Bill. Of particular concern is the proposal that the Secretary of State should be able to require the police authority to suspend a chief constable. That change is far more substantive than the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggested at Second Reading. The existing powers at the point of resignation are entirely different from the proposed new powers of suspension. By its nature, the point at which the Secretary of State would consider whether to call upon the police authority to require a chief constable to resign or retire would come at the end of the process when all the facts had been scrutinised and the issues understood. Yet the ability to suspend a chief constable potentially kicks in right at the outset of the process. Is it right that a Home Secretary should be able to interfere in the management of people at that early stage without any form of consultation, without having been there on the ground and without necessarily having the full background and the full facts?
The Government have stated their intention that this would only be a power of last resort. But such statements can easily be lost in the mists of time. The potential for a future Home Secretary improperly to exert influence through the new power is significant. In today's increasingly media-driven age, where people expect instant responses and actions, the stated purpose of the new power could easily be exceeded or even abused.
This is a serious issue. The principle of the operational independence of a chief constable free from political interference has stood the test of time and we erode it at our peril. The amendment I am discussing seeks to protect that principle by requiring the Secretary of State to consult the relevant police authority and have regard to any representations it may make before exercising the powers. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will accept the amendment. It does not seek to wreck the Government's intention underpinning the clause, but it provides a proper buffer between the Home Secretary of the day and the potential for direct interference and undue influence on the fate of a chief constable. As I say, it does not frustrate the Government's stated intention. I urge the Minister to think seriously before taking the powers we are discussing.
Lord Condon: I support Amendments Nos. 300A, 301A, 304 and 305. The cumulative effect of Clauses 28

733
to 32 is probably to make it easier to suspend and remove a chief officer than it is to remove the most inexperienced probationer constable on the grounds of inefficiency or ineffectiveness. That may well be right and in the public interest in the sense that an ineffective and inefficient chief officer can do far more harm than the youngest probationer constable. However, that power to suspend and remove brings with it an obligation at least to adhere to the concepts of natural justice and human rights of the chief officers so affected.
Clauses 28 to 32 seek to update and to some extent extend existing powers. In the recent past those existing powers have been shown to be not effective in taking care of the public interest and the reputation of the service, Therefore, I fully acknowledge the need for reform and the need to extend some of the powers. However, I hope that when the Minister responds to the amendments he will give some assurance that the rights of the chief officers affected will be considered when the regulations under Clause 31 are brought into effect. At the moment an act of faith is required to believe that Clause 31 will bring in procedures to ensure that the rights of the affected chief officers are looked after. The amendments currently under consideration would put on the face of the Bill a requirement to consult police authorities and the inspectorate of constabulary to enable other views to be taken into account.
Clearly, it is in the public interest and that of the service that inefficient and ineffective chief officers should be removed from their positions after due process. My only concern is that at the moment that due process is not clear on the face of the Bill; it will probably be contained in the regulations under Clause 31. As I say, I support the amendments that I have mentioned.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I assure the noble Lord, Lord Condon, that it is not intended in any way, shape or form to deny individual citizens their rights. It may be a question of denying their right to the job in question, but, as I say, we have no intention of going down the road of denying individual citizens their rights. If I cannot satisfy the noble Lord with regard to Clause 31 today, I hope that I shall be able to do so by Report stage. This is an important part of the Bill and the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith, Lord Peyton of Yeovil and Lord Bradshaw, were right to comment on it. I do not agree with all the points they made, but it is right that we spend a few moments discussing this crucial part.
Amendments Nos. 300A and 301A would introduce a layer of process serving no purpose. Clause 28 simply adds the option of resignation to that of retirement when the police authority exercises its powers under Sections 9E, or 11 of the Police Act 1996. The Secretary of State's role under those sections is that he must consent to the exercise of those powers. The amendments are misplaced in that the Secretary of State's obligations in considering whether or not to consent are in Section 42 as amended by Clause 30. But
734
assuming the principle behind them is that the Secretary of State should consult the police authority, they are also unnecessary. Action under Sections 9E and 11 is initiated by the police authority which applies to the Secretary of State for consent. By definition, its views are taken into account as the initiating authority.
I understand that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary is not in the business of making representations as such. It does, of course, offer advice to Ministers on policing issues, including efficiency and effectiveness. It is almost inconceivable that Ministers would not seek the advice of HMIC before consenting to the exercise of these powers by the police authority, but "representations" by it would not be appropriate. However, that does not mean that it is excluded from the matter.
Amendments Nos. 303B and 303C would remove the power of the Secretary of State to intervene in order to require action and to substitute a request for action by the police authority. The effect of this part of Clause 30(2) is simply to include in the existing intervention powers the route of resignation as inserted by Clause 28.
The existing intervention powers (under Section 42 of the Police Act 1996) are for use as a last resort where other avenues have failed. At that stage, the need for urgent action would be paramount and the power to make a request—as opposed to direct—would not represent an effective course of action.
I freely admit to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that I put a sheaf of notes in the Library on the legislation. However, I cannot remember whether they included the clauses we are discussing. I believe that they concerned another part of the Bill. It is not the easiest thing to follow through the process when one is considering dumping sections and subsections in other pieces of legislation that are cross-referenced in our amendments in the Bill, which is amending legislation. I make that absolutely clear.
The existing intervention power already gives the Home Secretary the power to require departure. The only change introduced in Clause 30(2), which runs from line 13 to line 44—it is a substantial subsection—is to allow the departure to be by resignation as well as by retirement. The amendments would change and seriously weaken existing legislative provision rather than the new legislative provision in the Bill. As such, they would not work in the intended way and would in many ways be wrecking amendments.
Amendments Nos. 304 and 305 relate to matters of procedure—that is not to say that they are not important—which should not be set out on the face of the Act but are properly a matter for secondary legislation. Clause 31, to which the noble Lord, Lord Condon, referred, provides a regulation-making power. Where an officer made representations against intervention by the Secretary of State under Section 42, the requirement for an inquiry would be triggered and the views of all parties would be heard, considered and reported to the Secretary of State.

735
I freely admit—I may dig myself into a pit by saying this—that in this context I am very much reliant on the powers of the scrutiny committees in this House. Clause 31 clearly contains the regulation-making power for the removal of senior officers. That provision will become Section 42A of the 1996 Act, which is the main legislation. Clause 31(3) states:
"A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
That involves the negative resolution procedure. However, the point is that there is a procedure for debating the matter. I grant that the affirmative resolution procedure is not involved but the fact that the negative resolution procedure is involved does not mean that the House and the other place cannot debate the matter. There is a well-known procedure for laying a prayer and having a debate. The issue can be brought before the House if the House so chooses.
I end as I began. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Condon, that in no way would the Home Secretary, myself or any other member of the Government operate in such a way as to deny the relevant rights to individuals. I hope that that reassures him. Perhaps I may make a further addition to my earlier comments. The regulations must include the right to know the reasons for the decision, the right to make personal representations to the police authority and, if the Secretary of State initiates removal, an inquiry must be set up by an independent person under Section 42. Those requirements all remain. We should secure the rights of ordinary citizens and ensure that we are not oppressive in relation to an individual. These circumstances clearly involve a traumatic time in a person's life; one has to think about the circumstances in which the powers will be used. They may be a traumatic part of the life of a professional person who is reaching the pinnacle of his or her career. Their rights have to be safeguarded to the extent that we can do so in the regulations. Those matters will be included. I hope that that reassures Members of the Committee that the amendments are not really necessary and that we are certainly minded to take account of the rights of the individuals concerned.
Lord Condon: Before the Minister concludes, I thank him, as ever, for his encouraging and sympathetic response to the points that have been raised. He properly discussed the addition of the word "resign" to the word "retire". To ensure that Members of the Committee do not miss the significance of that, for a relatively young chief officer, resignation rather than retirement could mean forfeiting all pension rights. Over a period of 20 to 30 years, he or she might possibly have to forfeit a six-figure sum in terms of pension rights. As the Minister said, the proposal would have grave implications for a relatively young chief officer if the powers were used in a crude way, which I am sure will not be the case.
Lord Bradshaw: So far as Amendment No. 304 is concerned, we are not really satisfied. We think that
736
before the issue of the removal of the chief constable appeared, the matter would have come to the notice of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the police authority. The process is long and happens very rarely. However, we believe that any attempt to cut out the police authority from the tripartite process will in the end—we have not yet reached the regulations— involve an unnecessary further step along the road. We shall not press Amendment No. 304 but I give notice to the Minister that we feel very strongly about the matter and expect improvements on Report.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for his amendment and in effect for supporting the principle that I advanced. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, argued along similar lines to ourselves. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, pointed out that the proposal will extend existing powers. His point about the effect on pension rights raises a fundamental issue that needs careful consideration.
Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to make the situation absolutely clear. The proposal would have an effect on pension rights but there will be no forfeiture of existing pension rights that were owned by the person. The right to future rights may—I stress that word—be affected. That would be the case in relation to any resignation. There will be no loss of existing vested rights.
Lord Condon: In a sense, what the Minister is saying is accurate but it is also slightly misleading —not intentionally, I am sure. For example, a relatively young chief officer of 41 or 42 years of age will not at that point have accrued pension rights that would automatically kick in if he or she were forced to retire at that point. He or she would have to wait until the age of 60 before any pension provision kicked in. The proposal would have a very serious financial impact on his or her life at that point.
Lord Rooker: Sure.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Condon, for those interventions, which confirm that pension considerations are an important factor.
The Minister said that to the extent that the amendment and those grouped with it changed an existing power in the 1996 Act, they were not really appropriate. We were well aware of that; our approach was quite deliberate. I do not duck that matter. I do not think that the 1996 Act was a perfect piece of legislation; it could be improved by introducing this little gentle and slightly more humane aspect that we have proposed. It would involve a slight saving and it would reinstate arrangements that we happen to believe are appropriate.
The Minister's comments make it clear that we shall have to study his response with great care. The Bill is obviously amending previous legislation—it is not original legislation. As the Minister said, it is therefore somewhat difficult always to interpret what the effect

737
is as one goes back through previous legislation. We may well need to return to this issue. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 301 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 301A not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Suspension of senior officers]:
6 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 302:
Page 28, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) The Metropolitan Police Authority will, in exercising its power, formally advise of the likely duration of the period of suspension prior to the retirement or resignation of the Commissioner of Police, and be required to notify the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary accordingly.".
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 302 and Amendment No. 303, which is grouped with it, seek simply to add a slightly different dimension to a situation in which suspension is called for by requiring the authority to put a time limit on the suspension.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that in a number of cases—not, I hasten to say, in this but in other professions—people are suspended on full pay for interminable periods. One hears of suspensions going on and on in the medical profession. Because a suspension is in place, there seems to be no urgency to resolve the matter. Of course, the person suspended continues to draw his salary and, therefore, he is no worse off. But such a situation is slightly ridiculous, and I do not consider this to be an unreasonable request.
I believe that if a suspension proved to have been arranged for too short a period, an option could be put in place for nominating an extension to it. But the point of the amendment is to ensure that the suspension process is moved forward and that it is subject to pressure to be moved forward due to the fact that it will end if a conclusion is not reached. That may seem to be an insignificant or irrelevant point but we believe that it could be important. It could also be useful in the interests of the efficiency and effectiveness of the service. I beg to move.
Lord Condon: I support Amendments Nos. 302 and 303, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for the reasons which I outlined in debate on the amendments relating to Clause 28. The powers to suspend are proposed new powers. Members of the Committee will be aware that we are not talking about allegations of criminality or even of misconduct; we are talking about allegations of inefficiency and ineffectiveness. I accept that they can be serious, but they are not of the nature of misconduct or criminality.
A suspension could be triggered not on the grounds of a substantive finding of inefficiency or ineffectiveness but simply because it might be in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness and subsequent
738
powers might be used later. Therefore, it is proposed that very strong powers should be used without a substantive finding. I pray in aid the arguments that I put forward in relation to the previous amendments. I hope that, in responding to the amendment, the Minister will again give an assurance that Clause 31, which concerns regulations, will address this type of concern. Therefore, I support the spirit of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
Lord Rooker: I hope that the regulations will make it clear that the period of suspension should not be unreasonable. I believe that, in a way, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, made the case for me. He fairly put forward the two sides of the coin in relation to the setting of the duration of the suspension. If the period that had been set were too short, it would not be fair to the officer concerned if, following inquiries, the suspension then had to continue for a much longer period. We have no provision for setting a term for suspension under any existing powers in relation to disciplinary proceedings.
The fact that a suspension had been arranged would probably indicate that the position surrounding it was not clear. It would be clear that the suspension should have been put in place but a great deal of work would be involved; hence the reason for arranging a suspension rather than holding inquiries while the person in question was still working.
But there is also a danger in over-pitching the term of a suspension in order to be on the safe side and ensure that an officer is not disappointed when the period is extended. There have been some outrageous examples in terms of the conduct of public administration in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, that is not necessarily the case in relation to the police, but the NHS is a prime example. It is preposterous to think that anyone would say, "You're suspended and it will last for four years", but that is how it happens in reality and it is totally and utterly unacceptable. No one would defend that. I certainly do not seek to do so; I make that absolutely clear.
There is no practical way of putting a time limit on the duration of a suspension. That is the difficulty that we face. Therefore, I hope that something may be included in the regulations—I am not writing it as I am on my feet—setting out that there is a duty to ensure that the inquiries which follow a suspension are carried out as expeditiously as possible and that there are no long delays between the various stages of the process.
We have taken advice on this matter because it forms a serious part of the Bill. It affects few individuals but they are individuals who find themselves in traumatic circumstances. We have consulted the Inspectorate of Constabulary, which does not believe that this is a viable way of proceeding. On the other hand, I fully accept that we must find a way of proceeding which is compatible with the desire

739
of the Committee not to allow the police service to fall into the NHS trap in which people are suspended for year after year. That is unacceptable.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, on this matter. I am also grateful to the Minister for his explanation. It is an unfortunate fact that practice elsewhere has, on occasion, been wholly unsatisfactory. It was with that in mind that we tabled the amendments. It has provoked a useful discussion. If we are to see it dealt with in some way through regulation, that may well be extremely helpful.
We shall of course be flying blind, if I may express it in that way, until we see those regulations. The Minister is fortunate that we now know him very well. We know that he is a very straight man, and we can take what he says as being what will happen. I do not believe that we have to worry about that. But a situation is always difficult when one is dealing with legislation which is dependent on regulations and sometimes on guidance and other matters. Without having those in front of one to interpret, one has some difficulty. We shall study what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 303 not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovilmoved Amendment No. 303A:
Page 28, line 35, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: On the last occasion that I drew attention to the consequences of squeezing a new Bill into an old sausage skin in company with its previous occupant—in other words, the 1996 Act—I made a protest against the inelegancies that result. As a consequence, a large load of paper was sent to me but it went missing. The unfortunate person who delivered it obviously found it too heavy and collapsed under the weight of it. I pointed out that only the letter had arrived and I received a second copy, after which the first copy arrived. Courteous as that was, I hope that that will not happen again because I have limited storage space in my modest-sized house in London and I simply cannot go on accommodating a load of paper.
By way of reward, with Amendment No. 303A I am offering the noble Lord an opportunity which he should be keen to seize in order to strike a blow for lucidity and for the English language. I am sure that in this I shall have the energetic support of my noble friend Lord Renton.
In order to make it clear to any Member of the Committee who has not in front of him or her the text of the horror, I am afraid that I must read it out. I apologise for the pain that it will cause to your Lordships. Subsection (3) states:
"In each of sections 9F(3), 9FA(3) and 9G(3) of that Act (application of sections 9E(1) to (3) in the case of Assistant
740
Commissioners, Deputy Assistant Commissioners and commanders), at the end there shall be inserted 'but with the omission in subsection (2A)—

(a) of paragraph (b);

(b) in paragraph (c), of the words from 'or been sent' to 'exercise that power'; and

(c) of the words after paragraph (c)".

The noble Lord would be within his rights if he were to rise to his feet immediately and say that in some way I have misrepresented or misread that horror. The noble Lord kindly agrees that I have done nothing of the kind. Therefore, I cannot help feeling that he must be in an extreme hurry—I shall cut short my remarks—to get rid of such a ghastly piece of language. There must be other ways of achieving the same effect.
Lord Hylton: Does the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, agree that exactly the same consideration as he has rehearsed applies to subsections (4) and (5)?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I had no desire to weary the Committee, or to try its nerves by repeating similar horrors. I chose subsection (3) as an illustration.
Lord Renton: Without appearing to be patronising, I say how refreshing it is to find a layman applying his broad mind to matters that some people would consider to be the responsibility of lawyers.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am grateful to my noble friend. In the dim years of the past, I was called to the Bar and I did practise.
Lord Renton: I apologise.
Lord Rooker: I declare an interest: I am not a lawyer! It is probably unfair to put the matter this way. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, read out the subsection perfectly. The subsection includes the deputy commissioner with the commissioner. The assistant commissioners, the deputy assistant commissioners and the commanders are there, but the deputy commissioner is missing. The beginning of Clause 29 states:
"In section 9E of the 1996 Act (removal of Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner".
I apologise that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, did not receive the first tranche of documents. I handled them myself, but I did not deliver them. I am glad that he has now had a chance to read them.
As with the existing intervention powers under Section 42 of the Police Act 1996, the power for the Secretary of State to require a suspension is restricted to officers having the overall direction of the force; in other words, the chief constable. That is the intention. He is the person in overall charge. The suspension power deliberately extends, in the case of the Metropolitan Police, to include the deputy commissioner, but only the deputy commissioner, in view of his significant role in relation to the overall direction of the force. The power of suspension in the Bill is to be exercised primarily by police authorities.

741
In that respect, I apologise for the way in which the subsection is drafted, but it is necessary because that is the way that the parliamentary draftsman has tried to match the two Bills together, as the noble Lord will have seen from the vast tranche of papers that I sent him—obviously in duplicate.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I strongly object to the abominable practice of trying to squeeze into an already over-filled sausage skin—namely, the earlier Act of Parliament—a new Bill. It is a bad habit and all sorts of horrible inelegancies result. I suggest that should the noble Lord ever lose ministerial office—I am sure that will not happen in a hurry—he could apply his talents to the art of draftsmanship and produce wording that will be greatly preferred to what we have in front of us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30: [Removal etc. of senior officers at the instance of the Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 303B to 305 not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovilmoved Amendment No. 305A:
Page 30, leave out lines 25 to 28.
The noble Lord said: Are the words that my amendment seeks to leave out really necessary? I understand that the Secretary of State has already exercised his power under subsection (1) to require the removal of the chief officer concerned. That being the case, is it necessary—or have I misunderstood—for the police authority to seek his consent? He has initiated the whole process. It appears to me that that is superfluous. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: This amendment would reintroduce an unnecessary piece of the process. The new subsection (4A)(a), as inserted by Clause 30(5), removes the need for a police authority which has been directed by the Secretary of State to take action under Section 42 of the Police Act 1996 subsequently to seek the approval of the Secretary of State for a course of action which he has required to take place.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I sought to excuse the police authority from asking the Secretary of State for his approval to do something which the Secretary of State had instructed the police authority to do. The Secretary of State's agreement could surely be taken for granted.
Lord Rooker: When consolidated, that is precisely what happens.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Regulations concerning procedure for removal of senior officers]:
[Amendment No. 305B not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 306:
Before Clause 32, insert the following new clause—
"DISCIPLINARY REGULATIONS FOR SPECIAL CONSTABLES
In section 51 of the 1996 Act (regulations for special constables), in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"(ba) the conduct of special constables and the maintenance of discipline;"."
The noble Lord said: This is a new clause: disciplinary regulations for special constables. Special constables are included in the provisions of Part 2. However, if an investigation into a complaint against a special constable found evidence of misconduct, there is no formal mechanism for bringing disciplinary charges against that special constable, as there would be for a regular police officer.
The reason for this is that there is neither a code of conduct nor misconduct regulations for special constables. It is left to the discretion of the chief officer as to how disciplinary matters are dealt with. Clearly this is an unsatisfactory situation. When I read the briefing note, I was surprised that that was the case. Perhaps worse still, special constables can be treated in a different way in different forces so there is a lack of equity across the constabulary.
The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations under Section 51 of the 1996 Act as to the conduct of special constables. This will place special constables on a similar footing to regular officers so far as concerns conduct and discipline.
A code of conduct and misconduct regulations for special constables is being prepared and will be completed in time for the introduction of the new system. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I have only one brief comment but I hope the Committee will think it very relevant.
We have too many amendments like this. But it is essential that this branch of the law should be well understood not only by the police but also the public and the legal profession. Such an amendment points to the need for consolidation of this branch of the law. When the Bill reaches the statute book, I hope that the Government will put it early on the list for consolidation with those statutes which the Bill amends; otherwise the law will be in chaos.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am so glad that my noble friend raises the point. I remind him that at an earlier stage in Committee I said that I had inquired of the Public Bill Office what programme existed for further consolidation measures. The answer was that except for one measure which concerned European

743
legislation there was nothing on the stocks. I am sure my noble friend's already justified indignation will be further fired by that.
Lord Renton: It is a good thing that my noble friend draws attention to it. I hope that it may cause the Government to change their mind.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Government for raising the point. It is interesting that there are no powers to discipline special constables but powers to suspend them. One might have assumed that that was a disciplinary function. However, the principle of what the noble Lord says is right. I agree about the need for consolidating legislation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can delight the Committee by saying that on Thursday there will be a Motion to set up a Joint Committee on consolidation Bills. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will be able to put his two penn'orth into that although I note that he is not listed as playing a part. No doubt that Joint Committee could benefit from his advice. I am grateful for comments made from noble Lords opposite.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 59 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 307 to 309 not moved.]
Clause 60 [Nationality requirements applicable to police officers etc.]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 310:
Page 54, line 39, after "provision" insert "made by regulations made under section 34A or 79A of the 1997 Act (regulations for members of NCIS and NCS) or"
The noble Lord said: Clauses 64 and 65 permit direct recruitment of officers by the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. At present, both organisations operate a rank structure only in the sense that officers on secondment take their substantive ranks with them. With the advent of direct recruitment, we need to provide for a formal rank structure and promotion system.
The government amendments do this by importing into the Police Act 1997 a power to make regulations in respect of the government and administration of NCS and NCIS and conditions of service within those bodies. The regulation-making power in each case is similar to that contained in Section 50 of the Police Act 1996 and as such would enable the two organisations to be brought into line with police forces in respect of the framework that applies to the employment of police officers.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggests that were regulations to be made in accordance with new Section 34A the Secretary of State should provide for the redundancy of the Director General of NCIS. I believe that the amendment may have been prompted by the mistaken belief that we are seeking to introduce new powers for
744
the Secretary of State to have a direct hand in the management of NCIS. That is not the case. As I have made clear, the proposed regulation-making power mirrors that contained in the Police Act and provides the framework within which police officers can be employed. This is a necessary consequence of the introduction of directly employed police officers. It removes none of the powers currently vested in the Director General or in the service authorities for NCIS and the National Crime Squad. Therefore, we clearly cannot accept Amendment No. 312A
The new Sections 34A and 79A inserted into the 1997 Act also replicate in respect of the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service the provisions in Clause 32 which relate to the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against members of Home Office forces. This will enable regulations to be made covering the rights of the Independent Police Complaints Commission with regard to disciplinary proceedings, the right of specified persons to participate in or to be present at disciplinary proceedings and to provide for inference to be drawn from a failure to mention a fact when questioned or charged in police disciplinary proceedings.
The supplementary provisions provide for regulations made under the new Sections 34A and 79A of the 1997 Act to be linked to the Police Negotiating Board and the Police Advisory Board in the way that regulations made under Section 50 of the 1996 Act are linked. It is expected that regulations for the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service will mirror closely those of other forces. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall have to work with much greater care and subtlety because the Minister is beginning to read my mind. He precisely divined my thinking in tabling Amendment No. 312A which is grouped with the amendments.
With the assurance that the proposed amendment is not out of line with the regulations relating to employment, I am happy not to move my amendment. My fear was—if one reads the amendment prima facie it is a serious fear—that there would be nothing left for the director to do. If this is in line with other legislation, I shall accept the Minister's assurance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 60, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: Clause 60 is an oddity. Its first line states:
"Irrespective of his place of birth, a person of any nationality may be … a member of a police force".
We oppose the Question that Clause 60 shall stand part of the Bill in order to probe precisely what the Government mean by putting that clause on the face of the Bill. I accept that the situation is not straightforward. At the present time we already admit Irish citizens and Commonwealth citizens to the police service. But they are both subject to various forms of

745
regulation. It may be that in that regard there is a case for doing something for citizens of the European Community.
However, as worded, the Bill appears to be too open. It appears to make it possible for a Chinaman born at the South Pole—if one can conceive of such a thing—to apply to be a member of the British police service. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. I am equally sure that the Government probably have the very best of intentions in putting the clause in the Bill. It ensures that there is no disincentive for any British citizen who happens to have been born abroad, but has been living here and so on, who might consider himself to be a part of a non-British ethnic community—if one can put the matter that way—in joining the police force.
If that is the case, the clause should be slightly more felicitously and precisely worded, or we should know what the other requirements will be in respect of people joining the police force. Presumably it is as is mentioned in subsection (4) at the end of the clause:
"Without prejudice to the generality … that may be made … regulations … may include provision imposing any of the following requirements—

(a) requirements with respect to the competence in written and spoken English …

(b) requirements with respect to the immigration status …

(c) requirements with respect to nationality in the case of particular ranks offices or positions".

To specify particular races for particular ranks might be particularly offensive to some people. That could be immensely difficult. There is a lack of clarity and a lack of precision about Clause 60. I give the Minister and the Government marks for having the best of intentions, but because of the clause's lack of clarity we have opposed the Question that Clause 60 shall stand part of the Bill. We can thus debate the issue and find out precisely what the Government are thinking and what they intend. It may be that at the end of the discussion we shall all be the better for it.
Lord Dholakia: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is probing into this particular matter. He and I probably come at the issue from different angles but probably for the same reason. I suspect—I may be wrong—that the provision has been incorporated to meet the provisions of the race relations legislation. Discrimination is defined as treating someone less favourably on the grounds of race, colour, national or ethnic origin. The words "national" and "nationality" therefore are a matter of concern. That is why the clause has been incorporated.
I speak strongly in favour of Clause 60 standing part of the Bill. My reasons are simple. Recruitment should be based on competence and skills. A modern police service must be as diverse as possible to reflect the society and community that it serves. That is an aim that the Government have repeatedly endorsed.
With the recruitment market getting ever tighter, all options must be considered to ensure that the recruitment pool is as broad as possible, while retaining quality through robust recruitment standards.
746
The office of constable brings special powers and responsibilities. It represents an important part of the fabric of this country. But we should not impose a nationality bar that prevents people with the right level of skills and experience from joining the police force simply because of their nationality.
It is also important that the Bill includes many safeguards. In particular, all potential recruits must meet basic standards in relation to written and spoken English; vetting processes must be capable of being carried out; and certain posts and ranks can continue to be retained for British nationals only. But, if it is the intention of the Government, as specified in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, to make sure that the police, as other organisations, have a duty to promote equality, then this is the right clause for that.
Lord Monson: I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. To an even greater extent I find this a most extraordinary clause. It is true that in certain circumstances foreign nationals, in addition to Commonwealth and Irish citizens, can join our Armed Forces. I give just one example. We shall be eternally grateful to the Poles who joined the RAF before the Battle of Britain. But there is one very significant difference. Our Armed Forces do not have authority over British civilians and do not find themselves in confrontation with them, except in quite exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, the police do.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, we are not talking about bus conductors, lawyers or anyone else, but people with authority to order others about.
Can the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, say which other major countries, if any, allow foreigners to join their police forces? I cannot imagine the French or the Americans—to take just two examples—allowing such a thing to happen.
Lord Renton: I earnestly hope that in the national interest the Government will drop Clause 60. I shall give my reasons for saying that. In my opinion, not only is it the worse clause in the Bill, but it would become a most unfortunate provision in our statutory police law, which goes back many years. Indeed, for the past 50 years I have been involved in it on and off in England and Wales.
To enable foreigners to be police officers of the United Kingdom would be fatal. It would be a big mistake. At present our police do not get the support that they need from masses of people, especially in many of the urban areas. If foreigners also became police officers, our police would get even less support from the public. Crime would therefore increase. In addition, even if foreigners whose English is fluent and who seem to be of good character are chosen to be police officers, many will not understand the local dialects and languages. They are unlikely to have sufficient knowledge of our criminal law, the customs, habits and traditions of our people. Unlike British subjects, they have no obligation of loyalty to the Crown.

747
Clause 60 is the worst provision of our proposed police legislation. I hope that the Government will drop it.
Lord Hylton: The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned that police officers in this country should be fully proficient in the English language, and we all agree. However, in some circumstances, it would be helpful to have police officers who are proficient also in other languages spoken in this country by people who may not speak English themselves. On those grounds, there is a strong case for recruiting people who come from countries of the Commonwealth and the European Union.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right to query Clause 60. It would be helpful if the Minister, in his reply, could reassure us that, for example, all potential police officers who are not British citizens will be required to undertake the form of declaration given in Clause 61 and that that form of declaration will supersede and annul any commitments they may have given previously to foreign states. That is of primary importance. It would clear the air a great deal if Committee Members could be told that.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Renton. However, the Government's insistence that Clause 60 be included in the Bill conveys a rather sombre message: either that our own citizens lack a sense of duty or service, or that the terms offered to them for performing that service are so inadequate that they cannot afford to do it.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: Taken in isolation, quotations from some of the contributions could be sadly misinterpreted outside the House. That is probably the result of our not having had a debate on the issue beforehand. We have simply come straight to the clause stand part.
Earlier, a Committee Member asked me a question through a note on the board. I responded without referring the matter to the Civil Service. Having read more on the detail of the matter and listened further to Members of the Committee, I now realise that I have probably given the noble Lord misleading information. That was my fault because I did not take advice.
I wish to draw attention to the Explanatory Notes. Interestingly, on page 56 the notes relating to Clause 60, which deals with nationality requirements, state:
"Section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700 provides 'no person born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland or the dominions thereunto belonging … shall … enjoy any office or place of trust either civil or military'".
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we have moved on since the Act of Settlement. Changes and qualifications have been made.
We want police forces to be able to make the best use of the human resources at their disposal. If we want the most suitable police officers, we should not exclude
748
applicants on the basis of irrelevant factors. We do not want irrelevant factors to bar people from applying to become police officers.
If we want the police service to reflect society, we should enable it to improve its diversity and remove hurdles. That would require the removal of unnecessary barriers such as nationality. Clause 60 provides for the removal of the existing nationality bar on the employment of non-British nationals in the police services of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That includes the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, the British Transport Police, the Royal Parks Constabulary, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Constabulary and the Special Constabulary. In short, the effect is to render eligible the members of other European Economic Area states and foreign nationals, in addition to British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens, who are already eligible. Therein lies part of the error in my private note to the noble Lord.
That provision would not lead to a reduction in the quality of police recruits because all applicants, whether British or not, will have to meet the same criteria to the same standards before they can qualify for appointment. They will have to demonstrate that they have at least the key competencies required for policing, which is a number one priority. An applicant's place of birth or nationality would be irrelevant in determining whether he or she has the competencies that are required for policing. In particular, an applicant must be able to communicate in oral and written English. Foreign nationals will need to have the right to an unrestricted stay in the United Kingdom, in other words, their immigration status must be satisfactory. In addition, they will need to satisfy the rigorous vetting procedures. Selection will be based on skills and ability, and the same basic tenets should apply to everyone.
Posts that are particularly sensitive on grounds of national security may, if necessary, be reserved for UK nationals. The exercise of that power will take account of equal opportunity and human rights issues. I wish to make it clear that nobody in post would lose his or her job as a result of those changes. This measure is not the same as active recruitment from abroad. Rather its aim is to allow those who live in the United Kingdom free of restrictions to join the police service.
The United Kingdom and most countries permit dual nationality, but many do not. On account of the movement of families and other factors, some people who have lived in this country for years will not, or cannot, become British nationals because the price would be to give up their current nationality. Under the law of some countries, the inheritance or property rights of a citizen who wishes to change nationality might be affected. People cope with that, and it is not a problem for us. Those people live and work here, but they cannot become British citizens because of dual nationality restrictions. However, they can be as loyal, active, qualified and skilled as anybody else in this

749
country. If every country permitted its citizens to have dual nationality, we would probably have far fewer difficulties in that respect.
As I say, this is not the same as active recruitment from abroad. Constables in England and Wales will take the oath of allegiance as amended by this Bill. Everybody will take the oath of allegiance as amended by the Bill, which is clearly set out in Clause 61. Extending the eligibility simply widens the pool of potential recruits giving the police service a more diverse and broader base. I have no idea as to what the potential is. We want to ensure that there are no irrelevant barriers to a person becoming a member of the police service. If anyone wants to argue that we should have irrelevant barriers to being a member of the police service, they are free to do so; but they will find that the argument falls on stony ground.
Lord Fowler: Can the Minister answer the important point as to whether there are reciprocal arrangements with other European Union countries? In other words, if a British citizen wanted to join the CRS in France or wanted to join the Dutch police, would he be able to do so?
Lord Rooker: I have no idea, but the answer is not relevant to this debate. This is not a quid pro quo. We are not arguing on the basis of, "You do it and we will do it". We are talking about the British Government, the British people and British policing on our land. We do not want any artificial barriers. What the French do is up to them. We are not looking for a quid pro quo. I can answer the noble Lord, but the answer is not relevant to this clause.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I share the Minister's admiration for the Explanatory Notes, which I found extremely helpful. But the noble Lord elided the final sentence of the first paragraph of the Explanatory Notes where it says,
"If an applicant is a citizen of the Irish Republic or a Commonwealth citizen other residential and ancestry conditions must be satisfied".
My question is whether subsection (4) automatically eliminates the significance of that final sentence.
Lord Rooker: I cannot answer the noble Lord. I shall have to take advice. As I said originally, the barrier was reviewed many years ago and the service is now open to citizens of the Republic or the Commonwealth. They may not be British nationals, but nationals of another country resident here. It may be that their residence requirement is dependent on their ancestry. It may be an immigration factor. I shall look at that and write to the noble Lord if I do not provide an answer before we leave this part of the Bill.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I can raise a further point on the Explanatory Notes on which the noble Lord relies a great deal. I read the Explanatory Notes very carefully before we started this debate, in fact some
750
time ago. Having read them again I find that there is nothing in them which answers the various objections I raise to this clause.
Lord Rooker: The objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, were not valid, and I answered them. His argument that people would speak with the wrong dialect does not hold water. People will be required to communicate in the English language orally and in writing. We are a country of dialects. People do not understand mine. I could have trouble being understood in some parts of the country as a police officer. But I am British; I am white; and therefore it is okay. The implication that because they were not British and not white and therefore would not understand our dialects cannot be a legitimate barrier to their joining the police service.
Recruitment is not only based on communication; it is also based on skills and ability and the demonstration of the key competencies required for policing. People's competencies will be tested and if they do not meet the test they will not get in the door. That is the central issue. It does not matter whether they have a problem with their dialect or anything else. It may be that in some areas they need a dialect. I mean "up north" they might need a dialect. But the noble Lord's comments were not relevant and I answered any that were. If I may I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, and give him an answer.
Lord Monson: Can the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, say to what extent the Government have consulted the public at large about this clause? I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right in the sense that the public will not like it once it is brought to their attention, which has not yet happened. Members of the public will probably accept Commonwealth or Irish citizens. I am not sure that they would want—to take a few nationals at random—Greek, Russian or Iraqi citizens to have authority over them. "Authority" is the operative word.
Again, the Minister may not have the answer at his finger tips. Will he write to me and say whether there are other precedents for this move? Do any other EU countries allow foreigners to join their police service?
Lord Condon: While I was commissioner, we found that existing legislation inhibited the recruitment of many fine people who were living in this country and had done so for many years and who, in all other respects, satisfied the fit person requirements to become a police officer. The safeguards in Clause 60, requiring that any candidate would have to satisfy immigration regulations, language prescription, fit person and character conditions and so forth, are amply sufficient.

751
As the Minister said, this is not a question of seeking to go abroad and recruit actively; it is a question of removing barriers to entry for many candidates who have lived in this country for many years and who would be fine additions to the police service.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to put a question to him. I listened with great respect—I always had respect for him, as he knows. Bearing in mind that in some parts of the country the police do not receive the public support they need, does he think that that support will be increased or lessened by the recruitment of foreigners?
Lord Condon: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to use the term "foreigners" does not take the debate forward. Many able people living in this country, who have lived in this country for many years, would, with advantage and in the public interest, come into the service via this provision.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I hesitate to intervene at such a late stage, but I cannot see why, if such a person should be a loyal, suitable person who has lived for many years in this country, he cannot make the choice and become a British citizen. I know the Minister said that in some cases difficulties arise over property rights. But it is such an important job and one where unquestioned loyalty—perceived as loyal by the ordinary man in the street—is so necessary that the simple answer is for them to become British subjects. Otherwise they will not be eligible.
7 p.m.
Lord Rooker: Matters are getting worse. I do not accept the arguments. In answer to the question on consultation I can say that I am not aware there was consultation as such, but the issue was raised in the White Paper Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform. In the human resource management section, paragraph 6.16 says:
"The restrictions on foreign nationals serving as police officers will be removed by the Police Bill".
So it has not just been trumped up from anywhere.
Let me put it this way. All the examples have been one-sided, except for that of the noble Lord, Lord Condon. We are talking about the police authority over citizens. But by and large most people's contact with the police is when the police are helping them. Nobody asks the brain surgeon, "Is your nationality okay? I do not know whether I can trust you". They trust the fact that the person is qualified to do the job and has the professional qualifications. They probably would not even question their residency application. It is the quality of the people concerned that is important.
When the police are helping the general public, making inquiries after a crime or conducting a crime prevention survey, nobody will ask, "Are you British, because if you are not, I do not want your help?". That is the implication of what some noble Lords have said;
752
"negative" would be the polite way to describe what I have heard in the past half-hour. Noble Lords have not been able to give a good reason.
I feel that I have answered the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. I cannot give details of individual circumstances, although I could give examples from my constituency experience of people being caught up in problems because they could not have dual nationality. There is one nation in the European Union that does not allow dual nationality, so it is not a third world issue. It can be serious. Many people have put down roots here—perhaps, they have raised a family, done business or been educated and received their qualifications and skills here. They are as dedicated to this country as anybody else, but, because of some quirk, some nations have not got their act together to take account of the fact that people move around the planet in a way in which they never did before, which causes difficulties for individuals. However, that should not be a barrier to those people participating fully in the society in which they have chosen to put down roots, as long as they have as they have the necessary competences, skills and abilities.
The implication of what the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, said is that nobody of British nationality has ever been a traitor. That is the implication of her question about whether they were fully up to scratch with their allegiance. Most traitors to this country came from the upper class, and they were all British. We should not enter a diversionary debate, in the belief that everything is black and white.
We heard the noble Lord, Lord Condon, say that he had personal front-line experience of people who would have made a good contribution to the police service in this country being prevented doing so because of a quirk of nationality. That problem may not have been of their creation, but they could not get out of it, perhaps because of their children or whatever; I do not know. It could have been because of the effect on the rights of their family in the other country or other family responsibilities. We simply do not know.
I suspect that the clause will get another run-out on Report. I shall probably be able to deploy more and better arguments for those noble Lords whom I have been unable to satisfy now.
Lord Monson: I accept some of what the Minister says, but does he agree that a brain surgeon cannot stop someone in the street and search them or pull them up in their car on a motorway? The question of authority is at the crux of the matter.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I should like to say that the issue of treason did not cross my mind. I was merely concerned about the degree of authority that someone might have in such cases, not about treason.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not apologise for initiating the discussion, even if the Minister would have preferred us to have bit-by-bit discussions and try to

753
amend parts of the clause. I could not see how we could do that. We have had a discussion in the round, and that is what was required.
As I said, I suspected that the Government's motives were good: in fact, they are good. However, whether the Minister's response has satisfied everyone is an entirely different matter. Those who said that it was the worst clause in the Bill had a point. Sadly, the clause is open to misinterpretation because of the way in which it is drafted. That may be unfortunate, and I know that it is not the intention that the effect should be malign. However, the way in which the Bill is drafted means that, in the wrong hands, the clause could be misinterpreted.
The Minister has given a good explanation. The contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Condon, was significant. I was also aware of the problems that had occurred from time to time and how they cause difficulty. I am grateful to my noble friends who have contributed.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 311 not moved.]
Baroness Wilkinsmoved Amendment No. 311A:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause—
"DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
(1) Section 64 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50) is amended as follows.
(2) Subsection (5A) is omitted.
(3) After subsection (8), insert—
"(8A) For the purposes of this Part, the holding of the office of constable shall be treated as employment—

(a) by the chief officer of police as respects any act done by him in relation to a constable or that office;

(b) by the police authority as respects any act done by them in relation to a constable or that office.

(8B) There shall be paid out of the police fund—

(a) any compensation, costs or expenses awarded against a chief officer of police in any proceedings brought against him under this Act, and any costs or expenses incurred by him in any such proceedings so far as not recovered by him in the proceedings; and

(b) any sum required by a chief officer of police for the settlement of any claim made against him under this Act if the settlement is approved by the police authority.

(8C) Any proceedings under this Act which, by virtue of this subsection, would lie against a chief officer of police shall be brought against the chief officer of police for the time being or, in the case of a vacancy in that office, against the person for the time being performing the functions of that office; and references in this section to the chief officer of police shall be construed accordingly.
(8D) This section applies to a police cadet and appointment as a police cadet as it applies to a constable and the office of constable.
(4) In this section—
"chief officer of police"—

(a) in relation to a person appointed, or an appointment falling to be made, under a specified Act, has the same meaning as in the Police Act,

(b) in relation to any other person or appointment, means the office who has the direction and control of the body of constables or cadets in question;

754
"the Police Act" means, for England and Wales, the Police Act 1996 (c. 16), or, for Scotland, the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77);
"police authority"—

(a) in relation to a person appointed or an appointment falling to be made, under a specified Act, has the same meaning as in the Police Act.

(b) in relation to any other person or appointment, means the authority by whom the person in question is or on appointment would be paid;

"police cadet" means any person appointed to undergo training with a view to becoming a constable;
"police fund" in relation to a chief officer of police within paragraph (a) of the above definition of that term has the same meaning as in the Police Act, and in any other case means money provided by the police authority;
"specified Act" means the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 (c. 44), the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 (c. 47) or the Police Act."
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke apologises to your Lordships. He is unable to be present because of a long-standing engagement that he could not break.
The amendment would remove irrelevant barriers to joining the police force. It would remove the police from the employer exemptions in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In doing so, it mirrors provisions in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which brought the police within the remit of anti-discrimination legislation.
The amendment follows the recommendation made by the Disability Rights Task Force in its report From Exclusion to Inclusion, published over two years ago. In its response, entitled Towards Inclusion—Civil Rights for Disabled People, the Government accepted that recommendation and, following on from the EU directive on equality in employment, which required the UK to remove this and other employment exemptions, the Government have confirmed their intention to do so by October 2004.
We must agree with the Disability Rights Commission that it is a basic question of justice that all employees, wherever they work, should be protected against discrimination. The Disability Discrimination Act enacted by your Lordships in 1995 provides a flexible framework that can recognise the particular requirements of occupations such as the police, containing, as it does, the concept of reasonableness, which has emerged as a supremely workable attribute of the law relating to disability. The duty to make reasonable adjustments need not imply any negative impact on operational effectiveness or safety. The police would not be required to take on anyone who could not do the job.
The amendment might help with recruitment and retention. As the case of a police officer cited in research published by Diabetes UK into the nature and extent of discrimination against people with diabetes shows, discriminating attitudes can impede disabled people from making a contribution to society more than the effect of any impairment. The police officer was removed from driving duties and made

755
subject to a blanket bar on transfer to other forces because of his diabetes. In his experience, however, his impairment had given him strength. He said:
"Being a diabetic has changed my life. I think it has made me a better and more responsible person. If I were treated more fairly I could live quite happily with diabetes. I have never felt it restricts me—officialdom has always managed to more than fill that role".
As the Government have accepted the case for the inclusion of the police in the DDA, I urge them to take the opportunity presented by this Bill to legislate on the exemption now, rather than wait until late in 2004.
In paragraph 2.34 of the White Paper Policing u New Century: A Blueprint for Reform, the Government argued the need for a diverse workforce representative of all sections of the community. Agreement to the amendment would help to make the Government's aim a reality. The White Paper sets a target of increasing police numbers to 130,000 by spring 2003. If the DDA were extended to cover police officers, the pool of people from which the new officers could be recruited in order to meet that target would be increased.
According to the National Institute for the Blind, currently the Metropolitan Police refuse people simply for being colour blind or for being very short-sighted. Disabled people have been employed for a long time as civilians in the police force and allowing some disabled people to serve as police officers would be consistent with the proposals in the White Paper which suggest a blurring of lines between jobs done by civilians and officers.
The Police Reform Bill is proposing a number of major changes to the police force. Given that situation, surely it would make sense to accept this amendment and extend the Disability Discrimination Act to police officers now so that they will not be subject to continual change. I urge Members of the Committee to accept this amendment and to enact all the changes at once rather than wait for another piecemeal reform in the year 2004. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: I am delighted to support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has a unique record of taking on issues of disability. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, has made out a very sound case about the need to extend the Disability Discrimination Act to cover police officers.
I very much welcome this amendment because it is an important debate in the context of police reform and one on which I hope the Government will reflect very carefully. The Government's decision to bring the police within the remit of anti-discrimination legislation through the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, was extremely welcome and positive. It is now quite proper and timely to look very seriously at extending that principle to disability.
Policing must reflect, recognise and respond effectively to the many and varied elements of today's society. It is a credit to this Government that they
756
recognised this early in their term of office and have put in place targets for recruitment to the police from members of minority ethnic communities. But discrimination on grounds of disability has not yet been given the same amount of attention despite the government's commitment in their response to the Disability Rights Task Force to extend the Disability Discrimination Act to police officers when legislative time allows. Surely, this Police Reform Bill provides the right opportunity for us to act.
It is therefore right that we not only support it, but make provisions which are appropriate. I believe that we must also proceed carefully. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, has rightly pointed out some of the difficulties that may exist. Clearly, many aspects of policing can be physically demanding. This House must also bear in mind the wider requirements of the criminal justice system. The police are under mounting pressure to ensure all cases are watertight and capable of withstanding intense scrutiny from defence barristers looking for the slightest issue on which to cast doubt on the credibility of the overall case. What impact might there be on a case if the credibility of the evidence of a police constable was brought into doubt owing to concerns, for example, about eyesight?
I do not have the answer to this particular question, but my point in raising it is simple. The police service operates to some very high standards which are required by the criminal justice system. We cannot ignore them. They are a reality and they place demands on those people who hold the office of constable. Minimum standards are absolutely necessary. Yet the police service must also be an inclusive service if it is to retain the confidence of all sections of society. The police service is doing itself no favours if it fails to take advantage of the wealth of skills and experience which people with disabilities have and which can be of great advantage to the service.
In conclusion, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will give this amendment very careful consideration. I believe there is a balance between the needs and demands of policing and the equally pressing need to avoid discrimination. We must think very carefully about the detail of the issue to ensure that we strike the right balance. If the noble Lord believes that the Home Office needs more time to consider the issue before coming back with government amendments at Report stage to put into effect the spirit of this amendment, then let it be so. But I very much hope that he will signal a clear commitment tonight that the Government will act on this important issue.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for the great ingenuity that they have exercised in finding a vehicle to bring forward this very worthwhile proposition and to seek to end various employment exemptions from the Disability Discrimination Act. By tabling this amendment to the Police Reform Bill they are replicating Clause 4 of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord

757
Ashley, which seeks to amend the Disability Discrimination Act in much wider areas. That was debated in Committee on 6th March.
My noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham made clear when speaking for the Government at both Second Reading of the noble Lord's Bill on 23rd January and in Committee last week, that they are not yet ready to amend the Disability Discrimination Act. As she pointed out quite properly, we are still developing, through a thorough and widespread consultation, our overall legislative strategy for improving the Act. In that respect the noble Lord's Bill and this amendment before us today are a little premature as the noble Baroness said. We set ourselves a target deadline of October 2004 and it is the Government's intention to stick to it.
We have made it clear that we will be implementing a comprehensive employment and vocational training protection scheme for disabled people, represented currently in the employment directive brought forward under Article 13 of the EC Treaty, when we bring forward proposals in 2004. That would cover most of the important proposals made in our response to the Disability Rights Task Force document Towards Inclusion, including most of those items which would be brought about by this amendment with the exception, which I believe is widely understood, of the Armed Forces. There it is the government's intention to retain the current exemption in the Disability Discrimination Act.
I recognise that my response sounds a little bureaucratic, negative and something of a killjoy. But the Government's case is that we need to have a comprehensive approach and to address matters of detail in that approach. It has been rightly pointed out that we seek to reflect broadly the diversity or our population in the workforce of the police service, which is right. I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported that objective. I believe that we have made great strides in that direction. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was kind enough to pay tribute to the Government for their record on race legislation and, more importantly, on action. I believe that we are all proud to have been associated with it.
However, in this instance, although we recognise the value of this amendment and that it would bring forward matters that we intend to deal with later, it is right that our strategy should be comprehensive and that the issues raised in this amendment are picked up in a broader and more thorough way than it allows. I have not studied its detail, but there may well be matters which are lacking. I do not know. There are broader considerations at work. We welcome the debate and the fact that we have had the opportunity to put on record again our commitment. We look forward to bringing forward a comprehensive package in due course.
With those words of encouragement, which is what they are intended to be, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilkins: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his support for the amendment
758
and to the Minister for his thoughtful reply. I ant sure that my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke will study it most carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 62 to 65 agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 312:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
"REGULATIONS FOR NCIS
(1) After section 34 of the 1997 Act there shall be inserted—"
34A REGULATIONS FOR NCIS
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may make regulations as to the government and administration of NCIS and conditions of service with NCIS.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision with respect to—

(a) the ranks to be held by police members of NCIS;

(b) the promotion of police members of NCIS;

(c) voluntary retirement of police members of NCIS;

(d) the efficiency and effectiveness of police members of NCIS;

(e) the suspension of police members of NCIS from membership of NCIS and from their office as constable;

(f) the maintenance of personal records of members of NCIS;

(g) the duties which are or are not to be performed by police members of NCIS;

(h) the treatment as occasions of police duty of attendance at meetings of the Police Federations and of any body recognised by the Secretary of Stale for the purposes of section 64 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16);

(i) the hours of duty, leave, pay and allowances of police members of NCIS; and

(j) the issue, use and return of—

(i) personal equipment and accoutrements; and 27

(ii) police clothing.

(3) Regulations under this section for regulating pay and allowances may be made with retrospective effect to any date specified in the regulations, but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorising pay or allowances payable to any person to be reduced retrospectively.
(4) Regulations under this section as to conditions of service shall secure that appointments for fixed terms are not made except where the person appointed holds the rank of superintendent or a higher rank.
(5) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases and circumstances.
(6) Any statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the Scottish Ministers."

759
(2) In section 37 of the 1997 Act (discipline regulations for NCIS), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of the other powers conferred by this section, regulations under this section may make provision—

(a) for conferring a right to bring and conduct, or otherwise participate or intervene in, any disciplinary proceedings on the Independent Police Complaints Commission;

(b) for conferring a right to participate in, or to be present at, disciplinary proceedings on such persons as may be specified or described in the regulations;

(c) as to the representation of persons subject to disciplinary proceedings; and

(d) for section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (inferences to be drawn from a failure to mention a fact when questioned or charged) to apply, with such modifications and in such cases as may be provided for in the regulations, to disciplinary proceedings.

(2B) In subsection (2A) 'disciplinary proceedings' means any proceedings under any regulations made under subsection (1) which—

(a) are conducted in England and Wales; and

(b) are identified as disciplinary proceedings by those regulations."

(3) In section 38 of the 1997 Act (appeals against decisions in disciplinary proceedings), in subsection (1), for the words "or required to resign", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted ", required to resign or reduced in rank"."
[Amendment No. 312A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 312, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 312 agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 313:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
"REGULATIONS FOR NCS
(1) After section 79 of the 1997 Act there shall be inserted—
"79A REGULATIONS FOR NCS
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may make regulations as to the government and administration of the National Crime Squad and conditions of service with that Squad.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision with respect to—

(a) the ranks to be held by police members of the National Crime Squad;

(b) the promotion of police members of the Squad;

(c) voluntary retirement of police members of the Squad;

(d) the efficiency and effectiveness of police members of the Squad;

(e) the suspension of police members of the Squad from membership of it and from their office as constables;

(f) the maintenance of personal records of members of the Squad;

(g) the duties which are or are not to be performed by police members of the Squad;

(h) the treatment as occasions of police duty of attendance at meetings of the Police Federations and of any body recognised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 64 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16);

(i) the hours of duty, leave, pay and allowances of police members of the Squad; and

760

(j) the issue, use and return of—

(i) personal equipment and accoutrements; and

(ii) police clothing.

(3) Regulations under this section for regulating pay and allowances may be made with retrospective effect to any date specified in the regulations, but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorising pay or allowances payable to any person to be reduced retrospectively.
(4) Regulations under this section as to conditions of service shall secure that appointments for fixed terms are not made except where the person appointed holds the rank of superintendent or a higher rank.
(5) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases and circumstances.
(6) Any statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
(2) In section 81 of the 1997 Act (discipline regulations for NCS), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of the other powers conferred by this section, regulations under this section may make provision—

(a) for conferring a right to bring and conduct, or otherwise participate or intervene in, any disciplinary proceedings on the Independent Police Complaints Commission;

(b) for conferring a right to participate in, or to be present at, disciplinary proceedings on such persons as may be specified or described in the regulations;

(c) as to the representation of persons subject to any disciplinary proceedings; and

(d) for section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (inferences to be drawn from a failure to mention a fact when questioned or charged) to apply, with such modifications and in such cases as may be provided for in the regulations, to disciplinary proceedings.

(2B) In subsection (2A) 'disciplinary proceedings' means any proceedings under any regulations made under subsection (1) which are identified as disciplinary proceedings by those regulations."
(3) In section 82 of the 1997 Act (appeals against decisions in disciplinary proceedings), in subsection (1), for the words "or required to resign", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted ", required to resign or reduced in rank"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 314:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
"SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS ABOUT POLICE MEMBERSHIP OF NCIS
(1) The reference in section 59(8)(a) of the 1996 Act to persons falling within section 9(2)(a) of the 1997 Act shall include a reference to persons appointed as police members of the National Criminal Intelligence Service ("NCIS") after the date on which section 64 comes into force.
(2) The persons whose interests are to be represented by the membership of the Police Negotiating Board shall include persons appointed as police members of NCIS after the date on which section 64 comes into force.
(3) In section 62(1) of the 1996 Act (duty to consult Police Negotiating Board before making certain regulations), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
"(aa) section 34A of the Police Act 1997;".

761
(4) The function of the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales of advising on general questions affecting members of NCIS within section 9(1)(b) of the 1997 Act shall include the function of advising on such general questions as respects persons appointed as police members of NCIS after the date on which section 64 comes into force.
(5) In section 63(3) of the 1996 Act (duty to consult Police Advisory Board before making certain regulations), in paragraph (c), after "section" there shall be inserted "34A,".
(6) In section 9A of the 1997 Act (retirement in interests of efficiency or effectiveness), for "member of NCIS" there shall be substituted "police member of NCIS with the rank of assistant chief constable"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 315:
After Clause 65. insert the following new clause—
"SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS ABOUT POLICE MEMBERSHIP OF NCS
(1) The reference in section 59(8)(b) of the 1996 Act to persons falling within section 55(2)(a) of the 1997 Act shall include a reference to persons appointed as police members of the National Crime Squad ("the Squad") after the date on which section 65 comes into force.
(2) The persons whose interests are to be represented by the membership of the Police Negotiating Board shall include persons appointed as police members of the Squad after the date on which section 65 comes into force.
(3) In section 62(1) of the 1996 Act (duty to consult Police Negotiating Board before making certain regulations), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
"(ab) section 79A of the Police Act 1997;".
(4) The function of the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales of advising on general questions affecting members of the Squad within section 55(1)(b) of the 1997 Act shall include the function of advising on such general questions as respects persons appointed as police members of the Squad after the date on which section 65 comes into force.
(5) In section 63(3) of the 1996 Act (duty to consult Police Advisory Board before making certain regulations), in paragraph (c), after "39," there shall be inserted "79A,".
(6) In section 55A of the 1997 Act (retirement in interests of efficiency or effectiveness), for "member of the National Crime Squad" there shall be substituted "police member of the National Crime Squad with the rank of assistant chief constable"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Police authorities to produce three year strategy plans]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 316:
Page 59, line 11, leave out "secure that the plan is and remains consistent with" and insert "have regard in preparing that plan to"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 324, 325 and 326. We have already covered this ground during proceedings on the Bill, so I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. Although we welcome the general proposals on three-year police plans, and so on, we believe that it is improper to have quite the amount of detailed control over the content of the plan that the present drafting of the Bill gives the Secretary of State.
The amendments are part of a whole series that we have presented during the course of the Bill's progress. They are designed to relieve that pressure, and to allow
762
a little more flexibility in local plans. As I said, we have already covered this ground sufficiently and, therefore, I need say no more. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 327, which is included in this grouping. We fully support the statutory provision for three-year policing plans produced by the police authority. Indeed, that is what is happening in the places where good practice is found in the country. However, we have some difficulty with aspects of three-year plans with which we shall deal later. We should have preferred the tried-and-tested formulation in the Police Act 1996 because it recognises the respective roles and responsibilities of the tripartite relationship, which is about partners who work to the same time-scale together rather than working in some sort of management line, one to the other. We support the amendment. If it is not accepted at this stage, we shall return to the matter on Report.
Lord Rooker: The national policing plan is seen as a key part of the process of achieving a high standard of policing throughout England and Wales. The preparation of the three-year policing plans that are required to be consistent with the national policing plan will help to ensure that all police forces are working to this common goal. We need to ensure that different levels of the plan are consistent with each other. Hence it is appropriate that the Bill requires the three-year strategy plans to be consistent with the national policing plan, rather than simply asking those who are writing the plans to "have regard to" the national policing plan. We do not accept that this requirement undermines the tripartite relationship or the role of police authorities. Indeed, we believe that it raises their profile and supports their role in ensuring consistent and coherent planning.
Amendment No. 327 would delete the requirement for annual best value performance plans to be consistent with the three-year plans It seems entirely logical to us that, just as the national policing plan informs the three-year strategy plans, so three-year strategy plans inform the best value performance plans. Hence the clause requires local policing plans to be consistent with the three-year plans; and that the police authority's annual report assesses the extent to which the strategy plan has been implemented.
The central bone of contention here is that many noble Lords believe that we are hell-bent on undermining the tripartite relationship. We are not. I shall keep saying that until I am blue in the face.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister will keep saying it until he is blue in the face, and we shall continue to make our point. However, we are dealing with what appears on the face of the Bill—the content of the legislation, which makes these things possible. That is the matter of concern that we have been pressing throughout these debates. I suspect that we shall never be able to agree with the Minister on this issue. We entirely accept the Minister's good faith and his good intentions, but we have to deal with the words that

763
appear on the paper in front of us. Those words would permit rather more than I am sure the Minister intends to implement himself. We have some concern for the future. I have heard the explanation. This is a well cultivated field now, and further cultivation this evening will not improve it. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 317:
Page 59, line 15, leave out from "In" to end of line and insert "considering the draft plan, the police authority"
The noble Lord said: This amendment extends the debate that has just taken place. I shall not, therefore, be very long in my introduction. We seek to emphasise that the police plan—the three-year plan—is a joint effort between the police authority and the chief officer. We believe that that Government are placing too much emphasis in the Bill on the chief officer. In our view, the plan is the authority's plan. We do not want the roles of the chief officer and the police authority blurred. Like the Minister, we want consultation with local communities. Indeed, it is one of the statutory duties of police authorities. But, at present, the Bill confuses the role of the police authority and that of the chief officer.
We shall continue to say—the Minister is aware of this—that we want the provision straightened out by the time we reach the Report stage, so that it is quite clear to any simple, not complicated, person reading the Bill that it is a tripartite relationship, and that certain duties are laid down for the police authority. That must be clearly stated in the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I support the amendment. If we believe, as I am sure is the case with my noble friend the Minister, that the three-year plan is an important document, and if it is setting an overall direction for the police service in the area, it should be owned by the police authority. If it is such an important document, clearly there should be local consultation that is the responsibility of the police authority. For that reason, I believe that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is eminently sensible. When my noble friend the Minister considers it in the cold light of day, I am sure that he will realise how much it supports the objectives that he is seeking to fulfil.
Lord Rooker: The Government are determined to support police authorities—full stop. I stress that point. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, cannot have it all his own way. A tripartite arrangement means that there has to be something for the other two parties to do. You cannot have a monopoly. A11 I ever hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is that the tripartite relationship seems to consist of only one part.
We support the police authorities and the chief police officers in their planning to achieve a consistently high standard. We need to have confidence that the local plans are based on
764
appropriate and timely consultation with local communities. Section 96 of the Police Act 1996 requires the police authority to make arrangements for consultation. Once those arrangements are in place it is equally appropriate for the chief police officer to make use of them, as it is for the police authority.
I am looking for a shaking of the head from the noble Lord, rather than a nodding of the head. However, I am seeing only neutrality. It seems to me that this argument is too one-sided. We believe that chief police officers should be able to make use of those consultations, and that they should do so when preparing the draft three-year plan. It is not enough to expect the police authorities to have regard to these local views when they consider the draft plan submitted to them. By then, it is too late. It is far better for the chief officer to have taken note of local views when drafting the three-year plan. What on earth is wrong with that? It is the Government genuinely supporting police authorities and the chief police officers.
Lord Bradshaw: I hear what the Minister says. I have taken part in many consultation meetings involving the public. They are generally led by the police authority, and a fairly senior policeman is usually in attendance at such meetings. However, it is usually the responsibility of the police authority to produce the plans. It is its plan. If I seem to be somewhat obdurate, I apologise, but I am sticking very firmly to any measures which undermine the place of police authorities and thereby the local communities and elected representatives who form a majority of the authorities. Therefore, I hope that for once I have the Minister's sympathy for sticking up for elected representatives.
I am implacably imposed to direct instructions from the Secretary of State to the chief officer of police which in any way bypass the police authority. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.31 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Hepatitis C
7.31 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchesterrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what new help they are considering for people with haemophilia who were infected with hepatitis C by contaminated National Health Service blood products and for the dependants of those who have since died.

765
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this debate—I speak as president of the Haemophilia Society—is to focus parliamentary and public attention on the now burning sense of injustice felt by a small and stricken community.
Ninety-five per cent of people with haemophilia treated before 1985—some 4,800 people—were infected with hepatitis C—HCV—by unclean NHS blood products. One in four of them was also infected with HIV. Over 800 have now died of AIDS-related illnesses from HIV infection and 212 have died from liver disease linked to HCV.
Yet, already twice stricken, the haemophilia community has now been dealt a cruel further blow. They are told by the Department of Health that 'blood products on which many rely crucially for their survival came from plasma donated by people who have since died of vCJD.
That briefly is the factual basis of what doctors of the highest distinction—including my noble friend Lord Winston, who is vice president of the Haemophilia Society—have described as the worst treatment disaster in the history of the National Health Service.
Its magnitude explains why the Haemophilia Society has felt moved to protest today about the absence from this debate of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath as the departmental Minister appointed to speak in this House for the Department of Health. That my noble friend Lord Filkin is on duty this evening is most welcome to me personally. But I would be remiss not to emphasise how dismayed the haemophilia community are, not least those who are now terminally ill—and the dependants of those who have died — that this is the third debate on the disaster in your Lordships' House when its only health Minister has not been present to participate. They are dismayed too about the blatant discrimination they continue to suffer and the delays, week after week after week, in answering parliamentary questions about the hardship it imposes.
HIV-infected people rightly won financial recompense from the Macfarlane Trust set up by the then government in 1987 as an,
"official acceptance of moral responsibility".
Fifteen years on those infected with HCV at the same time—and by the same route—still await parity of treatment. There is exactly the same moral responsibility for loss and hardship in both cases.
Like HIV infection, HCV can involve heavy financial loss. A survey conducted by the Haemophilia Society, published today, spells out in graphic terms the severity of that loss and the urgency of the need for a positive ministerial response to the practical measures the society proposes on behalf of the 11,000 haemophilia patient community and their families.
Nearly half of those infected with HCV have had to give up work or cut their working week on health grounds; 40 per cent are unable to obtain life insurance; 14 per cent find it impossible to secure mortgages; and 73 per cent can show that their families, as well as they themselves, are adversely
766
affected Financially, practically and emotionally by the grossly stigmatising effects of the infection. The survey's findings make ludicrous the argument that there is no stigma in having HCV.
Nor is it tenable for the Department of Health to go on arguing that financial recompense is only ever paid when negligence can be proved. As Karin Pappenheim has pointed out for the Haemophilia Society, if that argument had held in 1987 there would have been no financial recompense for HIV infection; nor, going further back, would the vaccine damage payments scheme ever have been enacted.
Equally flawed was the department's response to the Haemophilia Society's call for a public inquiry into the infection en masse of the haemophilia community. Its response was to say that there had already been an inquiry. But it was an in-house inquiry by the department itself—held in secret—which responsible journalists describe as,
"a whitewash perpetrated behind closed doors".
The "inquiry" reported in 1998, again peddling the fallacy that HCV, unlike HIV, does not involve social stigma, and simplifying the last government's reasons for compensating only HIV infection to the point of crude inaccuracy.
The truth about the in-house inquiry is now exposed in a letter on the disaster sent to me by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. A health Minister at the time when many of the infections occurred, the noble Lord discloses that moneys allocated—and announced to Parliament—for making NHS blood products safer by ceasing to import blood from high-risk donors abroad were not used for their agreed purpose. Self-sufficiency was not achieved as planned but this was not reported to Parliament, although failure to achieve it meant continued reliance on less safe imports. One is entitled to ask how many people with haemophilia could have been saved from life-threatening viral infection had the policy announced in Parliament been duly implemented.
In a letter sent to me on 12th November last, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, admitted that failure to inform Parliament of this important change of policy in regard to self-sufficiency was never considered by his department's in-house inquiry. Surely that admission alone justifies the call for an independent further inquiry. In the same letter the Minister stated:
"The department's officials are looking into points raised by Lord Owen, and I will write to you again when examination of all the relevant documents has been completed".
Four months on, I am still awaiting his further letter.
All of this deepens the disquiet felt by the haemophilia community about the grossly unjust treatment of those infected with HCV, as does the Government's reaction to Mr Justice Burton's landmark High Court ruling against the National Blood Authority last March. His core finding in awarding significant compensation was that suppliers of blood to NHS patients have a legal duty to supply clean blood. Yet 4,800 haemophilia patients were contaminated by unclean blood and, while the judgment applies directly only to offences after the

767
Consumer Protection Act came into effect in March 1988, its unmistakable logic is that it is right in principle to compensate NHS patients infected by unclean blood.
For that logic not to be applied now to people with haemophilia infected by unclean NHS blood is wrong in principle, cruelly discriminatory and morally perverse. The issue is ultimately one of moral right; and in none of the parliamentary campaigns in which I have been involved in 38 years in Parliament—even thalidomide and those for statutory recognition of dyslexia and autism—have I felt so strongly that campaigning ought not to have been necessary.
Nor should it be necessary any longer to campaign for people with the same disability to have the safest available medical treatment whether they live in Scotland and Wales or in England. As of now, postcode, not clinical need, determines whether haemophilia patients are prescribed safer, but more expensive recombinant clotting factors.
It is deeply disquieting also that even the current policy of entitling children with haemophilia to the safer treatment is sometimes ignored in parts of England. The Department of Health has told haemophilia patients that any danger of infection from plasma from donors who have since died of variant CJD is "theoretical". To which patients reply that "theoretical" dangers ought more properly be put to the test by those who declare them to be theoretical than by a community already twice stricken by life-threatening blood-borne infections.
They ask now simply, "When will right be done?". Only 43 per cent of patients over 20 are receiving recombinant. Fifty-seven per cent are still forced to use blood products and many have resorted to treatment strikes.
I return in conclusion to the issue of financial recompense and the logic of Mr Justice Burton's historic ruling. To go on viewing special help for life-threatening infection, post-Burton, from the narrow perspective of medical negligence is contemptuous of the principle he enunciated.
The Chief Medical Officer is now reviewing existing systems for compensating patients harmed by NHS treatment. And, as Professor Ian Kennedy, who chaired the Bristol Heart Inquiry, has stated, redress for haemophilia patients requires a new initiative outside those systems. He writes to the society:
"It is for this reason that I have urged the Chief Medical Officer's Working Party to contemplate more wide-ranging changes to respond more effectively to those needing financial and other assistance arising from medical mishaps. The community you represent is just such a group".
He goes on to say that the needs of HCV-infected haemophilia patients are,
"as clear a case of deserving help as any for a compensation scheme based on need, regardless of blame, and funded through general taxation".
Since my last debate, at least two more European countries have set up special schemes for compensating HCV-infected patients. Sweden and
768
Spain have now joined those already providing just treatment and the Haemophilia Society, in developing proposals which could be implemented here, has based them on the experience of those who have led the way all across Europe. I hope very much that my noble friend Lord Filkin will agree that Ministers will now meet the society—and soon—to hear its detailed proposals.
That justice delayed is justice denied was never more strongly felt than it is today in the small community for whom I speak this evening. They want this debate to hasten the end of an injustice that leaves so many of them doubly disabled and in double despair. But if their striving for equity has to go on, let no one doubt that go on it must until justice is done.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned a letter he received from the noble Lord, Lord Owen. Would it be possible for myself and other speakers tonight to have sight of that letter?
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I shall be pleased to make the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, available to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and also to my noble friend Lord Filkin.
7.43 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have given notice that I wish to speak in the gap. As is the tradition, I shall be brief. I arrived late today and when I rang to put my name down for the debate I found that I had just missed the deadline. When I saw that one of the speakers had dropped out of the debate I realised that it was a good opportunity for me to say a few words.
There is very little I can add to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Morris; he has covered the issue very thoroughly. One point that he did not raise is that if you have hepatitis and haemophilia, there is no way that you can obtain life insurance. This is highly relevant and is particularly related to the title of his unstarred Question, which refers to the dependants of those who have died.
Haemophilia is extremely distressing, not only to those who suffer from it but to their families. Hepatitis C is also a terrible burden. I support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that recombinant Factor H should be available for everyone. That is particularly desirable if there is a risk of BSE—which becomes new variant CJD in humans—being transmitted through blood transfusions and blood products. At the moment, no one seems to know what is the position in that regard, but the recombinant factor, which is totally synthetic, would mean that there would he no risk whatever of being infected. That is a very important point.
I shall not take up any more of your Lordships' time. I merely wish to indicate my strong support for the unstarred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has been a doughty warrior for those who suffer from haemophilia. This subject has been discussed before and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who is unable to be here due to a severe but not life-threatening domestic crisis, and I have both spoken on it a number of times.
People with haemophilia have a potentially life-threatening disability which restricts their life. Their history is basically tied up with the fact that suddenly they were led to believe that there was an answer to haemophilia which would enable them to lead normal lives. That answer—clotting agents—turned out to be, effectively, a death sentence or at least placed a great restriction on their lives. Two groups of infection arose—one of which has been dealt with and one of which has not. That is roughly what happened. We then get into the morass of why one group of sufferers is treated differently from the other.
There are definitions of what is "legal responsibility" and so on, but I am sure that a good lawyer could dance circles around them. However, we are not in the job of interpreting the law, we are in the job of making it. We try to give guidance to lawyers as to what they should do.
If the Government provided treatment for a group of people who needed it desperately and offered them the chance of a whole life as opposed to a part life and a life of restriction, and that treatment damaged people in that group in two different ways, there is something fundamentally wrong if only one part of that group receives compensation.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has brought forward more information today—I know that he will ensure that we all have copies of the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Owen—but it merely increases the significance of certain actions. However, one fact is absolutely clear: lives have been affected and lives have been foreshortened.
There is a further irony in that new drug treatments mean that someone with HIV stands a better chance of surviving, in better shape, than someone with hepatitis C.
A series of issues come together to make this case more solid every time we discuss it. The Government sit back and adopt a legal defence that states that at a certain time they felt that one form of infection was caused through negligence while they could not possibly consider the other form of infection. The notes suggest that artificial factors should have been used at certain points, but, whatever happens, there is no easy answer as to what should be the cut-off point. If there is, the Government should do something about it. I would never dream of suggesting what level of compensation should be paid. Indeed, given the passage of time, I would suggest that different calculations are probably necessary for the different situations.
But a recognition that the Government have disadvantaged one group against another—perhaps, "a subsection of one main group" is a better way of
770
putting it—and then not treated those subsections in the same way lies at the heart of the issue. We have two groups of people who have acquired different life-threatening diseases through the same treatment. It is not their fault; it is the fault of the treatment they were given. They were told that the treatment would make them better and deal with the underlying condition. Given that information, they would have been insane to refuse treatment. Then, having been damaged, one of the groups does not receive support. There is something wrong about that.
The Government can dig themselves into a certain legal position. However, unless they are prepared to address the fact that there is something very wrong at a basic level, this problem will not go away. Unless they give a better answer—unless they say, "Yes, we will deal with the underlying problem, not put up legal defences"—they will be hearing a great deal more about the issue for a great deal longer.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for once again bringing before the House the important subject of those people with haemophilia who were infected with hepatitis C by contaminated NHS blood products. The Haemophilia Society is fortunate to have the noble Lord as its president. Very few national charities or patient representative groups can have such a committed president working so tirelessly and effectively for their cause.
I pay tribute also to the Haemophilia Society for its excellent campaigning and the support work that it does, not only for people with haemophilia, but also for their families and the dependants of those who have died.
I also mention the work of the Haemophilia Alliance, which comprises the Haemophilia Society and the UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation. They are drawing up the service specification of care for people with haemophilia and related bleeding disorders.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, made the point that, for the third time in a year, the Government have failed to put up a health Minister for this debate. I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who always answers my questions effectively. However, I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is not here in person to demonstrate the Government's real concern for this group of people who, unfortunately and tragically, received infected blood products before the hepatitis C infection could be removed.
In addition to the inadequate support services for managing HCV, and the poor management and care after diagnosis, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, set out some of the problems that such people face financially and emotionally. It is quite wrong that they should experience this social stigma or discrimination, wherever it occurs. We on these Benches feel a great deal of sympathy for them.

771
In preparing for this debate, I went back to the debate introduced last year by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to look at the issues that we raised at that time. On the subject of comprehensive care centres, which provide specialised care and support for patients and their families, some progress does seem to have been made. Postcode prescribing is less the case this year, but there are still some glaring gaps.
In the debate last year, I raised my concern that there was not one CCC in the South West. For haemophiliacs living in Cornwall or Devon the nearest centre was in Basingstoke, in Hampshire, 237 miles from Penzance. That situation has not changed, as was highlighted by my honourable friend the Member for South West Devon in a Westminster Hall debate last November. I understand that the regional commission group is considering the provision of a CCC in the West Country. I should be grateful if the Minister, in replying, could give some hope to the haemophiliacs living there, given the very real problems that they face.
Last year, I asked about the Hepatitis C Expert Steering Committee which the Government were setting up to produce a consultation document. This was to consider the wide range of specialist services which treat, support and care for people with hepatitis C. This consultation document, Children in Need and Blood-Borne Viruses: HIV and Hepatitis" was published last month. Unfortunately, it was a missed opportunity. It addressed children only, not adults. All children are treated with recombinant up to the age of 16, so the issue of adults being infected with blood-borne viruses was not addressed.
I also raised the issue of there being no nationwide system to identify and monitor people with haemophilia infected with HCV and asked the Government what plans they had to ensure that such a system was created. Unfortunately, no progress has been made on central identification. Will the Minister tell the House what intentions the Government have on the issue?
I raised the important point that the majority of health authorities either did not provide treatment for HCV, or did so only on a limited and inadequate scale. Once again, no progress has been made, although we hold out some hope that, following the reforms to NICE, this wrong will be righted.
In last year's debate, the noble Lord, Lord ClementJones—who I am sorry to see was unable to take part in the debate—pointed out the fears that the Government were putting haemophiliacs in England at risk from variant CJD. That situation has also not changed. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out, only 43 per cent of patients are receiving the safer, but more expensive, alternative to the blood plasma which they have been warned may contain vCJD. Indeed, many haemophiliacs are refusing blood transfusions because of fear of contracting vCJD. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, some have resorted to treatment strikes, even though they could die without regular transfusions. In England, unless they
772
are new patients, or under 16, haemophiliacs must use blood products derived from human blood, with all the risks that this might entail; whereas sufferers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are given the safe, genetically-produced recombinant Factor 8. That is indeed postcode care for haemophiliacs.
Last year, I cited the absurd example from the North West. The policy adopted by the NHS commissioners in Wales means that all haemophiliacs living in North Wales are entitled to receive recombinant Factor 8 irrespective of age, postal code or viral status, and attend the Manchester or Liverpool centres. However, many people living in Manchester, Liverpool and the surrounding areas do not have the same rights and benefits. That situation has not changed.
If someone is infected with contaminated blood products provided by the NHS, surely that person is entitled to the best support and treatment. The Haemophilia Society is in no doubt as to the superior quality of recombinant blood agents.
In a Written Answer last year, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that his department was carefully considering the case for extending provision of re-clotting factors to all haemophiliac patients in England. Has any progress been made on this issue? What reason is there for further denying to adult haemophilia sufferers in England the safer recombinant clotting factors? Was the decision to withhold this treatment taken on financial grounds?
In the Westminster Hall debate on 20th November, the Minister said that there was a world shortage of recombinant Factors 8 and 9. However, according to an article in Haemophilia World, supply to the UK is available in sufficient quantities. Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, admitted, in an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, that that shortage has now eased. According to the Government, the additional cost of making recombinant treatment available to all haemophiliacs in England would be in the region of £50 million a year. Can the Minister enlighten the House on whether recombinant will be provided to all, regardless of where they live or their age?
Last year, I raised the issue of the lack of welfare support for many haemophilia sufferers. Again, nothing has changed. It would be helpful to have some reassurance from the Minister that the problem will be looked at.
The need for more funding for research was also raised. Progress is being made slowly, but it is too slow for those infected. Perhaps the Minister can touch briefly on funding for research when he winds up.
Finally, in a Westminster Hall debate on 14th November last year, the health Minister John Hutton announced the Government's intention to reform the system for dealing with clinical negligence claims, with a White Paper due "early next year". As it is now "early next year", can the Minister tell the House when it might be forthcoming?
8.1 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I start my response to this important debate by marking the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on the issue over many years. By my count, over the past four years there have been four significant debates in the House on the subject and 45 PQs—although my arithmetic could be faulty. The fact that the Government do not always agree with the noble Lord should not detract from the respect that we hold for his campaigning for this group of people.
I was slightly saddened by the noble Lord's remarks about my noble friend Lord Hunt. I know—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, knows—that my noble friend is one of the most committed and principled Ministers of health that anyone could hope to find. From several conversations that I have had with him, I know that he is concerned about the issue and agonises about it. I assure the House that his absence today is certainly not caused by any lack of interest or concern. Any implication that might have been inadvertently carried is misplaced.
All noble Lords who have spoken have raised some important issues. Haemophilia is a lifelong, painful and debilitating condition, but modern treatment can be very effective. It is not effective for everyone, but many patients look forward to an excellent quality of life. Medical science has transformed the situation over the past 30 years.
One of those changes came in the 1970s, when it was learned how blood plasma products could provide some effective treatment for haemophiliacs in ways that had not been possible before. Sadly, as we know, during that period the majority of regularly treated patients with haemophilia were unfortunately infected with HIV or hepatitis C, or possibly both. As a result, around 3,000 people with haemophilia are now estimated to be living with hepatitis C, 500 of whom are also infected with HIV. We all recognise that they therefore face considerable medical and psychological problems over and above those faced ordinarily by people with haemophilia.
Across the Chamber—and, clearly, within government—there is considerable sympathy for people with haemophilia in this situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, it is essential that the NHS is properly geared up to deliver the full range of clinical and support services to help them, as far as possible, to cope with those afflictions. That includes providing routine and emergency medical treatment, drug therapies, physiotherapy, counselling and genetic services and specialised services for HIV and hepatitis.
The treatment and care of haemophilia patients is provided by a network of comprehensive care centres and smaller haemophilia centres. Significant progress has been made in the quality of care over the past 10 years or so. CCCs provide specialised care and support for patients and their families, delivered by multidisciplinary teams. I shall deal later with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, about the South West. All haemophilia patients who need that level of
774
support should have access to the facilities of a comprehensive care centre, although it may not be geographically as close as some would desire.
The Government are also looking to develop a national service specification to try to ensure the highest possible standards for care. The Flaemophilia Alliance, which includes the Haemophilia Society and the UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation, has produced its proposed national service specification, which outlines the key components of a high quality haemophilia service, whether it is provided in large CCCs or smaller haemophilia centres. The specification builds on the considerable expertise of the Haemophilia Alliance in delivering multi-disciplinary comprehensive patient care. The Government are determined to ensure that people with haemophilia are increasingly well cared for in the NHS, supported in their communities and more fully informed about how best to look after their health. We have welcomed that model service specification, which sets out clear standards of care for patients with inherited bleeding disorders. NHS commissioners of haemophilia services should find the document a valuable resource when planning and developing services for patients.
The treatment of hepatitis C has improved markedly over recent years. NICE assessed the use of a drug combination therapy of ribavirin and interferon for treating hepatitis C and published its recommendations in October 2000. This therapy has been shown to be twice as effective as any previous treatment. NICE's recommendations provide clear and authoritative advice for clinicians and healthcare providers and should help to ensure that patients get effective progress.
The thrust of the Government's position—as I am sure the House will expect—is that we do not believe that there are grounds for changing our position on compensation. Nevertheless, the focus has to be on trying to improve the quality of care that is offered. I shall briefly illustrate a number of facts—which I hope are accepted—about care and prognosis. II would be a mistake to create an impression that anyone unfortunate enough to have haemophilia and hepatitis C would inevitably die earlier than might otherwise be the case. The majority of patients who acquire hepatitis C will live out their normal life span. Hepatitis C infection is cleared in about 20 per cent of those infected, but it persists in about 80 per cent to become chronic infection. Most of those 80 per cent with chronic infection will have only mild liver damage and many will have no obvious symptoms. However, about 20 per cent of patients with chronic infection develop cirrhosis after 20 or 30 years. Out of 100 people exposed to hepatitis C, 20 would clear the virus within two to six months and 80 would develop it. Of those 80, 20 would never develop liver damage and 60 would develop some level of long-term symptoms. Of those 60, 24 would clear it fully and 16 would develop cirrhosis of the liver over 20 years.
None of that is to imply that this is a happy picture. Both having those diseases and undergoing the treatment regimes are distressing and painful for

775
patients and their families. However, the figures show that the picture is not as bleak as might sometimes be imagined from some of our discussions. The thrust has to be to try to improve the prognosis for people who have been unfortunate enough to be afflicted in these ways.
On a national strategy to deal with hepatitis C, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, signalled the importance of high standards of medical and social care being applied consistently across England, if not across the United Kingdom, as this is clearly a devolved matter for Scotland and Wales. We fully recognise the importance for public health of having effective prevention, treatment and testing services in place for hepatitis C. We are committed to having a robust and effective strategy to reduce transmission and benefit those already infected. To assist in developing our strategy, we set up a multi-disciplinary steering group in March 2001. We have asked the group to provide a draft strategy consultation paper for the Government to consider. We hope that it will be published in the next few months. The steering group has invited key stakeholders, of whom the Haemophilia Society will be an extremely important one, to provide information and advice. I know for a fact that it will comment vigorously.
The consultation paper will provide a framework for strengthening prevention, reducing the level of undiagnosed infections, improving services for patients with hepatitis C and identifying actions to support change. It is anticipated that the implementation of the strategy will be a component of the hepatitis action plan as proposed in the Chief Medical Officer's report.
I turn to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, on treatment and haemophilia care in the West Country. As I think he indicated, there is not a comprehensive care centre in the South West, but there are haemophilia centres in Barnstaple, Exeter, Torquay, Plymouth and Truro. These are not comprehensive care centres but comprise the lower stage which do not have every single specialism but are able to deal with much of the medical and social support that families or individuals require. Nevertheless, that still means that perhaps once or twice a year a person with haemophilia and HCV may have to travel outside the region for other care. That is not done simply for reasons of economy; it involves critical specialist functions. Some of these centres need to have sufficient throughput to be able to retain and utilise specialist consultants to provide effective care. That is a highly relevant factor as regards why there is not such a centre in the South West.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, also referred to a document which I assure the House is not the Government's consultation paper on the national strategy for hepatitis C, which will be published later this year as I have just indicated. It is, in fact, draft guidance for local authorities and the NHS specifically on blood borne viruses and children in need as defined by the Children Act 1989. We shall have to wait a little while before we see the consultation document itself.
776
I turn to the significant issue of recombinant clotting factors and their availability for all haemophilia patients. As the House knows, the lives of people with haemophilia were transformed in the 1970s by the development of clotting factors which brought the prospect of a much improved quality of life. However, as we know, these were infected. Everything has been done to ensure that the plasma-derived clotting factors used by people with haemophilia are as safe as possible. Since the mid-1980s, human plasma used to make clotting factors has been treated to remove HIV and hepatitis. Since then, products have had a quite remarkably excellent safety record. As an additional precaution, with the onset of variant CJD, all human plasma derived clotting factors now used by the NHS are made from imported plasma to reduce any potential cross contamination.
However, as has been noted in debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and others, over the past 10 years new recombinant or synthetic clotting factors have been developed. The Haemophilia Society and others have petitioned us to make recombinant factor 8 and 9 the treatment of choice for people with haemophilia. The noble Lord repeated that call today. That is largely based on the ground that recombinant products are regarded as free from the risk of transmission of as yet unknown viruses and free from a theoretical risk of variant CJD.
Before the switch to imported plasma in 1998, the fears of people with haemophilia were heightened by the discovery that some of them had received clotting factors that included plasma from a patient who subsequently developed variant CJD. Although the risk of transmitting variant CJD through blood products remains theoretical, I can perfectly understand why that has caused distress to many people with haemophilia given the history of that condition. Four years ago the Government responded to those fears by requiring NHS trusts to provide recombinant clotting products for all haemophilia patients and children under 16. As I think has been said, currently all patients up to the age of 20 receive recombinant products. Around 55 per cent of all clotting factors used in England are recombinant factors.
As I think has been pointed out, Scotland and Wales, with their devolved powers in these matters, already provide that treatment for all haemophilia patients. However, as the noble Lord is aware, we are giving consideration to extending the provision of recombinant clotting factors for all haemophilia patients in England. We shall take a decision on that matter later this year. It is not being ignored. In the meantime all haemophilia patients are receiving effective treatments with either recombinant or plasma-derived clotting factors.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, also drew attention to the question of what research was being undertaken in this field. The Medical Research Council has made about £4 million available for hepatitis research over the past five years. The

777
Department of Health has made £2.5 million available for hepatitis research since 1996–97. Therefore, there is ongoing research, as there should be.
I turn to a most painful issue. I refer to the issue of compensation to haemophilia patients with hepatitis C. That issue has been raised many times in both Houses. However, the Government's position remains unchanged. Although we have enormous sympathy for the individuals affected by this tragedy, we do not believe that a special payments scheme is justified. I know that that will come as a disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and to others who have argued for such a scheme this evening and on previous occasions. That matter rests on the fundamental principle that has been mentioned several times in the House; that is, unless it can be shown that a duty of care is owed by an NHS body and that there has been harm, and the harm was caused by negligence, the Government do not believe that compensation should be paid.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, how can we then defend the continued existence of the Macfarlane Fund for people with haemophilia infected with HIV?
Lord Fil
kin: My Lords, I am about to come to that point.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will also be referring to the vaccine damage payments scheme.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, comparisons have been made between the decision not to offer special payments to haemophiliacs with hepatitis C and the special payments established in the late-1980s for haemophiliacs with HIV and the ex gratia payments we are making to people with variant CJD and their families. However, the Government recognise that there are significant and real differences between those situations. I believe that the party of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, when in government, also recognised that point as they reached the identical judgment as this Government in those situations.
In the case of HIV we need to think back to the circumstances of the late 1980s when HIV had a vast and dramatic effect. It was a source of massive fear and stigma for all those who became infected. There was widespread public reaction. There was no treatment known or thought to be possible for it and death from AIDS related diseases was considered inevitable for all people who had HIV. That is not the situation for those with hepatitis C. It was in that context that special payments were introduced and the Macfarlane Trust was established. We see that as a reflection of those truly exceptional circumstances and the poor prognosis at the time for people with haemophilia who became infected with HIV.
Although the Government have agreed ex gratia payments for victims of variant CJD, the circumstances and background of that situation are again truly exceptional. Variant CJD is a particularly horrific condition. It is incurable. It is inevitably fatal
778
and it is devastating in its effect on sufferers and their families, both to know that one has it and in the form of dying that follows from it. That, fortunately, is not the situation with hepatitis C. It therefore, does not change our longstanding policy on compensation for injuries caused by the NHS which I firmly believe is the right one.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to Justice Burton's judgment. In short, the judgment effectively found that there was a liability between the period of time when it was possible to introduce a cure and a cure was introduced, and when it was covered by the 1998 Act.
Mention has been made of the policy and practice of other countries. Clearly, the Government are tracking the position closely. There is not time to give chapter and verse on every other country that has made judgments. The vast majority of countries do not make compensation for haemophiliacs with hepatitis C. Those countries that do, such as Canada and Ireland, particularly focus compensation on periods when they believed that they had negligence in relation to the delay in introducing treatment to blood plasma products after it was found possible to so treat them and reduce the risk of infection from hepatitis C.
The noble Lord called for a public inquiry. In essence, the Government's position on that is that there is nothing of fundamental significance that we do not know about a public inquiry that would be brought out by it. The Government did not take part in a whitewash in 1997–98. There was a serious attempt by officials and Ministers to look afresh at the decisions that were taken by the previous government to establish whether they raised anything that required to be considered afresh. That was done fully and carefully. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, regrets the fact that the position was not changed.
Reference has been made to the position of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, as Minister responsible for health, in relation to self-sufficiency in blood plasma products. Again, time does not allow me to go into full details. However, the essence is that at that time all blood plasma products were infected, we believe, with hepatitis C, and whether they had been imported or not would not have fundamentally affected the vulnerability of haemophiliacs to infection, which all of us regret so deeply.
For those reasons, with regret, I do not believe that there is benefit to anyone from a public inquiry, and the Government therefore do not support that. However, to go back to where I started, there is continuing concern in the Government and across the House for the affliction of people who suffer haemophilia and hepatitis C or HIV with it. I have marked the fact that we shall be publishing a very serious national consultation strategy and I very much hope that there will be vigorous engagement with that in the coming months. Ministers will of course be very pleased to meet the Haemophilia Society and its

779
president. We have the greatest respect for its work on behalf of the people who suffer from this very serious affliction.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.31 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.23 until 8.31 p.m.]

Police Reform Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 66.
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 318:
Page 59, line 22, leave out from first "to" to "the" in line 23.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 318 continues a line of debate that we began at an early stage in the Bill. Again, I do not believe that I need to go into too much detail. But, given the obligation on police authorities to take guidance into account, the way that the clause is drafted is tantamount to dictating the contents of the local strategy. We do not believe that that is right. We entirely accept that the Home Secretary has every right to have a say in what the Home Office's priorities are and should be. No one has any difficulty with that. It is absolutely right that local police authorities should have to take that into account in large manner, and their three-year strategies should be consistent with it.
But the fact is that in the 40-odd police authorities across the length and breadth of the country, some of which are in charming and relatively rural and remote areas, some of the problems of the more metropolitan areas do not exist. In many of the far-flung regions of this country—if anywhere in this country is far-flung; I doubt that it is—the problems of London and the South East are totally alien. It seems to us that the powers that are given in the Bill are a little over-restrictive and perhaps are not sufficiently likely to recognise the differences that exist in different parts of the country. Those differences should properly permit priorities which are more different than might be implied by the Bill as it is worded at present. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: I rise to support this group of amendments. I shall not reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, although I very much agree with him. We consider the suggested form to be over-prescriptive. We believe that we shall find a different form in different places—that is the essence of local policing. We hope that the Minister will allow more laxity in what is submitted. We also hope that this measure is not being introduced only for the benefit of the officials in the Home Office rather than for the benefit of the people who are being policed.
One amendment in the group relates to a matter that we discussed previously. If the Secretary of State is to issue modified or revised guidance, we believe that it should be issued by, we suggest, 30th June in the year
780
preceding the beginning of the relevant three-year plan. That time is needed in order to carry out proper consultation and prepare the plan for presentation. Every month taken in excess of that will mean that the plan must somehow be rushed through the process. But in the end—the objectives of the Home Secretary have come very late this year—it is inevitable that parts of the plan will already have been put together.
We believe that it should be mentioned on the face of the Bill that police authorities, persons who represent chief officers in the police force which is maintained by those authorities, together with other people thought fit, should be consulted. Therefore, we support all the amendments. We hope that the Minister will give consideration both to the prescription and to the date, in particular.
Lord Rooker: The one amendment which neither noble Lord mentioned by number is Amendment No. 321. I shall be happy to take away that matter for consideration and return to it. I thought that I should place that on the record at the start.
We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. We have always consulted widely but, as I said, I shall take away the matter and reflect on what has been said, which is nothing! It is true that the theme of consultation was present throughout the debate but, in fact, no one mentioned Amendment No. 321.
We debated the issue of timing in the early stages of the Bill. We understand the restrictions on timing and somehow we must ensure that guidance on the content and form of the plans is issued in good time; otherwise, we shall not receive good reports. It is as simple as that. The police authorities would rightly put the Home Office in the dock if it were not realistic in relation to timing. I fully understand that there would be a breakdown of the tripartite arrangements. As I have said repeatedly, the Government want to support police authorities and chief police officers. We cannot do that if they cannot do their job properly; and they cannot do their job properly if we do not work to a decent and reasonable timetable in issuing them with the guidance.
The guidance should not be seen as threatening; it is intended to be helpful. I know that it does not work if one says, "I'm the man from the Government. I've come to help you". That will not be accepted. But the guidance is not intended to be threatening; it is intended to be useful to chief officers and police authorities. We want to be confident that the local plans are being shared with the local committees—a key element of the plans—and we want the local plans to be consistent with the national plan. But it is true that we must get our act together with regard to the timing. In relation to consultation, to which Amendment No. 321 relates, we shall consider the matter to see whether we can place something concrete in the Bill by Report stage.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am very grateful to the Minister. I wish that I could agree with him that guidance should not be threatening. The difficulty is that I have seen guidance in, one might say, an earlier

781
metamorphosis with a different department. There was a great deal of guidance and it was, in fact, obligatory to comply with it. It went into the most amazing detail. In the end, it was, in my view, completely unreasonable.
I hear what the Minister has to say. I am encouraged by it because I have great faith and belief in what he says. But I constantly remind the Committee that we must consider what might happen if this legislation, as drafted, were in the hands of less reasonable people. It may seem to some that that is a quibble, but in my experience it is not. It is a very serious matter. We shall study the explanation, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 319 to 321 not moved.]
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 322:
Page 59, leave out lines 32 to 34.
The noble Lord said: At this point we may have some difficulty with the detail of the Bill. Subsections (8) and (10) to (15) fundamentally alter the nature of the proposals and, in our view, represent unwarranted central control over local planning. We agree that we should have three-year strategies and that they should be consistent with the national policing plan, but we do not agree that police authorities should have to submit their three-year plans for the approval of the Home Secretary before they are published. That is like a child being told to submit his homework for marking by the Home Secretary or by officials after which it is returned to the child and he is asked to amend it before resubmitting it.
The proposals cause considerable offence. They demonstrate a lack of trust by the Government in police authorities and police forces; they undermine the tripartite relationship; and they seek to turn police authorities into little more than agents of Government rather than proper bodies carrying out a proper job on behalf of local communities.
We recognise that the Bill does not refer to the three-year plans having to be approved by the Home Secretary, but that is the cumulative effect of subsections (8) and (10) to (15). We have no objection to police authorities sending a copy of their three-year plans to the Home Secretary, as currently they send their annual plans, but we believe that the Government are going for over-elaboration. Subsection (3) makes it a statutory duty on police authorities to ensure that their three-year plans are consistent with the national policing plan and failure to do so will mean that the authority is in breach of that statutory duty. That alone should provide the safeguard that the Government seek.
We see no reason why the Home Secretary needs to go any further and interfere with the content of the plans. There is no evidence that in producing their annual plans, policing authorities disregard the priorities set by Ministers. If I am wrong, I shall be more than happy for the Minister to offer a correction to that assumption. I believe that it is true to say that most authorities go to considerable lengths to reflect
782
the Government's priorities. I ask the Minister to give further thought to those provisions. I believe that they will irreparably damage the nature of the tripartite relationship. I am sure that we shall return to this issue on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 323 is grouped with this amendment and contains a delicious irony. We consider that this part of the clause should be left out, although to a certain extent that is against what I am about to say. My amendment proposes leaving out subsections (10) and (11) of Clause 66. Those subsections state:
"(10) If the Secretary of State considers that there are grounds for thinking that—
(a) a police authority's three-year strategy plan … may not be consistent with any National Policing Plan applicable … he shall, before informing the police authority of his conclusions on whether or not it is in fact so inconsistent, consult with the persons mentioned in subsection (11),
(11) Those persons are—

(a) the police authority in question;

(b) the chief officer of police of the police force maintained by that authority;

(c) persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of police authorities; and

(d) persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police".

There is a glorious inconsistency in those words compared with almost all the rest of the Bill. We consider that the subsections allow the Home Secretary to tell a police authority what to do. In debating such matters we have said that our difference with the Government is not about ends but means. We believe that the Government are wrong as to the means and consider that those subsections are not appropriate. I support the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in his remarks and our amendment supports the position he has taken.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I am unsure whether the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is complaining that there is too much consultation. If the Home Secretary believes that the three-year plan of a police authority is inconsistent with the national plan he will consult the police authority, the chief police officer, ACPC) and the Association of Police Authorities. Perhaps that is a consultation too far.
This clause is long and I want to make it absolutely clear that it does not give the Secretary of State a power of veto over the three-year strategy plans. To listen to the tenor of the debate one would think that it does. The police authority has to decide whether to take the views of the Home Secretary on board. There is no power of veto by the Home Secretary As we said in relation to the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 316, the three-year plans are required to be consistent with the national policing plan to

783
demonstrate that all the forces are working to a common goal. It seems sensible that someone should ensure that they are consistent with each other.
The Home Secretary has an overall responsibility, as part of the tripartite arrangement, for policing in England and Wales, so it is entirely appropriate that he should check the plans for consistency with the national policing plan and inform police authorities if he concludes that they are not. I believe that it is appropriate for the Home Secretary to do that. We do not believe that that undermines the tripartite relationship of the authorities. It raises the profile of police authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and his mates and "matesses" on the police authorities will be in front of cameras and on the wireless when their turn comes to submit their strategy plans. People will say, "Hey, I didn't know we had police authorities; I thought it was just David Blunkett and the chief constable". The role of police authorities will be elevated, which is important and consistent with our dedication to the tripartite arrangement. If the Home Secretary is not convinced, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, he will consult. The clause does not give the Home Secretary a veto over the plans. That point has to be clearly made. Noble Lords are free to return to this matter at a later stage, but I hope that they will not press their amendments tonight.
Lord Dixon-Smith: If the Minister would accept the principle of the wording of this clause and apply the consultation back through the Bill to Clause 1, we would all be happy.
Lord Bradshaw: I hear what the Minister says, but I am afraid that the propensity of the Home Office to interfere in matters is large indeed. Plans may be held up for comment and they will be delayed because those comments will be late in coming, as they always are. I hope that these amendments will be given serious consideration. It will be necessary to refer back to them. It is extremely difficult to get the local press to come to a policy authority meeting. They are extremely dull meetings. In the nine years that I have been a member of the police authority, we have never had the luxury of having the television medium present. We have had junior reporters from the local press who usually get everything wrong because they cannot understand what is going on. However, it is a far cry from reality to talk about the interests of the local press. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I hope that the Minister takes what I say seriously.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 323 to 329 not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 329A:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
"PRESIDENT OF ACPO
If a person who holds the office of constable becomes the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, he shall, while he is the president of that Association—

(a) continue to hold the office of constable; and

(b) hold that office with the rank of chief constable."

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 340B and 341A. It is a straightforward group of amendments. ACPO wishes to move from a part-time one-year presidency to a full-time three-year presidency. The ACPO president currently remains in charge of his force while he serves as ACPO president for one year. Following his or her election, the president of ACPO will need to resign from his force or retire in order to take up full-time office. ACPO believes that the president needs to retain the rank of chief constable. The amendment will have the effect of ensuring that, while he holds office, the ACPO president will continue to have full police powers and the rank of chief constable. I am advised that ACPO and the APA are content with that approach. The amendment reflects that desire and makes good sense in terms of the general direction in which ACPO wishes to take its presidency. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I do not agree with the Minister that it is a straightforward amendment. I think that it is bizarre. I shall be interested to know in how many other places in statutes a company limited by guarantee (or whatever applies to ACPO) is referred to specifically. I shall be interested to know why such a provision is offered to ACPO but not to, let us say, the Police Superintendents' Association or the Police Federation which might wish to do something similar. I assume that the implication is that the person would have his or her salary paid by ACPO; that there is no implication that the Crown or anyone else would find the salary. But that means that the cost is spread more generally.
Why does it have to be assumed that the person will have the rank of chief constable? I understand that ACPO offers membership to people of assistant chief constable rank upwards. Does it mean that an assistant chief constable who becomes president of ACPO will receive automatically a pay rise and be treated as a chief constable? I find it a strange amendment.
If someone wants to be president of ACPO it is a career choice which he or she makes for three years. If there were a provision for chief constables to dip in and out of being chief constables in order perhaps to serve as representatives on other public bodies and then be engaged as chief constables elsewhere, it might be a suitable amendment. However, to specify an organisation in this way I find somewhat surprising.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand the noble Lord's desire for more information. I am happy to

785
answer his questions. However, he ignores the special position that ACPO holds within the structure of UK policing. The ACPO president currently holds office for one year while continuing to exercise control and direction over his or her force. The view has been formed that that is less than ideal. As the demands on ACPO and its expertise have increased—that has happened not just under this Government but successive governments—the president of ACPO, who occupies a unique position in terms of leadership, spends less and less time running his own force. The full-time presidency will allow the president to contribute more effectively to policy development and implementation.
If one seeks parallels, the chief executive of CPTDA and the directors-general of NCS and NCIS continue to hold the rank of chief constable and the office once they take office. In a sense, the provision is parallel to those existing arrangements. It will enable the ACPO president to maintain his standing within the police service, enabling him to represent chief officers in an effective and timely fashion.
I appreciate the noble Lord's desire for more information. However, those are the reasons that the amendment has been brought forward. There is agreement with ACPO and APA for the amendment to be made to the Bill.
Lord Dholakia: In referring to the ACPO president, the point has been raised about whether similar arrangements would exist for the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents' Association. Is there any reason why those bodies have been excluded? Do they not play a part with regard to policy issues and the Home Office?
Lord Condon: The equivalent posts in the Police Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation are already full-time posts providing continuity for a number of years. I understand that the amendment seeks to put ACPO in a similar posit ion to the Police Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful for the noble Lord's clarification of that point. I am still confused by my noble friend's answer. When one refers to an association in legislation, one normally refers to an association which represents chief officers of police—or some reference of that nature. Why is a specific organisation reflected in the legislation? For example, if in the future a majority of chief constables no longer had confidence in the way ACPO was organised and set up a rival organisation, would we be left with this piece of legislation relating to a specific organisation which perhaps contained fewer and fewer chief constables?
The provision could be drafted so that it did not refer to a specific organisation but achieved the laudable aim—I support it—that a force area should not be deprived of its chief constable, or whichever
786
senior officer it is, while he fulfils the important role of president of ACPO. It seems a strange way of tackling what I accept is a problem that needs to be solved.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is a fact that ACPO is already referred to in statutes. If the noble Lord reads Section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act he will see that. I do not find it extraordinary. ACPO occupies a unique place in the structure of the UK policing network.
The president will he paid by ACPO. The Police Federation is a statutory body under the provisions of the Police Act 1996, so police organisations do have a statutory reference point. It is for that reason that to effect a change we need to address it in statute. That is why the amendment has been brought forward.
Question, amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Clause 68 [Crime and disorder reduction partnerships]:
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 330:
Page 61, line 24, at end insert "; and
(e) every police authority any part of whose police area lies within the area"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 330, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 331, which is consequential on Amendment No. 330. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 established local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in each district. These partnerships must undertake an audit of local crime and disorder problems and produce a three-year strategy for tackling them.
The 1998 Act made chief officers and local authorities the "responsible authorities" for the partnerships. Police authorities were required to cooperate with the local partnerships. That has had an unfortunate effect. In some areas, police authorities have been excluded from playing a full role in the work of local partnerships.
The local partnerships have now been in existence for nearly four years. Although there has been some good progress, a recent Home Office report recognised that many "challenges remain".
Our proposals seek to make the partnerships more effective by giving police authorities equal statutory status. We believe that this is even more important if we are to achieve coherence between police authorities' three-year plans and the three-year district crime reduction strategies.
One of the key findings of the recent Home Office report was that local partnerships missed key opportunities to integrate their consultation with wider consultation efforts by police authorities. We believe that our amendment will help to tackle this problem and that police authorities' involvement can bring far greater strategic oversight and co-ordination to the work of the various partnerships within the force area.

787
The Minister's letter said that the Government was actively considering this proposal. I hope that he will be able to give us good news today by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My speaking note says that police authorities have a key role to play in local partnerships structures. It is for that reason that I can tell the noble Lord that we are giving active consideration to the amendment on whether police authorities should become responsible authorities for the purposes of Section 5 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I hope that the noble Lord will find that a welcoming and acceptable comment. Having given the matter active consideration and consulted further, no doubt we shall bring something back on Report.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 331 not moved.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Secretary of State's functions in relation to strategies]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 332:
Page 63, leave out lines 30 to 41.
The noble Lord said: We are back on the Secretary of State's functions—possibly in his alias as the National Assembly for Wales. We are dealing with the Secretary of State's powers. The Bill says that he,"may, by order, require" strategies in relation to crime reduction,
"to include, in particular, provision for the reduction of—

(i) crime of a description specified in the order; or

(ii) disorder of a description so specified",

and so on.
This again is Whitehall seeking to dictate the detail of what might be in a local crime reduction plan. I entirely accept what I may call "its benign intentions", but the clause presumes that the Home Secretary, if he makes orders of this nature, will be au fait with every local situation in the country. All my experience suggests that Whitehall departments, let alone Secretaries of State, who after all are guided by their departments, have that omniscient breadth of vision of knowing everything that goes on across the country.
This is a well-rehearsed discussion. We have been over this ground on numerous occasions. I need not say any more. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right to say that we have been around this course several times. But it is worth going over some of this ground. Responsible authorities are required to deal with crime and disorder problems and, under Clause 68 of the Bill, misuse of drugs, which affect their area. These should be a reflection of both local and national priorities as these are often the same. Clause 69 allows the Secretary of State to require partnerships to take account in their local strategy of
788
areas of crime and disorder that reflect national priorities. To take account; that is, to reflect upon, think about, develop and work at.
A recent review of the crime and disorder reduction strategies published in 1999 showed that in some partnership areas the strategies did not contain crime reduction targets which reflected either local or even national priorities. That is why we seek to take things that stage further, so that they do reflect those matters.
There needs to be development of partnerships. There needs to be active co-operation. There needs to be a working between the centre and the locality to ensure that those priorities match up. That is what this clause seeks to establish.
It is essential that we focus on the main areas of crime and disorder that affect our local communities. I do not think that it is an arguable case that issues such as strategies to combat the misuse of drugs fail to be a local priority fairly much everywhere. If one talks to a police officer, in the main he will say that much of the burglary committed in his locality is fuelled by drugs and drug addiction and the need to feed a habit. That is a universal case. It must be right to give some extra leverage to ensure that there is proper focus on something which is a national issue and also patently a local issue.
If we remove the clause, as the noble Lord suggests, that strategy, that ability to develop that partnership locally and nationally is damaged. This is about identifying national priorities in achieving and sustaining reductions in crime and for the setting and achieving of targets to be determined locally. That is what we seek to achieve.
We have been over this argument many times. I think that we have the balance about right. I think that the noble Lord is not necessarily persuaded that this is the heavy hand of the centre impacting upon the important level of local independence. We are trying to develop that joint strategy, which means that national and local priorities are well matched. I invite the noble Lord to examine the 1999 report, because it reflects on the need to make those elements work together, rather than out of kilter and contrary to people's priorities in tackling those aspects of crime.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister has given me the words that I wanted. He said that the purpose of the clauses is to ensure that those who prepare the local plans take account of the national priorities. The Bill does not say "take account"; it says "require"—there is a huge difference of emphasis between those two phrases.
I should be delighted to withdraw Amendment No. 332. I shall table an amendment on Report, quoting the Minister's words, and we shall see what happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clauses 70 to 72 agreed to.
Earl Attleemoved Amendment No. 333:
After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
"PROVISION OF SPECIAL SERVICES
In section 25 of the 1996 Act (provision of special services), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Such services may include provision of an escort service for the movement of abnormal loads in any locality in the police area for which the force is maintained, subject to subsections (1A) and (1 B) below if—

(a) the load cannot be moved under a general order made under section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) by reason of its gross weight or overall dimensions, or

(b) it is necessary to move the load at a time when suitable police resources would not normally be available and, in the opinion of the chief officer or the operator, it is essential that the load is escorted by the police because—

(i) the load is particularly awkward, or

(ii) the agreed route is particularly hazardous in view of the nature of the load.

(1B) Provision of services in accordance with subsection (2) is subject to the payment to the police authority of such charges as may be determined by the authority, provided that—

(a) on request of an operator, a fixed charge for the escort of the load is quoted in advance and the same quotation is offered to any other operator who appears to be planning the movement of the same or a similar load, and

(b) when a fixed charge for the escort of the load is quoted in advance, the charge is reasonable but may have an allowance for contingencies.

(IC) In this section—
"operator" means the person operating the vehicle carrying or drawing the abnormal load,
"abnormal load" means a load, including the carrying vehicle, whose weights or dimensions—

(a) exceed those within regulations made under section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1983, or

(b) 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: Amendment No. 333 stands in my name. I remind the Committee that I am president of the Heavy Transport Association, and that I operate an abnormal-load vehicle.
Although Amendment No. 334 also deals with abnormal loads, it is important to understand that the two issues are separate. Amendment No. 334 deals with the question of who will escort abnormal loads, while Amendment No. 333 seeks to specify when the police may charge for providing an escort. I suspect that the Minister will have more difficulty with this amendment, but we shall see.
It is important that the Committee understands that there is no legislation on the provision of police escorts for abnormal loads. In the past, the police have done so on a non-statutory basis, for perfectly sensible and obvious reasons. However, a police escort is not viewed as a core activity, and some police forces, such as Norfolk, have started to charge for providing one. In some cases, police forces resort to questionable tactics to enforce payment.
790
Some forces have relied upon Section 25 of the Police Act 1996, which includes the words,
"on request of any person".
That is fine when applied to the organiser of a football match, but it is not effective if a person moving an abnormal load is told by a chief constable that he must have an escort, because that person has not requested it. It needs to be remembered that the escort is provided largely for the convenience of other road users. It is not only my interpretation that creates this uncertainty. Some counsels for police authorities advise that charges can be made, while others advise that they cannot. Can the Minister say who is right?
My amendment is designed to allow the police to make a charge in either of two circumstances. The first is if the load is abnormal to the extent that its gross weight is over 150 tonnes or its dimensions are in excess of around 27 metres long and 6 metres wide, with the result that the specific authority of the Secretary of State, in the form of a "special order", is required. Secondly, a charge can be made if it is desired to move the load at a time when a police escort would not normally be available. An example might be the movement of a piece of engineering equipment during the night. A further qualification to the second circumstance applies if, in the opinion of the chief officer or the operator, a police escort is necessary because the load or the route is particularly awkward. That is, I admit, a subjective test. However, if the amendment were agreed to, the situation would still be much better.
Furthermore, the new Section 1B provides for fixed charges to be agreed in advance. The more difficult loads tend to be moved by specialist contractors. They do not mind paying for special facilities if the cost can be built into their quotation and if all other operators bidding for the job have the same costs.
A final observation is that if the principles behind Amendment No. 334 find favour, charging for police escorts will become less problematic because the activity will be less of a drain on police resources. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: The noble Earl made copious references to Amendment No. 334 when moving Amendment No. 333. My response to Amendment No. 333 is exactly the same as my response to Amendment No. 334.
As I indicated last Thursday, we are in broad sympathy with the intention behind the various amendments tabled by the noble Earl, and he has discussed the matter with my right honourable friend the Minister of State. Like him, and with ACPO, we should like to see a reduction in police involvement in such work.
We are actively considering how to bring that about and how to ensure that the best arrangements are organised for escorting abnormal loads. John Denham pursued this matter further in a meeting with ACPO representatives on 7th March. It would be counterproductive and unhelpful if I were to go any further. Some concerns arise, and the noble Earl

791
understands what they are. But basically we agree with him and want to find a solution to the two issues which satisfies ourselves, the police and of course the industry. In the circumstances I hope that the noble Earl will not press either of his amendments.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the response of the Minister. I intend to speak to Amendment No. 334 because other Members of the Committee may also want to speak to it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Attleemoved Amendment No. 334:
After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
"ESCORT FOR ABNORMAL LOADS
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring all police forces in England and Wales to provide a police escort for abnormal loads moved under the provisions of section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (authorisation of use on roads of special vehicles not complying with section 41 regulations) only if—

(a) the driver of the load is likely to have to contravene traffic regulations;

(b) the load cannot be moved under a general order made under section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 by reason of its gross weight or overall dimensions;

(c) in the opinion of the chief constable or the operator, the load is particularly awkward; or

(d) in the opinion of the chief constable or the operator, the agreed route is particularly hazardous in view of the nature of the load""

The noble Earl said: In view of what the Minister said, I shall truncate some of my comments.
The proposal behind Amendment No. 334 is that when an operator makes his statutory abnormal load notification, when appropriate and in particular on motorways and dual carriageways, the chief officer says, "Yes, you can move the load at this time but you must provide an escort in accordance with ACPO guidelines", or some other guidelines produced by the Home Office. The guidelines will be non-statutory but cover such matters as the experience of the escort driver, warning signs, communications both with the load and the police, and other technical details.
In short, we are talking about self-escorting. Perhaps the term "private escorting" has connotations that are not helpful. We are not talking about privatising or "contractorising" a police function. There will not be an opportunity for a cosy cartel to develop with obscure lines of responsibility between the escort, the operator and the police. If something goes wrong, say an unnecessary obstruction or an accident, the police will be able to investigate without fear or favour. The operator will be in control, but he will also be responsible.
It is important to understand that the escort will not be able to stop the traffic or authorise the driver of the abnormal load to break traffic regulations. The police or traffic wardens will still be required for that purpose. The escort will have only two functions; the
792
first to warn oncoming or following traffic of the abnormal load by means of flashing lights and clear signs; the second is, in certain circumstances, to block off completely lane two of a three-lane motorway or dual carriageway.
I made a more detailed speech at Second Reading, and more importantly on 2nd May last year from the Opposition Dispatch Box. Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will confirm that this is still the extant policy of Her Majesty's Opposition. If we go down this route, we will make more effective use of police resources; we will save industry significant costs that are incurred in waiting for a police escort; the escort task will be better undertaken technically; and the motoring public will be saved much inconvenience because loads can be moved at unsociable hours on our most congested roads. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My noble friend has a strange way of asking whether I support him. However, I am happy to make clear to him that I do.
Viscount Simon: Like the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I should perhaps declare that I am a civilian holder of the police class 1 driving certificate; that I go out on traffic patrol numerous times each year with various constabularies; and that in fact my next full police driving course is booked for June of this year.
It is my belief, shared by many front-line officers and I believe some within the transport industry, that the power to stop and control traffic, and to allow the contravention of road traffic legislation, should only be used by a uniformed police officer. Clause 37 of the Bill allows for those powers to be devolved to traffic wardens and the amendments are intended formally to set up private escorting.
I have three concerns on this matter: safety, security and insurance. If a private organisation is escorting an abnormal load and another motorist ignores all warning signs and subsequently causes a crash, who will foot the bill? Who will be liable? Will it be the insurer of the car, or will it be down to the escorting company's inability to stop following or approaching traffic? In either case I suspect that it will be the private motorist or the insurance companies who will foot the bill, and thus insurance rates will rise.
With car and lorry-related crime and lorry hijacking on the increase, the issue of security is of growing significance. Drivers of all types of vehicle must have every confidence that the person requiring them to stop for any purpose, be it for an abnormal load or any other reason, is a genuine police officer. Uniforms are worn by police officers to give confidence to the public, who are aware that the wearer is a physical manifestation of the law and is the protector of the public. That confidence must not be eroded by allowing some other person, in effect, to impersonate a police officer.
In the same way, the driver of the abnormal load needs to know that the person overseeing that activity is fully empowered by the law to allow the breaching of various pieces of legislation and to take the

793
appropriate action, based on their judgment, should other road users fail to act responsibly when confronted by the load.
That leads me to my concerns about safety. When I was last with police officers escorting an abnormal load on the motorway, there were motorists trying to pass where it was dangerous to do so, despite the fact that the marked police vehicle was appropriately positioned and was displaying a blue light. Under the noble Earl's plans, private operators would use a flashing orange light. That may alert drivers to the danger of the load, but, if they fail to behave sensibly where there is a full police escort, how can we expect drivers to act any better if the escort is provided by people who do not have the full weight of the law?
It would not surprise me to learn that the proposals had been brought about by a shortage of police resources. I understand and appreciate that, but, with about 3,500 people killed on our roads each year, the safety and security of the transport industry and other motorists must be of paramount importance. It is for that reason—and those that I have already given—
that I would not wish there to be any privatisation of the escorting of abnormal loads.
My final point does not necessarily relate to the amendment, but is more a matter of academic interest. Who would determine which roadside furniture might have to be temporarily removed to allow an abnormal load to proceed in an urban area?
Earl Attlee: I am extremely grateful for the noble Viscount's contribution. I have no notes about roadside furniture, so I shall answer that question first. If roadside furniture needs to be removed, it is a matter for the local council. It would not matter whether there was a police escort, whether any escort was required at all or whether it was a special order; it would be for the council—the local authority—to decide on moving street furniture.
The noble Viscount raised what I call the "blue light" argument. I get the same argument from a personal friend who is involved in moving abnormal loads. I have escorted abnormal loads for some time, using an amber flashing beacon light, and I have experienced no problems. Furthermore, an ACPO study was done several years ago, during which two loads were moved. One was moved conventionally, with a police escort, and one was moved by police officers masquerading as civilians, if the noble Lord understands me. There was no difficulty, which is why ACPO is happy with the proposals.
It is also suggested that the police had special skills in escorting abnormal loads. They may have had, in the past. I hope that I will not upset the noble Lord, Lord Condon, by what I am about to say. However, Kent police do not have a special traffic police force any more and use ordinary area cars for escorting abnormal loads. Last summer, I was escorted by them. They did a satisfactory job, but they did baulk me, which stopped me racing down the hill in order to "fly" up the other side, so I moved the load a little more slowly than I could otherwise have done. They were not experienced in moving abnormal loads.
794
Another advantage of using private escorts is the use of signs. At the moment, the police car goes along but has no special signs. Under these proposals, the escort vehicles will have special signs.
I also expect that the guidelines will pay special attention to the experience of the escort driver. We do not want to have a 17 year-old boy escorting an abnormal load. Often, the person driving the escort vehicle will himself be a low-loader driver.
The noble Viscount mentioned insurance. If there is an accident, the police will, as I said, investigate without fear or favour. What happens if there is no police escort, as often happens, even though the load is very big?
I agree that the police or traffic wardens should be the only persons to stop the traffic or allow for special facilities. That is well understood and the Minister has addressed the matter. I am extremely grateful for the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I am sure that the Minister will speak briefly because he has already spoken to my amendments.
Lord Rooker: That is absolutely bang to rights. My noble friend Lord McIntosh questioned whether anyone would ever have thought that on both sides of the House we have experts in moving abnormal loads. One never ceases to be amazed about this place. We heard thoroughly professional speeches, also drawing on experience.
I repeat what I have said. However, the most important consideration is that the amendment would not be helpful to constrain the detailed consideration of all the issues that is currently taking place.
Earl Attlee: I am extremely grateful for the Minister's comments. I shall not be returning to this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Attleemoved Amendment No. 335:
After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
"REMOVAL OF VEHICLES BY POLICE CONTRACTED RECOVERY SCHEMES
In section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(c.27) (removal of vehicles etc.), after subsection (2)(c) there shall be inserted—
"(d) may, subject to paragraphs (e) and (f) provide for Police Contracted Recovery Schemes;
(e) any regulations for a scheme under subsection (2)(d) shall provide that—

(i) all appointed recovery operators are accredited to an International Standards Organisation standard;

(ii) a person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1)is, subject to sub-paragraph (iii) or (iv), given the opportunity to arrange removal himself;

795

(iii) sub-paragraph (ii) shall not apply if a constable believes safety of other road users would be compromised and the customer is unlikely to be able to arrange for the vehicle's removal before the appointed recovery operator;

(iv) sub-paragraph (ii) shall not apply if the road on which the vehicle is permitted to rest is a special road and the customer is unlikely to be able to arrange for the vehicle's removal within a time specified in the regulations or one hour, whichever is the greater;

(v) if a person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1) arranges removal of the vehicle himself and his choice of recovery operator arrives before the appointed recovery operator, he shall be under no obligation to the appointed recovery operator or the authority;

(vi) neither the authority, the chief police officer or the police authority may benefit from a preferential scale of charges or free services from an appointed recovery operator;

(vii) when a vehicle has been abandoned by the owner or registered keeper the authority shall pay the appointed recovery operator the charges prescribed under section 102 of this Act;

(viii) an appointed recovery operator shall not be required to give any financial or other consideration for being appointed;

(ix) the police authority may make a financial charge, as prescribed, against the person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1), for despatching the appointed recovery operator, and such a charge may be collected by the appointed recovery operator;

(x) any scheme must allow for competition, new operators joining the scheme, and aim to have operators no further than a prescribed distance from each other;

(xi) no person shall be appointed under a police contracted recovery scheme if he is not of good repute as defined in sub-paragraph (xii);

(xii) a person is of good repute if he meets similar requirements to paragraphs 1 to 6 of Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (c. 23);

(xiii) appointed recovery operators shall not charge more than the amount prescribed under section 102 for removing a vehicle weighing no more than 3500 kilograms unless approved by the chief officer of police on each occasion;

796

(xiv) appointed recovery operators shall not charge more than the amount prescribed under section 102 for removing a vehicle weighing more than 3500 kilograms unless there are unusual difficulties requiring extra facilities, but rates shall not exceed those published under subparagraph (xv); and

(xv) appointed recovery operators shall publish their scale of charges in such form as may be prescribed in one or more local papers;

(f) before making any regulations under subsection (2)(d) the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as he considers necessary and in particular the authorities empowered by regulations under section 99(1).""
The noble Earl said: The hour is late and I do not intend to give a detailed explanation of my amendment. The reason for tabling it is that there is considerable concern about police vehicle recovery schemes.
There have been court cases challenging their legality. In South Wales the nominated police recovery operator was charging extortionate rates to captive customers. In several areas the police have been telling motorists that they must use the police contractor when they have no power to do so. In other cases the customer's choice of recovery operator turned up before the police contractor but was turned away by the police using questionable procedures.
The Committee may be interested to hear that operators have to pay the police authority as much as £6,000 to buy a "patch". In addition, they are obliged to provide free—I repeat, free—storage and recovery services to the police. If it is necessary to return to this issue at Report I shall have to consider whether the word "corruption" is too strong. Ordinary motorists will be paying for these free services given to the police on the back of the recovery schemes.
Turning to the amendment itself, paragraph (e) is largely self-explanatory as it deals with all the concerns of motorists and trade associations. I do not intend to weary the Committee by going through it in detail tonight. However, I believe that the Minister will have to say whether he believes the principles in paragraph (e) are right or wrong. Does he believe there to be a general problem and, if so, what is he doing about it? I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: There is a serious issue here which has to be addressed. That is not easy to do. I did not say this in my original speech because it would have been wrong to link all three amendments together. This matter is part of an issue that we are currently looking at as well as those concerning other amendments which the noble Earl proposed. People may believe that they can make their own arrangements more cheaply. The Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association would like guidelines. There is concern that currently owners of stolen vehicles recovered by the police have to pay police removal and storage costs. We are looking at these issues. I am not making a commitment that we shall return to them at Report stage, but they are under active discussion in government at present. Whether

797
we can bring anything forward as regards this Bill in this House or in another place remains to be seen. There may even be another Bill. I am not making any commitment. I can assure the noble Earl that various government departments, and not just the Home Office, are actively discussing these issues.
Earl Attlee: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for regarding it as a serious problem and not simply telling me why my amendment was unworkable. I was surprised that he did not raise the issue of the need to move broken down vehicles from certain roads very quickly. That is an issue which concerns the police. We know that the hard shoulder is an extremely dangerous place on the motorway. I am grateful for the noble Lord's response. I would like to use the normal caveat, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 73 [Liability for wrongful acts of constables etc.]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 335A:
Page 66, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert "Each of the enactments specified in subsection (1A) shall be amended as follows—"
The noble Lord said: At this stage of the Bill, and at this time of night, I hope that noble Lords will take my word when I say that the amendments in this group are, essentially, technical amendments to Clause 73. I could make lengthy speeches on each amendment, if required. However, as I said, they are technical and not substantive policy amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 335B to 335D:
Page 66, line 28. at end insert—
"(1A) The enactments are—

(a) section 88(1) of the 1996 Act (liability of chief officers);

(b) section 97(9) of that Act (liability of the Secretary of State);

(c) sect:ion 42(1) of the 1997 Act (liability of the Director General of NCIS);

(d) section 86(1) of that Act (liability of the Director General of the National Crime Squad);

(e) section 27(8) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c.32) (liability of the Secretary of State);

(f) section 29(1) of that Act (liability of the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland);

(g) paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (liability of the Police Ombudsman); and

(h) paragraph 14(1) of Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c.16) (liability of the Central Police Training and Development Authority).

(1B) In paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 8 to the 1997 Act (liability of Police Information Technology Organisation)—

(a) for "a tort committed by" there shall be substituted "any unlawful conduct of";

(b) for "torts committed by" there shall be substituted "any unlawful conduct of";and

798

(c) for "in respect of any such tort" there shall be substituted ", in the case of a tort,"."

Page 66, line 29, leave out from beginning to second "for" in line 31 and insert "In each of the enactments specified in subsection (3),"
Page 66, line 32, at end insert—"
(3) The enactments are—

(a) section 88(4)(a) of the 1996 Act (payments in respect of tort proceedings against constables and special constables);

(b) section 42(4)(a) of the 1997 Act (payments in respect of tort proceedings against members of, and constables serving with, NCIS);

(c) section 86(4)(a) of that Act (payments in respect of tort proceedings against members of, and constables serving with, the National Crime Squad);

(d) section 29(3)(a) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c.32) (payments in respect of tort proceedings against police officers in Northern Ireland); and

(e) paragraph 7(4)(a) of Schedule 3 to that Act (payment in respect of tort proceedings against police officers serving with, or assisting, the Police Ombudsman).

(4) In section 42(6) of the 1997 Act (application to Scotland), paragraph (a) shall be omitted.
(5) In section 39 (1) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77) (liability for wrongful acts of constables)—

(a) for "in reparation in respect of any wrongful act or omission" there shall be substituted "for any unlawful conduct"; and

(b) for "in respect of a wrongful act or omission" there shall be substituted "for any unlawful conduct".

(6) In section 39(4) of that Act, for "wrongful act or omission" there shall be substituted "unlawful conduct"."
On Question, amendments agreed, to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 [Liability in respect of members of teams]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 335E:
Page 68, line 28, leave out "who is a member"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 335E to 335S. This group contains essentially minor amendments; they are not amendments of major substance. However, as my briefing does not refer to them as being "technical", perhaps I should put this on the record and speak to them briefly. I would not like to be accused later of misleading the Committee.
Clause 74 provides a legal basis for civil liabilities arising from operations of joint investigation teams set up under international agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party. As drafted, the clause envisages such teams involving police officers from England, Wales and Scotland, and law enforcement officers from abroad. Amendments Nos. 3351, 335J, 335L and 335M are counterpart provisions for Northern Ireland, envisaging that such teams could also include Northern Ireland police officers.
Amendments Nos. 335G and 335H reflect that international agreements are likely to include both reserved and devolved matters and, therefore, involve the Secretary of State, as well as the Scottish Ministers and this Parliament. Amendments Nos. 335E, 335F and 335N are minor drafting amendments in relation to the legislation for Scotland.

799
Amendment No. 335L, which amends subsection (5) of this clause, reflects the possibility that, with the agreement of the competent authorities of the countries setting up the joint investigation team, it could include members of international organisations such as Europol. Reimbursements might therefore be received from such organisations, as well as from other countries and territories.
Clause 75 provides that members of joint investigation teams set up under international agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party are to be treated in the same way as constables while in England, Wales and Scotland with regard to offences committed against them. Amendment No. 335S amends counterpart legislation for Northern Ireland to provide similar treatment for officers from abroad when in Northern Ireland as members of joint investigation teams.
Amendments Nos. 335Q and 335R reflect that international agreements are likely to include both reserved and transferred matters, and therefore involve the Secretary of State, as well as the Scottish Ministers and this Parliament. Amendment No. 335P is a minor drafting amendment in relation to the legislation for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 335F to 335N:
Page 68, line 34, leave out "officer of police" and insert "constable"
Page 68, line 49, after "by" insert "the Secretary of State with the consent or
Page 69, line 2, leave out "the Scottish Parliament" and insert "either House of Parliament."
Page 69, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) In section 29 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c. 32) (liability for wrongful acts of constables), after subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(6) This section shall have effect where an international joint investigation team has been formed under the leadership of a constable who is a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland as if any unlawful conduct, in the performance or purported performance of his functions as such, of any member of that team who is neither—

(a) a constable, nor

(b) an employee of the Board,

were unlawful conduct of a constable under the direction and control of the Chief Constable.
(7) In this section "international joint investigation team" means any investigation team formed in accordance with—

(a) any framework decision on joint investigation teams adopted under Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union;

(b) the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, and the Protocol to that Convention, established in accordance with that Article of that Treaty; or

(c) any international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party and which is specified for the purposes of this section in an order made by the Secretary of State.

800
(8) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (7) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
Page 69, line 6, after second "fund" insert "or by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland"
Page 69, line 8, leave out "from the authorities of another country or territory"
Page 69, line 10, at end insert "or by that Chief Constable"
Page 69, line 11, after "fund" insert "or (as the case may be) to that Chief Constable"
Page 69, line 12, at end insert—"
( ) In Scotland, where—

(a) any sums are paid by virtue of this section by a police authority or a joint police board, and

(b) in pursuance of an international obligation, the Secretary of State receives any sum by way of reimbursement, in whole or in part, of the sums so paid,

the Secretary of State shall pay the sum received by him by way of reimbursement to the Scottish Ministers who shall pay it to that authority or board."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 [Assaults on members of teams]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 335P to 335S:
Page 69, line 44, leave out first "member" and insert "constable"
Page 70, line 11, after "by" insert "the Secretary of State with the consent or
Page 70, line 13, leave out "the Scottish Parliament" and insert "either House of Parliament."
Page 70, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) In section 66 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c. 32) (assaults on constables), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(4) In this section references to a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty include references to any person who is neither a constable nor in the company of a constable but who—

(a) is a member of an international joint investigation team that is led by a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland; and

(b) is carrying out his functions as a member of that team.

(5) In this section "international joint investigation team" means any investigation team formed in accordance with—

(a) any framework decision on joint investigation teams adopted under Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union;

(b) the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, and the Protocol to that Convention, established in accordance with that Article of that Treaty; or

(c) any international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party and which is specified for the purposes of this section in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(6) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (5) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.""
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 335T:
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
"PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
( ) The Police Pensions Act 1976 (c. 35) shall be repealed with effect from 31st March 2005.
( ) By 31st March 2003, the Secretary of State shall bring forward proposals for debate in both Houses of Parliament for the introduction, by 31st March 2005, of new pension arrangements for police officers, including arrangements to ensure the full and on-going costs of the new arrangements are met from a pension fund established from the Consolidated Fund."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 335T, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 335TA, 337A and 340AA, which are grouped together on the yellow sheet. They address two issues of considerable importance. We have been debating a large Bill about police reform but one key issue which is in need of desperate reform has been dumped again and again by governments of both parties. It is the issue of police pensions. I would couple with that—although it is not the subject today—fire service pensions.
The cost of police pensions is not a new issue for this House. The problem with the current police pension scheme is that it is under-funded. It means that the ongoing pension costs must be met by police authorities from the normal revenue account. Those costs are offset to an extent by the contributions made by serving police officers who pay from their monthly salaries 11 per cent, but that does not come close to meeting the existing pensions burden.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. In opening, he referred to four amendments in the group. Amendments Nos. 335TA and 340A A cover a subject other than pensions; they cover the Riot (Damages) Act. My understanding is that those issues have been separated, so perhaps for the convenience of the Committee the noble Lord might first concentrate on the issue of pensions. When we have got that out of the way we can move on to the other.
Lord Bradshaw: I shall finish the subject of pensions and then turn to the Riot (Damages) Act.
Current expenditure has risen from 7 per cent in 1991–92 to 13.3 per cent overall in 2000–01. More than £l billion of police budgets are now spent on pensions. That will increase and in some authorities it is as much as 25 per cent of their costs. It varies from place to place.
The Minister may be assured that we are doing all we can to keep a cap on early and ill-health retirements, but the ongoing costs of pensions are unavoidable. The Government makes a grant but it must cover many items besides pensions. This year, many authorities are having to dig into their own reserves or to increase the council tax by large amounts in order to meet their deficit on pension funds.
In 1998, the Government consulted stakeholders on this exercise and a great deal of time and effort was put into it. The amendment we propose is simple. It proposes that at some point in the future we say that the existing pension scheme will stop and a new
802
pension scheme which is properly funded will start. It is quite simple. In time, it will ensure that pensions do not impact on front-line policing.
The amendment would bring a great deal of transparency to the issue of police funding and the cost of pensions. It would enable Parliament, police authorities, chief officers and members of the public to know much more clearly how their money is being spent. I shall stop there because that is the end of what I want to say about pensions. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is one of the ironies of life that I was one of the officials on the other side, in local government, who prepared a briefing about this problem more than a dozen years ago. The issue has certainly not gone away.
I do not know whether it is the intention of the noble Lord, but the effect of Amendment No. 335T would be to replace the current statutory scheme with an approved funded scheme similar—perhaps almost exactly the same—to those in the private sector. A public sector scheme such as the police pension scheme can have its benefits guaranteed by statute, but the existence of a fund does not necessarily make an expensive scheme affordable. We need to think long and hard about that. While we understand the concern of police authorities over the increasing burden of funding pensions, we have to consider the solution to this problem very carefully.
I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, is in her place. She and I have debated this issue in the past. It is a problem to which we shall have to give very careful consideration.
The cost of setting up a funded scheme as proposed by the noble Lord would be somewhere in the region of £35 billion. This is a massive sum to divert away from other more immediate—some may say "front line"—issues and uses. We are giving careful consideration to the detailed options but, in broad terms, we think that the better way forward is likely to be a twin-track approach, first, by introducing a better system of financing police pensions— I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome that—and, secondly, by introducing a more affordable scheme for future entrants.
We hope to meet the requirements of police authorities and chief officers for a system which gives a greater certainty about pensions obligations on individual forces. We shall be announcing our conclusions in the very near future. We are also soon due to consider options for modernising the police pension scheme to make it more flexible and affordable, both for the officers and for police authorities.
As to Amendment No. 337A, under the present arrangements the police grant is indivisible. It is calculated from various elements, most of which are related to policing activity with only a relatively small part set aside for pensions. The total grant for each police authority is unhypothecated. We do not attempt to ensure that authorities "break even" on each component. There are swings and roundabouts in this issue to give an overall general fairness.

803
If we were to split off a piece of the grant for pensions, it would be logical to break the whole provision into its several components. No doubt at that stage someone would accuse us of control freakery at the centre, but that is a debate for another day. We argue—I think we are right—that this would benefit no one and would limit the scope for police authorities and chief officers to be flexible in the disposition of their carefully managed resources.
As I mentioned in my observations on Amendment No. 335T, we hope to bring forward proposals shortly that will provide greater certainty to police pension costs. We feel that these will meet the main concerns expressed in the noble Lord's amendment. Undoubtedly there will be detailed and careful discussions with the APA and the chief officers on this issue. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply. At this time of night, I do not want to protract the discussions.
The scheme that we propose would draw a line under the present scheme, which would stop on a certain date. A new funded scheme would come into effect from that date. So the new funded scheme, which the Minister has said might cost £35 billion, would in fact be invented at a date in the future and would be funded for officers joining after that date. The problem would at least be capped at some time in the future.
I believe that this is the only way out of the difficulty. The alternative is to spend £35 billion, which I cannot see any government doing. Although the police grant is indivisible, we have to meet the police pension. Police authorities regard that as their first obligation. As I have said, some authorities— I believe Merseyside is one— are now spending 25 per cent of their money on this issue.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think I follow the noble Lord's drift. But would not the proposal lead to two separate pension schemes being offered? Where would the equity in those two schemes exist? How would the second, the funded scheme, have sufficient funds to pay out pensions from day one? That is what the noble Lord's scheme would envisage. Those are exactly the kinds of questions that worry me. This is exactly why we are concerned about the costs.
Lord Bradshaw: The scheme would not pay out pensions from day one, because the second scheme would apply only to new entrants, who would build up their pensions for a good while in the future. It is only by drawing a line between the two schemes that we can go forward.
I am not an actuary. I do not know how pension funds work; but I do know that they are an incredible burden. Every authority is having to go to its ratepayers for considerably more money to pay for
804
pensions than it otherwise would. I intend to return to the matter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 335TA:
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
"RIOT DAMAGES
The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 (c. 38) shall be repealed."
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to repeal the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. The Act provides that, where a police authority declares under the terms of the Public Order Act that a riot has taken place, we become liable to pay for any damages to buildings and their contents arising from the riot.
The legislation is widely viewed as archaic. The subject was discussed during a debate in this House in 1986 on the Public Order Bill. It has come back into the public eye following the claim against the Bedfordshire police authority for £40 million arising from the fire at the Yarl's Wood detention centre.
The provisions of the Act apply even when there has been no negligence or default on the part of the police. In fact, the mobile support unit from Thames Valley went to Yarl's Wood, and the following day I was present when the chief constable commended officers for their actions. They certainly had no part in any of the damage, only in containing it. The claim was made on the basis that the riots were somehow the result of a failure to provide adequate policing, although I do not believe that that was the case at Yarl's Wood.
I do not believe that there is any justification for these claims being met on the basis of being local disturbances. Claims may fall to be met by insurance companies, but I do not believe that they should fall on the local police authority. Ruth Henig, the chairman of the Association of Police Authorities, has written to John Denham calling on the Government urgently to review the Act. Although she wrote in November last year, no reply has been received from the Minister—which is extremely disappointing, and perhaps underlines the fact that we have very little confidence that the Home Office will meet the deadlines which it sets itself in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am sorry if Ruth Henig has not had anything in writing. However, following the riots in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham last summer, the Government set up an urgent review of the Riot (Damages) Act. That review is going on at the moment. I suspect that that would have been announced before Ruth Henig wrote her letter—or possibly just after, I do not know. Either way, she deserves a reply, even if it is only an acknowledgement, because it is now March.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned 1986. It is worth pointing out that the police were not free-standing authorities at that time, but were parts of county councils and always had the council reserves to draw on. In 1985, there was a riot in Handsworth,

805
which affected my constituency and Small Heath, so I am familiar with the operation of the Riot (Damages) Act as it affects small businesses.
I am reluctant to say anything about Yarl's Wood. I was almost going to say that a spiv insurance company is trying to get the police to pay for its liabilities, but that would be an unfair description. I am sure that the insurance company is a bona fide operation that is not seeking to boost its profits at the expense of the public purse—although that is how it looks to art ordinary person from outside.
There are three inquiries going on. I called in to Yarl's Wood unannounced on Saturday afternoon on my way to Home Office business in Bedford. It would be wrong of me to say anything about Yarl's Wood and the issues of Bedford police in advance of the reports that we shall receive from the various inquiries, because of the implications for those who are making claims and those who are seeking to rebut them.
Lord Bradshaw: Before I withdraw the amendment, I should like an assurance that the Minister will take the matter away and consider it and come back and tell us what will happen. We are dissatisfied and believe that something should be done.
Lord Rooker: The Government are pursuing an urgent review of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. When we have pursued our urgent review, we shall report back to Parliament. However, I cannot guarantee that that will he in time for Report stage.
Lord Bradshaw: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresfordmoved Amendment No. 335U:
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
"PART 6A
WALES
POWERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES
(1) References to the Secretary of State in Part II of the Police Act 1996 and in Part I of this Act shall, in relation to the Police Areas in Wales, have effect as references to the National Assembly for Wales and references to England and Wales shall, where appropriate, have effect as references to England or Wales
(2) Every power conferred upon the National Assembly for Wales by this Act shall be exercised in accordance with the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c.38)."
The noble Lord said: I understand the resentment that may be felt by those of your Lordships who have spent four days debating various matters in Committee and then find that I have come to interfere at nearly ten o'clock at night. That is not because I do not have an interest in police reform. I spent the first five years of my life living in a police station, where my father was a sergeant in the small Denbighshire Constabulary. Coming from a police family, I have seen the situation from the roots up.
806
Scotland has eight territorial police forces under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament. They have maintained their tripartite arrangement. It is alive and well in Scotland and supported by our Government—a combination of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members of the Scottish Parliament. The police authorities determine the budget and resources. The chief constable is concerned with operational decisions about police deployment. The Scottish Executive has policy responsibility for law and order in Scotland and is answerable to the Scottish Parliament for those responsibilities.
We in Wales think that it is time that the National Assembly for Wales took on those same responsibilities. It is fortunate that the Government of Wales Act gave power to transfer the existing functions of the Secretary of State for Wales to the Welsh Assembly but also gave power for functions to be transferred under any other Act. Therefore, I seek to amend the Long Title to make that possible in this Bill.
When the Government of Wales Bill went through Parliament, Mr Ron Davies said that devolution was a process and not an event. It is a continuing process. When I see the prescriptive powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State and how it distorts the tripartite arrangement which has operated so well over many years, I realise that the provisions of any Bill dealing with the police require to be focused and directed at the needs of a particular area. We in Wales do not want a national policing plan in which the Secretary of State sets out strategic policing priorities for all police forces. I refer to Clause 1.
I give another example. Clause 6 concerns the regulation of equipment and provides that,
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make … provision requiring all police forces in England and Wales …to use only—
(i) the equipment which is specified in the regulations …approved by the Secretary of State".
Flak jackets and guns may be important for police forces on Merseyside, in Greater Manchester or in London. However, in Gwynedd we are much more concerned about the provision of proper mountaineering equipment. In other more pastoral parts of Wales, people are more concerned about the quality of the sheep dip which police forces have to examine. Different areas have different concerns. I speak from experience. I recall terrorism cases in Wales among elements of the population which do not occur elsewhere in the UK. The coastline is a feature of Wales. I remember the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, prosecuting in a case involving drugs that were shipped on to a deserted beach in Wales. He said that the defendants had failed only in one respect in that they had underestimated the inquisitiveness of the native people of Pembrokeshire. I refer also to fraud. Most fraud cases in Wales seem to relate to livestock. Rustling is a big issue there. It used to be a hanging offence and is still so regarded.
I am trying to explain that different priorities and different issues arise in different parts of the United Kingdom. For the Secretary of State on his own—save for his political advisers and his civil servants in

807
whitehall—to have a prescriptive power to put forward a measure for the whole of the country will result in such measures being not properly focused and not properly directed.
We have devolved power to Wales in the National Assembly for Wales. We have put in place in Wales a system of secondary legislation which, unlike the system of secondary legislation at Westminster, is open to scrutiny. One of the total failures of this Chamber is that we are incapable of amending secondary legislation that is brought before us. That is not the case with secondary legislation that is brought forward in Wales. It can be properly debated and amended, and consensus can be achieved. It is a better system for dealing with the needs of Wales. I do not speak from a particularly nationalistic point of view. I do not say that everything has to be different in Wales. I say that, from a practical point of view, it would be sensible for the government of Wales in the National Assembly to take over the functions of the Secretary of State in relation to Part I of the Bill and to Part II of the Police Act 1996. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I welcome the noble Lord to our debate at the 11th hour of our fourth day. That is not a criticism. I have not seen him since the passage of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act before Christmas.
The noble Lord has obviously been in this House a lot longer than I have and he is learned in the law, but I have a feeling that he has no comprehension whatever of the momentousness of his proposal. I shall explain why.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I was involved from these Benches at every stage of the passage of the Government of Wales Act. I have every appreciation of what it means to devolve the powers and functions of a particular part of government to the Welsh Assembly.
Lord Rooker: Well, I have a few questions for the noble Lord, but he need not answer them tonight.
The noble Lord proposes a major revision of the devolution settlement that was enacted by the Government of Wales Act 1998. He said that he was a leading participant in the passage of that Act. That statute and the current settlement, so recently won, were offered to the electorate in our manifesto of 1997. Those proposals were endorsed in a referendum, albeit very narrowly, I accept; I remember waiting, with everyone else, for the final result.
For good reason, the Government oppose the amendment. The Home Secretary's role in policing is predicated on a single criminal justice system. For example, while ministerial priorities for policing in England and Wales have their basis in Section 37 of the Police Act 1996, they are not drawn up in isolation from wider policies on crime reduction and prosecution. That is because the priorities and
808
indicators that are set require certain actions to be taken and results to be demonstrated that do not depend solely on the police.
If the noble Lord is serious about devolution—he clearly is; I do not say that in a pejorative way—and the proposal to devolve the Secretary of State's responsibilities for policing to the National Assembly, frankly, he must, at the same time, be a little more thorough. He must devolve the criminal justice system. He should not forget that prisons and the probation service are Home Office matters. He must advocate splitting the Court Service and the Crown Prosecution Service. He should also ask himself how Wales would benefit from breaking up the Forensic Science Service. If you are going to do the job, you should do it properly and not at half cock.
The noble Lord mentioned Scotland. That is a fair point and I understand why he raised it. Colleagues of mine in both Houses make such comparisons. One has to look at the history. Responsibility for policing in Scotland is not for the Home Secretary but for the Secretary of State for Scotland. It has never been the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. That is obviously part of Scotland's history of a separate criminal justice system. England and Wales have long shared a common criminal justice system. I have no doubt that the noble Lord could put a date on that; I cannot, but I know that it happened a long time ago. If anything, therefore, the example of Scotland supports the current arrangement south of the Border, by which I mean England and Wales.
The Bill contains a major programme of police reform, but we also need to consider the White Paper aspects—those parts of the reform that are not part of the legislation. It will do the hopes for the further reduction of crime in Wales no good to have Welsh policing taken out of the scope of the reform agenda. The amendment does not deal with the Police Act 1997. What would happen to the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Police Information Technology Organisation and the codes of practice in respect of interfering with property?
The noble Lord chose an example which arose in an earlier debate on the Bill concerning equipment. I believe that we raised that issue ourselves. We have the crazy situation in which some police forces cannot communicate with each other because they insist that they are not being given the equipment to do so. It is absolutely preposterous that they cannot share the intelligence that they gather. Therefore, the idea of Wales opting out concerns not only a question of language—far from it: they are entitled to that. The fact is that criminals do not recognise the English/ Welsh border. They do not recognise the English/ Scottish one either, before anyone gets up to say that—I am not going to get myself into any sheep dip over that one!
The noble Lord does not deal with the Secretary of State's role in respect of best value. I am not knocking that and saying that it is a technically deficient point. I am saying that, if there is a serious attempt, which

809
noble Lords and others are entitled to mount, to have full devolution in which Wales is separated from England in respect of the police and criminal justice system—we should bear in mind that in Scotland it was always separate; it was not part of the mainstream following the active settlement—then they are embarking on a momentous operation of massive proportions and, probably, dislocation for police services in Wales. I cannot prove that. However, it will be a massive upheaval.
Therefore, our principal objections are that policing cannot be divorced from the administration of the criminal justice system. The costs of such radical surgery may be prohibitive, although I do not have a figure for it. The amendment does not take account of the other statutory enactments in respect of policing. And, perhaps most importantly, it cuts across the devolution settlement, which is literally only ink-dry on the paper in the grand scale of history. It is but a blip, from 1998 to 2002. That is not a criticism, but it has hardly had time to get started. Embarking on the major upheaval that this would cause would mean that the present system does not have time to bed down. One assumes that it was endorsed in last year's general election, by the referendum and by both Houses of Parliament.
If the noble Lord wants to return on Report with an amendment which covers all the issues that I have raised tonight then, frankly—I was going to say that he may not find me here—he will have to return with an amendment which is probably as big as the Police Reform Bill itself. It is that momentous. It is right that the matter has been raised. In the context of policing in England and Wales, this is the only occasion during our debates over the past four days of the Committee stage when the issue has been raised.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am pleased to hear the Minister support the devolution settlement, which we on these Benches accepted and promoted with even greater fervour than those on his own side.
The noble Lord should look a little more closely at Scotland. I made the point that the eight territorial police forces fall under Scottish jurisdiction. But the British Transport Police, the Ministry of Defence Police, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary and the National Criminal Intelligence Service—bodies which he mentioned in his reply—all come under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom Government. That is the settlement that has been achieved in Scotland. I do not seek to change that; nor did I suggest it. I simply say that Wales has police forces which should come under the territorial police forces, which should come under a far more democratic jurisdiction than that of the Secretary of State for whom the noble Lord speaks when he replies in this debate.
Therefore, this is not as momentous as the noble Lord thinks. If it helps him, it was in 1453 that the Grand Court of Wales and the Marches was abolished by a Welsh-speaking Welsh king by the name of Henry VIII. We talk about Henry VIII clauses, but in fact he put together the two jurisdictions of that time.
810
Although in earlier proposals that I drafted for a parliament for Wales I proposed the resurrection of that court, we have not quite gone that far. 1t is perfectly possible for the police forces in Wales to cooperate with all the police forces in England and with the bodies to which the noble Lord referred—particularly with the scientific bodies which serve not only England and Wales but much wider areas—and for the tripartite arrangement, as exists in Scotland, to apply in Wales as well.
He invites me to return to the matter on Report in order to pursue this point. I accept that invitation. I shall consider the amendment as he suggests and I shall try to put it into a more succinct compass. We shall discuss the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 76 to 78 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 336:
Page 130, line 40, at end insert—
"In section 6 of the 1996 Act (general functions of police authorities), after subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(6) A police authority for any police area shall have power to call for information or reports from Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, the Audit Commission or any relevant council for that authority.""
The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment. Unlike the previous amendment, it has no major implications. I hope that the Government will have no difficulty in accepting it. It is prompted by the desire of the police authorities to enhance their capacity to do an effective job to secure the best possible policing for their communities. I know that police authorities are committed to working with the Government to achieve a fundamental and radical improvement in policing. They fully support the aims of the Government. However, there is disagreement on the way in which the Government have chosen to secure those aims, but not with the aims themselves.
Unlike the Government, police authorities do not have ready access to independent objective advice on the work of their forces. HMIC carries out a valuable job in providing inspection reports but currently sees its role as reporting primarily to the Home Secretary or to the chief constable. This amendment would enable police authorities to be pro-active and to call in HM IC or local auditors where they have concerns about a particular aspect of local policing, or where they would find it helpful to have independent, professional advice on a particular issue.
We believe that self-improvement is always more effective than intervention imposed from outside. Rather than having to wait to be told that things are going wrong, police authorities want to take preemptive action locally. I hope that that is an attitude

811
and an approach that the Government want to encourage and that I shall receive a positive response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: Can the noble Lord, in winding up, explain why his amendment does not appear to cover the British Transport Police, the Ministry of Defence Police and other forces?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This amendment would allow any police authority to require Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Audit Commission, and the local authority within the relevant police area to disclose any information or to make a report. I presume that the intention is to cover information or reports relevant to the policing of the area, but as the amendment is drafted it does not state that. The effect would be much wider.
I have some difficulty with the amendment because it appears that the noble Lord is seeking to achieve through legislation something that would be better achieved by voluntary co-operation and through the spirit of mutual good working practices. The noble Lord made the point that in many instances it is better to achieve co-operation and good working practices to raise standards. This amendment appears to force the issue through legislation. Is this the right way to proceed when there is such good co-operation already? I wonder whether the Local Government Association, to which the APA is aligned, would be concerned—I am sure that it would be—about the proposed power to direct information or reports from local authorities.
We are unaware of any instance which would merit the extensive power provided in the amendment. I can see the benefit of reports and information being shared. We all share a common understanding of the need for that. However, I am not sure that to force the measure through by this approach adds to the existing provisions. I suspect that it may set up some suspicions, particularly where there is a requirement on local authorities to direct information or reports.
Lord Dholakia: The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked why the British Transport Police and other parties have not been included. We were concerned by the representations made to us by the police authorities. That is why we included them in the amendment. However, when talking about good practice there is no reason why others should not be involved.
The Minister's answer is most unhelpful. We are talking about best practice. We have not seen evidence of local co-operation working effectively as it would if there were the power to call in HMIC auditors to help in terms of better policing. We shall reconsider the matter and, if necessary, return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 337:
Page 131, line 5, at end insert—
"In section 15 of the 1996 Act (civilian employees), for subsection (3) there shall be substituted—
"(3) Subsection (2) shall not apply to such persons employed by the authority for its own support as may be determined by that authority.""
The noble Lord said: Like the previous amendment, this amendment is about enabling police authorities to do their job effectively.
The amendment would mean that police authorities could decide their own staffing levels rather than having to seek the agreement of the chief officer. It may seem peculiar, but although the police authority holds the police budget and decides how to allocate resources, it has to seek the chief officer's consent to increase its own staff even by one. Such a restriction is inappropriate and has led to difficulties in some areas—difficulties which have arisen only because of the way in which the legislation is currently framed.
The Government should recognise that police authorities are responsible enough bodies to decide their own staffing levels. Most authorities have only a handful of staff. They are always reluctant to devote resources to their own support staff if this will detract in any way from the front line policing services provided to their communities. However, it is important that police authorities are properly resourced and have the tools to carry out their duties effectively. If they need an officer to undertake research or analysis they should be able to employ one without needing the chief officer's agreement.
This Bill is about modernising and improving policing. This small amendment will contribute to that by helping police authorities secure improvements in local policing by doing their job more effectively. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Again, I can see where the noble Lord comes from on this issue. I understand some of the force of the argument underlying the amendment. However, we cannot see a self-evident problem that needs to be addressed in the way the noble Lord suggests. It is obviously right that police authorities are appropriately resourced to carry out their functions in setting a budget, the appointment of senior officers, local policing plans, best value and so on. But I am not sure that the proposition that the noble Lord makes deals with that problem. Nor are we convinced that there are conflicts or difficulties which give rise to this solution.
In the absence of any evidence that it is a major issue for police authorities and chief officers, it is not an amendment we can support. The noble Lord may wish to reflect on that point and suggest that the APA makes representations on the issue, perhaps to officials in the Home Office to see whether there is some other way in which the issue can be teased out without the

813
need to legislate. I do not think that legislating on the issue is the way to solve the problem—if there is a problem.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister. One of my concerns is that often he speaks on a particular amendment on the basis of advice that he has received. There are three Members on this side of the House with direct police authority experience, including myself. Anyone who has served on a police authority knows of the number of discussions, conflicts and internal difficulties that take place between it and the chief officers. I should have thought that the right way to try to resolve the matter would be to give a responsible police authority the ability to make the appointments they consider appropriate.
I wish only to say to the Minister that we shall certainly get in touch with the police authorities to see whether they can make direct representation to the Home Office in order to see whether there are other means by which this matter can be resolved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 337A not moved.]
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 338:
Page 132, line 21, at end insert—
"In Schedule 2 of the 1996 Act for paragraph 25(1), there shall be substituted—
"(1) A police authority may make to its chairman and other members such payments by way of reimbursement of expenses as the authority may determine.""
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 338 is grouped with Amendment No. 339. These are minor amendments but ones which I hope that the Government will have little difficulty in accepting. They provide for the police authorities to determine for themselves the levels of expenses for travel and subsistence to be paid to their members.
In the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the Government fulfilled a long-standing commitment to police authorities to deregulate allowances paid to their members. The Home Secretary finally gave up control over the level of allowances and police authorities were given the scope—long available to local authorities—to decide their own allowances. However, because the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions had not then deregulated travel expenses for local councillors, the Home Secretary felt unable to take that further small step.
I understand that the DTLR is now deregulating expenses for local authority members. The Bill provides an opportunity to do likewise for police authority members. I hope that the Government recognise that police authorities are responsible bodies which can be trusted to behave reasonably.
Perhaps I may quickly mention how police authorities have responded to their new freedom to set up their own allowance levels. They have done so responsibly. The Association of Police Authorities set up an independent panel to produce guidance for all
814
authorities on appropriate allowance levels. The panel linked those allowances to clear job profiles for members and appropriate time commitments. Indeed, I understand that the panel's report has been cited as good practice and is widely drawn on by other local government bodies in producing their own allowance schemes. All police authorities are currently implementing the panel's recommendations, which will be reviewed in due course.
I believe that this shows that police authorities could and should be entrusted by the Government to manage their affairs sensibly without needing to be told by the Home Secretary that they should pay, for example, £6.57 per day subsistence to their members. I hope that the Minister feels able to accept this small but further rationalisation of the current arrangements. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord will be happy when I say that I am about to raise the white flag on this matter. I fully acknowledge that there are differing approaches in legislation for police authorities and local authorities. If the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment, which does not actually do what it perhaps seeks to do, we will give fair consideration to the proposition and will undertake some reasonably swift consultation and perhaps bring forward an amendment at a later stage.
The noble Lord has a point here. We are quite happy to give it active consideration.
Lord Dholakia: Especially when the noble Lord. Lord Rooker, moves his head I am always delighted. I am always happy with small miracles from time to time from the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 339 not moved.]
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 339A:
Page 134, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert—
"Section 42(6)(a)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 340 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 340A:
Page 134, line 38, column 2, at beginning insert—
"In section 1—

(a) the words after paragraph (b) of subsection (1); and

(b) subsection (2)."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 340A.Anot moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 340B to 341A:
Page 71, line 32, leave out "and" and insert "to"
Page 71, line 39, after "provision" insert "(other than one contained in Chapter 1 of Part 4)"
Page 71, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) Section (President of ACPO) also extends to Northern Ireland."
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 340B to 341A en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 341B:
Line 5, after "officers;" insert "to amend the law relating to antisocial behaviour orders;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 341C not moved.]
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

HSBC Investment Banking Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past ten o'clock.

  Magistrates' Courts: Dorset
  Magistrates' Courts: Dorset
  Defendants' Court Attendance Costs: Dorset
  Defendants' Court Attendance Costs: Dorset
  Bereavement Damages
  Bereavement Damages
  Northern Ireland: Policing
  Northern Ireland: Policing
  Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service: Life Peers
  Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service: Life Peers
  IRA Ceasefire
  IRA Ceasefire
  Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman
  Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman
  Sex Discrimination Act 1975: Extension to Public Authorities
  Sex Discrimination Act 1975: Extension to Public Authorities
  Northern Ireland: Weston Park Discussions
  Northern Ireland: Weston Park Discussions
  IRA Decommissioning
  IRA Decommissioning
  Northern Ireland: Prisoners' Early Release Scheme
  Northern Ireland: Prisoners' Early Release Scheme
  Register of Lords' Interests
  Register of Lords' Interests
  Personal Injury Cases
  Personal Injury Cases
  Commonwealth Ministers' Discussions: Capital Punishment and Prison Conditions
  Commonwealth Ministers' Discussions: Capital Punishment and Prison Conditions
  Middle East
  Middle East
  China: British Citizens or Residents
  China: British Citizens or Residents
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  World Trade Organisation Negotiations
  World Trade Organisation Negotiations
  UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
  UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Afghanistan: Civilian Casualties
  Afghanistan: Civilian Casualties
  Medically Downgraded Army Personnel
  Medically Downgraded Army Personnel
  Harrier Departmental Fleet
  Harrier Departmental Fleet
  Army: Recruitment
  Army: Recruitment
  Staff Sergeants and Sergeants: Extension of Service
  Staff Sergeants and Sergeants: Extension of Service
  Flight RR 500, 18 February
  Flight RR 500, 18 February
  Courts Martial: ECHR Judgment
  Courts Martial: ECHR Judgment
  Single Sky Proposals
  Single Sky Proposals
  Royal Armoured Corps: Collective Performance Levels
  Royal Armoured Corps: Collective Performance Levels
  Regional Cultural Consortiums
  Regional Cultural Consortiums
  National Stadium
  National Stadium
  Sports Clubs: Applications for Charitable Status
  Sports Clubs: Applications for Charitable Status
  NHS Hospitals: Board and Lodging
  NHS Hospitals: Board and Lodging
  Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations
  Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations
  Energy Generation: Nuclear and Renewable Sources
  Energy Generation: Nuclear and Renewable Sources
  Scotland: Renewable Energy
  Scotland: Renewable Energy
  Sound Recording: Copyright Exception
  Sound Recording: Copyright Exception
  Labelling Policy: Lead Department
  Labelling Policy: Lead Department
  Ridgeway
  Ridgeway
  Sustainable Development
  Sustainable Development
  Trout and Cormorants
  Trout and Cormorants