Sitting of 13 March 2002

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

  LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on 20 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State was asked—
  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Special Advisers
    Bob Spink: What the Government's policy is on compensating special advisers who are required to resign. [40116]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The circumstances in which compensation may be paid to special advisers who resign from the civil service are set out in the "Model Contract for Special Advisers".
    Bob Spink: The Prime Minister has the final say in appointing special advisers. Will the Minister tell us exactly what role the Prime Minister plays in dismissing advisers, and will she say what amount of compensation Jo Moore was paid?
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman's question was about special advisers who resign from the civil service. Their conditions are laid down in section 13 of the "Model Contract for Special Advisers". It will be for Jo Moore and the Department to work out the exact terms.
    Kevin Brennan: Will my hon. Friend agree to have a look at the evidence given to the Select Committee on Public Administration last week by Sir Richard Mottram about the whole matter of special advisers and how they could be required to resign? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sometimes not clear whether the Secretary of State or the permanent secretary
    872
    is responsible for requiring a special adviser to resign? For future reference by Governments of all complexions, would it not be better to clear that up now?
    Mrs. Roche: We have an obligation to consult on a civil service Act, and of course we shall listen to what people have to say during that consultation. The House should bear in mind, however, the fact that the "Model Contract for Special Advisers" was published for the first time by this Government, and that they also published the code of 'conduct. That will interest Conservative Members, one in eight of whom I understand to be former special advisers.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Whose job is it to ensure that special advisers cannot break their code of conduct, and therefore their contracts, with impunity? What action was taken when Ministers confirmed to the House that Jo Moore had instructed a civil servant to brief the press against Bob Kiley, contrary to paragraph 6 of the code? Was that a breach of contract? If not, why not? Would severance pay be payable if it was?
    Mrs. Roche: The terms and conditions in the model contract go into an individual's terms and conditions of employment. That is the rule in employment law.
    As far as I am aware, no official complaint has been made. If a complaint were made, it would be investigated.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Will the Minister confirm for the record that it was the Prime Minister who personally decided to retain Jo Moore in office last autumn? If he did, will the Minister confirm that he, not the taxpayer, will be paying any lump sum that is paid to Jo Moore?
    Mrs. Roche: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what the Prime Minister said on 17 October during Prime Minister's Question Time:
    "First, I do not defend in any shape or form what Jo Moore said, which was horrible, wrong and stupid. I do, however, defend the decision that to sack someone and end their career was too heavy a penalty. That was the decision taken. I supported it and regard the matter as closed."—[Official Report, 17 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 1165.]
    That is the way in which to deal with these affairs.

    Civil Service Bill
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: If he will publish a civil service Bill in draft. [40117]
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Mr. John Prescott): The Government are committed to the introduction of civil service legislation, and I anticipate working closely with the Select Committee on Public Administration in developing a consensus through all stages of reform. As I said when I appeared before the Committee on 18 October last year, this does not rule out any form of pre-legislative scrutiny.
    Mr. Prentice: That is a good answer, but it does not tell me anything that I did not already know. Is there any problem with introducing a civil service Bill, given that

    873
    all the parties are signed up to it? I am mystified over why there should he so much navel-gazing in regard to an issue on which there is consensus in the House.
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, he asked the same question on an earlier occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hon. Friend !"] Well, I will leave that to the judgment of the House.
    I was trying to make it clear to the House that my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—had asked a question and adjusted it in the process. He asked about pre-legislative scrutiny, which I think is a very good idea.
    People want to have a debate about this issue. We have made it clear that we intend to make a radical change: to put provisions into law and a legislative framework, which the Opposition have called for in their recent report. We think that that is right and we will publish at the right time. The Cabinet Secretary will make a statement about the matter shortly. I believe that he is appearing before my hon. Friend's Committee tomorrow.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that a civil service Bill should include statutory provision for the ministerial code? Yesterday a judge in the Doncaster case said in passing sentence on two Labour councillors found guilty of corruption—I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister agrees with this—
    "Corruption by those elected by the public strikes at the root of democracy".
    Does he agree that following the Mittal affair, the Hinduja affair, the Ecclestone affair and the Vaz affair, the last person who should be judge and jury on the conduct of Ministers is the Prime Minister?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: We could expect a rant from the hon. Gentleman, but a Conservative councillor was before the court at the same time. Let me make it clear that the House condemns corruption wherever it takes place; I assume that that view is held on both sides of the Chamber. All parties have had problems, but the hon. Gentleman seeks only to exploit the situation, and throws doubt on the credibility of many councillors, Tory, Labour and Liberal Democrat, who do an excellent job. We do not intend to put the ministerial code into a legislative framework.
    Mr. Speaker: Question 3. [Interruption.]
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Mr. John Prescott): I was just thinking about Lady Porter.

    PIU Reports
    Mr. David Chaytor: If he will list the performance and innovation unit reports for which his Department is the lead department. [40118]
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: The Cabinet Office is the lead Department for four completed PIU reports, which focused on a cross-cutting
    874
    approach to government, regional and local government, electronic delivery of Government services, and leadership in the public sector.
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office is also the sponsor Minister for two current PIU projects, on risk and uncertainty; and ethnic minorities and the labour market.
    Mr. Chaytor: The content of all PIU reports is a matter for the sponsoring Minister, so in respect of the process governing the report on the energy review, will my right hon. Friend speak to the Minister for Industry and Energy and ensure that there is the fullest possible debate about that review over the next few months, given the deteriorating international situation, particularly in the middle east?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: The report was commissioned by the Prime Minister, as my hon. Friend is aware. It was conducted by the PIU under the sponsorship of the Energy Minister. In those circumstances, it has produced the report, and statements have been made. The report is now publicly available for consultation and discussion. After the consultation, and despite the controversial issues associated with our commitments on climate change and nuclear energy, we will produce our White Paper at the end of this year. We will include our conclusions in it, as Governments normally do.

    Ombudsman Review
    Tony Wright: When he expects to introduce legislation to implement the conclusions of the ombudsman review. [40120]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government have made clear their commitment to replace the existing arrangements with a more unified ombudsman body. We intend to publish more details shortly. Any legislation required to implement new arrangements will be made when parliamentary time allows.
    Tony Wright: My hon. Friend will know that it was a Labour Government in the 1960s who introduced the ombudsman system to protect the citizen against acts of maladministration by state officials, a move that was opposed by the Conservative party. We have had a review that has been around for a long time saying that the ombudsman system needs to be updated to meet the needs of citizens now. As we were the party that introduced that system, can he guarantee that we will be the party that urgently brings in the product of the review?
    Mr. Leslie: I can certainly guarantee that the Government remain firmly committed to a unified ombudsman system. There is much that we can do in advance of any legislation. For example, the new parliamentary ombudsman, when appointed, will continue to undertake the health service ombudsman role as well. We can use this opportunity to resolve any jurisdictional issues, and we can look at co-locating the local government ombudsman with the parliamentary and health service ombudsmen, so that we have a more seamless, single-door approach for the public.

    Civil Servants (Employment Tribunals)
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on the circumstances in which junior civil servants are entitled to have their cases submitted to employment tribunals in cases of alleged misconduct. [40121]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Civil servants have the same rights of access to employment tribunals as other employees.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the light of Lord Butler's remarks in the other place, to which my hon. Friend the Minister's attention has been drawn, do we have the assurance that the junior civil servants in the Moore-Sixsmith case will he treated according to fair process?
    Mr. Leslie: The former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said that the relationship between special advisers and civil servants was generally very productive. As well as the general rights to access industrial tribunals, civil servants also have extensive internal appeal opportunities, to the civil service appeal board and to the civil service commissioners. My hon. Friend will accept that it would not be appropriate for me to detail the particulars of any individual case on the Floor of the House of Commons.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not rather worrying that so many civil servants have had to look to appeal procedures as a result of their run-ins with one Cabinet Minister? The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions lost a press officer when he was at the former Department for Education and Employment, and since then he has lost a head of press, a deputy head of press and junior press officer. He has even, belatedly and reluctantly, lost a special adviser. Should not the right hon. Gentleman take out some sort of block booking with the appeals service?
    Mr. Leslie: That was very droll. We have been around the block on this matter with the hon. Gentleman far too many times. I do not know whether he is getting bored with asking the same question, but I am certainly getting bored with answering it. The permanent secretary has issued his statement and dealt with all these matters. It is time that the hon. Gentleman put them into perspective.

    Ministerial Code of Conduct
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will revise the ministerial code of conduct. [40122]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): A revised ministerial code was published in July 2001. Since then, in response to a recommendation from the Public Administration Select Committee, the Government have agreed to amend paragraph 27 of the code.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is she aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has just said that the ministerial code will not be contained in the future civil service Act? Is it right that the Prime Minister should be
    876
    judge, jury and—occasionally—executioner with regard to breaches of the civil service code when he has not justified the trust that people placed in him in connection with the cases of the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions? When the Prime Minister needs our trust, would it not be appropriate that he earns it?
    Mrs. Roche: That was the most astonishing outburst. In response to the report by the Public Administration Committee, the Government have revised the civil service code. That code was left unaltered by the previous Conservative Administration whom, if the hon. Gentleman had been in the House at the time, I am sure that he would have supported. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has published the ministerial code and altered it in the way recommended by the Select Committee. I am sure that that action has the overwhelming endorsement of the House.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Despite the attitude of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), does my hon. Friend the Minister think that it would be useful to have a meeting with Opposition Front-Bench Members on this issue? At such a meeting, would she consider raising with them the report from the Public Administration Committee published in February last year? It touched on this matter, and included the concern that the Opposition could not give a categoric assurance that Short money was being used exclusively for parliamentary purposes. Is there any information from the Opposition on that matter?
    Mrs. Roche: Of course, I should be delighted to meet the Opposition at any time. My door is always open to any hon. Member. If the Opposition want to raise the matter with me, I should be delighted to discuss it with them.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister agree that it is essential that the ministerial code be amended to ensure that Ministers at all times comply with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards and Privileges and not avoid their recommendations, as the Deputy Prime Minister did?
    Mrs. Roche: That is not the case. Let me deal with this once again, as Conservative Members peddle this line at every opportunity. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has investigated the matter and dismissed all charges of impropriety. It reflects no credit on Conservative Members to peddle this line time and time again. I strongly believe that it brings the House into disrepute.
    Andrew Mackinlay: What is wrong with giving a statutory base to the ministerial code?
    Mrs. Roche: The reason is very clear: Ministers, quite rightly, are responsible to Parliament.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Most people will recognise that Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister decides whether they are in violation of the ministerial code. As the

    877
    hon. Lady says that she is so happy for us to have a conversation about this, I am delighted to do so. First, will she confirm whether the amendment to the ministerial code recommended by the Public Administration Committee and accepted by the Government has been made with immediate effect or will it take effect only when the ministerial code is next revised after the next election? Secondly, will she consider revising the ministerial code to include a specific provision that Ministers should tell the truth in all circumstances, not just to this House, and then send a copy to the Transport Secretary?
    Mrs. Roche: The Government inherited the original wording of paragraph 27 of the code from the previous Conservative Government. We accepted that announcements on Government policy should be made straight to Parliament.
    I will of course be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that the code's opening paragraph makes it perfectly clear that Ministers' responsibilities are to the public and to Parliament.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that for the past quarter of an hour the House has been discussing the fate of three people in one Department? One—the journalist, the friend of the media, the Tory BBC and all the rest—is being treated like an Olympic gold medallist. I remind the House, the Minister and the Tories that way back, when the Tories were in power, they dismissed 20,000 miners at a stroke and never shed a single tear. Then they got stuck into the shipbuilders, the textile workers and all the rest. Let us get on to the real people for a change.
    Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservative party knows all there is to know about unemployment policy in that respect.
    Mr. David Heath: Notwithstanding the Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), does she understand that members of the Standards and Privileges Committee believe that there would be great benefit in incorporating in the ministerial code of conduct an explicit requirement to co-operate fully with both the commissioner for standards and the Committee? Will she reflect on that and consider it further?
    Mrs. Roche: I appreciate that point and understand that it has also been made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in business questions. When the consultation process is under way, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may well want to make representations of that kind.

    E-Mail
    Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement on progress towards his target for making electronic communications from the public to all Government Departments feasible. [40123]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): All Departments can be contacted via e-mail. The Government are committed to providing those services that can be delivered electronically by 2005. The latest
    878
    figures show that more than 50 per cent. of Government services are now available online, with 74 per cent. predicted by the end of this year.
    Lawrie Quinn: Has the Minister had a chance to study last night's Adjournment debate in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)? Can she confirm that the so-called digital divide will not be used as an argument by the civil service or the Government to prevent targets being met or improved upon so that the public can have access to e-government?
    Mrs. Roche: I am aware of the debate that took place last night and can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he needs. It is right for us to ensure that we can deliver more services online, and it is also right to try to ensure that people who are currently without internet access receive those services. That is why—to give one example—the Department of Trade and Industry and the Post Office have just completed a six-month pilot of public information kiosks in post offices.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Seventy-four per cent. is an encouraging figure, but will the hon. Lady look at how many online Government services are accessible to people who do not have Windows? An increasing number of services are accessible only if one has Windows, so that rules out people who use Apple, Unix or other software. Will she ensure that the Government's choice of software is dictated by the need for maximum access rather than by relationships with software companies?
    Mrs. Roche: As a former DTI Minister, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and will ensure that it is brought to the attention of the relevant officials in the Department.
    Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister agree that there should be two-way communication? There should be ways for the Government daily to describe their policy to the electorate. For example, they could explain why, today, there will be no statements on Zimbabwe, on the police dispute or on the fact that the channel tunnel is closed. All we shall have is a worthy—although no doubt important—statement on audits and accountability.
    Mrs. Roche: That was a valiant try—the hon. Gentleman is ingenious in his methods. When the Government have something to communicate to the House on all those matters, I am sure that he will be the first to know.

    Civil Service Bill
    Norman Baker: When he expects the civil service Bill to be published; and if he will ensure that it includes measures to reinforce civil service impartiality. [40124]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government are committed to introducing civil service legislation and to maintaining an impartial civil service. Any legislative programme will be announced in the normal way.
    Norman Baker: Did the Minister read the comments in The Times today of Jonathan Baume, the leader of our senior civil service union? He warned that the civil service is being undermined by Ministers through the drip-feed of unattributable leaks and that it is being politicised by stealth. Does the Minister agree that we need to take action to ensure that the impartiality of the civil service is not further undermined? Will he begin by rescinding the powers that have been given to special advisers Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell to issue instructions to impartial civil servants?
    Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers. We have always emphasised our commitment to a permanent, impartial civil service of the highest standard as a cornerstone of the British constitution. It is about time that we heard more tributes and less criticism of the civil service, which is helping the Government to deliver our public service reforms, as well as economic prosperity and policies such as the national minimum wage. Our goal is to have an Administration who deliver results and we want to bring in the best people to help to implement our policies.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Bill contain a clause restricting the number of special advisers in any one Department, and will it also define precisely what their role should be?
    Mr. Leslie: As we said before the Select Committee on Public Administration, we are minded to consider questions such as a cap on the number of special advisers. All those matters will be dealt with in future consultation. I understand that the Cabinet Secretary will make a speech on the issue shortly.

    "Women and Public Service"
    Ms Meg Munn: If he will make a statement on the Cabinet Office consultation document "Women and Public Service". [40126]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The report "Better Services—Better Working Lives" was published on 10 December. It reported on women's experience of education and health services and the reforms being introduced by the Government.
    Ms Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer.
    Given the number of women who work in public services, what percentage of women would my hon. Friend like to see in senior management and what suggestions does she have for achieving it?
    Mrs. Roche: I should like to see the number of women in such positions to be 50:50—as we are in the population. Some progress is being made but we need to do much more. That is why we are holding a seminar on women taking up public appointments. It is also important that, through the election of women Members of Parliament, the House should reflect women in the country far more than it does already.

    The Prime Minister was asked—

    Engagements
    Geraldine Smith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Geraldine Smith: The Prime Minister will be aware of Consignia's current proposals, which threaten the financial position of the Post Office, jeopardise the provision of post office services and threaten thousands of postal workers' jobs. In view of that and of the fact that the Post Office is, after all, a publicly owned company, will the Prime Minister tell me what representations he has made to Postcomm—the postal regulator—about those appalling proposals? Will he also tell me whether he has asked for an extension of the consultation period, because it has been appallingly short?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely understand people's concerns about Postcomm's proposals. As my hon. Friend will know, Consignia—the Post Office—faces major structural challenges to do with changes in technology, changes in the market and changes in the liberalisation of postal markets right across Europe, but I know that it will be mindful of the primary duty of Postcomm, which is to protect the universal service. I know also that people will listen very carefully to the representations being made by my hon. Friend and many others, and I am sure that we shall find a way through that allows us to make the necessary changes to the Post Office, while ensuring that basic services are protected.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Now that the Prime Minister has finished his latest Government relaunch, may I take him back to phase 1 of new Labour? In his 1997 election manifesto, the Prime Minister promised "zero tolerance" of street crime. Five years on, will he tell us exactly what he meant by that?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I meant that it is important that the Government get crime down, and I am happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman that crime has actually fallen under this Government since 1997. It is true, however, that street crime has gone up very sharply in London and elsewhere in the last year. It is precisely for that reason—
    Mr. Eric Forth: What are you doing?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing. First, there are more police officers—more than 1,000 in the last year. Secondly, there are major changes to the criminal justice system. Thirdly, we are making sure that we have sufficient secure accommodation places for young offenders. In each of

    881
    those areas, therefore, we are taking action. Yes, I accept entirely that street crime has been a problem, particularly in the last year, but we are acting on it.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister, as ever, talks about the things that he was doing, but he fails to recognise that none of them has had any effect on bringing down street crime. In London alone, there are 218 street crimes every day; 150 knife crimes every week; and 275 gun crimes every month—so much for phase 1 and failure, but no apology. In phase 2, the Prime Minister made another manifesto pledge. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not like being reminded of what they promised, so let us remind them. He said that he would bring 100,000 more criminals to justice under the next phase of Government. Was that not another worthless pledge?
    The Prime Minister: No. First, I shall deal with street crime. Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, I did not say that there was no problem with street crime; I admitted that there was a problem. He said that we were refusing to say what we would do about it. Let me repeat to him that we need extra police officers; we have got 1,000 extra in London. We need measures to change the criminal justice system; we are taking those measures. We need more places in secure accommodation; that is precisely what we are doing.
    As a result of the Metropolitan police safer streets initiative, taken in the last few weeks, there has been a 15 per cent. drop in street crime. However, we need to do more. We need even more police officers, which is exactly why we are increasing the numbers to the highest level that this country has ever seen. We need to make sure that the Proceeds of Crime Bill goes through so that we tackle some of the organised crime. Many of its measures are being opposed by the Conservative party in Parliament. We need the major changes to the criminal justice system outlined in the Auld report. We support those changes and we support the extra numbers of police through investment—does he?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: As ever, when the Prime Minister is asked a direct question, we get more promises and pledges, but never any delivery. I asked him a specific question about his promise to bring 100,000 more criminals to justice. He did not answer it. The reality is that his figures show that he has gone backwards. Some 80,000 fewer criminals are being brought to justice. Nine out of 10 crimes go unpunished and, when criminals are caught and convicted, under his Government they are released early to commit more crimes. Surely he must now agree with the chairman of the Victims of Crime Trust, who said:
    "I have never seen the criminal justice system in such disarray."
    Is that a good verdict on phase 2?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman accuses us of making promises but not delivering on them. This country has the highest numbers of police that it has ever had. The reason for that is additional investment. The vast majority of police in this country do a superb job, but two things are needed: first, we need to make sure that we carry on getting additional police numbers, which we will do; and, secondly, we need to introduce the major changes to the criminal justice system that we want.
    882
    If we look at crime over the past few years, we see that there is a real problem with street crime. However, overall crime is down. Let us compare that with the record of the 18 years under the Conservatives. The Conservatives cut police numbers before we came to office—[Interruption.] Yes, they did. The Conservatives scrapped the housing allowance, which did more damage to the recruitment of police officers. The number of convictions fell by a third. The amount of time that it took to get persistent young offenders to court soared, and crime doubled. The last people from whom we will take lessons on crime are the Conservatives.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I remind the Prime Minister—I know that he does not like being reminded of this—that he has been in power for nearly five years. He cannot go on blaming somebody else. Not one of the measures that he has mentioned has had a positive effect. Street crime is rising, violent crime is rising, and muggings are up. All of those are failures by the Government. Worse than that, fewer people are being brought to justice and more dangerous criminals are on the street—no wonder police morale is at an all-time low.
    The Prime Minister gave one pledge: that he would put more police on the streets. The only place he has put them on the streets is here in Westminster, where they are getting angry about this lot. The reality sits on his shoulders: phase 1, make the promise; phase 2, break the promise; phase 3, blame anybody else.
    The Prime Minister: Let us go back to police numbers. As I said, the vast majority of police officers in this country do a superb job, with immense dedication and commitment. Let us remember that when we came to office the numbers of police in London and elsewhere were falling; today, we have the highest number of police officers that we have ever had. Since we came to office, car crime and burglary have gone down. It is true that street crime has gone up, which is precisely why we are introducing these measures: more secure accommodation, changes to the criminal justice system and more police on the beat. All of that requires support for our proposed changes to the criminal justice system and extra investment. Let me repeat what I said a moment or two ago: that is what we say is the solution—will the right hon. Gentleman now back it?
    Ms Karen Buck: Those of us with an interest in homelessness have warmly welcomed this morning's announcement that in two years' time the Government intend to end the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that bed and breakfast is only the sharp end of a housing crisis that is affecting public sector recruitment in London as well as homelessness? Will he ensure that the comprehensive spending review makes resources available to boost housing supply, particularly in London and the south-east, to help with public sector recruitment and to fulfil the target on bed and breakfast?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that what my hon. Friend says about the problems of housing in London and elsewhere is true. It is for that reason that we have been seeking to increase investment. In particular, the starter homes initiatives for staff such as teachers, police officers

    883
    and nurses in London will ensure that at least hundreds of people in those professions get the chance of a decent home in London, which they need to go to work.
    As for homelessness more generally, my hon. Friend will know that we have cut the number of rough sleepers, but we are well aware of the fact that bed-and-breakfast accommodation is not the right accommodation—medium or long term—so we are looking urgently at how we manage to increase the provision of housing and reduce the reliance on bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: When thousands of police officers make their way to Westminster to lobby us all, and when one listens to the genuine sense of anger and betrayal that they feel, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to explain to them why they are so mistaken?
    The Prime Minister: I believe, as I said a moment or two ago, that the vast majority of police officers do a superb job. They do a great job with immense dedication and commitment. I think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will find that the vast majority of police officers agree with the changes that we are making to the criminal justice system and agree with much of the police reform that we want to introduce. It is true, however, that there are points of disagreement. They are now subject to conciliation, which I hope very much will allow us to reach an agreement. As the chairman of the Police Federation said earlier, the right hon. Gentleman will find that there is a very large measure of agreement on the Government's programme between the police and the Government.
    Mr. Kennedy: I do not know about the points of disagreement, but the points of agreement are pretty well camouflaged, judging by what has been said by police officers today. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that he is now beginning to preside over the biggest period of public sector discontent since the winter of discontent? Whether it is teachers in London, police officers at the door here at Westminster today or rail workers, is not the hard fact of the matter that many public service employees do not value the Government because they do not think that the Government value them?
    The Prime Minister: There are about 140,000 more public sector staff compared with when we came to office. There are more nurses, more doctors, more police and more teachers. The truth, however, is that, no matter how much money is put in and no matter how many people we recruit, the Liberal Democrats never think that it is enough because they think that there is a bottomless pit and that we can simply get as much money out of it as they can possibly imagine. The truth of the matter is that, of course, we value public service staff enormously, but I think that the Liberal Democrats will make a very big mistake if they set their face, as they have, against any changes in the health service, any changes in education or any changes in the police or criminal justice. It is important that we work with staff to get these reforms but, in circumstances in which we are putting in the largest investment any Government have ever put into health, education and policing, it is also important that we make sure that we get the reforms necessary to make that money work.
    884
    I said to the right hon. Gentleman a moment or two ago that the vast majority of the police do a fantastic job. He will have seen from the advertisement of the Police Federation that it supports much of what the Government are doing. There is a process of conciliation and we will go through it. However, I think that he and several other Members of the House will find, in a few weeks' time, that we are with the police and on the same side making the changes that we all want to see.
    Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unilateral action by major states in this modern, interdependent world is usually inappropriate? Was he as angry as the steelworkers in my constituency at the action taken by the Government of the United States to impose tariffs on our steel exports—the best exports in the world—and will he support his Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in making direct representations to the United States Government to get them to reverse that decision?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we totally disagree with the decision taken by the United States and we have been making our views clearly known to the American Administration for the past few months. The decision will be subject to a procedure under the World Trade Organisation, invoked by the European Union. I very much hope that the United States changes its position. I very much hope that if the WTO rules in our favour, it will change its position. I think that most people realise that not merely is the decision wrong in terms of international trade, but it is not an answer to the problems of the US steel industry.
    Mr. John Randall: Perhaps the Prime Minister can explain why this lunchtime not one of the 55 London Labour MPs could be bothered to meet rank-and-file members of the Metropolitan police across the road. Will he arrange to meet them and listen to what they really think, apologise and show more bottle than his MPs?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will meet police officers. Indeed, the Home Secretary met them this morning and we are well aware of their concerns.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the Prime Minister agree that if the serious concerns about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are borne out by further information, the United Nations should be the first port of call for raising the problem so that we get the broadest possible coalition to counter the threat?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is to the United Nations that we have constantly gone because of the problems of Iraq acquiring weapons of mass destruction. It is for that reason that many, many UN Security Council resolutions call on Iraq to destroy those weapons and to let the inspectors back into the country to ensure that they are destroyed. For that reason, we will continue to put maximum pressure on Iraq to come back into line with international law and UN Security Council resolutions.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he favours an amnesty for IRA terrorists on the run—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: As I said in Prime Minister's questions last week, we have no doubt that the issue has to be dealt with. How that is done, however, is a matter of discussion. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman and to those of his hon. Friends who oppose dealing with the problem at all, that over the past few years we have made very significant progress in Northern Ireland. People sometimes forget just how enormous that progress is. I hope that whatever measures we take, people will look at them in that light. I also hope that when people gaze across to the situation in the middle east, they see what happens when a peace process fails.
    Andy King: May I welcome the Government's commitment to eradicate poverty and social exclusion? Is my right hon. Friend aware of any steps that are being taken to ensure that families on the minimum wage and working families tax credit are not inadvertently penalised for working?
    The Prime Minister: The very reason why we introduced the combination of the minimum wage and the working families tax credit was to ensure that families are better off when they work. Those who work full time, with a minimum income of about £225 a week as a result, are some £90 a week better off than they would have been on income support. That makes a huge difference.
    One reason why we have been able to put our public finances in such a healthy position is precisely because we got down the bills for the social and economic failure of the Conservatives. Unemployment rose to more than 3 million under the Conservatives; we have managed to get 1 million extra jobs in the economy. My hon. Friend will know that many of those people who are working are doing so precisely because we have made work pay.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with what the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions said last December? He told the House that
    "there is no reason why … there should be large increases in council tax."—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 169.]
    The Prime Minister: I do, because the amount that we have given in the local government settlement—more than 7.5 per cent.—makes the settlement one of the best that local government has had for a long time. In the five years of this Government, there has been a 20 per cent. real terms increase in the amount of money that we have given to local government. If the right hon. Gentleman compares that with the five years of the previous Government, when there was an increase of less than 1 per cent., he will see that my right hon. Friend was entirely justified in making that comment.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is another fine mess that the Secretary of State has gotten him into. The Prime Minister needs reminding about something. He seems to think that everything is all right, but bills are set to rise by three times the rate of inflation for the fifth year in a row under this Government. The reality is that a typical household now pays £300 a year more in council tax than when he
    886
    came to power. He perhaps does not visit his constituency that much, but he may want to recognise that those who have the worst of it will be very angry. It is a stealth tax by any means. I remind the Prime Minister that a few years ago he said:
    "We've no plans to increase taxation at all."
    Yet again, is not the reality: phase 1, make a promise; phase 2, break a promise; phase 3, blame anybody else?
    The Prime Minister: As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman a moment or two ago, it is councils that set council tax bills, but they do so on the basis of the settlement from central Government. The fact is that that settlement has been far more generous than during the previous Conservative years. Nor is the settlement merely more generous; when we announced in the comprehensive spending review that we were increasing it by 7.5 per cent., his party said that that was too generous. If he were on this side of the House, council taxes would be even higher.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: In fair trade fortnight, will my right hon. Friend welcome initiatives such as that in Garstang, in Lancashire, which is linking with New Koforida, a village in the cocoa-producing area of Ghana? Are not such local initiatives precisely in line with new economic policy for African development, and with efforts to make globalisation work for the poor across the world? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that Opposition Members jeer, because the point that my hon. Friend makes is right. As the Chancellor has said, we have recently taken some £200 million off Ghana's debt. That has been achieved because Ghana qualified under the heavily indebted poor countries rules, and it has therefore reduced its debt repayment substantially. That money can now go into its health and education services. As a result of changes led by this Government, not only has aid to Africa been doubled; because of debt relief—led by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development—countries across the world can put their money into basic services that improve the lives of their people, rather than into debt repayments. That is not just morally good and right for Africa; it also means that we can do business with those countries in the future, and that they will be more wealthy and prosperous, and more stable as a result.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Is the Prime Minister happy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Is the Prime Minister happy to allow the teaching of creationism alongside Darwin's theory of evolution in state schools?
    The Prime Minister: First, I am very happy. Secondly, I know that the hon. Lady is referring to a school in the north-east, and I think that certain reports about what it has been teaching are somewhat exaggerated. It would be very unfortunate if concerns about that issue were seen to remove the very strong incentive to ensure that we get as diverse a school system as we properly can. In the end, a

    887
    more diverse school system will deliver better results for our children. If she looks at the school's results, I think she will find that they are very good.
    Ms Claire Ward: I should tell my right hon. Friend that, like many of my colleagues, I shall meet police officers this afternoon.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing disproportionate response of Israeli armed forces in Palestine is making it increasingly difficult to achieve a peaceful solution? Will he ensure that this Government, in supporting the views expressed by Kofi Annan, concentrate on bringing both sides back to the negotiating table before any more innocent Palestinian or Israeli lives are lost?
    The Prime Minister: I agree very much with the United Nations Security Council resolution that demanded the immediate cessation of all acts of violence. This is a situation in which tragedy is rapidly turning into catastrophe for that part of the world. What is necessary—and I hope that it will arise from the visit of Anthony Zinni, the US special envoy—is, first, that minimum steps of security be agreed on both sides to restore confidence; and, secondly, that we get back into a proper process that leads to a settlement of the issues between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

    In my view, there is no alternative but to start from two fixed points of principle in that process. The first is the right of Israel to exist securely, and that should he accepted not just by the Palestinians but by all the Arab world. Secondly, there should be a viable Palestinian state, and that should be accepted by Israel and the international community. If we started from those two fixed points of principle, the other matters could be negotiated. What we need in the meantime are the minimum steps of security and confidence that would allow some of the hatred and bitterness that exists at the moment to ebb and allow space for the process to begin again.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister will be aware of the mass lobby of Parliament by the Police Federation today. Given that we all expect the absolute loyalty of the police—and receive it—is not it high time for the Home Secretary to enter into respectful negotiations with the Police Federation and to desist from rubbishing it from afar?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has been entirely respectful in the conduct of the negotiation. Most people accept that three things must be done: first, we need to increase the number of police officers; secondly, we need reform in policing to ensure that we use police officers more effectively and that they spend as much time as possible out on the street and not in the station; and, thirdly, we need to make the changes to the criminal justice system that we all—well, certainly Labour Members—want to see. For that reason, it is important to continue in conciliation, which is where we are, with the police officers so that we ensure that in the end we get an agreement, because the vast majority of police officers actually support the programme of change. They have real concerns about some of the changes to their terms and conditions of employment, and that is precisely what is the subject of conciliation at the moment.
    888
    I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that at the end of the process the vast majority of us agree on all three things, but they can be done only if people are first prepared to agree the extra investment that increases police numbers and, secondly, to agree to the fundamental changes in the criminal justice system that will mean that when people are arrested and brought to court, they are subject to a proper judicial process.
    Paul Goggins: The Prime Minister will be aware that on Monday the Queen began the final countdown to the Commonwealth games when she launched the jubilee baton relay. With the City of Manchester stadium almost ready, with 500,000 tickets already sold and with 10,000 volunteers ready to welcome the athletes and visitors, will my right hon. Friend ensure that all Government Departments continue to liaise with the games organisers so that in July in Manchester we can all look forward to a wonderful celebration of international sport and friendship?
    The Prime Minister: The stage is indeed set for the Manchester Commonwealth games to be enormously successful. As my hon. Friend pointed out, more than 500,000 tickets have been sold already. Manchester, which is an exciting, go-ahead city at the moment, is well geared up for it. I assure him that all Government Departments will carry on working with Manchester to ensure that it is the success and showcase for the city that we want to see.
    Angela Watkinson: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that I can take to the Police Federation this afternoon that community support officers, as proposed in the Police Reform Bill, will not be imposed on police authorities by ring-fencing or any other means, and that the authorities will retain the freedom to spend their money on real police officers?
    The Prime Minister: Of course community support officers will not be imposed; there has never been any question of that. The hon. Lady should realise that, with the number of additional police officers and the increasing numbers of civilian staff that we have, we must have the flexibility to use different methods to police our communities properly. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition paid tribute to the community warden scheme in Kent a short time ago. Such schemes are operating all over the country, and they will not be imposed on people, but there has to be flexibility to use civilian and police staff better for the future.
    In circumstances where we are increasing the number of police officers, paying tribute to the fantastic work that they do and increasing the number of civilian staff, it is very difficult to say that we are taking our obligations to the police other than seriously. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that the changes in the Police Reform Bill should go through. I hope that she and other Conservative Members will support the changes to the criminal justice system and drop their opposition to the Proceeds of Crime Bill. I hope that all Members will support the extra investment in our police that we want to see.

Audit and Accountability (Central Government)
3.31 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's response to Lord Sharman's report, "Holding to Account", which made recommendations about audit and accountability in central Government. Copies of our response are available in the Vote Office.
The structure of audit and accountability, springing from the Gladstonian reforms, is an important matter. The House and the country have benefited enormously from the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office. While they are accountable to the House, they have a remit that is independent of both Government and Parliament.
Over the years, Members of the House, and particularly the Public Accounts Committee, have expressed concern that the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General has become artificially restricted. It has been the policy of the Government to appoint the CAG to audit each non-departmental public body set up since 1997, but despite that commitment to openness, there are still significant areas of central Government where the CAG is not the auditor, including about 50 non-departmental public bodies that had been established previously with auditors appointed by individual Secretaries of State. In a number of areas, the CAG is also dependent on negotiated administrative access.
In debates on the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, the subject of the CAG's remit was raised and I undertook to review the position. Accordingly, I set up an independent review of audit and accountability in central Government to look at all areas of the accountability framework and to take evidence from interested parties. I am grateful to Lord Sharman for leading that review, and to all members of the steering committee, including, when he was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel).
Lord Sharman reached independent conclusions and made recommendations that were addressed to the Government, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Accounts Commission. The response that I am publishing today sets out the Government's position on Lord Sharman's report. In considering Lord Sharman's recommendations, I have been mindful that reforms need to command confidence on both sides of the House. They also need to be workable, and I am very grateful for the constructive discussions that have taken place with the CAG and his staff and which are reflected in the response.
I am pleased to inform the House that the Government have accepted the main recommendations that Lord Sharman directed to the Government and that we support those addressed to others. There are five central recommendations. First, the Government agree that the Comptroller and Auditor General should audit all non-departmental public bodies. That will make him the auditor of bodies such as the Environment Agency, English Partnerships, English Heritage and the Housing
890
Corporation. Secondly, subject to legislation, that extension to non-departmental public bodies will include those that are established as companies, for example the Student Loans Company, the Film Council and the National Consumer Council. Thirdly, the Government agree that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have statutory access to the documents needed for his audit work in place of the current non-statutory arrangements. We welcome arrangements to ensure that that right of access is exercised to minimise any additional burdens on either public or private sector bodies.
Access by the Comptroller and Auditor General to documents will be extended by right, for example, to registered social landlords, train operating companies and contractors, including those in private finance initiative contracts. Fourthly, the Government accept that information underpinning reports on progress against targets on public service agreements must be reliable. We therefore propose the extension of external validation of departmental data systems relating to those targets. The Government intend to invite the Comptroller and Auditor General to take responsibility for the validation of such data systems, usually on the basis of a three-yearly review.
Finally, the Government welcome Lord Sharman's acknowledgement of the steps being taken to promote strong management and innovation across government in the delivery of public services. Before implementing those proposals, the Government will consult bodies affected by the changes. I am confident that the proposals that we are setting out today will strengthen audit and accountability and improve transparency in the interests of this House and all those we represent. I commend the new arrangements to the House.
Mr. John Bercow: May I begin by thanking the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement and for allowing me advance sight of it? I warmly welcome, as I suspect do many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, the initial establishment of the Sharman committee which, the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, followed insistent pressure during the passage of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill from my immediate predecessor as shadow Chief Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and, importantly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), now the chairman of the Conservative party but then, of course, the respected Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
The Chief Secretary was right to acknowledge the importance of the work of the steering committee, to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and, in addition, to acknowledge the important contributions of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). I cannot help wondering whether the Chief Secretary should be subjected to a little independent audit himself. After all, Lord Sharman reported on 13 February 2001. 393 days ago. There has been justifiable consternation at the inordinate delay in the Government's reply. Lord Sharman has complained, as has the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, bemoaning a delay which he described as "abnormally long". Baroness Noakes, a distinguished

891
former president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, lamented Ministers sitting on their hands. Lord McIntosh of Haringey, as recently as 26 February, was under the misapprehension in a debate in the other place that the report had been published; he said that he was "completely astonished" to discover that it had not been.
As for the substance of this important issue, no one can overstate the importance of strong and independent audit of public expenditure or, indeed, of accountability for the way in which public money is used. The Chief Secretary was right to pay warm tribute to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the National Audit Office. I echo that tribute. Their work is invaluable, and so is the important report of Lord Sharman.
I shall pose a number of questions to the Chief Secretary. We welcome the extension of the power of audit to all non-departmental public bodies. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as there are 1,025 such bodies the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, which employ 30,000 people and spend approximately £25,000 million, it is right that they should be comprehensively audited and investigated? Transparency is of the essence.
Does the Chief Secretary agree that there are other routes to effective scrutiny? For example, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has urged that the heads of such non-departmental public bodies should appear before Select Committees for confirmation hearings. Does the Chief Secretary agree, or will he at least undertake to consider the suggestion?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the suggestion that the National Audit Office should audit companies, which are established by public bodies, could usefully have been applied to the New Millennium Experience Company? That is a striking example of a body which, if so scrutinised, would itself have benefited and hugely relieved the overburdened and long-suffering taxpayer.
We endorse the call for external validation of performance information for central Government. Such validation should be progressively developed, not least in relation to public service agreement targets, of which there are about 160 covering key areas of government. Those targets are intended, as the report says,
"to be a clear commitment to the public on what they can expect for their money".
Does the Chief Secretary agree, therefore, that so far as is possible, the agreement on the credibility of their measurement is of the utmost importance?
Both the report and the new Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), have argued that access rights of the CAG should he extended to the BBC. After all, in 2000–01, it spent £2,425 million. Gavyn Davies, a very distinguished figure in our national life, having reviewed the funding of the BBC in 1999 and before he became its chairman, recommended that
"the Government should amend the Royal Charter to give the National Audit Office inspection rights to carry out periodic financial audits of the BBC's accounts and its fair trading arrangements".
Why are the Government ignoring that recommendation? Does not the Chief Secretary recognise that there will be widespread disquiet? Has he cooked up a cosy deal with the director-general of the BBC at the expense of licence payers and taxpayers alike?
892
We would suggest that the Financial Services Authority should be included in extended audit. Will the Chief Secretary consider extending the Comptroller and Auditor General's access rights to the FSA? Although it is a company limited by guarantee, the FSA is funded by a compulsory levy on firms in its sector and in many ways it resembles a public body. Does the Chief Secretary therefore agree that the grievous distress suffered by many of our constituents as a result of the Equitable Life saga makes a compelling case for greater transparency?
Of course there should be consultation, but can the right hon. Gentleman offer us some reassurance that the consultation will begin at once and that it will be conducted expeditiously?
The Sharman report is a step towards greater transparency in public sector accounting, but does the Chief Secretary agree that there is a great deal further to go? Can he undertake to look at the presentation of Government liabilities under private finance initiative and public-private partnership contracts, so that it is clear what the scale of liabilities is? Is he aware that the Government accounts do not always make it perfectly clear how much is spent on what, particularly when responsibility for a function is divided between different levels of government, and that the public have a right to expect greater transparency?
Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Government have a liability in the form of pensions to be paid in the future that are not reflected in the Government accounts? Has not the Chancellor obscured the presentation of the tax burden through his treatment of the working families tax credit as a tax cut rather than benefit expenditure?
The report and the Government's largely sensible response to it herald an advance in the scope of audit and in the capacity of the legislature to hold the Executive to account. Nevertheless, more needs to be done. The debate will continue. The Opposition will participate in it with the seriousness and resolve that it merits.
Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on what he describes as largely sensible action by the Government. In setting up Lord Sharman's inquiry, we were responding to concerns expressed not merely by Conservative Members, but by Members of all parties on the Public Accounts Committee. Today, following Lord Sharman's report, we have taken action where the Conservatives in government did not do so for more than 18 years.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the time that it has taken to publish our response. It would have been nice if we could have done so sooner; I genuinely believe that it is a good-news statement for the House. However, we faced a choice. We could have replied earlier on the principle, leaving much of the detail and the matters set out in section 3—the protocols for access and so on—to be negotiated later. In such circumstances, many hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, would have had a lot of questions about how the detail would work. However, we have come back with a comprehensive and detailed response and he should have welcomed that.
I noted that it took the hon. Gentleman a long time to get to the substance of the statement; indeed, his remarks were considerably longer than the statement itself. He asked a number of questions. He referred to the New Millennium Experience Company and asked whether it

893
was a good example of a body that would have benefited from access by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The answer is yes. Subject to the points that I made, precisely that access will be provided by our proposals.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the position of the BBC. In considering both the original Davies report and that of Lord Sharman, the Government have weighed the matter very seriously. We believe that the editorial independence of the BBC, even in terms of the impression that it could be compromised in any way, should not be risked. That is why we have decided not to proceed with the specific recommendation in question.
The Financial Services Authority was established relatively recently and its audit arrangements were extensively debated, along with other matters, in the House. The Government have not ruled out the possibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General undertaking a value-for-money study of the FSA in future. Subject to implementation of our proposals, we will consider that possibility.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the credibility of PSA targets, on which I agree with him. That is why we are taking measures that add to the substantial external validation that is already carried out by the Office for National Statistics and the Audit Commission, the ability of the Comptroller and Auditor General to oversee the data systems as a whole. That should build confidence on all sides in the reliability of the measures that we are taking and help us to not only reform public services, but deliver on our targets.
Mr. Alan Williams: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement? As he said, it represents a victory for the Public Accounts Committee in a battle that it has fought for well over 10 years. His remarks about quangos, companies and validation represent a notable addition to parliamentary accountability, for which I thank him.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think me churlish if I echo one of the points made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about the BBC. It is unfortunate that he has not seen his way to agreeing with Sharman, who was himself echoing the recommendations of the current chairman of the BBC before he suffered his conversion on the way back from Damascus. I hope that if we advance further arguments in support of the recommendations, he will at least indicate that he is willing to listen to them as positively as he listened to previous arguments.
Mr. Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome for our proposals. I should like to place on record my appreciation and that of the House for all his work on this agenda over the years.
I would never consider any of my right hon. Friend's remarks churlish. I clarified the position on the BBC in my earlier response. The fact that we have made these proposals proves that we are listening. At an early stage of the procedure, I was the only Minister in living memory to appear before the Public Accounts Committee, where I
894
said that with goodwill and co-operation on all sides we could make substantial progress on these matters of mutual concern. That is exactly what we have done today.
Mr. Edward Davey: I wholeheartedly welcome almost all the Chief Secretary's statement. In effect, he has announced the Government's complete acceptance of the arguments that I and hon. Members on both sides of the House raised two years ago during the passage of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.
I join the Chief Secretary in congratulating my noble Friend Lord Sharman. Does he agree that his announcement is an important victory for Parliament, and that he should therefore continue to work closely with hon. Members as he implements the new regime as speedily as possible?
As for the detail, will the Chief Secretary say more about the Government's proposals for auditing performance measures? Sharman and the Government both favour a step-by-step approach to introducing the external validation of performance information. Will he give a more detailed timetable for full implementation? His statement suggests that the Government are limiting the definition of performance measures to public service agreements, yet surely external validation should cover all relevant public performance measures if we are to have confidence in such figures.
Finally, does the Chief Secretary realise that there is extreme disappointment and anger about the Government's decision not to extend the Comptroller and Auditor General's remit to the BBC? Does not he realise that his arguments against that are so weak as to be ridiculous and fly in the face of the logic of the rest of his statement? We all share his desire to protect the BBC's independence and editorial freedom, but that is completely irrelevant to financial audit. The NAO has audited universities. Universities have academic freedom, but the NAO's remit nevertheless applies to them. It is ironic that Gavyn Davies, before he became chairman of the BBC, recommended that the NAO should audit the BBC. Will the Chief Secretary explain why on earth the BBC should be exempt from NAO audit given that all other bodies, including private finance initiative contractors, are to be included?
Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming my statement. As he says, it is a victory for Parliament and for parliamentary accountability. The Government's performance in delivering public services and our other objectives is strengthened by the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny. That is the important philosophy that underpins the proposal.
We have made a huge step by inviting the Comptroller and Auditor General to take overall responsibility for external validation. As regards areas that are already validated by the Office for National Statistics or the Audit Commission, we would not normally expect them to have much more work to do. Ultimately the Comptroller and Auditor General will make decisions on the reliability of the systems in instances that are drawn to his attention.
It is wise to take a step-by-step approach to these matters. The hon. Gentleman has a point when he says that there are other measures of performance that are not included in public service agreements. It would be

895
sensible to concentrate on those PSAs that are quantifiable. Most importantly, we must accept the responsibility of ensuring that the underlying systems are independently validated.
I do not intend to repeat what I have said about the BBC. It would be a grave error even to give the impression that its editorial independence was in any sense being called into question.
Mr. John McFall: As Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury, I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals. I can do no better than to echo the words of the official Opposition spokesman, who said that the proposals were hugely sensible. Putting the auditing of all non-departmental public bodies on a statutory basis is extremely welcome.
In the words of Sharman,
"Audit arrangements should not discourage innovation, change and well-managed risk taking."
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that process still goes on?
Finally, has my right hon. Friend given any thought to merging the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission?
Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I pay tribute to his work in this area. The answer to his last question is no, I have not given further consideration to that matter. His comments on innovation and risk management are entirely right, and we welcomed the way in which the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office showed how properly judged risk and risk evaluation were perfectly compatible with proper accountability for financial probity. As the former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said, there is a world of difference between well judged risk and its management, and gambling. We are in favour of the former in these matters, but not the latter.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I thank the Chief Secretary for his important statement, and pay tribute to his officials for the constructive way in which they have worked with officials from the National Audit Office. We have made a great deal of progress today. We have ensured that the Public Accounts Committee—recognised by the Sharman report as the senior Committee in the House of Commons—can continue the work that it has carried out since 1861 on directing the harsh light of parliamentary scrutiny into all the nooks and crannies of waste and incompetence inside government. I am, therefore, very pleased with the statement.
I want, however, to echo comments made by others, particularly the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), about the BBC. The Public Accounts Committee feels strongly that, as the BBC levies the equivalent of a poll tax on virtually every household in the kingdom, and as it is a vital national resource, Parliament should not be denied its right to hold this body up to public scrutiny through the National Audit Office. My Committee is fully cognisant of the importance of preserving the editorial independence of the BBC. The NAO already looks after the World Service, and there is no question of its interfering in the independence of its programming. My Committee would never get involved
896
in questions of what programmes should be shown, but we are talking about very large sums of public money, and we want Parliament to be involved.
My Committee also feels that the civil list should be open to scrutiny by Parliament. The system has worked well with regard to royal palaces and royal travel; there have been no complaints there. We recognise that this is a sensitive area, but the Committee believes that Parliament has a right to hold the civil list to account in the way that other public expenditure is held to account. Having said that, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), for the work that he has done in this area.
Mr. Smith: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks, and I join him in congratulating officials not only from the Treasury but from the National Audit Office and the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is a model of how working sensibly, often in sensitive areas, can lead to a sensible way forward being found. I also acknowledge the contribution of his predecessor as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and the contribution that the hon. Gentleman himself is making.
The hon. Gentleman reminds us of the importance of the constitutional legacy of probity and regularity, and of shining the light of audit and accountability on to affairs for which we have a responsibility. I note what he says about the BBC; I do not intend to repeat my previous remarks on that. He acknowledges that the civil list is a sensitive area. There has been a longstanding bipartisan agreement that Ministers should stand between the civil list—the royal family—and accountability to Parliament, except when there are grant-in-aid issues, as in the examples that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I think it wise to leave those arrangements in place.
Roger Casale: I welcome these reforms, which will bring greater accountability and transparency to the public finances. As we move to spend more on public services, it is clearly in the public interest that there should be independent external validation of how that money is spent. Do not these reforms mark a real break with the past, as we give substance to our determination deeply to entrench the reforms we are making to the public finances? Opposition Members tend to emphasise that we must stamp out waste, and of course that is right, but greater transparency will also help to identify areas in which we need to spend more. An audit, for example, might have helped the Opposition realise that the capital funding of schools in my constituency fell to £15 per pupil in 1996–97. It is more than £200 per pupil per annum today.
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. There is a break with the past that is a great step forward in terms of accountability and security of value for money. Value for money does not imply spending as little as possible. Instead, it implies spending for the best possible effect. Without being drawn into my hon. Friend's invitation to make party political points, the Government are keen to engage in that spending.
Mr. Nick Gibb: The Chief Secretary's statement is extremely welcome,

897
and especially his acceptance of the importance of strong management across government. To that end, he will be aware that one of the greatest achievements of the NAO in recent years has been the exposure of the level of social security fraud, with about £3 billion being lost every year in terms of both jobseeker's allowance and income support. There are more than 300,000 cases of fraud every year, but only 5 per cent. of those cases are prosecuted. I am not making a party political point. The situation has been the same for more than a decade, during which the accounts of the Department have been qualified by the NAO.
Will the Minister enter into discussions with his colleague, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with a view to increasing the proportion of prosecutions in an attempt to introduce strong management in this area and to reduce the level of fraud?
Mr. Smith: Not only will I do so, but the Government are already acting on that agenda. We are identifying and bearing down on fraud in social security as in other areas. That did not always happen until quite recently. Performance was not even measured by previous Governments. Further strong management to cut fraud will be brought to bear.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My question is churlish and ill tempered. As one who was rebuked and chastised by the late Donald Dewar, in 1998, for daring to suggest that the Scottish Parliament's costs would rise a penny above £40 million, will my hon. Friend ask either the Paymaster General or the Financial Secretary to examine carefully the assertions in today's edition of The Scotsman that consultant's fees alone are now £40 million? The cost of the project has increased by at least eightfold on what was originally envisaged. Is my right hon. Friend able to draw any lessons from a giddy escalation in costs?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will be well aware that these are devolved matters for which the Scottish Parliament and its audit and accountability relationships are responsible.
Mr. John Burnett: It is important that the full audited accounts of the bodies concerned be put in the public domain. Does the Minister agree that these accounts, and district auditors' full accounts on local authorities, should always be put in the public domain in unabridged form, with names and details provided in respect of all major contracts?
Mr. Smith: I support the general principle of publication and information being in the public domain. I hesitate to give a blanket commitment, because I think that we can all imagine circumstances of individual privacy or commercial interests where that would not be appropriate.
Geraint Davies: My right hon. Friend will know that for a cost of about £50 million a year, the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee save billions of pounds of public money during a Parliament. Does he agree that the recent extension of their franchise to be the auditor of the Housing Corporation, English Heritage, the
898
Environment Agency and other non-departmental bodies, and access to social landlords, the train operating companies and PFIs, for example, will enormously increase the savings by multi-million pound figures?
Will my hon. Friend continue to have an open mind on further access to other bodies that have already been mentioned? Will he extend his thoughts also to international contributions that we make to various bodies to ensure that, through the help of the Comptroller and Auditor General, we can deliver value for money to the taxpayer?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is undoubtedly right about the enormous savings made through proper scrutiny of public expenditure, and through the Government's acting on the recommendation of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. Contributions to international bodies are already scrutinised, but the accounts of the bodies themselves fall outwith the arrangements for domestic audit and accountability.
Although, as my hon. Friend says, the proposals will involve the Comptroller and Auditor General in a good many additional responsibilities, he has made a clear commitment—as the proposals show—to contracting out a significant proportion of his work. Indeed, he has already done that.
Where the audit is being taken over by the CAG, money to pay for it will be paid to him rather than to a private sector auditor. Any additional net costs should arise principally in relation to the external validation of public service agreement systems, rather than the rest of the CAG's audit and accountability.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Proper external validation of public service agreement targets will be a big step forward, but will the Chief Secretary say a little more about the new access to bodies involved in the private finance initiative? Will the CAG be able, for example, to investigate the increasingly opaque nature of some of the special-purpose vehicles that are being established for PFI schemes, and will he be able to comment on the extent to which some longer-term liabilities are now being kept off the public balance sheet?
Mr. Smith: Access for the CAG will depend on the status of the vehicle, company or organisation concerned. In general his rights of access follow the money, whether it be by grant or by contract. The big step forward that today's proposals represent is that whereas in the past the CAG has had to negotiate access or agree it by administrative means, which has not always been easy—there have been delays, and so on—he will now have a statutory right.
Adam Price: I too welcome the Chief Secretary's proposals, particularly the proposal to extend access to PFI contractors. Will that include access to documents pertaining to pre-contractual negotiations between Departments and preferred bidders appointed at the outline bidding stage? Concerns have been raised over why the final agreed contracted price for PFI projects is sometimes as much as two or three times that envisaged at the outline bidding stage.

899
Does the Chief Secretary agree that that is a legitimate area of inquiry for the CAG, especially as preferred bidders have never been deselected, so effectively this is a single-tender process?
Mr. Smith: When documents, evaluations and so forth are relevant to the CAG's inquiries, whether as part of his normal audit work or as part of a value-for-money study, he will have access to them.
Mr. Brian Jenkins: As my right hon. Friend knows, the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office have areas of responsibility that abut one another and sometimes almost overlap. That causes difficulties with certain arrangements. When my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) asked whether he and his Department had even considered the possibility of a merger, he said no. Why?
Mr. Smith: I was asked whether I had given the matter further consideration. That was the question to which I answered no.
It is important for there to be effective collaboration between the respective bodies that are responsible for public audit. There is, in fact, a public audit forum. When my hon. Friend has a chance to read the proposals, he will see what steps are being taken to continue that work. I did not want to set hares running, and I do not want to do so now, by suggesting that such an amalgamation is on the agenda.
Mr. David Rendel: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for his response and for his kind words about my small part in the Sharman steering committee. I welcome the Government's response, particularly because almost all the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee have been adopted—better late than never.

There are two outstanding matters. First, the Chief Secretary said that all non-departmental public bodies that currently exist and are not audited by the NAO will be audited by it when their contracts come up for renewal. Can he assure us that, at least under his Government when he still has responsibility, any new NDPBs that come into existence will be audited by the NAO?
Secondly, the BBC is undoubtedly the one real weakness in the Government's response. People throughout the country pay tax of over £100 a year towards Government funding for the BBC. That is a huge sum and needs to come under parliamentary scrutiny. The important point about what the Chief Secretary said about editorial independence is that the NAO is Parliament's auditor, not the Government's auditor. We would all be worried about editorial independence if the auditor were to report directly to the Government. If it reports to Parliament, it reports to all the people of this country. Surely in those circumstances, there should not be a problem about editorial independence.
Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the Sharman steering committee. Any future NDPBs that are set up will be audited by the
900
Comptroller and Auditor General. Should any of those be companies, amendments to legislation will ensure that he can audit companies—that is our clear intention.
I have already dealt with the BBC. I take the opportunity to underline that the BBC is fully and properly audited. What is more, the Comptroller and Auditor General already has the opportunity to access the funding department in following the application of the licence fee.
Mr. Richard Bacon: The Chief Secretary said that he had already dealt with the BBC. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House may beg to differ. Concern and disappointment have been expressed from both sides about the fact that the Government have excluded the BBC from the remit of the NAO. The Chief Secretary's justification appears to be that it would be a "grave error" if even the impression were created that the BBC's editorial independence could be compromised. As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) pointed out, it is hard to see how that could be the case when the NAO is itself independent of Government. Does the Chief Secretary recognise that he has not advanced a sufficient argument, and that he will therefore need to start to explain why anyone should begin to think that the independence of the BBC should be compromised by the fact that it was audited by the NAO?
Mr. Smith: The BBC has a special status, set down in its charter. As I said, there would have to be very careful thought before even the impression of any infringement of editorial independence were given. While I have absolute confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office, one does not need a great imagination to see how some of the issues that may arise may become the subject of quite heated political speculation and debate that could give the impression of editorial independence being put at risk.
Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister accept, with respect to the BBC, that in the public interest it is essential that full accountability be achieved? The answers that he has given have so far been, if not evasive, then somewhat lacking in clarity. Would he be good enough to ensure that he writes to me and indeed to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to explain the reasoning behind the arguments that he has advanced? Many licence payers regard the amount of money that they have to pay as warranting proper analysis. Furthermore, it is a matter of great public importance. Can he give any other example of a chartered body that has the right to charge a licence fee and manages to avoid the full accountability that he seems to be avoiding at the moment with respect to the BBC?
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is one of those hon. Members with a special interest in this matter, and he asks whether I will write to him about it. Later on, I shall be the second Minister to make an appearance before the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that there will be an opportunity to discuss these matters further. My answers will, of course, be on the record.

Points of Order
4.15 pm
Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice. At the end of last week, I—and, I presume, all other Members of Parliament—received a letter from the police federations of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland about the meetings being held today. The letter said that the meeting with London Members of Parliament would be held at 4.30 this afternoon at the QEII centre. However, at Prime Minister's Question Time, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) alleged that Labour Members were not prepared to meet members of the Metropolitan police. I have checked with my office, and have found that we received an e-mail at 12.12 today to change the arrangements for some regional meetings. However, the e-mail listed no changes to the time and place of the London meeting. How can I place on the record a correction to the allegation made about Labour MPs?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made not a bad job of putting that on the record.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not have chapter and verse details of the Scotland Act 1998 in front of me, but some of us endured many hours listening to Mr. Donald Dewar and Mr. Henry McLeish telling us how much consultation there would be between Edinburgh and London. My question to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was very careful. I did not ask him to ask my hon. Friend the Paymaster General and my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to do anything, let alone to meddle. My question was different: I asked what conclusions and lessons could be drawn from a situation in which the giddy costs involved were escalating. Local authorities are becoming more and more skint because those costs come out of their finite budgets.
Given that I asked that lessons be learned, and not that Ministers should do something, am I not entitled to ask that they at least take an interest in what has happened?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for the Minister's reply.

Foreign Exchange Transactions Tax Commission
4.17 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Commission to inquire into the feasibility of a foreign exchange transactions tax; to provide for the Commission's remit and duration; and for connected purposes.
I was pleased to learn during the statement that a special purpose vehicle was part of the private finance initiative, and not a type of four-wheel drive vehicle, as I had thought.
I shall begin by describing as straightforwardly as I can the benefits of a foreign exchange transactions tax, and then set out why I think that that would be very timely. The tax is commonly known as the Tobin tax, following proposals made in 1972 by the Nobel prize winning economist James Tobin, who promoted the idea of a small tax on foreign exchange transactions. He believed that the tax would help promote free trade, by assuring countries that they could open their markets without exposing themselves to disruptive movements of "hot money". Tobin did not, however, see that as an extreme move against free trade. In promoting this Bill, I am anxious that his original aim should not be forgotten.
The aim of a Tobin tax is to provide a useful tool for stabilising currencies and much needed funds for international development to help free trade work fairly. It would be complex to establish the tax as, to be effective, it would require new means of international co-operation. That is why I propose that a commission be established in the first instance, to analyse the challenges of implementing such a novel tax regime. However, the current state of the financial markets means that a decision in principle by the UK would be highly significant in developing the proposals.
At present, 84 per cent. of all foreign exchange transactions occur in just nine countries, of which the UK is one. An indication of willingness on the part of those nine countries to introduce the tax would take us most of the way to finding a workable solution. Our Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown himself open to the idea. In a speech to the Federal Reserve in New York, he declared his willingness to examine the practicalities of "innovative ways" to finance development, including currency taxes. In addition, our Prime Minister argued in his speech to the Labour Party conference that
"our economy should not be run for speculators and currency dealers".
I assure them that there would be widespread support in Parliament and among the general public if they really can place the UK at the forefront of international negotiations on the Tobin tax.
In Parliament, 88 MPs have so far signed an early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) on this subject. Outside Parliament, organisations such as War on Want, Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children and Unison have signed up to the Tobin tax declaration, along with 38 others.
The tax would produce a win-win situation for the world's poor, so who would lose? More than $1 trillion changes hands every day on global foreign exchange markets. More than 80 per cent. of that trading is of a

903
speculative nature—buying and selling money for profit's sake. Although such currency gambling has enabled some banks and investors to make multi-million dollar profits, it is not part of any genuine trade or investment. Instead, these volatile movements of capital destabilise entire economies, causing serious financial crises such as we have seen in south-east Asia, Latin America—most recently Argentina—and Russia, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable in those societies.
On some estimates, more than 10 million people lost their jobs in the first few months of the east Asian crisis in 1997–98. Millions more were caught up in the aftermath, pushed into poverty and debt, while Governments had to divert resources from social programmes into propping up their currencies. The ripples from these crises are felt around the world, giving us all a direct interest in resolving them in addition to our natural concern for the people of the affected countries.
The Tobin tax, while helping to stabilise currency, would also generate funds that could be put towards international development programmes. A minimal tax of, say, 0.1 per cent. on currency transactions would not hold back productive business transactions for trade and investment but would hit speculative transactions. War on Want, which leads a campaign for the tax, estimates that taxing at that low rate could raise between $50 billion and $300 billion a year. That would more than cover the estimated cost by the United Nations development programme of $40 billion a year to eliminate the most extreme forms of poverty and to provide access to sanitation and basic education in all developing countries.
I hope that the House will accept that such taxes merit further investigation by a commission, and that it would be very timely to do so for the following reasons. First, there is to be a major United Nations summit in Monterey, Mexico, next week on financing for development. The need for substantial increases in aid for developing countries has been recognised, but we are still a long way from finding the solutions.
I commend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his launch yesterday of a £10 million education fund for deprived nations, but that is against a background of the UK's continued failure to deliver the United Nations pledge to raise aid levels to 0.7 per cent. of gross national product. Any receipts from new taxes such as the Tobin tax should be in addition to the United Nations aid target and not seen as a substitute for it. I urge the Chancellor at the United Nations summit to commit the UK to reaching the 0.7 per cent. target and exploring additional new funding methods.
Secondly, there is a growing movement in this country and internationally to introduce a Tobin tax. That has come together with a series of events today on what has been termed Tobin tax day. They include an expert seminar this afternoon, followed by a deputation to the Treasury to present a declaration ahead of the UN summit.
This evening, Parliament will host a movie premiere as a new advertisement for the Tobin tax is shown in Portcullis House. If the music of Radiohead and the voice of Ewan McGregor are riot enough to attract hon. Members to that event, they may be drawn by the knowledge that the advertisement has been deemed "banned". That follows a judgment that its content is too political for broadcast on television. However, the full uncensored version is available on the Tobin tax website, where no such restrictions apply, at www.tobintax.org.uk.
904
On the international scene, a Bill to accept a foreign exchange transactions tax is today being passed by the Belgian Parliament. Belgium will join the French Parliament, which passed a law in November committing France to the introduction of the tax when other European Union countries have signed up to it, and the Canadian Parliament, which passed a motion in 1999 calling on its Government to promote the tax internationally.
Thirdly, it is important to consider the international context, as we live in times of international insecurity. Much of our time is taken up with talk of conflict and in such a climate it is more important than ever to explore positive measures to enhance security through development rather than ever-increasing armament. I was brought up at a time when cold war rhetoric kept me living in permanent fear of nuclear annihilation. I do not want to see a new generation growing up in a state of permanent war, fearful that the anger of the dispossessed and desperate may break out into violence at any time.
I was impressed by a speech made recently by US Congressman Dennis Kucinich, in which he set out an alternative vision. He said:
"Let us pray that we have the courage to replace the images of death which haunt us, the layers of images of September 11 … Let us replace those images with the work of human relations, reaching out to people, helping our own citizens here at home, lifting the plight of the poor everywhere."
We should not underestimate the harm that fear causes, especially to our young people, and we should be more determined than ever to demonstrate our willingness to find peaceful solutions to international instability wherever possible.
Sadly, the introduction of my Bill has been made more topical by the death of James Tobin earlier this week. I quote a remark that struck me from one of his obituaries:
"Mr. Tobin was one of those economic theorists whose influence reaches so far that many people who have never heard of him are nonetheless his disciples. He was also, however, a public figure, for a time the most prominent advocate of an ideology we might call free-market Keynesianism—a belief that markets are fine things, but that they work best if the government stands ready to limit their excesses."
I feel very much in step with James Tobin's thinking. This Bill is not an anti-globalisation measure. There are widely contrasting views of globalisation at present. One view would have it as a force of neo-imperialism that will create a world in which the power of the strong to exploit the weak is entrenched so that the rich get richer and the poor ever poorer.
Another view is that globalisation is a progressive force, leading to a world in which all people can exchange goods, services and culture on an equal basis, free from unnecessary and harmful barriers. That is where we should be putting our political energies. We should introduce measures to ensure that free trade really is fair trade; that development is sustainable and of benefit to ordinary people; and that markets work for mankind rather than mankind working for the markets.

The Tobin tax would be a small but valuable part of that body of work. I urge the House to support the creation of a commission to take that work forward.
4.26 pm
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I declare my registered interest in Commerzbank. Furthermore, since 1991 I have worked in foreign exchange markets.

905
The Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) is probably the most naive and short-sighted proposal that I have heard since becoming a Member. It is the financial equivalent of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, from a party that embraces the single currency above all else.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the UK foreign exchange market is one of the largest in the world, transferring more than $1 trillion a day. However, that size is numerical and is used to advertise the advantages of doing business in the UK. It is a free market which, by its nature, is international. Owing to electronic transfer of funds, currency can be—and is—moved anywhere in the world.
The success of the United Kingdom as a foreign exchange player is based on three criteria: the UK is a good, English-speaking place to do business; there is wise and gentle governance by the Bank of England; and there are no extra burdens of cost or taxation. The Government have many better things to do—for example, improving our public services—than trying to find a way of pushing more foreign exchange business away from Britain.
The average margin on a foreign exchange deal would be less than 0.0001 of that currency—we call that a pip. The size of the profit means that only a huge amount of money would make it practical to continue doing such business.
The proposal is ill thought out. Its acceptance is, of course, in the grant of the Government. It reflects the greedy nature of a Government seeking to increase taxation through stealth, and would in the end kill the goose that lays the golden eggs—the huge amounts of income tax and company tax levied on companies conducting foreign exchange business—for the sake of chasing a difficult market that is far more liquid and international than any tax collector. I hope that the House will reject the Bill.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one Member is allowed to respond.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Allan, Mr. Harry Barnes, Peter Bottomley, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. Simon Thomas, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Tony Baldry, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Paul Marsden, Angus Robertson and Andrew George.

FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS TAX COMMISSION
Mr. Richard Allan accordingly presented a Bill to establish a Commission to inquire into the feasibility of a foreign exchange transactions tax; to provide for the Commission's remit and duration; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed [Bill 111].
4.30 pm
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the channel tunnel is still closed. I do not know whether you are aware that many jobs are at risk, not only those of the 6,000 or more people employed by English, Welsh and Scottish Railways, but those of people in my constituency and other parts of the west midlands who use the channel tunnel as the link to supply parts and equipment to the continent. The tunnel has now been closed to freight for several days, and there are still only 15 gendarmes and five security officers in Calais trying to protect the compound against several hundred illegal asylum seekers who are trying to enter the United Kingdom.
I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, while we are at it, that we are still failing to sell any beef to France. Given that the Prime Minister has said that we are now at the heart of Europe and that he has considerable influence with the French, I wonder whether he or anyone else has told you that—in addition to the very important statement on audit that we have heard today—he would like to make a statement on whether we can resume exports to the European Union through the channel tunnel.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no indication of such a statement being made.

Orders of the Day

  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords]
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Schedule 6

  PREMISES EXCLUDED FROM RIGHT TO MANAGE
  4.32 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 1100, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 74, in page 101, leave out lines 13 to 15.
  No. 84, in clause 74, page 35, line 30, after the "company", insert—
  '(4A) The regulations shall include provisions which shall insure that in the opinion of the appropriate national authority RTM companies shall have access to sufficient working capital to function effectively.'.
  No. 83, in clause 78, page 38, line 46, after "before", insert—

  '(2A) The delivery of a notice of invitation to participate by hand at or by recorded delivery to the flat held by the person required to be served under section 78(2) hereof shall be deemed to be good service on the day of such service.'.
  No. 72, in clause 87, page 43, line 37, leave out—
  'the claim notice is deemed to be withdrawn'
  and insert—
  'the tribunal may, on the application of any person specified in section 86(2)(a) above, make an order declaring the application to have ceased to have effect on such dates as may be specified by the tribunal.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 33A and 34.
  No. 71, in clause 105, page 54, line 12, at end insert—
  '(6) The tribunal shall have the power to appoint a new manager in the place of the RTM company if—

  (a) the RTM company wishes to withdraw; and

  (b) it is just and convenient to appoint a new manager.'.

  Mr. Cash: We certainly had lengthy proceedings on the first day of consideration, and I have no doubt that we shall have some interesting debates today, particularly later, on forfeiture. We also wish to raise several important matters in the debates on the proceeding amendments.
  Under amendment No. 73, we propose that certain provisions should be left out of paragraph 1(4) of schedule 6, which deals with premises excluded from the right to manage and buildings with substantial non-residential parts. That paragraph states:
  "For the purpose of determining the internal floor area of a building or of any part of a building, the floor or floors of the building or part shall be taken to extend (without interruption) throughout the whole of the interior of the building or part, except that the area of any common parts of the building or part shall be disregarded."
  908
  We are concerned about that for the following reasons. As currently drafted, paragraph 1(4) appears to mean that, if a mezzanine floor has been built in part of a flat, it is deemed to run throughout the entire building. We simply do not agree that that is an appropriate assumption. In fact, anyone who visits my room in the House of Commons would find a similar situation. Paragraph 1(4) may be intended to provide that the area taken up by internal walls should be treated as floor area, but that is not its meaning as currently drafted. We suggest that a measurement code such as that used in the building societies legislation should be adopted in the Bill. That is a perfectly well understood way—and the more appropriate way—of dealing with the situation.
  Amendment No. 74 would also leave out certain words in schedule 6 with regard to premises owned by a local housing authority. The words in question are:
  "This Chapter"—
  which, as I said, is an important one relating to premises excluded from the right to manage—
  "does not apply to premises falling within section 72(1) if a local housing authority is the immediate landlord of any of the qualifying tenants of flats contained in the premises."
  We do not believe that there is any justification for disallowing local authority tenants from exercising the right to manage. Furthermore, in many cases, such tenants might feel that they, in particular, need to be able to exercise that right. The question is related to the issue of whether local authority tenants should be put in a different position from those of other tenancies. I think that the Minister has something to say, but perhaps she would prefer to wait until she makes her speech. There is a problem, but perhaps the Minister has a good answer, in which case I would be more than happy to hear it.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble)indicated assent.
  Mr. Cash: The Minister nods. Therefore—in the hope that she will satisfy me on that question—I shall not need to take up a great deal of time.
  Amendment No. 84 relates to clause 74, on the right to manage, and deals with the question of regulations. Serious questions arise about the right to manage and the membership and regulations provisions. Those are in common form and will therefore be applied across the board. Many of those who will be affected will want to know that there will be proper and adequate backing for the running of so-called right-to-manage companies. Because the provisions will be in common form, it is even more important that there should not be any unfortunate mishaps arising from a failure to provide proper and adequate working capital.
  Our proposed new subsection states:
  "The regulations shall include provisions which shall insure"—
  it should be "ensure", but I do not suppose that we need to worry about that—
  "that in the opinion of the appropriate national authority RTM companies shall have access to sufficient working capital to function effectively."
  That is a reasonable position to adopt. It raises a matter that has been debated here and in another place. The problem is one of working capital. An RTM company will

  909
  be a small business. Like any business, it will need working capital if it is to avoid insolvency. An RTM company only has one source of income—the service charge paid by the lessees, which is not a quick source of funding. Before a demand for service charges can be made, various statutory hoops must be jumped through. Inevitably, it takes time to raise money through a service charge.
  I am sure that we all agree that it is in the nature of building maintenance that money is sometimes needed urgently. When a roof starts leaking or an underground water main bursts, urgent and possibly expensive works may be necessary. We all have experience of that, and it usually happens at the most inconvenient time. Work is required urgently and, when the regular repair work is started, more repairs frequently come to light, so that the cost increases dramatically. We all know that, after the urgent repair work has started, builders have a way of discovering things that require attention. Builders require prompt payment—otherwise they will simply walk off site.
  An RTM company is likely to take over the management of a block after there has been widespread dissatisfaction with the existing landlord. In such cases, some tenants are likely to be withholding their service charge. That is normal and explains why it is necessary to have the right-to-manage arrangements. If there were no problems and everyone was always satisfied, there would be no need for such provisions. The first thing that the RTM company might need to do is bring leasehold valuation tribunal proceedings to extract the service charges due. The costs to the RTM company of such proceedings are irrecoverable, and that is another important ingredient in the practical approach to the problem.
  The problem with the Government's proposals is that RTM companies have absolutely no working capital, yet to meet perfectly ordinary and foreseeable obligations—we not only imagine but know that they will happen—the RTM company will need working capital. The Government propose that such companies should be limited by guarantee and we discussed some of the arguments relating to companies limited by guarantee when we debated commonhold.
  The members of a company limited by guarantee are unlike the shareholders of an ordinary limited company because they contribute no money up front to the company. I had an interesting discussion on that point with the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), because he is handling the Bill's commonhold provisions. I repeat for his benefit and that of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who is dealing with the Bill's leasehold provisions, that there is a real distinction between a company limited by guarantee and an ordinary limited company that has shareholders.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): That is not relevant.
  Mr. Cash: The Parliamentary Secretary says that that point is not relevant but it certainly is when determining
  910
  whether a company has sufficient working capital for the urgent circumstances that I have described. As a matter of normal prudence, it should have enough money in the kitty to ensure that the inevitable repair bills and builders' costs can be met. The company should not have to call upon the money in an emergency fashion. Under the provisions for companies limited by guarantee, all the members of such a company give a guarantee to the company that, if the RTM company goes into liquidation, they will contribute the sum guaranteed to the company's liquidator.
  I understand the legal propositions behind the Government's proposals. I believe that that are extremely well advised and, like the rest of us, Ministers have practical experience. Most of us have flats, have lived in flats or have children who live in flats. I have described the practical questions that crop up and many Members of the House and huge numbers of the public have experience of companies limited by guarantee, but they do not necessarily examine the small print or appreciate that such companies are not like ordinary limited companies. Many people have taken part in activities related to companies limited by guarantee without realising that that is the state of play. We need to consider that problem because we are trying to improve the Bill and to reflect on the practical implications. We are not being difficult or awkward, but constructive. I hope that both Ministers appreciate that we are adhering to that line.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. John Taylor: Unfortunately, I have lost the thread of the argument since we were in Committee because I was not here on Monday. Of course it is important to have working capital. That stands out a mile in the argument that my hon. Friend is making extremely well. However, where will people gain access to working capital? Will the banks be interested in helping out RTM companies, or will they need collateral to borrow? Perhaps my hon. Friend could develop that.
  Mr. Cash: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is greatly experienced in such matters. As a practising solicitor, he would have known about tenancies and the management of flats. I do not think I am breaking any confidence by revealing that as a tenant of a block of flats he took part in such deliberations.
  Mr. Taylor: It is in the Register of Members' Interests.
  Mr. Cash: It is even in the register.
  There is a market for banks and others who want the arrangements to work effectively to provide the working capital. However, they are not likely to do that unless there is an incentive. The money has to be made available. It will not be a huge sum, although it depends on the size of the flats. My hon. Friend's suggestion is important and we should consider the problem from a practical point of view.
  Mr. Taylor: Is it not an incentive for people with long leases on flats to acquire the freehold and invest in the RTM company, as the Bill will enable them to do, because that will allow them make a more serious approach to the bank to borrow money?
  Mr. Cash: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with him. Indeed, the RTM company could get

  911
  borrowing power by borrowing against the guarantee given by each of its members. I regret, however, that the Government propose that a member should give the grand sum of £1, which makes the guarantee worthless. That needs serious consideration and the Minister should respond to it, because it raises practical problems.
  Various proposals have been made during our deliberations on the Bill, such as increasing the amount of the guarantee to a more realistic figure. The Government, for a reason that escapes me, have rejected every proposal on the basis that it would make an RTM company unattractive. I fail to understand that. It is in the interests of those who are engaged in RTM companies and in the general interests of making the Bill work that none of those problems exists. We do not want to render the operation unworkable or present hazards to the smooth running of the arrangements. It is not difficult to provide for or to determine a reasonable amount of money to be made available through working capital. That could be decided by regulation. I do not think it is beyond the wit of man to come up with such an arrangement, even at this stage, given that the power exists to provide for regulations. I hope that the Minister agrees that the opportunity remains for such an arrangement. That would show that she is responding constructively.
  The Opposition do not want RTM companies to be unattractive, but if they go belly-up because they have no working capital, they are likely to prove most unattractive. However, concrete proposals that we made at an earlier stage have been rejected. As the Minister knows, in general I am against giving Ministers the power to make regulations, but we need to be realistic at this point. Given that much of the detail of commonhold will now be included in regulations, they should deal properly with the need for working capital. The amendment, which is a useful and practical proposal, would oblige Ministers and the Welsh Assembly to consider seriously RTM companies' viability as commercial units.
  For a reason that I do not entirely understand, amendment No. 83 refers to clause 78. In fact, it should refer to clause 79, but I doubt whether that point will trouble the Minister, as it is the argument's substance that I intend to address. Clause 79 deals with notice of claim to acquire right and general provisions relating to the right to manage. Clause 79(1) states:
  "A claim to acquire the right to manage any premises is made by giving notice of the claim…and in this Chapter the 'relevant date', in relation to any claim to acquire the right to manage, means the date on which notice of the claim is given."
  Clause 79(2) states:
  "The claim notice may not be given unless each person required to be given a notice of invitation to participate has been given such a notice at least 14 days before."
  The amendment would deal with the issue of delivery by adding a new subsection (2A), and because delivery is important, it should be accepted.
  When the issue was considered in the other place, Lord Falconer of Thoroton acknowledged that my noble and learned Friend Lord Kingsland had identified a technical problem in respect of notices that need to be remedied. So shocked was Lord Kingsland at that admission that Lord Falconer felt it necessary to advise him to keep hold of his seat lest he should fall off it.
  The Government promised to introduce amendments to remedy the defect, but unfortunately they do not fully meet the point. The problem is a simple one. Perfectly
  912
  sensibly, the Bill provides that, before an RTM company applies to take over management of a block, it should give notice to all long leaseholders in the block and invite them to become members of the company. Clause 78, which deals with notice inviting participation, sets out the various matters that must be included in such a notice. Subsection (7) states:
  "A notice of invitation to participate is not invalidated by any inaccuracy in any of the particulars required by or by virtue of this section."
  In other words, inaccuracies in the notice will not invalidate it.
  Such matters are not unimportant. We all receive bits of paper every day, and even if those relating to the running of one's premises are ostensibly not the biggest or most important bits they ever get, if the relevant bit does not reach the right person, the consequences could be hugely inconvenient, including the need to consult lawyers or managing agents. If someone has children, they might lose the notice—we all know how easily that can happen—or mix it up with invitations and other pieces of paper. It is important that the notices should be received, and we can all think of examples in which notices could go astray, so recorded delivery is obligatory.
  Clause 78(7) also provides that inaccuracies in the notice shall not invalidate the notice. So far, so good. The problem that Lord Kingsland identified, and which the Government said they would remedy, was the difficulty of ensuring that every qualifying tenant in a block was served with a notice of invitation to participate. A block might contain more than 100 flats—in Westminster, blocks often do—and it would be absurd if the failure to serve one of the tenants in the block resulted in the whole RTM procedure being treated as null and void. The Government seem to have accepted that point—at least, we hope so—but unfortunately the clause does not deal with that problem.
  Clause 111 makes some provisions about the service of notices—I see those whom we are not supposed to see taking a look at some of the provisions I mention—but it makes no provision for any form of deemed service. I hate deemed provisions but, in this case, they are justified.
  Mr. Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate and he has taken me with him so far, but I have some reservations about amendment No. 83. My concern is that it may be too draconian in practice. I shall give him an example that might lead to a miscarriage of justice. Many flats are served by a communal front door, with one letter box, where the mail for all of the flat occupants is delivered and the occupants collect it later. I know from experience that if a postman has a recorded delivery letter, he will ring the bell for every flat and asks whoever answers the door to sign for it. If the amendment is accepted, a situation could arise in which a recorded delivery letter is signed for at an address by one tenant on behalf of another. The latter could be away on holiday and know nothing about the contents of the envelope, but under the terms of the amendment he would be deemed to be served.
  Mr. Cash: That is an interesting intervention, but there are grave dangers in assuming that it would be lawful or desirable for people to accept recorded deliveries by signing on behalf of other people without authority.

  913
  My hon. Friend is in interesting territory but his example does not present an insuperable obstacle to the points that I am making. The Minister may have something to say on that point and we might be able to address it in the arrangements for the service of notices. Perhaps the change could be made without using precisely the wording that we have chosen.
  5 pm

  As I was saying, if the RTM company fails to serve one tenant in a block of a hundred flats, that still leaves the question of the nullity of the claim notice. That follows from clause 79(2), which prohibits the service of a claim notice until all tenants have been served with a notice of invitation to participate. This is very much a drafting question. We are all aiming in the same direction because we all want the Bill to work properly, but if, to some extent, it does not, the general power to make statutory instruments may enable us to address some of these matters. Of course, I take careful note of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight).
  The intention of the amendment is to make a simple deemed service provision. The RTM company can prove service either by hand-delivering a notice or by sending it by recorded delivery. In either case, a failure by some misadventure in service on a tenant will not invalidate the claim notice subsequently served by the RTM company on the landlord.
  Amendment No. 72 to clause 87 aims to defeat the mischief of deemed withdrawal provisions by deleting the imposition of a deemed withdrawal date and providing that an application can be made to a tribunal to end the original application in appropriate cases. In our experience and that of the Law Society, deemed withdrawal provisions do not protect tenants but serve only to frustrate otherwise valid claims.
  These matters have been carefully considered by the Law Society, which concludes that the provisions are akin to the automatic strike-out provision, which was part of the county court rules, order 15, rule 11, prior to the introduction of the civil procedure rules. It was abolished owing to the unnecessary hardship caused to claimants and the proliferation of satellite litigation as a result of its application. No doubt the Minister can take the matter into account when she replies.
  Amendment No. 71 deals with clause 105 on cessation of management. Subsection (1) states:
  "This section makes provision about the circumstances in which, after a RTM company has acquired the right to manage any premises, that right ceases to be exercisable by it."
  The clause then makes provisions about agreements and the circumstances in which the right to manage ceases to be exercisable, such as when a winding-up order is made, a receiver or manager is appointed, a voluntary arrangement is made or an RTM company's name is struck off the register. Subsection (4) says:
  "The right to manage the premises ceases to be exercisable…if a manager appointed under Part 2 of the 1987 Act to act in relation to the premises…begins so to act".
  The right to manage ceases to be exercisable also if the company ceases to be an RTM company in relation to the premises.
  914
  The amendment would insert a new subsection which states that the valuation tribunal shall have the power to appoint a new manager in place of the RTM company if the RTM company wishes to withdraw and it is just and convenient to appoint a new manager. At the moment, there is no provision for the tribunal to appoint a new manager in those circumstances. The amendment seeks to close that loophole to secure the smooth, efficient and effective management of a property in the event that the RTM company no longer wishes to continue or to manage.
  Our amendments are practical. Some are very important indeed, particularly the one on working capital which, subject to the Minister's response, makes an unanswerable case for the making of arrangements to ensure against the RTM company being unable to deal with problems such as urgent works and things of that kind, which I described.
  Ms Keeble: I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), although not in the order in which he made them, simply because my notes are organised otherwise.
  This group of amendments deals with various aspects of the right to manage. Many of them reflect the fears and concerns expressed in Committee by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stone, about the financial viability of the RTM company, the competence of its management and what happens if it fails. The right-to-manage provisions in the Bill will provide a robust framework for a new and important right, and will deal with many leasehold issues raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall now deal with each amendment in turn, including the Government amendments.
  Amendment No. 71 relates to clause 105 which, as the hon. Member for Stone said, sets out the circumstances in which an RTM company would lose the right to manage premises. As provided for in subsection (2), that may happen because the leaseholders no longer wish to carry on as managers. When that happens, they need to negotiate handover arrangements with the landlords, to whom the management would revert, before being able to withdraw. When they cannot agree such arrangements, or when no landlord can be found with whom to negotiate, the company can apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for its own replacement as manager by virtue of schedule 7. As hon. Members know, individual leaseholders also have the right to apply to an LVT for the replacement of a manager if the RTM company is no longer functioning. I cannot understand the reasoning behind the amendment, as the LVT already has the power to appoint a new manager in the place of an RIM company.
  Amendment No. 72 provides that a landlord may apply to an LVT for a determination that the claim notice is withdrawn if the RTM company either fails to apply to an LVT to dispute the landlord's counter-notice or if the RTM company withdraws such an application. While I understand the intention behind the amendment, I do not accept that it would have any practical benefit. If the RTM company does not apply to an LVT to dispute the landlord's counter-notice within two months of such a notice being served, the claim notice is deemed to be withdrawn. While the amendment would give the landlord the right to apply to an LVT, the time limit of two months would still apply, and it is doubtful whether proceedings could be concluded in that time.

  915
  Amendment No. 73 would have the effect of removing what is to be taken into account in calculating the floor area of a mixed use building. I wondered whether the hon. Member for Stone would propose a replacement for sub-paragraph (4) of schedule 6, rather than simply deleting it altogether. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 6, he explained at length, excludes properties that mix residential and non-residential uses, such as flats above shops, from the right to manage if more than 25 per cent of the internal floor space is in non-residential use. In making the necessary calculations, any parts, including garages, which are for the sole use of a particular residential tenant are counted as residential floor-space and any common parts are disregarded. Trying to determine what percentage of the common parts was residential and what percentage was commercial would prove difficult and, we fear, would be the subject of much contention. The complete removal of sub-paragraph (4), as the amendment provides, would result in uncertainty about which areas of the premises were to be included in the calculations. That would not be helpful. We believe that we have taken the correct approach in disregarding the common parts.
  I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is interested in the details of the 25 per cent. rule. If it would be helpful, I am happy to put it on the record for him.
  Mr. Cash indicated assent.
  Ms Keeble: The 25 per cent. rule is based on the general rule that commercial floor space is broadly three times more valuable than the same amount of residential floor space. That means that a commercial unit that takes up 25 per cent. of the property accounts for roughly half the value of the whole property. Where, therefore, the commercial parts account for more than 25 per cent., it will be the landlord who holds the majority stake in the premises. Where that is the case, we would not be justified in allowing the leaseholders, as the minority interest, to take over the management of the block.
  That has been the subject of much debate both in this House and in the other place. We made clear our position on the 25 per cent. threshold during those debates. I hope that I have clarified the matter now, as we have not discussed this aspect at any other stage in our extensive discussion of the Bill.
  Amendment No. 74 would extend the right to manage to local authority tenants. The hon. Gentleman argued strongly for that. However, under various legislation, local authority tenants, including leaseholders, already enjoy a range of options for becoming involved in the management of their premises. Those options include a right to manage. We do not think it right that two rights to manage should be exercisable for the same property, as that would lead to conflict and confusion.
  Mr. Cash: I hear what the Minister says, and we know that many blocks of flats already have right-to-manage arrangements, but the Government say that we should have special, carefully tailored, leasehold right-to-manage arrangements, with all the memorandums and articles in common form, to achieve a degree of synergy and coherence. That, after all, lies at the heart of the Bill. Given the fact that the Government have given so much time and attention to the matter, and have produced the draft provisions so that we can consider them, and all the
  916
  relevant regulations, why cannot they simply make the same arrangements for people who live in premises that are owned and run by local authorities? In other words, why should there be one rule for those who operate in the local authority context and others of a similar kind, and another rule provided for in the Bill? That does not make sense and will create great confusion.
  Ms Keeble: It seems that the hon. Gentleman has not quite taken my point. Local authority tenants, who include leaseholders, as they have long leases rather than shorter ones, already have a range of options to assist in the running of their premises. That includes the right to manage. It is not helpful for people to have a right to manage under two different pieces of legislation. That would create confusion, as has already occurred in the discussion. As local authority tenants already have a right to manage, we do not intend through the Bill to provide them with a second right to manage. I hope that that makes it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we are not excluding local authority tenants; we are saying that a different route is available to them under different legislation.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Cash: The Minister has not quite answered my question. Why should different legislation contain arrangements that are not coincidental with those in the Bill? I suspect that we are reaching a point at which we cannot agree, but an important question remains unresolved. Perhaps we will have to leave it at that.
  Ms Keeble: I do not think that there is a big difference from existing measures: local authority tenants previously had a right to manage, so it could be said that other leaseholders are merely catching up. We are not ensuring that local authority tenants, including leaseholders, will not have a right to manage, because they had that right first. That is why it would be confusing—our discussion of the issue has been fairly confusing—if one group of leaseholders had two rights to manage, while another group had only one.
  Mr. Cash: I shall try once more. Let us take a practical example, bearing it in mind that the matter has been discussed extensively; indeed, it must have been debated about five times, so if the point has been missed, a lot of people in the other place and here have missed it on many occasions. As the Minister knows, we believe strongly that working capital will be needed, for reasons that I have explained and that she will no doubt deal with in a moment. However, in terms of a minimum amount of £1, why should provisions be introduced that put all the right-to-manage arrangements at some risk, while local authority right-to-manage arrangements are effectively subsidised by the local authority itself? She disagrees, but if the arrangements are vested in what is laid down by a given local authority, where will the working capital for them come from?
  Ms Keeble: Perhaps it will help if I put the boot on the other foot. If we limited the local authority right to manage to the provisions in the Bill, we would disapply the existing rights of tenants, who would no longer be qualifying tenants in that way. A whole lot of local

  917
  authority tenants would therefore lose their right to manage, which would be wrong, as it would narrow the whole ability that the right to manage confers.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the source of working capital and what happens to local authority leaseholders. There are a number of issues in relation to charging policies, but the matter in question specifically concerns who has the right to manage. The reason why we are limiting the right to manage in the Bill to exclude local authority leaseholders is clear: as I said, local authority tenants, including leaseholders, already have such a right. I realise that we might seem to be refusing to give something to local authority leaseholders, but that is not the case, as they already have it. That is why we feel it better not to apply a narrow leaseholder-only right to local authority properties, when a broader right to manage exists in respect of them that includes tenants with shorter leases. However, I assure him that the Government will continue to consider closely how we can further encourage and facilitate the involvement of all local authority tenants in the management of their homes.
  Amendment No. 83, which was also tabled by the hon. Gentleman, deals with the delivery of notices. It would provide that if the RTM company delivers
  "a notice of invitation to participate by hand…or by recorded delivery",
  the notice will be deemed to have been served on that day. The amendment is unnecessary. Clause 111 provides that any notices under chapter 1 must be in writing and may be sent by post. Under the Interpretation Act 1978, service by post is effective as of the time that the letter is delivered in the ordinary post. Subsection (5) of the clause further provides that the notice may be given at the flat contained in the premises to which it refers. In other words, the issue is already covered by existing legislation and the amendment would confuse matters.
  Amendment No. 84 provides for regulations to include provisions to ensure that in the opinion of the national authority the right-to-manage company has sufficient working capital. We would assume and expect those to be the prescribed provisions adopted by the RTM company as its memorandum and articles. We are dubious about the purpose of the amendment and whether it would have the desired effect. It is difficult to see how such a provision could be incorporated in the regulations or the memorandum and articles or how the opinion of the national authority would be deemed to have been given in each particular case. Indeed, the national authority is not defined for such purposes.
  Those technical difficulties aside, I appreciate concerns that the leaseholders who take over the management of a property should have the necessary funds behind them to be able to do the job properly. We intend strongly to encourage them to do so, but that is a matter for guidance, not primary legislation. Leaseholders already have to pay for the management of the property and will therefore exercise the right to manage in the knowledge that they will have to meet the costs that they run up.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: Is the Minister saying that the guidance notes will precisely clarify how much working capital is required or the amount of working
  918
  capital that is adequate? She seems to have conceded the principle of the amendment—that that is desirable—but is leaving it to the guidance.
  Ms Keeble: I did not quite say that. I said that we would encourage leaseholders to make the necessary arrangements. They already pay for the management of their property, so they will not be going into the unknown. In deciding about exercising the right to manage, they will want to ensure that they have made proper arrangements for the maintenance of the building—after all, it is their money that is invested in it. We will encourage them to make proper provision, but expect them to make proper financial arrangements for the maintenance of their building. That judgment will be based on their knowledge of how much it costs to run the building.
  I turn to Government amendments Nos. 33A and 34. Amendment No. 33A tightens the existing provisions relating to approvals once the right to manage has been exercised. As hon. Members know, we never intended that the right-to-manage company should take on management functions under leases of commercial units in a block. The RTM company should not get involved in the relationship between commercial tenants and the landlord. Concerns have been expressed that it could be argued that the RTM company would have functions relating to approvals in relation to commercial tenancies under clauses 98 and 99. That could mean, for example, that a commercial tenant would have to get consent from both the landlord and the RTM company for permission to assign the lease. This technical amendment is intended to deliver our original objective and to ensure that the RTM company has functions that relate only to approvals for premises that are held under a long lease by a qualifying tenant.
  On amendment No. 34, it may assist hon. Members if I give a short explanation of the clause to which it relates. Clause 102 gives effect to schedule 7, which sets out how the relevant provisions of leasehold and associated law apply while the RTM company is responsible for the management of the premises. It is a lengthy schedule. For example, paragraph 2 makes section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 binding on the RTM company. This has the practical effect of making the company responsible for ensuring that the property is kept in a sufficient state of repair for it not to represent a threat to public safety.
  Clause 102(2) gives the appropriate national authority the power to modify other enactments for the same purpose. The amendment will mean that the power can be used to modify other Acts that are made after the Bill receives Royal Assent. If this provision were not included, the rules of statutory interpretation would mean that it would be doubtful whether it could be used in these circumstances. Of course, any new Acts should be drafted to take account of RTM, but until it is established, it may not be factored into policy making. This is a technical amendment that makes it clear that the power in clause 102(2) applies to subsequent Acts of Parliament and that it applies to the provisions of the Bill. On that basis, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments.
  Mr. Cash: I have listened with great interest to the Minister's arguments but, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the fact that she has not answered the question on working capital to my satisfaction, I intend to divide the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 295.

  Division No. 193]

  [5.26 pm

  ayes

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hancock, Mike

  Allan, Richard

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Amess, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hayes, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Bacon, Richard

  Heath, David

  Baker, Norman

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Barker, Gregory

  Hoban, Mark

  Baron, John

  Holmes, Paul

  Barrett, John

  Horam, John

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Bercow, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hunter, Andrew

  Blunt, Crispin

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Boswell, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Keetch, Paul

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

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

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Burnett, John

  Key, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burstow, Paul

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Burt, Alistair

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lamb, Norman

  Lansley, Andrew

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Laws, David

  Cash, William

  Leigh, Edward

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Chope, Christopher

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Clappison, James

  Lidington, David

  Collins, Tim

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cotter, Brian

  Loughton, Tim

  Cran, James

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dodds, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Doughty, Sue

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Evans, Nigel

  Moore, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fallen, Michael

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Oaten, Mark

  Flight, Howard

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Flook, Adrian

  Öpik, Lembit

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paterson, Owen

  Francois, Mark

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger

  Price, Adam

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Prisk, Mark

  Gibb, Nick

  Pugh, Dr John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Rendel, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Gray, James

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ruffley, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hammond, Philip

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  920

  Selous, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Trend, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Tyler, Paul

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

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Walter, Robert

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Watkinson, Angela

  Spink, Bob

  Webb, Steve

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whittingdale, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Wiggin, Bill

  Streeter, Gary

  Wilkinson, John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Swire, Hugo

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Syms, Robert

  Willis, Phil

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thurso, John

  Mr. Charles Hendry and

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Mr. John Randall.

  noes

  Ainger, Nick

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Allen, Graham

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Cummings, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Barron, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beard, Nigel

  Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Benton, Joe

  David, Wayne

  Berry, Roger

  Davidson, Ian

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

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

  Blizzard, Bob

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dobbin, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Doran, Frank

  Bryant, Chris

  Dowd, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burnham, Andy

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Cairns, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ennis, Jeff

  Casale, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Cawsey, Ian

  Farrelly, Paul

  Challen, Colin

  Fisher, Mark

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Chaytor, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Clapham, Michael

  Flint, Caroline

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Flynn, Paul

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Foulkes, George

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Clelland, David

  Galloway, George

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Gapes, Mike

  Cohen, Harry

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Connarty, Michael

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cooper, Yvette

  Gilroy, Linda

  Corston, Jean

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cousins, Jim

  Goggins, Paul

  Crausby, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  921

  Grogan, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hanson, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McWilliam, John

  Havard, Dai

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mann, John

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marris, Rob

  Heppell, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hermon, Lady

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heyes, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hill, Keith

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Meale, Alan

  Hodge, Margaret

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoey, Kate

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hood, Jimmy

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hope, Phil

  Miliband, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mole, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Moran, Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Julie

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mudie, George

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Owen, Albert

  Joyce, Eric

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Perham, Linda

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Picking, Anne

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pike, Peter

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pond, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworih)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Purchase, Ken

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Purnell, James

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rapson, Syd

  Lammy, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roy, Frank

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ruane, Chris

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ruddock, Joan

  Linton, Martin

  Salter, Martin

  Lloyd, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Love, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lucas, Ian

  Sawford, Phil

  Lyons, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McCafferty, Chris

  Sheridan, Jim

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Simon, Siôn

  MacDonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McDonnell, John

  Singh, Marsha

  MacDougall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  922

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Soley, Clive

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Southworth, Helen

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Squire, Rachel

  Wareing, Robert N

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Watson, Tom

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Watts, David

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  White, Brian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wills, Michael

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wray, James

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Truswell, Paul

  Wyatt, Derek

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mr. Ian Pearson.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 98

  FUNCTIONS RELATING TO APPROVALS
  Amendment made: No. 33A, in page 50, line 5, at end insert—
  '; but nothing in this section or section 99 applies in relation to an approval concerning only a part of the premises consisting of a flat or other unit not held under a lease by a qualifying tenant.'.—[Ms Keeble.]

Clause 102

  STATUTORY FUNCTIONS
  Amendment made: No. 34, in page 52, line 18, after "leases" insert—
  '(including enactments contained in this Act or any Act passed after this Act)'.—[Ms Keeble.]

Clause 116

  QUALIFYING LEASES
  Amendment made: No. 35, in page 59, line 9, at end insert—
  '(2) In section 69(1)(b) of the 1993 Act (estate management schemes), for "by virtue of the amendments of that Chapter made by paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52)" substitute "in circumstances in which, but for section 116(1) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and the repeal by that Act of paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52), they would have been entitled to acquire it by virtue of the amendments of that Chapter made by that paragraph".'.—[Ms Keeble.]

Clause 121

  RTE COMPANIES
  Ms Keeble: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 61, line 7, after "notice" insert "to the company".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 37 to 42.
  Ms Keeble: These amendments are all consequential to the change to the valuation date for flats, as provided for in clause 125. As hon. Members may recall from previous debates, under existing law the valuation date for flats is the date on which the terms of acquisition are agreed or determined. The Bill would provide that, instead, the valuation date was the date on which the right-to-enfranchise company served its initial notice on the landlord. We have subsequently realised that that could have some unintended consequences and these amendments are designed to rectify them.
  First, under the proposals currently contained in the Bill, it could be argued that the price for the freehold should be based on the number of participants when the initial notice was served. That is plainly not what we had intended and amendment No. 41 makes it clear that, though the property should be valued as at the date of the initial notice, the valuation should be based on the number of participants at the point where the landlord and the RTE company actually exchange contracts.
  Of course, we also need to ensure that the landlord knows how many participants there are at that stage. When the initial notice is served, the landlord will be told how many leaseholders are participating at that point. Amendment No. 40 will ensure that the landlord is sent a copy of any participation notices given to the RTE company after that point. Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 are consequential. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 specify the time by which assignees and personal representatives have to give notice to participate.
  Secondly, existing law provides that the landlord must be notified of any agreements between the nominee purchaser and non-participating leaseholders which provide for the disposal of a relevant interest in relation to the enfranchisement. Under existing law, the nominee purchaser must tell the landlord of any such agreements entered into between the serving of the section 13 notice and the valuation date.
  Amendment No. 42 makes a consequential amendment requiring the RTE company to notify the landlord of any such agreements entered into at any time before the exchange of contracts.
  I commend the amendments to the House.
  Mr. Cash: It is clear that the Government have concluded that adjustments need to be made to this part of the Bill. As I have said from the beginning, we are anxious to see improvements to the Bill.
  On amendment No. 36, the Minister perhaps got through the explanation a little speedily. That does not alter the fact that it is important that we put on the record exactly what its implications are. The clause in question is clause 121, which deals with the exercise of the right to collective enfranchisement.
  Under clause 120, the right is exercisable only by the RTE company. Therefore, it is important for us to know exactly what kind of company we are dealing with and to understand what the word "company" means in relation to amendment No. 36. What is this company?
  924
  5.45 pm
  In the first place, a company is an RTE company in relation to premises if
  "(a) it is a private company limited by guarantee, and
  (b) its memorandum of association states that its object, or one of its objects, is the exercise of the right to collective enfranchisement with respect to the premises."
  New section 4B in clause 121 is to be inserted in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which the Minister did not explain. In the chapter, participating member, in relation to an RTE company,
  "means a person who is a member by virtue of subsection (1)(a) of this section".
  Subsection (1)(a) of the newly inserted section 4B, which is put after section 4 of the 1993 Act, states the persons who are entitled to be members of the company. Therefore, where we talk about giving a participation notice to the company, we are referring to the company limited by guarantee. Participating members are
  "qualifying tenants of flats contained in the premises".
  A participating member means a person who
  "(a) has given a participation notice before the date when the company gives a notice under section 13 or during the participation period, or
  (b) is a participating member by virtue of either of the following two subsections."
  That refers to section 13 of the 1993 Act. New Section 4B is being inserted by way of amendment.
  I have attempted to go through part of this by way of explanation and by reference to the provisions. I do not criticise the Minister—she has a job to do, which is to get on with the Government amendments—but it is necessary to try to put on the record what the amendments are doing in relation to existing legislation, which in this context is the 1993 Act. It is just a matter of context. In so far as she is right to explain simply what she believes it is necessary to explain in the Bill, I feel that it is my job to explain exactly what is happening in the context of the pre-existing legislation and how that is being amended.
  Amendment No. 37 again relates to clause 121. The amendment arises, for those who are interested in following these matters, in respect of page 61, line 14. In line 14, the Government propose—we are dealing again with the membership of RTE companies inserted in the 1993 Act—that
  "A member who is the assignee of a lease by virtue of which a participating member was a qualifying tenant of his flat is a participating member if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the assignment, he gives a participation notice to the company."
  I understand that the Government want to improve the Bill, as do the Opposition. They now propose to leave out the words after "if' to the end of line 16, and to insert:
  "he has given a participation notice to the company within the period beginning with the date of the assignment and ending 28 days later (or, if earlier, on the execution of a relevant conveyance to the company)."

  925
  That is the right approach, for the reasons that the Minister gave, but serious difficulties can be encountered when periods are specified. The

  "period beginning with the date of the assignment and ending 28 days later"
  is likely to be a fixed date. I do riot think that there would be any difficulty with that, but the amendment goes on to state:
  "(or, if earlier, on the execution of a relevant conveyance to the company)".
  Many problems can arise with the alleged execution of relevant conveyances to companies, or with relevant conveyances of any type. It is by no means impossible that what was thought to be the execution of a relevant conveyance could turn out not to have taken place, or to have been performed incorrectly. I shall not press the point, but I am concerned about the uncertainty that can arise when such language is used.
  The Minister may ask what other words could be used. I suggest that the word "valid", or something along those lines, could be inserted before
  "execution of a relevant conveyance".
  These are drafting questions, related to last-minute Government amendments. The Bill has been through five processes, in the other place and in this House. It is incumbent on us to examine the wording carefully to ensure that everything is in order before the Bill gains Royal Assent.
  Government amendment No. 38 deals with clause 121(6), which at present states:
  "And if the personal representatives of a participating member are a member, they are a participating member if, at any time, they give a participation notice to the company."
  Such language may be necessary as a matter of law, but it is complex and convoluted. The amendment would insert, after the second "if",
  "they have given a participation notice to the company at any time (before the execution of a relevant conveyance to the company)."
  As I said earlier, there is sometimes uncertainty about whether a conveyance has been duly executed.
  Mr. Greg Knight: If there are only two participating members and one dies, and if the survivor is a personal representative of the deceased, does my hon. Friend think that there is one participating member, or two?
  Mr. Cash: That question reminds me of the Schleswig-Holstein succession problem. It was said that only three people knew the answer to that, and that one was dead, one had forgotten, and one was mad. My hon. Friend can take his pick as to which description fits him, but it is certain that a participating member who is a personal representative will be able to perform his functions in relation to a dead person. We can assume that that person will have to be mad, or that he has forgotten. I hope that that answer helps my right hon. Friend as much as his question helped me.
  Mr. John Taylor: Surely the situation is perfectly clear? The one who is mad would be represented by a
  926
  receiver in a court of protection, and the one who is dead would be represented by his or her executor or personal representative. I do not see a problem with that.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is a solicitor, and has the advantage of much more experience of trusts and wills—although, of course, I had to pass the requisite papers on such matters in my examinations many years ago. If we continue this dialogue, my hon. Friend and I will not be forgotten, but one of us will go mad.
  Mr. Knight: I am troubled by my hon. Friend's earlier reference to the execution of a conveyance. I am not happy with the proposed wording. My hon. Friend will know that lawyers can have a conveyance executed, but can then hold it to the order of their client, until the time has come for completion. Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment could be defective, as the words
  "execution of a relevant conveyance"
  may not mean what the Minister intends?
  Mr. Cash: The support of so many hon. Friends from the legal profession leaves me feeling like a wagon train surrounded by red indians. I know what the words "in escrow" mean, but the Minister must satisfy the House that the words proposed would be appropriate in all circumstances, as it is possible that the conveyance would be invalid. The serious point underlying the banter is that it is essential that all conveyances covered by the amendments are valid.
  Government amendment No. 39, would replace "a" with "the" in line 20, page 61. I shall not confuse the House by arguing about that substitution. I will now pass on rapidly to the next amendment, having noted that, for the benefit of those who read Hansard, we did not miss the fact that "the" has been substituted for "a" in the amendment.
  6 pm
  Government amendment No. 40 to clause 121 is much more substantial. The clause deals with RTE companies, entitlement to be members of the companies, the nature of their relationship to one another and the procedures that must be followed. The amendment states:
  "For the purposes of this section a participation notice given to the company during the period—
  (a) beginning with the date when the company gives a notice under section 13, and
  (b) ending immediately before a binding contract"—
  my hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), will notice those important words—
  "is entered into in pursuance of the notice under section 13,
  is of no effect unless a copy of the participation notice has been given during that period to the person who (in accordance with section 9) is the reversioner in respect of the premises."
  One marvels at the knowledge of those who draft these Bills.
  The Minister seems uncertain as to whether I am referring to a clause that is covered by this group of amendments. I am talking about Government amendment No. 40 and, just in case she has not read it, it stands in her name on the amendment paper. I merely mention that in passing.

  927
  The participation notice and the question of validity remain at the heart of the problems that we face.
  Mr. John Taylor: Does not this amendment share some of the characteristics of the Brandt report—he may have written it but he undoubtedly had not read it?
  Mr. Cash: That also applies to the Maastricht treaty and a number of others. I am quite sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the last thing you want is for me to go down that route. I shall simply say very briefly that there was a certain famous Chancellor of the Exchequer—or perhaps it was Foreign Secretary—who seemed to claim with pride that he had not read it. At all events, one or other of them did not read it, and that is very unwise. I shall read the Bill and make sure that what the Government are doing goes on the record. I know that the Minister will not mind because she has been giving a very good truncated explanation of what is involved. For our part, we intend to explain just what is involved in this group of amendments.
  Mr. Greg Knight: It is rather hard on my hon. Friend to have to perform part of the Minister's duties without being in receipt of her salary. What does my hon. Friend understand by "gives" in proposed subsection (a) of Government amendment No. 40? Does it mean when the company draws up and dates the notice or when the notice is served?
  Mr. Cash: I am intrigued by my right hon. Friend's point. Proposed subsection (a) refers to
  "beginning with the date when the company gives a notice under section 13".
  That suggests that it means the moment when there is a transmission of that notice. Whether that transmission under section 13 follows the drawing up of the notice, there can be no doubt—one can give something only after it has been in one's possession or it has been established that it exists. Therefore, it has to be after the date of transmission—notice would be impossible to give if it had not been drawn up. Therefore, "gives" is the right word in this context, and I congratulate the Government on getting that right.
  Government Amendment No. 41 takes us deep into the territory of schedule 8. Again, I congratulate the Government on improving the Bill on Report. They have come to the conclusion, after the Bill has been through the process about five times, that these words need to be changed. I am sure that they are right, but I still raise the point about a binding contract. I admit that I would not have wanted to raise that point but for the fact that what is or is not a binding contract is tied to validity and the date of notice is tied to whether or not there is a binding contract.
  Government amendment No. 41 refers to
  "persons who are participating members of the RTE company immediately before a binding contract is entered into in pursuance of the initial notice".
  Proposed paragraph (b) states:
  "for 'participating tenants, once' substitute 'those participating members, once'".
  The Government's intentions are clear. I am still concerned about whether a contract could be known to be binding. That raises serious problems about timing.
  928
  Having said that, and assuming that the Government are as close as possible to getting it right, I think that we would be able to support that amendment.
  Government amendment No. 42 relates to clause 125, which deals with the separate questions—at least, so it seems to me—of purchase price and valuation date. The amendment proposes introducing a new subsection (2), which would be added to another amendment to the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which we have discussed on a number of other occasions. Clause 125 states:
  "In Schedule 6 to the 1993 Act (purchase price payable), for 'the valuation date' (in each place) substitute 'the relevant date'."
  The Government propose to add the words:
  "In section 18(1) of the 1993 Act (duty to disclose existence of agreements affecting premises etc.), for 'valuation date for the purposes of Schedule 6' substitute"—
  these are the most important words—
  "'time when a binding contract is entered into in pursuance of the initial notice'."
  Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sorry that it has taken me some time to go through the provisions, but I am sure that the House will appreciate not only that I have tried to put them in context but that I have complemented the Minister's short remarks by a more adequate explanation. I have also drawn attention to concerns about the validity of the contracts. Throughout this group, we can see that shining star—the question whether a contract is binding or whether a conveyance will take effect at a given point in time.
  I hope that my explanation of those important matters has not taken too much of the House's time. At least, the record will show exactly how the pieces fit into the jigsaw. We may be no wiser than the mad person who could not work out the Schleswig-Holstein succession, but at least some people will be able to make sense of the provisions that we have been discussing.
  Mr. John Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) not merely on his forceful advocacy—to which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has referred—but on his comprehension and lucidity. He gave a master class which was greatly appreciated by those of us who had the privilege of listening to him. I look forward to the day when he is indeed our Attorney-General. We shall look to him with confidence to resolve problems such as the Schleswig-Holstein question.
  I should declare an interest, since I am involved in the management committee of a splendid block of apartments in Solihull. We shall have to wrestle with problems such as those we are discussing. For reasons unknown to me, my fellow residents sometimes look to me for elucidation, so I shall give them all copies of Hansard and draw their attention to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. They will then understand the issues. If they make me their chairman—as is threatened—I shall have Hansard ready at all times to show them what our learned friend said today.
  It is not possible for me to leave the Schleswig-Holstein question as easily as my remarks may have suggested. Conservative Members will recognise in those three central characters the first three people to speak from the floor at any meeting of the 1922 Committee.

  929
  I am especially interested in the parts of the Bill that relate to RTM and RTE companies. We live in an age where we are beset by acronyms. RTM and RTE are not particularly elegant, although I suppose that we shall learn to live with them; but this is the country of Milton and Shakespeare and we ought to be able to do slightly better than that. I am reminded of phrases such as "sustainable scenarios" that emerge from our planning departments.
  6.15 pm
  In the light of my current personal experience, it is entirely likely that in a well ordered and promising situation a series of long leaseholders would see their best interests served by the evolution of an RTM into an RTE. That would be a good thing. In my own case, I sincerely hope that we shall be able to acquire the freehold through the RTE mechanism. The management company will then have a serious asset. It will have a realistic balance sheet and a capital basis.
  That relates to our earlier discussions. Such management companies will need working capital and they will be in a much stronger position to acquire it if they have a freehold as collateral. As the value of the freehold will almost certainly increase, they will have an appreciating asset on their balance sheet.
  There is still the question of how to build a reasonable kitty in the early stages, although few right-to-manage companies will come into being—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the scope of the amendments is narrow. He should address his remarks to those amendments.
  Mr. Taylor: I should actually find that extraordinarily difficult, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I rose to my feet with no particular intention of speaking to the amendments. My remarks are in almost terminal decline, so I thank the House for listening to me with such warmth and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for rebuking me with such courtesy.
  Mr. Sanders: I hope to say in live minutes what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said in 28. I hope effectively to scrutinise the provisions rather than to "excrutinise" them.
  Amendment No. 36 is relatively simple. Such a wide discussion of such a straightforward amendment is a disrespect to this place. Amendments Nos. 37 to 41 are clarifications.
  Amendment No. 42 is the only provision that one might question. I do not fully understand why it was necessary to alter the wording and I hope that the Minister can clarify that point.
  We could have dealt with the other amendments in two minutes.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Conservative Members will take no lessons from the Liberal Democrats on what is disrespectful to this place when the majority of their party were notable by their absence from our debates on Report. They deigned to appear only when the hon. Member for
  930
  Torbay (Mr. Sanders) moved a new clause on Monday evening. He should look to his own party if he is concerned about disrespect to the Chamber.
  Mr. Cash: In view of the somewhat surprising and intemperate remarks of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), my right hon. Friend may remember that one morning in Committee, at only 10.30, I had to ask a question about the fact that the hon. Gentleman was fast asleep—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we are discussing specific amendments.
  Mr. Knight: I do not complain when the hon. Member for Torbay is asleep—that may be the time when he makes the most sense.
  I was a little hard on the Minister in an earlier intervention. In general, she has handled the Bill well, but her brevity on this group of amendments was unfortunate and has given rise to concern from Conservative Members. So I hope that when she replies to the debate she will answer fully the concerns that we have expressed.
  I do not follow my hon. Friend's concern about the words "binding contract", but I am concerned about amendment No. 38, which uses the words
  "execution of a relevant conveyance to the company",
  for the reasons that I gave in an earlier intervention. What does that phrase mean? When is the relevant conveyance actually executed? In the normal meaning of that phrase, the conveyance is executed when it is signed by the parties to it, but as lawyers will know, the conveyance itself may be held back until a later date before it is deemed to become effective. So I hope that the Minister can assure the House that she is confident that that phraseology will not lead to numerous court cases in future, with people questioning precisely what it means.
  Mr. John Taylor: I believe that my right hon. Friend still holds a current certificate to practise as a solicitor. I should tell the House that I went straight many years ago and have given up practising the law, so I may be a bit out of date. Would he care to tell me whether it is still necessary, under English land law, for a conveyancing deed to be signed, sealed and delivered?
  Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is right to say that I am a practising lawyer. I still hold a practising certificate, but this area of law is not my speciality, so I hesitate to give advice to the House that may be incorrect. However, I am sufficiently concerned to raise this issue with the Minister. A better form of words could be found, and I hope that she will respond to that point.
  Ms Keeble: On Monday evening, one of your colleagues, Madam Deputy Speaker, said that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) had got on to a loop line. This time he has got on to a circle line and gone around it several times, and the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) was on it with him for a short time, until he seemed to leap off in mid-flow. I say that because these are technical amendments, which deal with a change to the 1993 Act in relation to the valuation date. I hope to go through all the details.
  Mr. Cash: I wish to indicate the sort of concerns that we have by referring to the famous story of Catherine the

  931
  Great writing to Voltaire. Voltaire wrote a clever constitution—very complicated stuff—and she wrote to him saying, "Monsieur Voltaire, you write exquisitely"—indeed, this Bill is written exquisitely—"but I have to write upon the human skin, which is mighty ticklish."
  Ms Keeble: Well, I think that we just went around the circle line again, without making much progress, and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) made some very fair points about that.
  These technical amendments are purely designed to ensure that the Bill operates as intended. As I said, they are consequential to the change in the valuation date. I shall deal with the most serious point first. Amendment No. 42 will require the RTE company to notify the landlord of any such agreements entered into before the exchange of contracts, so it relates to the change in the valuation date. I hope that deals with that.
  Apart from reading out different parts of the Bill at great length, the hon. Member for Stone asked what a participating member was and read out various explanations of that term. Of course, it is particularly important to ensure that the landlord knows how many participants there are. That is part of the intention behind many of these amendments, and he will see that that is exactly the case if he looks through them.
  The nub of the hon. Gentleman's concern—he made exactly the same point in Committee—goes to the heart of this group of amendments. His real argument is about the valuation date. He argued previously that the valuation date should be the date of the landlord's counter-notice, whereas something quite different is argued in these proposals. Our concern about his suggestion is that, in fact, many landlords have chosen to spin out proceedings as much possible with a view to persuading leaseholders to give up the enterprise altogether—a bit like the way in which the hon. Gentleman has spun out the proceedings in debating these amendments.
  I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman hopes that the Government would give up these amendments completely, but we have no intention of doing so, because the Bill provides that the valuation date is fixed as the date of the initial notice, to ensure that the landlord will be encouraged to proceed with all speed and, as a consequence, that any movement in the market in the intervening period will not he material. All these amendments are consequential to that and are intended to produce more orderly arrangements. These purely technical amendments are consequent on something that we have already dealt with.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 37, in page 61, line 14, leave out from "if' to end of line 16 and insert—
  'he has given a participation notice to the company within the period beginning with the date of the assignment and ending 28 days later (or, if earlier, on the execution of a relevant conveyance to the company).'.
  No. 38, in page 61, line 18, leave out from "if' to end of line 19 and insert—
  'they have given a participation notice to the company at any time (before the execution of a relevant conveyance to the company).'.
  No. 39, in page 61, line 20, leave out second "a" and insert "the".
  932
  No. 40, in page 61, line 22, at end insert—
  '(7A) For the purposes of this section a participation notice given to the company during the period—

  (a) beginning with the date when the company gives a notice under section 13, and

  (b) ending immediately before a binding contract is entered into in pursuance of the notice under section 13,

  is of no effect unless a copy of the participation notice has been given during that period to the person who (in accordance with section 9) is the reversioner in respect of the premises.'.—[Ms Keeble.]

Schedule 8

  ENFRANCHISEMENT BY COMPANY: AMENDMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 41, in page 115, line 7, leave out from "tenants" to end of line 8 and insert—
  ', as" substitute "persons who are participating members of the RTE company immediately before a binding contract is entered into in pursuance of the initial notice, as", and
  (b) for "participating tenants, once" substitute "those participating members, once".'.—[Ms Keeble.]

Clause 125

  VALUATION DATE
  Amendment made: No. 42, in page 63, line 31, at end insert—
  '(2) In section 18(1) of the 1993 Act (duty to disclose existence of agreements affecting premises etc.), for "valuation date for the purposes of Schedule 6" substitute "time when a binding contract is entered into in pursuance of the initial notice".'.—[Ms Keeble.]

Clause 127

  DISREGARD OF MARRIAGE VALUE IN CASE OF VERY LONG LEASES
  Amendment made: No. 43, in page 64, line 4, leave out from first "of" to end of line 6 and insert—
  'the lease held by any of those participating members exceeds eighty years, any increase in the value of the freehold or any intermediate leasehold interest in the specified premises which is attributable to his potential ability to have a new lease granted to him as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) is to be ignored.".'.—[Ms Keeble.]
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder where amendment No. 43 came from?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It was debated on Monday.

Clause 131

  PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
  Ms Keeble: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 65, line 2, leave out "one year" and insert two years".
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 45.
  Ms Keeble: These amendments will extend the period in which personal representatives can exercise their rights. Instead of the arguments that we heard in the previous debate, which neither helped to elucidate the law nor

  933
  proposed any changes, I hope that we shall hear some cogent arguments from Labour Members on these amendments, which were tabled in response to the very persuasive arguments made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac).
  It might be helpful to begin with a little background to amendment No. 44, which relates to the right to new longer leases for flats. Under existing law, when leaseholders die, their personal representatives can be left in a difficult position. Their inheritance may consist of a lease that is too short to sell easily, and the freeholder may insist that they pay over the odds for an extended lease. The Bill provides that, when the deceased leaseholder would have qualified for the right to a new longer lease, that right will pass to the personal representatives, but that they will have to exercise that right within a year of the grant of probate or letters of administration. The amendment will extend that period to two years.
  Arguments have been made previously for a longer extension, but it is worth noting that, after holding the lease for two years, the personal representatives will qualify for the right to a new longer lease in the normal way, and, for the information of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), clauses 129, 137 and 138 will apply. Personal representatives will no longer need to rely on the special rights granted to them.
  Amendment No. 45 makes an equivalent change to clause 141, which pertains to the right to a lease extension and the right to enfranchise as it relates to personal representatives of leaseholders of a house.
  I commend the amendments to the House. They will make a welcome addition to the rights of leaseholders and their personal representatives.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Cash: I am extremely glad that the amendments have been tabled. I well remember that the matter was thoroughly considered in Committee, and the reasoning behind the amendments has been explained by the Minister. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) has made a useful contribution to these changes, and it would also be fair to say that the Committee as a whole greatly benefited from the suggestions that were made.
  I think that I am right that, in Committee, the question was whether we should leave out "one year" and insert "five years". There was a good deal of discussion about that, and I find in the Official Report of Standing Committee D that I referred to the Committee making progress. I added:
  "I agree with the hon. Member for Cleethorpes and I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster about making the period too long. Will the Minister consider the possible bar in the mechanics of the provision of information by the freeholder?"
  I then made a point that I have made many times:
  "All hon. Members have an interest in ensuring that these proposals work…as we proceed, we think of ways to make the Bill more workable. That is in the interests of leaseholders and freeholders. I have no doubt that huge numbers of leaseholders will benefit from provisions of this sort in the interim period".
  934
  Indeed, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) said:
  "The Minister has proposed a happy compromise, which we shall support on Report, but I wonder why it had not been thought through beforehand. If one can enfranchise after two years' residence, why make the period one year in the case of inheritance?"
  He then congratulated the hon. Member for Cleethorpes on
  "prompting the Government in that direction".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22 January 2002; c. 141.]
  The hon. Member for Cleethorpes then withdrew her amendment, although she does not have to do so on this occasion, as a Government amendment has been tabled. That demonstrates the wonderful alchemy of the Government and their Back Benchers—they can turn one year into two years, and it turns into gold.
  I strongly commend the Government amendment. Matters have been explained at length in Committee, and perhaps the hon. Member for Cleethorpes will want to make a few remarks. It is extraordinary how such a small amendment—changing "one year" to "two years"—might have a considerable effect in the circumstances. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Cleethorpes—and the Government on listening to what she had to say—and other members of the Committee who tried to make a small contribution at not too great a length.
  Shona McIsaac: With such an invitation, I cannot resist taking part in this debate. I welcome the Government amendment. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is right that I focused on the issue a great deal in Committee, although I shall not go into it at such length today.
  I started lobbying on the matter back in July 2000. That gives the hon. Member for Stone some idea of how long it has taken to get to this stage. In July 2000, I was given leave to introduce a Bill on leasehold reform under the ten-minute rule. At that time, I focused on inheritance problems. I found that far too many residents in my constituency were very badly affected by the inadequacies of the law on inheritance.
  Many of the people concerned were elderly, and although they knew that they were in leasehold properties, the cost of enfranchising meant that they did not proceed with buying the freehold. Others did not even realise that their houses were leasehold properties. Sometimes, people who had grown up in a property found when their parents passed away that their parents had not owned the house, as most of us would assume if they had paid off a mortgage. Because their parents were tenants, those families could not buy the freehold. Some families therefore found out that they were likely to lose their family homes.
  Mr. John Taylor: The hon. Lady vividly describes the kind of problems faced by some of her constituents. Does she agree that those problems are compounded by the absence from the Bill of a valuation formula demonstrating to the leaseholder what he must pay for the freehold?
  Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman. We discussed that issue in Committee, and he may recall that my hon. Friend the Minister said that in the near future—I think that she referred to a period of six months—she

  935
  would consider consultation on information that would have to be provided to the enfranchising leaseholder. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recalls that.
  Mr. Taylor: I recall it but I am not holding my breath.
  Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
  In reference to family members, the Bill uses the dry wording of "personal representatives". However, we are talking about family homes and the emotions that families go through when somebody passes away. A period of one year in which grieving families could choose to enfranchise—I accept that one year was a significant move forward anyway, as that right did not exist previously—was far too short. Families must deal with their grief, and there would have to be discussion among family members on whether they wished to purchase the freehold of the deceased parent's property and then they would have to raise the money to do so. That one-year period was out of kilter with the other arrangements, and I welcome the introduction of consistency.
  The change will make a phenomenal and significant difference to many residents in my constituency, particularly elderly people, who, because of the publicity that has been given to these debates and to the Bill, have realised that without such a change their homes might have been lost. I know that many of them will he reassured by the measure, and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for tabling this Government amendment.
  I realise that in Committee I suggested a period of five years, but that was an old trade union negotiating technique. I started at five years hoping that I would get two.
  Mr. Don Foster: Lest it be thought that there is not all-party unanimity in our admiration for the work of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) on this issue, I too pay tribute to her long-standing efforts to sort out the matter. During the passage of the Homelessness Act 2000, when I was successful in persuading the Government to change their mind on some key issues, the Committee awarded me the privilege of sending a postcard home. I suspect that she merits a similar award.
  Although the hon. Lady did not refer to the point in detail, it is important that there is a degree of symmetry in a Bill. One of the amendment's merits—over and above the human ones that she mentioned—is that it provides the symmetry that was lacking in the Bill's earlier versions. She was right to push the issue for a number of reasons, so on behalf of the Liberal Democrats I express my delight at her success in persuading, with the support of colleagues on both sides of the House, the Government to table such a sensible amendment.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred to me earlier, so I shall explain why I spoke on this sensitive subject in Committee. As will be made repeatedly clear in our debates, there were two reasons for the original design of leaseholds. First, they were designed so that a leasehold house might be sold in a similar fashion to a freehold. The second reason was to enable the house to return to the freeholder after a short period—but more than 21 years.
  It has been a tremendous achievement of the Committee and of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) to have incorporated this two-year
  936
  period in the Bill. It takes at least two years to proceed through the legal minefield, so the amendment is sensible and compassionate. It will become clear later that some leases were put together with the idea that they should return to the freeholder. However, a two-year period is very reasonable under the circumstances. I congratulate the hon. Lady.
  The hon. Lady also said that there might be consultation in about six months, but that period may quickly disappear. I hope that the Minister will review the formula that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) mentioned, although I noticed a little frown sneak across her face when he raised the issue. I look forward to reassurance from the Minister so that we can count down to the time when the formula will be reviewed.
  6.45 pm
  Ms Keeble: Members on both sides of the House have recognised the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) in securing this amendment. The whole House recognises her long track record on campaigning on the leasehold issues affecting her constituents. We shall later debate other provisions that she has played a large part in securing. She has performed a real service to her constituents. We all know—she has often told us—that many of them are elderly people who live in leasehold houses. The points that she made about personal representatives and the interests of family members are very profound and real.

  I want to clarify a point about the provision of information on the valuation basis. I have a feeling that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) was talking about the formulaic assessment of the valuation that he has often mentioned, so I should clarify the remarks that I made in Committee. Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, we already have powers to prescribe the form and content of the landlord counter-notice, and we will consult on proposals to require information about the basis on which the landlord's counter-offer has been calculated. That will form part of our consultation on the secondary legislation that will implement the Bill. We have to consult on several issues in order to take the Bill forward. However, I note that the hon. Member for Solihull has not held his breath; he is no longer in his place.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 140

  TENANCIES NOT AT LOW RENT
  Mr. Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in page 68, line 1, at end insert—
  '(a) after paragraph (a) insert—
  "(aa) the tenancy was granted for a term of years not exceeding 80 years".'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 62, in clause 142, page 68, line 37, at end insert—
  '(1A) Nothing in the omission from section 16 of the 1967 Act provided for by subsection (1)(a) above shall prejudice the operation of any provision of a private Act by which an interest in property

  937
  vested in a body for the benefit of the public may not be sold, leased, granted or otherwise disposed of otherwise than in accordance with that private Act.'.
  Mr. Cash: Amendment No. 88 is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who has raised an important constituency issue that arises out of the Bill.
  Amendment No. 62 was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale). Although it is interesting, I am not sure how it connects with amendment No. 88. I shall be interested in the hon. Gentleman's explanation, not least because I am curious to learn what type of private Acts the amendment refers to. He may reveal interesting facts about how the private Acts that he has in mind will operate.
  I return to the gravamen that led my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold to seek to amend the Bill. For a variety of reasons, it is a racing certainty that my hon. Friend will not be able to return to the House to deal with this issue, but I can do just that for him. His constituent Mr. Mason lives in Adlestrop in Moreton-in-Marsh, a place that I know well. As chairman of the Adlestrop residents' association, Mr. Mason has set out with great clarity his concerns about enfranchisement, which, as he says,
  "are not currently addressed by the Bill."
  The Minister may already have been in correspondence with Mr. Mason and, if she has, she will be thoroughly briefed on how to reply to the arguments of the Adlestrop residents' association, which I shall now set out. It is an interesting feature of the landscape of our parliamentary proceedings that we have an opportunity to focus on a problem that would otherwise be swept aside in ministerial correspondence.
  Mr. Mason says in his letter to my hon. Friend:
  "As you know, Adlestrop is a small village with some 70 adult inhabitants and is somewhat unusual in that it comprises a number of long leasehold properties. The freeholder of these properties is the Trustees of the Adlestrop Settlement. Apart from one freehold property, the remaining properties in the village are owned by the Adlestrop Trustees and are let on short term tenancies at an open market rent."
  There are currently 18 long leasehold properties and an almost identical number of properties that are let on short-term tenancies. The letter continues:
  "The 18 long leasehold properties fall into three different categories…There are properties where leases contain a Prince of Wales Clause and which qualify for enfranchisement under the 1993 Act."
  In light of that, perhaps we should consider whether the consent of the Prince of Wales or the Duchy of Lancaster should be signified to the proposal. However, such a technical question would only tickle the fancy of legal advisers.
  Mr. Mason then says:
  "There are properties where leases were not at a low rent but which now qualify for enfranchisement as a result of the Housing Act 1996…There are properties where leases are not at a low rent but which will not qualify for enfranchisement under the 1996 Act on account of the fact that the freehold of the property is owned together with adjoining land which is not occupied for residential purposes.' These properties would be enfranchiseable but for the exclusion of certain properties in rural areas contained in Section 1AA(3) Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which was of course introduced by the 1996 Act.
  938
  The pattern that was followed in Adlestrop is that long leases were granted on a number of properties in the early 1970s at a rent which was not a low rent. Subsequently, during the period between the mid 1970s and the late 1980s, leases appear to have been granted with Prince of Wales Clauses."
  Mr. Wiggin: Will my hon. Friend briefly explain what a Prince of Wales clause is?
  Mr. Cash: The Minister may be able to help, because I am not sure. As I understand it, a Prince of Wales clause is a special provision in Acts to save the rights, properties, privileges and liabilities of the Prince of Wales. [Interruption.] Would the Minister be good enough to repeat what she has just said from a sedentary position? Obviously not, and in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, I am afraid that I can only take a stab at it. Perhaps we can elucidate such matters in due course.
  The letter goes on to say:
  "Subsequently, from 1990 onwards leases have been granted with a formula which ensures that the lease is not at a low rent. I can let you have copies of leases for each category…The leases were granted at terms in excess of 99 years and in most cases were for a term of 120 years or more.
  In each case the properties were sold at a premium by the trustees. The only reason for the sale of the properties on long leases, rather than by way of the sale of the freehold, was to enable the freeholder to retain control over the development, character and amenity of the village. There is no prospect that the freeholder will wish to resume possession of any of the properties on expiry of the leases. In each case a substantial premium was paid on the grant of the lease which would have been broadly equivalent to the price on the sale of the freehold (reflecting the length of the lease). In layman's parlance, the properties were effectively sold. In most cases, the properties were in very bad repair or involved the sale of a building plot which was subsequently developed by the lessee. The lessees have therefore expended considerable sums on the properties.
  The control of the development, character and amenity of the village can of course be met equally through an Estate Management Scheme. An Estate Management Scheme was introduced in 1998 in anticipation of the eventual enfranchisement of a number of properties within the village."
  There are many estate management schemes for rural estates. It is by no means improbable that the problems faced by Adlestrop are also shared by others who live on estates that are owned by individual freeholders. It is surprising how many villages are in that situation and have properties that are let on the basis of similar arrangements which give rise to the problems that I have described. Unless the Minister has evidence to the contrary, I do not think that Adlestrop is an isolated case and, as my argument has a general application, I hope that I can help to elucidate some of the problems.
  The residents' association continues:
  "To date, only one property has been enfranchised. In that case enfranchisement took place by agreement between the parties outside the Act and prior to implementation of the Estate Management Scheme. The lack of enfranchisement reflects the fact that, where properties are enfranchiseable, lessees have been awaiting clarification of the marriage value issue"
  which Mr. Mason hopes will be resolved by the Bill. The letter says:
  "In other cases, properties are not enfranchiseable.
  The problems of Adlestrop were the subject of the debate in the House of Lords prior to enactment of the 1996 Act which resulted in introduction of the rural exemption provision. I understand that this was intended to avoid enfranchisement of country properties which had been let for more than 21 years at a rent in excess of the

  939
  low rent and where it was clearly anticipated that the freeholder may wish to regain possession of the property on the expiry of the lease. This is not a situation which is applicable to Adlestrop, but unfortunately the rural exemption extends to all leases over 35 years which are not at a low rent in designated rural areas."
  So the problems that Adlestrop faces are applicable elsewhere.
  The letter continues:
  "I understand that rural areas have been designated by the Secretary of State and which include Adlestrop.
  The end result so far as Adlestrop is concerned is that some properties are enfranchiseable whereas others are not."
  Mr. Mason then says:
  "You will be aware that the nature of the properties does not justify such a distinction."
  Shona McIsaac: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. At the eighth sitting of the Committee, I introduced new clause 13, which dealt with rural exemption. The Minister responded by saying that there is some sympathy with the desire to create a level playing field, but that she would need to consult first. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can convey that to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
  Mr. Cash: In a vicarious fashion, and given the charm of the hon. Lady's intervention, I am glad to endorse her comment. It is clear that there is a problem which the Minister may be prepared to address.
  There is, however, a further difficulty in relation to Adlestrop:
  "in the case of some of the properties which are not at a low rent, the application of the test as to whether the freehold of the property 'is owned together with adjoining land which is not occupied for residential purposes' is not clear. Consequently, it is not clear whether such properties are or are not excluded under section 1AA(3). This reflects the nature of the village and its properties."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold apparently met Mr. Mason and the then Minister with responsibility for such matters—the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford)—on 31 January 2001 to discuss the Adlestrop problem. Indeed, the Minister was also present at that meeting, so—unlike me—she is very familiar with the problem. It is in the nature of our affairs that we take a special interest in matters affecting our own constituencies. Had my hon. Friend been able to attend today's debate, I could have asked him exactly what went on at that meeting.
  7 pm
  According to Mr. Mason's letter, he suggested at that meeting
  "that a distinction should be drawn between properties which had been sold, albeit on long leases, and those which had been let on a long lease in anticipation that they may eventually revert to the freeholder."
  Apparently, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was sympathetic to the problem, and concurred that it needed to be addressed; according to Mr. Mason,
  "He suggested that an amendment should be proposed to the Bill which was then under consideration in the House of Lords. He suggested that I"—
  940
  Mr. Mason—
  "liaise with the Leasehold Advisory Service concerning the drafting of an appropriate clause. Unfortunately, they have not been able to be of any assistance due to pressure of work. The Bill was…then lost as a result of the General Election and has subsequently been reintroduced."
  Mr. Mason adds:
  "I would be surprised if there are a large number of properties in rural areas which have been let for a term in excess of 21 years, but which have not effectively been sold, and which therefore require the protection of the rural exemption, but it does appear…that there are at least some such properties which require protection. Presumably these may have been let at a rent which was not then a low rent in order that the leases of such properties should not be enfranchiseable. However, there are no such properties in Adlestrop.
  I suggest that the position of Adlestrop, and any other similar situations, can be met by a simple amendment to Section 1AA(3) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 by the addition of paragraph (d):
  '(d) The tenancy was granted for a term of years certain not exceeding 80 years'."
  Mr. Mason then proposes further amendments. His letter continues:
  "The purpose of the amendment is to draw a distinction between those properties which have been sold off and those which have merely been let. Accordingly, properties which are let for a term in excess of 80 years would be outside the rural exemption, whilst those let for a shorter term would remain within the rural exemption."

  Any infelicities in the amendments that we are considering would not alter the fact that a considerable problem exists, and it is surely not beyond the wit of parliamentary counsel to sort it out. Mr. Mason continues:
  "I would expect that any properties which are let with any reasonable prospect that they would revert to the freeholder would have been let for a term somewhat less than 80 years. I have suggested a term of 80 years in order to accord with the marriage value provision, although that is applicable to leases where the unexpired term is in excess of 80 years, whereas my suggested amendment refers—I think correctly—to the original term. If it was wished the length of term could instead be 90 years.
  Such an amendment would mean that all properties within Adlestrop would be enfranchiseable on the same terms. If such an amendment is not introduced there would be a continuing distinction between properties which are or are not enfranchiseable. Such a situation is clearly inappropriate in a small village such as Adlestrop.
  The amendment would not only address the present anomaly but would also do away with the current lack of clarity as to the status of certain properties in Adlestrop. However, it would not prejudice properties in rural areas which were let for less than 80 years and which would continue to be excluded by Section 1AA(3).
  There may be other similar situations to Adlestrop which would also be addressed by the amendment…I would hope that the Government would consider it appropriate to include such an amendment in the Bill."
  In her letter of 13 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, the Minister said:
  "It is most unfortunate that the Leasehold Advisory Service has been unable to assist your constituent, as we're now in a position that it will not be possible to complete the procedure he would expect before supporting an amendment such as your constituent would like to be made to the Bill.
  We do not think that it would be right to amend the law to meet the particular concerns of one class of interested party without first consulting all interested parties. Therefore, it is not something that we could realistically resolve at this late stage in the Bill's proceedings."
  We shall shortly consider an amendment—tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon—that relates to private Acts, but I should first point out that this important matter

  941
  can be resolved. I look to the Minister for an assurance that it will be resolved. It appears that the provision could take on the character of a hybrid provision, because it could affect certain persons in a manner different from other persons in that category. The Minister shakes her head and I am glad that she does—I simply thought on the spur of the moment that such a problem might exist. If no such problem exists, there is even less reason for not dealing with the matter by way of future assurances. The Minister shakes her head again—I find this process of mute exchange difficult to bear.
  The Minister's letter concludes as follows:
  "I'm sorry I can't give a more positive response. If your constituents would like to come and talk through their concerns, they would be welcome."
  I am glad to note that the Minister now nods her head.
  Shona McIsaac: I have listened carefully to the concerns of the residents of Adlestrop, but does the hon. Gentleman consider the Adlestrop question or the Schleswig-Holstein question the more difficult?
  Mr. Cash: I am pleased that the hon. Lady has asked such an incredibly perceptive question. In doing so, she has introduced a completely new dimension to the Schleswig-Holstein question, which establishes three categories of person: one who is dead, one who has forgotten, and one who has gone mad. However, it is not clear which category is relevant to this case. As I do not represent Cotswold, I do not know the details of this case, other than what is contained in Mr. Mason's extremely erudite letter on behalf of the Adlestrop residents' association. I am therefore unable to add anything to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold could have contributed himself.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Is there not a danger that the current residents of Adlestrop will themselves be dead before the matter is resolved? As I understand it, a meeting with the Minister took place 14 months ago, in January 2001. How much more time must elapse before the consultation period is brought to an end?
  Mr. Cash: I have great sympathy with what my right hon. Friend has just said. The Department is well aware of the issue, which has been discussed extensively for a long time. The Minister had to admit that, despite the sympathy expressed by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, the Leasehold Advisory Service was unable to deal with the issue. However, I consider the reasons given thoroughly unconvincing.
  Ms Keeble: The original intention was that the Leasehold Advisory Service might advise leaseholders on their individual circumstances, not that it should advise on the drafting of an amendment.
  Mr. Cash: That is no more convincing. The more the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to answer my points—and the more she sits and shakes her head—the more concerned I become. I am determined to divide the House on this issue, because it is very strange.
  Ms Keeble: If the hon. Gentleman had been so concerned, he could have met the constituents of the
  942
  hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and talked through the matter with them. He would then have had a much better grasp of all the issues involved in this complex case.
  Mr. Cash: I do not want to get into a slanging match with the Minister, but from the evidence that I have it is clear that the advisory service did a minimal job on this point. The Minister said that it was not for the advisory service to engage in drafting exercises, but this is not the most difficult undertaking. It is a matter of public interest that goes beyond Adlestrop, for the reasons that I have given.
  Ms Keeble: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should read the correspondence in his possession carefully, to see how many people in Adlestrop can be identified as having expressed an interest in enfranchising. That would give him some indication of the scale of the issue.
  Mr. Cash: The Minister implies that relatively few people are affected, but the issue is not a matter of special pleading in relation to Adlestrop. It may apply to a range of other people throughout the country. When I made that point earlier, the Minister nodded because she knows that the case raises questions on the rural exemption, which the hon. Member for Cleethorpes mentioned, and for many estates in country areas. Such situations could arise in many villages, so the Minister's response is not good enough. I do not wish to engage in a slanging match, but I am concerned that the hon. Lady is being obtuse. It would not be difficult to resolve the question. The hon. Lady has not replied to the debate yet, but I am not happy with the direction of her argument.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Is an injustice any less of an injustice if it affects only a few people?
  Mr. Cash: That is exactly my point. If the operation of the law in respect of a minority is defective, we have an opportunity to remedy the problem. I am increasingly concerned that the Minister has made a policy decision that the Government will not assist a relatively small number of people in Adlestrop with a problem that has arisen as a result of great complexity in the law. I do not doubt that it has cost the people in question considerable time and expense, but the problem has arisen because earlier legislation is defective. It is a matter of putting right something that is wrong.
  The hon. Member for Wimbledon is about to speak to amendment No. 62, dealing with private legislation. I have great experience of those matters and I can tell the Minister that private Acts have been introduced over and over again to deal with special cases that give rise to considerable difficulties in practice. Anomalies exist, and this issue is an example on which the Government could help out. Where is their sense of social justice?
  Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend agree that the letter from Mr. Mason states that the previous Minister—now the Minister for Local Government—accepted that the problem needed to be addressed? It appears that the Department's policy has changed, because the present Minister's predecessor—she shakes her head, but we have it in writing from Mr. Mason—agreed that the problem needed addressing.
  Mr. Cash: I shall not pursue the argument any further.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Wiggin: Following my unhelpful previous intervention, I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Bearing in mind the lack of complexity of amendment No. 88, what does he imagine the Minister would have said to the constituents she offered to meet when they came to talk through their concerns? Would she have tried to persuade them that they did not want to enfranchise? What advantage would the constituents have gained from meeting the Minister on such a straightforward amendment?
  Mr. Cash: That is a good question, and we have put it vicariously to the Minister, because she will have heard my hon. Friend's remarks. The mere fact that anomalies affect a limited number of rural areas is no reason—if the Government mean what they say about rural communities, social justice and playing fair with people—to resist the opportunity to remedy a defect in the law. The Bill is before the House and the amendment has been selected. Why will not the Government take the appropriate action? If they are not prepared to do so, we will divide the House on the question. I shall give the Minister the benefit of the doubt until she replies. She knows all about this matter, because she has already told us that she was at the meetings with the Minister for Local Government. I shall listen with great interest to her reply, but without prejudice to any comment I may wish to make on what the hon. Member for Wimbledon says on his mysterious and fascinating amendment.
  Roger Casale: Amendment No. 62 stands in my name, but I can confirm that I shall not seek to divide the House on it. I wish to seek some assurances from the Minister in relation to a matter that affects my constituents in Wimbledon, but I do not wish to detract from my overall support for the Bill in any way. I was unfortunately not called to speak on Second Reading and could not serve in Committee because of my commitments on another Committee. That is why I am raising this issue on Report.
  I am sure that the Minister will accept that I have been a champion of the Bill on behalf of many leaseholders in my constituency who wish to apply for the right to manage and, perhaps, eventually acquire freeholds. On behalf of Mrs. Robertson and the residents of Grosvenor Court, Langham Court and many other constituents, I strongly support the Bill
  Amendment No. 62 is compatible with the Bill's overall objectives. However, every new rule requires exceptions in particular circumstances. In this case, those circumstances arise in relation to a particular category of leaseholders in my constituency—those who lease property on Wimbledon common.

  To anticipate any possible interventions, I should say that I am not referring to the Wombles, because I have spent many happy hours with my young daughter looking for their houses so far without success.
  There are properties on Wimbledon common that are leased and are subject to a private Act. Like my constituents, and indeed the mythical Wombles, my daughter and I have been able to enjoy many happy hours roaming freely on Wimbledon common because the land is protected by that private Act.
  944
  Members who are familiar with the flight path into Heathrow from the east will know that just before planes fly over the neighbouring borough of Richmond, disturbing the residents' sleeping patterns, they fly over a vast green space in south-west London which is Wimbledon common. It is green space because it has not been sold off for development, and that is because it has been protected since 1871 by the private Act.
  The private Act is an Act of Parliament that safeguards private property for the public benefit. It allows the property to be leased, but the freehold is held inalienably under its provisions. The Act concerned is the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1871. Like many other 19th-century statutes governing open spaces, the Act provides that the commons are to be maintained for the benefit of the public and, in consequence, prohibits the sale of any part of them. Hon. Members will appreciate that the prohibition on sale is intended as a guarantee against alienation of the land.
  In anticipation of my speech, hon. Members have asked about the background to the Act. It goes back to when the railway came to Wimbledon and many people sought to move to the area, so there was a premium on the land. Earlier laws and rights going back to feudal times meant that local people could gather firewood and graze their cattle on Wimbledon common. New house owners, who were not themselves dependent on grazing cattle and collecting firewood, were nevertheless aware of those rights, and they came to Parliament and had the rights enshrined in the 1871 Act.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman know which railway it is?
  Roger Casale: It is the railway line that goes through Wimbledon station.
  Mr. Cash: Which one?
  Roger Casale: It is the line that goes into London Waterloo. Before we get distracted—in Committee we heard long treatises about railway stations and embankments throughout the country—I want to emphasise the uniqueness of the provisions enshrined in the 1871 Act.
  We in Wimbledon are proud of the tradition that led to the Act and grateful for the measures that have allowed people to enjoy the commons since that time. Clause 142 abolishes the current bar on a tenant who has been granted an extended lease on a property having a claim to the freehold. It so happens that there is a property on Wimbledon common that is held on an extended lease. It might therefore be argued that even though the 1871 Act provides that no part of the commons can be sold, clause 142 trumps that provision and entitles the leaseholder to claim the freehold. Such an outcome would be extremely unfortunate because it would mean that part of the commons would be alienated.

  The amendment seeks to put the issue beyond doubt by providing explicitly that clause 142 does not allow the acquisition of the freehold of property held inalienably under a private Act such as the 1871 Act. As I said, I believe the amendment to be consistent with the Government's overall objectives. The consultation paper that preceded the Bill recognised the potential difficulty

  945
  over property held inalienably for the public's benefit under such private Acts. It compared the position with that of properties held by the National Trust, noting in paragraph 92:
  "Both the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 make specific exemptions from leasehold law for properties owned by the National Trust. It is not possible to enfranchise a house or a block of flats or to renew the lease of an individual flat where the property is on land which has been declared inalienable by the National Trust. These provisions are necessary to prevent the Trust losing control of properties which it holds for the nation under powers granted to it by Parliament".
  The Government recognised that the position of other properties might not be entirely clear and stated in paragraph 94 of the consultation paper that they were
  "minded to apply the exemptions enjoyed by the National Trust to other properties held and protected under Acts of Parliament."
  The paper indicated, however, that there might be difficulties concerning the ability to identify all properties that could or should be caught by such an exception. I recognise that difficulty and I have tried to counter it in the wording of the amendment.
  I appreciate that the absence of provision in the Bill is consistent with the assumption that provisions in private Acts that prohibit the sale of property held for public benefit will continue to govern, making an amendment unnecessary. Whatever the explanation, I should be grateful for the Minister's reassurance that it is not the Bill's intention to override private Acts that prevent the sale of land held for the public benefit in circumstances such as those that exist on Wimbledon common.
  In Wimbledon, where so many of us depend on the common for leisure and recreation, we do not want to start to undo the work that was started 150 years ago to protect the common for the enjoyment of the community.
  Ms Keeble: The amendments deal with very specific circumstances involving individual Members' constituency interests. Amendment No. 88 would limit the rural exemption to cases in which the lease was originally granted for less than 80 years. The matter was raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who is not here, and the amendment was inspired by the circumstances of Adlestrop.
  I note that several Conservative Members have entered the Chamber and are making all kinds of remarks about the matter. I assure them that, unlike their spokesman, I have not only exchanged correspondence with the people concerned but had a meeting with them at which the issues were discussed in some detail. I told them that it would not be possible for the Government to amend the Bill to support their position. However, it may help if I go through some of the issues.
  Mr. Cash: We all understand the constraints on the Commons Report stage of a Bill that was introduced in the Lords. Although obviously we hope that the amendment will be made, which is why we shall divide the House, the question is whether the Minister is prepared to give an assurance that the problem will be dealt with in future legislation if the Government are not minded to accept the amendment.
  Ms Keeble: If the hon. Gentleman had considered the issue before coming here and simply reading out the letter
  946
  that he had been given, he would understand exactly why it is not possible to deal with the matter in the Bill. That has nothing to do with how long people have known about the matter; it has to do with the circumstances of the individual case.
  It is not clear from the discussions that my predecessor and I had with the hon. Member for Cotswold and a representative of the leaseholder whether the Adlestrop leaseholders are caught by the rural exemption, which, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) rightly says, is the point in question. The leaseholders were directed to the Leasehold Advisory Service, not to get an amendment drafted—that is not the role of the service—but to get advice on their existing rights and on whether they would be entitled to enfranchisement under existing legislation, let alone under the Bill. As I said, it is not clear whether they are caught by the rural exemption; that is a point on which they must seek legal advice. It would he irresponsible of any Government to introduce a provision whose effect was not fully understood, not only by us but by the people in question, who may not have not determined whether they are entitled to the franchise.
  7.30 pm
  We have no way of knowing the amendment's full effect or who would be affected by it. The provision would limit rural exemption in cases when the lease was originally granted for less than 80 years; the length of different leases provided at Adlestrop would have to be determined exactly. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stone has that information in the letter that he was given, but I certainly have not seen it. It is not clear whether the people of Adlestrop want to enfranchise, nor whether there have been any discussions with the landlord. It is not clear how they are affected by different pieces of legislation and whether they are affected by rural exemptions. We are not willing to change a law with a national application to meet the concerns of certain people—and I do not believe that Members of Parliament would want us to do so—when we do not know how many people are affected; we do not know how many people in that settlement are involved and even whether they would be affected by the measure. There has not even been any consultation on the matter.
  That said, as the hon. Member for Cotswold is aware, I recently received detailed correspondence from a representative of the Adlestrop leaseholders. Although he is not here, I can assure him that I will make sure that the matter is dealt with as helpfully and fully as possible. I shall give our view on whether those properties are exempt or not, which will involve getting a fair amount of information that so far has not been forthcoming.
  Shona McIsaac: Much has been made in our debate about the clause on rural exemption. I have had a chance to look at the Minister's words in Committee, and I hope that she will reiterate her message tonight, so that people are clear where she and the Government stand. She told the Committee that the Government
  "have some sympathy for the suggestion that the rural exemption should be amended so that it is better targeted".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24 January 2002; c. 212.]

  947
  She went on to say that interested parties should be consulted before that was done. If she will repeat that message clearly for the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), he may be reassured arid not divide the House so that we could get on and discuss forfeiture.
  Ms Keeble: I am happy to repeat my previous assurances, although I do not believe that that will have any effect on the Opposition—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stone may make rude remarks, but the Opposition are not even remotely familiar with the case that they have raised. They have not provided any evidence that they know how many properties in Adlestrop would be affected by the measure and how many leaseholders want to enfranchise. They have received a letter from one person, but that is all. They are not proposing to abolish rural exemption, but to deal with properties with a lease of less than 80 years. They do not even know how many properties would be affected.
  Mr. Cash: The Minister is getting unnecessarily personal.
  Ms Keeble: I said, "They".
  Mr. Cash: All right. I simply note that there is a certain stroppiness in relation to Adlestrop.
  We now have conclusive evidence in the form of the allegations that the Minister has just made, which I do not dispute. However, I have provided the best description that I can of the circumstances, with which I was furnished by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). The Minister has proved that there is a fourth category in the Schleswig-Holstein question—a Government who do not know the answer.
  Ms Keeble: That is nonsense. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Cotswold is not here. He has represented fairly his constituents' interests, but they have not been advanced in this evening's discussion. As I have said repeatedly, and as I told the representative of the Adlestrop leaseholders, we are prepared to look at further information. At our meeting with the representative and the hon. Member for Cotswold, there was not a lot of information available about the circumstances of all the properties in Adlestrop and the consequences of any change to the law for the settlement, let alone anywhere else.
  I shall now deal with amendment No. 62. I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on the Bill and its importance to his constituents. The amendment would exempt all land held under local Acts of Parliament from the provisions of clause 142. As Members will know, clause 142 amends the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to allow leaseholders who have extended their lease to buy their freehold or to benefit from security of tenure when that lease comes to an end. Currently, people who extend their leases under the 1967 Act are left in an unfavourable position. Once the extended lease begins, they lose the right to enfranchise for ever. Moreover, when the extended lease ends, they have no security of tenure and may face eviction from their home, which is unduly harsh. If a leaseholder can afford to pay a fair price for the leasehold of their home, they should be entitled to buy it. If instead they are prepared to pay the appropriate rent for the property after their lease comes to an end, they should be able to stay in their home as renting tenants.
  948
  The clause will amend section 16 of the 1967 Act accordingly. The new rights will apply to leases that have already been extended as well as those extended after the Bill has come into force. My hon. Friend said that the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators were concerned that land that they hold under a local Act will be adversely affected by the clause. We are sympathetic to those concerns, but clause 142 will not in fact have the effect that he suggested. As I said, it affects the position of leaseholders who have already taken advantage of the provisions of the 1967 Act to extend their leases. They will now be able to use the provisions of that Act to acquire the freehold, but clause 142 does not confer any additional rights on such leaseholders; if they were previously unable to acquire the freehold because the landlord was unable to dispose of it, the situation remains unchanged. We do not consider it appropriate to do anything that could take away any rights that tenants currently enjoy under the 1967 Act.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the consultation paper that my Department issued in August 2000 which made reference to that particular problem. However, only the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators have identified any property that would be affected by the new provisions. As I said, we do not consider it appropriate to do anything that could take away any rights that tenants currently enjoy under the 1967 Act. If the Bill mentioned a local Act and made provision for it to be treated differently from anything similar, we would risk making the Bill a hybrid, which would obviously wreck it. We do not want to do that. My hon. Friend said that he supports the Bill in principle and is definitely not a wrecker.
  On the basis of my response, I invite my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Stone not to press their amendments.
  Mr. Cash: I shall be brief because we have discussed the problem at length. I am glad that the Minister recognised that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) could lead to hybridity. There is another problem, as private Acts could also apply to land in Epping Forest, the New Forest and many other places.
  We are not at all convinced by the arguments that the Minister advanced with regard to Adlestrop, and we intend to press the amendment to a Division.
  Roger Casale: I wish to put it on record that I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the assurances that she has given in respect of the matter that I raised
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 325.

  Division No. 194]

  [7.39 pm

  ayes

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Burt, Alistair

  Bacon, Richard

  Cameron, David

  Barker, Gregory

  Cash, William

  Baron, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Bercow, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Chope, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Collins, Tim

  949

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cran, James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mercer, Patrick

  Dodds, Nigel

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fallon, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Flook, Adrian

  Paterson, Owen

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Prisk, Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Randall, John

  Francois, Mark

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gale, Roger

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gibb, Nick

  Ruffley, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gray, James

  Selous, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hayes, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Spink, Bob

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hoban, Mark

  Steen, Anthony

  Horam, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Swire, Hugo

  Hunter, Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Key, Robert

  Tredinnick, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Trend, Michael

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Walter, Robert

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lansley, Andrew

  Watkinson, Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Whittingdale, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Wiggin, Bill

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Wilkinson, John

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Willetts, David

  Lidington, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Mr. Charles Hendry.

  noes

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bryant, Chris

  Allan, Richard

  Burgon, Colin

  Allen, Graham

  Burnett, John

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burnham, Andy

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Burstow, Paul

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Barrett, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Benton, Joe

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Berry, Roger

  Caplin, Ivor

  Betts, Clive

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Blackman, Liz

  Casale, Roger

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cawsey, Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Challen, Colin

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Chaytor, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Clapham, Michael

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Clelland, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cohen, Harry

  950

  Corston, Jean

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cotter, Brian

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cruddas, Jon

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cummings, John

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  David, Wayne

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Joyce, Eric

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

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Keetch, Paul

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Doran, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Doughty, Sue

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Efford, Clive

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lamb, Norman

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lammy, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Fisher, Mark

  Laws, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lepper, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Flynn, Paul

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Foulkes, George

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Love, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  Lucas, Ian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lyons, John

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCafferry, Chris

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gilroy, Linda

  MacDonald, Calum

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonnell, John

  Goggins, Paul

  MacDougall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grogan, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McKechin, Ann

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hanson, David

  McNulty, Tony

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  MacShane, Denis

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Havard, Dai

  McWalter, Tony

  Healey, John

  McWilliam, John

  Heath, David

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heppell, John

  Mann, John

  Hermon, Lady

  Marris, Rob

  Heyes, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hill, Keith

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Holmes, Paul

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Martlew, Eric

  Hope, Phil

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meale, Alan

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Merron, Gillian

  951

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Miliband, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mole, Chris

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

  Moore, Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Moran, Margaret

  Southworth, Helen

  Morgan, Julie

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Mudie, George

  Squire, Rachel

  Mullin, Chris

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stunell, Andrew

  Olner, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Owen, Albert

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Perham, Linda

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Picking, Anne

  Thurso, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Timms, Stephen

  Pike, Peter

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Plaskitt, James

  Trickett, Jon

  Pond, Chris

  Truswell, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Price, Adam

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tyler, Paul

  Purnell, James

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rammell, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rapson, Syd

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Watson, Tom

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Watts, David

  Rendel, David

  White, Brian

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Roy, Frank

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Ruane, Chris

  Willis, Phil

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wills, Michael

  Salter, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wood, Mike

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Sawford, Phil

  Wray, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wyatt, Derek

  Simon, Siôn

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Dan Norris.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 141
  PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
  Amendment made: No. 45, in page 68, line 27, leave out "one year" and insert "two years".—[Ms Keeble.]
Clause 150
  CONSULTATION ABOUT SERVICE CHARGES
  Amendment made: No. 60, in page 71, line 25, leave out Clause 150.—[Ms Keeble.]
Clause 151

  STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT
  Ms Keeble: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 73, line 40, at end insert—
  'required to be supplied under this section.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 47, 49, 51 and 59.
  Ms Keeble: This is a minor consequential amendment made in light of new clause 11, which provides for leaseholders to be sent a summary of their rights and obligations in relation to service charges whenever they are sent a service charge demand. New clause 11 also gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe the form and content of such summaries. Clause 151 requires leaseholders to be sent a summary of their rights and obligations in relation to service charges, but these summaries are to be sent out with leaseholders' annual accounting statements, and the Secretary of State would also have power to prescribe their form and content. The amendment makes it clear that the power granted by clause 151 applies only to documents that landlords are required by the clause to supply.
  Government amendments Nos. 47 and 51 could be termed the Daejan amendments. Last July, the case of Daejan Properties Ltd. v. London leasehold valuation tribunal was brought before the Court of Appeal. Subsequently, the court ruled that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid except in certain very limited circumstances. We consider that decision to be most unfortunate from the viewpoint of both leaseholders and landlords. As leaseholders become aware of its effect, they may be inclined to withhold service charges until they are certain that those charges are reasonable, because it may otherwise prove very difficult for them to launch any challenge. In turn, that will create problems for managers of leasehold property, who may find it increasingly difficult to obtain payments in advance and be reluctant to commence work without them.
  We have already taken steps to ensure that under clause 151, LVTs will have a clear power to rule on service charges that have already been paid. However, last month we were informed that the London LVT had been refused leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal decision on the Daejan case. In light of that development, we decided to take another look at clause 151 to see whether there was any possibility, however remote, that it might be construed as giving LVTs the jurisdiction to rule only on unpaid service charges. We decided that it might be advisable to table a further amendment to put the matter beyond any possible doubt. Government amendment No. 47 would achieve that end.
  The Bill also gives LVTs a new jurisdiction to rule on administration charges. Again, we consider it important to make it clear that LVTs are to have the jurisdiction to rule

  953
  on administration charges that have already been paid as well as those that are still outstanding. Government amendment No. 51 achieves that aim.
  Government amendment No. 49 is a drafting amendment. Schedule 11 currently contains a definition of a fixed administration charge, but the only place where the term "fixed administration charge" is used in the Bill is in the definition of "variable administration charge". Therefore, the amendment replaces those definitions with a new definition of variable service charge, thus simplifying the provision. Government amendment No. 59 corrects an error in the drafting of schedule 14.
  I commend the amendments to the House.
  Mr. Cash: In the circumstances, I have no points to make on this group of amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 153

  LIABILITY TO PAY SERVICE CHARGES: JURISDICTION
  Amendment made: No. 47, in page 76, line 31, at end insert—
  '(1A) Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made.'.—[Ms Keeble.]

Clause 154

  SERVICE CHARGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE HELD IN SEPARATE ACCOUNT
  Amendment made: No. 48, in page 78, line 31, at end insert—
  '(9A) Nothing in this section applies to the payee if the circumstances are such as are specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.—[Ms Keeble.]

Schedule 11

  ADMINISTRATION CHARGES
  Amendment made: No. 49, in page 124, line 23, leave out from "Schedule" to end of line 28 and insert—
  '"variable administration charge" means an administration charge payable by a tenant which is neither—

  (a) Specified in his lease, nor

  (b) calculated in accordance with a formula specified in his lease.'.—[Ms Keeble.]

  Ms Keeble: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 125, line 12, at end insert—
  'Notice in connection with demands for administration charges
  3A (1) A demand for the payment of an administration charge must be accompanied by a summary of the rights and obligations of tenants of dwellings in relation to administration charges.
  (2) The appropriate national authority may make regulations prescribing requirements as to the form and content of such summaries of rights and obligations.
  (3) A tenant may withhold payment of an administration charge which has been demanded from him if sub-paragraph (1) is not complied with in relation to the demand.
  954
  (4) Where a tenant withholds an administration charge under this paragraph, any provisions of the lease relating to non-payment or late payment of administration charges do not have effect in relation to the period for which he so withholds it.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
  Government new clause 9—Failure to pay small amount for short period.
  Government new clause l0—Power to prescribe additional or different requirements.
  Government new clause 11—Notice to accompany demands for service charges.
  New clause 3—Abolition of forfeiture—
  'A right of re-entry or forfeiture under any proviso or stipulation in a lease of a dwelling for a breach of covenant or condition in the lease shall not be enforceable by action or otherwise.'.
  New clause 6—Balance of proceeds of forfeiture to be paid to leaseholder—
  '() Where a forfeiture action is successful, after deduction of all debts any balance shall be paid to the leaseholder.'.
  New clause 8—Restrictions on and relief against forfeiture of leases and underleases—
  '. In section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (c. 20) (restriction on forfeiture) there is inserted—
  (4A) Where the court has made an order for forfeiture pursuant to subsections (1) to (4) above, any balance remaining after the payment of the lessee's debts owed to the lessor shall be paid to the lessee".'.
  New clause 19—Leases exceeding 21 years—
  '.—(1) This section shall apply to any lease granted for a term of years certain exceeding 21 years, whether or not it is terminable before the end of the term by notice given by or to the tenant or by re-entry, forfeiture or otherwise and whether made before or after the coming into force of this section, where the rent reserved for the time being is less than £1,000 per annum.
  (2) In this section a right of forfeiture shall mean a provision in a lease whereby the landlord under a lease has a right to re-enter the premises demised (or part thereof) upon the happening of specified events, whether the right to re-enter is expressed as a condition or as a proviso on breach of covenant or otherwise howsoever.
  (3) No landlord may re-enter the premises demised (nor any part thereof) pursuant to a right of forfeiture, insofar as the exercise of the right of forfeiture is based on the non-payment of money.
  (4) Where a tenant fails to pay monies payable under the terms of the lease, the person entitled to payment of the said monies shall be entitled to a first legal charge (herein referred to as a "landlord's charge") over the lease for the monies payable and for his reasonable costs and expenses of and in connection with the landlord's charge and the enforcement thereof, such costs and expenses to be payable on the indemnity basis.
  (5) Subject to the next subsection, a landlord's charge shall have priority to all charges, underleases and other encumbrances estates easements estoppels and rights of whatever description created by or deriving title from or through the tenant, whether at law or in equity and whether created or existing before or after the coming into force of this Act (hereinafter referred to as "subsidiary interests").
  (6) Notwithstanding the previous subsection, no local land charge within the meaning of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 shall be a subsidiary interest.
  (7) Subject to the next subsection, a landlord's charge may be enforced in any manner in which a first legal charge may be enforced.
  (8) The landlord's charge may only be enforced by sale with leave of the High Court or the County Court.
  (9) On such a sale, the purchaser shall purchase free from all subsidiary interests.
  (10) Where a landlord's charge has no reasonably realisable commercial value, the landlord may apply to the High Court or the County Court for an order terminating the lease, but such an order shall not release the tenant from any pre-existing obligation under the lease.
  (11) Any person holding any subsidiary interest shall be entitled to have subrogated to him the landlord's charge on payment of the sums secured by the landlord's charge and shall be entitled to add his reasonable costs and expenses of and in connection the said exercise of the right of subrogation to the landlord's charge, such costs and expenses to be assessed on the indemnity basis.
  (12) Where more than one person holding a subsidiary interest wishes to have subrogated to him the landlord's charge, the priority as between such persons shall be determined in accordance with the rules of equity.
  (13) Where on a sale of the lease pursuant to subsection (8) hereof, there is a surplus after payment of all the monies secured by the landlord's charge, the distribution of the said surplus shall be made in accordance with the rules of equity.
  (14) Rules of Court shall provide for service on the tenant and on persons holding subsidiary interests of any application made pursuant to subsection (8) hereof for leave to enforce the landlord's charge by sale and for the circumstances in which such service may be dispensed with.
  (15) Notwithstanding the provisions in subsections (4) and (11) hereof permitting the adding of costs and expenses to the landlord's charge, the High Court and the County Court shall have the power to make in substitution for the said provisions some different order as to incidence, basis and amount of the costs and expenses of the holder of the landlord's charge and of the lessee and of any other person where such different order would be just.
  (16) The figure for the annual rental specified in subsection (1) hereof may be varied from time to time by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
  (17) Nothing herein shall affect the validity or effect of a forfeiture of a lease, whether by re-entry on or service of originating process seeking to re-enter the premises demised (or part thereof) or otherwise, effected before the coming into effect of this section.
  (18) "Lease" in this section shall include underleases and "landlord" and "tenant" shall be construed accordingly.
  (19) The existence or potential existence of a landlord's charge shall not prevent any person who is restricted or prohibited whether by statute or otherwise from lending money save on the security of a first legal charge from lending money on the security of a charge which, but for the existence or potential existence of the landlord's charge, would have been a first legal charge.'.
  Amendment No. 26, in clause 163, page 84, line 14, leave out Clause 163.
  Amendment No. 27, in clause 164, page 84, line 39, leave out Clause 164.
  Amendment No. 28, in clause 165, page 85, line 43, leave out Clause 165.
  Amendment No. 67, in page 86, line 1, after "(1)", insert—
  '(a) for the words "exercise a right of re-entry or forfeiture" substitute "enforce a landlord's charge"; and
  (b)'.
  Amendment No. 64, in page 86, line 9, leave out—
  'exercise a right of re-entry or forfeiture'
  and insert "enforce a landlord's charge.".
  Amendment No. 63, in page 86, line 27, leave out subsection (5).
  Government amendments Nos. 61 and 58.
  Ms Keeble: The Government amendments and new clauses deal with issues that hon. Members will have been
  956
  anxious to speak about for a long time this evening. They all relate to forfeiture, which I know is a matter of great concern to hon. Members in all parts of the house and is one of the factors that has brought the whole leasehold tenure system into a certain amount of disrepute.
  It might be helpful if I set out some of the background before moving on to the details of the proposals, which go a long way towards tightening up existing arrangements. I hope that they will reassure hon. Members that the Government have listened carefully to the concerns that have been expressed, especially in Committee and on Second Reading, and have worked hard to find a way of taking matters forward and providing further safeguards.
  The Government accept the widespread concerns about the forfeiture system. On Second Reading, we heard about some distressing examples of leaseholders who had fallen foul of the system. Forfeiture is a draconian penalty and many people feel that it is unfair that a leaseholder can lose their home, possibly for the non-payment of a relatively modest debt, while the landlord obtains a large windfall profit.
  8 pm

  Some hon. Members who spoke to me about that during the discussions that took place seemed to be unaware that that is the current position and has been so for some time. The Bill includes several provisions that improve the situation, and the Government amendments and new clauses will further improve it. The Bill contains measures restricting freeholders' ability to use forfeiture and the amendments and new clauses will provide further safeguards for leaseholders. In effect, they mean that forfeiture will operate only as a sanction of last resort for leaseholders who wilfully refuse to pay money that they rightfully owe to the freeholder. We have given great thought to those measures since the Bill was debated on Second Reading and especially since it was considered in Committee. I shall give some of the background to the proposals and explain the extent to which they protect leaseholders from any continuing abuse by freeholders.
  Although forfeiture has remained a sanction for freeholders, its draconian nature has meant that in practice the courts have been reluctant to grant it unless the leaseholder has failed to take advantage of opportunities to remedy matters. However, difficult cases arise, some of which have led to concerns being expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Moreover, forfeiture has enabled landlords to practise a variety of abuses, including using it as a threat to extract money from vulnerable leaseholders. The Government put their mind to that problem and the amendments and new clauses deal with those issues.
  In December 1999, following the Government's consultation paper on residential leasehold reform in 1998, we published a document entitled, "Leasehold Reform: the Way Forward", in which we announced that we intended to replace forfeiture with a fairer regime. Hon. Members—mostly Conservative Members—have accused us of reneging on those commitments, but that is not so. The document proposed that determination of facts would be separated from repossession proceedings; that penalties for late payment of ground rent and other administration charges would have to be reasonable; that leaseholders would have the right to challenge the reasonableness of any such charge before a leasehold

  957
  valuation tribunal; and that ground rent would not be recoverable unless demanded and there would be a period of grace before any additional charge could be made. The Bill will implement all—I repeat, all—those proposals.
  We also proposed that where the landlord obtained possession, the leaseholder should be compensated for the loss of leasehold interest after deducting moneys owed to the landlord. That remains our long-term aim. However, although the concept may seem relatively simple, legally and practically it is a complex matter. When we drafted the Bill we considered the issue carefully, but reluctantly came to the conclusion that we could not resolve all the complexities without delaying the Bill's introduction. The Bill implements all the proposals in "Leasehold Reform: the Way Forward" except, owing to practical difficulties, the proposal on deducting moneys. As the Bill extends many other benefits to leaseholders, it is right to proceed with it.

  The complexities surrounding the provision of the new regime cannot be properly resolved by a single new clause such as those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) or the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). Instead, we decided to focus our attention on the main abuses associated with forfeiture, including using it as a threat to extract payment and exploiting leaseholders' fear of challenging unreasonable charges or breaches of covenant that are unfounded. Hon. Members on both sides of the House cited examples of such cases that they have had to deal with in their constituencies.
  Let me explain how the Bill will set about ending those abuses. The provisions are scattered throughout the Bill and we did not debate the relevant clauses in Committee, so we have not yet considered their impact. Clause 162 provides that forfeiture proceedings cannot be brought against a long leaseholder for non-payment of ground rent unless the landlord has issued a written demand and the rent has remained unpaid for more than 30 days. Regulations will prescribe the form and content of the demand and we intend that they will include a requirement clearly to spell out leaseholders' rights.
  Clauses 163 and 164 prevent the commencement of forfeiture proceedings for breaches of covenant—including the issue of notices under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which are often phrased in threatening terms—unless a leasehold valuation tribunal or court has determined that a leaseholder is actually in breach of their lease and has been given a period to rectify the matter.
  Clause 165 similarly prevents the commencement of proceedings for non-payment of service charges or administration charges unless a leasehold valuation tribunal or court has determined that the sums claimed are legally payable and reasonable.
  Those are important measures that will dramatically reduce the scope of unscrupulous landlords in exploiting leaseholders' fears. They also deal with issues related to debt and with other breaches of covenant such as persistent antisocial behaviour or littering or dumping in communal areas. Much of the discussion of forfeiture has revolved around payment of debt, but it can also arise as a result of other breaches of covenant, so the regime must deal with those as well.
  958
  In effect, the Bill provides for a two-stage legal process—first, to go to the tribunal to establish whether there has been a breach of the terms of the lease and, secondly, to go to the courts for approval for forfeiture.
  Permanent elimination of abuses of forfeiture would require its complete abolition, as proposed in new clause 3. In considering such a measure, we must accept that managers of leasehold properties need an effective means of redress against those who fail to comply with the terms of the lease. Unfortunately, some leaseholders refuse to pay their fair share of the cost of maintaining their block or estate, no matter how reasonable those charges may be, or carry out structurally damaging repairs—for example, demolishing internal load-bearing walls or taking similar actions that damage the property interests of other leaseholders and of the freeholder. We discussed earlier the importance of ensuring that there is proper financing to pay for the maintenance of property.
  One of the advantages of the leasehold system is that it provides a means of enforcing certain rules on a group of individuals living in a community, whether it be in a block of flats or on a housing estate. Simply abolishing forfeiture in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) in new clause 3 would seriously undermine that system. Leasehold management companies, which are unlikely to have a substantial capital reserve, are particularly vulnerable if irresponsible leaseholders fail to pay their fair share. Other leaseholders may suffer the consequences of essential repairs not being carried out through lack of funds. Ordinary civil debt recovery or injunction proceedings are lengthy and not always effective against those who are determined to avoid their responsibilities. We would need to replace forfeiture with an alternative that provided an effective enforcement mechanism, but without the same scope for abuse.
  Mr. Sanders: Can the Minister explain why the proposals on commonhold include a provision that prevents the right of forfeiture?
  Ms Keeble: The answer is that commonhold and leasehold are two different types of tenure.
  As I have said repeatedly during our consideration of the Bill, creating an alternative to forfeiture is not a simple matter. Indeed, the Law Commission has been wrestling with the problem for many years, and its work has now reached an advanced stage. It has been developing proposals to abolish forfeiture across the board. One of the major objections to forfeiture is that, in the rare cases in which a lease is forfeited, the leaseholder is left with nothing. That can be a draconian penalty. To avoid this, the Law Commission is considering the scope for providing that a long lease be assigned to a third party, and for the value of that lease to be shared out. That would remove the unfairness of the current system, in which all the value passes to the landlord. The commission is also considering the scope for imposing penalties when landlords act improperly.
  Hon. Members have repeatedly expressed concern about the length of time the Law Commission has taken on this project, and have asked when we might expect to see the results. I understand that the commission plans to put forward revised proposals for consultation during late spring or early summer, with a view to preparing a draft

  959
  Bill during the 2002–03 Session. I very much hope that this will produce a fairer and workable solution in the longer term.
  The hon. Member for Stone has tried to pre-empt the Law Commission's work with his new clause 19. I recognise some of the thinking behind his new clause from our consideration of possible alternatives to forfeiture, and he has no doubt borrowed from the Government's work. He has failed to achieve his goal, however, because his new clause has run into the same problems as our own work did, and into even greater ones. It leaves completely unresolved a number of practical and technical issues, which is why the Government cannot accept it.
  I do not want to run through all our concerns on the new clause—that would take far too long, and I recognise that other hon. Members wish to speak—but I shall deal with just one, to demonstrate how unworkable it would be, and what chaos it would introduce into the system. Subsection (13) proposes that any surplus should be distributed in accordance with the rules of equity. Equity, as the hon. Gentleman must know, is not a set of rules but a broad legal principle, and it is far too vague to determine the basis of apportionment. Given the proven track record of many of those who abuse the forfeiture process at present, it is essential that there is no room for argument over such a fundamental issue. The hon. Gentleman completely fails to set out who would make the distribution. Should it be the landlord or the court? To be workable, any provision would have to spell out clear, unambiguous rules and procedures for all foreseeable circumstances, and specify how disputes were to he resolved.
  A further weakness that the hon. Gentleman might not have realised is that the new clause applies only to forfeiture for debts—for failure to pay money. It would have no effect on the widespread abuses relating to use of forfeiture for other breaches of leases, such as the failure to obtain consent for buildings—an issue raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby). Unlike the Government's new clause 9, which I will describe shortly, it does not prevent the use of forfeiture for small sums, so leaseholders could face the prospect of the forced sale of their homes for non-payment of small amounts if they did not respond to proceedings.
  At this late stage in the Bill's progress, there is no scope for us to consider this matter further, or subsequently to introduce a revised new clause. In any case, we could not contemplate introducing such a major change to property law without full consultation with all interested parties. For example, in making any changes to property law, we would need to be satisfied that they would not affect the ability or willingness of lenders to provide mortgages.
  We have discussed briefly the proposed new clause with the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Its initial response was that the proposal was far too hurried and would need detailed consideration and guidance. It was also concerned that the measure could lead to an escalation of costs, which would be added to the landlord's charge, thereby eroding mortgagees' security. That could lead to lenders being reluctant to lend a high proportion of the value on leasehold properties, which would clearly not be in the interests of current or prospective leaseholders.
  960
  I shall now move on to the Government's amendments. As I said in Committee, we have considered carefully the strength of feeling on this important issue, and the desire for further measures in the Bill to deliver better protection for leaseholders. We have proposed further safeguards for leaseholders, and I would like to explain the additional safeguards that these amendments would provide.
  8.15 pm
  To assist hon. Members in understanding the extent of the new safeguards that the existing provisions, and these new ones, would extend to leaseholders, officials have helpfully drawn up a flow chart of the steps that freeholders would need to follow before a leasehold property could be forfeit. These have been laid in the Library, and hon. Members may consult them at their leisure. They will see the extensive range of steps that a freeholder would have to follow. The flow chart illustrates this rather complex process, which is far removed from the simple procedure that it is sometimes thought to be. Almost all the safeguards in the flow chart arise from the Bill and the Government's amendments.
  New clause 9 is intended to prevent the use of forfeiture for small amounts of money. Forfeiture proceedings would be prohibited unless the amount outstanding exceeded a prescribed sum or unless the amount, or any part of it, had been outstanding for more than a prescribed period. This is designed to deal with the problem of ground rent grazers, and of people losing their homes for the sake of small amounts of money, or being frightened by demands for the money and paying up.
  In the Bill, the prescribed sum is set at £500. The level at which it would be introduced would be set by regulation, and we would consult on that, although our current thinking is that it should be set at about £350 in the first instance. That is the kind of sum that hon. Members have suggested in discussions. We would expect to set the prescribed period at about three years. That would make forfeiture unavailable for amounts of less than £350, unless they had been outstanding for more than three years.
  Regulations made under the power would be subject to the affirmative procedure by virtue of amendment No. 58, so there would be an opportunity to examine the matter closely, and to debate it at some length. Administration charges and penalties for non-payment of an outstanding amount will not be taken into account in determining whether the prescribed sum has been exceeded. This would prevent landlords trying to evade the provision by adding further charges to push the total above the prescribed sum. I am sure that all hon. Members will see the logic of that.
  New clause 10 deals with an abuse repeatedly mentioned by hon. Members in Committee. The proposal is intended to protect vulnerable leaseholders, such as those who suffer from a mental illness, who are unable to respond to the various warning notices required under existing legislation or other provisions of the Bill. We propose to require landlords to take reasonable additional or alternative steps when there is no response to demands or notices. We will consult on what steps would be appropriate, practicable and reasonable. This may include a duty to investigate the leaseholder's circumstances.
  That power would not apply in relation to properties subject to a mortgage. That is because mortgagees are normally informed of forfeiture proceedings, and have a

  961
  right to seek relief. They invariably do so to protect their security. It is the leaseholders who do not have mortgages—for example, the elderly whose mortgages have been paid off—who would be protected by this measure. A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), identified older people in their constituencies who have been vulnerable to bullying and abuse by freeholders, and who are in particular need of protection. We would hope that that would be of help to some of them.

  Regulations made under this power would also be subject to the affirmative procedure—amendment No. 58. There would be an opportunity closely to debate the provisions.
  New clause 11 is intended to ensure that leaseholders are aware of their rights and obligations by providing a power to require certain information to be provided with service charge demands. It should help also to prevent forfeiture being used as a threat by unscrupulous landlords. The form and content of these notices would be prescribed. It would set out leaseholders' rights to challenge service charges that they consider to be unreasonable. The notices would have to set out also restrictions on forfeiture. In addition, they would point out the possible serious consequences of non-payment of service charges and the dangers of ignoring demands. They would suggest that leaseholders take advice. Amendment No. 50 provides a similar power in relation to demands for administration charges.
  We believe that it will be important to improve awareness among leaseholders and landlords of their rights and obligations in this somewhat complex but important and sensitive area. It is therefore also our intention to produce a guide that will summarise in plain English, as hon. Members have repeatedly requested, all the relevant provisions concerning forfeiture proceedings.
  Amendment No. 61 provides that new clauses 9 and 10 would be binding on the Crown. The other changes already apply to the Crown by virtue of clause 166.
  I appreciate that I have taken quite a long time to set out the proposed measures. The new clauses and amendments have been carefully crafted by officials to meet some of the concerns that have been raised on both sides of the House on forfeiture. The additional measures, together with the existing provisions, should go a long way towards preventing the distressing cases that have been described, and which have been raised repeatedly by hon. Members. If hon. Members examine the flow chart of the steps that a freeholder would have to take, they will see clearly the safeguards that we have provided. They will see also that in practice forfeiture can be used only where leaseholders have wilfully and persistently defaulted on their obligations and have harmed other leaseholders or created the potential of harm. They should also ensure that landlords are not able to intimidate leaseholders with threats of the loss of their homes to secure payment of unreasonable charges.
  The additional safeguards that we are providing show that the Government have listened carefully to the views of hon. Members, and have responded with a range of measures that will be of real benefit to the constituents whose interests and homes hon. Members rightly seek to
  962
  protect, and for whom they have been vocal in making a case. They represent major improvements in the safeguards for leaseholders, and represent also some major improvements to the Bill. I urge Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments and to support the Government amendment.
  Mr. Cash: We have heard an interesting justification for the Government's proposals as set out in their amendments and new clauses. I noticed that the Minister said that, reluctantly, it was not possible to deal with all the issues. However, it seems that the Government have been pushed into a situation of coming up with a half-way house. To some extent, we discussed the issue vaguely in Committee, but the Bill has been round the houses five times. I am surprised that the Minister is not able to come forward with something that deals with the problem more effectively.
  The Government could have done better. Despite the Minister's remarks about new clause 19, it is my belief that that clause is better than the measure that the Government are proposing. The Minister mentioned that the Law Commission is at an advanced stage of coming up with comprehensive proposals.
  A cause of great concern has been whether, for example, there would be any reasonable substitution for forfeiture where, for example, premises were being used for prostitution or for other illegal activities such as drug dealing. The issue is not whether we like forfeiture but whether it is appropriate in all the circumstances. It is our view that forfeiture is not appropriate in respect of non-payment of money or service charges.
  The basic principle is that if a tenant breaches the terms of his or her lease, the landlord can forfeit the lease. The landlord can repossess the property and either sell it or rent it out to someone else. Where the tenant has a long lease at a low rent, the landlord ordinarily receives a considerable windfall. As I stated in The Daily Telegraph yesterday, the law is now more complicated than the simple equation of breach equals forfeiture. It is necessary to distinguish between two quite different regimes that apply. The first regime is where a tenant fails to honour some obligation to pay money. The second is where the tenant breaks some other non-pecuniary obligations under the lease.
  With the second case, a landlord who wishes to forfeit must first serve what is colloquially called a 146 notice, under the Law of Property Act 1925. The notice must specify the breaches alleged and give the tenant a reasonable to time remedy the breaches insofar as they are remediable. Even if the tenant has not performed the remedies of the breaches within a reasonable time, he or she can still apply to the court for relief against forfeiture. My amendment is concerned only with non-payment of money and has no impact on the other forms of breaches. I shall explain why.
  I turn to the first case, where the breach consists of non-payment of money. In this instance, equity has always treated the provision for forfeiture as being simply security for the payment of sums due. That means that if the tenant pays the moneys due, the court will grant relief from forfeiture so that the tenant does not lose the flat. A tenant can, within reason, even apply for relief from forfeiture after the landlord has repossessed the property.
  In practice, it often happens that the tenant's mortgage company steps into the breach and pays off the arrears owing to the landlord. The reason is simple. If the

  963
  landlord forfeits the lease, the mortgagee loses its security because the lease which is charged to the bank or building society ceases to exist. This is a highly effective way of obtaining payments of rent and service charges from tenants. It is right that there should be an effective way of obtaining payment of those moneys. In particular, in connection with service charges, every sum of money which one tenant escapes paying is money which other tenants will have to pay.
  The issue is not whether there should be a strong means of enforcement of tenants' obligations. There should be. That may be a point of distinction between Opposition and Government. The issue is whether forfeiture is the right way to go about it. I mentioned that the amendment is not concerned with forfeiture for breach of non-pecuniary obligations. The reason is that there are circumstances in which it is right that a lease should be forfeited. Suppose the tenant uses his flat for drug dealing. In such a case, the landlord and other tenants must have a right to throw out the offending tenant.
  In principle, the right to forfeit should exist in at least some cases; whether in all cases, as at present, might be doubted. It is likely that improvement can be made on the current law of forfeiture. We know that the Law Commission is considering that. The question is whether the Government have come forward with enough, despite the fact that they have been harried by us and by others, including Labour Back Benchers, into coming to a conclusion. They have been making a case—I think that it probably goes too far—for the abolition of forfeiture in all instances. The same applies to the Liberal Democrats. We are trying to strike a reasonable balance to ensure that there is a degree of proper remedy available for the non-payment of money and service charges.
  We recognise that this is a complicated area. We will not go into the question of forfeiture other than for non-payment of money or service charges.
  8.30 pm
  The position is quite different in the case of non-payment. Here all the parties are interested in is money. The main objection to the current law is that it allows landlords to make large 'windfall gains, as it is insufficiently flexible. As the Minister said and as I pointed out in The Daily Telegraph, there may also be threats and the accumulation of expensive correspondence. The situation may be exploited, and people may be put at a disadvantage and at risk.
  If a tenant falls into arrears with rent and service charge, the landlord can repossess the property. When the tenant is living in the property that requires a court order, but the court has no discretion in regard to whether to order possession, it can only delay eviction by a short time. Arrears equal eviction. We do not agree with that.
  The consequences of forfeiture are eye-opening. We want to preserve a proper balance in the interests of the many millions of people who could well be affected. We know that more than 3 million people hold long leases at what is probably a low rent—a considerable number of people who vote for all parties.
  Under forfeiture, the landlord recovers vacant possession of the property. He can then sell a new long lease on the flat at full market value. It makes no odds that the tenant may owe only a few thousand pounds,
  964
  or even less; the landlord repossesses, and can then sell the flat for possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds. To add insult to injury, the landlord does not even need to give the tenant credit for the service charges for which the landlord was able to forfeit. Not only does the landlord collect the full capital value of the flat; he can carry on enforcing the arrears.
  We think that that goes much too far. Yes, there must be an efficient way of enforcing ground rents and service charges, but there is no need to give landlords such massive windfall gains. We do not think that abolishing those gains would pose any human rights problem.
  The Government's amendment does not deal with our complaints. It merely tampers with forfeiture in a way that we believe will lead to the worst of all possible worlds. It sounds well and good to say that forfeiture shall not be permitted for sums under £500. It might be said that obviously it should not be permitted for trivial sums. The amendment, however, removes any cost-effective remedy for the recovery of small sums due from tenants to landlords. The only remedy a landlord will have is to go to the small claims court to enforce his claim against the tenant. He will then have the bother of enforcement through the county court bailiffs, which is notoriously ineffective. Charging order proceedings would be wholly disproportionate, and the landlord will have no claim against the mortgagee.
  This is what will happen in practice. Tenants will realise that they are effectively bullet-proof up to the sum of £500. Landlords will not bother to collect such sums. Mortgagees will feel under no obligation to pay such small arrears, because it will not affect their security. Once again, honourable tenants who pay their service charges in full will be subsidising dishonourable tenants who bilk their obligations. The Government's proposals may strike some as rational and tenant-friendly, but any more detailed consideration shows them to be gravely defective.
  So what is the way forward? Our amendment picks up the equitable rule that landlords are entitled only to security for moneys owed to them. It substitutes a charge over the lease for non-payment of money for the right to forfeit. 'That would have two advantages. First, the landlord recovers only what is owed to him, receiving no windfall at the tenant's expense, and secondly the court has well established powers to allow debtors to pay off secured moneys without losing their homes.
  New clause 19(1) limits the proposal to long leases at a low rent. This is where the problem lies. Where leases are short or granted for a market rent, it is only right that a landlord should be able to repossess for non-payment of rent. By contrast, it should make no difference whether the lease is residential, business or agricultural. If the lease has a capital value, forfeiture should give way to a system that recognises that capital value.
  Subsection (2) defines what is meant by forfeiture. Subsection (3) abolishes forfeiture for non-payment of money. The new clause gives the landlord a charge over the lease, which extends to anyone owed money under the lease. That is designed to deal with the common situation in which service charges, for instance, are payable to a management company rather than a freeholder.

  965
  Subsection (5) is central to the workability of the proposal. At present, as I have explained, the tenant's mortgagee has an incentive to pay the arrears in order to avoid forfeiture. That will continue under these proposals.
  Shona McIsaac: I think the hon. Gentleman's proposal is flawed. He keeps referring to mortgagees. Many people who are threatened with forfeiture have paid off their mortgages. They may be threatened with forfeiture because payment of a £5 annual ground rent is late. The hon. Gentleman has not addressed that issue of threat, which I think would be addressed by a de minimis level of £500.
  Mr. Cash: In the circumstances, we shall simply have to disagree. I want to get on so that others can speak.
  Up to now, underlessees have had either to pay up or to lose their leases. That will continue. Subsection (5) ties in with subsection (11), which provides for mortgagees and underlessees to come in and pay off the arrears. In turn, those subsidiary interest-holders will take over the landlord's charge from the landlord.
  I have spoken at some length because this issue is important to the lives of many people throughout the country. Let me finally say that forfeiture for arrears of rent and service charge is a remedy whose time has passed. It is savage and unnecessary. The Government's proposals do not improve the workings of forfeiture; they worsen them. We propose something better.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: New clause 3 would abolish the forfeiture of leases. Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 are identical to amendments I tabled in Committee, but agreed to withdraw in order to give the Government more time to consider them before Report. When I went to the Public Bill Office to re-table them, I found that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) had pipped me at the post. New clauses 6 and 8, which relate to compensation, would fall if the Government accepted new clause 3 and amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28.
  I am surprised that this was not a big issue in the other place. It was hardly discussed, if indeed it was discussed at all. It has, however, been a big issue here, both in Committee and on Report. I am disappointed that, at 8.38 pm, we still have a huge batch of amendments and new clauses before us. I must criticise the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) for delaying the proceedings, just as he did on Monday. This should have been the major debate of the day, as it relates to an issue that is extremely important to people out there. I am pleased that the Minister and the Government have been listening. I thank the Minister for tabling the amendments, which will make it far more difficult to proceed along the route of forfeiture. Nevertheless, the threat of forfeiture is still there. I would have liked it abolished completely.
  I hear what the hon. Member for Stone and the Minister say about the reasons other than financial reasons for having forfeiture on the statute book, but if someone is running a house of disrepute or a person in a block of flats is selling drugs, what has happened to the police? There are other ways of dealing with those problems—they may be dealt with through the courts and the judicial process. That is not an excuse for maintaining forfeiture.
  966
  We have had a lot of lobbying on the issue, which has been around a long time. The Minister mentioned the Law Commission. It has been examining the subject for more than 17 years. It knew that the Bill was coming to this place. Almost as soon as the Government got in, there was talk about the Bill. There was plenty of discussion on the draft Bill. Indeed, in December 2000, the Government published the results of the consultation on the draft Bill. Paragraph 12 of that document states:
  "We accept the need for effective sanctions against defaulters but we do not believe it is right that a landlord can gain a windfall profit by obtaining absolute possession at the expense of the leaseholder. Instead we propose that where the landlord obtains possession the leaseholder should be compensated for the loss of his interest after deducting moneys owed to the landlord."
  I do not believe that anyone in the House tonight and in the other place could argue that it is natural justice if a person pays off a mortgage for a flat in Camden worth £350,000—I cited the case in Committee—the landlord goes along the route of forfeiture, wins the case and the leaseholder of the flat loses the entire amount of £350,000. Can anyone in this place or in the other place claim that that is natural justice?
  I will not push my new clauses in relation to forfeiture because I think that we will come back to that issue. Indeed, the Minister has promised to come back to it. I ask her how long it will be before the Law Commission comes up with the lengthy proceedings that it has debated for more than 17 years. Can she assure us that we will get a Bill very soon on that subject? It is a crucial matter.
  I am prepared to let that ride until the relevant Bill is introduced, but I am not prepared to accept that forfeiture should remain on the statute book and that a person can lose such vast sums of money as the sum that I have just mentioned. I am afraid that I am minded to press the case for compensation, because that is natural justice.
  I cannot believe that this is as complicated as the Minister said it was. It seems such a simple issue. If a person has gained a large sum of money, highway men should not rob them of it. If the judicial system cannot get its act together within a few weeks or even a few months and sort that one out, people should be compensated.
  I am aware of the time. I had a lot more to say but I shall finish on the following point. I am grateful to the Government for introducing the Bill, which has made huge strides. It is a good Bill and on the whole I am very supportive of it; but it could have been a Rolls-Royce Bill if many of the issues that have been around for a long time had been addressed properly. Abolition of forfeiture is one of them but, more important, compensation when that happens is critical.
  Mr. Sanders: There is no doubt that the amendment improves the Bill but it still keeps forfeiture on the statute book. It is therefore necessary to press new clause 3.
  As the Minister has admitted, the Government have recognised the unfairness of the use of forfeiture for the collection of debt, because in the case of commonhold units there is a provision preventing a right to forfeiture. The issue for leaseholders is that, where forfeiture of a long lease occurs, particularly for the non-payment of ground rent or service charges, the landlord will obtain benefit that is wholly disproportionate to the breach. Its existence enables landlords to practise a wide variety of

  967
  abuses. It encourages unreasonable charges, because landlords know that they have the final sanction in order to secure them.
  Leaseholders have felt reluctant to challenge unreasonable charges for fear of losing their homes, and because it is the lessee who has to pay the costs of obtaining relief against forfeiture.
  8.45 pm
  Strict time limits are imposed, and these can often be missed. The fact is, good landlords do not need forfeiture, as owed moneys can be reclaimed through normal debt recovery procedures. The fact that forfeiture exists goes against natural justice. It appears archaic in the modern legal context, which is supposed to seek a fairer balance of the rights of individuals at law, and it helps to perpetuate the discredited reputation of leasehold tenure—one of the factors behind the Bill.
  A lease can be drafted so that service charges are described as being
  "by way of further rent."
  That means that freeholders can issue legal proceedings without the necessity of having the service charge dispute resolved.

  Forfeiture is a one way street, heading in the landlord's direction. If a tenant refuses to pay ground rent because, for example, a roof is faulty, he can be faced with losing his home. If the home is lost, the "homeless" leaseholder is not compensated for his loss, following the sale of "his" property.
  The Government will say that forfeiture is used only rarely, as the Minister noted earlier. It could therefore be argued that it is unnecessary to keep it on the statute book at all. A Conservative Member said, in Standing Committee, that forfeiture was akin to state-sanctioned theft. That summed the matter up.
  Forfeiture is not appropriate in modern property management. For long leases, it could be abolished straight away, as the law provides other mechanisms for recouping moneys owed. The threat of losing one's home is out of proportion to the scale of debt, and causes a vast amount of distress. It is a punishment that far outweighs the crime.
  Liberal Democrat Members are not able to support the Government amendments, even though they are an improvement, as they do not address the principle. That principle is forfeiture, and it must go.
  Mr. David Lepper: I welcome the Government amendments, which go some way towards removing the central abuse involved in forfeiture. That abuse was not necessarily the loss of a home, which happens relatively rarely, as has been acknowledged. The main abuse of forfeiture has been the fear factor, which has threatened tenants and leaseholders for so many years. Indeed, it would be hard to pick an aspect of leasehold that more clearly represents the feudal relationship that exists between freeholder and leaseholder.
  I am pleased that the Government have introduced proposals that will go at least some way to removing the freeholder's right to use the blunt instrument of forfeiture.
  968
  The term "blunt instrument" was used by Peter Haler, the chief executive of LEASE, in a letter to me picking up some comments of mine on Second Reading. He wrote:
  "Whilst it is quite correct that relatively few cases of forfeiture are enforced by the courts, the present archaic law provides opportunities for mischief by some landlords, and this is a major cause of concern for us."
  He added:
  "what we find reprehensible is the use of the forfeiture procedure as a blunt instrument to harass leaseholders."
  The Government have recognised that. However, the Labour Opposition before the 1997 election carried out extensive consultation about leasehold reform and the introduction of commonhold. I am not sure that the Law Commission has been considering the matter for 17 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said, but an answer from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on 11 March suggested that it had brought forward a draft Bill on the matter in 1994.
  Reform of the leasehold laws has been discussed for many years. I therefore find it hard to understand why, with only 10 minutes or so to go before the last stage of voting on the Bill, insufficient thought has been given to including in it provisions for the abolition of forfeiture, and for compensation.
  I am one of the vice-chairs of the all-party group on commonhold and leasehold reform. In our submission to the Government at the earlier stage of consultation on the draft Bill, we welcomed their desire to curb abuses of forfeiture. We went on to say, as a cross-party group, that forfeiture should be abolished. Such debts should be handled primarily through the small claims courts and ultimately it should be possible to force a sale of property to pay a debt. However, the balance of funds after settlement of the debt should revert to the leaseholder.
  I am realistic enough to see that there is no hope of the new clause to abolish forfeiture succeeding this evening, but I hoped that the Government would accept the principle of compensation. I note what my hon. Friend the Minister says about intending to deal with compensation at a later date, which takes me back to my earlier points about the time scale. For those reasons, I will be supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East this evening.
  Ms Keeble: We have had an important discussion this evening on an issue of major concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon); our earlier discussions about some small, technical amendments have meant that the amount of time available for debating this matter has been curtailed. It is a matter of great importance, because it is a principle and because of the serious practical consequences arising from measures in the Bill.
  We have listened carefully and sought to strike a fair balance. We all recognise the need to protect vulnerable leaseholders from oppressive behaviour by unscrupulous landlords and from threats and bullying. However, there is also a need to protect responsible landlords and other leaseholders and to make sure, at this late stage, that there are proper orderly arrangements in place for people's homes, and that includes financial arrangements.

  969
  The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was muddled in his thinking. He has recognised throughout the Bill's proceedings that the ultimate sanction is the termination of the lease, which is a factor in leasehold arrangements. However, he has not carried through the logic of his argument, for purely party political reasons, I suspect, and not because he is thinking carefully about the best arrangements for leaseholders. New clause 19 does not provide an orderly alternative for sanctions for non-payment of the lease. Given that the hon. Gentleman is presumably trying to present it as a credible alternative, I am astonished that he has not even attempted to discuss his proposal with the Council of Mortgage Lenders.
  I recognise the consistent concerns expressed on this issue by hon. Members, including in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). They have raised these concerns on Second Reading and in Committee, and have pressed the issue in various discussions. The Law Commission is due to come back in the spring or summer of this year and produce a draft Bill in time for the 2002–03 Session. I realise that it has been a long time in coming, but the Law Commission has got a long way down the road and is very near to concluding its work.
  I point out to the hon. Member for Torbay and to my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, South-East and for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) that I clearly stated the Government's intention and the principles set out by my Department on the removal of forfeiture and a fairer regime for leaseholders. However, it was not possible—especially at the stage when the measure came to this place—to set up a system that would replace the current regime. We have listened—
  Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Keeble: We have all been extremely tolerant of the hon. Gentleman, but I intend to close my remarks—
  Mr. Cash: The Minister is being patronising.
  Ms Keeble: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is being patronised for the first time in his life.
  I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones).
  Lynne Jones: I thank my hon. Friend as I have not yet had an opportunity to intervene.
  Is my hon. Friend actually saying that the Government—with all the resources that they have at their disposal—intend to put the matter off for a future legislative opportunity that may well not occur? We know about the pressure on the legislative programme, so surely now is the time to deal with these matters.
  Ms Keeble: The entire debate has turned on those points. We have listened carefully. We have taken on board the points that were made. My hon. Friend herself referred not to the ending of forfeiture but to some of the
  970
  safeguards that have been set up because it was not possible to come up with a workable system within the time constraints. We have come forward—
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Keeble: No, I do not intend to give way. I have made it clear that I do not intend to give way. We have spent a large amount of time listening to the hon. Gentleman during the two days of debate on Report.
  We have drawn up the most stringent safeguards and protections consistent with orderly arrangements for people's homes. We also have to consider carefully the financial arrangements for people's homes. That is why—even at a late stage—I asked officials to discuss the proposals made by the hon. Member for Stone with the Council of Mortgage Lenders. We take seriously the need to protect and safeguard people's homes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion rightly raised concerns not only about the impact of forfeiture but about the threat to vulnerable leaseholders, especially the elderly. Those issues are dealt with by our amendments. A comprehensive range of measures will oblige freeholders to go through a two-stage legal process before they can even begin to consider forfeiture. A variety of safeguards will be provided to ensure that leaseholders are thoroughly informed of their rights and have the opportunity to deal with all the issues. There is a de minimis level so that people do not lose their homes over a small amount of money. We have provided for further safeguards and protection through secondary legislation so that hon. Members can be consulted and can debate the issues.
  Together, those measures will provide a real charter to safeguard leaseholders. Although we have not been able to set up the compensation arrangements that we discussed on many occasions, the Government have produced some workable proposals and amendments to safeguard leaseholders and to ensure that there are proper sanctions for non-payment, consistent with good property management. Those measures will also ensure that the cases raised by hon. Members on Second Reading and in Committee are a thing of the past and that we do not hear of such things again. So I urge hon. Members to support the Government amendment, which will do a very real service for the millions of leaseholders throughout the country.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): In the light of the debate, I am prepared to allow the House to divide on new clause 3 and new clause 19 if that is desired.
  Dr. Iddon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like the House to divide on new clause 8.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) happy with new clause 8? I shall not allow Divisions on lots of new clauses.
  Mr. Don Foster: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you could explain to the House whether it would be possible to combine new

  971
  clause 3 with new clause 8. I understand that that would not be possible, and we would therefore wish to press new clause 3 to a Division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, the House will divide on new clause 3.
  John McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to reconsider your decision not to select new clause 8? We are dealing with two distinct issues, the first of which is the abolition of the forfeiture altogether and the other relates specifically to compensation. They involve two distinct principles, so I urge you to consider allowing Divisions on new clause 3 and new clause 8.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the occupant of the Chair to decide such matters, and I will so decide.
  It being after Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER pursuant to Orders [31 January and 11 March], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 3

  ABOLITION OF FORFEITURE
  'A right of re-entry or forfeiture under any proviso or stipulation in a lease of a dwelling for a breach of covenant or condition in the lease shall not be enforceable by action or otherwise.'.—[Mr. Sanders.]
  Brought up, and read the First and Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 278.

  Division No. 195]

  [9.2 pm

  ayes

  Allan, Richard

  McDonnell, John

  Barrett, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Moore, Michael

  Burnett, John

  Price, Adam

  Burstow, Paul

  Pugh, Dr John

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Rendel, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cotter, Brian

  Sanders, Adrian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

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

  Gerrard, Neil

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hancock, Mike

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Heath, David

  Thurso, John

  Holmes, Paul

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Tyler, Paul

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Keetch, Paul

  Willis, Phil

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Lamb, Norman

  Laws, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lepper, David

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sue Doughty.

  noes

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Allen, Graham

  Barron, Kevin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Beard, Nigel

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Benton, Joe

  972

  Berry, Roger

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Betts, Clive

  Grogan, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Hanson, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Havard, Dai

  Brennan, Kevin

  Healey, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Heppell, John

  Bryant, Chris

  Hermon, Lady

  Burgon, Colin

  Heyes, David

  Burnham, Andy

  Hill, Keith

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoey, Kate

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hood, Jimmy

  Casale, Roger

  Hope, Phil

  Cawsey, Ian

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Challen, Colin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Chaytor, David

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Clelland, David

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Cummings, John

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Joyce, Eric

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  David, Wayne

  Kemp, Fraser

  Davidson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Khabra, Piara S

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

  Kidney, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dawson, Hilton

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Doran, Frank

  Lammy, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Levitt, Tom

  Edwards, Huw

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Efford, Clive

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony

  Etherington, Bill

  Love, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  Lucas, Ian

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lyons, John

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Flint, Caroline

  McCafferty, Chris

  Flynn, Paul

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  MacDougall, John

  Foulkes, George

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McIsaac, Shona

  Galloway, George

  McKechin, Ann

  Gapes, Mike

  McKenna, Rosemary

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gilroy, Linda

  McNulty, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  MacShane, Denis

  Goggins, Paul

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  973

  Mc Walter, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  McWilliam, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Simon, Siôn

  Mallaber, Judy

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mann, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Marris, Rob

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Merron, Gillian

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Southworth, Helen

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Miliband, David

  Squire, Rachel

  Miller, Andrew

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moffatt, Laura

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mole, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moran, Margaret

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morgan, Julie

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mudie, George

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mullin, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Olner, Bill

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Neill, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Owen, Albert

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pearson, Ian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Perham, Linda

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Picking, Anne

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pickthall, Colin

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pike, Peter

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Plaskitt, James

  Watson, Tom

  Pollard, Kerry

  Watts, David

  Pond, Chris

  White, Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Purnell, James

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Wills, Michael

  Rammell, Bill

  Winnick, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Wood, Mike

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Woolas, Phil

  Wray, James

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Roy, Frank

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ruane, Chris

  Satter, Martin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Dan Norris.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) wants to divide on new clause 19.

New Clause 19

  LEASES EXCEEDING 21 YEARS
  '.—(1) This section shall apply to any lease granted for a term of years certain exceeding 21 years, whether or not it is terminable
  974
  before the end of the term by notice given by or to the tenant or by re-entry, forfeiture or otherwise and whether made before or after the coming into force of this section, where the rent reserved for the time being is less than £1,000 per annum.
  (2) In this section a right of forfeiture shall mean a provision in a lease whereby the landlord under a lease has a right to re-enter the premises demised (or part thereof) upon the happening of specified events, whether the right to re-enter is expressed as a condition or as a proviso on breach of covenant or otherwise howsoever.
  (3) No landlord may re-enter the premises demised (nor any part thereof) pursuant to a right of forfeiture, insofar as the exercise of the right of forfeiture is based on the non-payment of money.
  (4) Where a tenant fails to pay monies payable under the terms of the lease, the person entitled to payment of the said monies shall be entitled to a first legal charge (herein referred to as a "landlord's charge") over the lease for the monies payable and for his reasonable costs and expenses of and in connection with the landlord's charge and the enforcement thereof, such costs and expenses to be payable on the indemnity basis.
  (5) Subject to the next subsection, a landlord's charge shall have priority to all charges, underleases and other encumbrances estates easements estoppels and rights of whatever description created by or deriving title from or through the tenant, whether at law or in equity and whether created or existing before or after the coming into force of this Act (hereinafter referred to as "subsidiary interests").
  (6) Notwithstanding the previous subsection, no local land charge within the meaning of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 shall be a subsidiary interest.
  (7) Subject to the next subsection, a landlord's charge may be enforced in any manner in which a first legal charge may be enforced.
  (8) The landlord's charge may only be enforced by sale with leave of the High Court or the County Court.
  (9) On such a sale, the purchaser shall purchase free from all subsidiary interests.
  (10) Where a landlord's charge has no reasonably realisable commercial value, the landlord may apply to the High Court or the County Court for an order terminating the lease, but such an order shall not release the tenant from any pre-existing obligation under the lease.
  (11) Any person holding any subsidiary interest shall be entitled to have subrogated to him the landlord's charge on payment of the sums secured by the landlord's charge and shall be entitled to add his reasonable costs and expenses of and in connection the said exercise of the right of subrogation to the landlord's charge, such costs and expenses to be assessed on the indemnity basis.
  (12) Where more than one person holding a subsidiary interest wishes to have subrogated to him the landlord's charge, the priority as between such persons shall be determined in accordance with the rules of equity.
  (13) Where on a sale of the lease pursuant to subsection (8) hereof, there is a surplus after payment of all the monies secured by the landlord's charge, the distribution of the said surplus shall be made in accordance with the rules of equity.
  (14) Rules of Court shall provide for service on the tenant and on persons holding subsidiary interests of any application made pursuant to subsection (8) hereof for leave to enforce the landlord's charge by sale and for the circumstances in which such service may be dispensed with.
  (15) Notwithstanding the provisions in subsections (4) and (11) hereof permitting the adding of costs and expenses to the landlord's charge, the High Court and the County Court shall have the power to make in substitution for the said provisions some different order as to incidence, basis and amount of the costs and expenses of the holder of the landlord's charge and of the lessee and of any other person where such different order would be just.
  (16) The figure for the annual rental specified in subsection (1) hereof may be varied from time to time by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
  (17) Nothing herein shall affect the validity or effect of a forfeiture of a lease, whether by re-entry on or service of originating process seeking to re-enter the premises demised (or part thereof) or otherwise, effected before the coming into effect of this section.
  (18) "Lease" in this section shall include underleases and "landlord" and "tenant" shall be construed accordingly.
  (19) The existence or potential existence of a landlord's charge shall not prevent any person who is restricted or prohibited whether by statute or otherwise from lending money save on the security of a first legal charge from lending money on the security of a charge which, but for the existence or potential existence of the landlord's charge, would have been a first legal charge.'.—[Mr. Cash.]
  Brought up, and read the First and Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 286.

  Division No. 196]

  [9.14 pm

  ayes

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hammond, Philip

  Allan, Richard

  Hancock, Mike

  Amess, David

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hayes, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Bacon, Richard

  Heath, David

  Barker, Gregory

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Baron, John

  Hendry, Charles

  Barrett, John

  Hoban, Mark

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Holmes, Paul

  Bercow, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Boswell, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Burnett, John

  Keetch, Paul

  Bums, Simon

  Key, Robert

  Burstow, Paul

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burt, Alistair

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Cameron, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Lamb, Norman

  Cash, William

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Laws, David

  Clappison, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Letwin, Oliver

  Collins, Tim

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Cotter, Brian

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Cran, James

  Lidington, David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Loughton, Tim

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Doughty, Sue

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fallon, Michael

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Rook, Adrian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Mercer, Patrick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Moore, Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gale, Roger

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Gamier, Edward

  Norman, Archie

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gibb, Nick

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Goodman, Paul

  Paterson, Owen

  Gray, James

  Price, Adam

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Prisk, Mark

  Grieve, Dominic

  Pugh, Dr John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Randall, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  976

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Ruffley, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Thurso, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tredinnick, David

  Selous, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Tyler, Paul

  Simmonds, Mark

  Walter, Robert

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

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Watkinson, Angela

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Spink, Bob

  Wiggin, Bill

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Willetts, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Swire, Hugo

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Syms, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Julian Brazier and

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mr. David Wilshire.

  noes

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

  Allen, Graham

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  David, Wayne

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davidson, Ian

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Atkins, Charlotte

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Beard, Nigel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Benton, Joe

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Berry, Roger

  Dobbin, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Doran, Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dowd, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Efford, Clive

  Brennan, Kevin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bryant, Chris

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Burnham, Andy

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foulkes, George

  Casale, Roger

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Cawsey, Ian

  Galloway, George

  Challen, Colin

  Gapes, Mike

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Chaytor, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham, Michael

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Grogan, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hanson, David

  Crausby, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Havard, Dai

  Cummings, John

  Healey, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Heppell, John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hermon, Lady

  977

  Heyes, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hodge, Margaret

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Meale, Alan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Merron, Gillian

  Hope, Phil

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Miliband, David

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Mole, Chris

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moran, Margaret

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Julie

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Mudie, George

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Owen, Albert

  Joyce, Eric

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pearson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Perham, Linda

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Picking, Anne

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pike, Peter

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Plaskitt, James

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kidney, David

  Pond, Chris

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Purnell, James

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Lammy, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rapson, Syd

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lepper, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Levitt, Tom

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rooney, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony

  Roy, Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Ruane, Chris

  Lucas, Ian

  Salter, Martin

  Lyons, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCafferty, Chris

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacDonald, Calum

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McDonnell, John

  Sheridan, Jim

  MacDougall, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Singh, Marsha

  McIsaac, Shona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Soley, Clive

  McWalter, Tony

  Southworth, Helen

  McWilliam, John

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Squire, Rachel

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mann, John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marris, Rob

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  978

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Watts, David

  Stringer, Graham

  White, Brian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wills, Michael

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Winnick, David

  Timms, Stephen

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wood, Mike

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Woolas, Phil

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wray, James

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Wyatt Derek

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Watson, Tom

  Dan Norris.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Remaining Government amendments agreed to.

New Clause 9

  FAILURE TO PAY SMALL AMOUNT FOR SHORT PERIOD
  '(1) A landlord under a long lease of a dwelling may not exercise a right of re-entry or forfeiture for failure by a tenant to pay an amount consisting of rent, service charges or administration charges (or a combination of them) ("the unpaid amount") unless the unpaid amount—

  (a) exceeds the prescribed sum, or

  (b) consists of or includes an amount which has been payable for more than a prescribed period.

  (2) The sum prescribed under subsection (1)(a) must not exceed £500.
  (3) If the unpaid amount includes a default charge, it is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) as reduced by the amount of the charge; and for this purpose "default charge" means an administration charge payable in respect of the tenant's failure to pay any part of the unpaid amount.
  (4) In this section "long lease of a dwelling" does not include—

  (a) a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c. 56) (business tenancies) applies,

  (b) a tenancy of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (c. 5) in relation to which that Act applies, or

  (c) a farm business tenancy within the meaning of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 (c. 8).

  (5) In this section—

  "administration charge" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of Schedule 11,

  "dwelling" has the same meaning as in the 1985 Act,

  "landlord" and "tenant" have the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of this Part,

  "long lease" has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of this Act, except that a shared ownership lease is a long lease whatever the tenant's total share.

  "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate national authority, and

  "service charge" has the meaning given by section 18(1) of the 1985 Act.'.—[Ms Keeble.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

  POWER TO PRESCRIBE ADDITIONAL OR DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS
  '(1) The appropriate national authority may by regulations prescribe requirements which must be met before a right of re-entry or forfeiture may be exercised in relation to a breach of a covenant or condition in a long lease of an unmortgaged dwelling.
  (2) The regulations may specify that the requirements are to be in addition to, or instead of, requirements imposed otherwise than by the regulations.
  (3) In this section "long lease of a dwelling" does not include—

  (a) a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c. 56) (business tenancies) applies,

  (b) a tenancy of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (c. 5) in relation to which that Act applies, or

  (c) a farm business tenancy within the meaning of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 (c. 8).

  (4) For the purposes of this section a dwelling is unmortgaged if it is not subject to a mortgage, charge or lien.
  (5) In this section—

  "dwelling" has the same meaning as in the 1985 Act, and

  "long lease" has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of this Act, except that a shared ownership lease is a long lease whatever the tenant's total share.'.—[Ms Keeble.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

  NOTICE TO ACCOMPANY DEMANDS FOR SERVICE CHARGES
  'After section 21A of the 1985 Act (inserted by section 151) insert—
  "21B Notice to accompany demands for service charges
  (1) A demand for the payment of a service charge must be accompanied by a summary of the rights and obligations of tenants of dwellings in relation to service charges.
  (2) The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing requirements as to the form and content of such summaries of rights and obligations.
  (3) A tenant may withhold payment of a service charge which has been demanded from him if subsection (1) is not complied with in relation to the demand.
  (4) Where a tenant withholds a service charge under this section, any provisions of the lease relating to non-payment or late payment of service charges do not have effect in relation to the period for which he so withholds it.
  (5) Regulations under subsection (2) may make different provision for different purposes.
  (6) Regulations under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.—[Ms Keeble.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Spellar.]
  9.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): It is usual at this stage of progress of a Bill to thank those who have scrutinised it in Committee, and that is a convention that I am very
  980
  happy to observe on this occasion. As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said before he began his marathon efforts on the first day of consideration on Monday, the content of the Bill has been considered in very great detail, both in this House and, because of the timing of the general election, twice on Second Reading and in Committee in the other place. Progress has been mostly good-natured, and important contributions have been made to improve what was already a good Bill.
  It is, of course, disappointing that, despite having logic and reason on our side, it has not proved possible for us to persuade Opposition Members of the underlying wisdom of the 100 per cent. rule or the even-handedness of the Bill's approach to marriage value. Nevertheless, the Government have been open to constructive criticism and assistance from both sides, inside and outside Parliament, and the Bill has undoubtedly been improved by the efforts of Members in both Houses. I hope that Opposition Members and indeed my hon. Friends will feel able to agree that although the final product that we shall send back to the Lords may not be all that they wanted, it is still a very good Bill.
  First, and perhaps most important, the Bill introduces two entirely new concepts into the law relating to land. The no-fault right to manage in part 2 will give leaseholders who wish to employ it a right to make arrangements for the management of their homes. They will not have to prove that their landlord is in default of any of his duties, neither will they have to buy out his or her interest. At a stroke, that right will address many of the problems faced by many leaseholders.
  The other new concept is, of course, commonhold. We have been criticised for not calling a halt to new leasehold developments and imposing commonhold as the new exclusive standard. We know why that has been suggested and we are not without sympathy for that point of view, but we have explained at length why we cannot go as far as that. None the less, we believe that commonhold could speedily take its place in the market as a robust alternative to long leasehold and we firmly expect that, over time, as people gain confidence in the scheme, it will supplant leasehold without the need for the Government meddling in the market, with all the possible unintended consequences of that.
  The detailed consideration of the proposals in both places has helped to develop a scheme that will be practical, easy to use and therefore popular. Part 2, having introduced the right to manage, goes on to liberalise the right of collective enfranchisement. More leaseholders in many more properties will be able to take advantage of enfranchisement.
  Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, as we hope it will, there will be much work to do publicising the new schemes that it introduces. The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions believe in the Bill. It has been in successive manifestos and, as an earnest of the Government's commitment, it was reintroduced at the earliest opportunity after the last election. Plans are already in hand for making the contents better known and the advantages to all those whom it could affect widely realised. We shall promote it through many channels.
  If, regrettably, some still believe that the Bill falls short of perfection, we are convinced that most, including Members on both sides of each House, recognise it as a

  981
  great step towards freeing leaseholders of the worries to which the current long leasehold system can give rise if its management is left in the wrong hands. This is a great step towards the ultimate goal, which I hope everyone in the House can support, of secure home ownership.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Cash: I concur with the Minister in saying that the Bill is a step forward, and I am extremely glad to be able to say that we have played a constructive part in the proceedings. The Bill has been through the best part of six stages, and we have covered an enormous amount of ground. If there were one or two harsh words towards the end of the proceedings, we can put them behind us now. We are glad that the Bill will go on to the statute book, but we still have a number of reservations.
  First, as the Minister has just said, we have doubts about the unanimity rule. As I said in a letter to The Daily Telegraph yesterday, that will render the Bill largely unworkable. In fact, it will mean that its application will be confined largely to new developments. Time will tell. It is astonishing and a great shame that the Government should have stuck doggedly to something as indefensible, to our minds, as the unanimity rule. In a large block of flats, it will be almost impossible to get agreement across the board.
  I happen to know that many Labour Members share that view. They may not has been as vociferous in the subsequent proceedings on the Bill as in the heat and fury that we saw on Second Reading, but I appreciate that the power of the Whips is all-pervasive. The pungent whiff of the crack of the whip gave me the impression that Labour Members had even faltered a little on forfeiture as well. However, the arguments have been deployed, and it is important in the House that we deploy arguments as well as voting on them.
  There are other matters that other hon. Members will want to address, and I do not propose to say any more except to thank those in the various Departments who helped to put the Bill together. I am grateful also for the advice that we received from the Law Society and distinguished members of the Chancery Bar. These are complicated matters, and the Bill is technical. Proceedings on it have been good natured, and it is a step forward. It may be a faltering step; there is no reason why a few more things could not have been sorted out but, as they have not, we should be content with the Bill's progress and look forward to a time when further improvements can be made: we shall be glad to support them if they are in line with our thinking.
  9.35 pm
  Dr. Iddon: It is a privilege to serve as a Member of Parliament and to contribute to proceedings on the Bill. I should like to place on record my thanks to both Ministers for listening to those of us who fought a few battles during the passage of the Bill.
  I became interested in the Bill because of my concern about nominated insurance. Many people in my constituency wrote to me, upset at being forced by the Compton Group to get insurance with Axa Insurance. Provisions on the issue were not included in the draft Bill that was originally submitted to the House. The Ministers
  982
  listened to us and we now have a Bill that, when enacted, will make nominated insurance companies illegal. I thank both my hon. Friends for listening to us and bringing about that change.
  A big chunk of the Bill deals with the introduction of commonhold and the right to manage. The 100 per cent. rule will be tested; I wish commonhold well, even with that rule. If it does not work, we can return to the subject. However, I hope that commonhold works with the 100 per cent. rule because as the Parliamentary Secretary has said more than once, it will simplify things tremendously.
  Leasehold remains as a form of tenure, although I believe that the sun will set on it one day. We wanted a sunset clause on that in the Bill, but did not get one. Marriage value, a fairly recent concept, is still present, but I am sure that we will return to it. Forfeiture has been the big battle for me in recent weeks. I thank the Ministers for listening to us in our meetings with them.
  Despite my mild opposition this evening, we have made much progress on forfeiture. It will be much more difficult for freeholders and landlords to take people down that route, and I am grateful for that. However, I urge my hon. Friends to look at the figure of £350, which is not a lot in London. Many people in London are subjected to forfeiture for sums that that figure would not catch.
  Finally, I am sorry that we were not allowed to discuss compensation tonight. I do not blame the Chair, who obviously made the right decision. If we had gone into the Lobby, there would have been considerable support. I thank the Minister for listening to what we said about compensation. Finally, I urge her to submit a draft Bill to the House in the next Session. I look forward to its introduction, and hope that I can see it through the House during my time here.
  9.38 pm
  Mr. Sanders: The high hopes of many leaseholders have probably not been met by the Bill although, importantly, commonhold and the right to manage have both been established. In some respects, rights to enfranchise have been advanced. However, the Bill will be judged on what it omits, not what it includes.
  The Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold wanted five things to be included in the Bill: the introduction of commonhold, which it got; the abolition of residential leasehold, which it did not get; the automatic right to transfer from leasehold to commonhold, which it did not get; the transfer of tenure at a fair price, which is not covered by the Bill: and special measures for people unable to transfer, which are not in the Bill. CARL therefore achieved only one of its five aims. Liberal Democrat Members did better with our aims. While we failed to achieve the abolition of marriage value, forfeiture and the 100 per cent. consent to commonhold, we got the right for leaseholders to choose their insurance and recognition of estate management schemes; two out of five is not bad.
  Nevertheless, for tens of thousands of leaseholders, the prospect of enfranchisement is no closer. We wish commonhold well. We have said throughout proceedings on the Bill that we support the concept. We want it to succeed and we hope that it will. We also hope that we can return to some of the unfinished business of the Bill—

  983
  marriage value, forfeiture and. later, if our fears are realised, the 100 per cent. consent required for commonhold.
  Our time in Committee was enjoyable. The proceedings were conducted mostly with good humour and in a non-partisan way, with one or two exceptions. I must state on the record that not once during the passage of the Bill did I fall asleep. Despite the best efforts of some hon. Members, I stayed awake at all times.
  I thank the Public Bill Office for its help. That is a resource of the House that is not often mentioned, and the help provided by its staff in preparing amendments is fantastic.
  We wish the Bill success. We want more people to take more control over their lives. However, we will need to return to some of the unfinished business, which has been around for more than 100 years.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Lepper: I add my appreciation to that already expressed to my two Front-Bench colleagues, despite comments made earlier in the evening. The past couple of weeks have shown the extent to which Back Benchers in all parts of the House can still influence the course and the content of Government policy. Although we may not have influenced the Bill as much as some of us may have wished, it shows that Back Benchers can influence the outcome of debates on important policy issues.
  I particularly welcome the right to manage, which the Bill introduces. In my postbag, bad management remains the single biggest leasehold issue that I deal with. I look forward to the draft Bill on forfeiture that was promised by both Ministers for 2003. I also look forward to the results of the consultation that I believe is taking place on an issue that is not part of the Bill: the regulation of managing agents. I thought that it should be part of the Bill, but at least the Government are consulting on it.
  The right to manage is one thing, but the next step is to make sure that managing agents, whoever they are employed by, behave in a reasonable, responsible and trustworthy way. I recommend the voluntary scheme operating in the Brighton and Hove city area through the combined efforts of the city council, LEASE, the Brighton, Hove and District Leaseholders Association and the Association of Residential Managing Agents. That model could be adopted throughout the country.
  Finally, I place on record two other votes of thanks. The first is to the Brighton, Hove and District Leaseholders Association, which during the passage of the Bill, particularly in Committee, kept many hon. Members better informed than they were before about leasehold. The second is to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, who for so many years kept leasehold alive as an important policy issue in my party and in the country at large.
  9.43 pm
  Mr. John Taylor: Before we all drown in self-congratulation, I have a lament that resonates back to Committee. I am old enough to have been a young, newly qualified solicitor in 1967, when the Leasehold Reform Act came in, which first enabled long leaseholders of houses to acquire their freehold reversions. I remember my wise late senior partner saying to me, "Aha! It's a
  984
  good idea, but how are they going to work out the price?" He added, "The political community has once again funked the real issue, which is to tell people how much they can expect to pay." I grant that this is an arbitrary consideration, but I remind the House of the old adage, "It is not so important that the law be fair but that it be certain." Most people, including the constituents of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), cannot afford to take lawyers to the Lands Tribunal to argue about the price. They are entitled to a mechanism to work out what they should pay for their freeholds, so that they can know the price with some certainty and budget for it.
  Here we are 35 years later and the political community has funked the issue yet again. We have failed our constituents in this regard. [Interruption.] It is not for me but for the Government to resign. People make a great mistake when they think that the market will work the matter out. There is no market and people cannot shop around as there is only one potential seller of the freehold and only one buyer. One cannot go somewhere else as one might do to buy a pair of shoes. There is no market mechanism and people are entitled to assistance from their legislature on establishing a price. We have failed them.
  9.46 pm
  Shona McIsaac: I was going to start my contribution by saying that the debate had at times been dry and technical, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) for yet again livening up our proceedings. I echo what he said: there is not sufficient clarity on how much people have to pay to purchase the freehold of their homes. The introduction of a pricing formula would help people to budget for the future. Indeed, I know of far too many constituents who, on finding out the cost of purchasing their freehold, say "I can't afford it; I'll put it off for a few years, because it is bound to get cheaper." Of course, the same assumption applies to many other purchases: for example, people know that an older car is likely to be cheaper. Often, they do not realise that freehold price will continue to grow as long as they put off the decision.
  We must get information to people and introduce some sort of price mechanism that is simple and easy to understand. After all, in spite of the dry and technical nature of some of our debates on the Bill, we are talking about people's homes—the most expensive purchase that most people will ever make. There are 2 million leasehold properties, with an estimated 3 million to 4 million residents. The issue is not esoteric, but affects every constituency in the country. That is why it was vital to introduce a Bill to reform leasehold.
  One aspect of the language that has been used in our deliberations is that leaseholders have been called "tenants"—an expression that I have never liked. We are talking about people's homes. They pay mortgages, and as such, they regard themselves as home owners in censuses. Indeed, in any application form that they fill in, perhaps for a bank loan, they will say that they are home owners. We must acknowledge what we sometimes forget in our debates: the passion that people feel for their homes and for owning them.
  Back in 2000, I was given leave to introduce a ten-minute Bill. I took the opportunity to make certain demands because, as I said at the time, I wanted to change the law to stop leaseholders being fleeced by

  985
  unscrupulous landowners. I focused on families' rights in respect of purchasing their parents' homes after they had passed away, and the right to buy the freehold if the owners chose to extend the lease after it had expired. The Bill covers those matters. Indeed, the measure provides for more than I demanded then. For example, the provisions on insurance will give many people genuine protection in law from scams.
  The provisions on forfeiture are welcome. In my area, ground rents are low—in some cases, less than £10—and people are threatened with all sorts of penalties if that sum is paid even one or two days late. Threats of forfeiture have been used, and I therefore hope that the de minimis level of £500 means that those people will not be threatened again.
  The Bill introduces more clarity about service charges. I have already mentioned inheritance, but the measure includes welcome provisions on enfranchisement and lease extension. I understand that the latter will apply even to people who have already extended their lease. The measure will assist my residents; it is a step forward, and I welcome it.
  None the less, I shall continue to campaign for further reform because it was clear in Committee that we are considering a phenomenally complex area of law. We probably could have spent a year trying to sort out the complexities.
  Mr. Sanders: No!
  Shona McIsaac: That shows that the Liberal Democrats are not really committed to the matter.

  I hope that, perhaps through the draft Bill on forfeiture, we can create a level playing field for people who live in leasehold flats and houses. Those who live in leasehold houses would thus get the right of first refusal to buy the freehold should the landowner dispose of the leases. That would make freehold purchase far cheaper for millions of people.
  Like the hon. Member for Solihull, I want clarity on the purchase price of freehold. If abuses exist in my constituency, they concern purchase price. As I explained previously, it is wrong when one landowner asks for £2,000 and another, citing marriage value, for £20,000, for the freehold on identical properties. However, landowners get away with it because of lack of clarity. My hon. Friend the Minister said that she would like to consult on devising a mechanism whereby freeholders have to tell people how they determine a price. I would welcome that, and I am sure that she will hear from hon. Members, who, like me, will continue to campaign for further reform.
  I thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee. Our proceedings were good humoured, even when the hon. Member for Solihull discussed the movies of Alec Guinness. I cannot remember how that subject got into the debate, but it was entertaining. I also thank the Whips, despite the criticism of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I believe that allowing so many Labour Members who are interested in the subject to serve in Committee shows that the Government let people have a voice.
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Wiggin: I acknowledge with sadness the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) made. Although our proceedings have been illuminating and educational for me, it is a shame that Parliament's 81st attempt to reform leasehold leaves us with three sad deficits on freehold purchase, forfeiture and, perhaps most important, 100 per cent. unanimity.
  Without the efforts of the shadow Attorney-General, it would have been difficult to make as much sense of the Bill as he clearly did. His efforts were gigantic, and I pay tribute to him. He is certainly to be congratulated.
  Commonhold was to be the panacea for all the ills of leasehold tenure. By their insistence on unanimity, however, the Government have, staggeringly, neutered their own Bill. I am afraid, therefore, that we will be back for an 82nd attempt at reform, and it is a great shame that we have only tinkered with the edges of the problem.
  9.55 pm
  Ms Keeble: I, too, express my gratitude to the many right hon. and hon. Members who have made such a lively and constructive contribution to the debates on the Bill. That includes the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who has sometimes been a little curmudgeonly in his recognition of the Bill's merits.
  The Bill is a complicated piece of legislation, and many hon. Members have repeatedly said that it is dry and technical. However, its underlying objective is simple, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) pointed out. It is to give people greater security in their homes, and we have achieved that in two ways: the introduction of cornmonhold, and providing more rights and safeguards for leaseholders.
  When people reflect on the discussions in Committee and the House, they will see that we have introduced a great number of substantial reforms. They include, for the first time, the right to manage. That will deal with many of the abuses that have been mentioned, without having to go to enfranchisement, which some people simply do not want to do. The Bill also opens up the right of collective enfranchisement to many more leaseholders, and denies landlords the opportunity that they have previously enjoyed to obstruct the enfranchisement process and to jack up leaseholders' costs.
  The Bill also tightens the requirements for safeguarding and accounting for leaseholders' money. It abolishes the requirement to use a nominated or approved insurer for leasehold properties, and extends the rights of personal representatives. It also introduces a whole package of reforms on forfeiture—perhaps not everything that everybody wanted, but they will dramatically reduce the scope for freeholders to abuse that process, and provide many more safeguards. These are major changes.
  The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) should take some comfort from these substantial changes because, in the real world outside this place, they will produce real changes to the life chances of many thousands of our

  987
  constituents. The Bill has demonstrated how the House can work well. My hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) have pointed out that the process has illustrated the benefits of scrutiny, and the role that constituency Members, acting in the interests of their constituents, can play in improving legislation and providing safeguards and benefits for them.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion, for Bolton, South-East, for Cleethorpes and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) should take credit for what they have done, because, without their representations, many of the changes in the Bill would not have been introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion mentioned the leaseholders' group in his constituency. Without the representations that that group made, both through him and directly to the Government, several of the safeguards that have been incorporated into the Bill this evening would not have been added. Dry and technical though the Bill may have been, it has nevertheless demonstrated the House working at its best.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East was right that there are issues to which we will have to return. There is still work to be done, and a number of measures will have to be dealt with by regulation, at which point further refinements and improvements will be made. We will also have to work with the leasehold valuation tribunals and use publicity to translate some of these benefits into action. We will work closely with the tribunals to ensure that people get the benefits of this legislation, and I hope that hon. Members who have brought pressure to bear on the Government to produce real improvements will also bring the same pressure to bear on the tribunals. It is one thing to enact legislation in this place and quite another to see it translated into action. I am sure that if we can translate this—
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [31 January and 11 March].
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Speaker: With permission, I will put together motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
  IMMIGRATION
  That the draft Asylum Support (Repeal) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No.93) (HC 654), on the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund 2002–03, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  Question agreed to.

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL AFFAIRS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 117 (Standing Committee on Regional Affairs),
  That—
  (1) the matter of the progress of the Regional Development Agencies against their objectives, being a matter relating to regional affairs in England, be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs;
  (2) the Committee meet at Two o'clock on Thursday 21st March at Westminster to consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
  (3) the proceedings at the meeting be brought to a conclusion at half-past Four o'clock.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  Question agreed to.

  Specialised Hospital Services (North-West London)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  10.1 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: If I return to a subject on which I addressed the House on the Adjournment before the summer recess in July 2001, a subject on which I have addressed the House during seven previous debates in the past four years—many of them moved by myself—I am genuinely not being personally obsessive. I do so because of the prolonged and agonising sagas that have afflicted Harefield, Mount Vernon and St. Vincent's hospitals, in my constituency. They have caused profound worry to my constituents, and to many thousands of others further afield. There has been the cost of many jobs already, and there will be the cost of many more. Patients in my constituency and for many miles around will be seriously deprived of excellent treatments in hospitals that they have loved and admired.
  In my debate on 14 July 1999 on St. Vincent's hospital, I said that the Government's policy of dissuading health authorities from referring national health service patients to "private" hospitals could be fatal to the survival of the small, primarily orthopaedic, hospital of St. Vincent's, Eastcote, which was not private at all but a non-profit making medical charity run for many years by the religious order of the sisters of St. Vincent de Paul.
  The Government ignored my warnings. The hospital duly closed, although the policy is at last changed. It is too late to save St. Vincent's, but at least NHS patients are now sent to the excellent private hospital, Bishopswood, on the Mount Vernon hospital site. However, Mount Vernon hospital is now at risk, thanks to the extraordinary way in which it has been treated by the management of the NHS and the Government, who should never allow the perpetuation of Soviet-style bureaucratic central planning which characterises the NHS today.
  Soon after the Labour party were returned to power, so-called but frustrated consultation was initiated on the future of the regional burns and plastics unit at Mount Vernon, which the London region wanted to transfer to the new Chelsea and Westminster hospital in inner London.

  After the most ferocious controversy, the proposal, which would have undermined the plastics unit and its complementary and supportive work for the regional cancer centre at Mount Vernon, and would have caused the move away from the hospital of the wonderful reconstruction and functional trust medical research charity, was modified in favour of a move to Northwick Park hospital in Harrow, north-west London. I pointed out that Northwick Park hospital was much too far from Mount Vernon for it properly to support the cancer centre. I said that the premises did not exist at Northwick Park hospital and that Northwick Park was already overstretched owing to its high work load as a general hospital.
  Although some of the staff of Mount Vernon hospital's burns and plastics unit and that of the RAFT might be able to stay in their existing homes and perhaps keep their children in their present schools, it would be harder for
  990
  the cancer centre at Mount Vernon to be supported. For staff, patients and their families, commuting to Harrow would be less than ideal. Many of the unit's skilled staff would probably leave.
  To date, nothing has actually happened, although the move was due to take place this spring. The uncertainty has been bad for medical morale. Capital investment has been minimal. It has been difficult to maintain operating standards and the throughput of patients in operating procedures. Owing to the lack of investment, the premises are less than ideal. It is also much harder for the RAFT to raise private funds for its vital research.
  I believe that London regions would still like our burns and plastics unit from Mount Vernon to go to Chelsea and Westminster hospital, in inner London. West Hertfordshire health authority, which has a big interest, since many patients come from its area and beyond, owing to Mount Vernon's location only a hundred yards from the Hertfordshire border, will probably not wish the burns and plastics unit to move, and certainly will not want it to move to Chelsea and Westminster hospital.
  NHS eastern region is conducting a review of cancer services at Mount Vernon. It has identified three options that could have been written by a schoolboy on the back of an envelope in a moment of tedium during a dreary class. They are: to develop the existing cancer centre at Mount Vernon, to transfer services to newly developed facilities at an existing general hospital in Hertfordshire—Hemel Hempstead or Watford—and to construct a purpose-built new hospital on a greenfield site, probably south of St Albans.
  On 11 March, an Under-Secretary of State wrote to me:
  "Whichever route is taken, the development of a comprehensive cancer centre will involve the relocation of services from existing hospitals, and for some models the closure of hospitals. An important element of the work has been that the model for the 'ideal' cancer centre in 2010, regardless of location, has been signed up to by the Steering Group and has the support of the National Cancer Director, Professor Mike Richards, as well as clinicians from the cancer centre.
  In the short and medium term (until 2008) work continues between the local trusts and health authorities to ensure that the cancer service on the Mount Vernon site receives support from other services to ensure that high quality care is maintained."
  Does that mean that the burns and plastics unit is to stay at Mount Vernon at least until 2008 to support the cancer centre there, as it should? That is what I, at least, would infer from the letter.
  The trouble with NHS planning is that the best all too easily becomes the enemy of the good. Mrs. Rosie Varley and her review team from eastern region, to her credit and on her initiative, presented a progress report to local MPs at two meetings at the House of Commons in the summer and the autumn of last year. All Members, regardless of party—except one "dissentient" on the second occasion—said that Mount Vernon was the ideal location for their constituents' cancer treatment, and praised the quality of the care that they received there.
  The cancer research institute, known as the Gray laboratory at Mount Vernon, has made eminent submissions in favour of keeping the cancer centre at Mount Vernon—submissions which do not seem to have received the attention they deserve from the review team. I have had to bring them to the attention of the Secretary of State.

  991
  People have become totally cynical about decision making in the NHS. Their experience tells them that decisions are made behind closed doors at a high level in advance, that specialist reviews are designed to build up usually specious arguments to justify those decisions, and that the conclusions are then presented to the public for so-called consultations which are in practice a charade, as they are a dialogue of the deaf with NHS officials who are reluctant to change their predetermined policy.
  That was our experience with the Government's proclaimed intention, which is an official intention, for Harefield hospital, probably the most famous cardiothoracic hospital in Britain, which has done more heart transplants than any in the world. Following a Government diktat, its in-patient services are due to move by 2006 to a new hospital in Paddington, as yet unbuilt. Its out-patient services are due to move to extra facilities, as yet unconstructed, at Watford and Hemel Hempstead hospitals. Rumour has it that land has been set aside beside Hemel Hempstead hospital in hopeful anticipation.
  Those of us who care for Harefield's future—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in the Chamber, because he has been a staunch supporter of its work—believe that, despite Her Majesty's Government determination to sell much of the Harefield site for a science park, their policy is expensive and fatally flawed, and will cost infinitely more than enhancement of Harefield's facilities in its excellent location—in fact, well over £100 million more.
  By contrast, Hammersmith hospital's inner London cardiac facilities are to be built up. The cost is modest, as it is building up an existing unit: the cost is £13 million. Harefield, however, which is in outer London and serves a vast catchment area throughout the south of England, is ignored in favour of a new hospital at Paddington in one of the most inaccessible, polluted, congested and overdeveloped parts of inner London—indeed, it is on the edge of the Mayor's motor congestion tax zone.
  It is not surprising that Westminster City council has not granted the necessary planning permission. It believes that there was an excess of proposed retail developments on the intended medical campus. The council is also unimpressed, as is anyone else who knows the situation, by the lack of parking spaces on the proposed site. Families could only easily visit their relatives and park there after staff had gone home in the evening. Paddington basin is to be the single biggest urban development in London since docklands, bringing 30,000 additional jobs to the capital—hardly the oasis of calm and pure air which cardiothoracic patients need in abundance and currently enjoy in full measure at Harefield.
  The heart of the Harefield campaign, under the indomitable leadership of Jean Brett and her many friends and associates, whose efforts I salute, is convinced that, before 2006, Her Majesty's Treasury will realise that the cost-effective solution of building up existing centres for specialist excellence, such as those at Harefield for cardiothoracics and those at Mount Vernon for cancer, burns and plastics, is much better value for money and a wiser investment of public funds than grandiose projects such as the Paddington basin.
  The new cancer centre in Hertfordshire also sounds like a grandiose project, as it is going to be an "ideal" cancer centre, possibly even on a greenfield site, which has not of course been revealed by Hertfordshire county council.
  992
  No one knows exactly where it is, although notional journey times have been measured to it. From those notional journey times, we secured from the review team the admission that it had picked a site somewhere south of St. Albans.
  The wishes of patients and their families should count in the NHS, but they seem not to do so at present. Even the representations to the Secretary of State of the former chairman of Harefield and Royal Brompton NHS trust, Sir Geoffrey Errington, were ignored. That fine public servant stressed the benefits of complementarity of heart research and treatment on the Harefield site.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will grant Sir Geoffrey the interview that he requested, and which he fully deserves. The trouble is that Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority was the lead health authority in the public consultation, and it had a blatant vested interest as a member of the development partnership for Paddington basin, even before the consultation began. As a consequence, the outcome was predictable. It prejudiced the decision-making process, and it merits much further examination, perhaps in terms of its permissibility under the Human Rights Act 1998. The health authority, like the Government, ignored all petitions, debates and representations.
  In conclusion, the stories of the St. Vincent's, Mount Vernon and Harefield hospitals, as I have recounted them tonight, demonstrate all that is worst in the NHS today. Staff work nobly, often against a background of total uncertainty and inexplicable bureaucratic power-plays. Patients and local residents love their local specialist hospitals, and they are appalled. No notice seems to be taken of their views, and the taxpayer pays more for decisions that cannot be justified logically. It is time to put matters right, and I hope that the Government will do so as far as Harefield and Mount Vernon hospitals are concerned.
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing this debate about the future of specialist hospital services in north-west London. It gives me a chance to set out the work under way in relation to Harefield hospital and the Paddington basin complex.
  The scheme will cost £360 million, and will bring together the NHS and the Imperial college school of medicine in a development that will be a centre for clinical excellence, innovation, teaching and research. It also represents a unique opportunity to establish hospital design at the forefront of a massive urban development.
  Tonight's debate also gives us a chance to discuss the provision of some specialist services in north-west London, as well as the options for change being developed for Mount Vernon hospital cancer services. Although it is inevitable that I shall have to rehearse some of the arguments behind the options being developed in relation to services such as cancer services at Mount Vernon hospital, it is important that I do not prejudge the future consultation. I hope that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood will understand that, given that the proposals are still very much under development and that public consultation has yet to commence, I am not in a position tonight to engage in a detailed debate about some of the matters that will arise out of that consultation process.

  993
  The hon. Gentleman has raised in this House the future of Harefield hospital on many occasions on behalf of his constituents. I think that we all know that, under the inspirational clinical leadership of Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub, Harefield hospital has been remarkably successful in its development of heart and lung services. It has also become a centre where research and development is an integral part of the work to improve life expectancy and the quality of life for those with serious cardiothoracic conditions. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that specialist care of the type that has been pioneered at Harefield will continue to form a crucial part of the overall network of services provided for people with coronary heart disease.
  The Department of Health confirmed last October that it intended to move ahead with plans to develop a new hospital complex at Paddington. That development will bring together three world-class hospitals and include cutting-edge research facilities. The £360 million Paddington basin scheme will offer specialist services for children, with heart and lung patients being concentrated on one site in Paddington. That will bring together the strength of the Royal Brompton, St Mary's and Harefield hospitals. Specialist kidney services, including transplants, will be developed at Hammersmith.
  The Paddington health complex will be a centre for clinical excellence, innovation, teaching and research, and it will form part of a major urban regeneration scheme. We should not underestimate the strength of the project being developed.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the objections of the community health councils to the proposals. Those have been considered by Ministers, and a full response was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health. He was satisfied at that stage that the conditions associated with the decision and the undertakings about further work to be done will address many of the issues raised during the consultation process.
  The hon. Gentleman has expressed concern in the past that the option of investing at Harefield was not given sufficient attention during the consultation process. In fact, I can confirm that the option of a centre at Harefield hospital was included in the consultation. It considered the option of developing an independent specialist centre at Harefield hospital. It acknowledged Harefield hospital's national reputation as well as the strong doubts about the ability of a single specialty hospital to continue in relative isolation. I acknowledge that proposals and decisions of that nature are difficult for local communities. There are tensions involved in bringing together services so that they can provide excellence within a setting of other specialties rather than continuing to develop in a fairly isolated situation. Sometimes those issues are finely balanced and raise tremendous concerns in local communities.
  The argument presented was that Harefield, being several miles from local general hospitals with accident and emergency departments, would not be in a position to draw on support from the wider range of specialties that are found at such hospitals and that the only way to achieve these benefits would be to build a completely new major general hospital on the Harefield site. Such a proposal would seriously threaten the viability of two
  994
  existing hospitals—Hillingdon and Northwick Park. The options that were shortlisted were considered more robust because, if implemented, they would make use of existing major teaching hospitals rather than requiring the creation of a new one at the expense and probable demise of two other local general hospitals.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the staff concerns about whether they will be able to transfer to the new complex at the Paddington basin. Staff recruitment and retention, particularly in this part of the country, are challenging matters for the national health service. Every NHS trust has to carry out a survey of all its staff to see how it can improve recruitment and retention, provide flexible working hours and child care facilities and ensure that when we attract the best staff into the NHS, we keep them there.
  I confirm that the trust is developing plans to ensure that all staff will see a career path and options for their future that will mean that they want to continue to play a part in the provision of health services in the area. The new Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS trust will open on the Paddington basin complex in 2007, so we have a lengthy period in which to prepare and ensure that staff receive proper reassurance about their future.
  Staff have raised issues such as help with transport, financial incentives, accommodation, career opportunities and working environment. An action plan for all those issues is being developed by the trust to make sure that measures are in place to address the concerns about accommodation, transport and travel in the area.
  In his response to the community health councils, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State emphasised the importance of drawing a line under any uncertainty or confusion that patients or staff might feel. There is investment in the Harefield site while we are waiting for the development of the Paddington basin. More than £4 million is being put into a patient services centre and £1 million into pathology services on the site.
  We have also made available £2.5 million to the Harefield Research Foundation for the further development of the heart sciences centre on that site. The centre will remain on the hospital site beyond the transfer of clinical services to Paddington. The second phase of the centre is under construction. That presents an opportunity for the development of a science park built on the success of the heart sciences centre. A feasibility study was commissioned last year and a draft report is being assessed. It appears that there is a market for a science park in the area, but further work is required in collaboration with the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine. The two trusts are developing a full business case for the Paddington basin scheme which, as I said, should be completed by 2007. That will safeguard all the excellent research and clinical work that is going on and will provide services that are fit for the 21st century.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: On uncertainty, does my hon. Friend realise that there has been considerable concern about the future of specialist services in north-west London ever since the accident and emergency unit at Mount Vernon hospital was shut in 1996? Does she realise that the profound concern expressed by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about the future of cancer services at

  995
  Mount Vernon is shared by my constituents? Will she ensure that the consultation process currently under way and the considerations by her Department take into account the concerns of my constituents in Harrow as well as those of the hon. Gentleman?
  Ms Blears: My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood have referred to the uncertainty of local people. Any period of change and uncertainty in the NHS causes great distress to local people. That is partly because they value their services enormously—that great attachment to the NHS makes us realise how central its services are to local communities. It is vital that patients and the public be fully involved in all the consultation processes. The hon. Gentleman said that the voice of patients and of the public is not heard so we must consult the public creatively and innovatively rather than simply going through a formal process.
  It is important to get to the heart of the concerns of local people. We want to provide modern, 21st-century services of a much higher standard than those that existed previously. It is essential to take the public with us on that journey. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) made the point extremely well.
  A large number of reviews of Mount Vernon hospital have failed to deliver a long-term solution. It is essential to clarify the long-term future of the whole cancer network so that decisions about medium and long-term investment can be made sensibly.
  The Mount Vernon cancer review started in February 2001 and an interim report was published in September. Feedback has been received on the three options for developing the cancer centre: at Mount Vernon; at a greenfield site; or at an upgraded district general hospital in Hertfordshire. A detailed site survey was conducted at Mount Vernon and the other district general hospitals under consideration to identify their condition and capacity for further development. A further survey of public and car transport has been undertaken. Access to those services is a key issue for local people.
  John McDonnell: In our area we almost feel consultatively abused at present—we have been reviewed and consulted so often. The test of any
  996
  review or consultation is whether anyone is listening. In relation to the latest review, the community is unanimous—across the political spectrum of all the MPs representing the area—in opposing the move. I hope that this time someone will actually listen.
  Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. No matter how good the consultation process, the proof of its success is that people not only listen but act on the points made by local communities. In this review, the issues were closely investigated and that will continue—especially as regards people's concerns about access to services. In the past such concerns have not always weighed as heavily as the clinical issues. My hon. Friend is right.
  Mr. John Randall: The hon. Lady referred to the importance of these services to local communities. Does not she consider that that is one of the paramount reasons for retaining such services in those communities?
  Ms Blears: As I said to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood earlier, decisions about the reconfiguration of services are always beset with tension. We have to try to achieve the right balance between specialisation—to provide an excellent quality of service—and access for people close to their homes.

  We have to listen to all the parties involved to ensure that people have the high quality services that they rightly demand and expect and that those services are accessible to as many local people as possible. That balance is difficult to find but we should not shy away from entering the debate.
  The model being developed for cancer services is the right one. It brings together diagnosis, surgical treatment and oncology and has been widely endorsed in the interim report. I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood about the future of the cancer centre, and I shall ensure that the consultation is rigorous and takes into account the views of local people in deciding the way forward for those services that are so important to the constituents of all the hon. Members who have spoken this evening.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Sudan
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
Mr. Robert Key: During this season of Lent, hundreds of my constituents and many thousands more across the two counties of Wiltshire and Dorset, which comprise the diocese of Salisbury, have been lobbying their Members of Parliament about the situation in Sudan. The link between the diocese and the Episcopal Church of Sudan was established by Bishop George Reindorp in 1972, working with people such as Ted Bickersteth, who served there as a civil servant for many years. That link has developed and prospered and is now under the chairmanship of Bishop Peter Hullah of Ramsbury.
In this short debate, I have three objectives. First, I hope to establish beyond doubt that the United Kingdom has a moral responsibility to work for peace and the restoration of stability and prosperity in Sudan. Secondly, I hope to establish exactly who in our Government is in the lead on Sudan policy, and what Her Majesty's Government and our allies propose to do. Thirdly, I hope to make the case for self-determination for the people of Sudan, both north and south.
The world is focused on the war against terrorism, preoccupied by the situation in Afghanistan, mesmerised by the prospect of renewed military action against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, staggered by the violence in the middle east and horrified by the situation in Zimbabwe. However, by far the biggest killing fields of recent years, the worst humanitarian disasters and the greatest forced displacement of people are to be found in Sudan.
Nobody knows exactly how many people have been killed or driven out of their country. Best estimates suggest that between 1.5 million and 3 million people have been killed during the 40 years of civil war, and between 3 million and 5 million Africans have been driven out of their homes in southern Sudan. There are some 4 million internally displaced persons—more than anywhere else in the world. A million more have dispersed into neighbouring countries. Some 30 million people live in northern Sudan, and about 16 million in southern Sudan. Northern Sudan is Arab, southern Sudan African. Northern Sudan is the seat of a militant Islamic Government. Southern Sudan is the heartland of the Christian faith and the animist tradition.
Why did Britain get involved in the first place? We were never threatened by the people of Sudan. There was then no mineral or other natural resource to exploit. We did it to protect our interests in Egypt and to stop the French expanding east of the Nile watershed. That culminated in the Fashoda incident, when General Kitchener moved south down the Nile into Sudan, defeated the Mahdists and claimed the town of
250WH
Fashoda, now called Kodok, for the Government of Egypt. The French withdrew. Thereafter, Sudan was administered by the British, who set up a condominium with Egypt.
The British recognised the effective split of the country into northern and southern interests and, through a system of indirect rule, left the administrative and judicial functions to agents of the traditional tribal authorities. That lasted until 1 January 1956. On 20 December 1955, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Harold Macmillan, made a statement to the House of Commons:
"The Sudanese House of Representatives yesterday passed a Declaration in favour of independence … Her Majesty's Government, therefore, after consultation with the Egyptian Government, have issued a statement welcoming the Declaration by the Sudanese Parliament."— [Official Report, 20 December 1955; Vol. 547, c. 1857.]
Meanwhile, in the House of Lords, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, the Marquess of Reading, made an identical announcement. For the Labour party, the Earl Jowitt said:
"We should also convey to them—
the Sudanese—
"our hope that if we can in any way at any time help them, Her Majesty's Government will be only too ready to do so."
For the Cross-Benchers, Lord Rea said:
"The Sudan, of course, has always been in a particular relationship to this country, a very favoured and rather affectionate relationship."
The Marquess of Reading responded for the Government, saying that
"any assistance which they may ask from Her Majesty's Government will be most willingly given."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 December 1955; Vol. 195, c. 364-65.]
A moral responsibility for the future of Sudan was undoubtedly established.
As part of the campaign in the diocese of Salisbury, and part of Christian Aid's campaign, constituents have asked me to write to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about oil exploration and extraction in Sudan. I await a reply. Meanwhile, I have corresponded with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw); the Secretary of State for International Development; and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, whose most recent letter, although extremely helpful, referred me to the hon. Member for Exeter.
It is, therefore, with some surprise and great delight that I see that another Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), will respond to the debate. He is warmly welcome, and I know that we can count on his professionalism to provide us with the answers that we seek. I hope that he will, for a start, tell us who is now leading the Government's response. Is it Baroness Amos, in the House of Lords?
During the 1990s, Sudan's relations with the international community suffered because of its links with terrorist groups such as the al-Qaeda network and Egypt's al-Islamiya. In 1996, the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions 1044, 1054 and

251WH
1070, demanding that Sudan end all support to terrorists. The United States Government designated Sudan a state sponsor of terrorism and imposed a trade embargo. By the end of 2000, however, Sudan seemed to be making progress. After 11 September 2001, its Government condemned the attacks on the USA, and terrorism in general. On 28 September 2001, the UN Security Council lifted the 1996 resolutions. The US embargo remained in place, but the President announced a new initiative.
There is no doubt about the commitment of our Secretary of State for International Development. She has visited Sudan and convinced the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that Britain must take a lead. The Prime Minister recently announced the appointment of a UK special representative for Sudan, who will be answerable jointly to the Secretary of State for International Development and the Foreign Secretary. A dedicated team, drawn from both Departments, will support the special envoy, Mr Alan Goulty, who is head of the middle east desk at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He was our ambassador to Sudan and is deeply knowledgeable about the country, and we wish him well. We also wish the Government every success in working with the Government of Sudan, other Governments and, in particular, the people of southern Sudan to find a way through this tragic crisis.
On 6 September 2001, President Bush announced the appointment of Senator John Danforth of Missouri as America's envoy for peace in Sudan. The President said:
"We're committed to bringing stability to the Sudan, so that many loving Americans, non-governmental organizations, will be able to perform their duties of love and compassion within that country without fear of reprisal."
Jack Danforth is a former United States Senator and an ordained minister. In accepting the President's commission, he said:
"I am prepared to deal constructively with both sides of the conflict, the government of Sudan and the SPLA."
He has been as good as his word, and I congratulate him and the Swiss on brokering a six-month ceasefire in the Nuba mountains.
However, I say this to Senator Danforth and the Prime Minister: the UN resolutions, the sanctions, the aid money from US and British taxpayers, the voluntary contributions of international humanitarian agencies and the deaths of millions of people will all be in vain if, in pursuing the war on terrorism and for justice in the world, the USA and Great Britain turn from Afghanistan and towards Iraq without so much as a glance at Sudan. Indeed, if we do not help Sudan to find its way back to the table of civilised nations, terrorism will continue to use the country as a safe haven and evil will triumph. Death and destruction will carry on in southern Sudan.
Many people are calling for Sudan's oil industry to be closed down, at least until after the war. I understand that view, but I am not convinced that it is the answer. Existing extraction should continue, but with UN agreement and supervision, so that revenues are used exclusively for humanitarian purposes. We would certainly expect any arrangements to be a great improvement on those put in place for Iraq.
252WH
So, what is the policy? Are the Government of Sudan part of the "axis of evil"? Last week, a man from Juba told me that Osama bin Laden had been seen there. He said that people in the south regard the regime in Khartoum as a terrorist Government. The mujaheddin are certainly in the area, and they are unmistakable. I met them face to face in Bosnia when I was an election observer for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The facts of the daily situation are clear. As President Bush said of terrorism only last Monday:
"These facts cannot be denied, and must be confronted".
Last week, some hon. Members present had the privilege of meeting Archbishop Paulino Lukudu, president of the Sudan Catholic Bishops Conference, and Paride Taban, Bishop of Torit in south Sudan, at a packed meeting of parliamentarians in Portcullis House. They told us that the Government of Sudan's agenda is to impose Islam and Sharia law on the whole of Sudan.
It is clear that the message from the Government in Khartoum is perceived by the people in the south to be totally uncompromising. Those people believe that the Government in Khartoum say that Christians in the south should convert to Islam, flee their homeland or wait to be killed, usually by the Antonov bombers or helicopter gunships that are such a familiar and terrifying part of their lives.
Last Saturday, the Bishop of Salisbury kindly invited me to his house to meet Archbishop Joseph Marona, Primate of the Episcopal Church of Sudan. What a brave and charismatic Christian he is. He explained to me that it is imperative for his people that there be an end to the fighting, the construction of basic infrastructure such as water supplies and roads, the introduction of medical and educational services, and then a plebiscite on self-determination.
On 3 March, the World Council of Churches convened a meeting of the Sudan Ecumenical Forum at Campion house, Osterley, near Heathrow airport. As a result, the Sudanese Churches have issued a detailed statement on the background to the right to self-determination, the mounting consensus for self-determination and the basis for peacemaking through the self-determination process.
The Osterley statement urges the parties and stakeholders to abide by their commitments and enact the referendum law, which should fix a firm date for a free, fair and internationally supervised referendum. That should be agreed within not more than two years. If agreement cannot be achieved, people should be entitled to exercise the right to self-determination. In other words, if no agreement is reached, the lack of agreement itself should trigger the process of self-determination, not only for the people of the south, but for other Sudanese people.
Meanwhile, President al-Bashir of Sudan has been put on the spot. He is now confronting a test of his seriousness about peace. Should he fail to decide in favour of peace, or fail to impose his will on his Government and army, the prospects for peace will diminish. If that happens, my aspiration is that the

253WH
UN swiftly becomes involved. The international community will be challenged to propose serious strategies to protect civilians in the war areas.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: The hon. Gentleman has described the situation and the conditions for the peace process clearly. Does he agree that one of the biggest issues is who benefits from the oil in southern Sudan?
Mr. Key: Yes, of course. I shall refer to that key point, which the hon. Lady is right to mention.
The UN should suggest strategies to protect civilians, and those should not include the supply of weaponry to escalate the conflict. They might include the United States identifying safe havens and no-fly zones.
I have given the Minister notice of five questions, which I ask on behalf of not only my constituents, but people of good will around the world. This may be only an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, but the Minister's answers, the whole debate and all my correspondence with Ministers will be available shortly through the internet on my website, www.robertkey.com.
Will the United States, Great Britain and all our allies against terrorism consider the death and dispersal of the African people in southern Sudan in the same way as the plight of the marsh Arabs and the Kurds in Iraq? Will the British Government, with or without the US, go back to the UN and seek international agreement on a new UN resolution to condemn the Government of Sudan and impose new sanctions on the al-Bashir regime, including a freeze on further development of the oil industry? There should be no new investment, exploration or extraction until the bombing, scorched earth displacement and starvation have stopped.
Will the UN insist that revenue from existing oil extraction in Sudan be redirected from Government arms purchases to infrastructure development in the south—water, shelter, health care, farming, roads and education? There is a huge opportunity for the oil wealth of that nation to be shared between north and south. In addition, will the British Government insist on the establishment of UN peacekeepers, military if necessary, in southern Sudan to guarantee the safety of a new international humanitarian relief effort, and will the UN set in train the political processes that will lead to self-determination for the people of southern Sudan? No one could have put it more concisely than President Bush on Monday. Speaking of the consequences of terrorism, he said:
"Our coalition must act deliberately. Inaction is not an option".
9.46 am
Paul Flynn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—perhaps he would prefer to be known as robertkey.com—on obtaining the debate. It is extraordinary that, over the years, so little attention has been paid to the continuing bloodshed and disasters in Sudan. We should say a word of gratitude to Anglican and Catholic priests and others, and to the charities that have constantly tried to raise the issue. A few years ago, an Anglican minister spent a week fasting in Whitehall to draw attention to Sudan's plight.
254WH
As the hon. Gentleman explained, that country of some 25 million people has lost at least 2 million and possibly 3 million killed in the warfare, and about 4 million are internally displaced—refugees in their own land. It is a country of at least 25 different tribes or nations that has experienced continuous civil war since 1983. There were other wars before that and 40 internal conflicts over tribal rights, such as those to water, are also going on. One suspects that the Government in Khartoum, whose main interest seems to be spending what money they have on armaments, are deliberately encouraging the tribal conflicts by supplying arms to those who are interested in keeping the warfare going.
It is becoming a familiar story throughout Africa and in many parts of the world that, where the stomachs are empty, the weapons are shiny and new. Sudan's Government stated that the recent incident in which a helicopter fired on a queue of people waiting for food aid was a mistake. I assume that that means that it was the wrong queue; I do not know what the intended target was. That is just one small example of completely gratuitous bloodshed. It has nothing to do with any aim of that Government or of anyone else, but it is part of the eternal tragedy that causes that nation such immense suffering.
I shall not detain hon. Members, but I must draw attention to the optimism that now exists thanks to the brave words of President Mbeki and initiatives from the rest of the world, especially the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which he introduced. He talked about a future for Africa that we would all like to believe in, but, in the light of recent experience, we are depressed about the prospect of achieving it.
We must give attention to the issue, both in Parliament and in the country, and many hon. Members have repeatedly tried to raise interest in it through Foreign Office questions and early-day motions. Hidden calamities have taken place in East Timor and in Cambodia, when the world was not looking, and it was a matter of cold luck that the world noticed what was happening in Ethiopia. It just so happened that Michael Buerk had a weekend off and a spare camera crew, so he went on an excursion to Ethiopia. The moving film that he produced roused the conscience of the world.
Sudan is virtually unknown on the political landscape and the landscape of public opinion. There would be no reaction if one mentioned Sudan, but an immediate reaction if one referred to tragedies that are taking place even further away, but which seem to happen in the corner of our living rooms because the television cameras draw our attention to them. However, because the interests and nostrums of the news media are different from ours, a series of tragedies has been largely ignored by the public and by the Government.
Perhaps there is a reason for that. Some young, ambitious foreign correspondent from one of our national newspapers might say to his editor, "We must do something about Sudan and print an article. Give me 10 minutes to explain what is going on." By the end of the 10 minutes, the editor, confused by the history and the complexity of events, would turn away and say, "I am publishing a newspaper, not an encyclopaedia." That is one main reason for that impenetrable country—both geographically and because of the alien nature of the situation there—being largely ignored.

255WH
I make one suggestion. Perhaps the Foreign Office should consider intervening in a special way, because the agenda is controlled not by the Department for International Development or the Foreign Office, but by the perception of the press and the attention given to the situation. I am not saying that there is any malign reason behind that, but certain areas of the world interest us because we understand them, and few people understand the continuing disasters in Sudan. Should not the Foreign Office be obliged to draw attention to the situation and to provide publicity? Should it not have its own camera teams? Should it not be saying, "There are terrible things happening in the world. We are dealing with the ones that MPs and others bring to our attention, but we know that probably one of the worst continuing crises is taking place in Sudan, which is forgotten and ignored."?
Should not there be an obligation on the Department for International Development and others not to react to the situation as it is presented to them, but to draw attention to it and make a film for television, as Michael Buerk did, to ask, "What are our priorities? Are they what is before the public eye or those of need?" That would be a worthwhile intervention.
It is good to see several MPs in the Chamber—for one debate on Sudan, there was not a single Member of one main party here—and good to see that interest in that country is gathering. I hope, however, that it has resulted not because of oil or because the only superpower in the world regards Sudan as a suitable place to fight out battles between the two opposing camps that are currently developing in the world.
In his final remark, robertkey.com referred to inaction. There is inaction that one likes to see, because there is such a thing as stability in the world. When the President to whom he referred came to power, there was stability between North Korea and the rest of the world. Rapprochement was being built up between North Korea and South Korea, but the new President effectively wrecked that.
Iran has changed its policy substantially over the past five years and it was moving closer to becoming an acceptable member of the family of nations. The Iraqi situation was relatively inert. Some 10 years ago, Iraq was belligerent, threatening and making weapons of mass destruction. It was as dangerous then as it is now, possibly more so.
In relation to the so-called axis of evil countries, therefore, there is an advantage in having stability in the world. The great danger of saying that inaction is not a possibility is that we are likely to replace a dangerous but stable situation with a highly unstable, perilous one.
I conclude by begging the Minister and Parliament to consider the dreadful history of Sudan, which seems to be a country filled with endless tragedies.
9.55 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on introducing the debate. He is the lead Member in the diocese of Salisbury, which has put tremendous emphasis on raising public awareness of the plight of all
256WH
people in Sudan. In my constituency, half of which lies in the diocese of Salisbury and the other half in Winchester, the parish of West Parley and the parish of Ferndown have been in the forefront of the campaign to raise public awareness.
The Rev. Charles Booth, rector of the parish of West Parley, has sent me several letters, as have some of his communicants, about the problems in Sudan. In a typically Christian spirit of generosity, they write of their concern for all the peoples of Sudan, regardless of faith allegiance, whose lives are blighted by the civil conflict. They established Ash Wednesday, which was 13 February this year, as a designated diocesan day of action.
There is widespread public concern, not only because of the civil conflict and the number of people being massacred and persecuted, but because of the increasing evidence that some of that is religiously motivated. Christians are writing to me in growing numbers to say, "We are a Christian country. Why are we not standing up for Christians who are being persecuted worldwide on a much larger scale than Muslims?" From the figures, we can see that as many as 100,000 people a year, over 20 years, may have been massacred in Sudan because of their religious beliefs.
One would have thought that, at a time of increased worldwide awareness of and concern about religiously motivated conflicts, the conflict in Sudan would be top of the political agenda. Unfortunately, it is not top of the political agenda in the Department of Trade and Industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said, he and I have sent a large number of letters to the Secretary of State. If the matter is important to her, I am sure that she would have responded, and the fact that she has not done so is disappointing. She and her officials must have known about this debate. Normally, by convention, Ministers seek to clear their correspondence on issues being discussed in the House so that people have the chance to consider their response.
Yesterday, I was lucky enough to draw No. 18 in the ballot for oral questions, but sadly my question was not reached and not answered orally. I received a written answer, however, drawing my attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for International Development visited Sudan in January and that the Foreign Secretary's representative was going there this month. I would have hoped, in the light of the undoubted efforts being made by senior Ministers in Sudan, that they would do more to inform the House and the people of this country about their assessment of the situation. We may have a volunteered statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on her visit, and that of many others, to the Doha summit, so why can we not have a volunteered statement from the Secretary of State for International Development when she returns from Sudan?
It is vital that the issue be raised higher in public awareness. The diocese of Salisbury motivated my hon. Friend and me and to participate in this debate, which shows how ordinary people can influence affairs of state in this country. I hope that this is not the end of the process, but the start of a major debate and the raising

257WH
of public awareness about an outrageous situation. The persecution of black African Christians threatens to continue.
Dr. Tonge: I appreciate all that the hon. Gentleman says about the persecution of Christians, but we should remember that many people in southern Sudan are of the old animist religions. They, too, are God's children, and we should remember their suffering.
Mr. Chope: I agree with the hon. Lady on that issue. That is the view of my Christian constituents, who have written to me about the matter. We are concerned about all the consequences of the civil conflict in Sudan—the enormous loss of life and the displacement of people.
A six-month ceasefire may have been negotiated in the Nuba mountains, but it is by no means clear whether it is being carried into effect. As with all such things, our problem is not knowing what sanctions will be imposed if those commitments are not kept. There seemed to be a quick willingness after 11 September to lift some sanctions affecting Sudan, but we must consider the question whether the major world powers have been taken for a ride by President al-Bashir of Sudan.
I shall say no more, because I hope that we shall have plenty of time to listen to the Minister's response, which is what the people really want to hear. They want to know what their Government are doing about the problem.
10.1 am
Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is a pleasure to take part in this exceptionally important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on the admirable way in which he introduced it, and I agree with every word he said. As chair of the all-party group on Sudan, I have been applying regularly for such a debate, as have others, so I pay tribute to his ability in succeeding. I shall visit his website to see whether I can learn how better to manage the procedures of the House.
It is important that we debate Sudan today because there are hopeful signs, but above all because of the desperate and dreadful circumstances there. As we speak, the war rages. It has been going on for at least 35 of the past 46 years. The debate is fortuitous also because the all-party group will visit Sudan shortly after Easter. We all look forward to going to north and south Sudan, and to Kenya, to speak to people based there about their perceptions of the situation. We shall need a certain sense of humility and a desire to learn about, discuss and observe what is going on. Then, we must come back and make ever more forcefully the points that we believe need to be made in respect of the Government's involvement in Sudan.
One might ask why particular Members of the House have an interest in Sudan. The hon. Member for Salisbury displayed his interest and told us of his connections with the admirable work of the diocese of Salisbury. What others have said is absolutely accurate: one would not gain a good understanding of the situation in Sudan by reading the papers. The media cover the desperate circumstances of people living in Sudan about as regularly as they deal with the possibility of there being life on Mars. For most of the media, Sudan is about as far away.
258WH
I am interested in Sudan and became involved because of a constituent who came to me as a refugee from that country. He was an asylum seeker, seeking refuge from torture, oppression, imprisonment and the death of members of his family. He has become a colleague—he works with me in Parliament—and a friend. Lokiden Modi Kenyi is a member of the south Sudan civic forum. Once he gained a certain interest in the circumstances of his country, he assiduously introduced me to his colleagues at that excellent organisation.
We have a huge Sudanese diaspora in this country, and one in eight of all displaced people in the world are of Sudanese origin. The vast range of people from northern and southern Sudan living in this country whom I have met impressed me with their bravery, integrity, commitment to their country and desire to return there. It can be heartbreaking to hear their descriptions of how this country has helped them, although they are desperate to return to their own country and to have what the hon. Member for Salisbury rightly refers to as self-determination. A referendum on self-determination is at the heart of an overall deal that could create conditions for peace, development, increased respect for human rights and justice in Sudan.
We have already heard the facts: about 2 million people have died in the past 18 years as a result of fighting or its consequences; generations of children in Sudan, particularly in the south, have never had sustained opportunities to access basic education, health care, clean water or adequate food; and 4.5 million people have been driven from their homes. Those are desperate circumstances and they should command our attention.
The hon. Member for Salisbury is right that this country has a moral responsibility towards the people of Sudan. Under British colonial rule from 1898, we fused north and south Sudan, creating an amalgamation of territory and people. In 1956, we finally let them get on with it, and we are seeing the consequences now. It is clear that there is a direct need for this country to become further involved in any way it can to help to resolve the appalling circumstances in Sudan.
There is a link to 11 September, as Sudan was Osama bin Laden's haven before he transferred to Afghanistan. If we do not deal with the barbarous circumstances in countries such as Sudan, we know the consequences for countries such as the UK and the United States, which, before 11 September, comfortably assumed and complacently hoped that they were insulated from them. We must engage much more with the peace process and recognise the need to develop both respect for human rights, justice and democracy and a referendum on self-determination in Sudan.
There are signs that we are making progress. We can see them in the number of people from Sudan who are making their way to this country, the ecumenical forum that has been referred to in recent weeks and visits from, among others, a previous Prime Minister of Sudan, Sadiq al-Mahdi, the leader of the Sudan People's Liberation Army, John Garang, and the Governor of Khartoum. The Danforth initiative has been extremely important, as has the visit by the Secretary of State for International Development, who addressed a packed

259WH
meeting of the associate parliamentary group on Sudan a few weeks ago on her visit and her hopes for peace there.
Many of the 70 or so Members from both Houses who are in the group were present, and well over 100 Sudanese people packed into a Committee Room, desperate for knowledge and eager to hear of any prospects of peace. The Sudanese people whom I have met hold the Government in the highest regard for wanting to engage further with Sudan, and the Sudanese people in that Room were pleased by what the Secretary of State had to say. Since 11 September, our Prime Minister has engaged with Africa and the new Africa-led economic policies for African development, and Alan Goulty has been appointed special envoy to Sudan. Such developments give us hope that we can make great progress.
According to a Christian Aid report, the Sudanese Government gain $1 million of oil revenue a day. Co-incidentally, $1 million a day goes to fund their armed forces and involvement in the war. Sudan has about 2 billion barrels of oil reserves, mainly in the south. That tremendous resource could be used to aid the country's economic development and to improve its education services and health facilities. British companies are involved in exploiting the oil, as are Swedish, Canadian, Malaysian and Chinese interests.
Our Government have a moral responsibility to become further engaged in Sudan. A peace process and a referendum on self-determination would be in the interest of all its people, who could see the benefits of oil and be given debt relief and further development aid. By joining the community of nations, from which they are excluded, they could play an important part in the desperately needed development of the continent of Africa. The boundaries of their country could be decided by democratic mandate rather than colonial imperatives. They could be part of a country that respected all religions, whether Islam, Christianity or traditional African religions, without seeking to impose one religion on all the people.
The Government should use the levers available to them much more effectively. British investment in Sudanese air traffic control systems—they support airfields from which Antonovs, helicopter gunships and other instruments of oppression operate—is a disgrace. Although there is a case for development aid, especially in some southern parts of the country, I am not sure that the aid from the European Union, especially for the northern parts of Sudan, helps the cause of bringing everyone to the peace table. I am sure that more pressure could be exerted through the Department of Trade and Industry on oil interests in Sudan and allied countries.
The Government have an important role to play in Sudan. The circumstances are desperate, and Sudan is one of the most difficult countries in the world to develop. There is, however, hope for the future, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
10.15 am
John Barrett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on initiating the debate. As the hon. Member for Newport, West
260WH
(Paul Flynn) said, we cannot simply follow where the media decide to send their cameras, when countries are in the news today, or are politically sexy, so everybody cares about them. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) asked why people were interested in Sudan—but not one constituent has contacted me about it, and I have had no correspondence about the well-being of people in Sudan since I was elected last year. It is our duty as Members of Parliament to discuss issues and countries that the media ignore, and to encourage them to follow up relevant stories. Issue and events are no less serious because they do not happen to be in the news.
One such event, which was described as a mistake, took place recently. Twenty women and children were killed at a World Food Programme drop. Survivors said that one gunship circled overhead while another opened fire, hovering so low that the crowd could see the gunner's face. Rockets were fired into the drop zone and into a nearby village, while those who ran for cover were machine-gunned. It was the second attack on a WFP aid distribution in 11 days. Had such an attack been made on British or American citizens, there would have been a huge outcry, and calls for military intervention. The number of people killed is not too dissimilar to the number of American soldiers who died in Mogadishu—an event that had ramifications around the world.
People are hardly aware of the problems in Sudan. As has been said, a camera crew in Ethiopia opened the eyes of the world. We should therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury for raising the issue here today. One advantage of debates in Westminster Hall is that everyone present is interested in the subject. As a new Member of Parliament, I must say that that is not always the case in the main Chamber.
Today, I would like to hear that Britain can and will play its part, that inaction is not a possibility and that we shall work in partnership with our European allies and through the United Nations. It is also imperative that there are observers on the ground to see what is happening. There have been stories—I do not know whether they are true—about slavery, and about children in Sudan and bordering areas being abducted to serve in the military. It is important that we find out exactly what has happened so that we can concentrate on the issues that must be dealt with.
The appointment of the special representative is welcome, but Britain cannot make progress alone, and we must work with others. An end to the hostilities is obviously a top priority, but there are also people who have no food in their bellies, and it is our responsibility to spread the word about such issues as much as possible. We must pressurise the media, so that people at home and abroad are more aware of the problems out there.
10.19 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I join others in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. I also pay tribute to the Bishop of Salisbury and to dioceses and parishes across the country for keeping the subject alive very effectively: without them, it would have disappeared without trace. Indeed, it was my church—St. Anne's on Kew Green—and a fellow

261WH
parishioner who worked for Christian Aid, that helped me to go to southern Sudan three years ago, six or seven months after the famine. The media paid attention to the famine—they always pay attention to dire events, but never to anything less extreme.
Ever since I went to Sudan, I have been tabling questions, trying to call debates and having meetings, but without getting very far. I share the hon. Gentleman's frustration with the "Not me, guv" attitude in the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. One hopes that that attitude has come to an end with the visit of the Secretary of State for International Development. I saw her yesterday and she was obviously enthusiastic and determined to find a solution to the problem.
I shall describe what I saw and experienced on my visit three years ago. The situation has not changed since then—that is what is so awful. I went to Turelei in Twic county in the Bahr al-Ghazal area, which suffered the worst of the famine. It is difficult to describe the poverty in which the people of that area lived. They had straw huts and straw stockades around groups of huts—until raiders from the north came and burnt them down, which is a regular occurrence. I suppose that it is lucky, in a way, that the huts are built of straw, because it is easy to put them up again. Everything that those people possess, including their animals, cooking utensils and any clothing that they may have, disappears during those raids. They have nothing.
In the little enclave where I stayed for two days and two nights, there were two huts, two cows, a few dogs, a goat and about 30 human beings, but although the people there were treating honoured guests from the British Parliament, there was hardly any food to eat. We had a little bit of dried fish, because the floods had just subsided and they had managed to catch some fish. Southern Sudan is often flooded for half the year and arid for the rest of the year, so the only chance of getting protein is when the floods come. There was also sorghum wheat bread, which is inedible to people with western tastes, as it scratches and hurts when one swallows it. Apart from the okra soup, which is awful—I do not recommend it—that was about it for the food.
Those people still faced starvation a year after the famine ended. For example, the women told me that they were desperately worried because they were no longer menstruating. I introduce that subject because it is interesting to me as a medic. Girls who suffer from anorexia nervosa, which is enforced starvation, do not menstruate after a while. The women in southern Sudan had been starving so long, through none of their own fault, that the same thing happened to them. That shows how starving they are.
Things have not changed. The people of that area live on the edge of survival, they are bombed by the north, and when the floods go down, raiders come on the wonderful train that runs from the north to a place called Wau in southern Sudan, full of Marahaleen armed to the teeth. Those are unofficial paramilitaries of the Sudanese Government, who are not paid but are allowed to loot, take slaves and destroy, everywhere the train stops. When I was there, the news came through, "The train has started moving—beware, the attacks are going to start again." That is a terrible situation.
262WH
Three years ago the SPLA—the Sudan People's Liberation Army—was fighting the Sudan People's Democratic Front, so there was civil war in southern Sudan. Thankfully, a peace agreement has been brokered between those two forces and there is much better co-ordination of activities in southern Sudan—but, boy, are those people tired of war. That terrible situation has been going on since 1956.
In the area that I visited security has improved, but the problem has shifted to western Upper Nile, where the oilfields are. As we have heard from some hon. Members, the situation is repeating itself there, with a scorched earth policy. The oil is flowing, but at what cost?
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that oil is one of the biggest obstacles to the peace process?
Dr. Tonge: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Nothing is more important than what is done with the oil. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said, the revenues are being used to make war when they should be making the people of Sudan comfortable, well off, well fed and well housed. Instead, they are just making things worse, as the excellent "Scorched Earth" document published by Christian Aid showed.
One of the peace initiatives brokered by Senator Danforth was to bring peace to the Nuba mountains. That is great news for the people there, but it has released the soldiers on both sides to go to western Upper Nile and swell activities there. There are so many problems surrounding oil, and I am sad to say that British firms, such as Weir Pumps in Scotland, are involved in the extraction of oil. I wonder what advice the Government have given them.
There have been some initiatives. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development process, which has not yet been mentioned, was much scorned. When I was in Turelei I met a group of men called "the intellectuals". They told me that the IGAD process was useless—just a talking shop for politicians. They said, "Politicians are like monkeys: the higher they climb up the coconut palm, the more backside they expose."
Senator Danforth has been involved with some other initiatives. He thought that it was important to protect civilians from military attack, and called on the Sudanese Government to do so—but attacking civilians around the oilfields is one of the strategies of the Sudanese Government. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre knows, that is what the Government do to drive people from the area in order to get at the oil. So there is no success on that front, and we have already heard about the accidental attack on the food queue in Bien on 20 February.
Senator Danforth also set up a commission to investigate the question of slavery as between the south and the north, as well as the subject of child soldiers, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett). Some NGOs have been involved in redeeming slaves, but when I was in Sudan there was much worry about those activities, because it was felt that a good business was being developed involving taking slaves, selling them back to

263WH
Christian Solidarity Worldwide and then using the money to buy arms for soldiers. The international community must investigate that.
Aid has been mentioned, but it is no good giving aid to the Government of Sudan in the present circumstances because the aid does not go to the people in the south. As I have said until I am blue in the face, southern Sudan is a very big area. At times parts of it are at peace, and some education must be provided in those areas. Generations of children are growing up without any education. I was told that all they need is the odd teacher, some slates and some chalks. They can hold schools under trees, and do not need schoolrooms or fancy equipment. That would be so valuable and would keep what children are left occupied, because one of the problems for children in war is that there is nothing for them to do, as well as nothing for them to eat.
Human rights observers are needed. We need monitors in the Nuba mountains to monitor the ceasefire and ensure that the war in that area has really stopped. We need safe havens for civilians. Southern Sudan is a big place and there should be internationally monitored safe havens where people can go while the horrible situation is sorted out.

The biggest problem of all, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West, is the sharing of oil. An accommodation must be reached between the north and south of Sudan on who owns the oil and who benefits from it.
Last week the all-party group on Sudan met John Garang, who is an engaging man and the leader of the SPLA in southern Sudan. I did wonder how often he visits southern Sudan, but he is clearly trying hard to pursue a peace process. He thinks that the two problems are oil and the fact that the south do not want Sharia law imposed on them—they would prefer self-determination. Time and again we come back to the point that the self-determination process is prevented by the problem of oil. We also met bishops from southern Sudan, who seemed depressed. They said:
"John Garang and the Government of Sudan come to the UK to talk peace whilst at home they prepare for war."
On my wrist I wear this old bracelet made of cartridge cases—the only freely available commodity in southern Sudan. It was given to me three years ago by a woman in Turelei, and I was made to promise that I would keep it on my wrist until Sudan had peace. I have a horrible feeling that I shall go to my grave wearing it, if the Government do not pull out all the stops and get a peace process going in Sudan.
10.31 am
Mr. Alan Duncan: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for securing a debate of special importance to all hon. Members. He went into great detail, and all those in his constituency who take an interest in Sudan, and anyone else who heard him, will be impressed by his mastery of the issue.
The civil war in Sudan has been raging for many years, at a terrible cost to human life and in human suffering. It has brought destruction and poverty to an
264WH
already economically vulnerable country, and has raged for too long, apparently unnoticed or—even worse—deliberately ignored by too many in the international community.
The only hope for that blighted country is a ceasefire followed by a determined internationally supported drive for peace. I pay unqualified tribute to the churches in the south-west and their friends in Sudanese churches for championing such an important agenda for peace. The impetus that they have created will serve to advance a cause that will save the lives of many thousands of Sudanese in years to come. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has received several letters from his constituents as a result of that link, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who has taken a close interest in the issue and is firmly committed to championing an agenda for peace in Sudan, has received letters too.
The civil war has too often been neglected by Governments and the media. It is seemingly little understood, and perhaps some have thought it easier to ignore. I could not disagree more. We have a moral duty to do what we can, and if we have any interest in regional stability we should clearly see the political imperative to act.
The many attempts to simplify the conflict in the Sudan and characterise it as a religious war between a Christian south and a Muslim north fail to address the causes of the underlying tensions and conflict. Economic issues that revolve round the distribution of resources, concerns about exclusion from the political process, desires for self-determination or at least inclusion, and religion, all play a part in creating a complex mix of motivations and tensions. The concentration of power and wealth in the hands of small competing groups of elites—as can be seen in other countries—has deepened the resentment and the economic, political and religious divides in the country.
An underlying problem in finding a solution is the multiplicity and shifting nature of each group's agenda. On one hand there is the Government—the National Islamic Front under President al-Bashir—and on the other there is the National Democratic Alliance, the largest component of which is the Sudan People's Liberation Army. Each group has its own agenda, be that dominance of the country and exploitation of oil revenues or independence and secession from the state of Sudan as we see it now.
Into that mix can be added other groups, including, importantly, the Churches. Every one of those groups must be willing to participate in a peace process in good faith and be willing to work on reconciliation and building a better future for the country. At the moment none of the warring parties seems committed to the cause of peace, except when it feels that its fortunes are on the wane. We must all work to change that outlook. The sustained concentration of an international effort and negotiations is needed.
One of the great problems to be overcome in attempting to create a successful peace process is the lack of unity of purpose and co-ordination—and a degree of that must be achieved. At the moment, various sporadically active peace initiatives are under way. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development—IGAD—process, which has already been mentioned,

265WH
and the Egyptian-Libyan efforts are just two of the most notable. Although the intention of such initiatives may be worthy, they often end up competing with one another, allowing the warring parties the opportunity to play them off against each other while no genuine progress is made towards peace.
An extra-regional negotiator of international stature is required to take the lead and become an over-arching influence, bringing together the various initiatives currently being pursued. Co-ordination and involvement by all interested parties, internal and external, is essential. The appointment by President Bush of former Senator Danforth marks an important step forward by the United States in recognising that it has a role to play in conflict resolution in Sudan.
I particularly welcome our Government's appointment of Mr. Alan Goulty as special envoy to Sudan. In Mr. Goulty we have an able, knowledgeable and dedicated diplomat, who we all hope will be able to play an important role in creating and moving forward a peace process. It is reassuring that the Government have been able to find such an able envoy in our diplomatic service and have not felt the need to look outside it. His seniority and skill ideally equip him for the task. For the sake of the many whose lives are at risk, we wish him well. We urge the Government to give their continuing support and attention to his efforts. I hope that the Minister will confirm that they will not just dump him in it and leave him to get on with it.
I do not intend to suggest a detailed prescription to remedy Sudan's ills, which I must leave to those better informed than I. I shall make a few observations, however, on which I am sure the Minister will comment. In the first instance, a ceasefire, or at least a moving apart of the two warring factions, is required. Any subsequent deal must be constructed to incorporate mechanisms to share the country's wealth and oil revenues equitably. I shall come on to those in a moment. It should build a secular democratic Sudan and allow religious freedom. Any negotiations should closely and carefully examine the various suggestions being made about a referendum on independence, self-determination for the south, or a federal solution allowing each region much, autonomy in law making. I do not presume to advocate any one of those solutions at this early stage in the process, but they seem to form the agenda that matters.
In passing, I must mention the attack that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made on the idea of air traffic control. Things are bad enough already. Every country needs infrastructure, and the thought that planes would be bumping into each other would do nothing for Sudan's international reputation. It was a mistaken attack, although I accept that the hon. Gentleman believes that the system is used for military purposes only. It is not; it is also used for civilian purposes, and people will not fly to Sudan if they do not have confidence in the infrastructure that keeps them safe.
Mr. Dawson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is a huge problem if those control systems are being used to aid the repression of, and the attacks on, civil populations that we have heard about.
Mr. Duncan: Yes, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is attacking the wrong target.
266WH
I would be failing to present the whole picture if I did not touch on oil exploration and development in Sudan. As everyone in the Chamber admits, the revenues that that industry generates and their use cannot be divorced from recent developments in the country. The NIF Government see oil as the factor that will give them the decisive advantage in the war against the NDA and the SPLA. Development of the proven oil resources in Sudan began in about 1999, and the Government's expectation was that the resulting revenues would allow them to purchase a significant enough military advantage to secure victory. On the other hand, the SPLA has focused its campaign on damaging the oilfields as a means of hitting the Government's revenues.
There are some—we have heard their argument today—who have called for international pressure on the Sudanese Government to stop oil production altogether and stop the development and exploration of the fields. They point out that essentially, oil is fuelling the war. Although I fully appreciate that view, I suggest that we should focus instead on bringing pressure to bear on the Sudanese Government and the oil companies to channel the revenues raised from oil into education and health rather than armaments. Effective mechanisms to monitor the use and equitable sharing of those revenues should form part of any peace deal.
Cutting oil revenues altogether would only be a step towards the creation of equal misery. What is the point of that, when distributing the wealth responsibly would be a much better option? The revenues from oil represent the best hope for Sudan's long-term prosperity and a means by which it could lift the condition of its people. We should be wary about irresponsibly undermining that potential. In fact, the oil in Sudan generates an impetus for peace. First, the keenness of the Sudanese Government to secure access to western markets for their oil means that they are working to end their isolation and build better international relations. Being receptive to a peace process is an important aspect of that. Secondly, so long as the Government have income from oil, they do not, we hope, need to have recourse to alternative income from terrorist or extremist groups, as happened during the 1990s.
The churches of the south-west, through their strong links to churches in Sudan, have done a great service in drawing attention to that country at such a crucial time. Where the current British Government have—until now—stood back a bit from taking an active role, the Church has been energetic and focused. It is encouraging that the Government are now according this issue a much higher status, and it is important that they work with the Churches and all the parties to the conflict to advance the agenda for peace. A co-ordinated determined international approach has the potential to lead to peace in a war-ravaged country, and we must seize the opportunity that the current international situation has opened for us.
10.43 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for introducing it, because the issue is important. The contributions by my hon. Friends the

267WH
Members for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) and for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) as well as those by the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) have all been valuable—and they will almost certainly be read on robertkey.com, which will now be my morning internet turn-on. They will also be available on the parliamentary website. The contribution by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was most valuable as well. I thank him for the tributes that he paid to Alan Goulty and to the quality of Foreign Office diplomats, who are fewer in number than in many other countries of comparable size, and deliver a big bang for their not very significant bucks. We should be proud of their contribution.
This time last week I was speaking about international policy matters at a church hall in Roundhay, Leeds. Although many of my hon. Friends in other Departments spend more and more of their time travelling overseas, as a Foreign Office Minister I am spending more time travelling in the United Kingdom, explaining the importance of international engagement to our citizens. While I was there, a Mr. Peter Riaak sent me a note asking why the British Government were not intervening to stop the civil war in Sudan. I was able to tell him that I would send him a copy of the Hansard record of this debate, because Sudan is a major parliamentary issue. I should also like to place on record our thanks to those who have consistently raised the issue in another place. If hon. Members care to read the House of Lords Hansard, they will see the replies from my noble Friend Baroness Amos, the lead Minister on Africa in the Lords, who takes the matter very seriously.
That reflects the Government's commitment to engaging with Africa. The Prime Minister recently visited that continent, and the cynical sneering condemnation of his commitment in a large number of our right-wing newspapers—and, I have to say, by many commentators from the left—was deplorable. That cynical indifference to the Government's commitment shames all our political chattering classes and those who spin the cobwebs of comment in the name of the London elite.
The New Partnership for Africa's Development, NEPAD, is an important step forward, and the Government are fully committed to seeing that it works. There is a window of opportunity for peace in Sudan, and hon. Members are right to say that the UK has a major role to play in ensuring that that opportunity is seized. Last month my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced the appointment of Alan Goulty as the new UK special representative for Sudan. Mr. Goulty has served there twice, most recently as ambassador, and he will report to both the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development. We are setting up a dedicated unit in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which will be staffed by officials drawn from both the FCO and the Department for International Development. That is part of our contribution to ensuring that Sudan is taken seriously.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, who spoke for the Opposition, referred to the need for Sudan to develop as a secular democracy that respects religious
268WH
freedom. That is profoundly important in today's world, in which we see great clashes between people animated by faith. Everybody of faith believes that whatever they are doing, whether it is missionary work or whether —at times, alas—it is moving to the extremes of protest that can lead to violence, they are doing it in the name of some greater divine being. It is right for the House, which formed its parliamentary strength by defeating the divine right of anybody in authority to speak on behalf of the nation, to say that secularism in international affairs is of prime importance.
Although I join in paying tribute to the Churches, I ask them, too, to remember the need for secularism. Some years ago, as a Back-Bench MP, I was invited to go to Sudan on a trip paid for either by the Sudanese Government or by people associated with Muslim organisations. I refused, because as a British MP I did not want to be beholden to any particular faith or religion—and, while paying respect to all the Churches and faiths in our multi-faith country, I shall continue to stress the need for secularism in foreign relations in my work as a Minister.
Mr. Goulty will engage with all parties to the conflict in an effort to promote the case for peace. The UK will continue to support the Intergovernmental Authority on Development peace process because it is the best chance to bring an end to the civil war through a negotiated settlement. As an active member of the IGAD partners forum, we will step up our efforts to revitalise the IGAD initiative, which both parties to the conflict have agreed to negotiate. We shall also work closely with the Kenyan Lieutenant-General Sumbeiywo, the new IGAD special envoy, who visited London for discussions on Sudan in January.
To answer a point raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury, I should say that the IGAD declaration of principles foresees self-determination for the south, but we should also bear in mind the fact that an absolute fundamental principle of the African Union—formerly the Organisation of African Unity—is that there should be no redrawing of the borders of Africa. We must take that into consideration, but many arrangements allow greater autonomous control over regions, people and communities under an overall Government who permit people to have a sense of controlling their own destinies.
As many hon. Members have said, the new British Government commitment to Africa, and particularly to Sudan, was reflected in the visit by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development from 6 to 11 January—as she is known to the whole world as Clare, for the sake of abbreviation I shall refer to her familiarly as Clare from now on. She was the first British Cabinet Minister to visit Sudan for more than a decade, and peace was at the top of her agenda. Clare discussed the peace process substantively with a full range—
Mr. Duncan: Order, order.
Mr. MacShane: Clare discussed the peace process substantively with a full range—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is quite right. Members of the House must be referred to by their titles or constituencies, not by name.
Mr. MacShane: Then I shall have to refer to "my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, the Secretary of State for International Development". If my affection ran away with me and left the full parliamentary protocol and rules behind, I beg to apologise, Mr. McWilliam. I am occasionally a mouthpiece for what I really think, instead of behaving according to the full parliamentary rules. I hope that the House accepts my apology.
Dr. Tonge: Perhaps it would be quicker to refer to SID—the Secretary of State for International Development.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The correct shortened version is "the Secretary of State".
Mr. MacShane: All those whom the Secretary of State met admitted that they had a responsibility to engage in serious negotiation, and said that there was now a window of opportunity. She stressed that we stood ready to play our part and press the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army to set out their key requirements for a just peace. She also emphasised the potential economic benefits for all, and the United Kingdom's readiness to engage in development if stability can be achieved.
There has been progress in Sudan this year. We are working closely with the United States special envoy, Senator John Danforth, and his efforts are a marvellous example of United States multilateralism, engagement in the poorest part of the world and a commitment by Washington to nation building. We should pay tribute to President Bush's wise decision to commit multilateral nation-building energy on behalf of his Administration. Senator Danforth held talks in. Berne in January with the Sudanese Government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army, with the aim of achieving a ceasefire in the region of the Nuba mountains. We are delighted that the parties reached an agreement under which civilians will be allowed to move freely within the region currently held by the SPLA. Demilitarised zones will allow the Nuba people access to fertile land, and humanitarian assistance will be allowed to enter the region by air.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre that air traffic control systems are like systems of traffic lights. The idea that any country would benefit by not having roads or traffic lights is not sensible. We should be careful about patronising African countries that want to buy the best air traffic control systems.
The Norwegian general who will head the joint military commission helping to monitor the ceasefire has just made a recce visit to the Nuba mountains and we look forward to reading his report. It will be crucial to ensure that the monitoring mechanism is up and running by the end of this month. We are heartened, too, by the agreement of warring parties not to target civilians, and we stand ready to play our part in monitoring the agreement. I hope that the hon. Member for Salisbury will be heartened to know that part of the motivation for the Nuba mountains ceasefire agreement was to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid, much of which comes through Kenya and is provided by Churches and Church-linked NGOs. Those monitoring
270WH
the agreement, whether they are UN-mandated or not, will help to guarantee the safety of the humanitarian effort.
We are concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, particularly in the south, and continue to urge all parties to give all possible help to the UN and NGOs to ensure speedy delivery of humanitarian assistance. However, the only long-term answer to the suffering in Sudan is a peace settlement that will allow the people to rebuild their lives. Peace in Sudan must remain a priority.
In response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Salisbury, I can tell him that we do not believe that the civil war—it is a civil war, as Mr. Peter Riaak of Leeds pointed out to me last week—is analogous to the situation in Iraq. There is fighting on several fronts, and several parties are involved. Our aim is to support efforts to stop the fighting and to work with international partners to mitigate the awful consequences of the conflict where peace has been broken.
We are concerned about the human rights of all in the Sudan, regardless of their ethnic or religious background, and we regularly urge all sides in the civil war to respect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. That is reflected in the Foreign Office's annual human rights report. There is no doubt that many Christians and many of other faiths have suffered, and many have been killed, as a result of the civil war. We make representations to the Government of Sudan about individual cases as well as more general issues, and we have a very active ambassador who gets out and about in that country and who is a great credit to the diplomatic service.
We urge all sides in the civil war to respect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, and fully to respect international law. We stay in close touch with Churches in the UK and in Sudan that are working in the north and the south of the country. One of those is the diocese of Salisbury, to whose work I pay tribute. Christians have specific concerns, but thousands of them are able to worship freely each week. The picture is a mixed one. Religious freedom was one of the main topics of discussion at the EU-Sudan dialogue meetings, chaired by our ambassador, in the latter part of last year. As Members have heard, only last week the Sudan ecumenical forum brought together the Sudan Council of Churches, the New Sudan Council of Churches and other Christians. I pay tribute to their work.
The EU-Sudan dialogue deals with some of the issues that the hon. Member for Salisbury mentioned: peace, relations with neighbours, terrorism, democratisation and human rights, including the issue of slavery. We believe that the Government of Sudan have made progress in improving relations with the country's neighbours and in adopting an acceptable approach to counter-terrorism. Progress in the peace process has been disappointing, as many hon. Members have said. However, there has been some progress on human rights and democratisation. The Council of Ministers, or Cabinet, is more broadly based and less dominated by the military. Sadiq al-Mandi, the former Prime Minister and leader of the opposition Umma party, is now back in Khartoum and has been able to resume political activity. Newspapers are permitted slightly freer expression of political opinion. I have no illusions, but we should not ignore the progress that has been made.

271WH
Abduction is a key issue to which we pay particular attention. At this year's meeting of the UN commission on human rights, the EU sponsored a resolution—
Mr. Duncan: Before the Minister finishes his speech, will he comment on oil and say whether production should continue?
Mr. MacShane: The EU sponsored a resolution on Sudan that set out our concerns about the violation of human rights. We want the Government of Sudan to continue to work with the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children, which was set up in 1999.
Mr. Duncan: What about oil?
Mr. MacShane: There has been much publicity about oil. My firm view is that Sudan needs more investment, more material prosperity and greater distribution of the wealth generated by its resources. Stopping oil investment and making Sudan poorer cannot be an answer. The DTI gives no particular promotion to British oil companies, but we advise all companies to take into consideration concerns about the political and human rights problems in Sudan.
The final answer must be the continuing international engagement of Britain, Europe and the United States. The Government are pledged to that policy, and I am deeply grateful to hon. Members for making their points in this important debate.

Energy Review
11 am
Dr. Desmond Turner: I hope that this is the beginning of a major national debate on "The Energy Review" document. I congratulate the Government on bringing the review to the House and to the nation. It is a wide-ranging and in many ways impressive document, but it is not without flaws. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and the Regions, who is substituting for my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy today, will not take too much offence if I criticise it. My criticism is well meant.
Life will be made easier if I begin with the parts of the report with which I wholeheartedly agree. The review recommends that Britain should reduce domestic energy consumption by 20 per cent. between now and 2010, and by another 20 per cent. between 2010 and 2020. We will make a significant contribution to future provision if we achieve that degree of energy conservation and reduce energy need by approximately one fifth. Energy conservation is, appropriately, known as the fifth fuel, because it is just as good as power generation.
By a happy coincidence, the energy saving target of 20 per cent. by 2010 is almost identical to the target of 30 per cent. between 1996 and 2011 set in the guidance issued under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. Unfortunately, that guidance is not statutory, and the implementation of that target is not a statutory duty of local authorities, so it is not surprising that some local authorities take their energy authority role more seriously than others. Performance varies accordingly: some excellent authorities have reported savings of 15 per cent., some have reported as little as 0.003 per cent., and others have not bothered to report at all. It is clear that the 30 per cent. HECA target will not be achieved under the current legislation, and nor will the target set out in "The Energy Review" unless we do something about it. The Minister will agree that there is a strong case for achieving that target.
I therefore proposed a new private Member's Bill—the Home Energy Conservation Bill—that would make the achievement of energy conservation targets set by the Secretary of State the statutory responsibility of local authorities. That would ensure the delivery of home energy conservation targets, on which the report and my Bill are in perfect harmony. Our objectives are the same, so I hope that the Government will maintain their support for my Bill and help to bring it to a successful conclusion. I appreciate that the Minister here today has no direct involvement with my Bill, but I remind him of comments made by the Energy Minister to the House of Lords European Union Committee in January. He said that energy conservation was going to form a significant plank of the report, and added:
"I take the point very seriously…we will be setting targets which will result in very significant increases in building standards so as to reach the targets we are setting."
I am happy with that expression of intent, but making new buildings or modifications comply with new building regulations is unlikely to make a sufficient contribution to energy conservation to achieve the national target. It is vital to address the energy conservation capacity of existing stock: we should

273WH
remember that half our existing stock was built before 1914, does not have a cavity wall in site, is ineligible for the existing home energy efficiency scheme, and cannot take advantage of most of the energy conservation measures already in place. That issue must be revisited. The Minister for Employment and the Regions is strongly interested in energy conservation and I would appreciate his support for my Bill, which is an instrument already at hand to deliver one of the key recommendations of "The Energy Review".
I agree with the report that achieving large reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by moving to a low-carbon energy economy is a major challenge—one to which we must rise if we are to ameliorate climate change. Thanks to the legacy of 18 years of Conservative misrule, we now have a liberalised energy market, so achieving such a step change is a major test for the Government. It is achievable, provided that some of the recommendations of the report are amended. We are planning for the next 50 years and succeeding generations will judge us on what we do now.
The UK has four non-carbon options available for the generation of large-scale electricity. Setting photovoltaics aside—I shall not address the whole spectrum of energy provision in the report, because I do not want to take up all 90 minutes—
Dr. Ian Gibson: Thank God!
Dr. Turner: I value my hon. Friend's support.
I shall concentrate on the four non-carbon options that can generate large quantities of electrical power—the nuclear option and the three renewable energy sources—wind, wave and tide, in which the UK is uniquely rich.
Joan Ruddock: I know that my hon. Friend is not a photovoltaics enthusiast, but I wonder why he sets them aside. Our competitors give vastly greater sums in direct Government support to that fledgling industry, with considerable success. Is not the lack of investment the main reason for setting photovoltaics aside? If we had the political will, we could change that.
Dr. Turner: I am not setting photovoltaics aside because I am opposed to them in any way. I am simply dealing with ways in which to feed large quantities of power to the grid, which is not a role identified for photovoltaics. They will have a valuable future role in embedded generation, perhaps through photovoltaic roofs of our houses, and I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government should support the photovoltaics industry in this country. We do not disagree; it is simply that I do not want to take the whole 90 minutes of debate for myself.
Sir Robert Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman tempted to include biomass and biodiesel as renewable sources of energy? Not only could they provide large amounts of energy, but they have the potential to help rural communities at the same time.
Dr. Turner: I was going to mention biomass, although I am not a great fan. I can see some downsides. I am only
274WH
a simple scientist and cannot understand the argument of supporters of biomass who say that it will reduce CO2 emissions: that strikes me as being on the same level as the argument for perpetual motion; it does not stack up. Biomass would increase CO2 emissions, and the question of potential toxic emissions would remain, as would considerations of cost. To the best of my knowledge, biomass has not yet achieved anything close to commercial costings. It may have a role, but it is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
The report mentions the reasonable concern that the United Kingdom's response to energy problems should not place it at a competitive disadvantage. The report uses the currently low generating costs of coal and gas as cost comparators, but they might not provide the most accurate guideline, because coal and gas prices are artificially low now and they not likely to remain as low in the foreseeable future. The report is also less than even-handed in assessing the relative contributions that the nuclear and renewables options can make. Surprisingly, it recognises that the costs of generation by nuclear fission with current reactor technology are too high to be commercially viable.
Dr. Gibson: Will my hon. Friend comment on the recent pronouncements of the Government's chief scientific adviser, Professor David King, who has come out on a pro-nuclear platform? Does he regard that as a conclusion or a contribution to the debate?
Dr. Turner: It is unusual for me to disagree with the chief scientific adviser, but I do on this occasion. He was premature in making those statements on nuclear power. He must have read the report and accepted its conclusions without too much consideration. His statements were not a valuable contribution.
Current cost of nuclear generation is about 5p per kW, which is at least double the current baseline range. Even that figure is not a reliable estimate, because the nuclear industry has a long history of obfuscating the real costs of generation. To this day, one cannot be certain that costs include provision for decommissioning, waste disposal and so on. Remembering that, in the good old days when nuclear power was new, the Government said that electricity would be too cheap to meter, one must take anything that the nuclear industry says about costs with several tonnes of salt.
Bob Spink: On the costs of the nuclear option and the uncertainty around it, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would help if the Government came to a decision about how they will manage waste in future? That would enable costs to be quantified and the debate to make progress. Does he agree that the Government should fix a policy for managing nuclear waste, above or underground, so that the engineers can get on with the work?
Dr. Turner: I agree entirely. Nuclear waste disposal is a problem that we have to tackle, whether or not we allow a new chain of nuclear stations to be built. It is inescapable.
The report describes nuclear power as a "mature technology"; it has had 50 years to develop, so that is not a surprising conclusion. However, it looks to future

275WH
design developments to produce reactors with lower generating costs: a range of 2.5 to 4p per kWh is quoted. To achieve such costs involves extremely improbable operating assumptions that the nuclear industry has not met in its entire history. The putative costs are probably unreliable and unachievable.
Dr. Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that environmental as well as financial costs should be taken into consideration? One of the advantages of the nuclear industry is that it does not produce any carbon dioxide.
Dr. Turner: I thought that I had made my views clear, but I shall reinforce what I said. The only reason I am even discussing the nuclear option is because it does not lead to CO2 emissions.
We must remember the awful history of the early 1980s. Research into renewables, in which this country then led the world, was stopped, and more nuclear capacity was built. It is reasonable to suggest that to maintain the nuclear option, the possibility of renewables was set back 20 years. This country was ahead in wind power, but Denmark stepped in and took over world leadership. Wave power was coming along nicely, but it was stopped dead in its tracks and only now is it reaching the point it had reached 20 years ago. If we are not careful, the nuclear option could be developed at the expense of renewables. Although nuclear power stations do not emit CO2, genuinely renewable options would save just as much CO2 and be completely sustainable.
The other argument from the nuclear industry centres on jobs. I do not want to put anyone out of a job, and for the foreseeable future the nuclear industry would have jobs for all its personnel just cleaning up the mess, let alone doing anything else. I would hate jobs in an obsolete 20th-century industry to be saved at the expense of generating far more jobs in a sustainable, 21st-century industry.
Another principal feature of nuclear power is its use to solve intermittency problems to provide baseline load. It has been argued that it is necessary to replace sufficient nuclear power plant to serve that purpose, but tidal energy has the potential to do the same thing. One of the beauties of tidal streams as an energy source is that they are completely predictable; they run at sufficient strength in any given place for 23 hours of the day. The variation in the times of tides around the coasts means that in most places there is always energy at any given time. Furthermore, the grid can handle it very easily, as ScottishPower plc stated in evidence to the Select Committee.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Turner: I have given way so many times that if I do so again I shall take time from other hon. Members.
The most baffling feature of the report is that although it recognises the enormous power-producing potential of marine renewables—wave and tide—it makes little reference to them thereafter, save to suggest that although they might be making a major
276WH
contribution by 2050, but they will be making only a small, unspecified contribution by 2020. The report does not explain why, but perhaps one can assume that that is an assessment of what might happen if the market were left alone to decide the progress of renewables, with little or no Government intervention.
It is clearly convenient for those arguing for a new generation of nuclear plants to have an apparent energy and carbon dioxide saving gap until 2020. That would fit nicely with the suggested option of having renewed reactors by that year. I venture to suggest that that is an attempt, conscious or otherwise, at a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is a simple fact that we would not have a network of nuclear stations had the matter been left to a purely commercial market. Those stations, and the national grid system that links them, were built with public investment by a nationalised industry, just like the stations in France and other countries. As the report admits, pure market operation would not produce any more nuclear build: some Government assistance would be essential if any more nuclear stations were to be built in Britain.
The report's allegedly neutral stance towards different alternative energy sources does not bear close examination. There is a massive carbon dioxide-free energy source waiting to be exploited off our shores. The report refers to 100 tWh of electricity from offshore wind and 700 tWh per year from wave and tide. Given that our current electrical generation is 360 tWh per year, it is clear that we have more than twice the resource that we need to supply our entire electricity generation needs. However, the report does not suggest how we might reasonably foster that.
The report also makes no allowance for cost reductions that will arise naturally from development and commercial exploitation. It quotes costs for marine renewables of 4p to 8p per kWh, but that is for almost pre-commercial demonstration machines, and similar costs by 2020 are assumed, which is absurd. We have only to consider the history of wind generation, the costs of which have decreased remarkably as it has been exploited. The same will inevitably happen with wave and tidal generation. Given that we also have all the lessons from the wind industry, the development and exploitation time scale for wave and tide could be much quicker. I can see no valid reason why, with sufficient encouragement, wave and tide could not make a massive contribution by 2020, such that there would be no case for new nuclear build.
Ms Joan Walley: In the light of what he has said, does my hon. Friend agree with all the submissions from the non-governmental organisations that one way to achieve his objective would be to have targets that are far tighter than the current ones? We could use the tighter targets as stepping stones towards the energy consumption and production goals he mentions.
Dr. Turner: I agree that we should have tighter targets. Indeed, I was going to advocate that, because I believe that they would be achievable and would have precisely the effect that my hon. Friend describes. I hope that the Government will resist the blandishments of the nuclear industry, which is seeking the same favourable treatment as renewables. The nuclear industry has a history of doing anything to perpetuate itself.

277WH
I find the Government's reticence in the face of the enormous potential of renewables curious, to say the least. When £120 million was announced for renewable energy research and development last year, only £5 million was allocated for marine renewable projects. That is derisory in view of the massive potential of that source. There is another way in which marine technologies need help for rapid development: as well as research and development and start-up costs, there is the problem of grid connections. The main grid does not reach the remote areas where the best power generation sites are located. If early commercial sites have to bear the cost of building grid connectors, it would be a huge barrier to development based on pure market considerations.
If there is to be large-scale renewables generation in the UK the Government have to grapple with the modernisation of the grid. The current grid is an obstacle to future development of any source except nuclear power, in which plant will be sited next to old plant where the grid was built at public expense—in effect, yet another subsidy for the nuclear industry. The report virtually ignores that problem. I suggest that
"substantial upgrading of the national transmission system will not be needed in the short-to-medium term",
but that sounds like another self-fulfilling prophecy. There will not be large-scale renewables because the grid connections are not there, but those connections are awfully convenient for nuclear stations.
The report appears to give equal weight to several future generation technologies such as photovoltaics, combined heat and power, clean coal, biomass and municipal waste incineration. However, none of those has the potential to produce enough power to run the country, although together they could make a contribution. Only photovoltaics guarantee no CO2, emissions, and all are either more expensive than marine technologies or have other serious downsides, such as the potential for toxic emissions with waste and biomass, and the fact that in waste incineration the material burnt is precisely the stuff that should be being recycled. A consideration totally ignored in the report's contemplation of the continued massive use of fossil fuel reserves is that they will assume increasing importance as chemical feedstock, and so will become too precious to burn.
I hope that the Government listen carefully to the responses to the report before they finalise their policy. If they follow the guidance of the report without question, they will favour the renewed use of nuclear power at the expense of genuinely renewable and sustainable technologies, yet the use of those technologies has to be the ultimate goal, and the sooner it is achieved, the better. The report contains a bias that is not justified by the evidence and must be seriously re-examined.
The achievability of any renewables target is hugely influenced by the political will behind it. I am convinced that it is possible to achieve far more than the 20 per cent. by 2020 envisaged in the report. There are clearly technological obstacles to overcome, but they are much less problematic than the task that the Government should be taking on, which is achieving a planned, low-
278WH
carbon energy economy in a liberalised market. It would be the biggest challenge ever for new Labour, but the prize for success would be gigantic.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I have no power to impose time limits on speeches, but a large number of hon. Members have written in and even more are trying to catch my eye. I appeal to hon. Members to be brief so as to enable as many as possible to speak.
11.29 am
Bob Spink: I did not intend to speak today, only to listen and learn. I will make a short contribution as so many other hon. Members want to speak.
I am in favour of replacing nuclear with nuclear because it is right and inevitable that we should do so. Nuclear power in Britain is very safe, and it has been safer than many of the alternatives for many years. If, however, we are to do that we should make sure that we use the best possible plant and equipment. I am therefore disappointed that the Select Committee on Science and Technology, whose Chairman is staring me out, has decided not to take the opportunity to go round the world to see the latest reactors, research and plant. I hope that we can find time to do that soon to allow us to advise the House.
The bottom line is that if we were to replace nuclear with nuclear, we would increase the total waste that must be managed in Britain by a very small overall percentage. That would enable us to avoid known, serious and certain damage to our planet from CO2. I rest my case on those remarks.
11.30 am
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on securing the debate, but that is where that sentiment stops because I find myself on the other side of everything he had to say about nuclear power.
The report is timely. For the first time we are looking at our energy supply in the UK in terms of the next 40 or 50 years. For many years we have relied on fossil fuels with no thought of either the future or the health and environmental implications of our energy industry. The executive summary, which is on page 5 of the report, simply states:
"The future framework for energy policy needs to address all three objectives of sustainable development—environmental, economic and social—as well as energy security."
The review has let us down on that fundamental point. The future of nuclear power is missing from the PIU recommendations. It is addressed in the report, but it is not included in its recommendations.
My hon. Friend criticised the Government's adviser on energy matters, Professor David King, for giving his support to nuclear power. Professor King has joined the debate, and he has given his opinion, which it is important that a senior person in his position should do.

279WH
I welcome his remarks, which on this occasion concur with mine, and I am happy that he has given his support and has reminded us of our responsibilities.
The Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I am a member, also produced a study on the security of energy supplies, which concluded:
"It is essential that there be no further delay in Government decision making: the Government should make a clear statement on the future of nuclear energy as quickly as possible."

No such decision was reached in the PIU report.
Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman did not say the way in which the Government should make that decision.
Dr. Kumar: Yes, I know. I am trying to draw the Minister's attention to that recommendation, which the Government should examine.
It is incredible that one of the most important current and future power sources, nuclear power, has been dismissed out of hand. It is seen as a last-resort technology. The report recommends keeping the nuclear option in order to compensate for the failure of other technologies.
Mr. Colin Challen: One of the remarks—I shall not say conclusions—in the report is that if all the costs of nuclear power were internalised and subject to market forces, it would simply not be economically viable. We should seek economically viable sources of electricity generation.
Dr. Kumar: I recommend to my hon. Friend a European study that undertakes a cost analysis of nuclear generation. I shall come back to that, but I am conscious of time.
I return to the report's main safety, environmental and economic concerns. Of course there are safety questions here, as with every major industrial process. Risk is presented in everything that we do, however important it is. As a practising engineer before I entered the House, I regularly calculated risk in industrial processes. That was the nature of my job. Safety is an important issue, and it is part and parcel of making calculations and judgments, but the knee-jerk reaction of those who are against nuclear power is always that safety is serious and important. We recognise that. I also recognise that dealing with nuclear waste is a serious problem, which must be solved, whether new nuclear plants are built or not. The Government and we as a country must address it.
The Trade and Industry Committee report recognises, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said, that the difficulties involved in the storage of radioactive waste are no longer seen merely in technical terms. I want to raise environmental concerns.
Dr. Iddon: I should like to put on record the fact that Professor King's support for the nuclear industry, like mine, revolves around wanting to move from fission, which produces much disposable waste, to fusion. In the
280WH
minds of the industry's scientists, we are now only a generation away from nuclear fusion. Is that not an important reason for keeping the nuclear industry alive?
Dr. Kumar: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, but I recognise that difficulties reside in the public's reluctance to accept the safety of various techniques. Suitable sites for the storage of waste material need to be found; we cannot duck public anxieties on that matter.
I am aware that Greenpeace, other environmental groups and hon. Members feel strongly about the importance of the environment. I was horrified with Greenpeace's reaction to the review. On the nuclear option, its website says that the review
"leaves the door open for a wave of dangerous new nuclear power stations",
which proves my point. I am sure that no one setting up an installation does so intending to create a dangerous one. That happens because of the nature of the process—a process that deals with hazardous materials.
Those opposed to the nuclear option on environmental grounds have to weigh up difficult issues.
Dr. Desmond Turner: My hon. Friend says that one of the difficulties of the nuclear industry is that it involves a hazardous process and hazardous materials. Does he agree that that, by definition, is not the case with renewables?
Dr. Kumar: I agree with my hon. Friend, but we have not at this moment in time developed the technology for renewables. Although I admire his support for that great future ambition, we must recognise what is providing electricity at the present, whatever the process.
Joan Ruddock: When will the perceived energy gap arise? Will my hon. Friend quantify that gap, and is that his justification for nuclear power? He is arguing about safety and environmental factors, but to conduct the overall energy review we must know the needs of the nation. Does he agree with the report's finding that there will have to be public subsidy if the perceived gap is to be closed?
Dr. Kumar: I believe in the nuclear option that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned. I do not have any objection to renewables and other developments, but they would not be ready in time because the technology that is required would still be in a primitive state in 20 or 30 years' time. Nobody can take that risk because the lights will go out. Hon. Members should remember what happened in California. In order to ensure that that does not happen, we should remember that this technology works.
Mr. David Chaytor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Kumar: Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I want to bring my remarks to an end quickly.
Mr. Robert Key: We want more.
Dr. Kumar: The hon. Gentleman says he wants more, but I am just trying temporarily to settle the score for

281WH
nuclear power. It is crucial that those who argue the environmental case recognise that we have an obligation to deal with global warming, and there is a powerful case for nuclear power assisting us in that. It is no good harping on about our commitment to Kyoto. We ignore at our peril a known technology that works. I believe strongly in nuclear power as a technology for generating electricity on a large scale because it deals with greenhouse gas emissions. It is a sector that we need to protect because if we do not, we will undermine our commitment to a treaty that the Deputy Prime Minister signed a few years ago.

The economics issue has been mentioned. I recognise that it is one of the hardest issues on which we must square the circle. ExternE, a European funded study of energy costs, concludes that on a gross basis, nuclear power is one of the cheapest forms of energy presently available, but we must consider issues other than the price. Skilled personnel are required to maintain such installations, and the capital costs are significant because of the aforementioned safety provisions. The PIU report says that the nuclear option will be left open for years to come, but the difficulty is in maintaining the necessary skill base to operate any future facility. The outlay for new nuclear facilities is significant and companies are reluctant to invest such sums in an industry that is not recognised by the Government as having a clear, lengthy future. The review states:
"Because nuclear is a mature technology within a well established global industry, there is no current case for further government support."
Without Government backing, verbal or financial, the future of nuclear power is uncertain.
Mr. Chaytor: Is my hon. Friend arguing the case that nuclear ought to be part of the permanent solution to climate change, or is he endorsing the statement from the chief scientific adviser that nuclear has a role as a temporary stopgap until the full development of a renewable energy industry?
Dr. Kumar: I am arguing that nuclear has an important role to play at the moment. It provides 21 per cent. of our electricity, and is an important sector. It is important that we maintain it to meet our Kyoto obligations, and to provide electricity. It plays a part in meeting our environmental targets. We should not take the risk of not being ready in future when all plants could be decommissioned. We must prepare for alternatives.
Ms Walley: Will not continuing to subsidise the nuclear industry prevent the emergence of new renewable energies, so that we may never have alternative sources of energy? The Government's response to the energy review must take that up.
Dr. Kumar: I am asking for the Government to make their intentions clear so that companies know where to invest. It is important that the Government come down on one side or the other. Plants take 10 to 15 years to build, and hon. Members will recall that the Sizewell B inquiry took many years —rightly, because important issues had to be addressed. The Government must make up their mind and state their intended direction. European countries such as Germany are to phase out
282WH
nuclear power. If we are to maintain it, a course that I would support, the Government need to give a clear response. The report ducks that issue.
I remain committed to nuclear power, and that puts me in a minority on this side. I am glad to have taken part in this debate, which was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. Always, we have been on the same side and, for the first time, we find ourselves on opposite sides.
11.46 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) tried to score a goal for nuclear energy, so I shall make a break down the flank for an alternative scenario and suggest a way in which we could meet this country's obligations by 2050 through the use of alternative energy resources. None the less, our nuclear output provides a stopgap, and no one is asking to close our nuclear power stations overnight.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the report ducks some issues. Never was a document better named: it is only a "review" of the current state of play, and offers little intelligent guesswork about where we might be in 10 or 15 years as regards renewable technology. He is also right to say that it does not address where nuclear technology could take us in that period. That puts the onus on the Minister to come up with some answers. Until we answer such questions, we will not be able to move forwards.
To my party, our parliamentary group and me, nuclear power is not a long-term option. The royal commission on environmental pollution recognised that there were at least two scenarios in which nuclear power did not need to be an option to meet our Kyoto obligations. I could not accept nuclear as a realistic long-term option until several issues were resolved to my satisfaction and to that of the public. One of those issues, which is higher on the agenda than ever before, is terrorism and the fear of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power station. Another is nuclear power's less than wonderful history of record keeping, reporting, openness and accountability, which does not engender faith in the industry's future.
How will new nuclear power stations take shape? We are told that there is a new design—I must tell the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) that it is based on fission, not fusion—but how will it work and can it be trusted? Storage and decommissioning must also be addressed. We already have a storage problem and there is no point adding to it. My concern is that more nuclear power production in this country would merely add fuel to the debate on recycling nuclear materials, mixed oxide fuel plants, and other dangerous technologies.
Finally, it is important to ensure that the cost of nuclear power is internalised to the industry. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East referred to an EU report which I have not seen; however, I have seen the "Annual Energy Review". It is clear from attempts to find ways to internalise costs that the best solution is wind power. It costs half as much as nuclear power, which is an expensive way of generating electricity.
We do not need nuclear power to meet our Kyoto obligations. Last week the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry intimated as much in a statement made in

283WH
response to questions from me and other hon. Members. It is important to confirm that and I should be grateful if the Minister did so this morning. The Kyoto treaty takes us to 2012 and we must look beyond that, but we do not need nuclear power to meet our immediate obligations.
Bob Spink: I believe that there is a misunderstanding. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want the nuclear industry to be switched off, but that is what will happen unless the Government have the courage to make a decision to continue the nuclear industry so that the gap can be filled. If renewables and nuclear energy proceed sensibly, they will develop and there will not be a gap. As both forms of technology develop, we can make informed decisions, but unless the Government make a decision to support the nuclear industry, there will be a switch-off.
Mr. Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point and I am sorry if I misled him about my point of view. A switch-off is what I want, but I do not want that to happen overnight. I want it to be phased and natural. I want current nuclear energy production to come to a natural end. My position is the same as the Green party, with which my party is allied at EU level.
Events in Germany show a wonderful way forward. I recently visited Germany as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. I want to give a positive description of how we could move forward with renewables.
Mr. Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key issue is that it would be irresponsible to allow new build in the nuclear industry before the problem of radioactive waste management is resolved? We face costs of £85 billion to deal with the existing stockpile of radioactive waste. Surely that should be solved before we consider new nuclear power stations?
Mr. Thomas: I agree absolutely, but I shall not go further down that route.
Germany has agreed to a phased, natural end to its nuclear power and is looking for ways forward. The Environmental Audit Committee looked at renewables during its visit. There is a gap in the future scenario: the German Government are not sure where all their energy will come from in 2050, but they are prepared to take a leap in the dark and to bridge that chasm by investing heavily in renewables. They have made that decision without great regard to the cost implications, in common with decisions in the 1950s and 1960s to invest in nuclear power.
The German Government estimate that they will derive one quarter of their energy needs from wind, and 36,000 people are already employed in the wind energy industry. That is a significant number of jobs with only 3 or 4 per cent. wind energy production. If production reaches 25 per cent. of need, more jobs will be created. It must be emphasised repeatedly that phasing out nuclear energy should not and must not lead to job losses in constituencies with nuclear power stations. We need
284WH
investment now in renewables technology, using the high-level engineering and other skills that are used for nuclear power to achieve that aim.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: If we are to achieve the investment needed—not only from project developers but from the supply chain industries that will create the jobs—to make the most of renewables such as offshore wind, industry must have confidence in the sector. That will require not only the renewables obligation and capital grants but a single, comprehensive, joined-up authorisation system. At present, there is no single point of contact. People have to deal with the Crown Estates, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence. Onshore wind has been knocked back by the planning process, and we must overcome that to achieve full confidence in investing in offshore wind.
Mr. Thomas: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments, but local public participation must remain part of the decision-making process. I will address his points in a moment, but I wish to make progress so that I can finish in reasonable time.
Germany has invested heavily in alternative energy sources: for example, biomass is on the agenda. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) is not too happy about biomass, but it has a neutral carbon cycle—we can argue about that another time—and would have a huge beneficial effect in helping rural areas to overcome the results of changes to the common agricultural policy regime. Germany has also invested heavily in hydrogen research. Security and intermittency of supply are problems with some renewables. Hydrogen is a very good carrier of energy and, if we can overcome storage problems, it becomes even more attractive.
There is clear under-ambition in the review. We are aiming for 20 per cent. renewables by 2010, but that could easily be doubled with current technology, a bit of will and a bit more investment. A target of 30 or 40 per cent. for renewables—not only wind but the whole range of renewables—is achievable in this country and should be the target of any Government who want seriously to address climate change issues. Incidentally, such a renewables target would produce the amount of electricity that nuclear now produces—about 80 to 90 tWh annually.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) mentioned consents policy. There is certainly a problem. On the Opposition day last week, the Scottish National party initiated a debate on consents policy for nuclear power in Scotland. It became clear that if the Government made a strategic decision to site a new nuclear power station in Scotland, it would be built, whatever the Scottish Parliament said. The situation in Wales is even worse. The relevant power in section 39 of the Electricity Act 1989 has not been devolved to the National Assembly. As a result, it has no say on any development, including renewables, over 50 MW in Wales. The decision about a large 60 MW wind farm at Cefn Croes in my constituency, which will be the largest wind farm in England and Wales—perhaps the largest in the United Kingdom—was made by the Minister for Industry and Energy alone.

285WH
Although I support wind energy and agree with the decision, it has left a sour taste in the mouth. We have an Assembly that decides planning matters, yet decisions are taken directly by the Department of Trade and Industry without involving the Assembly. There is increasing concern in Wales that nuclear energy will be foisted on the people of Wales. Hon. Members may be aware that in 1982–20 years ago last month—Wales declared itself nuclear free; it was the first country to do so. Such a decision would be received very poorly in Wales.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Simon Thomas: No, I want to conclude.
The Minister must address the issue, because last week the Economic Development Committee of the National Assembly backed out of an ambitious 4 tWh target for renewables in Wales and left the country without a strategy. We have an energy review but no strategy for energy or renewables in Wales. I hope that that Committee and the Welsh Executive will get their act together and that the DTI will consult them. Germany identifies at federal level the sites that may be suitable for the production of wind energy, then lets local bodies get on with it. Wales is one of the most energy-rich parts of the United Kingdom, but we have identified no sites that may produce wind and wave energy and have made no effort to involve the local community in those decisions.
As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pointed out, people oppose new wind farm developments; no doubt, they will oppose offshore developments in the same way, as they are not part of the planning process from the start. I advocate a fresh view, as there is huge potential in Wales for developments such as a tidal barge on the River Severn and the proposed offshore wind farm in north Wales. Those developments would meet huge energy needs, but they are not free of environmental cost. Local communities and the whole of Wales must be involved in those decisions.
I have an alternative vision of where "The Energy Review" will take us. In 10 years, we should have doubled our target on renewable energy output, achieved the aims of the Home Energy Conservation Bill, and established an interconnector along the west coast so that we can bring wind and wave energy from energy-rich areas to energy-dependent areas. I hope that Wales will benefit from the economic development of those energy-rich areas. Offshore wind will develop much more quickly, as it has better potential than onshore wind to achieve those targets. I hope that we will see a real strategy for wind energy development in Wales, and the final death of the nuclear power industry in the United Kingdom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. David Amess: Order. I am advised that speeches have been long, with the exception of the speech made by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). That is a tragedy, as many hon. Members still wish to speak and we must conclude the debate soon. I ask all hon. Members to be as brief as possible.
12.2 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Thank you, Mr. Amess.
I have made clear my support for the development of offshore wind energy in this country, but while the green lobby and the nuclear lobby slug it out, we must keep our eye on the decades immediately before us and ensure that we squeeze every drop of our oil and gas from the UK continental shelf. The Government's Pilot initiative is to do just that, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is still their priority.
When gas was discovered in the North sea 35 years ago, people said that it would all be gone in 20 years. They are still saying that. The resource might last longer, but we cannot be sure. The key is innovation, which is linked to keeping costs down. I am therefore concerned about anything that imposes greater costs on the industry. The regulator Ofgem—the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—has produced proposals on gas balancing which ILEX Energy Consulting, a reputable company, says will cost the industry £3.5 billion. Will the Minister comment on that?
We need independent regulators in any market, but we must take care to avoid proposals that undermine the Government's Pilot initiative. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take note of the recommendation made in the PIU report that Ofgem should conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis of its recommendations. Lord Haskins and the Better Regulation Task Force made that recommendation last year. I urge my hon. Friend to speak to the Minister for Industry and Energy to insist that Ofgem takes note of those two recommendations so that we can squeeze every last drop of oil and gas from the North sea for as many years as possible.
12.4 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I shall make a few points briefly. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on initiating today's debate.
"The Energy Review" gets the nuclear issue about right, but we need to continue the debate and support further research into new nuclear generators. Some interesting suggestions have come out of research in South Africa and Canada, for example, and I support such research. Other hon. Members have flagged up the fact that the nuclear industry has received considerable support—far more than the renewables industry. It is right that the review focused on that and recommended that Government now accelerate the development of the renewables industry as the most important priority for energy in the next five years.
There are several system issues which have been touched on only briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown talked about the need for the energy network to be upgraded. We must recognise that the energy system in this country is predominantly designed for big power plants rather than the small ones that CHP and renewables inevitably offer. I was struck by the fact that a wind energy developer who wanted to build a wind farm on the Isle of Wight faced a £1 million bill for the upgrade of the network—needless to say, that wind farm has not been built. "The Energy Review" recognises some of those issues, and further detailed work in the Government's response—the coming White Paper—will be needed before we know how to solve some of the problems.

287WH
Another interesting comment in the review is its description of inertia in the energy system. Further incentives are needed to encourage the delivery of renewable energy across the system. Perhaps as part of a review of the Barnett formula or the funding to regional development agencies, there should be a performance-related element that depends on whether areas, regions or nations meet their obligations on their contributions to renewable energy. I note the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), but, regrettably, the National Assembly for Wales has blocked or held up many sensible wind farm developments, and I suspect his party of being part of the problem rather than the solution.
Turning to the institutional reforms advocated in the review, I welcome the suggestion that the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust merge to provide a clearer non-governmental response. I welcome the proposal at long last to establish a sustainable energy unit. I have long championed the idea of a sustainable energy agency, but I will settle for a unit if that is all that that can be achieved in the first instance. I hope that the Minister will confirm the Department of Trade and Industry's strong support for such an initiative to accelerate the process.
On planning, there is a frustration about the delays in grants for renewable energy options. In a speech to the parliamentary renewables group last week, the Minister for Industry and Energy said that two-thirds of renewables applications granted under the non-fossil fuel obligation process have not happened because of difficulties with the planning system. The Government should re-examine how we can speed up decision making in that process, although industry should be more innovative in introducing renewable energy applications. I commend National Wind Power for its innovative scheme to reward communities and farmers who have wind-farm applications on their sites.
Focusing briefly on CHP and renewables, I look forward to the much-delayed CHP strategy. The industry is worried about companies that were keen to develop CHP initiatives moving out because of market conditions. I look forward to hearing the Minister clarify how best to respond to that threat. I hope that the Treasury will quickly offer full exemption under the climate change levy to all CHP plant.
Catherine Mitchell, a member of "The Energy Review" team, speaking at the same parliamentary renewables group meeting last week said that
"economic regulation should be technologically neutral".
To be frank, Ofgem has not been as supportive of the renewables industry as it should have been. Until recently, it did not engage with the impact on the renewables sector of new electricity trading arrangements. I hope that we will soon see either a change of personnel at Ofgem, or the necessary legislation to require it to take sensible positive action.
One criticism of "The Energy Review" is the absence of any attempt to cost progress in the renewable energy sector. I strongly endorse the call for more funding for research and development, particularly for renewables. The review failed to deal with micro-renewables, particularly solarvoltaics and the importance of
288WH
encouraging groups of individuals, farmers and local authorities to build up renewable capacity in their communities.
I welcome "The Energy Review" and commend the Government for their willingness to engage with the recommendation made by the royal commission on environmental pollution to establish a 50-year programme to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. "The Energy Review" is clearly part of that process and I look forward to reading the White Paper, which will develop the debate further.
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. The Minister has generously cut his winding-up time from 10 to six minutes, so I advise the two Opposition spokesmen to share the available time.
12.12 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Thank you, Mr. Amess. I shall gallop through discarding notes and not following all the by-ways trodden by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). I agree with much of what he said—nuclear power is unprofitable, unpopular and unnecessary—but confronting all his arguments would require a longer debate. I hope that the Minister will take with him from this morning's proceedings recognition of the need for a much wider and sustained debate in the main Chamber to cover the key issues.
"The Energy Review" is welcome, if somewhat overdue. We look forward to hearing, today and in future, about how the Government will confront and respond to the issues. It is crucial to find new ways of generating electricity and better ways of conserving energy. The Energy Saving Trust has set targets of a 12.5 per cent. reduction in domestic energy use by 2010, which should be easily achievable, and 25 per cent. by 2020. I fully endorse the targets, the achievement of which would greatly improve people's quality of life in the home, turn economic costs into benefits, and reduce carbon emission and consumption. Those goals can be achieved almost entirely through regulation, without the need for primary legislation or much head scratching. It can be done through building regulations, fully implementing HECA and ensuring that appliances make efficient use of electricity in the home.
A great political paradox has been illustrated again this morning. We have been fighting over one or another source of energy, which is a necessary debate, but we can probably do more to reduce carbon emissions by tackling energy use than by changing the method of generation. We spend much political energy fighting to reduce transport use, and arguing about nuclear and renewables but we do not invest in reducing the energy used in the home and in industry. That is what we should be doing.
I am delighted that the Government have recently—at long last—introduced the renewables obligation, although I have some criticisms of it. I want an escalator beyond 2010 because long-term signals will encourage this country's renewables industry to make strides and to achieve the same success as the renewables industry has scored in Denmark and will soon score in Germany. Finally, I hope that the Minister will respond to this debate by promising a longer one in the near future.
12.15 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) for initiating the debate, although to start off the debate on the right fight would have required a statement in the House and a full debate in Government time when the PIU report was published. I suspect that the Government regret that that did not happen.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on his measured and sensible approach to nuclear energy. I hardly dare intrude on the Labour party's private grief about the technology, which was exhibited in full Technicolor, but his contribution underlined the importance of having a serious and well-informed national debate on these issues. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on making an extremely important point about Ofgem, to which I shall return. The Minister for Industry and Energy is somewhere in—or possibly above—the North sea with Shell, extracting that final bit of oil and gas, but it is a pleasure to see the Minister for Employment and the Regions in his place; he is a fine substitute.
Mr. Blizzard: I believe the Energy Minister is celebrating the award of an important contract to a British contractor. Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that BP awarded the first important contract on the Clare development, for which we have waited many years, to a Norwegian contractor?
Mr. Key: I am an internationalist and I do not wish to intervene in the commercial decisions of Britain's great oil companies.
The Conservative party greatly welcomes the review. We are fortunate to have such liberalised energy markets, in stark contrast to other European nations, especially France and Germany. I hope that this weekend in Barcelona the Government will continue to put enormous pressure on France and Germany to stir their stumps and wake up to the opportunities that await their consumers if only they will liberalise and not cling to the 19th century habits that they love so much. It is all very well EDF buying up London Electricity, infrastructure and energy companies throughout Europe, but not if it denies consumers back home the benefits of the liberalisation that it is so keen to exploit using lots of lovely soft French taxpayers' money.
"The Energy Review" should focus our minds on the really important elements of the debate on UK energy demand. The objective must be to provide the energy we need at the optimum price, to ensure security of supply, to achieve environmental objectives, balance and flexible sources, and to reduce energy waste in production, transmission and consumption. We do not start with a clean slate; we have an historic legacy of coal and town gas, and a distribution system—the national grid—designed to link coalfields with heavy steel industries in major cities, all of which have historic costs and expensive externalities.
If we are to be honest economists, or just ordinary consumers, we must recognise that there are externalities in all energy production. On the cost of the mooted west coast interconnector, the report, instead of coming up with the figure of £400 million to
290WH
£600 million, says that it would cost £2.3 billion to provide a proper interconnector for wind farms in the Outer Hebrides. That should make us all sit up and think more clearly. We must spend more time considering CHP and energy from waste. The Government say that there are legal constraints, but they have the legal levers in their hands and can change things. It is also all very well talking about Denmark and Germany, but we could do anything if we charged the consumer Danish prices. It would be easy-peasy to talk about introducing lots of lovely clean electricity generated by wind or whatever we liked if we charged the consumer twice as much.
The other great trap into which we might fall if we are not careful is to regard the debate as a dogfight between renewable energy and nuclear energy. We should recognise from the start that the two are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. We should listen carefully to what the nuclear industry has to say and not confuse the disposal and clean-up of waste from previous generations of nuclear technology, based on the country's defence needs 50 years ago, with what might be achievable with new generations of technology. In particular, we can look two generations ahead to pebble bed technology, which could make an enormous contribution and which we should not write off at this stage.
Renewable energy technology is not an option but a necessity. I agree with the Government's chief scientific adviser, Professor David King, that we should consider replacing old nuclear power stations with new nuclear technology, for the best possible reason. I also agree that the Government must give the nuclear industry a clear signal, one way or another. Given the long lead times involved, if the Government fail to make an early statement on the future of nuclear energy, that will be as good as saying no, and the option will be closed.
We must consider the planning procedures for major national infrastructure projects, which the Government have addressed. Special parliamentary procedures already have precedents—not only in the Transport and Works Act 1992, but in various road schemes—by which decisions have come to Parliament. I recall the Okehampton bypass decision, the Lyndhurst bypass debate and so on. We must have a properly informed debate, because much of the effort we put in offers enormous future benefits.
As the hon. Member for Waveney pointed out, "The Energy Review" should give consideration to current bottlenecks. On gas, I draw the Minister's attention to the problem of entry capacity at St. Fergus, and to the problem of wet gas in the north North sea and dry gas in the south North sea at Bacton. One problem faced by the industry is the auction that has been going on at St. Fergus since 1999. Every six months the regulator changes the methodology because he claims that the system is "gameable"—in other words, because people can guess what the new system will be, they try to outwit it. Game theory is important. The problem is that discussions have been continuing with the industry for almost a year. There may be an opportunity to consider moving back to long-run marginal cost models instead of the six-monthly auction model.

291WH
The move to shorter balancing, which Ofgem proposes, is important. The UK has a 24-hour balancing system for gas; Ofgem wants to reduce that to four to six-hour balancing. That would mean extensive new metering for producers, shippers and consumers, and ILEX Energy Consulting has calculated that the consequences of shorter balancing could be a 3.5 per cent. price rise for domestic consumers of gas. What is the benefit in having a regulator if he puts the price up to satisfy his whim? There is also a disincentive to new entrants. The Dutch and the Germans are returning to a long-run marginal cost system, with 24-hour balancing. The hon. Member for Waveney is right to say that Ofgem has not done a cost-benefit analysis.
To be fair to the Minister, I must conclude. We warmly welcome this debate. We must consider all options in an open and sensible way and not rule out anything. We must not allow our prejudices to rule our minds, and in that spirit I look forward to the next six months of debate until the Government produce their White Paper.
12.24 pm
The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I am an unworthy substitute called from the DTI subs' bench. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy is busy being industrious and energetic sanctioning a gas field off Scotland.
"The Energy Review" makes a valuable contribution to the debate on how best to meet our long-term energy requirements. It is important to make it clear that it is not a Government report, but a report by the PIU to Government, and we need to consider its recommendations carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) said that he hopes that this is the start of the debate. He has had the historic opportunity to kick it off, as this is our first debate since the report was published. He also asked that we should not simply follow the guidance in the PIU report. We will consult widely and today's debate today will form an important foundation stone of that process. My hon. Friend said that he was a "simple scientist", but I think that that might be contradiction in terms. He was a very eloquent scientist putting forward his arguments today.
As part of the consultation, we will look closely at two relevant parliamentary reports: the Trade and Industry Committee's report on security of energy supply, published on 7 February and "How secure are we?" the report of Sub-Committee B of the House of Lords European Union Committee, published on 12 February. Those reports are timely and valuable in signalling Parliament's views about energy issues and indicating where the White Paper should focus. The Trade and Industry Committee has produced 48 conclusions and recommendations. There is a strong emphasis on network and infrastructure investment,
292WH
and recommendations about the future use of economic instruments and regulation to achieve environmental objectives.
Dr. Desmond Turner: May I recommend that the DTI also take into consideration the recent Science and Technology Committee report on wind and tidal energy?
Alan Johnson: I was just coming to that report, of which we will take full cognisance. In another important contribution, the House of Lords has been conducting an inquiry into the European Commission's Green Paper on security of energy supply. That is another important contribution.
Trends in energy markets have been comparatively benign in recent years, and our energy policies have worked remarkably well with the grain of those markets. We are currently self-sufficient in energy, with our gas and electricity prices among the lowest in the G7 countries. We have diverse sources of supply from coal, gas and nuclear in power generation, and a small but growing contribution from renewables, and we are on target to meet our Kyoto commitments at the end of the decade. However, as the report argues, we cannot and should not be complacent: tough challenges lie ahead. The UK will become increasingly dependent on imported oil and gas.
The Californian crisis has highlighted the importance of getting the incentives for new investment right. The report concludes that the introduction of liberalised and competitive energy markets in the UK has been a success and should provide the cornerstone of future policy in the UK and internationally. It argues, however, that new challenges require new policies and that the policy framework should address all three objectives of sustainable development—economic, environmental and social—as well as security.
The report recommends that promoting energy efficiency and renewables should be the immediate priorities of a low-carbon energy policy. In renewables, we start from a very low base: they provide slightly less than 3 per cent. of our electricity supply. We have therefore set a challenging target of meeting 10 per cent. of electricity supply from renewable sources by 2010. There is a great deal to be done to achieve that target and we are introducing a range of robust measures. The report strikes the right balance: it stresses the potential for renewables, but recognises that nuclear energy, which provides around a quarter of UK electricity, offers a low-carbon electricity source that is larger than other plant options. The report also mentions the role of coal.
My hon. Friend Member for Brighton, Kemptown asked about his Home Energy Conservation Bill—indeed at one point I thought he was moving it. The Government supported that Bill on Second Reading, and we will continue to support it. We are at the start of an important process and I am happy to have heard the views of Opposition Members and my hon. Friends. Although the debate needs to be much fuller, my hon. Friend has made a great start by initiating it this morning.

Cetacean Bycatches (South-West)
12.30 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: The debate is timely, because record numbers of dolphins and porpoises have been found washed up on the beaches of Devon and Cornwall since January, and also off the coast of France. I pay tribute to Lindy Hingley, the founder and co-ordinator of Brixham Seawatch, who has monitored dolphins and other creatures for the past 12 years in the western approaches. She claims that the numbers are the worst that she has known.
Since January, more than 120 cetacean carcases have been found washed up on the beaches of Cornwall, Devon and Dorset. The carcases are also found in greater numbers on French beaches, where more than 800 have been washed up in the same period. That is more than 30 times the toll described as normal for this time of year. Scientists tell us that those washed up constitute only 1 per cent. of the total deaths, and that 20 to 30 animals can be caught at any one time.
The extent of deaths can also be shown by an increase in the numbers of rotting carcases found in the nets of beam trawlers and scallop dredgers. Conservationists and mammal experts blame the deaths on huge mid-water trawlers, and warn that the common dolphin could become extinct in the area within a decade. Some argue that a decade is a long time, and that the dolphins could be extinct in the area well before the end of it. In post mortems by the Institute of Zoology at London zoo, death has been proved to be a result of bycatch. The arrival of pelagic—mid-water—trawlers also coincides with the washing up of huge numbers of dead dolphins, porpoises and whales.
The dolphins are believed to be caught because of the high level of mackerel, the dolphins' favourite food, that heads up the western approaches to the English channel, and the predatory bass that feed on the mackerel. The bass are chased by nearly 15 teams of pair trawlers with nets that stretch between two vessels, that reach down to 30 fathoms and that are towed for eight hours or more. The trawlers hoover up everything that they come across, as do the more than 30 mackerel-fishing pelagic ships, which have trawls in the water for more than an hour.
Dolphins live in large family groups of up to 100. They can become bycatch victims when they engage in a feeding frenzy. The fish have been caught in the net, and the dolphin thinks, "Goody goody, here's a meal." It jumps into the net and is stuck there enjoying the food, but forgetting that it needs to pop up for air. When it tries to do so, it is too late. It cannot escape and dies an horrific death. Dolphins require oxygen. They can survive under water for a maximum of 10 minutes, but the nets stay submerged for hours. The dolphins panic when they realise that they are trapped, which shuts their air holes. They can then spend between 15 and 20 minutes trying to fight their way out of the nets, before they eventually suffocate.
Common dolphins are protected by schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and by annexes I and IV of the European Union habitats directive. It is illegal for fishermen to put a net into the water if they know that protected dolphins are near their vessels. Given the sonar equipment currently used by fishermen, deaths
294WH
can no longer be attributed to accidents. Anyone who thinks that they are purely accidental should ask why numerous carcases have been punctured, cut up or chopped in half before being thrown overboard in the hope that they sink to the bottom of the sea. Evidence also shows that cetaceans have been speared while still alive and that they have bled to death.
Given the evidence of illegal activity, we must ask why there has been no attempt to prosecute those who perpetuate the carnage. Researchers who have studied the size of sea bass have seen evidence of dolphins being caught in large numbers. Even if that evidence cannot be used to prosecute, why can it not be used to press for action and to persuade the EU to prosecute offenders of all nationalities? Is the Minister prepared to increase researchers' powers so that they can inspect foreign boats?
The Government have considered deterrents, but they are considered ineffectual for mid-water trawls. The Government have said that they will test new nets with special top openings that allow snared dolphins to escape, and trials will take place in March and April. It is claimed that such nets have been used successfully in New Zealand, but they were used to protect sea lions. Sea lions are not dolphins; they are significantly smaller, more flexible and more able to manoeuvre their way out of nets.
Mr. John Randall: The hon. Gentleman mentioned sea lions, but he will be aware that it is not only cetaceans that are caught in British waters and elsewhere; birds, too, are found in bycatch. He may also be aware that the wildlife and countryside link marine charter, which was launched just before Christmas, has called for a national bycatch response strategy and action plan to reduce bycatch of protected species to levels that do not threaten their conservation.
Mr. Sanders: That would be welcome, but I fear that action is more urgently required in the case of dolphins.
The second point about the tests on the nets is that they will take place in March and April. The season runs from September to March, so the tests will come right at the end and will not provide a true reflection of the catches that are made when the maximum number of dolphins are in our waters.
If the trials work, however, when can we expect the nets to be in use in all vessels? That could be several years down the track. Will their use be mandatory or optional in Britain and the EU? What will the Government do if the trials fail? Frankly, I think that they are a distraction from an urgent issue.
Any action must be multinational, because targeting British boats will only move the problem, not solve it. Awareness of the issue must be raised in the EU, and member states must be persuaded that joint action is needed to tackle the situation. The EU is gathering evidence on different scientific, technical and economic aspects of the issue and is prepared to propose amendments to fisheries legislation to improve the protection of cetacean populations. By the time that happens, however, there may be no cetaceans left in our waters to protect. What steps are the Government prepared to take to raise awareness of the situation within the EU and, more importantly, to pressure it to act?

295WH
Vessels with smaller engines cannot carry large trawls and have no problems with cetaceous bycatch, because smaller trawls have different mesh sizes. A dolphin immediately knows when it has swum into the net because of the change in water pressure, and it can get out before it runs out of air. By contrast, there is no change in water pressure with the larger trawls, so the dolphin realises that it is trapped and panics only when it needs to go up for air.
Andrew George: My hon. Friend makes a strong case for urgent action. He has concentrated on pair trawling. The Department has identified a problem in that sector. However, does my hon. Friend agree that although there is not yet any proof that industrial trawling for animal feed is responsible, neither has that been disproved? There has not been sufficient research to demonstrate whether cetaceans are being caught in that type of fishery.
Mr. Sanders: My hon. Friend is right. Large factory vessels, many of which are not registered in member countries of the EU, could be a significant part of the problem. Whatever action I propose within the EU would have to apply also to those countries outwith the EU where factory vessels are registered.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Mr. Chairman, or Mr. Amess, this is an important debate and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) has secured it. Whatever the Minister says, the test is Europe. Unless Europe enforces—against the French in particular, which has never been done in the past—we are crying in the wind. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the kernel of the problem?
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): May I tell the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) that I am content to be called by my own name, so long as it is not abusive.
Mr. Sanders: My neighbour, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), is right. There is a problem in France, which has seen far more bycatch on its beaches than we have, in that the French Government do not recognise that there is a problem. My hon. Friends and I are approaching the French ambassador to see whether we can have a meeting. We shall let the hon. Gentleman know if one occurs, and I hope that he will be able to accompany us in order, through the ambassador, to put the case directly to the French Government. Would the Minister support a ban on pelagic vessels of over 500 horse power, including pelagic pair trawlers, if necessary? Such a ban would need to be introduced at EU level, as the boats mainly come from other parts of Europe, and it would solve the problem overnight.
The danger is that nobody knows how many dolphins are left. If we do not take action quickly, there might be none. Those of us who have the advantage of living in the south-west know the dolphin as a friend that comes to visit us in the late summer and through the winter. I represent an area that includes one of the most beautiful natural bays in the world, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that the sight of dolphins off
296WH
Brixham, Paignton and Torquay is a pleasure for those who live there and those who visit the area. The tragedy is that if we do not act now, we may have had our last visit from those magnificent creatures—and we never had a chance to say goodbye.
12.44 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I am sorry that I am not the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has a distinguished record in this area and has been involved in a lot of the negotiations mentioned by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). If he were not, unfortunately, out of the country, he would have responded to the debate, and he will certainly take careful note of what has been said.
The hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members who used the debate for lengthy and well-prepared interventions, rightly drew attention to the concern felt in their constituencies about the large number of dolphins being washed up on the beaches in the south-west, and I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has corresponded at some length with my hon. Friend on the subject. I need not stress that we share those concerns, but if we are to find solutions to the problem, we need to know exactly what is causing it. The hon. Gentleman is entirely convinced of his arguments, and I understand their force. Post mortems have shown that the majority of cetacean strandings are caused by fishing activity.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the work of the sea mammal research unit—the SMRU—at St. Andrew's university. That unit has done a good deal of work for my Department, and it recently isolated the fact that the dolphin casualties attributable to fishing in the western channel seem to be down to the offshore bass fishery. There does not seem to be much doubt about that. The SMRU has had observers on vessels fishing for anchovy, blue whiting, herring, mackerel, pilchard, sprats and bass, but dolphin casualties have been observed only in the bass fishery. That research has shown a zero response for all the others, but there were more than 50 cases in respect of bass. The evidence appears to be convincing.
Andrew George: Would the Minister be prepared to read out more of the figures? What I have seen of the Department's work suggests that many more observations have been made of bass than of other fisheries. To what extent has the Department investigated the operations of the industrial trawling sector?
Mr. Meacher: We have certainly been looking at the allegations made about industrial fishing, and I shall come to that point later.
The hon. Member for Torbay referred also to mackerel, but the overwhelming evidence is that it is the offshore bass fishery. The bass fishery is not unique to British vessels. This year, only four United Kingdom vessels, all from Scotland, have taken part in that fishery, while 40 French vessels have worked in it.
The hon. Gentleman made the specific point that the huge bulk of boats working in the Channel are from other member states. For that reason, they are outside

297WH
the jurisdiction of UK wildlife legislation. That is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has approached the Commission. The route to action is through the Community.
The question was raised whether industrial fishing was responsible for cetacean fatalities. In the Channel, Danish and other vessels fishing for horse mackerel are called industrial, even though some of the catch is for the table, and allegations have been made this year that the vessels are covering dolphins with other fish in their fish room or their nets. The SMRU's monitoring work has not included those vessels. Inspection of those vessels by fishery protection officers did not confirm those allegations. The fishery is international, and, under the rules of the common fisheries policy, we cannot require French vessels to stop working it. We are keen to do something. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has pursued the matter with the EU Fisheries Commissioner, Franz Fischler and Mr. Glavany, who, until recently, was the French Minister. He has written explaining the hard evidence that we have, which is compelling, and urging the Commission to set up an observer programme to broaden the information available. He has stressed to the Commission that urgent EU action will soon be needed, and he has also made those remarks directly to the French Minister.
I am glad to report that Commissioner Fischler sent an encouraging reply, which indicates that he shares the concern of people in the UK and agrees on the need to act at Community level where there are problems. That is helpful.
On the subject of inspecting foreign boats, which the hon. Gentleman raised, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has called for a co-ordinated observer programme because we currently have no powers to place observers on foreign vessels. Again, we must make sure that that is undertaken via the Commission.
Mr. Steen: As I see the Minister is running short of paper, perhaps I could put a question to him.
Mr. Meacher: I am not; but the hon. Gentleman can go on.
Mr. Steen: Am I right in concluding that the Government are on the side of those who want to save the dolphin and do not want the massacre of those animals to continue? If that is the case and there is an international problem, am I right in presuming that the Minister believes that the answer can be found only through the European Commission? Furthermore, will he tell us—I am sure that the hon. Member for Torbay would appreciate it as much as I would—the timetable for making progress, and say whether there is anything that we modest Back Benchers can do to accelerate the process?
Mr. Meacher: Of course we are on the side of those who want to stop the fatalities. Quite apart from the popularity of the dolphin, we would want to stop the unnecessary destruction of any mammal. We are taking action, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to know how quickly action will be taken at EU level, I should tell him that I have spent five years trying to discover the answer to that question in relation to all sorts of matters.
298WH
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is a redoubtable and veteran campaigner on these matters, and we must rely on him to push for action. We are certainly not dragging our feet and want to see action this year. Indeed, what I shall say about the trials will be some indication of that.
Having discovered where the main problem lies—there is no difference between us on that—we have set about trying to find a practical solution. The expert advice is that the inclusion of separator grids in fishing nets may be the answer. That adaptation allows the dolphins that swim into nets to escape. With the full co-operation of UK skippers—we must give them credit for this —the adapted gear will be tested at sea under commercial conditions during March and April. The hon. Member for Torbay said that those are not necessarily the best times for testing the gear. There is no reason why testing should not continue, but we need to get on with it. After that, the bass fishery for this season will have come to its natural end.
The hon. Member for Torbay asked me about the mackerel fishery. SMRU research points to the bass fishery, rather than the mackerel fishery, although I note what the hon. Gentleman said. We believe that separator trawls are the answer. They may be equally effective for mackerel nets, and that can be tested.
Mr. Sanders: The problem with separator trawls is that the catch itself may escape. If the dolphin cannot escape but the fish are escaping, that is no help to the fishermen. I come back to the fact that the dolphin is different from the sea lion. Contingency plans need to be in place in case the trials fail—otherwise, it could be too late.
Mr. Meacher: I take both those points. Of course, the fish may escape. However, the scheme is being carried out with the co-operation of United Kingdom skippers and it is of credit to them that they are prepared to do the trials and test the results. Naturally, it would be a serious problem if the method had serious consequences in terms of loss of the main catch.
The work on separator grids is important, as it offers the possibility of a solution that will protect dolphins and—if the tests work and the fishermen are prepared to use the method— allow them to continue in pursuing the bass fishery. However, we must wait to see what happens.
Some have said that separator grids are not the answer. The hon. Gentleman referred to New Zealand fisheries tests with sea lions. The truth is that we cannot know whether the method works until it has been tried and tested under the commercial conditions that exist in the relevant fisheries. We know that separator grids work in some Norwegian fisheries and have been tried with sea lions. I agree that the sea lion is a mammal of different dimensions from the dolphin, for example. We need to try out the gear and tune it to discover whether it works in our conditions.
One way or another, an urgent solution is needed. There is every reason to suspect that the trial work on separator grids will succeed in developing a version that will work effectively in our conditions but, if they are not successful, nothing should be ruled out—including fisheries closures.

299WH
An allegation was made that fishermen are illegally killing marine mammals. It is not an offence to cause the death of a cetacean as an incidental result of a lawful activity, such as fishing, or to kill a seal to protect catches of fish or fishing gear. I do not believe that fishermen are deliberately killing cetaceans, and I do not think that hon. Members have suggested that. It is significant that fishermen are co-operating in current research into mitigation methods.
Mr. Sanders: I was merely saying that, with modern sonar equipment, fishermen could not claim that they did not know that they might possibly catch dolphins. In that sense, they know when they are catching dolphins, but why do some fishermen then feel it necessary to cut them up and hide the evidence?
Mr. Meacher: I take that point, but I thought that the suggestion was made that fishermen were killing cetaceans deliberately. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that fishermen should be aware that that could be the result, and take account of that fact.
The point was not raised, but I want to say something about porpoises, because they present different problems from dolphins. Porpoises concentrate on feeding on the sea bed and get caught up not by the trawls used for bass but in fixed gear used for hake and other species that live on and near the bottom. Again, the sea mammal research unit has done considerable work on that topic for my Department, with the fullest co-operation of the fishermen—indeed, it could not have been done without their co-operation. The most likely solution seems to lie in attaching pingers to the headlines of the nets. We are now in the final stages of working with pingers on Celtic sea nets. We have obtained a pattern of pinger that is much more fisherman-friendly. Once the detailed application of that gear has been ironed out, we will be better able to argue for the Commission requiring the application of that technology to the fleets of all member states working in fixed-net fisheries.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torbay for raising this important issue. Like him, we want to see urgent action. I am sure that my hon. Friend the fisheries Minister will continue to co-operate closely with him to reach the result that we all want: the preservation of cetaceans from accidental and unintended bycatch.

Diabetes
1 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about a serious health issue that has never received the recognition that it deserves. Some 1.5 million British people of all ages, races and backgrounds have been diagnosed with diabetes and their lives are impaired and sometimes dramatically shortened by it. That figure does not include the further 1 million people with the condition who live their lives undiagnosed.
Treatment of diabetes is an urgent issue, as is the implementation of the Government's national service framework for diabetes, which is due to be published this summer. I wholeheartedly support the Government's intention to develop that national service framework. I was encouraged by the comprehensive scope of the document "Diabetes National Service Framework: Standards", published in December 2001. It was a welcome acknowledgement by the Department of Health of the importance of diabetes and its prevention, and of the distressing complications that many diabetics face, such as blindness, kidney disease, heart disease, angina, strokes, foot problems leading to amputation, and difficulties in pregnancy.
Such conditions, coupled with the devastating fact that diabetes can shorten life expectancy by as much as 30 per cent., and in the context of a projected increase of people with diabetes to 3 million by 2010, mean that diabetes is a problem that should be at the top of the health agenda. However, it is not. Simply, diabetes is a condition in which the body cannot turn the food that people eat into the energy that they need to survive. That is usually because of type 1 diabetes, in which the body does not produce the hormone insulin, or because of type 2 diabetes, in which the body does not produce enough insulin or the insulin that it produces does not work properly. There are other, much rarer forms.
The human cost of diabetes is devastating because it can seriously damage other parts of the body. In the United Kingdom, it is the leading cause of blindness in people of working age. It is a leading cause of end-stage kidney failure and of lower-limb amputation. If they have diabetes, people's chance of having a stroke is two or three times greater and their risk of heart disease two to five times greater. In ethnic groups in which the incidence of diabetes is higher—partly for genetic reasons and partly because of lifestyle—there is even more chance of such complications.
Estimates of the precise financial cost of diabetes vary, but according to one study, it accounts for £1 in every £10 of the annual national health service budget. That represents a total of £5.2 billion a year, or £14,245,367 a day—something like £165 every second. Diabetes has a huge impact on the NHS, and the costs are set to grow substantially because, owing to sedentary lifestyles and increasing obesity rates, the number of those with diabetes in the UK is likely to rise dramatically during the next decade and beyond.
Hon. Members will have seen and been alarmed by recent media coverage of the first cases of type 2 diabetes found in white children in this country, accurately reported as highly disturbing evidence of the threat to health posed by increasing obesity in the developed

301WH
world. The potential long-term impact on those affected of what can only be described as a time bomb, and the extra burden on an already overburdened NHS, are frightening.
For too long, politicians from all parties have failed to take diabetes seriously. Last year, however, 375 MPs signed a Diabetes UK pledge calling on all politicians to begin to deliver on diabetes. The Government have listened: the 12 standards contained in the document cover the complete life cycle of diabetes from prevention and the prevention of complications for those with pre-existing diabetes to the management of complications once they are identified. If the 12 standards are implemented properly, the prospects for those with diabetes in the UK will undoubtedly improve, and the Government will have made a significant public health policy achievement. However, the document will be no more than tantalising paper if they are unable to support those charged with implementation with new money.
Although we are all acutely aware of the colossal and competing pressures on the Department of Health's budget and accept that many positive steps can be taken without throwing money at problems, there is a danger that the national service framework for diabetes will be unable to raise standards of care across the country without extra dedicated resources. As other comparable service frameworks have received dedicated funding to support their implementation, will the Minister take the opportunity to guarantee dedicated funding for the national service framework for diabetes? If she is unable to do that at this stage, will she provide further information on the Department of Health's time scale for decisions about the funding of the national service framework?
There is certainly a need for extra investment. The Audit Commission's report, "Testing Times: A Review of Diabetes Services in England and Wales", published in April 2000, found:
"The prevalence of diabetes and the cost of providing services are likely to increase dramatically over the next ten years. Services are already under considerable strain, and little is taking place in the way of strategic planning."
A continuation of the status quo could have a devastating effect on the national health service, which is already under severe pressure from diabetes and its complications. That burden is due to rise because an ageing population with increased rates of obesity will inevitably translate into an increase in the number of people with type 2 diabetes in years to come.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I first declare an interest as an insulin-dependent diabetic. Is the hon. Lady aware of the "missing million" campaign run by Diabetes UK, which estimates that 1 million citizens in the United Kingdom have that condition but have not yet been diagnosed? Screening is one part of trying to identify those people, but the consequence would be an increase in the bill for treatment. We need to track down the missing million.
Siobhain McDonagh: I am aware of the missing million. As a London MP, I am specifically concerned that a substantial proportion of those 1 million people will be based in London, given the higher prevalence of diabetes among people from the Asian and Afro-Caribbean communities. A parliamentary answer to my
302WH
hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) showed that the Government accept that as many as 1 million people may have type 2 diabetes without yet knowing it.
The longer people with diabetes go undiagnosed, the more likely they are to develop life-threatening and debilitating conditions such as heart disease, stroke, kidney failure, blindness and lower limb amputation. On average, people have type 2 diabetes for between nine and 12 years before it is diagnosed, the devastating effect of which is that more than a third and perhaps as many as half of them are already showing signs of complications when it is diagnosed.
The Government are aware of the need to identify people with diabetes early, and I urge Ministers to tackle the problem of how those people are to be identified early enough to prevent the onset of complications. A screening programme that targets people who are subject to a high risk of developing type 2 diabetes would help to provide a structured identification process. Opportunistic screening is clearly not working because the Government have accepted that an estimated 1 million people have diabetes but do not know it. Given that the costs of screening are lower than the costs of dealing with the problems resulting from undiagnosed diabetes, there must be a strong and urgent case for reviewing the way in which we screen for it, particularly in London where levels are reckoned to be 10 times the national average.
We must surely rethink the way in which we educate people about the risk of diabetes. I should be grateful to know whether the Minister will look into those pressing issues after the debate. The national service framework for diabetes provides a wonderful opportunity to address the nightmare scenario of a future NHS proving unable to cope with the financial and human costs of diabetes. Expectation among patients and healthcare professions is extremely high, and has perhaps been raised by the delay of the implementation of the national service framework, which was initially due to begin in April 2002.
The 12-month delay came as a blow to diabetics and health care professionals. Will the Minister guarantee that there will be no further delays to publication of the crucial implementation strategy document, and confirm that it will be published in summer 2002, as she announced last December?
The Government must ensure that the months during the build-up to publication of the delivery strategy are used to the full to ensure that the momentum for raising standards for diabetes care is maintained. The requirement for all primary care trusts to undertake a local assessment of diabetes service provides the opportunity to prepare fully for implementation. The Government must ensure that once it is published, there is local ownership of the service framework, by health care professionals, and patients. I am aware of concerns that the standard document does not place enough emphasis on the need for partnership in service planning, or involving people with diabetes, despite the Government's stated priority to build
"partnerships and co-operation…between patients, their carers and families and NHS staff".

303WH
Given that the delivery strategy is due to be published in September, well in advance of the implementation date of April 2003, what do the Government intend to do to encourage preparation for the national service framework between now and then?
Given that people of south Asian origin are six times more likely to develop diabetes than Caucasian people, and that Afro-Caribbean people are four times more likely to do so, I would like to assure ethnic groups in Mitcham and Morden—I am an honorary member of the Asian Diabetic Support and Advice group there—that they will be fully consulted on and their needs incorporated in the national service framework.
User involvement in service delivery and decision-making has to be central to support empowerment. That is the only way to bring about the more patient-centred NHS that the Government are building. Local diabetes service advisory groups exist throughout most of the UK, and they can help in that process. Those groups bring together managers, health care professionals from primary and secondary care, people with diabetes and commissioners to advise on diabetes care. The fact that such care cuts across so many parts of the system requires that joint planning and integration are facilitated through joint working and local advisory groups. If supported and recognised, they provide the means of carrying out that planning.
The cost to the NHS of treatment of diabetes and its complications is immense. Substantial financial investment to support the national service framework could deliver savings in the future—I appreciate that every hon. Member who has an Adjournment debate about health makes that point, whatever the disorder might be. To demonstrate the need for Government to find comprehensive funding, Abacus International's recent report "Diabetes: the Problems, the Issue, and the Future" found that for every £1 spent on such treatment, £1.38 would be saved on complications.
I began by welcoming the fact that politicians have started to take diabetes seriously, and to listen to such eminent figures as Sir George Alberti, president of the Royal College of Physicians, who commented on the Abacus report that there is as
"urgent need to move diabetes up the agenda, alongside coronary heart disease and cancer for the sake of individual sufferers and the public purse. Early and effective implementation of the National Service Framework, properly resourced, is critical".
The national service framework standards document suggests that the Government are committed to tackling growing health concern. Translating those good intentions into delivery on the ground will require the promotion of user involvement in local planning and delivery, an increase in staffing, and a commitment to providing financial resources.
The implementation of the national service framework for diabetes provides an unprecedented opportunity to improve standards of screening, diagnosis, prevention, management and care. It will transform the lives of millions of British people, and pave the way for better future lives. That opportunity may not come again for a generation. Now is the time to deliver for those with diabetes.
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing a debate on the important issue of the treatment of diabetes. I welcome many of her points, and I agree that this is a great opportunity to make substantial steps in improving care for those with diabetes.
I pay tribute to the work of Diabetes UK, which will hold its annual professional conference tomorrow. It has done considerable work for those who suffer from diabetes. It has raised awareness of the condition and has worked with health professionals and the Department of Health on the national service framework.
My hon. Friend is right that diabetes is a serious and complex condition that can result in a raft of debilitating complications and increase the risk of developing other diseases, including coronary heart disease, stroke, kidney failure, impaired vision, lower-limb complications, and additional risks in pregnancy. She is right that those with diabetes die sooner—on average, by more than 20 years if an individual has type I diabetes, and by up to 10 years if he or she has type 2 diabetes.
Diabetes can have a profound effect on people's lifestyles, relationships, work, income, health, wellbeing and life expectancy. My hon. Friend is right that it also has a significant impact on health and social services. It has been estimated that around 5 per cent. of total NHS resources and up to 10 per cent. of hospital in-patient resources can be used for the care of people with diabetes. Those with the condition are twice as likely to be admitted to hospital, and, once there, their stay is likely to be up to twice the average.
Around 1.3 million people have diagnosed diabetes, and evidence shows that it is becoming more common as lifestyles and life patterns change, even among children. My hon. Friend made it clear that the burden of diabetes does not fall equally. Significant inequalities exist in the risk of developing diabetes, in access to health services of quality, and in health outcomes. For example, type 2 diabetes is up to six times more common in people of south Asian descent, and up to three times more common in those of African and African-Caribbean descent, than it is in the white population. Mortality and morbidity are also affected by socio-economic deprivation. Such serious inequality issues must be taken into account.
The Audit Commission report, "Testing Times", highlighted unacceptable variations in the standard of diabetes service provision. It found some excellent areas of good practice in which staff worked across sectors to improve patient care. However, such examples were not widely shared across the NHS, and considerable improvements can be made. Those variations and gaps in the organisation and quality of diabetes services prompted the Government to announce the development of the national service framework for diabetes in England.
The number of national service frameworks that have been announced has been limited. Only a limited number of conditions and areas have been identified for those frameworks, such as mental health, coronary

305WH
heart disease and the cancer plan. The frameworks have tended to concentrate on generic approaches, such as those for children and long-term conditions, and one for older people is already in development. The identification of diabetes for a national service framework was a significant step for the Government and the NHS because it stated the importance of diabetes and the issues that must be addressed.
As my hon. Friend said, standards for the national service framework were published in December. The delivery strategy will follow later this year so that implementation can begin next year. The standards document provides the first set of national standards on the treatment of diabetes for the NHS. They cover prevention, identification of those with diabetes, empowering those with diabetes by improving self-care, and clinical care for adults, children and young people. They also address managing diabetic emergencies, care of people with diabetes during admission to hospital, issues surrounding diabetes in pregnancy, and the detection and management of long-term complications. Considerable supporting information has been made available on the internet. and that includes suggested service models, performance indicators, proposals for practice-based registers and information on diabetes research. We welcome comments on the diabetes national service framework.
My hon. Friend is correct in saying that we intend to publish the implementation plan during the summer, and we have set up an implementation group to consider it. The group will work openly with a wide range of stakeholders to provide information on the strategy of the diabetes national service framework to ensure that implementation is manageable and sensibly paced and that it can be fully delivered during the 10 years of the programme and reflects the key priorities for those with diabetes and for the health professionals involved in their care.
I take on board the points made by my hon. Friend concerning partnership with those with diabetes to consider the care, education and joint planning of services. Those matters are being considered by the implementation group, and I shall ensure that it is fully aware of the points raised by my hon. Friend.
The implementation group is chaired jointly by Professor Mike Pringle of the Royal College of General Practitioners and Dr. Sheila Adam, director of policy at the Department of Health. The group includes two people with diabetes as well as members of the medical, nursing and allied health professions, NHS management and Diabetes UK. The implementation group is keen to hear the views of people with diabetes, those in the NHS and health care professions, and other interested parties on the priorities for action, the time scale for implementing different standards and what the priorities should be during in the first few years of the national service framework. A strength of the framework is that it has worked hard to involve all those who deliver the service or use it. Its purpose is to provide the care that people want and need. Another strength is that it covers all aspects of care, including prevention and treatment. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that problems may arise when there is insufficient integration of the different aspects of care.
306WH
The delivery strategy for the national service framework will set out the action to be taken by local health and social care systems, including milestones, performance management arrangements, service models, and national underpinning programmes to support local delivery. We have established a research advisory committee with the Medical Research Council and Diabetes UK to review current diabetes research in the United Kingdom and to identify the priorities for new research.
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is developing clinical guidelines for type 1 and type 2 diabetes and is appraising a number of new technologies. We welcomed NICE's publication last week of the first two guidelines in its type 2 diabetes series, which cover diabetic retinopathy and diabetic renal disease. A diabetes information strategy is being developed because it is important to ensure that the right information is resourced to implement the national service framework. It will set out a vision for the information infrastructure, systems and services and what needs to be done to deliver it.
We have also set up a long-term conditions care group work force team to take a national overview of the challenges of delivering services to the diabetes national service framework standards and to identify innovative ways in which the skills and competencies needed in the work force can be delivered.
My hon. Friend mentioned the time scale for introducing the national service framework and publishing the implementation document. We must take account of the changing roles and responsibilities of NHS organisations and staff and recognise the current pressures on the NHS, especially in primary care but also in hospitals. That is why the decision was taken to have a proper debate on and examination of the implementation process once the standards had been published in order to engage closely with patients and clinicians and ensure that we can deliver the national service framework to the standard that we all want.
Developing the national service framework in two parts in that way will enable us to engage the NHS, partner agencies and those with diabetes more closely in planning and managing the framework's implementation. That is why publishing the standards in advance of finalising the milestones gave us an opportunity to be far more inclusive in developing the implementation programme. We aim to have a fuller process of communication and of raising awareness and agreement about priorities and practical implementation.
My hon. Friend mentioned resources. The national service framework implementation process will need to take account of resources currently being considered for the future of the NHS as part of the Government's spending review for the next three years. She will understand that it is not possible for me to pre-empt that or the discussions that will take place as part of the implementation group's work. However, I assure her that those matters will be considered not only in the light of discussions on the spending review and long-term investment plans for the NHS, but as part of the detailed discussions on the implementation time scale and milestones.

307WH
It is important to bear in mind, as my hon. Friend is aware, that we are investing considerable additional resources in the NHS across the board. As we shift power to the front line, primary care trusts will increasingly have to take responsibility for joining up their resources around the person and not simply around individual diseases. The national director for primary care is leading an important project to look at implementation across the national service frameworks to ensure that we deliver milestones properly and that the right investment is in place.
In the meantime, we are keen to avoid a planning blight in diabetes services. One reason for setting out the standards was so that primary care trusts and the health service could be aware of the direction in which the national service framework would go. We have also asked primary care groups and trusts to undertake a baseline assessment of population need and service provision so that they are ready to begin implementation of the national service framework next year. We shall shortly publish a template to support that task. Those already planning and investing in local diabetes services on an ongoing basis can take account of the broad direction in the standards document.
Other work in progress supports the broad thrust of the diabetes framework, including four of the first wave of pilot training courses in self-management, under the expert patients programme, which cover diabetes. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who spoke at the Diabetes UK annual professional conference, will say more tomorrow about the expert patients programme and its application to diabetes. NICE will evaluate patient education models for diabetes and issue guidance next spring.
We must take account of work that is changing and redefining traditional professional roles and boundaries. Two pilot sites of the changing work force programme, in Luton and Peterborough, are helping health and social care organisations to redesign staff roles and cover diabetes services.
My hon. Friend will be aware that much work progressing across the Government on the prevention of ill-health also applies to diabetes, including tackling obesity and improving nutrition and physical activity among children, as the prevention of diabetes is important too.
Diabetes is a serious condition but the future need not be bleak because evidence shows that the onset of type 2 diabetes can be delayed or even prevented and effective management of the disease can increase life expectancy and reduce the risk of complications. The diabetes national service framework builds on those foundations. As my hon. Friend said, the framework provides an important opportunity to improve patient-centred care delivered in partnership for those suffering from diabetes.

Aggregates Tax
1.30 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring an important issue before the House. Five years ago, the Government issued a statement of intent on environmental taxation. The principle was simply stated:
"Over time, the Government will aim to reform the tax system to increase incentives to reduce environmental damage. That will shift the burden of tax from "goods" to "bads"; encourage innovation in meeting higher environmental standards; and deliver a more dynamic economy and a cleaner environment, to the benefit of everyone."
I support the Government in their attempts to protect the environment; it is in putting that principle into practice that the issues become complicated. Although I support the Government's principles, I cannot support an illogical tax that does not live up to the basic dictates of the Government's statement of intent.
Next month a so-called environmental tax will come into effect that will do little for the environment and bring nothing to the Exchequer. An environmental tax that has a neutral effect both on the environment and at the Treasury is a strange anomaly. If the story stopped there, it would simply be a case of a costly government exercise that will achieve little or nothing. Unfortunately, it does not stop there; for all its environmental and Exchequer neutrality, the aggregates levy is not a neutral tax. It will be disastrous for the quarrying and construction industry; it will drive small operators out of business, further hurt rural economies, decrease the international competitive position of domestic industry, and increase the cost of public works construction projects.
From next month, the aggregates levy will tax virgin aggregates at £1.60 a tonne, a rate that is three to four times the profit margin of many quarry operators. The figure is four times the tax in Sweden, six times the tax in Denmark, and more than 20 times the tax in France. The Government say that the tax will better reflect the real cost of aggregates extraction, but that "real" cost was arrived at by the fascinating exercise of asking people how much of their fictional money they would part with to close local quarries.
The £1.60 rate is made even harsher by the fact that it will be a flat-rate tax on an industry whose prices vary widely. The effect is that the price of primary aggregates in Scotland will rise by 40 to 50 per cent. as opposed to a more modest rise of 12 to 16 per cent. in the south-east of England. The aggregates levy is in effect a poll tax on chuckies and is perhaps the most anti-Scottish taxation measure since the poll tax.
The effect of that blunt instrument, which taxes all quarries the same regardless of differing environmental practices or product prices, will be to drive many small quarry operators out of business. As industry expert Leslie Campbell wrote, large aggregate producers
"will be better placed to pass on the rise in the cost [of the levy] than the independent producer. These smaller specialist companies will find it harder to increase their prices to customers. Their margins will be squeezed and some could leave the market."
The Quarry Products Association predicts more than 10,000 job losses from the tax throughout Britain, more than a quarter of which will be in Scotland. The British

309WH
Aggregates Association similarly predicts the loss of 2,750 jobs in Scotland, split between the quarrying industry and related industries such as mechanical engineering, fabrication and plant hire.
Those job losses are the first-order effects of the aggregates levy, but there will be second-order economic effects about which we should be equally worried. A net effect of the new tax will be to increase the cost of construction projects, which will sometimes lead to decreased construction activity. I wish that we were debating the tax theoretically and looking forward to the imposition of a tax that had not yet hit us. However, the House can consider a real example of a jeopardised construction project.
The breakwater project in Peterhead bay in my constituency has been heralded as a huge economic opportunity. The breakwater would limit the effects of severe weather and allow trade all year round in the port. Port officials have worked diligently to secure funding for the project, which may give Peterhead the safest deep-water port in the whole of Scotland. The Peterhead bay authority recognises the substantial gains that the project would bring, and has planned to invest £10 million in the breakwater. The rest of the funding for the £20 million project will come from loans and grants.
That investment in Peterhead's future is projected to attract at least £40 million in follow-on schemes, and to generate 360 permanent jobs. However, the future of the project hangs in the balance, thanks to the aggregates levy. The bay authority must grapple with an extra £1.9 million as a result of this chuckie tax. The Minister should note that, in contrast, the bay authority will receive a benefit that amounts to £800 from deductions in national insurance charges. The authority requested help from the Scottish Executive, which unfortunately offered none. The community is already suffering a decline in its fishing industry, the rundown of RAF Buchan and several factory closures. It now stands also to lose one of the largest civil works projects in northeast Scotland.
The Government surely cannot have legislated for that sort of sustainable economic growth, nor can they have intended the imposition of this tax to have such an impact. As I said, this vital project is about coastal protection and marine safety. Almost all the aggregates used will be non-machine crushed and will be provided by a local quarry a few miles away. It is inconceivable that the project was an intended target of the aggregates tax, and I hope that the Minister will consider the unintended consequences of his proposals for my constituency.
The choice would be more difficult if we were trading such job losses for substantial environmental gains, as we would be faced with the competing need to protect industry and our natural resources. The irony of the situation, however, is that we are courting economic loss without a corresponding environmental gain. The plain fact is that the aggregates tax will do little, or nothing, to improve or protect the environment. The Government has conceded that the opportunity to switch to recycled aggregates is small.
The British Geological Survey's report of 2001 and the 2000 survey by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions of construction and
310WH
demolition waste show that even if the maximum amount of hard waste were recycled, that could, at most, substitute only 1 to 2 per cent. of virgin aggregates. Even if that number were doubled, and the calculations of the Government's advisers were wrong, the effect would still be marginal. Nor is it clear whether a reduction in the demand for virgin aggregates would be a good thing. If recycled aggregates are carted across great distances to construction sites, the pollution associated with aggregates would increase, not diminish. We must anticipate that that will be likely when the small quarries that usually service local projects are closed.
Mr. Michael Weir: My hon. Friend mentioned the project in Peterhead. Is he aware of the impact of the tax on road building throughout Scotland? Local authorities use 40 per cent. of the aggregates used in Scotland. In my constituency, Angus council will face an additional cost of £2 million for the urgent dualing of the notorious A92 road.
Mr. Salmond: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Scotland will suffer disproportionately from the aggregates tax, as it has a large land area and a small population in comparison with more crowded areas such as the city we are in at present. If we include the national insurance rebate, the aggregates tax overall will put an additional £20 million into the economy of the south-east of England, but that sum will be drawn from the economies of rural England, Scotland and Wales.
Mr. Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman's mention of Wales brings me to the point that I would like him to consider. The community council of Old Radnor in my constituency expressed its concern about two local quarries: the Strinds at Dolyhir and Gore quarry. I understand from parliamentary proceedings on the aggregates tax that the Government considered having a rebate for quarries that operated environmentally friendly practices. Are the Government still considering that possibility?
Mr. Salmond: I do not know if I can say what is in the mind of the Minister. We will have to wait a few minutes for that, but the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important point. One would have thought that the best way to devise a tax on aggregates would be to consider the environmental damage caused by aggregates and different systems of production. One could consider the impact on the sea and air, and where quarries have good environmental practices, introduce a tax that was graduated and targeted. This flat rate levy will be full of serious economic consequences that are not desired by, I suspect, the Government or, I know, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams).
My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) made a very good point about the road-building programme in Scotland. Such concerns cast great doubts on the efficacy of the new tax. Further practical concerns should encourage the Minister at least to consider a delay in the introduction of the levy. As of this moment, a mere 18 days before implementation, the Government have not yet published the final guidelines for compliance of the tax. Even if those guidelines were published today, quarry operators would have just over two weeks to implement the new rules—a full two and a

311WH
half months less than 12 weeks that the Government's own guidelines recommend for giving businesses time to comply with new legislation. The Minister must tell us why the Government are breaking their undertakings to industry on compliance.
Ambiguity remains about the phased introduction of the tax in Northern Ireland and how it will work there. The Government have rightly acknowledged the disastrous effects that the levy could have on quarries in Northern Ireland. I wish that they could have seen that the problem is not unique to Northern Ireland and exists in the other countries of the United Kingdom. We are still waiting to see how that delay will take shape and what it will mean for businesses, both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
As we debate the matter today, it is worth noting that industry representatives have been arguing their case in the courts. My understanding is that the matter will go to a full hearing and may result in a full judicial review. It is likely that that will be the start of a long process. Again, that shows the huge uncertainty in which the Government have placed the industry, a mere matter of days before their target date for implementation.
In closing, I should like to return to the Government's declared principle of environmental taxation and their desire to
"deliver a more dynamic economy and a cleaner environment, to the benefit of everyone."
The aggregates tax does not give us a cleaner environment, but it will have decidedly damaging economic effects. I urge the Government to delay its introduction until a thorough examination of the environmental and economic consequences can be conducted. We must delay so that we can make this new tax fair to rural communities, fair to Scotland and fair to communities such as Peterhead where major public works projects hang in the balance.
1.44 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The choice for debate of the aggregates tax by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is welcome. He gives the Government the opportunity to restate our position on the tax and our support for it and to re-affirm our commitment to sustainable development on the day on which we shall publish a report on our achievements over the past year in delivering on our sustainable development targets.
The aggregates levy has been developed over an extended period and in close consultation with the industry. As I listened to the hon. Gentleman's analysis, I did not recognise the tax that has been so widely consulted on and welcomed by those who are concerned about our environment. Hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, have had ample opportunity to debate the principle of the tax over the years. He pays lip service to that principle, but we are putting it into practice. He and his party should put their commitment to the environment where their mouths have been these many years.
Independent research clearly shows that the process of extracting aggregates imposes significant environmental costs in the form of noise, dust, visual
312WH
intrusion, loss of amenity, and damage to biodiversity. The hon. Gentleman and those of his constituents who live near quarries recognise that there is a cost to the environment, and they are required to pay it. With the tax, we seek to internalise the externality and incorporate the cost of environmental degradation into the price of aggregates—no more and no less.
Mr. Salmond: I am sure that my constituents who face the loss of economic opportunities will be pleased to know that the Government are internalising the externalities. The project that I described, which will be furnished by a local quarry, a mere five miles from the harbour, has support throughout my constituency. Why should that project, which involves transporting non-machine crushed aggregates a few miles to the harbour in a safe and economically processed condition, be subject to the levy, or is that an unintended consequence of the Government's position?
Mr. Boateng: The aggregates industry generally supports the extension of the levy to include uncrushed rocks of the sort that will be used in Peterhead. It believes that the tax should apply to all forms of aggregate equally. If I may use a rather unpleasant and hackneyed expression, the industry seeks a level playing field, which is precisely what we have provided. That is another indication of the way in which the Government have consulted and listened to the industry.
The levy, which is to be introduced in April, is designed to address the problems of dust, noise, visual intrusion, loss of amenity and damage to biodiversity by incorporating the costs of environmental damage into the price of aggregates. That will allow the market to determine efficient and sustainable levels of consumption.
The concept of internalising the externality is not unknown to the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he is well aware that that lies at the heart of all fiscal responses to environmental degradation.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Boateng: No. The hon. Gentleman and his party must consider whether they support the use of fiscal responses to environmental challenges. If they do not, that is their position, but if they do, they will need to recognise that internalising the externality is what a fiscal response to an environmental challenge is all about. I give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can make his and his party's position crystal clear.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister focus on the project? I have explained the clear environmental benefits: coastal protection, marine safety and economic opportunity. Will he specify the environmental damage of the breakwater project? If he cannot, will he say why he is imposing a £1.9 million tax on it and jeopardising the project?
Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. He distorts the argument on the aggregates tax, which is the subject of this debate, by focusing on a particular project in his constituency. He knows that every tax will have its impact, and this tax is on aggregates. If a particular project utilises aggregates, it

313WH
will pay the tax. That is the nature of such a tax. I do not want to particularise the general arguments to a specific project, save to say that on the advice available to me, his estimate that the additional costs are about £1.9 million is excessive.
However, that is not the point. We are debating a tax that is not a revenue-raising measure. The hon. Gentleman used that argument as if the tax were somehow defective. It was never presented as a revenue-raising measure and is neutral in that respect. All businesses will benefit from the 1 per cent. cut to employers' national insurance contributions, while areas affected by quarrying, including his constituency, will benefit from an annual £35 million sustainability fund. I did not hear a word from the hon. Gentleman about that fund, which was disingenuous of him. He knows well that his constituency and others will benefit from the fund.
Environmental damage affects us all, wherever we are in the United Kingdom, but for local communities affected by quarrying, the problems are more acute. The sustainability fund will provide funds to minimise demand for virgin aggregates and reduce the local effects of aggregate extraction. The devolved Administrations, including that in Scotland, have been allocated their share of the fund through the Barnett formula and will make their own decisions in the usual way about how to spend it. To suggest, as the hon. Gentleman did, that the tax is somehow anti-Scottish is an absolute travesty. That distorts both language and sense, because the tax is no such thing.
Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Boateng: No, not again. I look forward to continuing the debate with the hon. Gentleman. It is an important topic, but he must give credit where credit is due for a tax that has been designed in close consultation with industry. The process has meant that industry has able to inform the decisions that have been made in bringing the tax to its present point and that the aggregates industry has had an opportunity to affect the tax's development. A point was made about the start date of the levy, and the general guide to the levy was issued on 14 January. We have published a list of reliefs on the Customs and Excise website, as well as providing drafts of the general regulations to the industry through the Customs consultative group. There has been extensive involvement and, on that basis, the fears raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan are not justified.
Mr. Roger Williams: Does the Minister agree that a flat-rate tax is a blunt fiscal instrument for achieving environmental objectives?
Mr. Boateng: No, it is entirely justified in the circumstances. The research and the consultative process justify that approach. Discussions with the industry and with environmental groups have enabled us significantly to improve the levy. The definition of aggregates has been changed to capture materials that have not been crushed. Further improvements will be made in this year's Finance Bill and the hon. Member
314WH
for Banff and Buchan and his colleagues will have another opportunity to reflect then and to make further exchanges—
Mr. Salmond: Could I have an opportunity now?
Mr. Boateng: Not at the moment.
The definition of aggregates now includes rock that has not been subject to an industrial crushing process. Various means are available for producing aggregates from rock: crushing is not always necessary as some quarries sift the rock produced by blasting and need only to crush the largest pieces. The change will ensure both the equitable treatment of all quarries and full realisation of the environmental benefits of the levy.
An interesting point about green quarries was raised in an intervention on the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). We were initially attracted to establishing whether some relief could be provided. After informal consultation with the relevant businesses—quarry operators and others—we decided that technical problems affecting the delivery of the principle at a differential rate would not justify such a measure. The tax still provides significant scope to bring real benefits to the community through recycling and using other waste products.
The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions estimates that 10 million tonnes of construction waste could be recycled—a real challenge that will bring real benefits. The levy is already providing an incentive for businesses to examine alternatives such as china clay waste and slate and to develop glass and tyre waste in aggregate mixes.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Boateng: All that suggests that the measure will make a real contribution—
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet and it is clear that the Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Boateng: All that suggests that the measure will make a real contribution to the environment. I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will, after a period of mature reflection, come to see the real benefits to the people of Scotland, England and Wales—and, indeed, of Northern Ireland—that the introduction of a revenue-neutral levy will provide. It is designed to promote better use of waste material and to assure communities affected by quarrying that those purchasing the product of those operations should pay a price that reflects the environmental cost. All in all, it is a carefully researched measure, implemented only after full consultation. I thoroughly commend it as an important contribution to the cause of sustainable development.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Replies
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent changes he has made to the practice and conventions relating to ministerial responsibility for replying to questions and adjournment debates in the House; and if he will make a statement. [42910]

  The Prime Minister
  I have made no such changes. Paragraph 1 of the Ministerial Code sets out Ministers' responsibilities in relation to Parliament and the public.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Office. [41012]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on Monday 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 780W.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what measures were taken to ensure that the consultant advising on the installation of air conditioning in No. 10 Downing street, was aware of the Government's policy on the use of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants in air conditioning; and if he will make a statement on the measures taken by the consultant to source practical and safe alternatives to hydrofluorocarbon-based air conditioning; [41168]

  (2) whether an installer capable of installing not-in-kind air conditioning was invited to quote for the recent refurbishment contract for No. 10 Downing street; and if he will make a statement; [41170]

  (3) which consultant was used to advise on the installation of air conditioning in No. 10 Downing Street. [41169]

  The Prime Minister
  A comfort cooling system was installed in parts of No. 10 during 2001. The Cabinet Office sought expert advice through its managing agent and appropriate appraisals were made including taking account of Government policy on the use of HFCs. The installed systems comply with all current relevant European standards on the use of HFCs and safety in the workplace.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Transport
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work being done by the social exclusion unit on transport. [40127]

  Mrs. Roche
  The social exclusion unit's project is looking at how poor transport can prevent people from getting to jobs or key services such as health and education.

  A report will be published later this year.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the social exclusion unit's study into the role of transport in welfare to work policy and access to services. [40130]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The social exclusion unit was asked by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to look at the relationships between poor transport and social exclusion in April last year.

  The SEU project is looking at how poor transport can prevent people from getting to jobs or key services such as health and education.

  A report will be published later this year, with policies for improving access and preventing social exclusion.

  Codes of Conduct
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what role he and his office is playing in the review of the ministerial code of conduct and the code of conduct for special advisers. [40129]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  A revised ministerial code was issued in July 2001. Since then, in response to a recommendation from the Public Administration Committee, the Government have agreed to amend paragraph 27 of the code. A revised model contract for special advisers incorporating a new code of conduct for special advisers was introduced for all appointments made after the election in June 2001.

  Duchy of Lancaster Benevolent Fund
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what resources have been distributed by the Duchy of Lancaster benevolent fund during the past 12 months. [40131]

  Mr. Leslie
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply.

  Lord Macdonald is not a trustee of the Duchy benevolent fund. The Secretary of the fund has provided the following information. During the 12-month period 1 March 2001 to 28 February 2002 the Duchy of Lancaster benevolent fund has distributed approximately £285,000. The fund's annual report and accounts will be produced at the end of the financial year on 31 March 2002.

  British-Irish Council
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he next expects to meet members of the British-Irish Council to discuss investment in the border areas of Northern Ireland. [40132]
  1071W
  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The British-Irish Council has agreed to take forward work in the following priority areas: drugs, the environment, the knowledge economy, social inclusion, transport, tourism and tele-medicine. There are no current plans to discuss the issue of investment. Responsibility for investment in the border areas of Northern Ireland lies with the Northern Ireland Executive.

  Ministerial Code of Conduct
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to amend the ministerial code of conduct; and if he will make a statement. [40133]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend earlier today to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner),Official Report, column.

  Public Appointments
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the proportion of ethnic minorities and women that have been appointed to public bodies in the past 12 months. [40134]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information contained in Public Bodies 2001 which was published on 14 February 2002, shows that as at 31 March 2001, women held 34 per cent. of appointments made to the boards of public bodies, and people from ethnic minority backgrounds held 4.8 per cent. of appointments. This is an increase of one per cent. and 0.4 per cent. respectively on the previous year.

  In addition, also published on 14 February 2002 was "Public Bodies: Opening up Public Appointments 2002–05". This publication contains individual departmental plans to increase diversity in public appointments.

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress have been made by the social exclusion unit in research into neighbourhood renewal. [40135]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  Since the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy was published in January 2001, the Social Exclusion Unit jointly with Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, have published one further report related to neighbourhood renewal in July 2001: "Changing Fortunes: geographic patterns of Income Deprivation in the late 1990s". This sets out baseline information on income deprivation and recent social trends at the local level. It will be used in monitoring progress of the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy.

  Responsibility for implementing the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy moved to the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit in April 2001.

  Departmental Employees (Hearing-Impaired)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he intends to meet the Royal National Institute for Deaf People to discuss the employment in Government Departments of people with hearing impairments. [40136]
  1072W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to meet the Royal National Institute for Deaf People.

  The Government are committed to employing disabled people including those with hearing impairments and all Departments have targets to increase the number of disabled people they employ. 3.6 per cent. of staff in the civil service have declared themselves to have a disability. This includes 1.7 per cent. in the senior civil service.

  Action to support this commitment includes participation in the two-ticks disability scheme and sponsorship of Ready, Willing and Able which advertises a range of civil service vacancies.

  Government Services
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the proportion of Government services delivered by Government agencies and other bodies operating at a regional level. [40137]

  Mrs. Roche
  No such assessment has been made but Government policy stresses the importance of providing public services that respond to users' needs, including area-based programmes that tackle the problems of particular localities.

  There are currently 126 executive agencies providing a wide range of public services.

  In addition, a wide range of public bodies also have responsibilities for the delivery of particular services at a local, regional or national levels.

  The forthcoming White Paper on English Regional Governance will look at the relationships between some of these bodies and elected regional assemblies.

  Civil Service Bill
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when his Department expects to publish a draft civil service Bill. [40139]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to my earlier answer given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker),Official Report, column.

  Child Care Services
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the contribution of regional Government offices to the development of child care services as part of social and economic regeneration. [40140]

  Mrs. Roche
  This Government recognise that child care programmes can make an important contribution to social and economic regeneration. The Government offices for the regions are helping to improve the delivery of front-line services, for example sure start and other child care and nursery initiatives, by making effective connections between such programmes and the other programmes that they support.

  Poverty
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to reduce poverty in the north-west. [40141]
  1073W
  Mrs. Roche
  In the north-west, around 230,000 people have gained from the national minimum wage; the working families tax credit makes work pay for nearly 180,000 families. The minimum income guarantee ensures single pensioners will receive £100 a week by 2003 and more than 1.4 million pensioners have seen the biggest rise in basic state pension for a generation.

  Following the Social Exclusion Unit's reports, local partnerships are harnessing the power of all the sectors to tackle the problems of deprived neighbourhoods supported by new minimum standards for mainstream services.

  The Government Offices for the Regions administer programmes to tackle deprivation and poverty. For example, the north-west receives £243 million through the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund.

  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the role of his Department is in tackling urban poverty. [40144]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Strategy for neighbourhood renewal action plan was published by the Social Exclusion Unit in 2001. Its goal is to ensure that no one is seriously disadvantaged by where they live within 10–20 years and to narrow the gap between the most deprived neighbourhoods and the rest. Many of the most deprived neighbourhoods are in urban areas.

  The strategy addresses the wider causes of poverty and social exclusion with targets to improve employment levels, educational attainment, health and housing and to reduce crime in the most deprived neighbourhoods. This is backed up by substantial investment. The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, based in Department for Transport Local Government and the Regions, is responsible for taking this forward. The Government Offices for the Regions work with the NRU and other Departments to administer specific programmes like the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund.

  The SEU continues to work with all Government departments to ensure that social exclusion issues are addressed.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff left the service of his Department and its agencies in the year ended 31 March 2001; how many left before attaining the formal retirement age of 60 years; and in respect of how many his Department and its agencies assumed responsibilities for making payments until retirement age. [37557]

  Mr. Leslie
  Figures for(a) and (b) are in the table, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The figures show the number of permanent staff in each Department reported to the Mandate database from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001.

  They are also based on the Departments as they were before structural changes were made after the election in 2001.
  1074W
  For part (c) in the year ended 31 March 2001 the Cabinet Office and its agencies assumed responsibility for making payments until retirement age (60) for 13 of these staff.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will set out for each civil service grade within his(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies the (i) total number of staff employed, (ii) number aged (A) 16 to 25, (B) 26 to 35, (C) 36 to 45, (D) 46 to 60 and (E) over the age of 60 years, (iii) number of registered disabled and (iv) number of ethnic minorities. [39152]

  Mr. Leslie
  The figures are in tables and represent the data reported to the Mandate database and supplied in manual returns as at 1 October 2001, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Mandate is a central computer based record of information for almost all civil servants in the home civil service. For some Departments and agencies, summary figures are provided in a manual return, which may not always be fully consistent with Mandate information, for example, because of minor differences in timing. Breakdowns by age are purely figures reported to Mandate. Departments and agencies are responsible for their own grading structures, but these have been allocated to broad responsibility levels to give a common basis for tabulation.

  Figures are on a head count basis, for the number of permanent staff in each Department. The figures are based on the Departments following the structural changes made as a result of the 2001 election. Figures for total staff in each Department are rounded to the nearest 10 and figures by grade level are suppressed if less than five.

  Advertising
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [37392]

  Mr. Leslie
  Expenditure on media advertising campaigns by parliamentary Session and country is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [37405]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 939W.
  1075W
  Expenditure per month is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in the last 12 months from the National Assembly for Wales regarding the Comprehensive Spending Review. [43225]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 1004W.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) press releases, (b) guidance notes and (c) publications his Department issued in each month since July 1999. [43227]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information is as follows:

  Press releases issued

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  January

  n/a

  5

  5

  11

  February

  n/a

  5

  5

  9

  March

  n/a

  13

  12

  —

  April

  n/a

  9

  8

  —

  May

  n/a

  10

  3

  —

  June

  n/a

  10

  6

  —

  July

  0

  12

  6

  —

  August

  1

  5

  3

  —

  September

  7

  6

  9

  —

  October

  8

  10

  8

  —

  November

  4

  8

  15

  —

  December

  10

  7

  6

  —

  Note:

  The figures for press releases do not include operational notes.

  The Wales Office has issued four publications—in February, May, November 2000 and April 2001 respectively.

  The Wales Office does not issue guidance notes.

  Secretary of State's Office
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the job title of each member of staff in the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales. [43230]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to figure seven on page 17 of the Departmental Report 2001 (Cm 5121) which is available in the Library.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the Public Service Agreement targets which have been revised and those which have been introduced since the publication of the 2001 departmental report. [43254]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department does not have a Public Service Agreement.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number and expected cost to his Department of special advisers in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [43274]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to answers I gave the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 856–57W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to answer the question of 13 February from the hon. Member for Buckingham regarding staff involvement in union duties. [41574]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have answered today, at columns 1074–75 below.

  School Children
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on measures being taken to encourage school children in coalfield areas to stay on in full-time education beyond age 16. [40541]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussion with the First Secretary and his Cabinet Colleagues on a range of issues affecting Wales.

  The Assembly is committed to widening access to education for all those who have the ability to benefit from it. Their 10-year plan, "The Learning Country" which was published in September, includes specific targets to increase the participants in post-16 education and training and to attract larger numbers of students into higher and further education, helped by substantial new provision for access funds.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the official visits within the UK outside London made by each Minister in his Department in 2001, giving for each(a) the origin and destination and (b) the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in his Department on choice of mode of travel for official visits; [38184]

  (2) 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. [38148]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 421W.

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to
  1077W
  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. [36209]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There has been one staff member elected as union representative with an allocation of eight days per annum to undertake union duties since the creation of the Wales Office in July 1999. The Department has no agencies or NDPBs.

  Information for the former Welsh Office is not held centrally.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Supermarket/Supplier Relations
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when she intends to review the operation of the Retailer Code of Practice; [42167]

  (2) what measures are in place to monitor the operation and impact of the Retailer Code of Practice. [42166]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The Code of Practice on supermarket/supplier relations comes into force on 17 March.

  The Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring and reviewing the operation of Fair Trading Act orders and undertakings. His office has been in contact with relevant trade associations to ensure that the code operates effectively. In addition, the code provides for the independent dispute mediator to supply the Director General with an annual return of his work.

  Internal Market, Consumer and Tourism Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Internal Market, Consumer and Tourism Council on 1 March; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [40765]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There was a presentation from the Commission on its Cardiff report on economic reform, followed by a debate. Conclusions were adopted on the outcome of this year's Cardiff process, which are to be submitted to the Barcelona spring council. The council also adopted conclusions on the Commission's proposal to set up a computerised system (SOLVIT) to help improve the handling of complaints from citizens and businesses facing problems caused by the misapplication of internal market rules. The Council also adopted a resolution on the labelling of video and computer games.

  There was a Presidency briefing on the Community Patent followed by a lunchtime discussion. There was a Commission presentation on its newly published proposal on computer implemented inventions (software patents), which aims to clarify the law in this area.

  The Presidency initiated an exchange of views on the changeover to the euro from a consumer perspective and there was also a Presidency progress report on work during its term so far of simplifying, clarifying and updating the EC procurement directives.
  1078W
  There was a Commission briefing on the Green Paper on EU consumer protection and a progress report on amended proposals for a Council regulation on the statute for a European Co-operative Society, which would provide co-operatives with a legal framework to enable them to operate freely across borders on equal terms of competition with companies.

  There were no legislative items on the agenda for agreement. However, Council conclusions on the Cardiff process, the SOLVIT problem solving database and standardisation were all adopted, with the UK in favour. The Council resolution on the labelling of video and computer games was also adopted with the UK in favour.

  Business Links
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent advertising Business Link services in the past five years; what the nature of this advertising has been; and what the assessed outcome of each campaign has been. [41461]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Information on advertising spend prior to the set-up of the Small Business Service in April 2000 is not available.

  Since April 2000, £4.2 million has been spent advertising the Business Link services at a national level. This includes two years of publicity activities.
  In March 2001, there was national newspaper, radio, and directory advertising (this covers insertions for a year in directories such as Yellow Pages) at a cost of £1.3 million. At this stage, no baseline awareness figures were held. 10 per cent. unprompted awareness and 55 per cent. prompted awareness of Business Link were findings from the National Omnibus Survey of Small Businesses, August 2001.
  In October 2001, there was national newspaper, TV, online, direct mail and directory advertising at a cost of £2.3 million, with follow up national newspaper and online advertising in February 2002 at a cost of £0.6 million.

  Evaluation and tracking of this advertising was carried out and the effectiveness of the campaign was also measured by the results of the National Omnibus Survey of Small Businesses, November 2001.
  The advertising exceeded its response targets and there was a 55 per cent. increase in calls to the contact centre and a 96 per cent. increase in user sessions on the website over the two-month campaign period compared to the two months prior to advertising.
  Levels of unprompted awareness of Business Link increased from 10 per cent. to 14 per cent., and levels of prompted awareness increased from 55 per cent. to 58 per cent. There were significant increases in awareness among female entrepreneurs, with unprompted increasing from 5 per cent. to 14 per cent. and prompted from 23 per cent. to 63 per cent.

  Spring 2002 advertising activities are still running and so no assessment of outcome is possible.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which advertising agency was consulted with regard to the Business Links advertising campaign in October 2001; what the remuneration of the company was; and what the assessed outcome of the campaign has been. [41458]
  1079W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The advertising agency used was Ogilvy and Mather. Ogilvy and Mather were paid £170,538 for the October campaign, which represents 8 per cent. of the £2.1 million total spend on national newspaper, television, and online advertising at this time.

  Evaluation and tracking is carried out for the campaign, and the effectiveness of the campaign is also measured by the results of the National Omnibus Survey of Small Businesses, which showed significant increases in both prompted and unprompted awareness of Business Link:
  Levels of prompted awareness increased from 55 per cent. to 58 per cent.
  Levels of unprompted awareness increased from 10 per cent. to 14 per cent.
  Levels of awareness among female entrepreneurs also increased from 5 per cent. unprompted to 14 per cent, and from 23 per cent. prompted to 63 per cent.
  The advertising exceeded its target of 53,000 responses to the web and contact centre by achieving 81,937 responses during the advertising period.
  There was a 55–60 per cent. increase in calls to the contact centre during the campaign period and a 77 per cent. increase in website hits. Web user sessions increased 96 per cent. from an average of 39,000 hits in the two months prior to advertising to an average of 76,500 in the two months campaign period.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff have been employed by Business Links in each region in each of the past five years. [41459]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Business Links are independent autonomous organisations and figures on the number of staff they employ are not held centrally.

  Disaster Planning
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance with disaster planning she provides to small businesses. [40115]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government have established the Civil Contingencies Secretariat (CCS) to improve the UK's resilience to disruptive challenges at every level through improved anticipation, preparation, prevention and resolution.

  The SBS and its business link network can also advise companies on a number of disaster management issues. Companies should contact their local business link operator. The business link website: http://www.businesslink.org will put small firms in touch with their local provider.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on measures to improve public awareness of the roles of regional development agencies; [41903]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the costs of measures to raise public awareness of the roles of regional development agencies over the next three years. [41904]

  Alan Johnson
  Significant developments in the role of the regional development agencies have been and will continue to he publicised through departmental Press 1080W
  Notices. In addition the DTI maintains information on the RDAs on its website. Ministers will continue to raise public awareness of the role of RDAs through speeches and in other ways. There are no specific plans to hold additional events to raise public awareness.

  It is for the RDAs to ensure that they maintain a sufficient public profile in their regions to fulfil their role as the champions of regional economic development, and to ensure public awareness of their activities. Press Notices, publication of their various strategies, their corporate plans and their annual reports, and maintaining websites are some of the ways in which they do this.

  Debt Management Companies
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will take steps to improve the capacity of clients of debt management companies to obtain compensation after receiving bad advice from such companies. [35796]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Director General of Fair Trading issued guidelines for debt management companies last December to ensure they deal fairly and openly with their customers. The guidelines require debt management companies to respond promptly and fairly to complaints about their services. They also require that a contract should set out the circumstances in which a consumer may withdraw and receive a refund and should not include any term which says or implies that there are no circumstances in which a consumer is entitled to a refund.

  South West Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the administrative costs of each of the organisations which were merged into the South West Regional Development Agency in each of the final three years of their independent life. [41878]

  Alan Johnson
  These costs are not held centrally and it would incur disproportionate costs to assemble the information requested. The administrative budget of the South West Regional Development Agency in 1999–2000 was £7.086 million, but this reflected the total administration of the agency, not just the costs of the legacy organisations.

  UK Coal Plc
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what state aid has been received by UK Coal plc in the last two years in the aggregate; and how this was apportioned to each colliery. [42221]

  Mr. Wilson
  UK Coal plc has received £75 million under the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme in the last two years. These sums have been awarded in respect of four collieries, apportioned as follows:

  £

  Harworth colliery

  14,722,100

  Maltby colliery

  13,559,700

  Rossington colliery

  3,207,200

  Selby complex

  43,511,000

  Total

  75,000,000

  1081W
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what communications she has had with UK Coal plc in relation to their decisions on shareholder dividends over the last two years. [42222]

  Mr. Wilson
  There have been no communications between my Department and UK Coal plc in relation to their decisions on shareholder dividends over the last two years.

  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what approaches have been made to her Department by UK Coal plc with a view to extending the state aid scheme of deep-mined coal subsidy beyond its present expiry date. [42220]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have received no formal request from UK Coal plc for an extension of the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme, although the matter has been raised informally in meetings with officials.

  Prince of Wales Colliery
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what communications she has had with UK Coal plc relating to the possibility of continued state aid for the Prince of Wales Colliery beyond the present expiry date for state aid; and what her estimate is of(a) accessible coal reserves at the Prince of Wales colliery and (b) the cost of accessing these reserves. [42223]

  Mr. Wilson
  No state aid has been paid in respect of the Prince of Wales Colliery, and I have received no request for such aid.

  IMC Group Consulting Ltd undertook a detailed review of the Prince of Wales Colliery on behalf of the DTI in January. This examined the extent of reserves and the costs of their access in a number of possible development scenarios. It concluded that there were no areas that would sustain long-term viable production. The report is available on the DTI website on http://www2.dti.gov.uk/energy/pow/pdf.

  Company Law Review
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what conclusions she has drawn from the results of the company law review; and if she will make a statement. [42065]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Weston-Super-Mare (Brian Cotter) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 982W.

  Development Planning
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the role of councils in the planning process in the next five years. [41906]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have set out in the Planning Green Paper "Planning: delivering a fundamental change" proposals to significantly simplify the arrangements under which County, District and Unitary councils are responsible for preparing and adopting development plans. We will put forward firm proposals once we have
  1082W
  considered the responses to consultation, which finishes on 18 March. Thereafter implementation will depend on the making of necessary changes to primary legislation.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Mersey Basin Trust
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of the Mersey Basin Trust. [37115]

  Ms Keeble
  The Mersey Basin Trust is a registered charity and as such its future is a matter for its Trustees to determine in the first instance.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether(a) the conditions precedent, as referred to at http://www.railways.dtlr.gov.uk/lunderground/factsheets/safety/index.htm and as published by his Department on 11 February, are signed and (b) other conditions, which must be satisfied before the final contracts on the London Underground PPP, include the contractual safety cases for each infrastructure company. [40340]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 88W and 11 March 2002 Official Report, columns 735–36W.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of deep sub-surface line mileage on Britain's roads is subject to speed restrictions; and by how much this has changed in the last five years. [41608]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that the hon. Member is referring to deep and sub-surface lines on London Underground. This is an operational matter for London Underground who have provided the information in the table.

  Percentage of London Underground Network subject to speed restrictions

  Deep tube lines

  Sub-surface lines

  Percentage of Network subject to speed restrictions at 1996–97 year end

  0.1

  6.2

  Percentage of Network subject to speed restrictions at 2001–02 year end

  0.3

  3.5

  Local Authority Boundary Fees (Shipment of Dead Bodies)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the charging of boundary fees by local authorities for the shipment of dead bodies. [40291]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Local authorities do not charge boundary fees for the transport of dead bodies between local authority areas. However some authorities charge
  1083W
  higher fees for the burial of those from outside their area. This is in accordance with the Local Authorities Cemeteries Order 1977.

  Martin Sixsmith
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he was informed on 15 February of the conditions mentioned in Sir Richard Mottram's statement of 25 February upon which Mr. Martin Sixsmith had agreed to resign. [40404]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 5 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.

  European Road Link
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason the road link to North Wales envisaged in the Essen agreement did not follow existing routes via the M6 and the dual carriageway along the North Wales Coast. [41736]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The M6 and the North Wales coast road (A55) are part of the Ireland/United Kingdom/Benelux road link. The decision to include the A5 and A483 in that link was taken by the previous administration and approved by the European Council on 23 July 1996. I will write to the hon. Member on that aspect.

  Local Government Finance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of local authorities received grant increases of retail prices index for 2002–03. [41676]

  Dr. Whitehead
  All English local authorities received grant increases at least as large as the annual increase in the RPI.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to bring in a third party right of appeal against planning decisions. [41902]

  Ms Keeble
  As indicated in our Planning Green Paper, published on 12 December, a third party right of appeal against the grant of planning permission could add to the costs and uncertainties of planning. We cannot accept that prospect. We believe that the right way forward is to make the planning system more accessible and transparent and to strengthen the opportunities for community involvement throughout this process. Proposals to achieve this were set out in the Green Paper.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the costs of introducing new planning obligations set out in the Planning Green Paper. [41905]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 31W.

  Housing (West Midlands)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assumptions have been made about building cost inflations in his Department's assessment of business plans for stock transfers in Coventry, Walsall and Birmingham. [41952]

  Ms Keeble
  The business plans for housing transfers are commercially sensitive documents that are considered by the Housing Corporation as part of the transfer process. Each housing transfer will make its own assumptions for building cost inflation over future years.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with Birmingham City Council about the impact of the proposed demolitions over the next five years on homelessness in the city; and if he will make a statement. [41951]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government's priority is that all social housing should be made decent by 2010. Birmingham has a plan to achieve this through a housing transfer. Where the appropriate course of action involves demolition of properties this should be based on an assessment of likely future demand, the rate at which properties will be relet and where necessary proposals for new build.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contribution the Government are making for stock transfer purposes towards the payment of(a) Walsall's housing attributable debt and (b) Walsall's debt breakage costs; and what is the contribution to each from (i) Walsall MBC and (ii) Walsall Housing Group. [41949]

  Ms Keeble
  The contributions from the Department, Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council and Walsall Housing Group towards the repayment of Walsall's housing attributable debt will not be known until a final valuation is agreed for Walsall's housing stock.

  The Department does not contribute to a local authority's debt breakage costs. The local authority redeeming the debt usually meets this cost.

  Railtrack
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what basis he expects the successor body to Railtrack to raise funds on commercial markets. [41950]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack's successor needs to be financially sound with a strong investment grade credit rating sufficient to finance the required expenditure efficiently. It is for bidders for Railtrack to propose to the Administrator how they will raise funds in commercial markets.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the successor company to Railtrack in administration will be in the private sector. [42816]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: It is for the Administrator to consider all proposals for the transfer of Railtrack plc's property rights and liabilities put to him,

  1085W
  and for me to approve any transfer scheme put to me by the Administrator under Schedule 7 of the Railways Act 1993.

  English Partnerships
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what consultation with hon. Members is planned over the future of English Partnerships. [41793]

  Ms Keeble
  The review of English Partnerships was announced to both Houses on 16 October 2001. During stage one of the review, a number of hon. Members have taken the opportunity to write to Ministers and to the review team on issues of concern. These letters have been taken into account in coming to a conclusion on stage one of the review.

  Stage two of the review, the remit for which will be published as part of the stage one outcome, will offer hon. Members further opportunities to make their views known.

  Coalfield Programme
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what criteria are being used to determine whether the coalfield programme be maintained by English Partnerships or the regional development agencies. [41791]

  Ms Keeble
  In determining whether the coalfield programme should continue to be maintained by English Partnerships or the regional development agencies, a judgment will be made as to which approach offers the most efficient and effective method of delivering the national coalfield programme.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) within what time scale an agreement will be reached between English Partnerships and the East Midlands Regional Development Agency over the infrastructure works and marketing of the former Manton pit site; [41790]

  (2) what the budget is for English Partnerships to bring the former Manton pit site to the market. [41792]

  Ms Keeble
  To date £4.35 million has been committed by English Partnerships to allow the reclamation and marketing of the Manton pit site by the East Midlands Regional Development Agency. Reclamation and agreed infrastructure work has been completed and the site is currently on the market.

  Local Government
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what his estimate is of the cost to the taxpayer so far of running mayoral referendums in local authorities in England; [42233]

  (2) what his estimate is of the cost to the taxpayer of introducing new executive structures on local authorities. [42232]

  Mr. Byers
  Information to estimate the costs and savings of introducing new executive arrangements, including the holding of mayoral referendums, is not currently available centrally.
  1086W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the administrative costs were of local government reorganisation in each local authority that has been restructured since 1990 in(a) cash and (b) real terms, expressed in 2002 prices. [42231]

  Mr. Byers
  This information is not available.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce annual elections for local government in England. [42230]

  Mr. Byers
  We have no plans to introduce annual local government elections in England. As stated in our White Paper 'Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services' we will be inviting the Electoral Commission to propose options to simplify the current cycle of local elections.

  Empty Council Houses
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish figures for the number of empty council houses, broken down by region, in England, for each year since 1997. [42227]

  Mr. Byers
  The number of council houses reported as being empty in each year since 1997 by region in England is as follows:

  Local authority vacant dwellings on 1 April

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  North east

  8,300

  9,000

  9,400

  10,000

  9,300

  North west

  16,300

  18,700

  18,800

  19,600

  19,500

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  12,200

  12,800

  14,000

  15,400

  14,600

  East Midlands

  5,600

  5,100

  5,400

  6,100

  6,100

  West Midlands

  9,200

  10,000

  11,200

  12,800

  10,600

  Eastern

  4,200

  3,900

  3,900

  4,000

  3,900

  London

  18,500

  15,700

  14,700

  12,900

  11,100

  South east

  4,100

  3,700

  3,700

  3,600

  3,000

  South west

  2,800

  2,800

  2,800

  2,800

  2,200

  England

  81,200

  81,700

  83,900

  87,200

  80,300

  Note:

  A level of vacancy is a usual feature of housing management, reflecting turnover and movement within the stock. There is likely to be some variation in the proportion of dwellings vacant in a local authority from one date to another during the year.

  Source:

  Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns.

  Non-Governmental Organisations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer on 5 March 2002, Ref: 39179, what information he collates on the funding of non-Governmental organisations by his Department, with particular reference to those operating on a regional level; and if he will make a statement. [41829]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions does not hold information centrally on the proportion of its various budgets which go to organisations operating in the charity/voluntary sector.

  A6 Rothwell/Desborough Bypass
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what provisions have been made to maintain access to public footpaths after the construction of the A6 Rothwell/Desborough bypass; [41966]

  (2) what provisions have been made to reduce the noise impact of the A6 Rothwell/Desborough bypass. [41967]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Phil Sawford, dated 13 March 2002:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the A6 Rothwell/Desborough Bypass.
  The bypass affects five public footpaths. Two will continue on their present route with suitable crossings where they meet the bypass. Two will be subject to minor diversions with new crossing arrangements to provide safer crossing points. Stiles will be placed in any boundary fences at all of the crossing points. The other footpath will be diverted to cross the A14 at an existing road bridge. Access for footpath users will be maintained across the line of the by-pass during its construction.
  In line with the Government's commitment to using quieter road surfaces for all new roads, the new bypass will have a low-noise road surface.

  Social Services SSA (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the elderly personal social services standard spending assessment per person aged 65 and over for Stoke-on-Trent adjusted for inflation each year since 1998–99. [41909]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The table shows the data requested, together with a year-on-year percentage change after adjusting for changes in the function and funding of services:

  Elderly, personal social services SSA per person aged 65 and over1

  Year-on-year percentage change

  1998–99

  671.56

  —

  1999–2000

  777.17

  15.7

  2000–01

  810.46

  4.3

  2001–02

  812.32

  2.8

  2002–03

  813.38

  2.6

  1 At 2002–03 prices: £ per person

  British Transport Police
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in how many cases the British Transport police have acted on the basis of out-of-date arrest warrants since 1999; and if he will make a statement. [41883]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The British Transport police have advised that no record is kept of when an arrest is made using an invalid warrant, but since 1999 three civil claims have been made against the force for unlawful arrest regarding the arrest warrant used.

  Channel Tunnel Freight Services
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many rail freight services have been cancelled as a result of the SNCF channel tunnel restrictions. [42739]

  Mr. Jamieson
  EWS advise that over 1,700 rail freight services have been cancelled since November.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many and what proportion of the staff of his Department are(a) job sharing, (b) term working and (c) engaged in another form of flexible working. [42423]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer given on 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 742W. Information specifically on job sharers, term working and other forms of flexible working is not held centrally and can be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on energy costs incurred by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42441]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The annual energy cost for DTLR's predecessors is as follows:

  £

  Department(s)

  Expenditure

  1991–92

  DOT and DOE

  6,020,891

  1992–93

  DOT and DOE

  5,883,013

  1993–94

  DOT and DOE

  5,074,426

  1994–95

  DOT and DOE

  4,519,596

  1995–96

  DOT and DOE

  4,316,044

  1996–97

  DOT and DOE

  4,095,629

  1997–98

  DETR

  4,099,099

  1998–99

  DETR

  3,993,520

  1999–2000

  DETR

  3,473,024

  2000–01

  DETR

  2,584,778

  Concessionary Coach Fares
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress he has made in introducing the national minimum half-fare scheme for pensioners with respect to coach travel; and if he will make a statement. [42719]

  Ms Keeble
  We are currently considering next steps in the light of our discussions so far with the industry on the introduction of this scheme.

  Gazumping
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to stop the practice of gazumping. [42612]

  Ms Keeble
  We believe the answer to the problems caused by gazumping lie in increasing transparency and speeding up the home buying and selling process. That is what our proposals for sellers' packs will achieve. Sellers' packs will bring about earlier certainty and reduce the
  1089W
  period of time during which gazumping can occur. The necessary legislation for this will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  New Deal for Communities (Kings Norton)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total expenditure to date has been from the budget of the new deal for communities in Kings Norton; and what have been the main achievements. [42682]

  Ms Keeble
  Kings Norton NDC has been awarded £54 million for its 10-year life of which £4,293,399 has been so far spent.

  Main Achievements

  The west midlands police have seconded an officer to the NDC team. Beats have been redrawn to better reflect the needs of the area, and an additional eight officers are employed on the estates at no cost to the NDC.

  Cadbury college has significantly increased the numbers of residents participating in adult education from 30 to over 300 through outreach courses. It has successfully bid for DFES funding for a UK on-line centre, which will come on stream during 2002.

  Primrose hill community project, funded by the NDC, is the main provider of nursery care. It provides 80 day places, 20 after school places and employs five residents as early learning assistants. Fifteen residents have NVQ qualifications in child care.

  The Befriend project, led by the family service unit and funded by NDC, offers support to new tenants moving to the three estates. A domestic violence worker is also funded through NDC.

  A residents' resource room provides a centre for producing a monthly newsletter, organising community events, and giving information on services and volunteering opportunities.

  The NDC has brokered better inter-agency working between local service providers and has a place on Birmingham city council's Best Value Review panel.

  A community development trust was established in 2001 and board members have been appointed.

  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the results have been of the pilot schemes for local authorities to assume responsibility for the clamping and removal of untaxed vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [42555]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Pilot schemes for local authorities to act as DVLA contractors to clamp and remove unlicensed vehicles have been conducted in Newham and, on a much smaller scale, in Lewisham. Between 9 April 2001 and 28 February 2002 Newham clamped 1,682 vehicles of which 610 were declamped after payment, 160 released from the pound after removal and payment, and 589 were crushed. The number of vehicles reported as abandoned in Newham fell by 10 per cent. between November 2001 and February 2002.

  In Lewisham 51 vehicles were clamped between August 2001 and January 2002, with 21 crushed.
  1090W
  A number of other authorities are now in discussion with DVLA with a view to acting as contractors to clamp and remove vehicles.

  End of Life Vehicles Directive
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the results were of the consultation on the removal and disposal of vehicles regulations; and if he will make a statement. [42563]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he is proposing to implement the European end of life vehicles directive; and if he will make a statement. [42554]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The responses to our consultation paper on options for implementing the Directive are being assessed, along with the recommendations of the Trade and Industry Committee, with a view to adopting the approach which best suits the UK's circumstances. Our policy is to achieve the environmental objectives of the Directive using a light regulatory touch and without putting UK business at a competitive disadvantage. We also aim to ensure that there is an adequate network of treatment facilities to deal with all end-of-life vehicles properly.

  Electoral Reform
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what other nation states use the supplementary vote electoral system used for electing directly-elected mayors. [42779]

  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is not held by my Department.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to review the electoral system used for electing directly-elected mayors in England and Wales. [42778]

  Mr. Byers
  We have no plans to review the electoral system used for electing directly-elected mayors in England and Wales.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which fire authorities are involved in local strategic partnerships in their area; and what their role is in regard to such local strategic partnerships. [42923]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Fire authorities have a valuable role to play as members of local strategic partnerships. As with other public sector organisations fire authorities' participation in LSPs allow the development of an integrated approach to local service delivery in consultation with the local community. We do not have specific information as to the number of fire authorities on LSPs. It is for each LSP to consider its membership in view of local circumstances and priorities.
  1091W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many rescues from(a) road traffic accidents, (b) underground, (c) collapsed structures and (d) floods were undertaken by the fire service in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost of each of these operations was. [42927]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information is not held centrally. However, information is available on the number of incidents where persons were extricated from vehicles. For last year this was 9,638. Other rescues involved the release of 8,531 individuals.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many unfilled posts there are within the fire service, broken down into(a) civilian and (b) fire fighting positions. [42930]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Based on annual returns submitted to HM Fire Service Inspectorate, the figures for the establishment and strength of the fire service in England and Wales, as at 31 March 2001, were as follows:

  Establishment

  Actual strength

  Whole-time firefighters

  33,640

  133,376

  Retained firefighters

  14,940

  212,028

  Control room staff

  1,454

  11,474

  Non-uniformed staff

  6,413

  16,074

  1 In full time equivalents.

  2 In twenty-four hour units of cover.

  Shoreham Harbour
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the members of the Maritime Vision for Shoreham steering group and their attendance record at meetings. [42909]

  Ms Keeble
  The members of the Maritime Vision for Shoreham steering group consist of Adur district council, Brighton and Hove city council, the Government Office for the South East, Shoreham Port Authority, the South East England Development Agency, Sussex Enterprise and West Sussex county council. 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 details of the members' attendance at the meetings.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 373W, on Shoreham Port Authority, for what period he is able to provide information about declined reappointments. [42965]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information is readily available for the past seven years. In this period we have declined to reappoint just one member of the Shoreham Port Authority board. This was an appointment arising in January 2002 and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 24W. There have been no occasions when we have declined to confirm the appointment of nominated candidates.
  1092W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the Maritime Vision for Shoreham Harbour. [42967]

  Ms Keeble
  The Shoreham Maritime Steering Group was set up in 1997 and the Maritime Vision for Shoreham Harbour was published in December 1999. Since then, the Steering Group have been meeting regularly in order to implement this vision.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the dates on which vacancies on the board of Shoreham Port Authority were advertised in the local media. [42966]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These vacancies were advertised on the 8, 9, 14 and 15 of November 2001.

  Deprivation Indices
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he has taken to co-ordinate policies in departments to ensure that electoral boundary changes do not debar areas from eligibility for deprivation-related funds. [40138]

  Ms Keeble
  When individual departments contact us for advice on using the Indices of Deprivation 2000 we explain that it is based on 1998 ward boundaries. Our advice is that if departments wish to target resources using the ward based element of the ID 2000 then this should be based on the wards as they were constituted in 1998.

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

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

  Reports
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions under what rules his Department must operate when(a) tendering, (b) awarding contracts and (c) commissioning (i) work, (ii) research and (iii) advice to ensure (A) that any (1) advice and (2) reports published remain independent of the Department's own views and (B) that reports published remain unaltered from the original. [42119]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: When the Department commissions work for research and advice the standard terms and conditions are used. Included within these is a condition that deals with the ownership of the material produced.
  1093W
  In answer to part (A), when the DTLR commission work contractors respond to a specification that would be independent of my Department's view.

  In answer to part (B), reports may be published by my Department. In other cases where the research contractor undertakes publication, the Department will have prior sight only.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will make a statement on how the Government plans to tackle homelessness. [43232]

  Mr. Byers
  I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses a report to me on homelessness entitled "More than a Roof' together with my response to it.

  The serious and growing problem of homelessness needs to be addressed if this Government is to achieve our aim to ensure that everyone has access to a decent home.

  Although many members of the public think homeless people are only those they see on the streets, homelessness is more complicated. As this new report makes clear, it is more than simply being without a roof.

  There are still some people sleeping on the street but there are even more people living in night shelters and hostels, and there are thousands of families living in temporary accommodation.

  Over 6,000 families are bringing up their children in bed and breakfast hotels. The damage caused to those children may live with them into adult life. But certainly living in a cramped room without anywhere to do their homework or to play does not give them the start in life they deserve.

  To tackle this we need a new approach. One that concentrates as much on the people as on the places that they live. That is what "More than a roof' proposes. We accept it. There are six key objectives that underpin our new approach.

  1. To strengthen help to people who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness.

  2. To develop more strategic approaches to tackling homelessness.

  3. To encourage new responses to tackling homelessness.

  4. To reduce the use of B&B hotels for homeless families with children.

  5. To sustain the two-thirds reduction in rough sleeping.

  6. To ensure the opportunity of a decent home for all.

  While plans and objectives are critical, they can only work if underpinned with resources. Over the next year, we will spend a total of £125 million on tackling homelessness.

  I have established a new Homelessness Directorate that will comprise the Bed and Breakfast Unit, currently in the Government Office for London, the former Rough Sleepers Unit, and a new unit to assist local authorities in tackling homelessness.

  The Homelessness Directorate will join-up policy at a national level. The Rough Sleepers Unit had a cross
  cutting brief to work with other Government Departments with champion Ministers and a ministerial committee to
  1094W
  support their work. I have asked Lord Falconer to chair a new ministerial committee on homelessness to oversee the new approach.

  The new Homelessness Act will bring about radical change in the way that central and local government, and all other partners, work together to tackle homelessness. For the first time ever, local authorities will be required to carry out a review and develop a strategy for their area that prevents homelessness and provides solutions for people who are, or who may become, homeless.

  In addition to the help provided to local authorities by the new Homelessness Directorate, a range of measures are being established to help local authorities respond to this new duty.

  I have published today "Homelessness Strategies—a good practice handbook", a document which provides a framework for local authorities, and all key local agencies, to work together.

  Also, my Department will contribute to a series of seminars to help organisations prepare for the new Homelessness Act. Organised in partnership with the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Local Government Association, Shelter and others, they will focus on practical implementation.

  We are determined to ensure that vulnerable people leaving institutions, young people including those coming out of care, and people fleeing domestic, racial and other forms of violence, are helped effectively. Although this may mean that the number of people who local authorities accept as homeless increases, I am more concerned to ensure vulnerable people get the help they need.

  Therefore we will be issuing a revised statutory Code of Guidance on Allocations and Homelessness, reflecting changes brought about by the new Homelessness Act and our proposed Priority Needs Order.

  I will allocate additional resources in order to help local authorities deliver the new Priority Needs Order. I am also considering making "tackling homelessness" a future Beacon council theme.

  But we also need to understand more about the most effective ways to tackle homelessness.

  In order to do this, the Homelessness Directorate will investigate the underlying causes and trends of homelessness, collect information more effectively and test new and innovative approaches which can be taken to reduce and prevent homelessness. I have asked for a progress report on this work in the autumn outlining what future action can be taken.

  An important part of the Homelessness Directorate's work will be to encourage best practice. Where public resources fund services, it is vital that the taxpayer gets value for money. The use of local targets and protocols, such as reducing the number of tenancy breakdowns or ensuring appropriate numbers of lettings to homeless households, will be important.

  There are many people living in very different sorts of hostels across the country, and with the onset of "Supporting People", it will be important to ensure that best practice is established across all publicly funded

  1095W
  hostels. I am keen, therefore, to ensure that hostels are inspected in a structured way by either the voluntary or statutory sector.

  Although many former rough sleepers have now moved into shelters, hostels, or their own homes, they still need help to rebuild their lives away from the streets. We must also continue to do everything we can to help those people who sleep rough, while at the same time prevent new people from ending up on the streets.

  This is why we will allocate over £30 million during 2002–03—the same level of revenue investment that delivered the two-thirds reduction in rough sleeping.

  No one in this country wants their fellow citizens to have to sleep in a cardboard box at night because they have nowhere else to go. In the same way, we should not tolerate children being forced to stay in over-crowded and expensive B&B hotels for weeks, months, and sometimes years, on end.

  Today, I am making a commitment that by March 2004 local authorities will ensure that no homeless family with children has to live in a B&B hotel except in an emergency.

  There may be exceptional circumstances, where some families have specific needs, or when the local authority is still processing a homelessness application, where B&B hotels of an acceptable standard may be used for a limited period. But I believe this should only happen where no reasonable alternative exists, and should not be for any more than six weeks.

  In order to help local authorities achieve this target, we are making a number of changes.

  Jointly with Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I am announcing changes to housing benefit rules to boost incentives for private sector leasing by local authorities and housing associations.

  As these changes will take time to make the impact we want, we are introducing urgent measures to ensure that children are not forced to live in B&B hotels any longer than is absolutely necessary.

  Therefore £35 million will be allocated during 2002–03 on a range of alternatives to using B&B hotels.

  In order to ensure that local authorities do not use B&B hotels inappropriately in the future, we will revise the statutory guidance on homelessness. We will also ensure that, in the exceptional circumstances where it is used, it is of a reasonable standard.

  I am also concerned that children and babies placed in temporary accommodation, including B&B hotels, should not miss out on important health care to give them a proper start in life. My Department is today issuing new advice to housing authorities on the arrangements that I consider should be put in place to ensure that all babies and children placed in temporary accommodation receive their health and developmental checks from health visitors and other primary health care professionals.

  This Government is determined to tackle homelessness more effectively and to work in partnership with organisations and individuals across the country to make a real difference to the lives of homeless people.
  1096W
  Today we make a significant contribution towards achieving this objective and help build a Britain, which is modern, fair, and strong.

  Transport 10-year Plan
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish the first annual revision to the Transport 10-year Plan. [42627]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: There will be periodic reviews of the 10-year Plan for Transport. The first review is expected to be published in July 2002.

  Public-private Partnerships (Consultants)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total external spending by his Department was on public-private partnership consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PPP consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [43190]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 448W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff in his Department's press office have received(a) termination and (b) redundancy payments in each of the last four years. [41081]

  Angela Eagle
  No press office staff have received termination and no redundancy payments have been made in the last four years.

  Equal Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent of the gender pay gap among staff in his Department. [41000]

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

  Probation Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were employed by
  1097W
  the National Probation Directorate (a) on 1 April 2001 and (b) at the latest available date; what the budget was of the service; and if he will make a statement. [41152]

  Beverley Hughes
  As of 1 April 2001, there were 109 members of staff employed by the National Probation Directorate. This increased to a total of 205 members of staff at the end of January 2002, when the latest figures were collected.

  This figure has been taken from the Staff-in-Post returns, which are completed on a regular basis and includes all full time permanent staff, temporary staff and secondments from other services.

  At the latest available date, the budgetary cost for these members of staff was £8.264 million. This takes into account the increase of staff from April 2001 until January 2002.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish a pay review body for the National Probation Service. [41151]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans to establish a review body for the National Probation Service. The Service has longstanding joint arrangements at national level for negotiating the pay and conditions of staff employed by the Probation Boards.

  Probation Officers
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to address the shortage of probation officers in(a) Norfolk and (b) England and Wales. [41334]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are actively recruiting Trainee Probation Officers in all parts of England and Wales. This is carried out by annual recruitment drives and as a consequence recruitment of trainee probation officers has trebled in size.

  The next recruitment drive will commence on 18 March 2002 and will be advertised in the National Press. We are expecting to recruit 1,000 trainees across the whole Probation Service.

  Young Offenders Institution (Aylesbury)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the fire prevention and fire safety arrangements at Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution. [40843]

  Beverley Hughes
  Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution is subject to the requirements of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 as amended in 1999. Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 call for risk assessments to be conducted and these have been completed for all premises in the establishment. In addition the establishment has been inspected by officers from the Crown Premises Inspection Group of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services.

  Electronic Monitoring
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what forecast he has made for the number of offenders who will be electronically monitored in(a) two years time and (b) five years time. [40026]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are considering a range of options for the expansion of electronic monitoring in the criminal justice system. At present we cannot give any estimate of the number of persons who will be electronically monitored in two or five years time.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated cost of electronic tagging is in(a) two years time and (b) five years time. [40024]

  Beverley Hughes
  The future cost of electronic monitoring will depend on a number of factors including the initiatives we take forward in this area, the response to them from the courts and prison governors, the outcome of the current public spending round, and the prices contained in bids for future electronic monitoring contracts.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) contractors, (b) suppliers, (c) period of contract and (d) value of each contract for electronic monitoring services carried out on behalf of his Department in the last 12 months. [40061]

  Beverley Hughes
  The contractors are Premier Monitoring Services Ltd., Reliance Monitoring Services Ltd., and Securicor Custodial Services Ltd.

  They deliver electronic monitoring services using equipment supplied by Electronic Monitoring Systems Incorporated, Elmotech, Guidance Control Systems Ltd. and Premier Geografix Ltd.

  The contracts began on 28 January 1999 and are for a five-year period, which may be extended by up to a further two years.

  The total value of the contracts in the 12 month period from February 2001 to January 2002 was £36,913,731.78.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders are being electronically monitored. [40025]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of persons subject to electronic monitoring on 1 March 2002 was 3,685.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from firms providing electronic monitoring services in respect of the expansion of their operations; and if he will make a statement. [40058]

  Beverley Hughes
  Although the electronic monitoring contractors frequently discuss the level of business with Home Office officials, there have been no representations from firms specifically aimed at expanding their operations.

  Leave Entitlements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average annual leave entitlement of staff in his Department in each of the last four years. [31737]
  1099W
  Angela Eagle
  Due to fluctuating numbers in each grade over the last four years it is not possible to provide information on average annual leave entitlements.

  Leave entitlement

  Non-agency Home Office1

  Band A

  Grades up to and including Higher Executive Officer and equivalents: 22 days on entry, 25 days after one year's service and 30 days after 13 years.

  Band B

  Grades above Higher Executive Officer, up to and including Grade six and equivalents: 25 days on entry and 30 days after 10 years' service.

  Prison Service

  Band A

  Prison officers. 22 days on entry, 25 days annual leave after one year's service and 30 days after 18 years.

  Band B

  Generalist grades up to and including Executive Officer and equivalents. 25 days on entry and 30 days after 16 years service (from 1 March 2002).

  Band C

  Generalist grades Higher Executive Officer and above and equivalents. 25 days on entry and 30 days after 15 years' service.

  Passport and Records Agency

  One band

  All staff receive 25 days on entry and 30 days after 10 years' service.

  Forensic Science Service

  Band A

  Grades up to and including Higher Executive Officer and equivalents: 22 days on entry, 25 days after one year's service and 30 days after 10 years.

  Band B

  Grades above Higher Executive Officer, up to and including Grade six and equivalents: 25 days on entry and 30 days after 10 years' service.

  1 i.e. excluding the Prison Service, Passport and Records Agency and forensic science service.

  There have been a number of changes over the last four years to the annual leave entitlements of staff in the above bands. These have all primarily been aimed at reducing the qualifying period for the maximum leave allowance of 30 days.

  Senior civil service

  The annual leave entitlement for staff in the senior civil service is currently set by the Cabinet Office and has been unchanged in the last four years.

  Staff Travel
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [37511]

  Angela Eagle
  Section 8 of the Civil Service Management Code, Paragraph 8.2.1 requires Departments and agencies to ensure that staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel in the circumstances, taking into account any management benefit or the needs of staff with disabilities.

  The Home Office is committed to ensuring staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel commensurate with meeting their operational needs.

  In 2001–02 (to the end of January 2002), 15,659 first class rail journeys have been taken, representing 30.9 per cent. of all rail journeys. The average cost of each journey was £133. Total costs for all rail journeys for the year are estimated at £4.8 million.

  Both costs for previous years, and any analysis by grade, are not readily identifiable from the accounting system and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  1100W
  The current leave entitlement for staff in the Home Office and its Agencies is shown in the table:

  Correspondence
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letters of 9 May 2001, 26 June 2001 and 28 August 2001 from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South about Mr. David Stevenson of Irvine, Ref: C/W3/1306/RB/BHD. [37066]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  My hon. Friend's letter of 9 May 2001, concerning his constituent Mr. David Stevenson, was certainly received in the Home Office, although no record has been found of the follow-up letters dated 26 June 2001 and 28 August 2001. It is unfortunate that the follow-up letters did not come to light as this would have made it clear that my hon. Friend had not received the reply to his original letter.

  In fact a full reply was dispatched on 25 June 2001.

  In light, now, of that letter not being received by my hon. Friend copies have been sent direct to his offices.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow the courts to award stiffer sentences for persons convicted of assaulting pensioners. [38650]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The courts already have robust sentencing powers for offences of assault. The maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm or wounding with intent to cause such harm is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the offences of causing grievous bodily harm in the absence of intent to do so and the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is five years' imprisonment. Common assault attracts a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment.

  Specific sentencing provisions for vulnerable groups would not only make criminal law more complex but contradict the important principle that the law is there to protect all members of our society. However, in passing

  1101W
  sentence, the courts, as a matter of general principle, regard the fact that an offence has been committed against a vulnerable person as an aggravating factor that would ordinarily be persuasive of a more severe sentence.

  There is no room for complacency. However, the Government are uncompromising in their response to serious and dangerous offenders. We believe that prison sentences must be as long as is necessary to punish and to protect the public. And where release eventually occurs, supervision must ensure that the risks are rigorously managed in the community for as long as necessary.

  That is why we are looking seriously at the Halliday proposal for tougher determinate sentences for sex and violent offenders that will ensure they stay in prison, up to the full term if necessary, so long as they continue to present a risk of harm to our communities and that they are subject to strict and extended supervision on release.

  We are also considering a requirement that where a life sentence is an option judges should not shy away from using it if the professional evidence shows that there is a clear risk that the offender will commit further sex offences. We want greater clarity and transparency, with indeterminate sentences given to serious offenders where appropriate.

  The Government are also taking forward work to create a set of sentencing guidelines which are easily accessible and which command the respect of the judiciary, practitioners and the wider public.

  Homicide Index Statistics
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome has been of the review of the Homicide Index aimed at increasing the accuracy of data on homicide; what reforms and changes are being implemented as a consequence; and if he will make a statement. [38996]

  Mr. Denham
  "A Review of Information on Homicide: A Discussion Document" was published on 28 December 2001 on the Research, Development and Statistics (RDS) Home Office web site for consultation. The purpose of publishing the proposals at this stage is to open them to a wider process of consultation before the report is finalised and decisions taken as to how best to take forward its recommendations.

  The review is also on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) National Statistics crime and justice theme web page: http://www.nationalstatistics.gov.uk/themes/yourviews/crime.asp. The closing date for the consultation is 5 April 2002.

  Wolvercote Clinic
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a new site has been identified for the Wolvercote Clinic; if the move of the Wolvercote Clinic to Chertsey remains a possibility; and whether there is a final date beyond which the Wolvercote Clinic's tenure of its site at Horton Hospital cannot be extended. [39015]

  Beverley Hughes
  No decision has been made on the relocation of the Wolvercote Clinic as the relocation project team has yet to complete its work and report 1102W
  to Ministers. A number of potential sites have been identified, including the one in Chertsey, and these are in the final stage of evaluation.

  The clinic's tenure of its present site at Horton Hospital, Epsom, is currently the subject of discussions between the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation.

  Special Urgency Provisions
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often the Department has applied the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments) to a development by the department; and if he will make a statement. [38716]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Department has applied the special urgency provisions of Circular 18–84 26 times in the period since 1995. The procedure was used mainly in connection with urgent prisons and detention centre projects.

  European Immigration Policy
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards participating in the Action Programme for Co-operation in the fields of borders, visas, asylum and immigration. [39657]

  Angela Eagle
  The Spanish Presidency's action plan on illegal immigration was adopted at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council on 28 February 2002. The action plan responded to the conclusions of the European Council meeting held in Laeken. It calls for action in the following areas: visa policy, information exchange and analysis, pre-frontier measures, border management, improvement of cooperation and coordination at operational level, the work of Europol, aliens and criminals law and readmission/return.

  The United Kingdom (UK) welcomes the action plan as a basis for the European Union's future policy on illegal immigration. The UK will decide whether to participate in measures arising from this plan.

  Volunteers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of his staff in each of the past two years have been granted a day's paid leave to work as a volunteer; and if he will make a statement. [39734]

  Angela Eagle
  A survey of Home Office staff for the year ending 31 April 2001 showed that 78 staff had taken paid leave to volunteer.

  The Home Office is the lead Government Department for the active community initiative. Staff can take paid leave for volunteering in certain public capacities, for example school governors up to six days, magistrates up to 18 days. Staff can also take up to five days paid leave a year for any other voluntary activity.

  A Volunteering Manager has recently been appointed, seconded from the voluntary sector, to actively promote volunteering among Home Office staff, ensure that a wide

  1103W
  range of opportunities are available, monitor participation and evaluate the benefits to the individual and the Department.

  Fair Trade Products
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether fair trade products are sold in his Department. [39838]

  Angela Eagle
  Fair trade products are not currently sold in the Home Office. However the Department fully supports ethical trading in mainstream business and Fair Trade products will be purchased where they meet the criteria of value for money principles, which includes quality, fitness for purpose and delivery against price.

  The Home Office will be publishing an article on fair trade in the next edition of 'Purchasing Matters', an internal periodical for all procurement staff. In the near future the Home Office will be holding a purchasing symposium on the issue of Fair Trade in April 2002.

  Sex Offenders
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to propose a change to the law so that people convicted abroad of crime with a possible sexual element or motivation can be monitored on the Sex Offenders Register on their return to the United Kingdom; [39498]

  (2) what plans he has to enable the (a) police and (b) Probation Service to monitor and control the activities of people who have been convicted abroad of offences including violence to children with possible sexual motivation; [39499]

  (3) what notice can be given to a community when a convicted child murderer returns to the UK to live in that community after serving their sentence abroad; [39500]

  (4) how many people who have been convicted of an offence abroad involving a sexual element have returned to live in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years for which records exist; and what mechanisms are in place to monitor and control their behaviour on their return to the United Kingdom; [39496]

  (5) what powers exist to protect a community when a person who has been convicted abroad of child murder, with the strong possibility of a sexual motive in that crime, returns on release from prison to that community. [39494]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office does not keep records of those convicted of offences abroad, including those involving a sexual element, who have returned to the United Kingdom. We are therefore unable to supply figures for the last three years.

  Mechanisms already exist for the monitoring and controlling of dangerous offenders who come to the UK after having been convicted of an offence abroad.

  The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 imposed in relation to any area, a statutory duty on the chief officer of police and the local probation board to establish arrangements for assessing and managing the risks posed by persons who may cause serious harm to the public. This would include those convicted abroad.
  1104W
  If someone falls into this category, for example if a person who has been convicted of a violent offence with a sexual element abroad returns to this country, these multi-agency public protection arrangements will come into play.

  Multi-agency public protection arrangements provide for the risk assessment of all potentially dangerous offenders. Following this a management plan is formulated according to the level and nature of risk that the offender poses. Typically, this would have components of monitoring, interventions designed to reduce re-offending and steps necessary to protect victims or potential victims. After the risk assessment, if it is in the interest of public protection, the police may also disclose information about the offender to relevant members of the community. Social Service departments who are the lead agency for child protection are members of the multi-agency public protection panels.

  The review to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 looked at requiring those convicted of sex offences abroad to register on their arrival in the UK. The Government have asked for consultation and responses are currently being analysed to decide what appropriate action, if any, the Government should take.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the investigation headed by Detective Superintendent Luckett into allegations of past criminal activity at DSTL Porton Down. [39318]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: A report on the death of Leading Air Craftsman Ronald Maddisson at Porton Down in 1953 was submitted to Her Majesty's Coroner for Swindon and the County of Wiltshire in January 2001.

  In relation to allegations made by several hundred former service personnel who had attended Porton Down and participated in experiments, seven files have been forwarded to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) since September 2001. A final case file is expected to be forwarded within the next few weeks. A number of former Porton Down staff have been interviewed by the police in relation to the cases.

  As part of the ongoing inquiry the police are looking at whether former volunteers have suffered any long term adverse health effects.

  Race Equality Draft Code
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the report by the Commission for Racial Equality on the draft Code of Practice on the duty to promote race equality will be placed before Parliament; how many consultees received the document(a) before 1 January 2002, (b) between that date and 25 January and (c) after that date; how many from each category have responded to the consultation; what the total cost was of the consultation pack and the cost per pack distributed; and if he will make a statement on the ability of elected authorities to respond within limited time. [41926]
  1105W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The Commission for Racial Equality is currently revising the draft Code of Practice in the light of comments received during the consultation period. A date for laying the Code of Practice before Parliament will be decided once I have approved the final draft.

  The Commission for Racial Equality has advised me that about 45,000 consultation packs were distributed and some 900 responses have been received to date. A breakdown by date of dispatch is not available and the analysis by category of respondent is not yet complete. The cost of printing 55,000 packs and distributing 45,000 was £127,690.

  The consultation period ran from the launch of the draft code of practice and supporting good practice guidance on 3 December 2001 until 28 February 2002. This proved sufficient time for some 900 individual and representative bodies to respond.

  However, I am informed by the Commission for Racial Equality that distribution problems arose with parish councils. Difficulty in gaining access to addresses meant that only 3,000 packs were sent to parish councils in December 2001. A further 5,000 packs were due for dispatch in January 2002, but regrettably, a number were not sent out until late February 2002.

  I am advised that, to date, 26 parish councils, including Totland and St. Helens parish councils from the hon. Member's own constituency, have complained to the Commission for Racial Equality about the late arrival of their packs. The Commission for Racial Equality has given these parish councils an extension until 15 March 2002.

  Police (Domestic Violence)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidance is issued to police forces on taking action in respect of personnel who have committed acts of domestic violence; [35541]

  (2) what records police authorities keep in respect of a disciplinary action taken in respect of members of staff who have been perpetrators of domestic violence; [35538]

  (3) if he will publish guidelines he issues to police authorities on dealing with domestic violence within their work force; [35465]

  (4) how many police officers have been subject to disciplinary procedure as a result of perpetration of domestic violence in each of the last three years; [35550]

  (5) if he will list for each police authority in England and Wales the number of (a) incidents of domestic violence perpetrated by staff, (b) the number of repeat incidents and (c) the number of disciplinary actions taken over the past five years. [35463]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no national guidelines to police forces on dealing with domestic violence among their staff or on action to be taken in respect of staff committing acts of domestic violence. Many forces do however have local policies and guidelines detailing how to deal with officers who are alleged to have committed domestic violence offences.
  1106W
  Police forces and authorities keep disciplinary records for individual officers, but there is no central guidance on what should be recorded, other than information that is returned to the Home Office for monitoring purposes. These centrally held figures do not separately identify numbers of police personnel who were subject to disciplinary action in respect of domestic violence, or the number of incidents concerned.

  Work is however in progress to ensure that police forces respond effectively to any indication that police staff may be perpetrating domestic violence. This includes a redraft of note C of the Code of Conduct of the Police Regulations 1999 which concerns off duty conduct. Regional professional standards practitioners within police forces have suggested that this amended section will strengthen their powers when dealing with personnel who have allegedly perpetrated domestic violence.

  Road Traffic Penalties
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish proposals for reform of road traffic penalties. [37630]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We are currently in the process of formulating the Government's response to the consultation exercise on road traffic penalties. We hope to publish this soon.

  This report has taken some time to complete due to the high number of detailed and comprehensive responses we received. We have also been waiting for the outcome of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions commissioned research project into the law on dangerous driving by the Transport Research Laboratory. The publication of this report was delayed until January 2002.

  Laeken Summit
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the establishment of a common EU border(a) authority and (b) force, under (i) paragraph 42 of the Laeken conclusions and (ii) JHA proposals. [39639]

  Angela Eagle
  The European Council meeting held at Laeken called for closer cooperation between services responsible for external border control and to examine the conditions in which a mechanism or common services to control external borders could be created. Responding to calls for a common policy on illegal immigration, the Spanish Presidency drafted an action plan on illegal immigration. The action plan was adopted at the February 2002 Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council. The United Kingdom welcomes the action plan as a basis for the European Union's future policy in illegal immigration.

  The United Kingdom is supportive of closer cooperation between national border authorities of European Union member states, which we believe is vital in tackling the criminal networks responsible for human trafficking and illegal immigration.

  We are also keen to examine ways in which the external border of the European Union can be strengthened. We are awaiting the European Commission's Communication on European Border management, which may shape future policy in this area.
  1107W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards establishing a common European policy on immigration and asylum, with reference to the conclusions of the Laeken Summit. [39637]

  Angela Eagle
  The conclusions of the European Council meeting held at Laeken identified areas in which further work is needed in order to progress towards a common European policy on asylum and immigration. The commitment made at Tampere to establish a common European asylum system is a top priority for the United Kingdom (UK). The treaty of Amsterdam committed member states to a broad range of measures designed to establish minimum standards for asylum procedures and policies across the Union within five years. The UK is participating actively in this process and has opted into all measures to date. We judge there are significant potential long-term benefits for the UK in terms of levelling the playing field across the Union.

  The European Council meeting held at Laeken also called for closer cooperation between services responsible for external border control and to examine the conditions in which a mechanism or common services to control external borders could be created. Responding to calls for a common policy on illegal immigration, the Spanish Presidency drafted an action plan on illegal immigration. The action plan was adopted at the February 2002 Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council. The UK welcomes the action plan as a basis for the European Union's future policy in illegal immigration.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the establishment of a European network for the training of magistrates, as set out in Council Document 13416/2/01. [39643]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply. The Council document referred to was a discussion document prepared by the Belgian Presidency in November 2001. It has been superseded by the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council in Laeken held on 14 and 15 December 2001.

  The European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) is a network of the national institutions responsible for judicial training in the Member States of the European Union, set up by the institutions themselves. The Judicial Studies Board (which has responsibility for the training of Judges in England and Wales) has been a member since its establishment in October 2000.

  The Laeken conclusions refer to a proposal made by the French Government in December 2000 to put the Network on a legal footing, enabling it to receive financial and administrative support from the European Commission. No discussions of this proposal are scheduled at present.

  Victim Support
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nominations the agency dealing with victims has received for Charter Mark awards. [37001]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.
  1108W
  Charter Mark is primarily a customer focused improvement programme dependent on applications from interested organisations. We have no record of receiving any nominations in respect of the Victim Support Agency. Nominations would be welcomed and actively pursued with nominees to encourage a full application and assessment to be made.

TREASURY

  Public Services Productivity
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2002, ref. 38310, on public services productivity, which outside organisations have been consulted on the paper; and if he will make a statement. [41398]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There has not been formal consultation with any outside body; but the Treasury take account of the wide range of views expressed publicly, as well as the advice of the Public Services Productivity Panel.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2002,Official Report, column 1571W, on public services productivity, how many officials in the Treasury are working (a) full-time and (b) part-time on the paper; and if he will make a statement. [42949]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A number of Treasury officials are contributing to the paper.

  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, what the name of each team mentioned is; how many people are in each team; and if he will make a statement. [41397]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The 13 departmental teams, and the number of people in each team, are as follows.

  Team

  Number of people

  Defence, Diplomacy and Intelligence

  13

  Health

  12

  Devolved Countries and Regions

  10

  Education, Training and Culture

  15

  Home and Legal

  17

  Local Government

  8

  Housing and Urban

  11

  Transport

  7

  Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  16

  International Poverty Reduction

  13

  Tax Administration

  5

  Work and Pensions

  12

  Enterprise

  18

  The central team, General Expenditure Policy, employs 25 staff. While there are around 180 staff in these teams, not all the people concerned have responsibility for PSA monitoring.

  Departmental Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed by his Department in each of the units listed on pages 10 and 11 of HM Treasury's 2001 departmental report; and if he will make a statement. [41311]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:

  Permanent Secretary (PERM)-98

  Public Services (PSD)-198

  Corporate Services and Development (CSD)-189

  Budget and Public Finance (BPF)-98

  Financial Regulation and Industry (FRI)-119

  Financial Management and Reporting and Audit (FMRA)-54

  Macroeconomic Policy and International Finance (MPIF)-168.

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when HM Customs and Excise first acted to stop the export of second-hand and reconditioned fridges; on what grounds; and after what consultation with the exporters. [42092]

  Mr. Boateng
  EC Regulation 2037/2000 came into force with effect from 1 October 2000. It covers a wide range of controls in the trading of ozone depleting substances (ODSs), including a ban on the exportation of fridges and freezers containing CFCs in the refrigerant gases and foam insulation. However, following representations from the second-hand fridge export industry for further time to adapt to the change, the Government suspended operation of the ban on exports in November 2000. The ban was reintroduced in respect of fridges containing CFCs in the refrigerant gases and the foam insulation from 1 January 2001 and 1 January 2002 respectively.

  Illegal Drug Imports
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the record of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in preventing illegal drugs entering the United Kingdom in each of the past three years. [42553]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs' performance in preventing illegal drugs entering the UK is monitored against the targets set out in their Public Service Agreement and reported in their departmental annual reports.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the global sum of capital expenditure on public services, as a proportion of gross national product, is calculated in respect of sums provided under schemes of public-private partnership, in calculations made by the European Commission when issuing warnings and infraction communications to member states, indicating the treaty and legislative basis for distinctions in the source of capital and revenue expenditure. [42511]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The calculations made by the European Commission are from national accounts produced by national statistical offices according to the rules of the European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA95).
  1110W
  Annex 11 of ESA95 explains how to record capital expenditure when the public sector leases from the private sector. Chapter 2 explains how to determine whether a business is in the public or private sector. The legislative bases for the calculations are Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community; and Council Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 of 22 November 1993 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community.

  Public Appointments
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [42149]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: The number of men and women appointed, or re-appointed, by Treasury Ministers to bodies sponsored by the Treasury during the periods in question is as follows:

  Period

  Men appointed1

  Women appointed1

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  31

  11

  1 April 2001 to 28 February 2002

  5

  3

  1 Includes re-appointments.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the chairmanship of the FSA. [43655]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I am pleased to say that Sir Howard Davies has today agreed to an extension to his appointment as Chairman and Director of the FSA until 31 January 2004. At a time when the FSA has only just taken on its full regulatory powers and is establishing itself as a fully independent single regulator I believe it is invaluable to have Sir Howard remaining in post with his breadth of experience.

  Housing Equity Release
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of his Ministers has the lead responsibility for policy on housing equity release. [41305]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is primarily the responsibility of the financial lenders to ensure that good quality equity release products are available. As Housing Minister, I am particularly interested in how local authorities will use their proposed new powers, contained in draft legislation currently before Parliament, to provide financial assistance to improve housing conditions. I also take a close interest in monitoring the impact of the developing equity release products on our overall policy to promote sustainable home ownership.

  Autism Awareness Year
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he is doing to encourage Autism Awareness year. [31887]
  1111W
  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: I welcome the initiatives that aim to improve our knowledge and understanding of autism and raise awareness of the condition. I refer my hon. Friend to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health on 8 January 2002, Official Report, columns 672–73W, and by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 239W, which set out the Government's support for this initiative. I have nothing to add to those replies.

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total

  3,849

  4,388

  4,950

  6,406

  6,510

  Of which aged 50 years and over

  292

  343

  406

  632

  526

  Of which below 50 years

  3,557

  4,045

  4,544

  5,774

  5,984

  Note:

  Figures include HM Treasury, Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, Office of Government Commerce, Debt Management Office, Royal Mint, Valuation Office, Government Actuary's Department, Department of National Savings and Investments, National Investments and Loans Office, Office of National Statistics and the Statistics Commission.

  Airline Insurance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are in place to secure third party war risk and terrorism cover for British civil passenger aircraft after 20 March. [42962]

  Ruth Kelly
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary announced on 21 January that the Troika replacement insurance scheme for UK aviation would be extended for a final time until 20 March. There is nothing further to add to this announcement. There are now commercial providers of third party war risk and terrorism cover for airlines in the market.

  Departmental Policies (Bristol, East)
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [35604]

  Policy

  5 May 1994

  2 May 1997

  7 May 1998

  March 2002

  New Deal 18–24

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  Not available

  1,637 starts and 758 jobs gained (Dec 2001)

  Working families tax credit

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  1,600 families (May 2000)

  2,140 families (Aug 2001)

  Child benefit

  Not available

  Not available

  11,560 families (August 2000)

  11,190 families (November 2001)

  State retirement pension

  Not available

  Not available

  15,400 (September 1999)

  15,200 (September 2001)

  Winter fuel payment

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  15,300 pensioners (winter 1999–00)

  16,600 pensioners (winter 2000–01)

  Free TV licences

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  2Around 7,300 pensioners over 75

  Minimum income guarantee

  Not available

  2,500

  2,600

  2,900 (November 2001)

  1 Changes to ward boundaries mean that ONS can supply claimant count date for the Bristol, East constituency on a consistent basis only from January 1996 onwards.

  2 Over 99 per cent. of pensioners nationally have availed themselves of the free TV licence option.

  Job Shares
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed in his Department on a job share contract; and what percentage of vacant positions was advertised on this basis in the last 12 months. [35352]

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new entrants to the Civil Service were employed in his Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 and over. [36495]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The table provides the information requested.

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 4 March 2002,Official Report column 80W. Bristol, East, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken since 1997 to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Claimant count unemployment in the constituency, for example, fell by over 737, or 21 per cent., between May 1997 and May 1998; and has fallen by a further 900, or 32 per cent., since May 19981.

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay for lower and middle income families, and to reduce child poverty. The Government are also committed to enabling all persons to share in the country's rising prosperity. The numbers of beneficiaries of the new deal, the working families tax credit, child benefit, state retirement pension, winter fuel payments, free TV licences and minimum income guarantee in the Bristol, East constituency are given in the table. These data are also available in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Department. [41009]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury does not employ any members of staff on job share contracts. There are 16 job sharers, filling eight posts, but these are individually employed on part-time contracts.
  1113W
  Job sharing is only one of a number of alternative and flexible working patterns that employees are welcome to take up. These include part-time working, compressed hours, job-sharing, home working, term-time or part-year working and flexible working hours.

  Treasury also have an internal electronic notice board where staff can register their interest in job share and part time opportunities.

  Most recruitment to Treasury is generally advertised as available for a range of alternative working patterns. However there are always some occasions where due to the nature of the work, this is not possible.

  Capita
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many contracts the Department has with Capita; and how much they are worth; [38381]

  (2) if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Department. [39350]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:

  Details of HMT Contracts with Capita

  Department: HMT (1)—Value, nil

  Recruitment of Staff—Framework Agreement for HMT and its offices—see background note

  Department: IR (0)—Value, nil

  Department: HMCE (13)—Value £180,000

  Information technology tests

  Business analysts

  Qualified lawyers pre-appointment inquiries

  RAS helpline

  Assistant print buyer

  Contact centre staff

  Internal comms. advisers/writers

  Writers for internal newspaper

  Instant recruitment—administrative officers

  HR managers—appointments

  Accounting adviser

  2002 Inservice fast stream recruitment

  2001 General fast stream recruitment

  Department: OGC (1)—Value £200,000 (including two other firms of consultants)

  Capita Design and Build Services are appointed as consultants under a property advice framework commission. No order has been placed for their services to date.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the(a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by his Department to (i) Arthur

  Expenditure on alcohol by UK countries and Government office regions: three year averages 1996–97 to 2000–01 (based on weighted data)

  Average weekly household expenditure ($)

  Current prices

  At 2000–01 prices

  Percentage of total expenditure

  Government office region

  1996–97 to 1998–99

  1997–98 to 1999–2000

  1998–99 to 2000–01

  1996–97 to 1998–99

  1997–98 to 1999–2000

  1998–99 to 2000–01

  1996–97 to 1998–99

  1997–98 to 1999–2000

  1998–99 to 2000–01

  North East

  14.20

  14.40

  16.50

  15.40

  15.20

  16.90

  5

  5

  6

  North West

  15.80

  16.40

  15.50

  17.10

  17.20

  15.90

  5

  5

  5

  Yorks and the Humber

  15.70

  15.90

  15.60

  16.90

  16.70

  16.00

  5

  5

  4

  1114W
  Andersen, (ii) Deloitte Touche, (ii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34983]

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the contracts agreed by his Department with the five largest accountancy firms since May 1997; and what was the total value of contracts with each. [42101]

  Ruth Kelly
  It has not been possible to establish the number and value of contracts awarded to the above named companies since 1997. This information is not held in the format required and any further examination would be of a disproportionate cost.

  Second World War Debts
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it Government policy to seek a final settlement with the USA to write-off the outstanding British debt which arises from the conduct of World War II. [41873]

  Ruth Kelly
  As I stated in my answer to the hon. Member on 28 February 2002, columns 1937–39W, the Government intend to meet their obligations under the 1945 Agreement with the United States Government by repaying in full the amounts lent in 1945.

  Household Expenditure (Alcohol)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the expenditure on alcohol in the family expenditure and resources surveys in each region and nation in the last five years in(a) cash, (b) real and (c) percentage of household expenditure terms. [42614]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 13 March 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on expenditure on alcohol from The Family Expenditure Survey. (42614)
  The information available on a consistent basis from the Family Expenditure Survey is for financial years 1996–97 onwards, and is given in the attached table. Sample size in individual regions is small and data from three years have been combined to increase the reliability of the estimates. The estimates are still subject to sampling variability, however.
  The Family Expenditure Survey, like other surveys of households and individuals, is known to understate alcohol expenditure. For earlier years estimates have been published for the previous Standard Statistical Regions, replaced by Government Office Regions from 1996–97 onwards. They are available at current prices and as percentages of total expenditure in Family Spending 1995–96 and earlier reports, which are available in the House of Commons Library.
  1115W

  Expenditure on alcohol by UK countries and Government office regions: three year averages 1996–97 to 2000–01 (based on weighted data)

  Average weekly household expenditure ($)

  Current prices

  At 2000–01 prices

  Percentage of total expenditure

  Government office region

  1996–97 to 1998–99

  1997–98 to 1999–2000

  1998–99 to 2000–01

  1996–97 to 1998–99

  1997–98 to 1999–2000

  1998–99 to 2000–01

  1996–97 to 1998–99

  1997–98 to 1999–2000

  1998–99 to 2000–01

  East Midlands

  13.20

  14.50

  14.40

  14.30

  15.30

  14.70

  4

  4

  4

  West Midlands

  13.70

  14.20

  14.70

  14.70

  14.90

  15.00

  4

  4

  4

  East

  11.90

  12.50

  13.00

  12.80

  13.20

  13.30

  3

  4

  3

  London

  14.10

  15.30

  16.40

  15.20

  16.10

  16.80

  4

  4

  4

  South East

  13.10

  13.80

  14.10

  14.10

  14.50

  14.50

  3

  4

  3

  South West

  12.70

  13.30

  14.20

  13.70

  13.90

  14.50

  4

  4

  4

  England

  13.90

  14.50

  14.90

  15.00

  15.30

  15.20

  4

  4

  4

  Wales

  13.30

  14.20

  13.40

  14.40

  14.90

  13.80

  4

  4

  4

  Scotland

  13.70

  14.70

  15.10

  14.80

  15.40

  15.50

  4

  5

  5

  Northern Ireland

  11.20

  12.40

  13.20

  12.10

  13.10

  13.60

  4

  4

  4

  United Kingdom

  13.80

  14.50

  14.80

  14.80

  15.20

  15.10

  4

  4

  4

  Source:

  ONS, Family Expenditure Surveys 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on energy costs incurred by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42451]

  Ruth Kelly
  The table shows energy costs the Treasury has incurred in each of the last 10 years. The figures exclude VAT.

  Energy Costs 1990–2001

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  487,894

  1991–92

  448,015

  1992–93

  411,009

  1993–94

  364,710

  1994–95

  420,183

  1995–96

  328,628

  1996–97

  330,220

  1997–98

  305,411

  1998–99

  316,314

  1999–2000

  337,396

  2000–01

  210,696

  Chief Economic Adviser
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Chief Economic Adviser is subject to the Code of Conduct for special advisers. [42929]

  Ruth Kelly
  Yes.

  Bank Accounts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people hold current bank accounts in each region covered by the regional development agencies in the age ranges(a) 0 to 8, (b) 18 to 24, (c) 25 to 50, (d) 50 to 65, (e) 65 to 85 and (f) 85 years and over at the latest date for which figures are available. [42958]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is not readily available. The table sets out estimates (from the Family Resources Survey), of the proportion of respondents in each region and age category who had a bank account in the 2000–01 survey.
  1116W

  Percentage of respondents by age with a bank account by region

  Age group

  Government office region

  18–25

  26–50

  51–65

  66–85

  86+

  North East

  76

  82

  82

  72

  62

  North West and Merseyside

  83

  86

  85

  77

  59

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  78

  83

  82

  70

  57

  East Midlands

  83

  86

  85

  79

  43

  West Midlands

  73

  83

  83

  73

  63

  Eastern

  88

  93

  90

  84

  80

  London

  84

  85

  84

  75

  57

  South East

  85

  92

  92

  85

  78

  South West

  86

  91

  90

  85

  84

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Equal Opportunities
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what procedures are in place to promote race equality and equality of opportunity for employees in the Palace of Westminster. [41937]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The House of Commons Service values the diversity of its staff and is committed to developing the working practices which will allow every member of staff to contribute his or her best, regardless of race, sex, marital status, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation or any other irrelevant factor. The following arrangements to promote race equality and equality of opportunity for employees are in place:

  Equal opportunities training for all staff;

  Recruitment monitoring;

  Provision of child care vouchers;

  Paid maternity and paternity leave;

  Access to caring leave;

  Job share and part time working arrangements;

  Holiday play scheme;

  Work experience schemes, targeting under-represented groups;

  Provision of prayer room facility during Ramadan;

  Preferential access to leave for religious holidays;

  1117W

  Bullying and harassment policy and procedure;

  No nationality restrictions for employment;

  All staff are able to apply for any House vacancy following a successful probationary period;

  Adaptations and aids available for staff with disabilities;

  Rehabilitation leave to facilitate return to work following sickness absence;

  Parental leave;

  Career breaks.

  Sitting Costs
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate the Commission has made of the average cost of a day's sitting of the House in the last session for which figures are available. [41498]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The overall cost of running the House administration (excluding capital works, etc.) in 2000–01 was some £103 million, giving an average daily cost of the order of £280,000. The difference in cost between a sitting day and a non-sitting day is negligible: the major costs, of accommodation and staffing, are not affected appreciably by sitting times. These figures do not include the cost of paying Members' salaries or allowances, which are not normally regarded as part of the cost of running the House itself.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many staff in her Department's press office have received(a) termination and (b) redundancy payments in each of the last four years. [41083]

  The Solicitor-General
  In my own Department, the legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, no staff in the press office have received termination or redundancy payments in each of the last four years.

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

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service has made no termination or redundancy payments to any of its Press Office staff in each of the last four years.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department does not have a dedicated press office. Any press matters are dealt with by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers' press officer.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office has made no termination or redundancy payments to any of its Press Office staff in each of the last four years.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by
  1118W
  (i) his Department, (ii) its agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30067]

  Mr. McCartney
  The estimate of the annual cost and total value of empty properties owned by the Department and its agencies for the last four years is set out in the table. The figures relate solely to the former ES part of the DWP estate. The value of these properties has been consistently reducing; when last recorded that accounted for only 0.7 per cent. of total property owned.

  £thousand

  Percentage of total cost/value of the estate

  1997–98

  Annual costs

  6,763

  —

  Value

  2,135

  —

  1998–99

  Annual costs

  6,231

  3.6

  Value

  1,681

  1.3

  1999–2000

  Annual costs

  5,435

  3.3

  Value

  3,578

  2.8

  2000–01

  Annual costs

  5,274

  3.0

  Value

  1.168

  0.7

  The former DSS estate was transferred (for value) via the PRIME PFI project to Land Securities Trillium on 1 April 1998. Since this date the majority of buildings on the former DSS part of the DWP estate has been occupied as serviced accommodation on an as required basis. We have no vacant space as all such accommodation is surrendered to the service provider and the Department only pays for the space it occupies in these buildings.

  In 1997–98 DSS had vacant estate with an annual cost of £21,755,150 and a value of £2,896,800. On 1 April 1998 Land Securities Trillium paid £2,896,800 for these vacant properties and assumed responsibility for all costs thereafter.

  State Pensions
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the additional cost would be of the basic state pension in(a) 2010, (b) 2020, (c) 2030, (d) 2040 and (e) 2050 if, in one year out of every two, the inflation rate were (i) 2 per cent. and (ii) 1.5 per cent. [30396]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table.

  Additional cost to basic state pension if in one year out of every two the inflation rate were two per cent. and 1.5 per cent.

  £billion

  2 per cent. inflation

  1.5 per cent. inflation

  2010

  0.4

  0.8

  2020

  1.5

  3.05

  2030

  3.2

  6.55

  2040

  5

  10.5

  2050

  6.55

  13.85

  Notes:

  1. Figures are gross cost for GB rounded to the nearest £50 million.

  2. Figures in 2001–02 prices.

  3. Figures based on latest Government Actuary's Department statistics which takes account of the change in the state pension age for women.

  4. Additional costs are based on the assumption that basic state pension would increase by 2.5 per cent. in the long run (as stated in the PBR).

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress of the consultations with local authority associations on the recovery of overpaid housing benefit from landlords further to paragraph 38 of the response by the DSS to the Social Security Committee report on housing benefit Cm4869. [30629]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Following consultation with the local authority associations, we amended housing benefit regulations to change the rule that overpaid benefit was in all cases recoverable from the person to whom it was paid. From 1 October 2001 where the landlord has been responsible for alerting the local authority in writing to the suspected overpayment, there appears to have been a fraud, and there is no evidence of landlord collusion, any resulting overpayment will not be recoverable from the landlord.

  Landlords have an important role in preventing fraud. Those receiving direct payments of benefit already had a statutory responsibility to report changes in their tenant's circumstances, which they could have reasonably been expected to know. This measure encourages landlords to be vigilant and report their suspicions of fraud without fear of financial disincentive.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) on what dates statutory criteria were first issued to facilitate and determine the level of payment of industrial injuries disablement benefit for those suffering from spinal injury; [30778]

  (2) what recent changes have been made to the statutory criteria first issued to facilitate and determine the level and payment of industrial injuries disablement benefit for those suffering from spinal injury. [30779]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The assessment of disablement for the purposes of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit was introduced in 1948 by the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946 on recommendations made by the Beveridge report. This principle is a fundamental part of the industrial injuries scheme and has been carried through to the current legislation, which is covered at schedule 6 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Further definition of the principles of assessment and prescribed degrees of disablement are in Schedule 2 of the Social Security (General Benefit) Regulations 1982.

  The assessment of disablement is made by comparing the person claiming benefit with a person of the same age and sex whose physical and mental condition is normal. If, as in the case of a spinal injury, the degree of disablement is not prescribed within the regulations, the medical assessor will try to equate the disablement to those covered in the schedule.

  There have been no recent changes to the legislation.

  Departmental Secondments (Energy Industry)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff were seconded between(a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Enron, (d) Exxon-Mobil, (e) Conoco,
  1120W
  (f) Texaco and (g) TotalFinaElf and his Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33213]

  Maria Eagle
  No staff have been seconded between the Department (or the Employment Service or the former Department of Social Security) and the organisations listed from 1999 to the present date.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many attacks on staff have taken place at employment centres in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [33589]

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many incidents of(a) physical and (b) verbal assaults have been recorded in (i) Benefit Agency offices and (ii) Employment Service offices in each year since 1997; how many have been recorded in Jobcentre Plus offices in each month since the inception of Jobcentre Plus; and how many were recorded in the equivalent offices prior to the inception of Jobcentre Plus. [32748]

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many physical assaults there have been on Benefits Agency and Employment Service staff in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [32757]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 5 and 6 February 2002]: The available information on the breakdown of incidents in the last five years is set out in the table. The figures reflect the improvements that have been made in recent years in gathering statistics on incidents. In recent years a possible under-reporting of incidents concerned both management and trade unions. An improved reporting form was introduced in April 1999, followed by a campaign by the Public and Commercial Services Union on reporting during 2000. The rise in reported incidents in the years from 1999 reflects this. As well as verbal abuse or threatening behaviour, non-physical incidents include cases of customers fighting or arguing with each other, in which no member of staff was involved, and occasions when only equipment or furniture was damaged. Employment Service offices are visited by around 25 million people per year and Benefits Agency offices by around 20 million.

  Employment Service

  Benefits Agency

  Physical

  Non-physical

  Physical

  Non-physical

  1997

  —

  —

  100

  3,426

  1998

  —

  —

  41

  3,092

  1999

  241

  3,835

  129

  3,561

  2000

  232

  4,237

  164

  5,148

  2001

  222

  3,637

  135

  4,910

  Since the launch of the Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices last October, only one case of physical contact has been recorded: a customer trod on the foot of a member of staff—possibly accidentally. There have been 148 incidents in which no physical contact was made, 145 of which involved verbal abuse and three attempted assault (attempted assaults includes cases where items are thrown but do not hit anyone, or when a customer reaches towards a member of staff but does not make contact).

  1121W
  During this period we estimate that approximately three-quarters of a million people have visited pathfinder offices. The monthly breakdown is in the table:

  Month

  Cases involving physical contact in Pathfinder offices

  Cases involving no physical contact in Pathfinder offices

  October 2001

  1

  14

  November 2001

  0

  62

  December 2001

  0

  32

  January 2002

  0

  40

  Total

  1

  148

  In 2001, up to the launch of Jobcentre Plus on 22 October, there were 14 instances of physical contact between a Benefits Agency or Employment Service member of staff and a customer in the offices that subsequently became Pathfinders.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what further risk assessments have been carried out on the new Jobcentre Plus offices since their establishment; and if they have resulted in the deployment of extra security measures or staff. [32747]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Review risk assessments have now been completed in all of the Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices that have opened since 22 October 2001. No additional security staff have been recommended as a result of these assessments.

  New Deal for Young People
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have undertaken child care training and work experience through the New Deal for Young People; and how many of them have found permanent employment in this field. [33626]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Between 5 January 1998 and 4 January 2002, 7,016 young people had undertaken child care training and work experience through the full time education and training, voluntary sector and environmental task force options within New Deal for Young People. In the same period, 1,497 young people entered subsidised employment in child care through the employment option. A further 2,859 went directly into jobs in child care from the New Deal.

  Source:

  Employment Service Management Information

  Asbestos (Compensation)
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the Government's policy is on providing compensation to those suffering from the effects of exposure to asbestos. [34274]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit is available for people who are 1 per cent. disabled through having contracted pneumoconiosis (including asbestosis and silicosis) or diffuse mesothelioma through their work, and to those at least 14 per cent. disabled from primary carcinoma of the lung where there is evidence of asbestosis or diffuse pleural thickening. The current maximum weekly rate is £112.90. In addition, if the person 1122W
  requires someone to look after them, constant attendance allowance, at a maximum of £90.40 a week, and exceptionally severe disablement allowance at £45.20 a week may be payable. Reduced earnings allowance is also available to compensate people, including those whose level of disablement is less than 14 per cent., who suffer a loss of earnings as a result of their disablement.

  To make sure a person does not get compensation twice for the same need, benefits paid from the date of an accident or the date of claim in respect of a disease are recovered from the compensator up to the date of any final compensation payment, subject to a five year maximum. Future benefits are not taken into account. Nor are past payments inflated into present values.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced on 13 February 2002, Official Report, column 401W, additional support for people exposed to asbestos and affected by the 11 December 2001 Court of Appeal judgment in the "Fairchild" case is now available from his Department. The compensation scheme administered by DTLR under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 will be extended to make payments to these people provided they meet the conditions of eligibility.

  Skill Shortages
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what steps he is taking to facilitate people gaining employment in industries in which skill shortages exist. [36866]

  (2) what role he plays in the assessment of the level of skill shortages in (a) the building industry and (b) the road haulage industry. [36869]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are working closely with employers to understand their needs, so we can improve the support we give to people without work. We have set up the National Employer Panel, an employer-led body which will recommend to Government ways of ensuring employment programmes are responsive to the changing needs of employers and individuals.

  We have a dynamic labour market—with 6 million people changing jobs every year and a record 28.2 million people in work—and there are many competing opportunities. We recognise that some industries are facing difficulties in attracting new recruits with the required skills. We provide support for specific industries, where this is appropriate. For example, we have introduced Ambition: Construction which is designed to help meet skill shortages and help 1,000 long-term unemployed people into construction jobs. In addition, the Employment Service works closely with the road haulage industry in a number of locations to facilitate skills development in this sector.

  The Department is also working closely with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Skills to address the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit's Workforce Development report, which sets out a longer-term vision for addressing skill needs.
  1123W
  We, and colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Trade and Industry, have asked the Regional Development Agencies to lead the Framework for Regional Employment and Skills Action (FRESA). This strategic partnership of organisations includes the CBI, the TUC, the Learning and Skills Council, the Employment Service and Local Government Associations. The work of the FRESAs will provide a co-ordinated strategy for skills, ensuring a more efficient service for employers and individuals alike.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the Government's strategy to combat child poverty. [40143]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Details of the Government's strategy to combat child poverty can be found in our annual report on poverty and social exclusion, Opportunity for all. The most recent of these is Opportunity for all—making progress (CM 5260), which was published on the 19 September 2001 and is in the Library.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he will take to help local authorities cut the use of bed and breakfast hotels for housing homeless people. [43755]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We will provide extra funding through the housing benefit subsidy system, worth around £10 million in 2002–03, to help local authorities house homeless people in self-contained temporary accommodation rather than in bed and breakfast hotels.

  Under current rules for temporary accommodation, the Department for Work and Pensions refunds 95 per cent. (the normal "full" subsidy rate) of any housing benefit that authorities pay on rents up to their subsidy threshold. Rents above the subsidy threshold up to the cap are reimbursed at 12.5 per cent., while there is no subsidy at all for rents above the cap.

  From April 2002, we will raise the 12.5 per cent. reimbursement rate to 95 per cent. for leased and licensed accommodation, while keeping it unchanged for bed and breakfasts.

  Paying full subsidy up to the cap should make private sector leasing an affordable option even in expensive areas, building on the significant increase in thresholds and caps that we introduced last year. It will give councils a major incentive to shift away from using bed and breakfast accommodation, benefiting thousands of homeless families. And we are considering strengthening that incentive further from April 2003, once authorities have had time to respond to the new arrangements: for example, by reducing the 12.5 per cent. subsidy on bed and breakfast rents.

  This reform supports the homelessness strategy announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, at columns 1091–94W above.

  Benefit Claims (Hackney)
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the London Borough of 1124W
  Hackney has met the terms of the direction he issued on 12 October 2001 in connection with claims for housing benefit and council tax benefit. [43756]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Following an assessment by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate, we are satisfied that the London Borough of Hackney has met the terms of the direction given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 12 October 2001 in respect of housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's report of its assessment has been placed in the Library.

  The report shows that the authority responded well to the challenge of the direction and that it is also putting in place the necessary processes to improve performance generally. The large backlog of 39,000 outstanding cases on 19 April 2001 was cleared by 31 December 2001 and was done without compromising the standards of other benefits work not associated with the backlog. There were indications that the level of accuracy had in fact risen following the issue of the direction.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate did find some areas where they considered there was a need for improvement, for example in the way sample cases for checking were selected and recorded. The report suggests a number of areas of good practice that the Authority will be able to make use of to address the weaknesses identified.

  There is still much that needs to be done to make the service fully effective, but the authority is to be commended for the significant improvements found by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the integration of people with mental health problems in society. [40652]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Standard 1 of the National Service Framework for Mental Health requires local services to develop and implement coherent strategies to combat discrimination against people with mental health problems and to promote their social inclusion. The Department of Health is working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to find ways of providing active help and encouragement for them to move into work; taking the obstacles to work out of the benefits system; making sure that work pays; and promoting radical change in the workplace to ensure equality and opportunity.

  Income-related Benefits (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people living in(a) the City of Newcastle upon Tyne and (b) the constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne, Central were in receipt of income-related benefits in (a) May 1996 and (b) each subsequent year to 2001, broken down by those of (i) pensionable and (ii) working age. [37285]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the tables. A large proportion of people in receipt of the income-related benefits referred to in the first table may also be in receipt of housing benefit and council tax benefit.
  1125W

  Recipients of income-related benefits (other than housing benefit and council tax benefit)

  City of Newcastle upon Tyne local authority area

  Newcastle upon Tyne, Central parliamentary constituency

  Pension age

  Working age

  Pension age

  Working age

  May 1996

  12,300

  31,900

  —

  —

  May 1997

  12,000

  29,900

  3,800

  8,100

  May 1998

  11,200

  28,200

  3,500

  7,700

  May 1999

  11,100

  28,200

  3,500

  7,800

  May 2000

  11,600

  22,700

  3,600

  6,400

  May 2001

  12,300

  22,600

  3,800

  6,600

  Notes:

  1. Income-related benefits include income support (IS), jobseeker's allowance (income based), family credit (FC) and disability working allowance (DWA). IS, jobseeker's allowance (JSA) and FC figures are based on 5 per cent. samples and are subject to a degree of sampling variation. DWA figures are from 100 per cent. count.

  2. JSA was introduced in October 1996 to replace unemployment benefit and IS for the unemployed.

  3. FC and DWA were replaced by tax credits in October 1999 which are the responsibility of the Inland Revenue.

  4. Pension age is defined as cases where the recipient and/or partner is aged 60 and over for IS and JSA and the recipient is aged 60 and over for DWA and FC. Working age is defined as cases where both the recipient and partner are under age 60 for IS and JSA and the recipient is aged under 60 for DWA and FC.

  5. Parliamentary constituency data are not available prior to 1997.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 1996–2001.

  2. Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Enquiry, May 1997–2001.

  3. Family Credit Statistics, May 1996–99.

  4. Disability Working Allowance Statistics, May 1996–99.

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit recipients—City of Newcastle upon Tyne local authority area

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  May 1996

  40,630

  43,910

  May 1997

  39,140

  42,430

  May 1998

  37,260

  40,420

  May 1999

  36,300

  39,510

  May 2000

  34,830

  37,880

  May 2001

  32,360

  35,380

  Notes:

  1. The figures refer to recipients, which may be a single person, a couple or a family. They have been rounded to the nearest 10 cases.

  2. Housing benefit figures exclude any extended payment cases.

  3. Nationally approximately 80 per cent. of housing benefit recipients also receive council tax benefit, therefore there will be a significant overlap between recipients of housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  4. Figures for housing benefit and council tax benefit are not available by parliamentary constituency.

  5. A split of cases by client group is not available at local authority level.

  Source:

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit Management Information System, quarterly 100 per cent. case load count, taken in May of each year from 1996 to 2001.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how he expects the incapacity benefit case load to change as a result of the fixed-term claim. [37079]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are transforming the welfare system from a passive organisation paying out benefits to an active system that fights poverty, creates opportunity and helps people become self sufficient and independent.
  1126W
  For people of working age we are taking a single approach to work and benefits to make work pay, make work possible and to support those who cannot work. This service will be delivered through Jobcentre Plus-a personal service with one goal: helping people of working age to live independent lives.

  People making new or repeat claims to Incapacity Benefit in Jobcentre Plus Pathfinder offices are required to attend a work-focused meeting. These meetings provide disabled people with the opportunity to discuss with their personal adviser the help, benefits and opportunities available to them. We are ensuring that no-one is written off, or allowed to write themselves off. But we will not force people with disabilities into work and people who are eligible for Incapacity Benefit will receive it.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it his policy for the general practitioner case notes of claimants for incapacity benefit to be used as evidence in support of such claims. [40787]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  People who claim a state incapacity benefit will at some point have their entitlement reviewed under the personal capability assessment (PCA). A lack of good quality information about a customer's medical condition can in some cases mean that seriously ill people, who should be completely exempted from the PCA procedures, are not identified as early as they could be. We also believe that better quality medical information would enable more customers to be correctly assessed under the PCA without the need for a medical examination.

  Currently the customer's own doctor, usually their general practitioner (GP) will be asked to provide the Department's medical officer with a short factual report or a special statement containing clinical details. Working in collaboration with the Department's contractor, SchlumbergerSema Medical Services, we are currently piloting an alternative evidence gathering procedure in the Sheffield and Rotherham areas. With the permission of customers and GPs in the pilot areas, we are testing whether using GP medical records will provide the Department's medical officer with better factual information to advise the decision maker. We will be carefully evaluating this pilot to see whether there are benefits in terms of improved customer service and more robust and accurate decision making. The evaluation will be used to inform any future decisions on the use of GP casenotes in relation to benefit assessments.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many doctors are employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time to conduct medical examinations of claimants for incapacity benefit. [40782]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  There is an available pool of 179 full-time doctors and 852 part-time doctors to carry out medical examinations for customers claiming incapacity benefit.

  Strikes
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with reference to official strikes at Friction Dynamics and elsewhere, if he will make it his policy not to allow the display of job advertisements in job centres where the clear intention of the employer is to recruit labour for the purpose of strike-breaking. [39354]
  1127W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentres are instructed to remain neutral in cases where an employer is involved in a trade dispute and so vacancies are still taken and displayed by Jobcentres and on the Internet job bank. In such circumstances, jobseekers who wish to apply for the vacancy are told that a dispute is in progress so that they can decide for themselves whether to apply.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of young people who have moved from the NDYP into sustained employment and who leave such employment without claiming jobseeker's allowance within 12 months. [40297]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The measure of whether a young person's job is sustained is based on their subsequent claims of jobseeker's allowance. No estimate has been made of the number who leave sustained employment and do not return to jobseeker's allowance within 12 months.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) clinical audit, (b) clinical governance and (c) quality control procedures are in force at the Benefits Agency Medical Services. [40568]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Clinical governance within the NHS requires organisations to take a corporate approach to quality and performance. This is the approach which the Government expects Medical Services to take in seeking continuously to improve and develop a customer-focused service able to deliver the specified standards of quality.

  Medical Services carry out regular quality audit, by peer review, of the standard of medical reports provided by doctors engaged to work for them. Each doctor has his or her work audited at least once a year. Medical Services also carry out regular customer satisfaction surveys. The outcomes of audit and customer surveys are reported regularly to the Department and are validated by the Department's doctors on behalf of the Chief Medical Adviser.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice has been given to the Benefits Agency Medical Services on the recognition of chronic fatigue syndrome by the Department of Health; what new guidance has been given to the Benefits Agency staff as a result; and if he will publish that advice and guidance. [40567]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  This Department fully recognises chronic fatigue syndrome as a potentially very disabling condition. Guidance to Medical Services doctors, who carry out assessments on behalf of the Department, and to decision makers who determine entitlement to benefits, exists in the Disability Handbook. The second edition, published in 1998, contains a section on chronic fatigue syndrome, which was written in discussion with experts in this area, including the ME Association. Guidance also exists in the report of the chief medical adviser's expert group on chronic fatigue, published in 1998.
  1128W
  The guidance in both these documents is in line with the report recently published by the Department of Health. Therefore no new guidance has been issued. Copies of both documents are available in the Library. The Disability Handbook can be purchased through the Stationery Office, and can also be accessed on the Department's web site.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will amend Regulation 30 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 to extend the specified 12 month time period on compassionate grounds for making a posthumous industrial injuries disablement benefit claim. [40497]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The rules for claiming industrial injuries disablement benefit (IIDB) are designed to be more flexible than those for other benefits that can be claimed by a person appointed to act on a deceased person's behalf by the Secretary of State.

  In general most claims can be made only within 12 months of the date of death. IIDB, however, can be claimed within 12 months of the date on which the death certificate is issued. This reflects the fact that in many cases the cause of death recorded on the death certificate provides the basis for the IIDB claim.

  We keep all our policies under review but have no plans to amend these rules.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners aged under 65 are in receipt of minimum income guarantee. [42635]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As at November 2001 there were 322,900 minimum income guarantee claimants under the age of 65 in Great Britain.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Tibet
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the answer from the hon. Member for Leeds, Central of 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 271, if her Department will continue to provide funding for Save the Children Fund's "Tibet Basic Education Project". [42964]

  Clare Short
  SCF is undertaking valuable work in Tibet with DFID support. I would like to see this continue and my officials are currently considering SCF's proposals for a further phase of their basic education project for poor indigenous Tibetans.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to her Department of the Parental Leave Directive. [42488]
  1129W
  Clare Short
  Two members of DFID staff have taken up the opportunity under the provisions of the Parental Leave Directive. No estimate has been made of the financial costs to the Department.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many African countries are in receipt of debt relief; and which have applied but have yet to receive help. [42709]

  Clare Short
  21 of the 34 African countries listed under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiatives have, so far, qualified for debt relief. Of the 21 countries, 18 have reached their Decision Point and are receiving interim debt relief and three have completed the HIPC process and are receiving full debt relief. We hope that a further four will reach their Completion Point in the next six months. Of the remaining 13 countries, Sierra Leone is expected to qualify this month. However, further progress on the remaining 10 eligible countries (Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Comoros, Republic of Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Liberia, Somalia, Sudan and Togo) will be difficult, as they either are affected by conflict or have governance problems. Angola and Kenya are not eligible for HIPC debt relief, as they are regarded as potentially sustainable—both countries are eligible for Paris Club treatment on Naples terms, which would be sufficient to reduce their debts to a sustainable level, but have not applied for this.

  As for non-HIPC sub-Saharan African countries, Nigeria is not eligible for debt reduction but has received relief through the Paris Club in the form of a rescheduling.

  EBRD Projects
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 341W, on EBRD projects, if she will list the names of the projects that officials from her Department told UK representatives at the EBRD to support and the value of each of these projects in each of the last five years. [42770]

  Clare Short
  The information required is not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Afghanistan
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made in clearing(a) land mines and (b) unexploded bomblets from cluster bombs in Afghanistan. [40656]

  Clare Short
  Afghanistan has long been one of the countries most severely affected by land mines and Unexploded Ordnance (UXO). In the year 2000 an average of about 88 mine and UXO casualties were recorded each month. During 2000 a total of approximately 13,500 antipersonnel mines, 600 anti-tank mines and 300,000 items of UXO were destroyed.

  The onset of hostilities after 11 September meant that mine clearance operations were badly disrupted by the departure of international staff and the threat to the safety of mine action personnel, forcing it to significantly curtail
  1130W
  its operations. The Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan (MAPA) is now completing a period of retraining and is resuming operations wherever possible. In many areas mine and unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance operations have returned close to the level that existed before 11 September. In addition, the process of expanding capacity to address the UXO threat has begun. The priorities for UNMAS in 2002 are the execution of emergency operations throughout the country and a subsequent return to 100 per cent. operational capacity, and to expand mine clearance capacity as resources become available.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment has been made of the amount of unexploded bomblets emanating from cluster bombs in Afghanistan. [40655]

  Clare Short
  The United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) has been notified by coalition forces of 188 sites where cluster bombs were used. UNMAS has estimated the number of bombs used and made an estimate of how many bomblets may be unexploded, but exact numbers are impossible to verify.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether inclement weather has prevented aid deliveries to the Badghis province of Afghanistan; and what actions are being taken to improve aid deliveries. [34951]

  Clare Short
  Emergency food provision in Afghanistan is primarily channelled through the UN World Food Programme (WFP). Needs have been met in most areas, but there remain pockets of unmet need in places difficult to access due to poor weather and insecurity. Badghis province is one of the most remote and seriously drought-affected areas in Afghanistan. Parts of Badghis are extremely difficult to access in the winter months.

  Since September 2001, WFP has dispatched and distributed more than 56,000 metric tonnes of food in the western provinces of Afghanistan, including Badghis, to assist an average of 1.3 million people per month. Remote areas in the west of Afghanistan have received enough food to last up to the end of March.

  In addition, WFP is deploying six helicopter-borne rapid assessment teams for assessment and delivery of emergency aid to remote areas, including parts of Badghis province. The teams are tasked with streamlining food aid operations, assessing health conditions, investigating non-food emergency needs, monitoring food distribution and verifying reports by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on earlier food deliveries. If necessary, the helicopters will also allow WFP to airlift a limited amount of food aid on an emergency basis.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list each of the overseas trips made by herself and other members of her ministerial team in each of the last four years, specifying the purpose and cost of each trip. [30178]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 707W.

  Press Officers
  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.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Student Finance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the percentage of graduates who will receive lifetime earnings of(a) less then 75 per cent., (b) 75 to 90 per cent., (c) 90 to 110 per cent., (d) 110 to 125 per cent., (e) 125 to 175 per cent. and (f) more than 175 per cent. of the average of those not participating in higher education. [32733]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: We estimate lifetime earnings profiles for individuals "who have participated in an undergraduate higher education course" (whether they graduated or not) using statistical simulation models and current employment and earnings data. The table shows the estimated distribution of undergraduate participant lifetime earnings, relative to the average of those "who do not hold a higher education qualification". Lifetime earnings are based on earnings between the ages of 18 and 59 years.

  Data limitations mean that the figures in the table provide only a broad estimate of the distribution of lifetime earnings, and weight cannot be placed on the precise percentages in each band. The two comparison groups are not mutually exclusive, and both potentially include individuals who may have participated in higher education but did not subsequently obtain a qualification.

  Estimated percentage of UG HE participant lifetime earnings above and below the average for those who do not hold an HE qualification

  Distribution

  Percentage

  Less than 75 per cent, of the non-HE average

  6

  75 per cent, to less than 90 per cent.

  5

  90 per cent, to less than 110 per cent.

  9

  110 per cent, to less than 125 per cent.

  7

  125 per cent, to less than 175 per cent.

  20

  175 per cent, or more than the non-HE average

  53

  Total

  100

  Notes:

  1. The Department has previously used two statements to support HE, and in particular its AimHigher campaign: that on average, graduates earn around 35 per cent. more than the national average; and, on average, earn around £400,000 more over their working lives than the national average.

  2. The figures presented in the table do not invalidate these statements. They are based on different comparison groups and cannot be compared.

  Sources:

  Labour Force Survey, British Household Panel Survey, Student Income and Expenditure Survey 1998, Student Loan Company.
  1132W
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what has been the student loan(a) repayment threshold and (b) interest rate in each year since 1996; and what each will be in academic year 2002–03. [40557]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Academic years

  Interest rate1 (Percentage)

  Mortgage style2 loans deferment threshold (£)

  Income contingent loans repayment threshold (£)

  1996–97

  2.7

  15,792

  n/a

  1997–98

  2.6

  16,488

  n/a

  1998–99

  3.5

  17,784

  n/a

  1999–2000

  2.1

  18,192

  n/a

  2000–01

  2.6

  19,104

  10,000

  2001–02

  2.3

  19,728

  10,000

  2001–03

  3—

  3—

  10,000

  1 Interest is linked to inflation, so that the amount repaid will be worth, in real terms, what was borrowed.

  2 Mortgage style loans are not income contingent. They are paid back in a fixed number of monthly instalments. Most borrowers pay back 60 instalments over five years. If five or more loans are taken out they pay 84 instalments over seven years.

  3 To be set.

  The interest rate and deferment threshold for mortgage style loans for the academic year 2002–03 are calculated at a later stage. The interest rate will be the retail prices index increase for the year to March 2002. The deferment threshold will be 85 per cent. of national average earnings for April 2002.

  Children's Rights
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the role of the Minister for Children will be in relation to(a) reporting to the UN Special Session on Children in May and (b) reporting to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in September; [35233]

  (2) what the role of the Minister for Children and Young People will be in relation to reporting to the (a) UN Special Session on Children in May and (b) Committee on the Rights of the Child in September; [39992]

  (3) which Ministers and officials will compose the delegation representing the UK's second report on the implementation of the UN Convention on Children's Rights at its examination by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in September; [39991]

  (4) which Ministers and officials will comprise the delegation representing the UK's second report on the Implementation of the UN Convention on Children's Rights at its examination by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in September. [35232]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answers 12 February and 4 March 2000): The UN Special Session on Children in May will be an important opportunity for Governments across the world to re-affirm their commitment to improving the life chances of children and to review progress towards meeting that commitment. I plan to attend, subject to any parliamentary or other Government commitments.
  1133W
  Arrangements have not yet been finalised for the UN Committee's examination in September.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of three-year-olds have been in nursery places in maintained schools in each year since 1997. [38800]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information on three-year-old provision in maintained nursery and primary schools is shown in the table.

  Number1,2 and percentage of three year olds in maintained nursery and primary schools, England, 1997 to 2001, position in January each year

  Year

  Number

  Percentage3

  1997

  214,200

  34

  1998

  222,000

  35

  1999

  225,700

  37

  2000

  229,900

  38

  2001

  226,600

  37

  1 Headcount of children aged three at 31 December in the previous calendar year, rounded to the nearest 100.

  2 May include some two-year-olds.

  3 Number of three-year-olds expressed as a percentage of the three-year-old population.

  The number of three-year-olds taking up places at private and voluntary providers increased from 268,800 or 44 per cent. of the population of three-year-olds in January 2000, to 285,100 or 47 per cent. in January 2001, an increase of 16,000.

  The figures for three-years-olds in schools and private and voluntary providers were published in Statistical Bulletin 11–01 "Provision for children under five years of age in England—January 2001" which is available at www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/and from the Library.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people were employed in a press or public relations function in her Department on 1 January in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [39937]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The following table shows the average staff numbers within DFEE/DFES press office and publicity division over the period in question:

  FTE

  Year

  Press office total

  Publicity division total

  1996–97

  19

  50

  1997–98

  20.5

  68

  1998–99

  29.5

  51

  1999–2000

  27.5

  44

  2000–01

  28

  42

  2001–021

  23

  39

  1 The staffing figure for 2001–02 excludes five members of staff transferred to the Department for Work and Pensions from both the press office and publicity division, as part of the Machinery of Government changes following the general election.

  Decade for Human Rights Education
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she last reported to the UN 1134W
  High Commissioner for Human Rights on UK activities in the framework of the Decade for Human Rights Education. [40526]

  Margaret Hodge
  My officials contributed to a report compiled by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in July 2000. This specifically mentions the contribution citizenship education will make from September 2002 and, in particular, that pupils will be taught about human rights as part of the national curriculum.

  Higher Education
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the impact that meeting matchfunding requirements for joint infrastructure fund and science research investment fund schemes has had on the financial health of relevant higher education institutions. [41748]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF), which provided a total of £750 million for research infrastructure in science and technology, had no general requirement for matched funding. The Science Research Investment Fund (SRIF) is worth a total of £1 billion over 2002–03 and 2003–04, of which £600 million was allocated to higher education institutions in England by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). SRIF has a requirement that 25 per cent. of the overall cost of a project is met by external contributions, except where there are partnerships between higher education institutions. HEFCE monitors the financial health of higher education institutions and has no concerns about the financial health of any institution in relation to JIF and SRIF requirements.

  The issue of science research infrastructure funding for the HE sector is being considered by the Cross Cutting Review of Science and Research.

  Learning and Skills Council
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what analysis has been carried out by the Learning and Skills Council on the skills base in coalfield areas compared to the national average. [41822]

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

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many learning and skills council headquarters are situated in coalfield constituencies. [41824]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) national office is based in Coventry and operates through 47 local arms. There are local LSC offices close to coalfield constituencies at: Stoke-on-Trent, Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield, Middlesbrough, Newton Aycliffe, Gateshead and Cramlington. The most important aspect is that the LSC's programmes are accessible throughout their local areas. The actual location of the office has no bearing on the quality, delivery and availability of the services on offer.

  Administrators
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time equivalent administrators there are in each local education authority in the south-west of England. [41872]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not collect this information.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Connexions Service retains information relating to young people's sexual orientation. [42134]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Information relating to a young person's sexual orientation would not normally be retained. The young person might raise the subject and, in this case, the information would be recorded and retained only if the young person and the personal adviser agreed that this would be appropriate.

  Veterinary Science (Wales)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what discussions she has had with the National Assembly for Wales concerning the establishment of a veterinary science department at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth; and if she will make a statement; [42672]

  (2) what representations she has received on the absence of a veterinary department in universities in Wales; and if she will make a statement. [42673]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Secretary of State has received no representations on the absence of a veterinary department in universities in Wales and has had no discussion with the National Assembly for Wales about the establishment of a veterinary science department at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. The creation of a veterinary department in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Debt Repayment
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how development costs relating to the Government's proposed scheme to repay the outstanding loans of certain newly qualified teachers will be funded. [43597]

  Mr. Timms
  Parliamentary approval for additional resources for this new service will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for the Department for Education and Skills. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £518,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Child Protection Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what cross-departmental initiatives are being proposed to ensure co-ordination of children's services with special reference to child protection services; and if she will make a statement. [40119]
  1136W
  Mr. Denham
  In their consultation document "Building a Strategy for Children and Young People", the Government are seeking views on the establishment of Children and Young People's Strategic Partnerships as a vehicle for coordinating planning activity for children's services. These partnerships would bring together the full breadth of partners and services across the voluntary, community, statutory and business sectors, which impact on the lives of children and young people.

  Later this year, the findings from a multi-inspectorate inspection of children's safeguards will be published. The inspection is looking specifically at safeguards for children in eight local authority areas, including the effectiveness of Area Child Protection Committees. The findings from both of these exercises will be of assistance in determining the most effective ways of coordinating services, including services for child protection. Any consideration of the effectiveness of child protection services will need to take into account the findings of the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie, which is due to report later this year.

  Bristol Education Authority (Grants)
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the category and amounts of each grant which her Department has provided to Bristol education authority in the last two years. [42712]

  Mr. Timms
  The following table shows the Department's allocated grants to Bristol local education authority in 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  £

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Standards Fund (recurrent)

  8,731,729

  11,278,051

  School Standards Grant

  2,060,000

  4,320,000

  Teachers Pay Reform Grants

  1,799,088

  2,751,598

  Nursery Education Grant (3-year-olds)

  1,077,307

  1,312,978

  Nursery Education Grant (4-year-olds)1

  588,271

  n/a

  Special Education Needs Co-ordinators (Early Years)

  n/a

  21,800

  Early Years Training

  33,900

  149,486

  Childcare Grant

  217,370

  1,107,705

  Neighbourhood Nursery Initiative2

  n/a

  1,907,700

  School Budget Support Grant

  380,388

  n/a

  Education Budget Support Grant

  n/a

  698,369

  Education Action Zone Grant3

  628,000

  847,990

  Capital Grants

  9,680,000

  9,536,000

  1 Grant was transferred to the SSA in 2001–02.

  2 Funding for the period 2001 to 2004.

  3 Funding made directly to the Education Action Zone in Bristol.

  Notes:

  Amounts are in cash terms.

  2001–02 figures may be subject to change.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, how many teachers have applied for early retirement on ill health grounds in each year since 1996; how many(a) have been granted retirement on ill health, (b) have been refused and (c) are awaiting a decision on their application; how long the average turn around is from the Teachers Pension Agency receiving the application to notification of the decision; and how many applicants have died whilst waiting for a decision on their application. [41794]
  1137W
  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not readily available. I will write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

HEALTH

  Children's Rights
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what revision he plans to undertake of the second report under the UN convention on children's rights published in 1999 before its examination by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in September. [35234]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 12 February 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The UK is obliged under the convention to submit a report every five years on progress in implementing it. The last report was issued in 1999 and will be considered by the UN later this year. Given the time that has elapsed since the last report was submitted and the important changes that have taken place since then, we intend to publish later this spring a brief update on UK progress since 1999.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Ministers and officials will comprise the delegation representing the UK's Second report on the Implementation of the UN Convention on Children's Rights at its examination by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in September. [35232]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answers 12 February and 4 March 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The UN Special Session on Children in May will be an important opportunity for Government's across the world to re-affirm their commitment to improving the life chances of children and to review progress towards meeting that commitment. I plan to attend, subject to any parliamentary or other Government commitments.

  Arrangements have not yet been finalised for the UN Committee's examination in September.

  Beta Interferon
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the cost of beta interferon in other countries. [4564]

  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 made no detailed assessment of the costs of beta-interferon treatment in other countries. Direct comparisons of prices of products of this type can be misleading because they are often supplied direct to hospitals at a discount, making published list prices less significant. Furthermore some countries include distribution costs and some aspects of care within the list price while others account for them separately.

  MMR Vaccine
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the advice issued in 1988 on the administration of the MMR vaccine to children included a choice of single vaccines. [28790]

  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.

  The combined MMR vaccine was introduced as a replacement to the single measles vaccine and parents were advised to get their children immunised with the combined MMR vaccination. Single measles vaccine remained available for a short transitional period until the manufacturers of the vaccine advised the Department of Health that they no longer intended to supply single measles vaccine to the UK. Rubella vaccine remained part of the school girls immunisation programme until 1994 when it was discontinued. However, rubella vaccine remains available for rubella susceptible women and health care workers. Single mumps vaccine has never been routinely available.

  I have placed in the Library copies of the 1988 leaflet which gave advice to parents as well as the media pack and the letter to the NHS from the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Nursing Officer that gave details of the introduction of the combined MMR vaccine.

  Beechwood Lodge, Basingstoke
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instigate an inquiry into the circumstances of the deaths of Alexander Deas, Joseph Gildea, Tony Spong and Peter Swain, former residents of Beechwood Lodge, Basingstoke, and assess the performance of Hampshire Social Services and other agencies in providing care and support for former residents of Beechwood Lodge. [35060]

  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 are not planning to instigate an inquiry. However, there is an internal inquiry being undertaken by Basingstoke and Deane borough council and Stonham Housing Association about the closure of this resource and the arrangements made to meet the needs of the residents.

  Pesticide Residues
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to set up a monitoring programme for pesticide residues in fruit supplied to the national school fruit scheme; and if he will publish the results of such monitoring. [36088]

  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
  1139W
  my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The Department of Health has established a programme of testing for pesticide residues on fruit supplied as part of the National School Fruit Scheme and will make the results available in due course.

  Measles
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the outbreak of measles centred on a school in Edgware. [36035]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 13 February 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.

  There have been six confirmed cases of measles in two families.

  The local health authority has written to all parents to encourage MMR vaccination and has also contacted all the GPs of children at the school to promote immunisation. GPs have also been asked to ensure that they notify any suspected case to consultants in communicable disease control so that salivary testing can be arranged.

  Autism
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of children who have been diagnosed with autism and born since 1990 are male; [37419]

  (2) at what age autism is most commonly diagnosed. [37418]

  Jacqui Smith
  In December 2001 the Medical Research Council (MRC) published a comprehensive review of autism research, which provides an authoritative overview of the current state of knowledge on the epidemiology and causes of autism. The report, which was commissioned by the Department and included a wide range of experts and a "lay" group including autism charities and parents, is available on the MRC website at www.mrc.ac.uk. It provides a broad account of the best available information about autism spectrum disorders, including issues concerning diagnosis.

  On age at diagnosis, the report says:
  "There are a number of studies reporting that the majority of parents are aware that something is not quite right in the months leading up to the second birthday. In a study of individuals aged two to over 40 years, the average age at diagnosis was five years for autism and 11 years for Asperger disorder. Age at diagnosis is likely, however, to vary greatly by region (according to services available), by year (with age at diagnosis falling in many places) and by the nature of the autistic spectrum disorder (with high-functioning, and perhaps severely intellectually impaired, people being diagnosed later)."

  Information about the proportion of children born with autism since 1990 who are male is not available.

  Haemophilia
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many haemophiliacs have not received compensation for blood borne diseases which they may have contracted as a result of blood transfusions; and in what circumstances claims are rejected; [37204]

  (2) how many haemophiliacs have received compensation for blood borne diseases contracted as a result of blood transfusions; and what criteria are used to determine (a) entitlement and (b) the level of compensation. [37203]

  Yvette Cooper
  In 1988, a special payments scheme was established through the MacFarlane Trust for haemophilia patients infected with HIV before the technology existed to eliminate the virus from blood products. To date, 1,240 haemophilia patients have received payments through the trust.

  Under the special payments scheme, each registrant received £20,000 in 1990 and a further sum in 1991, depending on their status:

  Single adult—£43,500

  Married adult without dependent children—£52,000

  Adult with dependent children—£80,500

  Children under 18—£41,000.

  In addition, each registrant has received since 1 October 1990 regular payments, which range between £255 and £650 depending on whether partners are also infected and on the number of dependent children.

  A copy of the MacFarlane Trust handbook, with the full details of the scheme, has been placed in the Library.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 630W, what the cost of refurbishing each ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37892]

  Ms Blears
  No ministerial offices have been refurbished since May 1997. The only works undertaken in addition to the Department's general maintenance, repair and renewal programme in the four-year period ending 31 March 2001 were in 1997–98 and totalled £19,000.

  Free Nursing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the average number of reassessments each person who is in receipt of free nursing care will need before they die; [39170]

  (2) what estimates have been made of the number of self-funders who will be eligible for free nursing care in (a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04 and (c) 2004–05; [39168]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the benefit reductions to self-funders who are eligible for the top banding of free nursing care. [39169]

  Jacqui Smith
  People in nursing homes receiving national health service funding towards their care by a registered nurse will not have any benefits that they were receiving reduced as a result, regardless of the band of care to which they are assigned.
  1141W
  The numbers would be expected to rise from around 42,000 in 2001 by some 500 to 600 per year over the next few years. However, this estimate does not take account of other factors, such as the preferences of older people and rising home ownership among older people, which may affect this.

  Special Urgency Provisions
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often the Department has applied the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments) to a development by the department; and if he will make a statement. [38712]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has no records of having made use of these provisions.

  These provisions do not apply to national health service bodies.

  Foreign Nationals
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to restrict free NHS treatment to foreign nationals visiting the UK; [38430]

  (2) what (a) regulations and (b) checks exist to prevent health tourists coming to the UK to take advantage of free NHS treatment; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the (i) regulations and (ii) checks. [38429]

  Mr. Hutton
  Conditions of entry to the United Kingdom are a matter for the Home Office. Once a person has arrived in the United Kingdom their basis of entitlement to national health service treatment will be determined by the general practitioner or hospital providing treatment.

  Treatment in NHS hospitals is subject to the provisions of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989, as amended [in 1991 (SI No: 438), 1994 (SI No:1535), 2000 (SI No: 602), 2000 (SI No: 909)]. These regulations place a duty on hospitals and other NHS bodies to establish the residence qualification of all patients.

  The Department of Health has been reviewing the way in which these regulations are applied by NHS trusts and revised guidance is also being drafted. In addition posters and leaflets, drawing attention to the charging regulations, have been issued to all hospitals and GP surgeries and are being sent to British embassies abroad.

  Volunteers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of his staff in each of the past two years have been granted a day's paid leave to work as a volunteer; and if he will make a statement. [39737]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has a special leave policy that allows for paid leave for voluntary work.

  As arrangements for paid leave are made locally between staff and their managers we do not centrally record information on the numbers of staff that undertake paid leave to work as a volunteer.

  Staff are encouraged to consider training and learning opportunities, including voluntary work, as part of their career development in the Department.

  Fair Trade
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether fair trade products are sold in his Department. [39837]

  Ms Blears
  The Department's catering contractor has a company policy to buy fair trade goods from its suppliers and has a commitment to support fair trade.

  Communications
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of expenditure will be required to implement the report on communications as part of the shifting the balance of power within the NHS. [39953]

  Ms Blears
  Communication was one of 12 specific topics covered by "Shifting the Balance of Power: the Next Steps", published in January, including others such as public health, professional leadership and research and development. All of these issues are being followed up in different ways.

  The communications guidance sets out a list of responsibilities including greater patient and public involvement and improved communications with staff. No additional resources have been earmarked to implement the guidance.

  Many existing communications staff will be transferring to the new organisations and the national health service is expected to enhance its communications capabilities as part of good management—not at the expense of other aspects of patient care.

  Primary Health Care Trusts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average size is of the population of a primary health care trust; and what guidelines his Department has on the ideal size of a trust. [40066]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is no upper or lower size limit for primary care trusts (PCTs). The size and the configuration of PCTs remains a local decision, taken in the light of local circumstances. PCT size will depend on the services it wishes to provide for its population, the views of local stakeholders, the impact on other local organisations—including the boundary relationships with local authority partners, and whether the PCT is fit for purpose.

  The average population size of all PCTs from April 2002 will be around 170,000.

  Design Champion
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the role is of the Design Champion in his Department. [40352]

  Ms Blears
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath), the Department's ministerial design champion is spearheading the implementation of the Department's design programme "Achieving Excellence in Healthcare Design". He will strive to maximise the benefits of our investment in the hospital building programme and ensure cross-Government working.
  1143W
  He will raise the profile of design excellence by addressing the service and industry. For example, he will be delivering the keynote speech at the Primary Healthcare Design conference in May this year.

  He will also work closely with the national health service and architectural bodies, personally mentoring two projects, being Walsall Design Exemplar and South Manchester Primary Care Trust development.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in his Department should ordinarily he on standard class tickets. [40447]

  Ms Blears
  Section 8 of the Civil Service Management Code requires Departments and agencies to ensure that staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel in the circumstances, taking into account any management benefit or the needs of staff with disabilities. In line with that, the Department's policy is that all staff should consider travelling standard class unless they have a special need related to their work.

  Waiting Times (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are waiting for(a) knee replacement, (b) cataract and (c) hernia operations in the Greater London area. [40514]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally. Data are collected only at consultant specialty level.

  Trust Merger (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the printing of stationery for a single Trust Board at Chorley and South Ribble and Preston hospitals before the consultation period on the proposed merger has been completed; [40684]

  (2) when he expects to announce the conclusion of the consultation on the proposed merger of Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust and Preston Acute Hospital NHS Trust. [40683]

  Ms Blears
  An announcement on the proposed merger will be made in due course.

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is towards social services departments being charged by the NHS for people who remain in hospital after being medically discharged. [42599]

  Jacqui Smith
  The current policy is that councils with social services responsibilities, are not charged by the national health service for people who remain in hospital after being medically discharged.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with suppliers of 1144W
  digital hearing aids to provide a cost effective expansion of the delivery of the technology to the deaf and hard of hearing. [36963]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: Officials in the National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency have held discussions with a majority of suppliers of digital hearing aids, as part of a supplier evaluation exercise. The discussions centred around supply chain issues, production facilities, quality control, capacity and flexibility. No conclusions have yet been reached.

  The Royal National Institute for the Deaf is managing the Modernising Hearing Aid Services project on behalf of the Department. The other bodies involved in this project are the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, and the Medical Research Council/Institute of Hearing Research.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions since 1 May 1997(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; and if he will list the total cost, including (i) travel, (ii) accommodation and (iii) subsistence allowance, for each occasion. [37979]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: Special advisers in the Department did not travel abroad in an official capacity in the period 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001. Information relating to the period from May 1997 was given in the reply to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on 5 July 1999, Official Report, column 393W. All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code, and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Commission for Health Improvement
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to merge the National Care Standards Commission and the Commission for Health Improvement. [38677]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: We have said that there should be closer working, and over time, organisational integration between the National Care Standards Commission, the Commission for Health Improvement, and other bodies so that health and social care services are subject to a common set of standards whether they are provided by public, private or voluntary sector organisations.

  We will take further steps at the earliest opportunity to rationalise the number of bodies inspecting and regulating health and social care.

  Asthma
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the needs of children with asthma will be included in the National Service Framework for Children; and if he will make a statement. [38505]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: We are currently in the process of clarifying the precise scope of the Children's National Service Framework (NSF).

  1145W
  This NSF will look at all aspects of children's health and development; it will not consider every disease and condition but will concentrate on generic standards.

  We have decided that the NSF should set out exemplars to show how national standards should apply in particular areas. We have already announced that autism will be one. Asthma will be another. Exemplars will be used to illustrate how the standards should be applied to ensure that services delivered to children are effective and meet their needs.

  MRSA
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his latest assessment is of the number of deaths caused in hospitals in England and Wales last year by MRSA superbug infections. [39211]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 February 2002, Official Report, column 1087W.

  Liverpool Royal Children's Hospital
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consider placing a memorial at Liverpool Royal Children's Hospital to children whose parts were retained. [39693]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer Friday 1 March 2002]: We believe this matter should be discussed locally between hospital staff and families affected by organ retention.

  However, the Retained Organs Commission are happy to discuss with parents any views on this that they have.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 23 October 2001, 29 November 2001, 2 January and 26 February, relating to correspondence about Zyban from her constituent, Mr. Edward Weston of Broxbourne. [39435]

  Waiting times for first outpatient appointment, Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  Of those GP written referrals seen, the number who waited (in weeks)

  Patients still waiting

  Quarter/Speciality

  Number of GP written referral requests seen

  0 to 3

  4 to 12

  13 to 25

  26 plus

  Over 13 weeks

  Over 26 weeks

  September 2001 Orthodontics

  37

  8

  4

  8

  17

  65

  4

  December 2001 Orthodontics

  75

  7

  11

  32

  25

  28

  16

  Note:

  This information is not collected by age.

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08

  Medical Tests
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities are available in(a) the Brighton Healthcare NHS Trust and (b) the Worthing-Southlands
  1146W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: A reply was sent on 1 March 2002.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the change in costs incurred by the NHS as a result of the introduction of the climate change levy. [38587]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The estimated cost of the climate change levy, paid by the national health service on national contracts, is almost £24.5 million inclusive of VAT.

  The effects of the climate change levy were designed to be offset by a reduction in the employers national insurance contributions.

  Orthodontists (Mid-Essex Hospital Trust)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children and young people under the age of 18 years have been waiting for(a) an out-patient and (b) an in-patient appointment with an orthodontist in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area; [38356]

  (2) how many children and young people under the age of 18 years have been waiting: (a) under six months, (b) over six months but under one year, (c) over one year but under 18 months, (d) over two years, (e) over three years and (f) over four years for an in-patient appointment with an orthodontist in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area; [38358]

  (3) how many children and young people under the age of 18 years have been waiting: (a) under 13 weeks, (b) over 13 weeks and under one year, (c) over one year and (d) over two years or more for an out-patient appointment to see an orthodontist in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area. [38357]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The total number of patients waiting for a first out-patient appointment for orthodontics at Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust is shown in the table.

  NHS Trust to administer (i) Indium III octreotide imaging, (ii) fasting gut hormone profile, (iii) plasma chromogranin test, and (iv) 5HIAA urine tests; and how many such tests have been carried out there in the last 12 months. [42213]
  1147W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Details of the facilities available on each site and the number of tests carried out are not collected centrally.

  Overseas Treatment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which commercial agencies have been used for matching NHS patients with treatment centres on the continent; and what the basis is of their remuneration. [42268]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: GerMedic GmBh, a German company, has arranged treatment for patients from the south-east pilot scheme in two German hospitals. The NHS has negotiated with the organisation an overall price for the packages of treatment needed by patients, from which GerMedic will receive remuneration. The prices are commercially confidential.

  Air Ambulances
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the areas of the country(a) which have been supported by an air ambulance service in the last 12 months, (b) which are currently supported and (c) where services are planned in the near future. [41494]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 March 2002]: There are currently 12 charitably funded air ambulance services operating in England. These are:

  Cornwall

  Kent

  West Midlands

  Devon

  North East England

  Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire

  Essex

  North West England

  Thames Valley

  Dorset and Somerset

  West Yorkshire

  East Anglia.

  In addition, the helicopter emergency medical service covers London within the M25 motorway. There are also helicopter air ambulance services provided in the form of joint operations with the police in both Sussex and Wiltshire.

  The charities are responsible for the number of aircraft provided.

  Information Technology
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the budget for IT in the NHS in each of the last five years. [42290]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]There is not a specific budget for information technology investment. The majority of costs are met from the baseline allocations made via health authorities. Health communities then make their investment decisions based on local priority. These investments are not aggregated at a national level but have been estimated at £800 million per year—this estimate includes a very broad spectrum of costs including maintenance of finance and other administrative systems.
  1148W
  Some new funds have been made available for specific targeted information management and technology developments—£113 million was hypothecated in 2001–02 and £82 million for 2002–03. These sums revert to baseline after one year.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contracts his Department has placed in the last two years or expects to place in the next two years for IT improvements in the NHS; and with which providers. [42291]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Separate figures for IT improvements are not collated. The Department and the national health service organise contracts in such a way as to obtain both value for money and maintain local choice where appropriate. There are national contracts for major national infrastructure, central catalogue arrangements for mature products, and local procurements for many specific items, which need to be integrated with existing systems.

  Cancer Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to respond to the Audit Commission/CHI report on cancer care in England and Wales. [42285]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The Audit Commission and Commission for Health Improvement report provides a useful baseline to assess cancer services at the time of the publication of the Cancer Plan. In December last year, we published The "NHS Cancer Plan—Making Progress", which sets out the action and achievements made in the first year following the publication of the NHS Cancer Plan.

  Drug Addicts
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average waiting time for treatment for drug addicts in(a) the last 12 months and (b) each of the previous five years. [12279]

  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.

  We do not hold figures for the years in question.

  However, the National Treatment Agency (NTA) set targets for waiting times in December 2001 (see table) and asked Drug Action Teams (DATS) to notify the NTA of their current situation and the targets they are setting for this year. NTA regional managers will be working with DATS to identify a realistic workplan for them to achieve the targets over the next two years. The NTA is planning to initiate work with the NHS modernisation agency to work with the worst performers to identify shortcomings in their systems, structures and approach which are inhibiting improvement.

  The NTA will be issuing guidance in March 2002 to all DATs on setting maximum waiting times for services for 2002–03.
  1149W

  Average baseline waiting time (weeks) 1999–20001

  NTA Maximum waiting times (weeks) 2002–03

  NTA Maximum waiting times (weeks) 2003–04

  In-patient detox

  6.1

  4

  2

  Community prescribing—specialist

  10.2

  6

  3

  Community prescribing—GPs

  5

  4

  2

  Structured counselling

  4

  4

  2

  Structured day care programme

  3.3

  4

  3

  Residential rehab

  5.4

  4

  3

  1 Based on average waiting times reported by DATs in 1999–2000 annual reports.

  Note:

  1 week = five working days.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W, on parliamentary questions, what changes he has made to the system for ministerial responsibility for answering questions, with special reference to clearing the backlog of unanswered questions. [42908]

  Mr. Milburn
  Subject to a final audit against the Official Report, all outstanding questions that were due for reply by the Department before 14 February have now received responses. Since 5 March we have received 453 parliamentary questions and answered over 700.

  The investigation into the circumstances of the apparent systematic falsification of the record management system in the parliamentary section is under way; and I will report to Parliament on the outcome as soon as possible.

  Remuneration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of individuals in his(a) Department, (b) related agencies and (c) related non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000 and (ii) £200,000 in each of the last four years. [26313]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The information requested about the Department and its agencies is shown in the table.

  (i) £100,000

  Year

  (a) Department

  (b) Agencies

  1998

  1—

  2—

  1999

  23

  2—

  2000

  27

  1

  2001

  11

  1

  1 Statistics at this level are not recorded.

  2 Separate figures for the agencies are not recorded.

  Source:

  Cabinet Office staff in post as at 1 April annual returns.

  (ii) £200,000 plus current salaries do not exceed this level.
  1150W
  The information for non-departmental public bodies is available in the annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies", copies of which are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Temporary Nursing Staff
  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.

  Transplant Centre (Glasgow)
  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]

  Mr. Hutton
  [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.

  Discussions have taken place with the Scottish Executive and they are participating in the work to develop national standards for the service.

  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.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of registered small businesses were located in rural areas in
  1151W
  each year since 1990; and how many of those small businesses were (a) farming-related and (b) non-farming related. [40817]

  Alun Michael
  The earliest year for which information is available is 1994. Information on 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999 is not readily available.

  1994–35 per cent. of all VAT registered businesses are in rural districts/unitaries

  (a) 84,180 are in the agriculture and fishing sector (SIC19921)

  (b) 400,315 are in other sectors.

  1997–35 per cent. of all VAT registered businesses are in rural districts/unitaries

  (a) 80,000 are in the agriculture and fishing sector (SIC19921)

  (b) 391075 are in other sectors.

  2000–34 per cent. of all VAT registered businesses are in rural districts/unitaries

  (a) 76,995 are in the agriculture and fishing sector (SIC1992')

  (b) 405,915 are in other sectors.

  2001–34 per cent. of all VAT registered businesses are in rural districts/unitaries

  (a) 76,906 are in the agriculture and fishing sector (SIC1992')

  (b) 409,560 are in other sectors.

  1 Nearest Farming related category as listed in the Standard Industrial Classification 1992.

  Notes:

  1. Rural areas are defined as the rural local authority districts and unitary authorities as classified by the Rural Development Commission and currently used by the Countryside Agency.

  2. As 99 per cent. of all businesses in rural areas are "small" i.e. less than 50 employees, the figure for all businesses is provided. Sources: District/Unitary data from IDBR via NOMIS Ward level data from ONS Neighbourhood Stats website from IDBR.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of people were employed in rural areas by registered small businesses in each year since 1990; and how many of those employed worked in(a) farming-related and (b) non-farming related jobs. [40816]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested is not available from DEFRA sources. We are consulting the Office for National Statistics to see whether any figures can be produced.

  Refrigerators
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will provide further financial assistance for local authorities for the storage of fridges for the period January to March; [41361]

  (2) when she will announce the financial assistance to be given to local authorities for the storage of refrigerators from April 2002; and if she will make a statement. [41360]

  Mr. Meacher
  In early December, I announced a payment of £6 million to cover local authority costs from January to March 2002. This payment will be made through the Revenue Support Grant for 2002/2003 and will be distributed to waste disposal authorities according to the Standard Spending Assessment Formula. We are monitoring the impact of the Regulation and assessing what further action is required.
  1152W
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's understanding of paragraph 14 of the recitals to EC Regulation 2037/2000 as agreed on 29 June 2000. [38871]

  Mr. Meacher
  Paragraph 14 of the recitals to EC Regulation 2037/2000 states,"Provision should be made for the recovery of used controlled substances, and to prevent leakages of controlled substances."

  Article 16 of the Regulation deals with the,
  "Recovery of used controlled substances"

  and Article 17, "Leakages of controlled substances".

  According to the clarification finally given of Article 16(2), it applies to the recovery of controlled substances in domestic refrigeration, used either as the refrigerant or to blow the insulating foam. Thus, the UK's understanding is that the provision referred to in paragraph 14 of the recitals relates inter alia to recovery from refrigeration insulating foam.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the statement of the Minister for the Environment of 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 414, how the figure of £6 million was reached. [35923]

  Mr. Meacher
  This figure was based on early estimates of the costs that local authorities would have for storage in the period January to March 2002. However, we are monitoring developments and shall continue to assess the impacts of the Regulation to determine what further action is required beyond that.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about meetings between her Department and Commissioner Wallstrom on the impact of the directive on disposal of refrigerators. [40298]

  Mr. Meacher
  I discussed EC Regulation 2037/2000 and its impact on the disposal of refrigerators on the telephone with Commissioner Wallstrom on 4 February.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed EC Regulation 2037/2000 and its impact on the disposal of refrigerators with Commissioner Wallstrom in the margins of the Environment Council meeting on 4 March.

  There have been numerous meetings between my officials and those from the European Commission where this issue was discussed. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 6 February 2002, Official Report, column 989w.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will issue guidance to departmental procurement officers indicating the Government's preference for using not-in-kind refrigerants where they are safe and do not entail excessive costs. [41181]

  Mr. Meacher
  My officials recently reminded Departments of the Government's preference for using refrigerants with the lowest global warming potential. This guidance is currently available in publications such as the "Green Guide for Buyers" which is on the Greening
  1153W
  Government website. The advice is to avoid procuring products containing or manufactured with gaseous and non-gaseous substances that contribute to climate change by specifying more environmentally acceptable alternatives where it is safe, cost-effective and technically feasible to do so.

  Community Service Fund
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many applications have been made for assistance from the Community Service Fund, broken down by county, for the provision of(a) village shops and (b) pubs; [41445]

  Community services grant information

  Region

  Number of applications

  Number of projects

  Number of payments

  £

  North East

  22

  13

  20

  66,981,77

  North West

  31

  9

  10

  80,815.6

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  35

  18

  25

  82,758.54

  East Midlands

  54

  25

  26

  103,241.63

  West Midlands

  55

  42

  75

  276,073.05

  East of England

  62

  49

  55

  258,508.91

  South East and London

  65

  38

  37

  169,159,96

  South West

  76

  39

  51

  189,291.01

  Total

  400

  233

  299

  1,226,830.47

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the change in combined heat and power output since the introduction of the new electricity trading arrangement. [42530]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: NETA is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, the report by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, Report to DTI on the Review of the Initial Impact of NETA on Smaller Generators, issued in August, indicated that the export of power from CHP has reduced by around 60% compared with a year previously. The Government have consulted on their response to Ofgem's report and will publish their response shortly.

  Litter and Graffiti
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what statistics are collated to quantify the amount of(a) litter and (b) graffiti by local authority area. [42241]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department does not collate statistics quantifying the amount of (a) litter and (b) graffiti by local authority area.

  Drinking Water
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been undertaken in respect of access throughout the working day to drinking water. [42678]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive has not undertaken research in respect to the provision and access of drinking water throughout the day in the workplace.
  1154W
  (2) how many payments have been made from the Community Service Fund, broken down by county, for the provision of (a) village shops and (b) pubs; and what the total sum has been paid out to date. [41444]

  Alun Michael
  This information is not currently available in the detail requested at county level. I understand that the information should be available through the Countryside Agency's website at the end of March.

  The table gives the information immediately available on the number of applications, payments and projects by region.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the estimated cost to the tourist industry is of(a) the events of 11 September and (b) foot and mouth; and if she will make a statement. [38835]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: It is estimated that foot and mouth disease caused direct losses to the tourism industry during the months of March-August 2001 of between £2.7 billion and £3.2 billion in terms of value added.

  Visitor expenditure from overseas residents fell by £1.8 billion in 2001, compared to 2000. This downturn is mainly attributable to the impact of foot and mouth disease, the events of 11 September and current global economic conditions.

  The impact across the country has been mixed and there are signs that we are now in the early stages of a recovery.

  English Heritage Sites
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what her estimate is of the annual cost to English Heritage of allowing free access to English Heritage sites for(a) under 16s and students, (b) pensioners and (c) all visitors; [39698]

  (2) what her estimate is of the annual cost to (a) the Government and (b) English Heritage allowing free access to English Heritage sites for (i) under 16s and students, (ii) pensioners and (iii) all visitors. [39697]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: Some 70 per cent. of English Heritage sites are already free to all visitors. In addition, over half a million children, students and teachers enjoy free admission to English Heritage sites on education visits. English Heritage

  1155W
  estimate that extending free admission to all groups of young people would cost them £650,000 a year. Following the publication of The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future, we are considering, together with all relevant bodies, how the principle of free access for children might be extended to the historic environment sector. There are no plans at this stage to extend this to other groups of visitors.

  Film Production
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the Government are doing to encourage film production companies in the north-east. [40631]

  Dr. Howells
  The Film Council has undertaken a major initiative to increase the level of film activity in England under its England-wide Strategy. The most significant development within the north-east in response has been the creation of Northern Film and Media (NFM), which has developed a strategy for film in the region for the first time. Whilst NFM is responsible for activity right across the spectrum of film—exhibition and education as well as production—it is already dedicating substantial effort to supporting production companies and film making within the region. NFM also acts as a conduit between film makers in the north-east and Film Council-run film production funds and is expected to increase the take-up of these funds by north-east companies and individuals. In the next financial year NFM will directly invest over £1.1 million in the development of people, companies and projects in the north-east.

  External Contracts
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many contracts were let by her Department, and agencies for which she is responsible, with external companies and organisations in the calendar years(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating the (i) names of the companies and organisations involved and (ii) remuneration made in each case. [40824]

  Dr. Howells
  The details listed relate to contracts arranged by the Department's procurement team. Details of contract value are not currently held on the team's database and this information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Contracts of amounts below £5,000 are usually handled by individual divisions and there is no central record kept of these contracts.

  Year

  1997

  North London Universith

  HeriotWatt University

  Francis Carnwath

  AEA Consultants

  Tourism Research Group

  North London University (CELTS)

  Civil Service College

  Gartner Group

  Hornagold and Hills

  Barclay Simpson

  Stephanie Greenwood

  A. A. Barnes

  Alliance Paper Group

  Euro Log Limited

  1156W

  Year

  J. Walter Thompson

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Mary Bustin

  Anthony Pender

  Merrell Holberton

  Chessington CC

  1998

  Pay and Personnel Agy

  JFM Moving Services

  Throwers

  Courtauld Institute

  Portman Travel

  Richard Girling

  CLA

  Dr. P. Johnson

  Kroll Associates

  British Library RIC

  Hurst Interior Ctts

  Institute of Public Finance

  Saxton Bampfylde

  Dudley Stationery Ltd.

  Roy Tutty Associates

  Angela Jackson

  Belmont Press

  Yale Press Ltd.

  Ancient House Press

  Colibri Press Ltd.

  Taylor Bloxham

  BSC Print Ltd.

  SRU Ltd.

  COI

  Nelsons

  SCPR

  Neil Watson

  Goddard Kay Rogers

  North London University-CELTS

  Paul Passemard

  EC Harris

  EC Harris

  Sykes and Sons Ltd.

  CAPITA/RAS

  CAPITA/RAS

  Geoff Broom Assoc

  T/A Quest

  Insight

  Sara John

  Sky Photo Services

  CAPITA/RAS

  Rebecca Hawkins

  John Myerscough

  Policy Studies Institute

  Institute of Public Finance

  Paymaster

  Bill Wilkinson

  City Despatch Service

  Nightspeed Services

  Key Training Ltd.

  Key Training Ltd.

  Inde Theatre Council

  Jane Leighton

  Chessington CS

  Lloyds Bank Ltd.

  London Economics

  IPF Ltd.

  NB Selection Ltd.

  Leisure Futures Ltd.

  Rebecca Hawkins

  1999

  Chessington CS

  nmc & kay

  Computer Cab

  Durham University

  Olsberg/SPI

  Deloitte and Touche

  John Stephens

  1157W

  Year

  Watts and Partners

  Josephine Sammons

  WSP

  CAG

  Sheffield Hallam Uni

  KPMG

  Durham University

  Sara John

  Mori

  British Screen Advisory Council

  Jura Consultants

  Neil Jackson

  Sheffield Hallam

  Brann Interactive

  Chessington

  Bridge Media

  Birkbeck College

  The Industrial Soc.

  The Development Partnership

  PKF

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  A. J. Kearney

  Felicity Woolf

  Keith Spencer

  Lloyds TSB

  Children's Play Policy Forum

  SPRITO

  Children's Play Council

  National Children's Bureau

  Spectrum

  PWC

  2000

  Right Management

  Brian Farrington

  Arts Metier

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  BIP

  Cubitt Theobald

  ORC International

  Xerox (UK) Limited

  Pannel Kerr Forster

  David Beeton

  City University

  Domino Consultants

  The Learning Laboratory

  2001

  University of North London

  Durham University

  Charles Leadbeater

  Organica

  OLSWANG

  Stewart Signs

  DTZ Pieda

  Karolyn Cooper

  SRU Limited

  Eurest

  Tim Mason

  Business Strategies

  PUK

  ORC International

  R. Whish

  SRU Limited

  MORI

  D. Farr

  SE/YST/BST

  Euclid

  TSO

  2002

  Royal Mint

  University of Limerick

  Nottingham Trent University

  Robert Palmer

  Kingshurst Consulting Group

  World Heritage Sites
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to increase Government support for United Kingdom World Heritage sites. [41429]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government take their responsibilities for this country's World Heritage Sites very seriously. This was reflected in the Government's statement, The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future (AFFOF), published on 13 December 2001, which included a commitment to complete management plans for all of England's current World Heritage Sites by the end of this year. We plan to publish an implementation plan to take forward the AFFOF agenda, including this commitment, shortly.

  AFFOF followed on from the publication on 12 December 2001 of a Green Paper on the effectiveness of the existing planning system. This Paper is providing an opportunity for representations to be made on how best to safeguard the future of our World Heritage Sites through that system.

  The management teams at our World Heritage Sites are, of course, eligible to apply for English Heritage and heritage lottery fund grants in the usual way.

  Golden Jubilee Medal
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (i) if she will make it her policy that The Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal should be awarded to serving members of the Prison Service; [41643]

  (2) if she will list the categories of people who will be entitled to be awarded the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal; [41453]

  (3) what plans she has to extend the categories of those who will be entitled to receive the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal; and if she will make a statement. [41454]

  Tessa Jowell
  The medal is being issued to serving members of the armed forces and Royal Fleet Auxiliary and to the '999' emergency services. Eligibility is restricted to those who completed a minimum of five years' reckonable service on 6 February 2002—the 50th anniversary of the Queen's Accession. The detailed criteria for distribution are being worked out. The Prison Service is not an emergency service and therefore does not come within the criteria for the issue of the medal.

  Swimming Pools
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many swimming pools there are in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) coalfield constituencies. [41809]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have contacted the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Sport England to request the information required, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Lottery Bids
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many lottery bids were made from coalfield constituencies in the last 12 months; and what the United Kingdom average is. [41826]
  1159W
  Mr. Caborn
  Comprehensive information on applications for lottery grants is not centrally held at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). However, research commissioned from Sheffield Hallam University by DCMS and Lottery distributors, which was published in 1999, found that coalfield areas had generated 2.5 fewer applications per 10,000 people than the national average.

  Royal Institute of British Architects
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when her Department last met the Royal Institute of British Architects; and if she will make a statement. [41961]

  Dr. Howells
  Ministers and officials in my Department hold regular meetings with the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts met officials from RIBA on 11 October 2001.

  Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when her Department last met the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment; and if she will make a statement. [41955]

  Dr. Howells
  Ministers and officials in my Department hold regular meetings with the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE). On 30 January 2002, officials attended a formal meeting which included most Commissioners. Less formal meetings between officials and CABE have taken place since. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the Chairman and Chief Executive of CABE on 20 November 2001.

  New Radio Stations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what regulations govern introduction of new radio stations. [41369]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The framework for independent radio licensing is contained in the Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996, which set out the broad procedures which the Radio Authority must follow when advertising and awarding licences. The legislation includes general provisions for the authority to do all it can to secure a range and diversity of services, calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests. In awarding individual local licences, the authority also has to consider how far the service would broaden the range of programmes available in the area by way of independent local radio services and, in particular, serve tastes and interests not already provided for.

  In respect of the BBC, they must apply to the Secretary of State for any new radio services. The Secretary of State will then assess any proposal against the criteria set out in the public service approvals guidelines. These include distinctiveness (in programming and content) of the proposed BBC service from those provided by other broadcasters.

  Non-Governmental Organisations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2002,Official Report, column 1633W, on non-Governmental organisations, what information he collates on the funding of non-Governmental organisations by his Department, with particular reference to those operating on a regional level; and if he will make a statement. [42541]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department funds a large number of non-departmental public bodies which may in turn decide to pass on some of their allocation to non-governmental organisations. This information is not collated by my Department.

DEFENCE

  Training
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to(a) increase the number of training areas and (b) sell training areas. [41315]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no plans to increase the total number of training areas, although, where appropriate, purchases may be made to augment existing sites if suitable land comes on to the market. Equally, the Department will dispose of land for which it no longer has a use.

  As a general policy the size of the defence estate is kept under constant review. The Ministry of Defence is currently undertaking a study to identify its core sites. This study includes the training areas.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military training areas there are in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales, (c) England and (d) Northern Ireland. [41314]

  Dr. Moonie
  Excluding areas that are ranges only, the numbers of military training areas in the UK are as follows:

  (a) Scotland—18

  (b) Wales—9

  (c) England—95

  (d) Northern Ireland—2.

  The terms of the land holdings comprise a mixture of freehold, leasehold and training rights licences.

  The number of areas which are ranges only are:

  (a) Scotland—9

  (b) Wales—7

  (c) England—22

  (d) Northern Ireland—2.

  War Pensions
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what he estimates the cost of war pensions will be in each of the next 20 years. [42218]

  Dr. Moonie
  The cost of war pensions can be estimated only up to Financial Year 2006–07 and is set out in the table.
  1161W

  £ billion

  2002–03

  1.186

  2003–04

  1.148

  2004–05

  1.118

  2005–06

  1.085

  2006–07

  1.046

  Gripen Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work has been done to evaluate the Gripen aircraft; when it was completed; if the result of the evaluation is available; and if he will make a statement. [36950]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Gripen aircraft was evaluated as part of a Combined Operational Effectiveness and Investment Appraisal (COEIA), completed in 1996, in connection with the Eurofighter programme. Whilst Gripen is an excellent aircraft, our studies confirmed that Eurofighter is the most cost-effective option to meet the Royal Air Force's currently assessed future needs. However, the detailed results of the COEIA contain classified information, the release of which could compromise Royal Air Force operations. I am therefore withholding it in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, Security, and International Relations) of the code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [37510]

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

  Halliburton Brown and Root (Contracts)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts he has with Halliburton Brown and Root; and what the total value is of such contracts. [37828]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence currently has no direct contracts with Halliburton Brown and Root (HB&R). However, HB&R, as part of consortia, are involved in the ongoing contracts with Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited, and BRAMA, which runs the Multi-Activity Contract at RAF Valley for support Hawk Aircraft. HB&R also lead the FASTTRAX consortium which was awarded the £290 million Heavy Equipment Transporter Private Finance Initiative contract in December 2001.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the extent of the gender pay gap amongst staff in his Department. [40999]

  Dr. Moonie
  In response to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) Task Force 'Just Pay' report, the Government have committed Departments and agencies 1162W
  to review their pay systems by April 2003 and prepare action plans to close any equal pay gaps. The Cabinet Office issued comprehensive guidance in January 2002 to assist Departments and agencies in carrying out these reviews. This work is currently underway in the Ministry of Defence.

  Multi-role Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the(a) estimated total project cost of, (b) total expenditure to date and (c) planned expenditure in each of the next three years on the multi-role armoured vehicle project. [42258]

  Dr. Moonie
  The total estimated procurement cost of the multi-role armoured vehicle is expected to exceed £1 billion. Expenditure to date amounts to some £20 million. I am withholding the information requested on planned expenditure for each of the next three years in accordance with Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Advanced Air-launched Anti-armour Weapon
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the(a) estimated total project cost, (b) total expenditure to date and (c) planned expenditure for each of the next three years on the advanced air-launched anti-armour weapon project. [42259]

  Dr. Moonie
  The advanced air-launched anti-armour weapon project, BRIMSTONE, has approval to spend up to £849 million, but is currently forecast to spend some £809 million. Expenditure to the end of January 2002 is some £360 million. I am withholding information about planned expenditure for each of the next three years in accordance with Exemption 2 of the code of Practice on Access to Government Information which relates to internal discussion and advice.

  Balkans
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security situation in(a) Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and (b) Kosovo. [41899]

  Mr. Ingram
  In Macedonia the continued implementation of the August 2001 Framework Agreement has greatly reduced the potential for violence. We continue to call on all sides to maintain the restraint that they have shown since the agreement was signed. The two NATO-led Task Forces, Harvest and Fox, have made major contributions to restoring stability in Macedonia.

  The security situation in Kosovo is generally improving. But organised crime and extremism remain significant problems and tackling them is a high priority for both the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and KFOR. We continue to impress on leaders from all sections of the community the importance of tolerance and participation in the democratic process in Kosovo.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will investigate the running and control in QinetiQ in respect of weapon handling. [41879]
  1163W
  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently no plans to investigate the running and control in QinetiQ in respect of weapon handling.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what interest the management of QinetiQ are permitted to hold in the shares of QinetiQ. [42346]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: At present, all QinetiQ shares are held by the Ministry of Defence on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Any future share scheme will be subject to our negotiations with potential strategic partners. The MOD is committed to ensuring all staff, not just senior management, can participate in such a scheme.

  A key principle of any scheme will be to gear benefits to a rise in value of QinetiQ, thus incentivising staff, and increasing the value to the taxpayer.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assets, business and shareholdings not previously owned by the Government have been acquired by QinetiQ. [42336]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Acquisitions by QinetiQ and other such operational activities are a matter for the company and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member directly.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions exist to stop QinetiQ gaining access to classified information after it has been transferred to the private sector that is not available to other companies. [42349]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Prior to the vesting of QinetiQ as a plc on 1 July 2001, an extensive exercise was undertaken to ensure that any Government-only information was removed from the company. QinetiQ will only be given access to that Government information necessary for it to carry out tasks for Ministry of Defence customers on same basis as any other MOD supplier.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he proposes to maintain a separation of work conducted by the Defence Science and Technical laboratory on behalf of(a) QinetiQ following its transfer to the private sector and (b) his Department. [42342]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: A set of guidelines has been drawn up which define those circumstances in which Dstl will take on work other than for Government. These apply equally whether the work is done for QinetiQ or any other commercial organisation. Any work carried out for any non-government customer, including the supply of services, goods, products or intellectual property, will be undertaken only with the authority of Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil service jobs will be taken over by private consultants as a result of the transfer of parts of DERA to the private sector; how many public sector redundancies there will be; what the cost of those redundancies will be; and who will bear the costs of those redundancies. [42343]
  1164W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: On 1 July 2001, 8,720 DERA staff transferred to QinetiQ plc, and therefore ceased at that point to be civil servants. No other transfers from the public sector are currently envisaged as part of the PPP.

  No redundancies are directly attributable to the transfer of staff to QinetiQ.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who the shareholders in QinetiQ are; and who has rights to acquire shares in QinetiQ. [42345]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: All the shares in QinetiQ are held by Ministry of Defence, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and currently no one else has the right to acquire shares. We will go through competitive process to identify by summer 2002 a preferred bidder for a proportion of the equity in QinetiQ.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the main contractors bidding for work from the Defence and Science Technical Laboratory and QinetiQ. [42348]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: At any one time there is an extremely broad range of commercial concerns and academia bidding for work generated by the requirements of Dstl and QinetiQ. It is not possible to actually predict who will be bidding for work from the two organisations given the wide nature of work that they would be seeking to subcontract.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what he estimates will be the total proceeds of sale of shares in QinetiQ to the private sector. [42341]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: It is premature to speculate at this stage on the potential value of the QinetiQ transaction, and to do so would undermine our negotiating position with potential investors. Our priority is to seek to maximise value to the taxpayer.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to allow former DERA properties to be developed for(a) housing and (b) commercial development outside the normal business of QinetiQ. [42347]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 May 2000, Official Report, columns 319W–20W, detailing DERA's future estate redevelopment and disposal plans. At that time four sites, Chertsey, Bromley (Aquilla), West Drayton and Farnborough Queens site, were identified by DERA as becoming surplus as part of their continuous estate review process. Prior to the vesting of QinetiQ on 1 July 2001 only Farnborough Queens site was sold, although part of the site is leased back by QinetiQ. Information relating to the business plans of QinetiQ plc is commercial in confidence and therefore details of current property redevelopment and disposal plans is being withheld under exemption 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to issue shares in QinetiQ on a recognised stock exchange. [42350]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: As I announced on 6 March 2002, Official Report, columns 313–14W, the initial transaction involves the sale

  1165W
  of a proportion of the shares in QinetiQ to a strategic investor, with a flotation of the remaining stake as a possible exit route in two to four years. Detailed planning for this would obviously take place nearer the time.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) real estate properties and (b) intellectual property rights that the Government have transferred or plan to transfer to QinetiQ, indicating (i) how each property has been valued, (ii) if he plans to make such transfers at full market value and (iii) what arrangements there will be to claw back increases in the value of such properties. [42344]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The information is as follows:

  (a) The real estate properties transferred to QinetiQ are listed:

  List of QinetiQ owned sites

  Name

  Location

  Size1

  Aberporth

  Aberporth, Ceredigion

  48

  Alverstoke

  Gosport, Hampshire

  9

  Angle

  Pembrokeshire

  19

  Aquila

  Bromley, Kent

  10

  Bedford Enclave

  Clapham, Bedford

  6

  Bedford Tunnels

  Clapham, Bedford

  35

  Bedford Twinwoods

  Clapham, Bedford

  21

  Bincleaves

  Weymouth, Dorset

  3

  Chertsey

  Chertsey, Surrey

  121

  Christchurch2

  Christchurch, Dorset

  3

  Cobbet Hill

  Woking, Surrey

  76

  Farnborough Codey

  Farnborough, Hampshire

  149

  Fort Halstead

  Sevenoaks, Kent

  135

  Fraser

  Eastney, Portsmouth, Hampshire

  5

  Funtington North

  Chichester, West Sussex

  16

  Haslar2

  Gosport, Hampshire

  16

  Hum Main

  Bournemouth, East Dorset

  98

  Hum Barnsfield

  Bournemouth, East Dorset

  143

  Hum Saddleheath

  Bournemouth, East Dorset

  20

  Hutton Moor

  West Super Mare, North Somerset

  6

  Malvern Main Site

  Malvern, Worcester

  28

  Malvern Science Park

  Malvern, Worcester

  5

  Pershore

  Throckmorton, Worcester

  110

  Portsdown LBTS

  Portsmouth, Hampshire

  11

  Pyestock North

  Farnborough, Hampshire

  53

  Pyestock South

  Farnborough, Hampshire

  34

  West Drayton

  Heathrow, Middlesex

  2

  1 Approximate hectares

  2 These sites are a mixture of freehold and leased land.

  Note:

  Sizes are approximate and have been rounded.

  In addition QinetiQ are leaseholders at a number of other sites.

  (i) GVA Grimley, an independent professional valuation company, were engaged by DERA to perform a valuation exercise to determine the "fair value" of the property portfolio as at 30 June 2001. The methodology used for the valuation was:

  (a) Non-specialsed properties—existing use value

  (b) Specialised properties—depreciated replacement cost

  (c) Properties surplus to requirements—open market value

  (d) Properties held as investment—open market value.

  (ii) All properties were transferred to QinetiQ at the values calculated by GVA Grimley using the most appropriate methodology, as outlined in (i).
  1166W
  (iii) All sites where freehold or leasehold title has transferred to QinetiQ are subject to a clawback arrangement contractually agreed with the MOD. This limits QinetiQ's ability to make abnormal profits on disposal. The clawback agreement was based on the valuations conducted by GVA Grimley in 2001, with an allowance for inflation over the 12-year period of the agreement. It provides for MOD to share a proportion of any additional receipts above this value; this proportion starts at 50 per cent. and decreases gradually over the life of the agreement.

  This clawback agreement provides an appropriate balance between sharing future benefits from estate sales and incentivising the company to manage its assets efficiently.

  (b) Due to the volume involved, it is not possible to list all the Intellectual Property (IP) transferred to QinetiQ (e.g. over 3,000 patents that have been assigned to the company).

  The basic principal adopted was that QinetiQ should be put in the same position as any other defence contractor, i.e. where IP had been generated within that part of DERA that was to become QinetiQ then QinetiQ should own the IPR. As with the rest of industry, MOD retains free user rights where public money was used to create the IP.

  (i) and (ii) There was no valuation attributed to the IP at vesting as value will be realised within the value of future sales of MOD's shareholdings.

  (iii) IP clawback provision has not been provided in this PPP. This mirrors MOD policy, which is not to include any form of levy agreement when letting contracts for research and technology with other parts of industry, the reason for this being that in contrast to equipment it is virtually impossible to trace the research and technology that may have been used to generate future revenue. As a significant shareholder in QinetiQ for the next few years, we believe that the freedom and encouragement to exploit results commercially represents better overall value for money than pursuing a clawback arrangement where the extent of bureaucracy would be great and the potential returns difficult to obtain.

  Missiles
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the safety rules are for the use of missiles on beach ranges. [41876]

  Dr. Moonie
  All Ministry of Defence owned ranges operate under the regulatory system laid down in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 403. Each range will have a Supervising Authority that licenses the activities on the range and carries out regular inspections to ensure compliance with the current regulations.

  Each range has a set of Standing Operating Procedures that govern the implementation of the approved safety procedures for the firing of specified missiles on the range.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will hold an inquiry into the loss of missiles in the Bristol Channel. [41877]
  1167W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's Chief Inspector of Explosives is to conduct an internal Board of Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the loss of a pallet of munitions prepared for destruction at St. Thomas Head, Weston-super-Mare.

  Porton Down
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of the London Underground to carry out experiments on the release of substances originating from Porton Down; and if he will categorise those carried out. [41979]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: In 1963 and 1964 the former Microbiological Research Establishment at Porton Down carried out two defence trials in the London Underground to assess the risk from biological warfare.

  These trials involved dropping packages containing simulants for biological warfare agents from moving trains and then assessing how far they travelled and how long they survived.

  These defensive sabotage trials were carried out with the knowledge of the relevant Ministers of the day, the London Underground and the oversight of the Biological Research Advisory Board. The reports of the trials have been in the Public Record Office for several years and have been widely reported in the media.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the experiments conducted on the spread of bacterial spores by Porton Down; [41976]

  (2) how many experiments have been conducted by the Ministry of Defence into freeze-dried spores of the microbe Bacillus globigii; and of those, how many involved exposure of the microbe to the general public. [41977]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The Biology Department was formed at Porton Down in 1940 and since then there has been a continuous interest in the spread of micro-organisms, of which bacterial spores are the most hardy.

  Throughout the last 60 years there have been numerous experiments to assess the spread and transmission of bacterial spores. Many of these have been undertaken in the laboratory, some on the Porton Range, at sea and in other open areas.

  There is no definitive list of experiments and trials undertaken by the Ministry of Defence, Porton Down over the years to evaluate the spread of bacterial spores. The research undertaken at Porton Down to improve the UK's understanding of this issue is collated in the following report 'BW and BW Defence Field Trials Conducted by the UK: 1940–1979' by GB Carter. I will place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Government plans to release papers, previously due for release in 1995, held by the Public Records Office concerning experiments into Bacillus globigii spores; and if he will make a statement. [41978]
  1168W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Since the formation of the Biology Department at Porton Down in 1940 there have been numerous experiments to assess the spread and transmission of bacterial spores, many of which have involved the use of Bacillus globigii.

  At present staff are unable to identify the papers to which the hon. Member is referring. However, if he would like to elaborate on his request I will look into the matter.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the US Administration concerning the transfer of parts of DERA to the private sector; what concerns they raised; and how they will be resolved. [42339]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: As part of the DERA PPP consultation process, we had extensive contacts with and received representations from a wide range of organisations including the US and other Allies. I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Members for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on 6 March 2000, Official Report, column 484W, for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 18 May 2000, Official Report, column 205W) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on 22 June 2000, Official Report, column 241W, detailing these representations.

  On the completion of the Consultation exercise, the US indicated that they welcomed the changes made in response to their representations and those of other interested parties. Mr. Rudy de Leon, US Deputy Secretary for Defense, said
  "I welcome the new proposal, which I believe to be constructive and workable. Inevitably there are a number of detailed issues to be resolved during implementation, but I am confident that these can be addressed satisfactorily."

  During the separation process, we continued to work closely with all our international partners to ensure that they had confidence that the Ministry of Defence would be able to meet all of its obligations under international collaborative agreements. The arrangements put in place at the vesting of QinetiQ as a Plc on 1 July 2001 to ensure that international collaboration continued, are operating successfully.

  GR7 Aircraft
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of upgrading GR7 aircraft with new engines, electronics and weapons; whether the upgrade of GR7 includes marinisation of the aircraft; what the cost of marinisation programme will be; how many GR7 aircraft will marinised; and when the marinised Harriers will be in service. [41887]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Harrier GR7 fleet will undergo two upgrade programmes over the next few years. First, 30 aircraft will be upgraded to GR7a standard by the integration of the Pegasus Mk107 engine. This will provide improved performance, particularly for carrier borne operation. This programme is due to be completed by the end of 2005 at a total cost of approximately £150 million.
  1169W
  Secondly, all Harrier GR7 and GR7a aircraft will receive avionics and weapons upgrades to provide the aircraft with a much improved capability, in particular the ability to deliver the new generation of smart weapons that are about to enter service. These aircraft will be designated Harrier GR9 and GR9a. Although the detailed content of the GR9 programme and the associated procurement strategy have yet to be finalised, it is estimated that the total cost will be approximately £330 million, of which 75% relates to routine maintenance and modification work being undertaken concurrently with the upgrade to minimise costs.

  RAF Harrier GR7 aircraft have already successfully taken part in carrier operations. Studies to determine what further marinisation modifications will be necessary are being undertaken in addition to the Harrier GR9 upgrade programme.

  Explosives
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (i) if he will make a statement on the strategic implications of the decision by BAE to move manufacture of explosives abroad; [41818]

  (2) what his policy is on buying British made explosives for ordnance to be used on the battle field; [41815]

  (3) what powers he has to compel the continuation of explosive manufacturing in the United Kingdom. [41817]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 656W.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff were seconded between(a) PWC Consulting and PricewaterhouseCooper, (b) Ernst & Young, (c) Deloitte & Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen and his Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33873]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1266w.

  Advertising
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [37407]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 627W.
  1170W
  Information on spend per month or a breakdown between countries could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Bieh, Sudan
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the explosions at a UN World Food Programme compound in Bieh, Sudan on 21 February. [39552]

  Mr. MacShane
  We were deeply concerned about the attack by a Sudanese Government helicopter on an area next to a World Food Programme feeding station last month. It is our understanding that 18 people were killed and several others injured. This attack is particularly distressing at a time when hopes for peace in Sudan have been growing. Following the incident we made representations at a high level of the Sudanese Government, both in Khartoum and London, and asked the Sudanese Government for a full explanation.

  We were pleased to hear that following pressure from the US and UK, the Government of Sudan have signed an agreement with the US on monitoring of reports of attacks on civilians. We hope that this agreement will help to prevent such incidents happening in the future.

  We shall intensify our efforts to press all parties to the conflict on the need for a swift negotiated settlement in order to end the suffering caused by so many years of civil war.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [39917]

  Mr. MacShane
  Neither communications activities nor the sub-headings listed have individual budgets specifically allocated to them within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office accounting system. However it is possible to identify and extract expenditure on some of the listed categories through other budgets.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office expenditure on communications activities for financial years (FYs) 1997–98 to 2001–02 was as follows:

  £

  Financial years

  Expenditure on communications activities

  1997–98

  13,169,205

  1998–99

  11,565,330

  1999–2000

  12,788,979

  2000–01

  13,019,789

  2001–021

  11,578,385

  1 Estimated

  Note:

  The figures include UK expenditure only, on the following categories: press, public relations, marketing and internal communications; including overseas expenditure could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost. 2001–02 is the current financial year, an estimating final expenditure figure is provided.

  Overseas Territories (US Leases)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the territories leased for 99 years to the US Administration during World War II are due to be handed back at the end of this lease. [40669]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In what are now the Overseas Territories, there is one: the 1941 lease agreement regarding the former US bases on Bermuda. We are in discussion with the US Government about early termination of this agreement, following which the land in question will be available for alternative use by the Bermuda authorities.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) celebrations and (b) visits are taking place in connection with the 20th Anniversary of the Falklands War. [40668]

  Mr. MacShane
  Events are planned on the Falkland Islands for the 20th Anniversary of the Liberation of the Falklands on 14 June and for Remembrance Sunday on 10 November in a spirit of remembrance and reconciliation rather than celebration.

  The Secretary of State for Defence will visit the Falklands in March. The Minister for the armed forces will attend the June Liberation Day events as the representative of her Majesty's Government and his Royal Highness the Duke of York will attend the Remembrance Day events in November.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the contracts agreed by his Department with the five largest accountancy firms since May 1997; and what was the total value of contracts with each. [42109]

  Mr. MacShane
  Since May 1997 contracts have been awarded in connection with the projects listed below:

  Ernst and Young

  PFI construction of new Embassy in Berlin;

  Development of FCO Telecommunications Network;

  Advice on Vat issues (2 contracts).

  The total value of these contracts is £118,000

  KPMG

  Development and implementation of FCO's Information and

  Communications Technology Strategy;

  Development of PRISM, FCO's new financial and human resource system;

  Forecasting income from Consular Fees;

  Review of Financial Regulations in Overseas Territories. The total value of these contracts is £8.1 million.

  Pricewaterhouse Coopers

  FCO Telecommunications Network

  The value of this contract is £813,000.

  No contracts were awarded to Deloitte and Touche or Andersen during this period.

  Tibet
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of China regarding the prison sentence imposed on Ngawang Sangdrol for protesting against the occupation of Tibet; and if he will make a statement. [41910]

  Mr. MacShane
  We raised the case of Ngawang Sandrol with the Chinese authorities at the seventh round of the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue held in London on 19–21 November.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press the Government of China to disclose the whereabouts of the XIth Panchen Lama. [41911]

  Mr. MacShane
  Yes.

  European Union
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the development of the open method of coordination in the European Union. [42714]

  Peter Hain
  The Government see the open method of co-ordination as a useful element in the 'toolbox' of instruments for implementation of policy, to be applied on a case-by-case basis.

  In areas where there is little scope for legislative solutions, it can add value at a European level in the form of co-operation, benchmarking and the exchange of best practice. In others the open method may complement a programme-based and legislative approach.

  Colombia
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reports on Colombia presented to the Human Rights Commission by the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Human Rights Defenders and the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women. [42675]

  Mr. MacShane
  We welcome and support the presentation to the UN Commission on Human Rights of the reports on Colombia by Hina Jilani and Radhika Cooramaswamy, and will be looking at them closely. These reports and others will be taken carefully into account in the preparation of an EU chairman's statement on the situation in Colombia at the forthcoming 58th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to monitor the actions of the self-defence forces in Colombia against human rights organisations; and if he will make a statement. [42676]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British embassy in Bogota continues to monitor the situation in Colombia closely, and has regular meetings with human rights NGOs to discuss their concerns about the activities of paramilitary self-defence forces.
  1173W
  As the EU make clear in its statement of 22 February following the termination of the demilitarised zone, we reject and condemn the practice of kidnapping, extortion and other crimes committed by armed groups in Colombia.

  There can be no tolerance of the campaigns of violence and intimidation by any of the illegally armed groups in Colombia. Their murder and kidnap of elected politicians, trade union leaders, human rights defenders, aid workers and others is unacceptable. They must give up violence and the impunity of those who are involved in supporting their activities must be ended.

  I stressed these points when I spoke to Gustavo Bell, Colombian Vice-President and Minister for Defence, on 7 March.

  Madagascar
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the transparency and fairness of the presidential elections held in Madagascar on 16 December 2001; [41847]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the (a) economic and (b) political impact of the recent violence and instability in Madagascar on neighbouring countries on the African mainland; [41848]

  (3) what contacts the Government have had since 16 December 2001 with Mr. Ravalomanana, presidential candidate in the Madagascan elections of December 2001; [41849]

  (4) if he will list, by date, visits by Ministers from his Department to Madagascar since 1 January 2000; and what plans Ministers from his Department have to visit Madagascar in 2002; [41850]

  (5) what Her Majesty's Government's policy is towards the situation in Madagascar; and if he will make a statement; [41851]

  (6) what discussions the Government have had with President Ratsiraka since 16 December 2001 regarding the protests and violence in Madagascar. [41852]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK, along with its EU partners, the US, the Organisation of African Unity and the UN, continues to encourage the two parties in Madagascar, at both local and international level, to find a common solution to the current impasse over the result of the December presidential election. The UK ambassador in Antananarivo, along with other resident ambassadors, is following events closely and maintaining close contact with representatives of the two sides.

  In their draft report on the presidential election, and in a series of communiquél the consortium of independent election observers (which the UK part-funded) raised questions about the conduct of the elections, including their organisation, as well as their transparency and fairness. Because of the current volatile political situation, there has been no opportunity to examine these claims.

  The crisis in Madagascar has had no impact to date on its neighbouring countries, although there is growing concern among both regional and international investors about the long-term impact on the Madagascan economy
  1174W
  of the ongoing general strike. There were no UK ministerial visits to Madagascar in either 2000 or 2001, and there are no plans at present for visits during 2002.

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [36171]

  Mr. MacShane
  The separately identifiable expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the categories listed by the hon. Member was:

  Expenditure on each category1

  £

  Year

  Advertising

  Press and public relations

  Total

  1997–98

  59,391

  —

  59,391

  1998–99

  1,101,033

  16,844

  1,117,877

  1999–2000

  56,877

  —

  56,877

  2000–01

  53,249

  223,024

  276,273

  2000–022

  49,581

  65,142

  114,723

  1 In real terms

  2 To date

  The figures provided represent the expenditure of the FCO and not of Wilton Park, our only agency, or our 10 NDPBs; these details are not held centrally and could not therefore be ascertained without disproportionate effort and cost.

  The Government are committed to using only cost effective channels to deliver the publicity necessary to support policy implementation. Paid advertising is only resorted to after careful consideration of the cost benefits. The figures in the table include expenditure on consular publicity but exclude expenditure on advertising for recruitment; identifying this expenditure separately would entail disproportionate effort and cost. The advertising figure for 1998–99 includes £1 million spent on a consular advertising campaign in the run-up to the World Cup 1998 in France. The figures for press and public relations include expenditure on public relations firms as part of FCO information campaigns. In addition to the expenditure identified, there was minor additional expenditure in London and overseas in the years concerned. This cannot be ascertained without disproportionate effort and cost.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Domestic Violence
  Joan Ryan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the impact of the Children Act Sub-committee 'Guidelines for Good Practice on Parental Contact in Cases Where There Has Been Domestic Violence'. [43801]
  1175W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department promulgated the Guidelines during Spring 2001. A survey was carried out in the late autumn 2001 on the use and effectiveness of the guidelines. This has shown that they have been broadly well received and have resulted in a generally heightened focus on domestic violence issues. However, there are indications that awareness of the guidelines is patchy, and that more contact centres are needed. The Department is taking steps to address these issues. Copies of the analysis of the survey, including the action to be taken, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Census 1901
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement about the selection process employed to choose the server engine for the 1901 Census on-line service. [38539]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The 1901 Census Online Service contract was awarded by the Public Record Office to QinetiQ Ltd., after a full competitive tendering exercise. QinetiQ and its sub-contractors selected the server engine based on robustness and scalability.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the ISP bandwidth of the 1901 Census website was at the time it was suspended; and what the planned ISP bandwidth is after the programme of enhancements has been completed. [38556]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The original ISP bandwidth was shared between the Census Online service and other BT Ignite customers. QinetiQ Ltd. advise that a dedicated bandwidth (currently configured at 20Mbit/sec plus burst capability) is now in place which will avoid interference with other ISP customers when the service is re-launched onto general Internet access.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if all the errors detected in transcription during the checking of the computer transcriptions of the 1901 Census returns were corrected; and if she will make a statement. [38547]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  All errors detected in transcription during the editing of the computer transcriptions of the 1901 Census returns were corrected. The Census online system provides a facility through which any undetected errors may be notified to QinetiQ and, following verification by the Public Record Office, changes will be applied to the database periodically.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the pages of the computerised transcriptions of the 1901 Census returns were checked for errors. [38546]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Record Office and QinetiQ carried out independent quality assurance checks on a proportion of the electronic pages (images) on all reels of transcribed data. Each reel of data was subject to two checks. A 10 per cent. sample was checked for functionality and data integrity. If it was below the accuracy rate required it was reworked. A separate 2 per cent. sample of each reel was then checked for accuracy of transcription. If the reel failed this test, then the whole reel was checked. Out of 2,152 reels of data, 85 per cent. were subject to this full check.
  1176W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the budget allocated to cover the costs of checking the transcriptions onto computer of the 1901 Census returns. [38545]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The major proportion of the work of checking the transcriptions of the 1901 census returns was undertaken by the PRO. £350,000 was allocated by the PRO to quality assure the transcription process, with the remaining quality assurance costs being met by QinetiQ Ltd.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what budget was allocated for the work of transcribing the 1901 Census returns on to computer. [38542]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No budget was allocated by the PRO for the work of transcribing the 1901 Census returns on to computer. The cost of transcription was met by QinetiQ Ltd under the terms of its contract. £350,000 was allocated by the PRO to quality assure the transcription process with the remaining quality assurance costs being met by QinetiQ Ltd.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who carried out the work of transcribing the 1901 Census reforms on to computer; how these people were selected; and if she will make a statement. [38542]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The QinetiQ Ltd team, including Enterprise and Supply Services (ESS), was formed in the initial stages of tendering for the 1901 Census project. The team was formed by QinetiQ from parties considered to be able to offer the best quality and value for money. ESS undertook the transcription of the 1901 Census returns. However to complete the transcription work to the standards and timescales required it became clear that additional resources needed to be employed. A proportion of this work was sub-contracted by ESS, after full competitive tendering, to commercial data input companies based in India, Sri Lanka (Hays Document Management) and in the UK (Atos Origin). All transcription was quality assessed by the Public Record Office and edited where appropriate regardless of where it had been transcribed.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the contracts agreed by his Department with the five largest accountancy firms since May 1997; and what was the total value of contracts with each. [42100]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department replies on behalf of its agencies, the Court Service and the Public Guardianship Office, and the Lord Chancellor's other departments, the Northern Ireland Court Service, HM Land Registry and the Public Records Office. The information requested is as follows:

  Number of contracts

  £

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  1997–98

  3

  460,056

  1998–99

  9

  2,193,703

  1999–2000

  3

  360,693

  2000–01

  4

  65,812

  20011

  3

  73,717

  1177W

  Number of contracts

  £

  Ernst and Young

  1997–98

  nil

  —

  1998–99

  1

  227,588

  1999–2000

  1

  29,375

  2000–01

  2

  481,749

  20011

  3

  301,720

  Deloitte and Touche

  1997–98

  nil

  —

  1998–99

  1

  231,475

  1999–2000

  4

  77,546

  2000–01

  4

  193,778

  20011

  11

  905,050

  KPMG

  1997–98

  3

  340,426

  1998–99

  1

  1,433

  1999–2000

  3

  56,025

  2000–01

  1

  4,183

  20011

  1

  29,375

  Andersen2

  —

  —

  1 To date.

  2 No contracts have been let during the time period stated.

  These contracts were primarily let in relation to financial, technical and legal advice for PR projects, business management advice for major projects and advice on IT requirements.

  The Northern Ireland Court Service could not produce figures for 1997–98, as the information is not stored on their current accounting system.

  Laeken Summit
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on her policy towards paragraph 43 of the Laeken conclusions, on a European network for training magistrates. [39644]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Council document referred to was a discussion document prepared by the Belgian presidency in November 2001. It has been superseded by the presidency conclusions of the European Council in Laeken held on 14 and 15 December 2001.

  The European judicial training network (EJTN) is a network of the national institutions responsible for judicial training in the member states of the European Union, set up by the institutions themselves. The Judicial Studies
  1178W
  Board (which has responsibility for the training of judges in England and Wales) has been a member since its establishment in October 2000.

  The Laeken conclusions refer to a proposal made by the French Government in December 2000 to put the network on a legal footing, enabling it to receive financial and administrative support from the European Commission. No discussions of this proposal are scheduled at present.

  Private Offices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [40978]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Expenditure on running costs for Ministers' private offices at the Lord Chancellor's Department, and for the whole Department over the periods requested is set out in the table.

  Total admin. expenditure—cash £000

  Ministers' private offices

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  1997–981

  0

  0

  1998–99

  1,055

  454,525

  1999–2000

  1,257

  498,744

  2000–01

  1,585

  477,948

  January 2001–02

  1,292

  395,541

  1 Data not readily available without disproportionate cost

  Gravesend County Court
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many fee exemptions and remissions were issued by Gravesend county court in each six-month period beginning from January 1999. [41795]

  Mr. Wills
  Figures concerning the numbers of applications for fee exemption and remission are collected as a single figure and are provided in the table.

  Applications for fee exemption/remission made at Gravesend County Court during the selected periods during

  Period

  Number of applications

  January-June 1999

  46

  July-December 1999

  91

  January-June 2000

  64

  July-December 2000

  70

  January-June 2001

  89

  July-December 2001

  91

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.
The Earl of Snowdon—Took the Oath.

Digital Television
Lord Razzallasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the switchover from analogue to digital television can be achieved within their proposed timetable.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that terrestrial analogue broadcasting signals are maintained until everyone who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels can receive them in digital form and switching to digital is an affordable option. We believe that these criteria, although challenging, can be achieved and that switchover can take place within the timeframe of 2006–10.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she accept that the current take-up of digital television has been almost entirely among subscribers to pay television and not those wanting access to free-to-view television? Does she further accept that it is unlikely that more than 60 per cent of the population will ever take up pay television subscriptions and that before analogue can be switched off there must be a significant increase in the take-up of digital free-to-view television services? Does the Minister consider that that is highly unlikely to happen by 2010 in view of the existing constraints on digital terrestrial television and the limited free-to-view services available, not helped, of course, by Tessa Jowell's decision yesterday?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept that at present the numbers of people buying sets with integrated digital facilities are quite small. However, I understand that cheap set-top boxes will be available in the shops before Easter. They are expected to cost less than £100. That will lead to a substantial increase in the numbers of people able to go digital. It is extremely hard to anticipate what will happen by 2010. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, is being a little pessimistic about the likely take-up.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as the owner of one of the cheap boxes described by the Minister—and I must say how greatly my picture has improved—I understand that BBC 4 is now available
818
as a free service. However, it is not easy to locate. Why is not more publicity given about how one can receive that free service?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was not aware that there was a problem in locating the new BBC 4 service. I shall certainly take up the issue. I understand that a lot of information has been provided about how it can be obtained. I shall check with the BBC whether that is the case and, if not, how the situation can be improved.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Ceefax services have been withdrawn from the digital service provided by the BBC through subscription television? That hardly helps the case for switching from analogue to digital television because the text service provided is very much inferior to Ceefax. Viewers are constantly referred to Ceefax numbers—where one can look up addresses and obtain information about programmes which are to be transmitted—but that facility is not available on the digital service. The BBC should be asked why it has done this.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am very interested to hear what my noble friend says. Again, it is not a matter of which I was aware. I shall be very happy to make sure that this issue also is taken up with the BBC. It is vital that viewers and potential viewers have all the information that they need to make choices.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, have the Government estimated the value of the re-engineered analogue channels? If so—and I cannot believe that they have not made some estimate—would that not justify the provision of financial incentives to viewers to ease the transition to digital?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is far too early to talk about subsidising individual viewers to shift to digital. This is an area where the market should be allowed to work. As I said, there will be opportunities in the near future for people to obtain digital boxes at relatively low prices. I suspect that the take-up will be very large. We should be optimistic rather than pessimistic about the likely take-up.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what you do—at least in my case—is switch on the television set, click on the relevant BBC 4 button—and finish up with the most indescribably boring programme you have ever watched in your life? You then wish that it was a good deal harder to get the programme.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend has strong views about many issues, including television programmes. All I can say to him is that if he does not like it he can switch over to another

819
channel. If he has digital facilities he will have a large number of channels available from which to plan an alternative.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, if the Government are keen for us to have access to channels such as BBC 4 from 2006, would they consider the pragmatic step of doing the switchover on a rolling out basis—possibly on a transmitter, regional or channel by channel basis—just to make sure that we do not all find ourselves without access to television on switchover day?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an interesting issue on how the transmission can be managed. It is a point that the Government may want to consider when the time comes. Again, it is a little early to anticipate exactly the best way of managing the transition, but that is certainly a matter we shall want to take into account.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the Minister share the view of the chairman of the BBC that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, being a privileged member of the middle classes, should not have asked the question he asked?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend would be extremely put out if I suggested that he could not ask any question that he wanted to ask in this House, so long as it was put in an amusing and courteous way, as is his wont. Of course, we need to take into account the views of all potential viewers, whatever their social background, their region and their particular interest.

London Underground
2.44 p.m.
Lord Ezraasked Her Majesty's Government:
In what circumstances the capital invested in the London Underground under the public private partnership scheme would count as public expenditure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the PPP saves £2 billion of public money over the first 15 years of the contracts, in comparison to funding the same projects through conventional public investment. The plans will mean £16 billion of investment over the next 15 years.
In accordance with generally accepted accounting practice, capital invested in London Underground under the PPP would count as public expenditure if London Underground Ltd's accountants and auditors judged that the assets should be on London Underground's balance sheet.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the Government have issued a letter of comfort
820
for the funds that will be borrowed by the infrastructure companies from the banks? In that event, would this count as part of the public sector borrowing requirement, or would it count as part of the balance sheet of Transport for London? In either event, would it not mean that the whole of the risk for investment in the Underground would be borne ultimately by the public sector, thus negating what we thought was one of the objectives of the PPP?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those are two slightly different questions. On the point about the letter of comfort, yes, it is true that a letter of comfort has been issued, underwriting 95 per cent of the third party debt, which is not the same as shareholder funds. London Underground Ltd is a public corporation. Therefore, what is on its balance sheet affects the public sector net borrowing, which does not have any effect on the targets under our fiscal rules. On the noble Lord's final point, it really does not make any difference to the benefits of the PPP as we see them. That depends on the saving of £2 billion of public money. That applies whether the capital invested is off balance sheet or on balance sheet.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether it is too late for the noble Lord to seek to persuade the Secretary of State for Transport—who is somewhat prone to error—to resile from yet another serious mistake in introducing the PPP. Will the noble Lord point out to him that the recent report from Ernst & Young on this matter seems to me to be one of the most Delphic communications ever to emerge from a firm of consultants?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the exchanges in this Chamber on the issue of the Ernst & Young report. I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has said previously, and to what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has said in reply. It has nothing whatever to do with "on balance sheet" or "off balance sheet". Nevertheless, I thought that my noble and learned friend gave rather effective replies to the questions raised.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does not the Question reflect the growing concern that the dangerous practice that has been revealed recently in the private sector of hiding a build-up of debt off the balance sheet might now creep into the public accounts via the public/private partnerships? Is not full disclosure the answer? Will the Government publish an analysis of the full amount of public liability that is, or may be, involved in all the existing public/private partnerships?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is in danger of drawing a false analogy between what is happening here and what happened, for example, with Enron, where, indeed, funds—or lack of funds—were kept off the balance sheet. The issue here is one for London Underground's auditors. They have to decide whether the amounts of money involved in

821
the public/private partnership make a change to London Underground's assets as a whole. By " London Underground's assets as a whole" I do not mean merely the book value of the assets—which exclude all the written-down assets over more than 100 years—but the total assets. That is the consideration that will influence the auditors in making a decision as to whether the amounts are off balance sheet or on balance sheet.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an undertaking that he will deal with these matters in greater and more pertinent detail, in relation to the Statement which I understand is to be made later?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no; the Statement which will be made this afternoon is not even remotely on this subject. It is about audit and accountancy in the public sector. The Statement is about the Sharman report, which is not about London Underground. It would take some ingenuity to get me to respond later this afternoon to these matters.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, wherever this particular expenditure is scored, the real test of whether it is effective to replace public with private funding is, first, whether there is transfer of risk from the public sector to the private sector; and, secondly, whether it achieves the introduction of effective private-sector management disciplines? Would he be prepared for the PPP, in this case, to be judged on those two criteria?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes; I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, would it have been cheaper or more expensive to finance the London Underground capital investment through Ken Livingstone's bond option rather than through the PPP?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer is no—partly for the reason just given by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, with which I have just agreed. As he rightly said, the issue in this case is the transfer of risk. Although that could be done by issuing bonds, and the price of bonds would be lower than the rate of return on capital that the private partners will expect, the private partners will be taking very significant risks in return for that rate of return. When such risk has been taken by the public sector—as, for example, in the extension to the Jubilee Line or the improvements to the Central Line—it has been shown to be very poor value for money for taxpayers.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I should already understand this—I am sure that I should—but, given that the noble Lord is telling us that sometimes these enormous figures will be on the
822
balance sheet and sometimes they will not, according to what the accountants say, how will the public know what their total debt is?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figures will not be sometimes on and sometimes off the balance sheet. At some stage soon after 10th April, when it is expected that the agreement between the private partners and London Underground will be signed, KPMG, London Underground's accountants, will make a decision on the whole of the amount. It will either be on or off. It will not be partly on and partly off.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, without discussing the balance sheet, can the noble Lord say whether giving letters of comfort exposes the Government to the risk and liability of ultimately having to meet the balance that they have guaranteed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I made clear in an earlier answer, the letters of comfort are confined to third-party debt. Public discussion on these matters tends to make the wrong assumption—that they relate to shareholder funds.

Smoking
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwenasked Her Majesty's Government:
What impact anti-smoking initiatives are having on the numbers of people giving up smoking and taking up smoking.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, in the first six months of 2001–02, about 104,800 people set a quit date using the NHS smoking cessation services, and 53,500 had successfully given up at the four-week follow-up stage.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. As today is National No Smoking Day, will he join me in congratulating all those noble Lords who in the past year have given up smoking—or indeed not started smoking? Will he also tell us what investigations NICE has conducted into the cost effectiveness of the antismoking strategies and how those strategies compare with strategies to combat other substance misuse?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am delighted to congratulate all noble Lords who have given up smoking in the past year. I stopped smoking on 28th July, and I am still going strong at the moment—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, both Zyban and nicotine replacement therapy have been referred

823
to NICE, and my understanding is that it will soon reach a conclusion. Unless an appeal is made against its final appraisal determination, that advice will, we hope, be issued very shortly.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord on giving up smoking successfully, may I ask him whether he believes that the Government's anti-smoking initiatives are sufficiently robust and shocking to have an impact on the many teenage girls who take up smoking round about the ages of 13 and 14?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to suggest that teenage smoking, particularly among young girls, is a matter of concern. The Government have a strategy designed to focus particularly on teenage smokers which I believe is effective.
As for the substantive point, on the actual messages given out, I draw the noble Lord's attention to the Smokescreen Youth Initiative, launched last autumn, in which young people themselves produced a set of films that have been shown on television and will soon, we hope, be shown in cinemas. The films are very hard hitting and entail young people talking to young people, and I think that they will be very effective in getting the message over.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's action in increasing tobacco duties has led to increased incentives for illegal smuggling and illegal distribution? Does he also agree that that has worked against the other government measures designed to reduce smoking, particularly by increasing the availability of cigarettes to young people?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not think that one should underestimate the impact of fiscal policy on smoking habits. As a general point, research has consistently shown that demand for cigarettes is undoubtedly affected by their price. However, the smuggling of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco is a matter of concern to the Government, and we are dealing with it through a tobacco-smuggling strategy. The indications are that Customs and Excise has had some very big successes in the first year of that strategy and has hit its key target of holding the market share of smuggled cigarettes. It has seized 2.8 billion cigarettes and broken up 56 major excise smuggling gangs.
I should add that European Union countries which may have lower duty levels also face smuggling issues. I therefore believe that it is right to have a fiscal policy of discouraging smoking alongside vigorous policies to reduce smuggling.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, as one who is approaching the second anniversary of having given up, may I express my huge relief at no longer being a slave to that horrible weed? May I also say how much
824
fresher I feel, and that I am sure that everyone who approaches me feels the same? I now find that when I approach someone who smokes, I am very conscious of the fact that they do smoke. However, in their approaches to the European Union, what are the Government doing about the subsidies being paid to countries to grow the most filthy, disgusting tobacco that there ever was?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we seem to be taking on the character of a revivalist meeting. However, I know that the matter of EU subsidies causes concern both to noble Lords and to the Government. We have taken up the matter a number of times with the European Union, and we shall continue to press the matter very vigorously.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, as one who has not smoked since the age of 13, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government are any closer to implementing an approved code of practice on passive smoking at work, as recommended by the Health and Safety Commission rather more than two years ago? Has he been following developments in the Irish Republic, where the Irish Government are giving active consideration to banning smoking completely in pubs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government do not seek to go down the route of banning smoking in pubs. We have, however, encouraged the development of a partnership with the hospitality industry which will ensure that non-smokers are protected and that there is a choice of places to eat and drink so that they will not be bothered by other people's smoke. I think that a voluntary approach is desirable.
My noble friend will know that the Government are giving careful consideration to the Health and Safety Commission's proposals in the approved code of practice on smoking in the workplace. As part of that process, the commission has been asked to consider the implications of the code of practice for the hospitality sector and small businesses generally.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, what is the most important step that the Government could take to reduce deaths from smoking?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we continue to press on with our anti-smoking strategy of which the development of smoking cessation services is an important part. We cannot be complacent, but there are encouraging signs on which we need to build.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, does the Minister agree that prohibition in the United States did not stamp out drinking and, if anything, encouraged it? It became smart to go underground.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not believe that the two matters can be pooled together in the same category. First, smoking is harmful under

825
any circumstances. I believe that a different situation exists in regard to alcohol, particularly for sensible drinkers. Secondly, it is not the Government's intention to make smoking illegal. We seek to ensure that in public places non-smokers, as far as possible, are not subject to passive smoking and we seek to develop programmes to help those who want to give up smoking to do so as effectively as possible.

Railtrack: Investment Risk
3 p.m.
Lord Barnettasked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with investment fund managers relating to their investments in Railtrack plc.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State held a meeting with representatives of the Railtrack Shareholders' Action Group and the Institutional Shareholders' Committee on 20th November 2001. A separate meeting with members of the Railtrack Private Shareholders Group also took place on 20th November 2001.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, in view of the wide range of subjects with which he deals. Has he seen the letter in The Times of 6th March written by investment managers? Usually they are highly respected members of the community—some of them are probably middle class, although their investment advice is not always correct. I am not now talking about Railtrack, but about a point that was made in that letter that they believed—not "thought"—that there was a regulation that made sure that downside risk was limited. Does the Government believe that to be true? If it is, can my noble friend tell the House which other privatised companies have their downside risk limited by regulation? If he would care to let me have the names of the companies—I declare an interest—I would be happy to consider investing in them.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords, I was aware of the letter, published on 6th March in The Times written by the investment fund managers. It referred to a range of matters, including privatised companies with a downside risk regulated. I do not know of any other. I cannot draw the attention of the noble Lord to them. An article in the Financial Times commented on that letter, saying that a number of other people, including Tim Stone, chairman of corporate finance at KPMG, said that the issues raised in that letter had no effect on PFI generally.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether he is aware of any letter of comfort, similar to that given for London Underground in response to the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for debt or equity that would lead those
826
investment fund managers to consider that the Government would not allow Railtrack to go into administration or liquidation or anything else?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of no such letter. It is worth reminding the House of the first point of the April 2001 statement of principle between the Government and Railtrack, which clearly stated:
"The Government stands behind the rail system but not behind individual rail companies and their shareholders who need to be fully aware of the projected liabilities of the companies in which they invest and the performance risks they face".
That statement was made in April 2001.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I declare an interest as an investment fund manager. Does the Minister agree that, due to Railtrack receivership, the relationship of trust between investment fund managers and the Government has broken down, so making it more difficult for them to support, with confidence, future railway expenditure without firm government guarantees?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, I do not believe that the relationship of trust has broken down. I shall quote what David Metter, the chief executive of Innisfree, one of the largest PFI equity investors, said:
"We have absolutely no concern that the Government will not honour its obligations under PPPs and PFIs".
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the reality is that no major passenger railway system in the world has ever broken even, let alone made a true profit; that every government have found themselves subsidising our passenger railway system; and that any private bidder will assume that on the basis of all history the Government will pick up the tab because it has no realistic alternative? It was a mistake to privatise British Rail, but having done so would it not be sensible to recognise the reality?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the basic proposition. I cannot say that every single passenger rail system, but the vast majority, require a public subsidy. That has always been known. It was known in relation to Railtrack, but that is not the same as saying that the Government were providing a guarantee that they would always provide to that particular vehicle whatever it asked for, irrespective of the quality of its management and irrespective of the quality of its asset management.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what has happened to free-market capitalism if fund managers managing millions of pounds are under

827
the impression that there are downside risk-free assets in which one can invest? Adam Smith and Karl Marx would turn in their graves.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, to answer what has happened to free-market capitalism would require a wide-ranging reply. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, is probably the man to ask.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, as a result of the errors of omission or commission that the Government may or may not have made in the case of Railtrack, we the taxpayers will have to pay an extra £1 billion in interest payments to banks to compensate them for the perceived decline in the Government's credit rating?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not accept that proposition. The party that my noble friend represents may ask whether it was wise to privatise Railtrack in the way that it did in 1994.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, between the two short debates today, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in the other place on audit and accountability in central government.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the usual channels agree that the House will sit at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 19th March for the debate on hunting with dogs.

Parliament
3.7 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louthrose to call attention to the case for raising public awareness of the work of Parliament; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the institution of Parliament is fundamental to our political system. It is the vital link between citizen and government. People speak to government through Parliament. It is the authoritative public body for calling government to account. A healthy Parliament is central to the well being of the political system and central to the health of Parliament is public awareness of, and support for, the work that it does. A Parliament that is starved of public support is an isolated and, ultimately, vulnerable institution. In short, Parliament and the public need one another and each ideally needs to recognise the importance of the other. That recognition, I suggest, is lacking. There is declining public interest in what Parliament does and a failure on the part of Parliament to develop links with citizens.
Let me identify what I believe to be the causes of this poor relationship. They are several and are not confined to Parliament. I suggest that the problems are
828
structural, attitudinal, behavioural, and societal. By structures, I refer to parliamentary structures. The two Houses are not structured, or rather are not as well structured as they could be, to facilitate public awareness of what goes on within Parliament. Much of the present debate about parliamentary reform focuses on the relationship between Parliament and the executive. That is of fundamental importance and I very much welcome the debate that is taking place. However, what tends to be neglected is the relationship between citizen and Parliament and, indeed, between Parliament and citizen. Although there is greater transparency in parliamentary proceedings than previously was the case, both Houses tend to stick with structures, as well as procedures and practices, that are not geared to encouraging public interest in, and access to, the work of Parliament.
By attitudes, I refer especially to the attitudes taken towards Parliament by government and the media. If government and the media take the attitude that Parliament is somehow peripheral, a body not to be taken seriously, then it is not surprising that citizens generally are not inclined to take much interest in Parliament. A dismissive attitude toward Parliament is not new but it is becoming more pronounced.
Successive Speakers have had to remind Ministers in another place that statements of new policy should be made first to Parliament and not to a press conference. Media interest is limited. The press galleries for most of the time resemble the "Marie Celeste". What coverage there is has shown a qualitative change. The sketch-writer has taken over from the parliamentary reporter. Television coverage has diminished since the cameras were first admitted. Coverage of the committee work of Parliament in particular attracts far less attention than it did a decade ago.
However, parliamentarians cannot be absolved from responsibility. Some Members do not always take Parliament seriously as a body for effectively scrutinising government. There is an inherent tension in the position of most MPs, being elected to support the party in government yet being Members of a body that is expected to subject to critical scrutiny that very same government. If the balance tips too far in favour of the government, then it is hardly surprising if the public take little interest in Parliament.
There is, in addition, a tendency on the part of some Members to be somewhat wary of the media. We criticise the media for not giving Parliament the attention that we believe it deserves, yet we tend to ignore how we might ensure that what we do is more attractive and more accessible to the media. We are too prone to make a virtue of economy at the expense of effectiveness.
Both Houses devote relatively few resources to public relations, to ensuring that what we do is promoted to the media and other bodies outside the House. Your Lordships' House has taken the lead in appointing an information officer. She does an excellent job. The other place has now followed suit. However, the resources we commit to public relations are minuscule compared to other parliaments. Indeed,

829
the Scottish Parliament has more than three times the number of staff that this House has with responsibility for public relations.
By behaviour, I refer to the conduct of politicians. There is a problem at a collective as well as an individual level. The clash of beliefs represented by the political parties is healthy, indeed fundamental to our political system, but if the clash degenerates into mindless point scoring then it repels electors. Partisanship in the other House is a product of excessive party loyalty: MPs recognise that it does the reputation of the House no good but are unable to stop their party instincts from driving their behaviour.
At the individual level, if Ministers and parliamentarians behave in a way that falls below the standards expected of them by citizens, then their behaviour undermines popular support for and, consequently, interest in Parliament. Although we now have codes of conduct, a Parliamentary Commissioner in another place, and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the public perception of the conduct of politicians remains a negative one. The perception is that politicians cannot be trusted to tell the truth and that they are out to further their own ends. That was made all too clear in the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and it continues to be borne out by survey data.
Finally, and most important of all, there are changes in society itself. We have seen some significant shifts in the stance taken by citizens towards political institutions. In recent decades, according to some commentators, there had been a decline in the civic culture. Samuel Beer, the distinguished American political scientist, has argued that deference in Britain has given way to a new populism. Party leaders seek to tap that populism, to some extent directly. What has been termed "designer populism" has been a feature of the growth of presidentialism in British politics—the Prime Minister becoming detached from his own government as well as from party and Parliament and intervening in public policy as the champion of the people to address a particular problem. That development, as is implicit in what I have said, has been at the expense of parties and Parliament.
Not only has there been a more populist approach, but there has also been a change in participation. There has been a decline in support for political parties. People have found outlets for their political views through pressure groups—in some cases through direct action groups. Others have simply turned away from politics. Other attractions now absorb their energies.
A consequence of these developments is that there is limited and decreasing public interest in Parliament. People do not see Parliament as particularly relevant to their lives. It appears peripheral. That is reinforced by constitutional change, with powers passing to other bodies—the European Union, the courts and now elected assemblies in different parts of the United Kingdom. If there is an interest in political activity, then it is directed elsewhere.
830
We thus face a dilemma. Parliament is crucial to the health of the political system. It needs the support and interest of the people if it is to be a strong institution in fulfilling the tasks expected of it. That support and interest, on the whole, are not there. Parliament by itself cannot restore faith in political activity. We need to go wider than Parliament in order to achieve that. But it can go some way towards addressing the problem. It needs to adopt a more robust stance towards government, and especially towards the conduct of Ministers. It also, and crucially, needs to increase public awareness of what it is doing. That is a prerequisite for bolstering public support, although support will not necessarily flow from greater awareness. Parliament has to prove itself.
I turn to what needs to be done. We need to take a new approach to the media and, indeed, to citizens. The relationship between Parliament and citizen is, as I have argued, two way. We need to provide greater access for citizens to Parliament. We need to ensure that Parliament reaches out more to citizens. Furthermore, what people see, and what we tell people we are doing, has to be relevant.
What can we do to increase greater access? Interest groups send us a lot of material and constituents write to their MPs on an ever-increasing scale. But none of that gives us a clear view of what people think. We need to provide more structured means of ensuring that citizens have some input and are heard. One possibility is to make greater use of the Internet for on-line consultation. The Hansard Society—and I declare an interest as a member of the society's council—has already undertaken some on-line discussions for committees, including the Science and Technology Select Committee of this House. There are some problems associated with using the Internet for consultation, as the Commons Public Administration Select Committee has noted, but such techniques can help complement other means of contact.
Another important change would be to create, in another place, a petitions committee. Many citizens devote a great deal of time and effort to persuading people to sign petitions. Some petitions have many thousands of signatures. But the petitions go into a parliamentary black hole. Petitions committees, able to receive petitions, investigate them or pass them on to other committees, are features of many west European legislatures. The Scottish Parliament has one. The House of Commons used to have one. There is a powerful case for creating a new one.
The proposal for a petitions committee was advanced by the Conservative Party's Commission to Strengthen Parliament, which I had the honour to chair. Another proposal of the Commission was that your Lordships' House should regularly refer Bills to Select Committees before the usual Committee stage of a Bill. That would permit bodies outside Parliament to have some input into the legislative process and to do so in a highly transparent manner. A similar argument applies to the use of special standing committees in the other place.

831
I take these as examples of the kind of thing that we should be doing. What, then, of reaching out to citizens? I welcome the fact that the Parliament website has been re-designed and will soon come on-line, albeit far too late. I welcome the experiment with webcasting of parliamentary committees. But we must go further. As the modernisation committee in another place noted in its recent report,
"committee reports now look like documents from a previous era".
We need professionally designed documents. But that is just the beginning. We need a fundamental change of attitude towards the media and towards the dissemination of reports and information about what we do. We need more staff to promote our work to the media and to the wider public. Despite recent additions, we are grossly under-resourced. We need to push out material to anyone we think is interested in it. We should be disseminating reports, even Hansard, to groups, societies and any organisation with an interest in public policy. We need to bring the media in. Rather than politicians trooping over to 4 Millbank, we should be bringing 4 Millbank into the Palace of Westminster. We need to provide more space and facilities for the media. We need to make the Palace media-friendly. That involves a change of attitude and more resources. It also involves ensuring that what we do is relevant.
If citizens are to take an interest in what we do, we have to ensure not only that they see what we are doing but that what we do resonates with their interests and concerns. Here there is a problem, especially with the other place. Your Lordships' House does a good job in carrying out its functions. We could do better and we must ensure that what we do is better known and that there is greater input from people outside.
With the House of Commons, there is a more fundamental problem. Often, the issues that concern people outside are those that are discussed on free votes. Such occasions are rare and are generally squeezed out by the predictable debate that takes place between the parties. As a consequence, the House of Commons does not appear dreadfully relevant to the citizens who elected it. There needs to be reform of practices and procedures but also new thinking about the issues that Parliament discusses. The Commons Liaison Committee has recommended short debates on Select Committee reports, which I very much welcome. But what about short debates on grievances raised by petitions? That would be one way of re-connecting with the people.
I offer those as illustrations of what we should be thinking about and doing. The list is far from exhaustive. I hope that your Lordships will add to it during this debate. But I hope that I have shown the need for much more innovative thought about how Parliament connects with citizens. Some of my proposals may appear radical. My purpose in focusing on the wider context is to show that, relative to the problems we face, far from being radical, these are
832
extremely modest proposals—modest, my Lords, and essential to the health of our parliamentary democracy. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, we are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for initiating this important debate. He made the case for Parliament. In all my years in the other place and in my brief time in this House, I never thought that I should ever have to rise to make the case for Parliament. That was almost inbred in us—part of our background and part of our history. We should not need to make that case. The sadness is that we need to do just that. That is a shameful situation.
Parliament must prove itself and, more importantly, Members of Parliament must prove themselves and assert themselves rather more. In the past few years, they have not done that and have been considered almost as part of the executive machinery, supporting the executive rather than questioning them and bringing them properly to account by asking them real questions. They should have been saying, "I am here to represent the people who sent me here, not to represent only my party. My party is important, but even more important than my party are my principles and this country". That should be the motivating force behind them all. Unfortunately, we have not seen that.
Let us get one thing out of the way at the outset: the standards of the conduct of Members of Parliament. I was the chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee of the House of Commons. Of course there were one or two unpleasant cases, but they were a very small minority. If we consider the country as a whole. I would say that my colleagues on both sides of the House of Commons and on all sides of this House are honourable and decent men—men and women of much higher standards of probity and conduct than one would find in the population at large. So that is not the cause of the problems that we face. Naturally, it is a matter that we must deal with, but it has nothing to do with the decline of Parliament. Let us get that quite clear at the outset.
In fact, during the past few years we have seen the rapid decline in the reporting of Parliament. Part of that was due to the large government majority; part to a much greater consensus on a number of matters which made for fewer policy differences between the parties. Speeches in the House of Commons used to reflect strongly independent, personal views that made for comment in the newspapers and the media generally. However, speeches seemed no longer to have that force. Members of Parliament would say in private what they did not say on the Floor of the House. In the past, more of them were prepared to speak their mind even where they disagreed with their own party. So it was left to the parliamentary commentators in the press to interpret what they saw as the mood of Parliament, rather than the speeches in Parliament, which should have shown the greater division in reality as Members of Parliament saw it.

833
That allowed the sketch writers to whom the noble Lord, Lord Norton, referred greater opportunity to provide their own amusement amid their interpretation. Because it did not fully represent the views of dissenters on the Government Benches, and because the Opposition were reduced and demoralised, Parliament became more of a ritual of tit-for-tat as antagonistic views were thrown across the House of Commons. The House of Lords was much better in that respect, but as the House of Commons is the primary Chamber for commentators, the standing of Parliament was represented by what took place there.
Dissent by their own Back-Benchers is always inconvenient to government. We all know that. But such inconvenience did not prevent previous generations of Back-Benchers expressing their views openly and frequently—with courtesy, of course—as was the obligation of each Member of Parliament. In that respect, the role of the government Back-Bencher is crucial. It is that person who, speaking to others, can apply the pressure to alter policy. With such a large majority as we now have, that pressure is much reduced. Francis Pym, now the noble Lord, Lord Pym, had it quite right when in 1983 he pointed out the need for a modest majority. In such circumstances, Parliament can operate nearer to what the standard works on our constitution predict. It is in this situation that government can be held to account by their Back-Benchers when their voices and, occasionally, their votes cannot be overlooked. For that correct and honourable assessment, the noble Lord, Lord Pym, was sacked. That was sad.
Perhaps I may set out my personal position. As a member of the government party, like most other members, I have always believed that where I had no decided view opposing that of the Government, my responsibility was to support them. In the 1960s, I was chairman of a Back-Bench economic and finance committee, as was my noble friend Lord Barnett. I disagreed with the Government on two matters that the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, put at the top of his political agenda. Those were the devaluation of the pound sterling, of which I was in favour, and the need as I saw it to withdraw our troops from East of Suez. The first subject, devaluation, was unmentionable; the second was also opposed by Harold Wilson who, in one memorable speech, said that our frontier was on the Himalayas.
My views, unorthodox at the time, aroused considerable interest. I set them out in Parliament. Parliament should not be an optional medium for setting out one's views; for a Member of Parliament, it should be the main one. So it was with Churchill, so it was with Lloyd George, so it was with Gladstone—so it was with all those great people of the past. We are only pale shadows of them, but in at least one respect, we should be able to do what they did and speak what we feel in this place. That is what we are here for.
Of course one supports government—frequently after argument, discussion and dissent—but one comes to one's own conclusions and one should express them here. That is what this place is about.
834
Unfortunately, the other place has not been about that for some time. That is a great shame. People write their columns in the press, they give interviews of one kind or another, but if they have a view and want to express it, this is the place to do so. This is the heart of democracy. Unless we understand that and act on it, we are not doing anything about it.
An effective opposition sitting across the House of Commons Chamber is essential to the proper functioning of Parliament. Dissent on the government Benches—not opposition—is inconvenient but is essential for Parliament. Such are the aspects of Parliament that make it the centre of political ideas and action. The situation today may be much easier. The Opposition may be settling down now, after a long time, for the long haul. Many Labour Members who feared that they might be one-term MPs are beginning to use their position to assert themselves. Parliament as a whole may now be well on the road to re-asserting itself. If that proves to be the case, the press and the media generally may become more interested in the day-to-day work of Parliament.
A further cause for the lack of interest in Parliament is the increasing power of special advisers and the growing disillusionment with their role. As my noble friend Lord Hattersley reminded the House on Monday, the special advisers whom he used to know were different. They owed much of their legitimacy to the Fulton committee on the Civil Service. That committee, on which I served, agreed that there was a role for special advisers who were expert in their field but had political allegiances. That enabled them to fit in with the Civil Service and with the views and aspirations of the Minister whom they served. Such were Nikki Kaldor and Tommy Balogh. Another was Jack Straw, whose salary I happen to have confirmed while I was a Minister in the Civil Service Department.
Such people caused no problems. They were not grit in the machine; they were an asset to the Civil Service and to the Government. They were experts without executive power and acted as an expert link between the Minister and the higher Civil Service. They were valued in Whitehall, and there would have been no difficulty getting them to appear before Select Committees. Advisers now are rather more than the name suggests and are not even permitted to be questioned by the relevant Select Committees about their role and operations. If they are there, what are they doing? If we have to ask what they are doing, who should be asking that question? The relevant Select Committee should ask it, but Select Committees are not allowed to see them. They are not allowed to call them before them. Such people are taking on a role beyond that of special adviser; they are almost political appointees, in some senses.
The Select Committees need to examine the role and operation of such advisers. Some of them, without question, are very good, but why should they not be questioned? Why should we not know what they do, day by day, whom they see and how they handle themselves? The consequence of all that is increasing cynicism and lack of concern about the work of Parliament. I see that there is expected to be a new

835
Civil Service Act in the next Session of Parliament. I hope that that will be confirmed by my noble and learned friend the Minister. It would be a valuable contribution, and the House could add quite a bit to it.
There is one important change that must be made. The Committee Office of the House has done much to promote public understanding of the activities of committees. In the other place, when I was chairman of the Liaison Committee, minutes of evidence were available fairly promptly. I argued for them to be made available overnight on the Internet. That made it possible for such information to form part of the following day's political news, so people could see what was going on, even if they were not present. If there was a matter of concern or interest to someone, they would be able to find out something about it.
The Liaison Committee went further and argued for uncorrected evidence to be made available overnight, with the proviso that it be clearly labelled on each page that it was uncorrected. Corrected evidence could, of course, be published later. The delay in publication allowed witnesses to correct any mistakes that they may have made in giving evidence. The evidence was available to journalists present, but was only partial. We argued that it should be complete. It was eventually agreed that the new arrangements should apply to Ministers, with further discussions to be held on extending the arrangements. As far as I know, the argument continues.
The position in your Lordships' House is that even corrected evidence is not available. For example, there have been no minutes on the Internet of the Economic Affairs Committee since last July. I have kindly been given draft minutes because of my interest, but such information should be freely available. I had some difficulty in achieving the widespread dissemination of minutes of evidence in the other place. I hope that I will not have long to wait for it here.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for introducing the debate and for the powerful speech that he made. It will repay much careful study. It was densely packed with insight and suggestions. He was right to pay tribute to the parliamentary information services. They do a good job on a small budget. I imagine that it is common ground among your Lordships that a great deal more must be done. It is to that that I shall address myself.
As chairman of the Hansard Society—to which the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, referred—I speak with particular conviction that more must be done. Over the years the Hansard Society has done much to try to bridge the growing gap about which we have heard between Parliament and the public. We are now poised to take a step up in our activity, in partnership with the Citizenship Foundation—I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the president of the Citizenship Foundation, in his place—and the Electoral Commission. Our activity is designed to
836
increase understanding of and respect for Parliament, especially among young people. Most of what I have to say will, indeed, be about young people.
Sadly, it is not the case that young people in this country respect and understand Parliament. Yet it is imperative for our democratic health that those people—the next generation—grow up with a good grasp of what Parliament does, how it does it and why it does it. In that respect, one need only compare this country with countries such as the Federal Republic of Germany or the United States. There, whatever the defects of the political system, no child grows up without a healthy and well developed respect for the constitution and the Bundestag or the United States Congress. Such respect does not exist today among our young people. In fact, the reverse is true. We see the negative and reverse image of that respect and understanding—ignorance and alienation.
MORI research carried out recently for the Hansard Society showed that there was a perception among 18 year-olds that Parliament is incomprehensible and irrelevant. As we know, turnout among first-time voters hit an all-time low at the last election. There is a massive job to be done. The citizenship curriculum, which I welcome—I think that it is one of the Government's most constructive educational innovations—gives us an opportunity to do that job. However, I would like an assurance from the Minister, when he responds to the debate, that, in a citizenship curriculum crowded with all sorts of worthy issues, the key issue of understanding Parliament will be a fundamental building block.
The aim of the Hansard Society-led consortium to which I have just referred is to give every student, during his or her school career, a taste of Parliament. We want to work with schools to take Parliament to students and bring them to Parliament. We want to do that virtually, creating a virtual Parliament on the web, and physically. We must connect better with young people.
Of course, when we say that they are ignorant of Parliament, we do not mean that they are not interested in issues. They are intensely interested in issues, but they do not see the connection between this House, the other place and our procedures, and the issues that interest them. Many issues interest young people, among which are public policy issues and the environment, including conservation issues. Student grants have been a controversial subject in Parliament. Young people are interested in issues such as—if I dare to say it from these Benches—the decriminalisation of cannabis. All those matters have particular salience for young people today, but they do not see Parliament as the place in which they are dealt with; nor do they know how they are dealt with. They do not see the connection between their interest in issues and the way in which they are dealt with in the public sphere.
As I listen to young people being conducted around this place by our admirable staff and others, I have to say that very often the lens through which they are invited to see Parliament is a historical one. They are invited to view this great institution as though it were

837
a historic monument or house, with wonderful history attached. That is important but it is as nothing compared to our working institution which is designed to protect, guard and advance the interests of the public.
We need a feasibility study on whether there should be a large visitor centre to increase the carrying capacity of this House which, at present, is scarce. Your Lordships cannot abuse the carrying capacity of this House if we are to do our job, but such a centre would give people a chance to understand what they were about to see before they came into the Houses of Parliament. We need to examine that proposal very carefully.
I should like to move on to the issue of the media—always a popular dog to kick in your Lordships' House—and in particular to the role of television. We shall shortly discuss the communications Bill—although it seems to be indefinitely postponed—and in that Bill the issue of public service broadcasting will loom large. Only in Britain would we spend hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money through the licence fee to secure the vital good of the public interest and not be prepared to define exactly what that interest is and how it is to be safeguarded by the broadcasters. If public service does not include communicating the role, activities and value of our national democratic institutions, what else can it possibly include? That must be fundamental to any definition of public service broadcasting.
Today, the coverage of Parliament is wholly inadequate, not only by the BBC but by other terrestrial broadcasters who have public service obligations. I know that many of the talented and well-motivated people who work in news and current affairs would agree with my criticism. The problem is that parliamentary coverage is confused with political coverage. We all understand very well how they relate to each other, but it sometimes seems that some of the pier-end entertainment managers who appear to have taken over the direction of British television think that there is no difference between parliamentary coverage and political coverage.
They can just about get their minds around adversarial politics because that is good knockabout stuff. They quite enjoy elections because they treat them almost as a sporting event, though not as entertaining as the Cheltenham Gold Cup. When they think about Parliament, they can barely stifle their yawns. The idea that Parliament could be interesting or important is a peripheral issue within political coverage, which is seen to be primarily about adversarial fun and games.
As a result of the communications Bill, I hope that we shall see a firm commitment, as part of the public service remit, that the activities of Parliament be properly covered by television and radio. I should like the Minister to draw to his colleagues' attention at the DCMS that this is a fundamental matter of public interest which must be protected and not be treated, as it so often is by broadcasters, as an ego-driven whinge
838
from party politicians wanting their speeches covered. I should be grateful if he can pass on the public interest argument to his colleagues.
Finally, having criticised others, we must, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, says, be open to the possibility, that the fault lies not just in the stars, but in ourselves. Does Parliament work sensible hours in a workmanlike way? Is it accessible and accountable?—values much rated in contemporary society. Are its procedures arcane and archaic or straightforward and understandable? Does it have joined-up legislation between both Houses? There is a massive challenge for Parliament to make itself effective and the Government accountable. The Hansard Commission, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, made some very sensible recommendations, some of which were taken up in the report of the modernisation committee last month.
There is a tide for parliamentary reform which comes probably once in a generation, but it is running very strongly. There are now 237 members—Peers and MPs—of the All-Party Group for Parliamentary Reform. The Leader of the House in another place, is open to and, we hope, committed to reform. Will he be remembered like Richard Crossman and Norman St John-Stevas as a parliamentary reformer? There is a mood in Parliament to address this issue, not only in your Lordships' House but at the other end of the corridor. The noble Lord was right to refer to the merits of web consultation. We should use the web to consult with experts and the general public on a regular basis, not just occasionally.
I conclude by asking the noble Lord to add his considerable weight to that of his colleague, the Leader of another place, in trying to move the agenda on from what often seems too much manipulation and populism in Parliament to one of modernisation and participation. That is something for which the Government would be remembered with gratitude for generations.
3.47 pm
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to discuss the case for raising public awareness of the work of Parliament, particularly at a time when we are facing a complex and rapidly changing environment and when the degree to which it functions effectively, its relationship with government and its success in representing the public, are being increasingly questioned. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Norton on his success in this ballot and the choice of subject.
The work and role of Parliament and the associated issues of parliamentary reform merit far greater discussion. It is a vitally important subject and one to which we do not devote enough time—to the detriment both of democracy and society. Good government and an effective Parliament are intrinsically linked. If we do not have an effective Parliament, not only do we not have good government, we do not have a healthy political system or a vigorous democracy.

839
In my remarks, I wish to range wider than the current work of Parliament and to look to its future shape and role in national life. I have spoken before of the disconnection between the people and their democratic institutions in this country. While civic life is prized in new societies, in established democracies a growing number of citizens are increasingly questioning the effectiveness of their public institutions. Most developed societies are experiencing a collapse of confidence in traditional methods and models of democratic governance. Our last general election certainly proved this, in contrast to Zimbabwe where people queued for 50 hours or more to vote in the presidential elections, because, deprived of true democracy, they know its worth.
Last year's general election here produced the lowest voter turnout since 1918. Millions of British people were prepared to forgo the opportunity to participate in the democratic process. Some 41 per cent of the population did not vote, and of those who did fewer than a quarter voted for the Government. That underlines the need for a strong Parliament, able to scrutinise legislation and contain the executive, of whichever political hue.
Since the general election, confidence in politicians and political institutions has continued to wane. Many of your Lordships will be all too aware that more people voted in the final of the television programme "Pop Idol" this year than voted for the Liberal Democrats in the last general election.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I understand that more people voted in that event than voted for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in the last election.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I cannot agree with that. My calculation was that 8.7 million people voted in "Pop Idol" and the collective number would have been greater. However, I may stand corrected once I have checked the arithmetic.
In those circumstances, there is little cause for optimism in the future. Levels of disengagement are likely only to increase, because—and here I totally agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, about the importance of engaging young people—the problem is most acute with the young. Some 61 per cent of the 18 to 25 age group did not vote in the last election. I ask the Minister to pick up on the point that disconnection on that scale among young people poses a significant threat to the long-term health of our democratic institutions.
Voter participation is an essential part of a healthy democracy. While to some extent I understand the argument that we are living in what has been called a post-political age, in which the blurring of the old sharp ideological divides between Left and Right and the crowding of politics on the centre ground mean that people perceive little difference between the political parties and feel that voting one way or the other will make little difference to their lives, the
840
malaise goes deeper than that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said in her farewell address in another place:
"The level of cynicism about Parliament, and the accompanying alienation of many of the young from the democratic process, is troubling. It is an issue on which every Member of the House should wish to reflect. It is our responsibility, each and every one of us, to do what we can to develop and build public trust and confidence".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/7/01; col. 1114.]
I do not believe that the public are more apathetic now than a generation ago, but I believe that there is a misalignment between national politics and local activism. There is no longer a perception that social, economic or environmental problems will necessarily have a political solution. As a result, our political institutions are no longer seen to be the key focus for change.
In many ways, activism is growing, but respect for the political process and the traditional institutions through which politics used to function is collapsing. Today, the targeting of the business world by NGOs and pressure groups is often seen as more likely to be an effective vehicle for change than elective politics. Yet if voters choose to sideline Parliament because they see politics as unfashionable and irrelevant to their lives, there will be grave consequences for society.
Democracy is only as good as its citizens. Good citizenship requires knowledge and participation. We know too much about the perils of dictatorship to indulge in the myth that democracy is simply a designer accessory. Democracy is by no means a perfect system. It has faults, flaws and deficiencies, but after 2,500 years it is still the best and fairest system of government known to man. The commitment to democratic accountability and legitimacy underpins the most successful governments and states in the world.
Representative democracy is critical if competing interests are to be reconciled not only peacefully, but in a coherent way. The collective will of the people must be manifested in our democratically elected Parliament, from which the Government are formed. If our elected representatives lose their authority because their mandate comes from ever fewer voters, the unelected and unaccountable activists will step into that vacuum, claiming that, on a given issue, it is they, not Parliament, who truly represent the people. Mob rule is not far from that scenario—witness the case of the anti-paedophile protests on the Paulsgrove estate in Portsmouth in 2000.
The way in which Parliament and politics are presented through the lens of the media is clearly influential in forming public attitudes. Ironically, the overall effect of increased media access to Parliament has been to make the political system seem more distant and less relevant to everyday life. The media have been criticised for dumbing down their coverage of politics. In part that is due to the dog-eat-dog fight for audience share, which means that entertainment is likely to win at the expense of information. That contributes hugely to the current soundbite culture of our political life. This language drives the public away, because they perceive a departure from the politics of conviction towards the politics of expediency.

841
Yet it is difficult to expect the media or the public to take Parliament seriously when the Government so often sideline it. The relationship between Parliament and the Government is one of the most fundamental in our democracy. The Government are elected through Parliament and deserve and derive their political authority from that fact. It should be a salutary lesson for governments that if Parliament is undermined, eventually so too will be the authority of the Government. To neglect Parliament is to neglect the body that confers the legitimacy necessary for a government to act and the body that ensures that the views of the public, whom it represents, are taken into account. Parliament is integral to public policy making, not separate from it or inferior to it. Yet we are increasingly drifting towards an executive approach to government, with executive announcements and action taking the place of decision-making through parliamentary debate.
In that context, Parliament must be able to regulate and police itself effectively. The resignation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Elizabeth Filkin, her complaints of undue pressure and whispering campaigns and her criticism of the lack of independence and resources to be offered to her successor were highly damaging to the reputation of Parliament. It is vital that Parliament maintains high standards of probity and good conduct, for if it does not, how can it deserve its rightful place at the centre of our national life?
In closing, I place on record my thanks and admiration for the work done by the House of Lords administration, which has greatly improved public accessibility to your Lordships' House and plays a great role in facilitating understanding of its work as part of Parliament. The challenge that we face—this is a challenge for the Government, for political parties of all complexions and for Parliament—is how to deliver politics in an accessible way and to kindle political interest by ensuring that all people, young and old, are made aware of the relevance of politics to their lives. Voter disconnection from formal politics is not the inevitable outcome of a post-political, information age world. Without a 21st century Parliament for a 21st century Britain, efforts to re-engage the public will meet with only limited success.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for introducing this debate. Judging by the numbers who have attended it, it has struck a chord with the House—and so it should. As my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham said, I am president of the Citizenship Foundation, which I founded in 1988. As long ago as 1969, I persuaded a headmaster to allow me into his school for one lesson a week for a year, to see whether I could interest apathetic 15 year-olds in politics and the law. That was a lesson more for me than them and one that I have never forgotten. It was heart-lifting to discover that so-called apathetic, disenchanted and disconnected young people were hugely interested in the moral issues debated in this
842
Chamber from month to month. But they lacked confidence that anyone was interested in their opinions and the belief that their views were worth developing and expressing.
In the intervening 30 years, those problems have grown substantially. I refer particularly to the sense of powerlessness and civic insignificance of the vast majority of our fellow citizens. We—by which I mean this House and another place—do not understand just how disaffected people feel. I did my stint of canvassing at the last general election. Never before did I hear the constant refrains, "What is the point of voting? Nobody really cares or notices what we think. They only take any interest in us when an election comes around. Our MP is a decent enough person but utterly insignificant. MPs say one thing to your face and vote for something else in the House. They are powerless, so what does that make me?"
Sheep-like Back-Benchers are shoved through the Lobby night after night, often voting uneasily and sometimes directly against what they feel and believe.
There is a schism between the values that people hold dear in their own lives and the values that they see characterised by Westminster. In their own lives, people value integrity, independence and moral courage. There is a great deal of all that in the Palace of Westminster but the public do not see much of it. Among the most difficult of the thorny issues with which we have to contend is that on which the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, concentrated—the relationship between party discipline and the activities of Members—particularly of another place. Even in this House the situation in that regard is getting worse, not better.
Until we re-establish in the minds of the public a sense that their Members of Parliament are independent agents—albeit governed by party discipline and having to sign up to an election manifesto—with infinitely more freedom to be what the electorate want MPs to be, a great deal else will not succeed.
The predicament in which we find ourselves is even worse than many may think. It is not just that only 39 per cent of the electorate under 25 voted at the last general election, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred. One third of those under-25s are not registered to vote. If one subtracts them from the 39 per cent, only one in four of under-25s voted at the last election. In the elections for the European Parliament, only one in 10 of under-25s voted. What does that say about politics?
Party membership is also rapidly declining, which raises a serious problem of the authenticity of government. No longer can governments make the claims that they could when more than 60 per cent of young people and more than 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the total electorate voted in general elections. It is no longer adequate for governments to say, "We have the authority of the ballot box". They do not.
Politics are not in a box but are intimately bound up with the whole of our social and communal strength or weakness. Of the under-30s in this country, more than

843
30 per cent have convictions for crimes of dishonesty or violence. In 1999–2000, the direct costs of crime—not the psychological damage—totalled more than £60 billion. The majority and rising element of that crime was committed by people under 30. Make no bones about it—we have on our hands a sick society. The violent aspect of antisocial behaviour is rising faster than any other. It is simplistic and futile to lay all the blame at the door of Parliament, but our country more than any on earth, except perhaps America, has an intimate connection between politics and its general health.
The Citizenship Foundation has active connections with more than half of all state primary and secondary schools. The gap between the relevance of this place to the so-called ordinary citizen and its actual relevance is enormous and growing, so I totally endorse everything that has been said about increasing the information output. The tiny band of people in our Information Office do wonderful work but there are fewer of them than in a medium-sized public company. We need to reach out.
One thing that we could do is have a speaking list, with each one of us offering to speak—not just to schools but to anyone who wants to hear about the work of Parliament. I do not imagine that any Member of this House would refuse to give half a dozen evenings a year for that purpose. Think what a transformation that would represent—3,000 or 4,000 occasions a year when we would be going out to the public. There could be no more effective sign of our interest.
I was infinitely depressed when, during our debate on the Nice treaty, I moved an amendment requiring the Government to circularise every household with an unbiased, plain English guide to the main issues vis-à-vis the governance of the kingdom. I was depressed by the lack of interest shown by government speakers, who seemed to think that everything was more or less all right because the White Paper that was published last year, price £10.40, was on a website; another pamphlet could be read in libraries; and Peter Hain had made a few public speeches.
We need to do infinitely more. We must get on our horses and go, like Wesley, into the highways and byways to sell our wares. Unless we do, the problems that we confront now will grow worse and worse.
We live in a disconnected, fast-moving world in any event. There is less informal communication than before and a decline in communality and local life. Volunteering and giving are not increasing. The latest statistics show that among the under-30s, there is a radical decline in the giving of both time and money. Even at the seminar at Church House yesterday, the BBC complained that it can no longer connect effectively with the young adult age group. We have a real problem in the form of communal, social and national disconnectedness. There is no easy answer to that. However, some of the suggestions made today will undoubtedly help.
844
In the final minute allotted to me I shall make a few specific suggestions. First, I suggest that we should have a post-legislative audit or impact assessment. That is because I believe that the volume of legislation is ludicrous and that the complexity of legislation is utterly self-defeating; and I would like to see a duty imposed on the Law Commission to keep track of those matters. We should have more limited-life legislation. We may need to consider carefully a common law approach to statute law, which broadly deals with principles and values rather than the minutiae of our traditional legislation.
We also need to consider the system of elections for Europe. The closed-list system was an affront to democracy. We need to contemplate open primaries because, even with open lists, there is still a gross excess of party membership influence on those lists.
We need to give advance warning of our debates and Bills—an active outreach that will allow us to contact every organisation relevant to our debates and Bills and let them know what subjects are to be debated and the results of those debates. I also believe that the Schools Unit—God bless it—needs 100 times more resources.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth for introducing a subject of very great importance. I am also grateful to the House of Lords information officer. She has produced an excellent brief of the work that she and her team are doing to try to promote a greater awareness of the role of Parliament.
I suggest that any debate must start with the government of the day, no matter what their colour. Governments can help to promote greater awareness by treating Parliament with more respect. We need to reverse the growing tendency of Ministers to bypass Parliament and to make statements first to the media. That undermines the authority of Parliament and partly explains why people, particularly young people, do not bother to vote—a point impressively made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. We need to remind ourselves repeatedly that Parliament is supreme. Parliament makes and very occasionally dismisses governments. A strong government needs a strong Parliament. It is in the interests of the government of the day to help restore the authority of Parliament and promote public awareness.
Today we hear much about the modernisation of Parliament. I have now had the privilege of sitting in one House or the other for over 30 years. I am always suspicious of modernisation, which usually means that the government of the day can more easily get their business. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Norton, with his enormous experience in these matters, nodding in assent.
I give one example of what worries me. There is a suggestion that it may be possible to carry over Bills from one Session to the next. I believe that that would be extremely dangerous and unparliamentary. One of the main disciplines of government—any

845
government—is to persuade Parliament to accept a Bill by the end of a Session—otherwise, that Bill falls. Equally, of course, it is important for the Opposition of the day. There are occasions on which the only effective weapon available to the Opposition of the day is to talk. They can delay the passage of a Bill if they feel that it is not in the national interest that the Bill should pass. Provided it is done within the Rules of Order of the two Houses, that is perfectly legitimate.
I suggest that to allow the carry-over of Bills would tempt the Government of the day to overload the legislative programme, which they already do, and would deprive the Opposition of the day of a legitimate parliamentary weapon. We need fewer and better Bills, not more and worse Bills. I believe that the bad effect of carrying over Bills from one Session to another would blunt public awareness and respect for Parliament.
We have also heard about the possibility of a Civil Service Bill. Recent events have made it clear that we need to define more precisely the relationship between Ministers, civil servants and special advisers. For years there has existed in our system of government a key principle of trust between Ministers and civil servants who are devoted to the cause but are wholly non-party political and will loyally serve whichever government are in office. The waters are now muddied. I do not suggest that we should not have special advisers. We are now in that age, and I am very glad that the Committee on Standards in Public Life is now studying those problems.
There is a rumour—I am sure that the noble and learned Lord who is to respond to the debate will be able to comment on it—that Downing Street is trying to hold up the possibility of a Civil Service Bill. I do not expect the noble and learned Lord to tell us what will be contained in the next Queen's Speech. However, I hope that he will be able to scotch that rumour, thus allowing us to say that a Civil Service Bill will have high priority in the Government's programme.
I turn to executive agencies and quangos, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, whose enormous experience in the other House we greatly respect. This is another area where there are disturbing developments. Oppositions are always rather cautious and suspicious of quangos. The minute they come into government, of course, they realise how handy they are and tend to increase the number of them.
In executive agencies and quangos, there is now a huge power of patronage, supported by vast sums. The effect that they have on individuals and businesses is very considerable. They are not effectively answerable to Parliament. I am not against executive agencies. Much is to be said for the Government laying down the broad policy and allowing the details to be dealt with by executive agencies. In recent years such agencies have grown enormously, but parliamentary scrutiny of them has not grown to anything like the same extent. That point was made very clearly in a distinguished report from the Hansard Society, The Challenge for Parliament, chaired by my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree.
846
Equally, I am not against quangos. In a modern age, we possibly need quangos. However, they are often created without any reference to Parliament; for the most part, they are not required to report to Parliament; and they are outside the direct scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Consequently, it is very difficult for Select Committees in either House to scrutinise their work effectively, even if they had the resources to do so.
I suggest that there is a growing gap in effective scrutiny of bodies that have a major role to play in Parliament. This partly explains the lack of public interest and awareness. People will, understandably, ask, "If Parliament cannot do this job, what is the point of us trying to take an interest?" I believe that to be one of the reasons for the decline in the prestige of both Houses of Parliament.
In conclusion, I shall mention very briefly four disturbing developments that seem to me to be important for Parliament. The first development is Ministers bypassing Parliament. I am not making a party-political point here because parties of both colours have done it. Secondly, there are the modernisation proposals that make it easier for the Government and more difficult for the Opposition. Thirdly, there is the confusion as regards relationships between Ministers, civil servants and advisers. Fourthly, while methods of government have moved on, Parliament has been overtaken, in its attempt to scrutinise these developments. This insidious combination is, I suggest, largely responsible for public apathy and lack of awareness. Only Westminster and Whitehall can put this right.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that there is a strong case why we in Parliament should see a big rise in the public awareness of our work. After all, we are here on behalf of the public. I congratulate the noble Lord on moving this Motion. As I see it, the problem is that the public may not really want to be aware of the work that we carry out in Parliament. Many people believe that our work here is far removed from their day-to-day lives. It seems to me that what they are really interested in is the politics that goes on in Parliament, rather than the work. They are interested in the differences of opinion; they are interested in the personal rivalries; and they are interested in the political ambitions. I am not being cynical. I am just trying to be realistic.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, said that the work of Parliament and the politics of Parliament are inextricably linked. I agree. You cannot just raise awareness of our work without acknowledging the public's interest in our politics. It would be naive to think that we will be judged purely on the quality of our work. We shall also be judged on how we handle the politics. The openness, the honesty and the transparency with which we deal with the country's politics will also affect the interest that the public have in our work. The two are indeed linked.

847
What should we do about the situation? Let us look at it from the point of view of the public. Perhaps our parliamentary system is not as admired and appreciated by the public as much as we parliamentarians would like to suppose. What we see as useful and helpful procedures, perhaps the public see as fudge and secrecy. Let us take, for example, the decisions reached by the usual channels. This happens every day. We see it as a helpful way of reaching compromises, but it must be pretty mysterious to outsiders. To the outsider, this could be rather like the activities of a secret organisation. Anyway, the public now know that work is done better when it is openly discussed. That is why we should open up our procedures and let people see who takes decisions in Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, says that our committee work is reported less; I am not sure why, but I believe that this openness is a special feature of our committee work, especially in your Lordships' House. That is why it is much admired. The committees consider things broadly from the public interest point of view. The European Union committees, the economics committee, the Science and Technology Committee and the ad hoc committees all try to make their work relevant to the public interest rather than to the political interest. Like the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I believe that our reporting ought to be a lot more user friendly and better presented, but I know that that work is in hand. I hope that we shall achieve that aim very shortly.
However, we have been slow and late in our attempts to inform the public about our work. An information office in your Lordships' House was established only five years ago—and, more recently, in the other place. The money and staff devoted to it are minuscule. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Norton, and Lord Phillips. The resources devoted to the press and information office of a government department, a business, or, indeed, of other parliaments are much larger than those that we supply. I do not wish to detract from the work of Mary Morgan and her staff. They deal with 2,000 telephone calls a month when the House is sitting, and ensure that the press is informed about our current work and future business. I also happen to know that it was their initiative that the parliamentary website should be redesigned to make it easier to use and more attractive to the public. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Minister will join me and other noble Lords in congratulating that department on its work.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, asked if our behaviour is one reason why the public are less interested in our work. My noble friend Lord Sheldon, with his vast experience, thinks that that may be exaggerated. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. The public should expect high standards of personal behaviour from parliamentarians. After all, parliamentarians are law makers. The public expect law makers to stick to the law, to set standards and to be honest. I agree that exaggerated reporting sometimes leads to unnecessary public anxiety. But if
848
you talk to reporters, they will say that they are responding only to what they feel to be public interest and concern.
Instead of responding to the narrow accusations and political rivalries about which my noble friend Lord Sheldon spoke, it seems to me that we could do far better using these opportunities to break out of the low ground that is currently permeating politics. By regaining the high ground, we could shift the agenda back to the political direction of the country and so create a better understanding of the work that we accomplish in Parliament. Yes, sometimes this kind of action injures its originator. We in the Labour Party are perhaps victims of its rules about disclosure of political donations, but that does not detract from its merits.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Phillips, that the real worry about all this is falling participation at elections. There is a danger that the turn-out at the next general election could fall below 50 per cent. Are those who stay away saying that they want to vote for none of the candidates? Are they staying away because they just do not care? The noble Lord, Lord Norton, asks: is it that the public's influence on decisions is getting more and more distant as we join international organisations? Decisions that affect people's lives are becoming more distant. Yet, paradoxically, the world is coming closer together. We may not be sharing the same currency as others in Europe, but it is becoming apparent that we share many of the same values and ideals.
Perhaps to stimulate us we need a campaigning organisation like Greenpeace. In the same way that it stimulated concern about the environment, perhaps we need a similar campaigning organisation to stimulate us to face up to the concerns of the public and to tell us where it believes we have failed. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, is the president of the Hansard Society and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is on the council. Perhaps they could persuade the society to turn itself into such a campaigning organisation. The Hansard Society seems to be saying to us that we parliamentarians indulge too much in politics and management and too little in governance—not government, governance.
The society calls for more governance by Parliament through scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, spoke about scrutiny, which would have to be more systematic and better-resourced, not only with more money and people but with more time devoted to it. As the Hansard Society suggests, perhaps Parliament should devote one day a week to scrutinising the work of government instead of simply debating it. I know that we parliamentarians prefer to debate the work and effectiveness of government, but that is largely political. Scrutiny by committees, whose Members have a career in Parliament devoted to scrutiny, would be better understood by the public as a means of scrutinising the work of government. The Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Commission are showing the way in that regard. Such scrutiny would be better understood by the public and would raise their awareness of our work.

849
I realise that governments like to be judged by results; after all, what could be clearer? As many noble Lords have said, we live in a democracy. A democracy must be concerned about how those results were achieved. So, how can we have a democracy without those systems being open to scrutiny? That effective scrutiny combined with proper information is the key to raising people's awareness of the work of Parliament. In short, if Parliament wants the public to take more interest, it must become more public-friendly in every respect.
4.33 p.m.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I too to congratulate my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth on initiating this important debate. I agree with his concerns. However, it is worth putting the matter in perspective: in 1949 Christopher Hollis, a Conservative MP of independent inclinations, published a book, Can Parliament Survive?. Three years later, George Keeton, a professor of law, brought out The Passing of Parliament. The issues are not new, but they have intensified in recent years.
I begin by disagreeing slightly with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. I shall set the record straight: the problem is not that Parliament does not address the issues of public concern. That point is usually made in connection with such matters as the environment, drugs and social issues, which are of great concern to young people. In fact, Parliament does debate those issues frequently. Contrary to the suggestion that health, education, transport and welfare issues are not debated in Parliament, any week's analysis of Hansard would show that Parliament is deeply concerned about those matters and that they are the stuff of parliamentary debate.
Every day in the other place there are pages of Written Questions on health, education, transport and welfare issues of direct local concern to constituents. That is not the problem; rather it is how the matters are conveyed and perceived. Nor is there insufficient contact with the electorate. All Members of Parliament now spend more time than ever contacting their electorate throughout the week and every weekend. They now use every means of doing so—not public meetings, because the public does not attend those, as their lifestyle offers them so many attractive alternatives. Not least because the parliamentary allowances have been increased greatly, various means are now used to communicate with the electorate, including professional public relations agents and all forms of technology. That means that one can make direct contact with doctors, nurses, pensioners and every interest group to survey their opinions. That happens all the time and on a larger scale than before, so it is not the real problem.
I am in favour of the work of the Information Office here. Until this debate, I was largely unaware of its work, which is perhaps a problem in itself. I am in favour of the work of the Citizenship Foundation, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for his leadership of that body. When I was Secretary of State for Education, I was keen on the
850
foundation's work with schools, and since then I have participated in many of its activities. I know how good and important the foundation is. I therefore support all those measures. However, any such activity can he like pushing a small stone uphill against a rushing downward torrent.
We must analyse the underlying reasons why we are not projecting ourselves well to the public as was done in the past and why Parliament is apparently held in such low regard. First, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and others, outside influences have greatly weakened the supremacy and power of Parliament. Globalisation and the need for global and regional solutions, immediate information technology and instant global communication, and the shift of power to Brussels and Edinburgh have rendered other institutions of significant, but perhaps not equal, importance in relation to Parliament. Changing cultures and attitudes are important factors. We live in a non-deferential era—and it is different from 15 years ago—in which instant gratification can prevail. The ambition of many is to earn a good deal of money so that they can retire earlier, rather than to contribute to public life and service. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, made that point also. There is a problem with engaging young people in public life, partly because of their lifestyles, their busy working lives and the increase in two-income households where people wish to devote their free time to their family. Those changes have reduced participation not only in politics but also in church, social and voluntary activities, as noble Lords know.
People will not vote if they feel comfortable and do not think that their vote will affect their lives. That point is highlighted by the contrast between the events surrounding the British election and that in Zimbabwe, where a vote really matters. People will not lobby unless they feel threatened. The lobby today outside both Houses indicates how Parliament still matters, because people feel threatened about a matter on which it will take the ultimate decision. It is disturbing that pressure groups such as Greenpeace sometimes feel that is more important to lobby bodies other than Parliament and the Government to get their way. When the Committee on Standards in Public Life was examining lobbying issues, I was struck when a prominent member of Greenpeace who was asked about parliamentary lobbying replied that supermarkets and consumer targeting matter more than Parliament.
When discussing the influence and power of Parliament, we cannot avoid mentioning the role of the media—although it is a hackneyed issue. Robin Oakley, the distinguished BBC correspondent, wrote in a farewell article in The House Magazine:
"newspaper reports of what goes on in the Commons chamber are confined these days to the waspish efforts of a talented band of sketch-writers who largely see the Commons as a vehicle of entertainment, a backcloth to a string of witticisms".
I fear that that is true. That is often the only communication from Parliament that many read in their daily newspaper. It is a sad reflection of how the media now feel that they must respond to what they

851
regard as public demand and the competition in the media to attract the public's attention. They regard it as more important to report what they think people want to hear and read about, which is so often the negative and the so-called sensational, rather than what we think they should report. All occupations are suffering from the combination of the non-deferential attitude and how they are reported in the media. That applies not only to politics, but also to the Church, the professions—it is beginning to apply to doctors—the business community and many others. Respect must now be earned, while it is often the transgressions of the minority that get all the media attention. I wish that we could change the media in that regard, because it greatly influences how Parliament and its work are perceived, but I fear that it would be extremely difficult to do so. An additional problem is soundbites and confrontation. Soundbites are no substitute for arguments, and two-minute interviews give no opportunity for analysis, as every politician who has been frequently engaged in them knows only too well.
I could talk much more about the media, but we are all aware of the difficulties that it creates for us. So I now turn to Parliament itself. First, composition is a factor in the other place. It is disappointing that such a heavy element of the modern Parliament is composed of people who have known nothing other than politics since their student days. The necessary width of experience is no longer being brought to Parliament. That is partly a function of salary, partly a function of sleaze—if I have the time, I shall comment on that—and partly a function of work pressures.
There is also the apparent irrelevance of Parliament. That too partly comes back to the media. Is Parliament any longer the forum of the nation or is it the media? If it is the media, the sadness is that the interviewers and producers have the power without the responsibility. They have the ability to ask questions but never to find the answers.
That is partly due to the bypassing of Parliament by government, not only by regarding the "Today" programme as more important than making a Statement to Parliament—I deeply regret that—but also because, with a large majority—this is more fundamental—government can be pretty brutal in saying that they can get anything through Parliament whenever they wish to do so, and that neither parliamentary debate nor proper parliamentary scrutiny of legislation matters. Regrettably, that too often seems to be the impression that is created today. Indeed, it is the impression that the Government often give by the way in which they currently bypass Parliament.
Something I feel strongly about is the parliamentary atmosphere of confrontation and—if I may put it this way—"yah boo" politics. It is out of tune with the spirit of the time. We all know that it is only a small part of what actually takes place in Parliament—at Prime Minister's Question Time and other Question Times—but it is the part that gets all the attention. I was much struck when judging the final of one of the
852
Citizenship Foundation's school debates when every single school participating thought that, in order to copy Parliament and show the proper parliamentary process, they spent all their time shouting, jumping up and intervening as happens at the worst moments of Prime Minister's Questions. They clearly thought that that was typical of what happens in Parliament. There is far too much of the confrontation element in the other place, with point-scoring rather than sustained argument. Happily, that is not present in your Lordships' House.
Much more attention needs to be paid to committee work and Select Committees. Governments need to take much more note of what they do. Select Committee chairmen should be paid, and I am glad to see that we are moving in that direction, and Select Committee work should be seen as an alternative career structure for a Member of Parliament. There is too much other workload pressure on MPs so that they cannot participate, or only a few do, in Select Committee work and in parliamentary scrutiny of legislation, and they do not do it effectively.
On the question of sleaze—I declare an interest in serving on the Committee on Standards in Public Life—what I regret most about the past five years is that, at a time when sleaze (if I may use that shorthand word due to shortness of time) is actually a small part of parliamentary life, and when most of the aspects being examined are trivial in the extreme, it receives so much public attention that it has the opposite effect to that intended. It gives the public the impression that sleaze is prevalent in Parliament when it is not.
Above all, we need to make sure that Parliament matters. I was saddened to note Peter Riddell, who I greatly respect as a columnist, writing in The House Magazine the other day, that, as a result of Stephen Byers's Statement to Parliament, when it appeared that his ministerial life was secured, Parliament still mattered. It is a rather trivial reason for thinking that Parliament still matters. But one of the problems that exists at the moment is that we have a government who have ignored Parliament too often because they have too large a majority. With smaller majorities, as I well recall in the last years of the Conservative government, Parliament really did matter. Members of the Government have to pay a great deal of attention to what Parliament thinks. When that happens, Parliament is clearly the focus of the nation and the media pay much more attention.
I conclude by saying that I wholly agree with the general analysis of my noble friend Lord Norton, and it is important that we all pay attention to putting this situation right.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to say a few words in the gap, having listened to the debate.
Many of the comments we have heard this evening turned on people's concerns about a reduction in the reputation of this House and the other place. Indeed, the noble Lords, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market

853
and Lord Dean of Harptree, referred specifically to the declining reputation. I should like, in the next few minutes, to point to something that we can do and which will influence judgments of people outside. I refer to the way we conduct ourselves in the Chamber.
Next week there is a debate on hunting. It is a controversial debate. I shall take a view and Members of this House will take differing views. Members of the press, stirred by Members of the other place, will pore through the Division List in the House of Lords to look for those Members of this place who have perhaps just signed in, just taken the Oath, not spoken this Session or perhaps not voted on any issue this Session, and who it is quite clear have turned up specifically to vote on the issue of hunting with self-interest in mind.
We can safely predict that some noble Lords will fall into that bracket. They discredit this place. Self-interest will have determined what they do. It will be exploited by the press. The will of the House of Commons may well be undermined because of Members taking such a position.
If there are to be reforms—there have been many which I support and which have been referred to today—let us start by running a House which does not operate on the basis of self-interest and where people cannot simply cannot walk in and vote, as they did in 1989 if I remember rightly on the community charge legislation. We used to laugh about it in the other place. We were told how the Division Lobbies were filled in this place with some who had not voted or seen the place for years, but who turned up because they had an interest in that legislation in so far as they were going to save a substantial amount of money.
That is what creates public cynicism. That is why people become angry at the Houses of Parliament when they see those things happening. I rest my case. Next week, when we look at the Division List, I am sure it will be upheld.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is a distinguished expert on the constitution. He does great service for your Lordships' House. He is the chairman of our Select Committee on the Constitution and performed another service today by introducing this debate with a speech full of interesting and valuable ideas.
This Motion raises two questions. The first is whether the case for raising public awareness of the work of Parliament is made out. I am sure we all agree that it is. The second question is: if so, how do we do it?
It is clear that interest in politics at all levels has declined, not just an interest in Parliament. That decline is partly for reasons which are acceptable and perhaps even welcome. Politics is certainly less ideological than it used to be. The failure of socialism as an economic system means that there is now much less difference in substance between the main parties. Class consciousness, in my experience, is a good deal less than it was 40 or 50 years ago.
854
Those changes are certainly acceptable and I believe welcome. But there are also less welcome reasons why interest in the political system and in Parliament has decreased. For example, there is less interest in local government because so much of it has been centralised. Central government now tells local authorities what they are to do and how they are to do it. Indeed, we have two Bills before the House—the Education Bill and the Police Reform Bill—which increase the directive powers of central government. And nowadays local authorities raise only a small proportion of their own funds.
We have moved too far from what I suppose was the golden age of local government, which was probably the late 19th century; the age of powerful city corporations in our great industrial cities like Birmingham and Manchester, and the era of the foundation of the London County Council. Indeed, I remember one of the characters who used to inhabit the Peter Simple column in the Daily Telegraph with the ghost of Alderman Foodbottom, who had been the chairman of the Tramways and Fine Arts Committee of Bradford in the great days. I am afraid nowadays even the ghost of Alderman Foodbottom has given up the ghost.
We need to hand powers back to local authorities, including fund-raising powers. That would create more interest in local government. It would also mean that local elections would cease to be no more than glorified opinion polls on the popularity of the current central government. There has never been enough interest in the European Parliament even though it now has significant powers—but that issue is for another debate.
The decline in public interest extends to the whole of the political process, not only to Parliament itself. We cannot separate the lack of interest in the working of Parliament from the lack of interest in the process. Nothing is more irritating when campaigning than finding a voter on the doorstep saying, "You lot are all the same. You're all in it for what you can get out of it". I, as a campaigner, would much rather find someone saying, "Well, we are all staunch Tories in this house", or even, as once happened when I was campaigning on entry phones in Kensington, a voter who said, "You can stuff yourself up your own soft centre".
The people who say, "You are all in it for what you can get out of it", usually mean that they are too lazy themselves to take an interest or vote. But, in a sense, they are right—we are all in it for what we can get out of it. But what we get out of it is usually not money. Most of us, I am sure, are financially worse off for our involvement in politics. We are in it, in some cases, because we want office. That is not an ignoble reason for taking part in politics; it is certainly what inspired Winston Churchill for most of his career. We are in it for the excitement and interest of a political career; we are in it for the satisfaction of taking part in an essential function in a democratic society. We need to get those reasons across to the public.

855
The decline in interest in and respect for Parliament is blamed on the media. There is less coverage of Parliament than there used to be, but that is largely a symptom, not a cause, of the problem. We cannot force newspapers to print what the public do not want to read, although I agree very strongly with my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham about the duty of public service broadcasters to keep the public informed about the work of Parliament.
I do not believe that satirists such as parliamentary sketch writers and Rory Bremner are doing damage because they appeal only to people who are already interested in politics. I do not entirely agree on this issue with the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market—not "Pulman Market" as his name appears on the List of Speakers.
We need to consider whether Parliament itself could do more to raise awareness. I am reluctant to suggest what the House of Commons could do because, unlike a number of previous speakers, I have never served there. But the sight of an empty Chamber for important debates and excessive party points scoring is not likely to increase the viewing figures for the parliamentary channel. Speeches on busy occasions are too often directed towards raising a cheer from party supporters rather than persuading a wider public—and I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, on that issue.
In your Lordships' House the Information Office does a very good job of telling people what we do. I have been impressed by the briefing papers it has produced for this debate.
Respect for your Lordships' House is high, perhaps particularly now that the Conservatives no longer have a permanent majority among Members who take a party whip and most of the hereditary Peers have left. But there is still a danger that we will be seen—I have to watch my language here to ensure that it is parliamentary—as a group of "boring old flatulences". "Old", I must confess, we are. At the age of 69 I have reached the average age of Members of the House.
We have to keep an eye on our public image. On one day a few weeks ago, the media coverage of your Lordships' House concentrated entirely on a Parliamentary Question about the House Christmas card—not because of any intrinsic public interest in the House Christmas card; clearly there was none whatever—but because it reinforced the misleading image of ourselves as "boring old flatulences". I do not believe that there will be a real interest in your Lordships' House until most of us are elected and the public feel that, in a sense, we belong to them.
The most important thing for improving awareness and interest in Parliament is education. I agree absolutely with my noble friends Lord Holme and Lord Phillips on this issue. We heard a passionate speech from my noble friend Lord Phillips, who has perhaps campaigned more than anyone else in your Lordships' House to ensure that the public, and particularly young people, get proper instruction in
856
how the political system works. No one, least of all those of us on these Benches, would accuse my noble friend of being a slavish follower of the party line.
I strongly welcome the developments in citizenship education. It is essential that all pupils, not only those studying politics, should get a basic instruction on the constitutional and political system of this country. We should seriously look at reducing the voting age from 18 to 16. That is now the policy of my party. It is a policy about which I have been in the past distinctly sceptical, but I find my mind changing on this issue.
When I was a parliamentary candidate—as I was on four occasions—I found that school sixth forms, as they were then called, were the most acute and interested audiences I had to face. But, of course, very few of those pupils were eligible to vote. If pupils became eligible to vote while they were learning about the political system instead of a year or two later, they would be much more likely to vote. Voting would then become a part of the rite of passage into adulthood and, having voted once, young people would be more likely to do so again.
I am delighted to see that the sum which the Electoral Commission is authorised to spend on encouraging public awareness of our political and democratic systems is being increased under a statutory instrument which has recently been laid before your Lordships' House, from £1.5 million per year to £7.5 million. That is certainly a welcome step forward.
There is no single cause of the decline of interest in politics—and in Parliament in particular—and there is therefore no single answer to that problem. The best answer, to borrow a phrase from a right honourable member of another place, is "Education, education, education".
4.58 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, on this occasion, as on several others when my noble friend Lord Norton has initiated debates in your Lordships' House on the constitution and related matters, we are most grateful to him for highlighting and so expertly analysing a major problem—that is, that the glorious idea of representation, which is perhaps the essence of our political system, has somehow been lost.
I always feel that debates such as this show your Lordships' House at its best. I remember that on one occasion the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that the reports of the Select Committees of your Lordships' House should be made compulsory reading in schools, and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made similar remarks about our reports. Perhaps it is true that the best and simplest cure for the problems to which many noble Lords have referred is to open up your Lordships' House to visitors.
It is very striking that the public galleries are almost empty. Perhaps we should aim to fill them. For that reason I echo the remarks of my noble friends Lord Dean and Lord Moynihan, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, in praising Mary Morgan and the work of the House of Lords Information Office and

857
the new visitor centre. I hope that we follow up some of the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as to how we can help her with her work.
My noble friend Lord Norton dissected some of the key causes of the problem that is the subject of the debate and applied innovative thought to them. I hope that, when he comes to reply, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will give a positive response to the brilliant analysis given by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, and my noble friend Lord Dean of the problems that exist in our own parliamentary procedure— particularly the "insidious combination" of the four procedural elements described by my noble friend.
Many noble Lords analysed the symptom of the problem as being low turnout, especially among young people. Some alarming and depressing statistics were given to us. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that he was so concerned about low turnout among young people that he wondered whether the mandate was not being called into question, which is very serious indeed.
Other speakers concentrated on the diagnosis—on what the underlying causes might be. For adherents of post-materialism, I believe the root of the problem is widespread affluence leading to general contentment—the point was not taken up by previous speakers, but we read a great deal about it. Most speakers took the opposite point of view; namely, that the cause of the problem is widespread discontentment, disillusion and disrespect—the "deep cynicism" of which my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, spoke.
Many speakers were worried about the media. I refer in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord MacGregor. It will take a major act of will on the part of government to solve this problem. Simon Jenkins once explained to the Nolan committee why, as editor of The Times, he abandoned the full-page parliamentary report. He said that people,
"who want to read … what goes on in Parliament can subscribe to Hansard".
That statement is the precursor of the thinking that now dominates broadcasting in our country, both in the commercial ITV companies and in the BBC. It is the thinking that leads to the concept of the "themed" channel, which now dominates broadcasting. Echoing what Mr Jenkins said, the ITV companies say: "If people want to watch news, we have a very nice 24-hour news channel". That is the new conventional wisdom in commercial television. The BBC says much same; namely, that it has conducted research among young people in "digital" homes—it takes this group to be the best predictor of the future shape of society—and that such persons are not interested in politics, and that, therefore, it is inappropriate to provide such programming, other than on a themed channel.
One issue that arises in regard to the BBC—I was grateful to have the opportunity earlier to mention this to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House—is why the BBC parliamentary channel is, incredibly, available only on audio on the ITV digital
858
terrestrial channels which are free, and is available with a normal picture on Sky, which is paid for. In other words, the position we seem to have reached in regard to the BBC parliamentary channel is that a rich man gets a picture and a poor man gets a blank screen. This is hardly the New Jerusalem! I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will use his influence to stop such complete nonsense.
Many noble Lords focused on the possible cure for the problem being "Education, education, education", a phrase employed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I am not sure that he was not closer to the mark in the earlier part of his speech, when he seemed to be getting at the important point that low turnout was not altogether a bad thing.
In reading around this subject before the debate, I found that it is a common view that the problem arises from a low opinion of the public—the suggestion being that they are either ill-informed or dim. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that we live in a sick society. The implication is that, if only the public knew more, all would be well.
Instead, I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment that the reverse may be true; namely, that the public are very intelligent. Is it not a striking feature of our age that we live in a new enlightenment—it has been described as a "democracy of information."—in which the need to know has been replaced by the right to know. Is it not true that the public know everything? Like the natural philosophers that they are, they know the great changes that have taken place in modern politics. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, touched on that point.
The public see two historic forces at work, which may have led them rationally to conclude that their participation in politics is not as urgent and necessary as it once was. The first of these could have been revealed to them through their knowledge of the game of chess. Wilhelm Steinitz, the first official world chess champion on whose scientific principles chess is now based, said that it was always good, on principle, to take an opponent's centre pawn.
So it is that, today, the public see that both main parties, chess grandmasters, want their King near the centre of the chessboard. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned, all research now shows that the public say that "all politicians are much of a muchness these days".
Until recently, the position of the parties on the political chessboard has been very different. For example, the Conservative Party has spent the 20th century successfully depicting our Socialist opponents as totalitarian wolves in the clothing of constitutional sheep. Winston Churchill described the Socialist Party as:
"Evil, odious and repellent to every friend of freedom".
The Conservative Party developed all the winning arguments of our time. We were proud of Conservtive economics and what it could do. We said that "a rising tide lifts all ships". We said that lower tax was good—for moral reasons, because it meant more freedom and choice for individuals; and for economic reasons

859
because, ironically, lower tax rates meant higher tax revenues and more wealth creation in the long run. As my noble friend Lady Thatcher brilliantly summed it up at the end of the 20th century,
"The facts of life do invariably turn out to be Tory".
But then, of all things, after a victorious century-long battle against Socialism, the facts of life turned out to be Labour too. Under Prime Minister Blair's direction—and who can deny him credit for this?—Labour's Berlin Wall came down. He embraced free enterprise capitalism. He welcomed low tax. He respected work. He admired wealth creation. He said that "the polarities of Left and Right of the 20th century would prove an aberration". He would consign the old Left/Right divide to what Engels called "the museum of antiquities". When Mr Blair went on to offer his beguiling synthesis of capitalism and socialism, the great divide in British politics came to an abrupt end.
I am putting forward the notion that the British public are intelligent enough to see all this in exactly the way that I have just described it. So is it any wonder that the passion for politics has declined? That is the first great force at work which the public see.
Secondly, people are aware of what is perhaps the most monumental change in our lifetime; namely, globalisation—which has shaken up all our institutions and produced an entirely new form of capitalism, which the public can see is beyond the reach of the national governments for whom they are asked to vote with such urgency.
Perhaps I may expand on what my noble friend Lord Norton said about this subject. The public have been told, and have understood, that no man is an island, not even this one; and that it is not the case, as my noble friend Lord Dean hoped it would be, that Parliament is supreme. They have been reminded that, for example, the rule of law requires a compulsory jurisdiction. They have already accepted the degradation of their own sovereignty, because foreign judges already make decisions which they have to accept as a necessary result of the international rule of law. They have been shown how, with global financial markets, economies are interdependent; how environmental problems—the ozone layer, climate change, biodiversity, and so on—cannot he solved at the national level; how the World Trade Organisation cannot allow contravention of rules by one country in pursuit of its own sovereignty.
So, as usual, a shrewd public see it all. They see mega-mergers, global alliances and jobs moving to where it suits global corporations to employ people, and they conclude that fighting globalisation is like fighting Darwinism. So, if we are depressed to discover that the public believe that the globalisation of companies and economics means that the globalisation of countries cannot be far behind, and if we are concerned—as every speaker has been—to hear people express doubts about the relevance of our Westminster Parliament to their lives, perhaps it is because the public are excellent students of economics.
860
They can see the economic power of globalisation, and they know that politics follows economics. So, our politics here at Westminster may end up with the same weight as local elections enjoy. We know what has happened to turnouts in local elections.
I want to end on a positive note. It would be wrong to despair—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, did at one point—that things are getting worse and worse. I am not sure that that is true. It is certainly not happening because people are too dim, uninterested or apathetic. I hope that noble Lords will agree with that, for some of the reasons that I have outlined. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said that the key point is that people like to see differences of opinion, and I agree. All they need to be "heart uplifted"—as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said—is to see and hear the clash of real ideas presented by political parties that have a clear and distinct sense of purpose, a certain idealism, and a marching tune to which they can respond. Those are the essential preconditions for the future health and happiness of our great democratic system.
5.11 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and all noble Lords who have spoken, for a debate that has gone a good deal wider than the parameters set down in its title. For my part, I think that that was a useful widening.
All the speeches seemed to demonstrate one point: we all have a common purpose in this House that unites our thinking even if we do not always come to identical conclusions—which is that all governments require effective scrutiny. Governments therefore require this House to run as effectively as possible, so that scrutiny can be diligent, continuous and informed. A number of noble Lords have spoken about what we do. What we do is important; how we do it is critical. It is interesting—indeed amusing—for someone who has never been a Member of the House of Commons to note that, on an occasion like this, the most swingeing criticism of the House of Commons has come from the recently and dearly departed who had formerly sat there. So all the sinners begin to repent when they enter a more civilised Chamber.
I thought—if I may say so without offence—that the analysis from the noble Lords, Lord Dean of Harptree and Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, was extremely interesting. The criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, included—if I have them noted correctly in my mind— first, criticism of Ministers bypassing Parliament; secondly, concern about modernisation proposals; thirdly, the relationship between Ministers, civil servants and political advisers; and, finally, his feeling that, in some ways, Parliament has perhaps been overtaken in its true scrutiny role. He specifically mentioned the question of carry-over.
As your Lordships know, there is a Leader's group composed of a few of us who are working on trying to achieve a consensus on changing, and I hope improving, the way in which we work. The noble Lord,

861
Lord Waddington, has been in the Chamber for much of the debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Roper, has been here throughout. We are working together on that. What I hope we shall be able to show to your Lordships is the possibility of being more effective in the duties that we should carry out. Some of your Lordships have said on many occasions that what we really need is an improved method of legislating. That would imply no longer seeing 1,000 or 2,000 government amendments. I think that it is fair to say that, in the past nine months or so, that sad history has been expunged or at least significantly improved. I have no doubt that the real answer to that is to have proper pre-legislative scrutiny. Although that will make life harder for the Government, I can bear it with some fortitude.
We all have the common desire to get the best possible legislation. It seems to me that the House's current Committee scrutiny is not satisfactory and ought to be divided conceptually into two. The first aspect is the Bill's policy, on which there may he no agreement between the Government and the Opposition parties. Secondly, however—even if there is disagreement about policy and the concepts—we ought at least to deliver proper, effective and workmanlike legislative product. If we could achieve a situation in which most significant government Bills were subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, and the co-relative benefit was—as I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, suspects—a likely carry-over, it seen-is that we would then he able to work together to get good legislation even if we disagreed on the policy content.
There are the questions of public perception to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred. As he knows, I pay tribute to his work with the Citizenship Foundation—to which he introduced me long ago when I was at the Bar and was able to join in on his mock trial projects, which were extremely successful. I suggest to your Lordships that it is no longer tolerable that it should be assumed that attendance in Committee, on Report or at Second Reading is somehow an optional extra in which one may indulge or not as the case may be. The fact is that this is and ought to be a full-time House, even if it is currently staffed by part-timers. I should be grateful if your Lordships could assist me in explaining to the public why we do not work in the mornings and have two and a half months off in the summer, but at the same time say that we cannot introduce important—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—Law Commission Bills. I have never been able to explain that to the public.
I suggest that we shall have to have a sea-change in the way in which we work. We should not be sitting after 10 o'clock at night, and we should be doing our work of bringing the government to account much more effectively. One of the effective weapons in this Chamber is not the yahoo antics—as some of your Lordships have described them; I could not possibly agree with that—practised elsewhere, but the daily Question Time. That is one of the most effective occasions in this place, if your Lordships wish to make it effective. It will be for your Lordships to decide
862
whether, as I have suggested, we should expand that. At least to start off, on an experimental basis, we could have perhaps five Questions per day. I have offered this change, and I hope that your Lordships will wish at least to consider it as an experiment. Question, Time is a ready, continuing, daily weapon for Opposition parties to challenge Ministers, who have to be briefed and able to explain themselves.
There are many other devices by way of modernisation—or improvement, if modernisation is too jarring a word for our activities—and other proposals that we could consider. If we have the unity of purpose that we have demonstrated this afternoon, I have no doubt that, even if it is on an experimental basis, we shall be able to improve our practices. It is right that we are regarded as arcane by many of those whom I have almost described as voters—the gloomy feature is that they are not voters; some of them are not even registered. We have to bear in mind, of course, that turnout in the American presidential election was even worse. Fewer than 50 per cent of those who are registered—and registration there is not good, at about 48 per cent, if my memory is correct— vote in those elections.
Some of those who might be interested in politics plainly are not interested because of the extraordinary divorce between our experience, as we believe it to be, and their knowledge of their existence. When we spend day after day after day arguing about Section 28—still unresolved—and day after day on the age of consent, they simply come to their conclusion, with which I entirely sympathise, that we inhabit not a different world but a different planet and insult them by our lack of knowledge about how they live their lives and wish to construct their futures.
It was said by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, that the media have a responsibility. That is true. However—I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is not in the Chamber; as a collector of political cartoons he would have the knowledge to respond to this fully—if one thinks of Rowlandson, Gilray and Hogarth, to take but three examples, one might think that the media are not entirely devastating at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, raised a particular aspect of the media which is important. I am grateful to him for his courtesy in warning me about the BBC. I believe that we are entitled to say that if the BBC, uniquely constituted and funded as it is, is to continue, those who fund it on a compulsory basis are entitled to say that part of the public service interest ethos must be to give a full and proper review of parliamentary procedure—not an uncritical one. It seems to me—I am speaking personally and heading for, I expect, immediate dismissal—that the purpose of the BBC is not only to be described as aiming for the highest possible ratings and possibly going hand-in-hand with the lowest common denominator.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, asked questions about video on which I have had research conducted. It is right that the Government allocated digital terrestrial television capacity to the BBC. There is not

863
sufficient capacity on the BBC's multiplex for it to broadcast "BBC Parliament" on digital terrestrial television in full video, but I am able to reassure your Lordships that the BBC is actively exploring options to enable that service to be provided in full video, which is welcomed by DCMS. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter.
The rest of the media have been criticised partly because of parliamentary sketches. But parliamentary sketch writers can be amusing and critical—I see the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, shaking his head in disagreement—only if on occasions the performance offered justifies such descriptions. Sometimes the descriptions are over-harsh and sometimes they are over-obsessive, but if we have a good debate in your Lordships' House we generally receive good credit for it. Sadly, for our families, not all of our speeches are reported in full, even in the broadsheets, but if we have a good debate we normally receive a decent response.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, the quotation from Robin Oakley was not critical of the satirists—I am certainly not, as they raise parliamentary awareness. The point was that they concentrated so much on those aspects that insufficient attention was given to reporting more serious matters.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. Of course, the sketch writers are part of a wider spectrum which includes those aspects of the media referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. Taken as a whole, we should be entitled to look to the broadcast media, which is probably the way that the majority of young voters receive information about politics. I do not believe that most of them scrabble for the parliamentary sketches, whatever paper they happen to read, because I am sorry to say that most young people do not read newspapers. Most of them take such information from the television or the video.
Mary Morgan and her colleagues carry out an extraordinarily good job of work and they are thinly resourced. The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, said something that struck a chord in my mind. Other noble Lords hinted at it, sometimes more brutally in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who said that we are a sick society. I do not believe that we are. I believe that we remain a generous-hearted country which could do better. Fundamentally I believe it is a decent, good and tolerant society, civilised in its accommodation of other people's different views. The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, pointed to the fact that we are now a less deferential society, which is undoubtedly true. The juries of my youth, which was not pre-flood, were always dressed in a collar and tie and a suit. Now people sit there in T-shirts.
The world has not become worse, but it has changed and our experience is different. Non-deference is quite good in a society that has been over-obsessed with secrecy and the proposition that those set in authority over us are necessarily always right on every conceivable occasion. My experience shows that not to be a universal truth.
864
Part of the remedy must lie in our own hands. We need a visitors' centre. Comparing the workings of our Chamber with other chambers in other parts of the world, I visited the Basque Parliament in Vitoria and the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. I went unannounced so they were not doing me a great favour. On entering the Scottish Parliament one is immediately made welcome and made to feel that they want to see you. The information is readily available; the facilities for the broadcast media and the print media are in place.
I believe that little is required for our two Chambers except a modest amount of thought. The necessary resource would be limited. If one considers other quite new chambers—our colleagues in Spain post the Franco regime and those in Belfast, Edinburgh and Cardiff—one sees that they have the advantage of not being encumbered with the wrappings of tradition.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I suspect the Minister saw that the visitor centre in the Scottish Parliament is constantly full of children, particularly primary school children, who visit in school time. They are very interested in the interactive arrangements that they can enjoy.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did notice that. It struck me that that is a useful device. That is a young Parliament, using imagination and a certain amount of resource, but it is not vastly extravagant. In Belfast children visit the Chamber, which faces difficult circumstances, to act out the roles of Speaker and so on. Those are small steps, but incrementally they are capable of bringing about good consequences.
How do we raise public awareness of the work of Parliament? I hear in mind one noble Lord's cautionary note, that if we do not do very well and people know more about us the conclusion will not be entirely gratifying. I believe that we should try to focus on scrutiny of the Government, general revision of legislation and debates of this kind. There are many parts of every notional parliamentary week when we are not using the time: in the mornings, except for committee work, often on Fridays and for a large period in the summer.
I hope that noble Lords will join with me in what I believe to be our common purpose and I shall seek their support when we try to improve ourselves. If we make improvements to the work that we should carry out, undoubtedly those improvements will resonate with the public; and the public, whom we try to serve, will benefit as will this House, which I believe we all respect and want to serve in the best possible way.
I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Norton. In 16 or 17 minutes I have not been able to deal with all the points that have been raised. I simply refer back to my original proposition. There is a common theme: we believe that this House is of substantial quality. I do not have the curse of the noble Lord, Lord Pym, in having any kind of majority, being 21 short of the main Opposition party. There may be a moral there, but if there is I shall not attempt to draw it.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I have great pleasure in thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been an extremely worth while debate. I take on board the points that have been made. There has been a common theme and a recognition of a common problem, which is the disconnection between people—especially young people— and Parliament. Affluent young people with access to the Internet are not interested in politics, but at the last election the lowest turnout was among those from the areas of greatest social deprivation. We face that very real problem. The problem of disconnection is not situ ply confined to Parliament; nor as my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned, is it necessarily confined to this country. Other countries face similar problems.
A major task to be undertaken is almost a recreation of civic society. I agree that a large part of the route is through education. I declare an interest, as I spend all my time in education. There is great progress to be made. My experience of talking to schools throughout the country is that one can gauge that people are interested in issues. I take the point raised by my noble friend Lord MacGregor that those issues are variously debated, but not in a way that resonates outside and not necessarily to the extent that I would like. Although it is true that more and more constituents go to see MPs, they are still in the minority. There is a great deal more to be done to connect with the people in this country to make them more aware of the work of Parliament.
A central point that has been made is that Parliament is part of the problem. It must also be seen as part of the solution. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Central Government: Audit and Accountability
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on audit and accountability in central government: government response to the Sharman report Holding to Account. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Government's response to Lord Sharman's report Holding to Account which made recommendations about audit and accountability in central government. Copies of the Government's response, Audit and Accountability in central Government are available in the Vote Office [the Printed Paper Office].
"The structure of audit and accountability, springing from the Gladstonian reforms, is an important matter. This House, and the country, have benefited enormously from the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National
866
Audit Office, which—while accountable to this House—have a remit that is independent of both Government and Parliament.
"Over the years, Members of this House—and particularly the Committee of Public Accounts—have expressed concern that the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General had become artificially restricted.
"It has been the general practice of this Government to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit each non-departmental public body set up since 1997 under our control.
"But despite this commitment to openness, there are still significant areas of central government where the Comptroller and Auditor General is not the auditor—including around 50 non-departmental public bodies that had been established previously with auditors appointed by individual Secretaries of State. And in a number of areas, he is also dependent on negotiated administrative access.
"In debates on the Government Resources and Accounts Bill the subject of the Comptroller and Auditor General's remit was raised and I undertook to review the position.
"Accordingly, I set up an independent review of audit and accountability in central government to look at all areas of the accountability framework, and to take evidence from a wide range of interested parties.
"I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, for leading that review, and to all members of the steering committee, including the right honourable Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the right honourable Member for Swansea West (Alan Williams) and the honourable Member for Newbury (David Rendel).
"The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, reached independent conclusions and made recommendations that were addressed to the Government, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Committee of Public Accounts and the Public Accounts Commission. The response I am publishing today sets out the Government's position in relation to Lord Sharman's report.
"In considering Lord Sharman's recommendations and how to carry them forward I have been very mindful that reforms need to command confidence on all sides of this House. They also need to be workable. I am very grateful for the constructive discussions that have taken place with the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff which are reflected in the response.
"I am pleased to inform the House that the Government have accepted the main recommendations that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, directed to the Government and that we support those addressed to others.
"There are five central recommendations: first, the Government agree that the Comptroller and Auditor General should audit all non departmental

867
public bodies. This will make him the auditor of bodies such as the Environment Agency, English Partnerships, English Heritage and the Housing Corporation.
"Secondly, subject to legislation, this extension to non-departmental public bodies will include those that are established as companies; for example, the Student Loans Company, the Film Council, the National Consumer Council and the National Forestry Company.
"Thirdly, the Government agree that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have statutory access to the documents needed for his audit work in place of the current non-statutory arrangements. We welcome arrangements proposed by the Comptroller and Auditor General to ensure that this right of access is exercised so as to minimise any additional burdens on either public or private sector bodies.
"His access to documents in completing value for money studies will be extended by right, for example, to registered social landlords, train operating companies and contractors, including those in PFI contracts.
"Fourthly, the Government's response makes clear our commitment to ensuring the information that underpins the reporting of progress against PSA targets is reliable, and accepts that there should be an extension of external validation of departmental data systems that relate to these targets. The Government intend to invite the Comptroller and Auditor General to take responsibility under his existing powers for the validation of such data systems, usually on the basis of a three-yearly review.
"Finally, the Government welcome Lord Sharman's acknowledgement of the steps being taken to promote strong management and innovation across government in the delivery of public service.
"Before implementing these proposals, the Government will consult bodies affected by the changes.
"I am confident that the proposals we are setting out today will strengthen audit and accountability and improve transparency, in the interests of this House and all those we represent.
"I commend these new arrangements to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for letting me have an earlyish copy of the Statement this morning.
It is a splendid aim, shared on all sides of the House, to give the public sector a proper balance sheet and proper accounts, based on clear, simple and rigorously defined rules. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Sharman—I am sorry to see that he
868
is not in his place—for leading the way with his report last year which has stimulated this belated response from the Government today.
There is much need for improvement in the compilation and presentation of government accounts; for better rules which show us what the taxpayer owns; how it is being used; and what it is being spent on. We are agreed that we need better information on that. Therefore, we welcome the Government's acceptance of the attempts of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, and the Public Accounts Select Committee in another place by including in the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General the over 1,000 non-departmental public bodies which currently employ 30,000 people and spend £25 billion of taxpayers' money a year.
I wish that I could stop there because if ever there was an issue that deserves to be dealt with on a cross-party consensus basis, that must surely be it. But I am afraid that the current situation, even after the worthy attempt with the Government Resources and Accounts Bill and this response today, is that unfettered discretion still resides in the Treasury so far as concerns the compilation of accounts; there are no clear principles for the accounting of income or expenditure, and we still permit the Treasury to continue to omit large public assets and liabilities from the national balance sheet.
There are at least three areas of major concern which the Government did not address in their response today. First, the accounting treatment of billions of pounds a year of tax credits is not in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. By breaching OECD guidelines the present accounting treatment allows the Treasury to paint a more flattering picture of a key issue, which is government spending, by excluding their amount—now heading with the new Tax Credits Bill to perhaps £15 billion of public expenditure a year—from the total.
Secondly, let us consider the question of liability, which is not mentioned in the response. We are desperately lacking in that regard. We have no proper account of the great and growing liabilities of the public sector in relation to, for example, pensions. The public state pension represents an enormous and ballooning liability not just in this country but in many others. We need clarity in regard to the scope and scale of that liability. We have just seen the impact on private company accounts of the new FRS 17 accounting rule, but we have no idea what would be the impact on the public accounts of applying that accounting treatment to final salary schemes in the public sector.
Thirdly—we discussed this matter at Question Time today—we need to understand far better than we do at present what are the real liabilities that arise each time a project is implemented in the public/private sector under PPP, where the public sector establishes a contract that effectively enforces on it a series of payments over a long period of time that currently do not appear in the public accounts at all. We have seen with Enron the dangerous practice of allowing a buildup of debt to be hidden off the balance sheet. Despite

869
what the Minister said at Question Time, there is widespread concern that that is what is happening with public/private partnerships.
It was concerns such as those that led the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, to press for new measures to create greater scrutiny of audit and accountability in government organisations. We shared many of the views that he expressed. We both suggested a wider role for the NAO and the C&AG. For example, during the passage of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill we both asked for the statutory right of the NAO and C&AG to be extended to all non-departmental public bodies, including the BBC.
As the Minister will well remember, during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 we, together with the Liberal Democrats, moved amendments to provide for the NAO to audit the Financial Services Authority, but they were refused by the Government. I am therefore deeply disappointed that today's Statement continues to exclude two of the most important public bodies in the land—the BBC and the Financial Services Authority—from NAO scrutiny. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that vital exclusion continues.
We need a clear, complete and comprehensive set of accounts. They must be composed under standards of accounting practice so that people have at least a chance of doing the detective work to find out what is really happening. That is democratically proper and a matter of common sense; we do not have that after this Statement.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, in rising to respond to the Minister's Statement, perhaps I may say on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sharman how sorry he is that he cannot be in his place today. Having spoken to him in the light of the Government's response, I know that I speak for him when I say that he very much welcomes their response to his report. Indeed, those of your Lordships who have had the chance rapidly to digest the 55 pages of the Government's response in the available time will be aware that 98.5 per cent of my noble friend's recommendations have been adopted by the Government. Obviously, we welcome that.
I cannot comment on the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, which appeared to have little to do with the Statement. Had he given me advance notice of the extra items that he proposed to raise, I should have said whether I agreed with them. I had the advantage of an hour's notice of the Government Statement, but not of the noble Lord's separate statement on another topic.
Having broadly welcomed the fact that 98.5 per cent of my noble friend's recommendations have been adopted, I shall cavil with two of the Government's responses and then finish with a general comment. Recommendation 2 states:
"All departments should have a formally constituted audit committee. Some basic principles for audit committees include that they should".
870
There follow seven or eight requirements that recognise that the bodies to be subject to audit committees are not corporate bodies, but that several of the requirements of audit committees of corporate bodies should be adopted.
I am concerned by the Government response in paragraph 2.5 on page 12 of the report, which states:
"However, central government is a wide and diverse field, and central government bodies are not identical to companies. In particular, unlike companies, government departments do not have a corporate board structure from which informed non-executives with statutory responsibilities … can be appointed to the audit committee".
The report continues:
"Existing Treasury guidance will continue to be developed in the light of the above considerations, Lord Sharman's recommendations, and other factors as appropriate".
Well, if ever I have heard the Civil Service preparing itself for not doing very much with a recommendation, that is it. I am concerned that the recommendation will be lost in the realm of Whitehall and that the principles for audit committees developed in the private sector will not be satisfactorily adopted as my noble friend recommends.
My second cavil, which I share with the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is with regard to the BBC. In recommendation 7, my noble friend's committee said clearly that the BBC should be brought within the ambit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. His report points out that the 1999 Davies review of the BBC recommended the same thing. I am not persuaded by paragraph 2.33 of the Government's response that the BBC should be excluded. No satisfactory reason is given why the Government reject that recommendation.
Those are two points of substantial detail. In concluding my remarks, I should tell the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, that I well remember that in the private sector—probably following the Maxwell affair—an enormous industry was created with regard to audit and audit control. The private sector now recognises that in many cases the baby was thrown out with the bath water—to use an unfortunate pun. I refer noble Lords to recommendation 17 of the Sharman report, which the Government should bear continuously in mind. It states:
"Accountability mechanisms are perceived by some in government as a discouragement to innovate and change, but this appears to be only one of a number of complex factors … Whilst acknowledging this, it is important that auditors recognise the dangers of being perceived as discouraging well managed risk taking, and ensure that their work lives up to the spirit of statements made on attitudes to innovation".
If every audit committee and every auditor in both the private sector and the public sector lived up to that, the world would be a better place.
5.47 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response to the Statement—rather more grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, because he addressed both the Sharman report and the Government's response to it, whereas

871
the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, referred to them only towards the end of a, shall I say, wide-ranging speech. The issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi—his accusation about the unfettered discretion of the Treasury, for example—need to be examined. I should be happy to have an opportunity to respond to them. Issues about tax credits, long-term pension liabilities and liabilities under public-private partnerships all deserve to be debated—perhaps it would be appropriate for that to be in Conservative time—but not today.
The Sharman committee was set up to,
"consider suitable arrangements for the audit and accountability of central government in the 21st century on behalf of Parliament".
It was especially concerned with the role and power of the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, did and I congratulate him on an excellent job.
In so far as the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, referred to the report and our response to it, he made valid points. It is true that we did not accept the recommendation of either the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, or, earlier, Gavyn Davies, for the BBC. In view of Gavyn Davies' subsequent appointment as chairman of the BBC, we seriously considered his recommendation again. But the important point is that we want to avoid not only the reality but also the appearance of any interference with the editorial independence of the BBC. It was on that basis that we decided not to take action or to agree with the recommendation.
The BBC is, after all, set up by Royal Charter. The Royal Charter requires that it should be audited by a company regulated by private audit standards and with membership of the appropriate professional body. It would require an amendment to the Royal Charter of the BBC to change the audit arrangements and bring them under the National Audit Office. Although the National Audit Office is, of course, independent, we are reluctant to run any risk that the internal finances of the BBC could become issues for political debate. That is why, after much consideration, we rejected that amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, referred to the Financial Services Authority. He knows that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, made no recommendations about the FSA. He said that the arrangements should be left alone. The FSA is a company limited by guarantee; we would need primary legislation to have it audited by the National Audit Office. There is some reassurance in the fact that the Treasury can commission value for money inquiries within the work of the Financial Services Authority, and there is no reason why those should not be carried out by the National Audit Office.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, spoke about audit committees. The difficulty with the public sector and particularly with central government is that we do not have non-executive directors responsible to departments in the way in which companies do:
872
perhaps we should. It is a legitimate point. But, having said that, we think that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, in recommendation 2 are valid.
I can confirm, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, that the response to virtually all of the report is positive. I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, and all his colleagues for the report.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister. The report is a valuable contribution to the work of the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. For years, the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office wanted to be able to audit all non-departmental public bodies. What we got was an agreement that all the new ones would be audited, and that practice was maintained. It is good to know that all the others will now be given that treatment.
The Housing Corporation was a particularly difficult case; we were given it only on sufferance. It was a concession to the National Audit Office to allow it to investigate the billions of pounds that was spent. That was an outrage. My noble friend has spoken about the valuable agreement that he was able to obtain on that issue.
With regard to the value for money aspects, I was pleased to hear that the issue of social landlords would be dealt with. I shall also say a word about the BBC. The BBC, of course, has a Royal Charter, as my noble friend said. However, we discussed the World Service, and we took evidence from John Tusa, who came before the Public Accounts Committee. We were able to get those accounts audited.
All in all, it has been a good job. I congratulate my noble friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have little to say about that, as it is entirely congratulatory, except to thank my noble friend.
The difference between the World Service and the rest of the BBC is that the World Service is, of course, funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whereas the rest of the BBC is funded by grant under the licence fee.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, is certainly to be congratulated on his report, and the Government's acceptance of a number of his recommendations is welcome. However, as the Minister knows, the issues were debated in connection with the Government Resources and Accounts Bill. After a considerable time lag, we are now doing what we originally debated, which the Government should have accepted in that Bill. The problem with all such matters is that it takes an enormous number of years for government time to be found for legislation. Now that we are making some progress, apparently, can the Minister say whether we are likely to need further legislation? Will there be a further Bill?

873
My second point is that no amount of improved arrangements for government scrutiny will help if the accounts themselves are defective. With great respect, I say to the Minister that he cannot suggest that that is a separate issue. There is a huge register of government assets and a totally deficient attempt to estimate the Government's liabilities and create a proper balance sheet, particularly with regard to departments and the whole of government accounts. That must be done right, particularly with regard to the long-term liabilities relating to national insurance pensions. In many ways, we are going through a pensions crisis, and we need to know what the situation is relating to intergenerational transfers. We can do that only if the Government make the effort to provide us with a proper balance sheet. Only if that is done and the accounts are generally improved will the kind of improvement that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, proposes and which the Government have accepted operate efficiently in practice.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept that it is legitimate to ask why it took a year to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. There may be an element of administrative delay; I do not know, and I do not think so.
I can give two answers that, I hope, will be helpful. The first is that the response is a full response. It covers all the matters. We could have dealt only with the easy ones and said that we would deal with the others later. We could have responded in a couple of months and got some cheap plaudits for that, but we would not really have been any further forward.
The second answer is that the issue of audit following the money where it has gone is a difficult one, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, remembers from the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. There are issues relating not only to the effectiveness of audit but to intrusion on private companies and individuals who may be in receipt of government money. In some cases —for example, those relating to value for money in the expenditure of government money—it may be legitimate to pursue audit; in other cases—for example, if people are receiving money as pensioners—it may not be.
Much of the time between the publication of the report and the response has been used in the preparation of protocols between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Government on access to contractors, companies receiving government money, grant recipients and so on. Those protocols have been prepared. There is still a necessity for consultation, so the process is not complete, but that is a significant reason for the delay. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will agree that it is a legitimate reason.
The noble Lord also asked me to say when we are likely to bring forward legislation following the review of company law. The document was produced last summer, and it was almost too heavy to lift. As I have said in the House, drafting is going on, but there will have to be some form of consultation, either on a draft Bill or on draft clauses. It is well known that I cannot
874
commit the Government to legislation in a particular Session, but I can assure the noble Lord that the matter is, for obvious reasons, not being neglected.
The noble Lord made a third point about defective accounts. I would be happy to listen to and respond to the arguments in due course. I am as interested when he makes the point about long-term pensions liability as I am when the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, makes it. But it is not an issue covered by the Sharman report. It is a matter of enormous concern, not only to this Government but to all governments and it is a matter which deserves debate in Parliament.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as one who had the honour of being a Member of the Public Accounts Committee in another place during my brief sojourn there, I should like to thank the noble lord for his presentation this afternoon and the Government for making some progress towards a reorganisation of the accountancy profession to give greater public accountability.
This problem of organisation is a good step to have taken but it begs the whole question: accountability means what it says. It means that people are informed exactly what is happening. These measures do not advance accountability at all. I am an old-fashioned accountant. I have been connected with the Institute of Chartered Accountants since 1930 and have, played an active part in it. I can remember the time when the purpose of an audit was to arrive at a true and fair view. All that has gone out of the window.
We now have a situation which will he endlessly enlarged upon in the course of the Enron investigations, to find out whether vie know anything about our accounting standards at all and whether accounting standards meet the requirements of democracy for accountability. My respectful suggestion is that they do not.
Moreover, although there are many ways in which the Government are responding to a desire for greater responsibility, regrettably it is a fact that when the Government try to answer Members of Parliament and your Lordships, they are already reluctant to come forward with facts in their possession. They will make it more difficult for questioners to put down Questions than they have done for a number of years.
Accountability and accounting standards require our urgent attention if democracy is to survive in its parliamentary form in the United Kingdom. I am quite sure that events will justify the prophecy that I have just ventured to make.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two points that I need to make in response to my noble friend.
First, the report and the response are about audit and accountability in central government. Broadly speaking, what the report and the response say is that we have in the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee a system for achieving independence and accountability which has stood the test of many years and is no longer an issue of party debate.

875
The independence of the National Audit Office from government, the fact that it reports to Parliament rather than to government and is still, to a large extent, independent of Parliament, is something which has been confirmed and recognised by both the report and the government response.
On the second point about audit standards, again it is nothing strictly to do with the Sharman report, but my noble friend will know that my noble friend Lord Brennan has a Motion down for debate next Wednesday in Labour Party time, precisely on these issues. I shall have the privilege of responding to that debate and shall look forward to the points raised from all parts of the House.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the Minister may know, that having served on the Public Accounts Committee for 18 years, the bulk of them under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon. I welcome the Government's Statement today which goes far to implement recommendations made over many years.
I hope that in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the Minister was not cutting down on the principle that used to be expressed so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, that it was the proper responsibility of the National Audit Office to follow public money wherever it went.
The Minister appeared to be erecting a countervailing principle of the right to some commercial confidentiality in certain circumstances which could be invoked in defeasance of that broader public principle. I hope the Minister will be clearer about that. The Government's rejection of the recommendation of the Sharman report, and indeed of the Davies report with respect to the BBC, seems to fly in the face of that broad principle of following public funds.
In admitting that the Public Accounts Committee has investigated the spending on a report of the NAO on the World Service, he does not seem to have recognised that it is perfectly possible to do that without threatening the editorial independence of the BBC in respect of the World Service. The same is true of its domestic broadcasting function.
In view of the fact that the matter is still under discussion in the context of the BBC's future and the future of broadcasting, I hope that the Government will reconsider this and listen to the first opinion of Mr Gavyn Davies. That was clearly expressed and carried great weight with all of those who were concerned about the responsibilities of that public service broadcaster.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to make two points. The first relates to following the money wherever it goes. Perhaps I did not make myself clear to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The important point I wished to make was that the Government's response goes further than Sharman asked. Sharman said that we should follow the money for PFI
876
contractors. The Government believe we should follow the money for all contractors. The distinction I made was not about commercial confidentiality—I do not think I used that phrase—but applies where government money has to be returned to government or to the people of this country. In that case, we do need to follow the money. However, it would be an intrusion to follow and audit money where it goes as a right—a pension, for example. That is the basis on which the protocols between the Government and the Comptroller and Auditor General are being made up. Those who are interested both in accounting efficiency and in civil liberties will respect those differences.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, says about the BBC. From time to time there is a review of the BBC Charter and no doubt representations can be made on that matter then. The view that we have taken is that the editorial independence of the BBC is of primary importance and we do not wish to put that at risk.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, as someone who spent 12 years on the Public Accounts Committee and who participated in the debates on the Bill three years ago when it went through the other place, I should like to congratulate the Government. They have actually provided more than we vigorously argued for on the Floor of the House of Commons. May I ask my noble friend about the accounting arrangements to the Public Accounts Committee in the other place? Under the present arrangements, the permanent secretaries effectively give evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. The Government's response refers to access orders on documents held by the bodies listed in the Sharman report. Can we presume from that that accounting officers, for want of a better term, or people who would be held responsible for accounts within those organisations—which include the train operating companies. the PFI contractors and bodies with undertakings in receipt of grant—may well find themselves giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in future, following the access orders to be introduced under these arrangements?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that I know the answer to that question. As far as I know, the issue was not covered by Sharman. It is a matter for the relationships between the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. No doubt there are people in the House of Commons who are much better informed than I am who could answer that point. I do not think that it is intrinsic to the issues raised by Sharman, although I acknowledge its importance.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, will the Minister clarify the position on PFI contracts? We seem to be entering a new and different relationship for those contracts, which will play an increasingly important part in government funding. I think that the Minister will agree that the key to the PFI contract is a transfer of risk to the contractor. Some of the contractors will do well, some will do badly, some will

877
do very well and some will do very badly. That is the nature of the market risk that the contractor is undertaking. While there is clearly a public interest in a degree of transparency, the contractor who is taking the risk is entitled to a degree of commercial confidentiality. If he has a successful contract and he is to be the subject of adverse comment at all times, as is the nature of these things, surely that will have the effect of shutting off contractors prepared to undertake PFI projects, who have freely entered into a commercial risk and accepted to take the rough with the smooth. The way that the Minister has explained the situation makes it seem as though the contractors may have to take the rough with the rough.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord raises further important matters that are not covered by Sharman. The report recommended that PFI contractors should be subject to audit by the National Audit Office and to value for money studies. The Government accepted that view. Clearly, those who undertake contracts in public/private partnerships will take that risk. The principle that the Government have a responsibility to continue their investigations on where the money goes has been expounded all round the House this afternoon. That was the broad consensus expressed by the Sharman report, by the response to the report and by this House this afternoon.

Trafficking: Children
6 13 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpoolrose to call attention to trafficking in human beings, especially children; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, 1,500 years ago the Emperor Justinian commented on the phenomenon of human trafficking, which he said was spreading as profiteers took
"advantage of poverty and inexperienced young girls".
Justinian recorded practices that are used by traffickers even in our own times—debt bondage, confiscation of earnings and denial of food and sleep.
In the 19th century, abolitionists such as Josephine Butler and W.T. Stead, who edited the Pall Mall Gazette, were at the forefront of campaigns to expose the false promises of jobs abroad, which too often concealed lives of servitude.
However, it would be wrong to think that trafficking in human beings is merely a thing of the past. In reality, the trade is a rapidly growing scourge that affects countries and families on every continent. On Monday this week I addressed a UK Anti-Trafficking Network conference, which was organised by WomenAid International. Organisations such as WomenAid International, Anti-Slavery International and the Jubilee Campaign are to be congratulated on the work that they have undertaken in drawing our attention to this most pressing and growing issue.
878
Today's pre-legislative debate gives your Lordships a chance to consider the scale and nature of contemporary trafficking and what we might do about it. The Foreign Office, as well as the Home Office., will need to address some of the questions raised.
By way of background, last December, in answer to Questions that I tabled, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, set out the Government's constructive approach to reducing levels of trafficking in human beings, especially children. His absence today is because of family circumstances. We all regret that he is unable to be with us and we understand the reasons. I was also grateful for his promise to distinguish between trafficking and smuggling. To their credit, the Government have signed the trafficking protocol of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and have negotiated a European Union framework decision requiring criminalisation of trafficking where people are exploited for their labour and services or for sexual exploitation.
As the UK will be required to implement this instrument within two years of its adoption, I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether it has been formally adopted. In their recent White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, the Government indicated that they will use the forthcoming immigration Bill to introduce an offence of trafficking for sexual exploitation with a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. This will be a stopgap pending major legislative reform that will cover those being trafficked for both sexual and labour exploitation. The debate is therefore a timely opportunity to influence future legislation, but we shall need to do much more beyond our own shores.
Let me outline the sheer scale of the problem and why trafficking in human beings, particularly women and children, necessitates urgent and decisive action. Speaking at the conference earlier this week, Dr Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, described traffickers as,
"fishing in the stream of migration".
The catch in that stream has been growing inexorably. Research by ECPAT UK—an organisation devoted to ending child prostitution, pornography and trafficking—into the trafficking of children and research for the Home Office by the University of North London on the trafficking of women both provide conclusive evidence that, at an absolute minimum, hundreds of women and children are being trafficked into the UK each year.
A report in the Financial Times on 20th February stated that, according to the UN's Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention in Vienna, human trafficking has become the fastest growing facet of organised crime. It is also incredibly lucrative. Powerful criminal organisations are estimated to earn a staggering £4.3 billion a year from economic and sexual slavery. The trafficking of people is considered to be the third largest source of profits for organised crime, after the trafficking of drugs and firearms. Asian prostitutes in the United States can sell for

879
20,000 dollars, while Russian women working in the brothels of Belgium are reported to bring in as much as 7,500 dollars a month, 7,000 dollars of which goes to their handler. On a visit to Moscow on behalf of Partners in Hope, of which I am a trustee, I heard a first-hand account of a boy who was sold for the price of a bottle of vodka.
Rebecca Bryan, the director of IREX, the United States-based International Research and Exchanges Board, estimates that 1.2 million people are trafficked each year worldwide, of whom at least 700,000 are women and children. The largest source of women for prostitution and the sex industry is Eastern Europe. According to the US State Department, more than 175,000 women are trafficked annually from the former eastern bloc countries, including Russia. The CIA reports that a least 50,000 of these women go to the US and that their average age is just 20. Victims come from Albania, Kosovo, Russia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, China, South-East Asia and West Africa.
Why are people trafficked? Some may be forcibly abducted and brought into the UK, but many victims put themselves or their children in the hands of traffickers to escape poverty and discrimination. That is particularly true in the case of women and children trafficked from the new independent states of the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe. They are promised well-paid jobs, education and marriage. Many women believe that they will be able to send money back to their families. In reality, they often end up exploited andabused in London and in our other major cities.
Escape is impossible. Traffickers often pay for the cost of their victims' passage into the UK. Travel costs are then inflated by charges for food, accommodation and interest on money borrowed from their traffickers. Burdened with debt and unable to secure legitimate employment, the victims are extremely vulnerable. If they refuse to submit to the traffickers' demands or attempt to escape, they may have their passports confiscated or be subjected to intimidation, violence, torture or rape. Traffickers also make threats of violence against friends and family as a way of ensuring that their victims keep working and do not try to escape.
Two years ago I visited the West African country of Benin and heard at first hand accounts of what was described to me as a modern slave trade. As Peter Brannen of the International Labour Office explained at Monday's conference, West African countries such as Benin and Nigeria are sending countries, receiving countries and transit countries. Ian Pannell of the BBC programme "PM" visited Nigeria and Turin to investigate how traffickers use the UK as a staging post—a transit country—for child prostitution to Italy.
The BBC says that many of the hundreds of girls sold into sexual slavery in Europe each year are trafficked through England. Ian Pannell interviewed Jane Osagie, who has worked with a number of
880
Nigerian girls who have been trafficked. In a shocking interview—only part of which I will quote in your Lordships' House—she told the BBC:
"A lot of them die … A lot don't come back. There were two girls who were trafficked and because they refused to go into the trade, they were banned from eating".
Others were refused drink. Clearly, that trade does not respect people or national borders and will require concerted international action to eliminate.
Girls from countries where trafficking is common arrive in the UK unaccompanied. Told to apply for asylum at the port of entry, the girls are placed into the care of the local social services department. Those girls subsequently disappear when their traffickers make contact with them and are never seen again by the authorities or their families.
Since 1995, 66 children who arrived unaccompanied in the UK have gone missing from West Sussex social services alone—the majority in the past two years. In addition, last month two more girls went missing from West Sussex social services—after the matter had been raised in your Lordships' House. Those children were supposed to be receiving care and protection. That is truly shocking and graphically illustrates the need for action.
In drawing attention to the problems in West Sussex—where Gatwick airport provides the port of entry—it is not my intention to single out that authority for particular criticism because at least it has tried to make some provision for victims and potential victims. It is probably because West Sussex has introduced a protocol and has proper victim profiling that its problems have come to light. One can only imagine the horrors that have yet to be unearthed in local authorities where no such protocol or provision is in place.
Government should require all area child protection committees to develop a protocol on trafficking. Social services and police authorities might then see a child as the victim of trafficking rather than as a 'lost asylum seeker' and act accordingly. The need for government to take a lead was underlined by the head of London's vice squad, Chief Superintendent Simon Humphrey. He complains that officers are unable to act effectively because of a lack of guidance and legislation. In the Evening Standard on 4th December 2001 he said:
"Quite frankly we are getting our priorities wrong in this country. We care more about catching car criminals and people involved in consumer crime but we are doing nothing to help children who are being sexually exploited".
Carol Howlett, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, recently argued that the prosecution of traffickers should became a key performance indicator target for chief constables in regions where trafficking is thought to be in place. I agree and hope that the Government will put that to chief constables.
It is incredible that the UK has no legislation that prohibits human trafficking. Police are using outdated legislation such as the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Even in the unlikely event of traffickers being caught, they receive prison sentences of not more than two years.

881
Although the Government now recognise the need to legislate, for which I thank them, sadly the promised new Bill will not end labour exploitation. It should. The noble Lord, Lord Brett, who has considerable experience of the ILO, will doubtless have something to say about that aspect. I hope that the Government will give a clear assurance that the legislation will use the same definition of trafficking as adopted for both the 2001 European Union framework decision on trafficking and the 2000 United Nations protocol on trafficking. That will ensure international consistency in the definition of what constitutes an offence and that anyone involved in trafficking can be prosecuted regardless of whether they were involved in recruitment, transport or directly in the exploitation of that individual. That is a crucial point on which I shall welcome the Minister's response.
Having suggested how I would like to see the law on trafficking strengthened and internationalised, I want to put forward proposals for the treatment of victims. The White Paper states that victims of trafficking should be offered care and support—but how is that to be clone in practical terms? Care and support are crucial from the humanitarian perspective but without them, it will be impossible successfully to prosecute traffickers and disrupt their networks.
I have four proposals covering victim support, the prosecution of traffickers, protection and international co-operation. First, support services should be provided both to child and adult victims of trafficking. They should be referred to specialised services that can offer secure accommodation, information in a language they understand, medical or psychological assistance, legal assistance and the means to communicate with family back home. That is in line with the measures contained in Article 6 of the UN protocol on trafficking, to which the UK is a signatory.
Children need more truly safe houses. Funding will he needed for that and out-of-hours services—particularly in areas where there are ports of entry. We should learn the lessons of West Sussex, good and bad. Adult victims should benefit from centrally funded specialised support services to which police, immigration and local authorities can make referrals.
Secondly, victims of trafficking should have a breathing space or "reflection delay", which would be in accordance with the European Commission's proposal for a short-term residence permit to victims of trafficking who assist the authorities in securing prosecutions. In Holland "reflection delay" lasts for three months. Six months would certainly be more appropriate in the case of children.
Thirdly, thought must be given to victim protection. Victims of trafficking who are returned home may be subject to violence, including torture and rape. Their families may also be threatened or attacked. Fear often silences victims. The Government will want to recognise their obligations under Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and under Article 3 of the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
882
Treatment or Punishment—under which no state party can expel, return or extradite a person where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be subjected to torture.
In looking at individual cases, I hope that the Government will consult with Anti-Slavery and others with expertise in trafficking and safety issues and will look at the American model for dealing with such cases, which I commend to the House.
Fourthly, we need to tackle the issue at source—working with governments and non-governmental organisations in countries where trafficking occurs. Trafficking is a global problem that requires a global response. Doubtless we will hear from noble Lords about Sudan and other parts of the world where international leadership is desperately needed and the problem needs to be dealt with at source. Civil war, conflict, discrimination and poverty all play their part as people leave their homes and families to seek employment elsewhere. Rebecca Bryan from IREX declared:
"At the most basic level … trafficking can be effectively combated only by generating employment at home and providing a viable alternative to girls and women desperately seeking a better life for themselves and their families".
Later in this debate we will hear from my noble friend Lord Wilberforce. His family name is synonymous with the enlightened humanitarian spirit that broke the slave trade in Britain and beyond. We will hear also from the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids—whose family was caught up in the misery of that same trade. What is human trafficking but a contemporary form of that age-old curse—causing misery for the victims and their families and generating vast sums of money for the traffickers? It is an affront to human dignity and it is our duty to confront it. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the timely introduction of this important debate, which, almost uniquely, provides us with an opportunity for some scrutiny prior to the enactment of legislation.
The noble Lord referred to my involvement. That has been at international level, with the International Labour Organisation. The growth of trafficking and exploitation of children for labour and other purposes captured international imagination to such an extent that in 1999—the only time in its 80-year history of adopting conventions—the ILO unanimously adopted a convention on extreme forms of child labour. At the top of the list of those forms of extreme child labour, of course, was child prostitution. There is, therefore, the political good will to see action take place.
That convention was accompanied by a well-established programme for the eradication of child labour, the IPEC programme, which has donated funds in excess of £150 million over the past five to 10 years and which does sterling work in many parts of

883
the world. Therefore, at international level we have a global report to the annual ILO conference on the fundamental rights of work, including freedom from forced labour and freedom from discrimination.
I have, therefore, observed with interest the record of our own Government over the past four years, with which I am very pleased. We were one of the earliest signatories to Convention 182 on extreme forms of child labour; we are, through DfID, a substantial financial supporter of the IPEC programme; and, with others, we welcome the White Paper to which reference was made earlier. The question is how we put into effect the international good will that we have. In my 10 years at the ILO I have noticed several deficiencies that appear to have permeated the international community and the UN system.
We have many good treaties. However, we often do not have coherence between them. We have many good intentions at national level. What we do not have at regional level—in our case Europe—is good coordination between member states. We quite often have good intentions, but do we have in place effective methods for prosecuting the perpetrators of these crimes? Finally, do we adequately understand the problems of the victims and do we know how to support them?
I certainly endorse all four points referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, particularly his reference to the need for victim support. It is a fact that victims who return to the member states from which they originated are again victimised, in many cases as a deterrent to others, in some cases out of sheer vindictiveness and in other cases to re-apply the same methods previously used as a commodity of labour, for sexual or other purposes, and to reintroduce those people to the illegal labour market.
The White Paper therefore provides us with a good opportunity to see what is present in outline and what we may want to see in detail, and I would urge on the Government the need to move forward this measure at the earliest opportunity for inclusion in the Queen's Speech. The international convention has now been in existence for three years. In this country, and in many others, we need adequately to translate into law effective methods to prosecute the perpetrators of trafficking.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said on 17th July that the Government were considering what needed to be done to form a non-governmental organisation to provide support and advice to the victims of trafficking—a point referred to in the White Paper. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that that is an active consideration. However, it will, of course, need financial support. There is no point in creating an expectation unless we fully understand the problem and the need to deliver. I should therefore be grateful if the Government could confirm that they intend to provide financial support for the creation of such an organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, made an excellent point about a period of reflection for those who have been rescued from trafficking. People who find
884
themselves in those difficult, isolated situations may experience great relief from the degradation that they have suffered, but they are not always able to make the wisest decisions at the time. Therefore, a period of reflection would appear to be in the best interests of the victims and something that can quite easily be achieved.
With regard to the question of non-sexual exploitation, child labour—I am not referring to children delivering newspapers or to my daughters working part-time as waitresses in a golf club at 16—it is true that there is in this country exploitation of children in full-time employment. It is well hymned. Many people will be shocked by the statistics quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that 66 children in one county—admittedly that which contains Gatwick Airport—have disappeared in five years. That is one of our problems.
Despite your Lordships' knowledge of the subject and the best efforts of all those who are involved—I pay tribute particularly to Anti-Slavery for bringing forward this issue—we in this country believe that this is a problem that happens elsewhere. We get some publicity for child prostitutes in Leeds or Manchester but we do not think that that is the same problem. We always find the excuse that it is a migration issue and therefore does not affect us. If this debate does nothing else, it should give us an opportunity to place on record that we in this country have a problem that we cannot wish away. Action has to be taken. I believe that the Government's intentions and efforts to date have been excellent. However, we now need speedy, carefully considered legislation, which hopefully will take account of your Lordships' contributions today.
I shall sit down two-thirds of the way through my allotted eight minutes, not only because of the excellent presentation by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but in the sure knowledge that far more expert views than mine are to be expressed in the remainder of this debate.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord on initiating this debate, on introducing it so comprehensively and on his tireless endeavours on behalf of those suffering from violations of human rights in many parts of the world.
It was suggested that I should focus on Sudan. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight the human trafficking in the form of slavery there today. It is often said that abduction and trafficking in women and children in parts of Africa is not new. It has long been associated with inter-tribal conflict. But in Sudan a more systematic policy of abduction and enslavement of African women and children by Arabs from the north began in the 1980s. Then the Islamist National Islamic Front regime took power by military coup in 1989 and declared jihad in its most militaristic form against all who opposed it, including Muslims, traditional believers and Christians.
The objectives of the jihad include the forcible Islamisation of those not already Muslims and the Arabisation of the African peoples of the south and

885
Nuba Mountains. The weapons of jihad include military offensives against innocent civilians and the manipulation of aid. The regime declared large areas as no-go zones for Operation Lifeline Sudan and associated aid organisations, so that its victims are left to suffer and die unreached, unhelped, unheard.
The third weapon of jihad is slavery, particularly in the borderlands such as northern and parts of southern Sudan, as in Bahr-el-Ghazal. In the early 1990s NIF leaders went to the borderlands to mobilise the local Arab tribesmen (murahaleen), to arm them and to encourage them to participate alongside government soldiers and jihad warriors in the raids on African communities in the south. They were told that they could keep the booty of war, including the human booty of women and children. That has been confirmed by Arabs from those areas who have spoken to us. The abducted women and children are used as slaves, boys as cattleherds, girls and women for domestic work and sexual exploitation, which results in irreversible genetic change for dignified Dinka people.
Abductions have been documented by the few aid organisations that defy the NIF's no-go ban and by independent media, including television programmes from "Dateline" in the mid-1990s to the BBC's "Everyman" last year, and newspapers ranging from Corriere Della Sera to the Ottawa Citizen. Reporters come, profoundly sceptical, and return convinced by the reality of slavery.
I and colleagues from Christian Solidarity Worldwide have been there, with the raids going on around us. We have seen communities decimated by the abduction of women and children and by a scorched earth policy. We have walked through miles of recently attacked villages, with countless human and cattle corpses, burnt homes, churches, mosques, animist shrines, schools, clinics—total devastation.
However, there are peaceable Arabs from the north, who are friends of the African Dinka people, who come south in the dry season to graze their cattle and to trade. At considerable risk, they identify, buy back and bring back slaves, for, if identified, they face penalties for undermining the jihad. They need money. They cannot just abduct slaves. Many local African communities can provide the necessary funds but others cannot because they have lost everything in the raids.
Therefore, we have provided resources for some communities to redeem slaves, for which we have been criticised. For example, it is said that we encourage the slave trade; that is not true. This trafficking is not economic—the abduction is an act of war and will continue whether or not any slave is redeemed. Moreover, it has been said that we have been conned and that those whose freedom we buy are not slaves. But we meticulously check case histories of random samples of those returned. We also take other measures, such as double checking the translations of Dinka and Arabic interpreters.
Obviously, slave redemption is not the solution: the solution is to stop the slavery. International protest brought down apartheid, so why is there so much
886
reluctance to protest against slavery? Perhaps because David Hoile's well-funded organisation, the European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council, which acts as a mouthpiece for the NIF, widely disseminates publications full of misleading half-truths and references taken out of context, trying to discredit the evidence.
Moreover, the NIF does not allow independent organisations to visit the affected areas. Therefore, it is hard to obtain the evidence or to rescue those who have been abducted. The NIF's own face-saving mechanism, the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children, has been extremely limited in its effectiveness. It does not rescue—indeed, it cannot; they have gone beyond rescue—those who have already been sold into slavery in other parts of Sudan or abroad; or boys, sent to the jihad training schools to be trained to fight against their own people. We have met some of those who have escaped and they have given us details.
Examples speak louder than generalizations. Kabissa Ayak, aged 28, was captured in a surprise attack on her village near Wonruk. The people ran in disarray. Her husband was killed. She tried to hide in a bush but was caught. In her own words:
"One of my sons aged 18 months was pounded to death in a pounding block, before my eyes. When I saw my husband dead and my child killed I tried to kill myself, so they bound me and dragged me along. We were taken to Muglad [in the North] … my owner's name is Hassan Hussein. I was enslaved for about 4 years, kept in a cattle compound and never given enough food. An Arab raped me and I became pregnant. I gave birth in a cattle compound with no help. I called the baby"—
whom we saw—
"''Mam' which means 'suffering' or 'difficulties' … I am a Christian and they tried to force me to become a Muslim … I thought about suicide because I had lost my loved ones and didn't want to go to the mosque. Then I heard rumours of traders who would return slaves and I managed to come out to meet them. I am still suffering because I lost my loved ones. But I want to say `Thank you' for rescuing me from slavery".
In conclusion, I invite noble Lords to meet little Deng aged 10. He has just returned with a trader after spending two years as a slave. He is highly traumatised because he learnt that, in the raid during which he was captured, both his parents were killed. So he has returned to discover that he is an orphan. However, towards the end of our conversation, I got a wistful little smile from Deng. He said, "Well, at least I am home again now. I'm called by my own name Deng", which is Dinka for "rain", and rain is precious. It also means, "someone to be cherished" and a gift from God. He added, "I'm no longer called `Abit', or slave".
Everyone in your Lordships' House agrees that no child in the world today should be called "slave". I therefore ask the Minister what precisely Her Majesty's Government are doing to put more pressure on the National Islamic Front regime in the Sudan to change its policy so that no child will continue to be called "Abit" in the Sudan today.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, trafficking is not a new crime.

887
However, it is acquiring a salience that demands urgent response. We are grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this debate at this time, in advance of legislation by the Government. I am also grateful to the Government for showing, domestically, a degree of urgency and sensitivity to concerns that have properly been expressed about the inadequacy of our domestic law.
However, because I can only endorse and underline what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, so eloquently said about the position within the United Kingdom, I shall focus my remarks on the efforts that might be made and, I believe, are being made by other countries in Europe, particularly in that part of Europe that has been afflicted by the fall-out from the conflicts in south eastern Europe and the ending of the regimes behind the Iron Curtain. In those areas the problems are transnational and complex. They require international co-operation and multi-agency approaches.
There is a very marked rise in the number of victims of trafficking coming to western Europe from eastern Europe. A great deal of evidence, not just anecdotal, shows that there is an enormous increase in the involvement of organised crime with substantial profits being made from trafficking. The Stability Pact Task Force on trafficking has sought to co-ordinate activities and to facilitate communication between all the relevant organisations. This has been achieved with practical consequences on the ground—sometimes operating with bodies like the International Organisation for Migration, as in Albania—by providing safe houses, witness protection programmes, and strengthening co-operation with the police to enhance victim protection.
When the matter was the subject of an exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I detected some indication that there is a lack of certainty about the full scale of the problem. It is impossible to argue that the problem is not growing, and doing so at an alarming rate. It may be impossible to produce accurate statistics for very obvious reasons: those who are victims are very unwilling to come forward to provide information. But the illustrative estimates that have been produced by Europol are, I believe, helpful. On the basis of submissions from member countries, they indicate that, for example, one group operating in the Netherlands with control over 10 women was earning about 3,500 euros a day.
Attention has also been drawn to the estimate from the Institute of Migration that 500,000 women have illegally been moved from the Ukraine to western Europe in the 10 years since independence. It is estimated that one in five of those women is trapped, or has been trapped, in the illegal sex industry.
It is right to consider what are called the "push and pull" factors—the origins in economic and social deprivation—and to recognise that some of those who are involved are coming to the West willingly because they imagine that their lives will be better as a result. In order to deal with that fact, we have to look at our own immigration policies and acknowledge with cool
888
and calculating judgment that this country could accept many more skilled and, indeed, unskilled immigrants. If others were to follow that lead, some of the pressure in those countries on exposed and endangered women could be substantially reduced.
The other main cause of the problem is the conflict in those parts of the world and the subsequent fall-out. However, I believe that the international community is responding to that, notably through the work of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights based in Warsaw under the OSCE. The organisation has done much to advance the debate about the nature of the requirements of proper legislation against trafficking in all the member countries. It has produced invaluable work, which we should seek to disseminate and follow up.
The ODIHR has promoted important fieldwork, in which the Government have played a useful role. The Government not only contributed to the anti-trafficking fund, they were an originator of it. In addition, the ODHIR has provided anti-trafficking hotlines offering information and counselling in the Ukraine and Belarus, and raising awareness through, for example, a five-part programme in Russia to highlight the risks posed to women by traffickers. It has also set up programmes for the return to Poland and re-integration there of victims of trafficking, which were supported by the anti-trafficking fund. Those useful measures, which have practical consequences, must be considered with at least as much urgency as the need to change the law.
The political determination by member governments of OSCE not to tolerate such activity is as important as the adherence to anti-trafficking conventions. Pressure in regard to those points can produce results. For example, there is evidence that when, during the negotiation of a stability pact with Albania, the Albanian government were taken up on the matter, they appointed a co-ordinator to take account of trafficking in human beings.
The Government are doing valuable work in such forums. We in western Europe must take responsibility for the matter, and, notwithstanding the complexity of delivering the results, make a serious commitment to deal with it. When we view the Government's domestic legislation on trafficking, we shall bear in mind that it must deal not only with the repression of the offences but, in particular, with the protection of the human rights of the victims.
6.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I join other contributors in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for introducing this timely debate.
We are slowly waking up to the seriousness of the challenge posed by the trafficking in human beings. In Bristol we have in recent years begun to work through the history of slavery, often painfully. We discovered that slavery took place not only in the 17th and 18th centuries on the North Atlantic triangular route, but also that it was present in the 11th century, when young men and pregnant maidens from Wiltshire were

889
sold to the Viking Irish. We asked, sometimes with incredulity, how it was possible for human beings to act in that way, treating their brothers and sisters as commodities to be bought and sold when the price was right. How, especially, could children be born into slavery and grow up knowing no other life? We need to he clear that the issue is not a racial one; it has to do with the value of human beings and human dignity, and it is therefore for the consideration of us all.
We have recognised only recently that a new form of that evil trade continues and is growing rapidly. In the nature of the case, precise numbers are not known with certainty. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate the Government's assessment of the numbers involved and the measures that recently they said they were taking to improve levels of information. I am sure that nobody will publicly defend this vile trade. The question is: what is to be done to address the problem? There is, as noble Lords said, no shortage of conventions, protocols and agreements, prepared by the United Nations and its agencies or agreed by the European Union. Trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation are recognised internationally as significant problems with transnational dimensions. Member states have been urged to address the problem as a matter of urgency.
I therefore welcome the steps that the Government have already taken to show their awareness of the need for action. The Church of England Board for Social Responsibility noted in its response last year to Setting the Boundaries, the sex offences review, that the Josephine Butler Society had asked for its support on the issue of trafficking and sexual exploitation. The society hoped that an organisation would be established to help the victims of trafficking with a multi-agency approach. We need to deal with the matter in the spirit of Josephine Butler, with her fearless unmasking of hypocrisy, her energy and her concern for some of the most vulnerable and wretched people in society.
I welcome also the Government's statement in the asylum and immigration White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, of their intention to implement recommendation 49 of the sex offences review by introducing a specific offence of trafficking, with powers given to trace assets overseas. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, has drawn particular attention to children. I hope that the Minister will also be able to assure us that the legislation will reflect the seriousness of those crimes against children. I support the Children's Society and other children's organisations in their calls for action on Recommendations 50 and 51 of the sex offences review, which proposed the introduction of specific offences relating to the commercial exploitation of children. As I said, that will require a multi-agency approach, and resources will be needed. That means that we must decide whether we think that the matter is important enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said in his fourth point that the issue is an international one. Perhaps, therefore, we must tackle it at source. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for the way
890
in which she introduced the issues relating to Africa, not least the Sudan. I shall underline what she said: Mauritania and the Sudan are the places in Africa where the greatest numbers are involved in the modern, 21st century slave trade. I have been much indebted to Ronald Segal, who wrote a book on the Atlantic slave trade and his latest, in 2001, on Islamic black slaves. He supports greatly the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. It is a country divided, north and south, Christian and Muslim. It is about Arabisation, and it continues in that way. I shall support the point with figures: in December 1999 alone, 5,514 slaves were redeemed at the cost of £35 each. It is interesting that in the 2nd century AD the Christian Church in Europe decided that it too had to be involved in the remitting of slaves, and this is a continuation.
We are right to condemn this evil trade and to do all that is possible in our own country to wipe it out. However, it is about globalisation and our responsibility to challenge and tackle countries where the trade originates. So perhaps we have to send to the Sudans of this world, and maybe to other nations as well, a challenge to Islam, as we were challenged as Christians in the 17th and 18th century about the values, and the name, in which slavery is undertaken; to challenge democratic governments, ourselves included, that our own values are neither safe nor sound if we deal with these matters in isolation; to challenge the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is so blatantly flouted; and to challenge ourselves that the situation is redeemable.
If we are to call to mind a memory, let us think of what happened in South Africa. The evil of apartheid continued despite the words of the United Nations and of governments. It was only when popular pressure, when human beings recognised that the issue was about their brothers and sisters, when enforced measures were introduced banning arms, oil and financial credit, that the retreat from apartheid began; and in 1994 a non-racial democracy in South Africa began.
It is right for the Government and your Lordships' House to take action. But we must raise the consciousness of the people not only of this country, but also of other countries, to the belief that these issues have to be tackled because it is an affront to our human dignity that this trade continues. Only then will governments begin to listen, and things be changed.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for introducing this debate and offer a few words of support for what he said in his opening remarks. This indeed is a very worrying trend which seems to be escalating despite the many efforts to discourage such a disgraceful trade.
I am not sure whether I should declare an interest since I have in the past alluded to the fact that I am the descendant of an enslaved African, and I will be emotional about what I have to say.

891
The purpose of the slave trading of my ancestors and now is for gain, greed and gratification. Let me explain. Centuries ago there were, here in Europe, many nations with varying systems of government and they were made up of farmers, craftsmen, artists, musicians, priests, soldiers, teachers, kings and queens. They were people who were husbands and wives, daughters and sons, nephews, nieces, grandparents and grandchildren. They were human.
At the same time there were in Africa many nations with varying systems of government made up of farmers, craftsmen, and so forth. They too were husbands and wives, daughters and sons, nephews, nieces, grandparents and grandchildren. They were human. It was not a case of "nations" in Europe and "tribes" in Africa. Both could be described as either nations or tribes.
But Europeans travelled to Africa. They violently assaulted the Africans in their own homes. They shackled them in leg irons and transported them in insanitary conditions of disease and malnutrition thousands of miles across the sea to the Caribbean and the Americas. There they were sold by auction to other Europeans for whom they had to work without payment on sugar and cotton plantations and at any task or in any conditions inflicted upon them. That was not enough. They also had to gratify the slave owners in their beds.
The Africans who rebelled against that treatment were beaten, humiliated and sometimes killed. Rebellions were put down with the utmost savagery while the European plantation owners became richer and richer from the unpaid labour of Africans.
The primary driving force behind the European dehumanising of Africans was the acquisition of wealth. There was money to be made from buying and selling Africans and from their unpaid labour—wealth for individuals and families in Britain. Cities in Britain and the British economy benefited greatly from that trade. Years later Sir Winston Churchill said,
"The West Indies, two hundred years ago, ranked very largely in the minds of all people who were making Britain and the British by the wealth they supplied to Britain".
As more and more weapons of mass destruction become available to more and more people, the search for peaceful co-existence among the peoples of this shrinking planet becomes even more urgent. Feelings of superiority, inferiority and resentment can slide into aggression and violence, and that threatens the only basis there is for peaceful co-existence; namely, a mutual respect in which we see everyone else as our equal. Without that there is no hope for any of us. It is therefore imperative that we identify whatever might give rise to mistaken ideas of superiority and inferiority in order to destroy their poison.
Although Africans had always resisted their enslavement and their rebellions were making the plantations less profitable and increasingly unmanageable, there was still great opposition in Britain to any change. However, in 1793 a small but determined group mounted a campaign which finally
892
achieved the abolition of slavery and the slave trade. I understand that at the heart of that movement were a group of Christians gathered around the Reverend John Venner, Rector of Holy Trinity, Clapham, and they included persons prominent in public life such as Wilberforce, Clarkson, Sharpe, Buxton, Thornton, Stephen, Macauley and others.
They drew upon evidence and experiences supplied by a remarkable African who had himself been sold into slavery. Oluadah Equiano was that slave. Eventually their efforts were rewarded when the British Parliament outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself in 1833. A sad note in all of that was that, whereas compensation of more than £1 million was paid to plantation owners for the loss of their slaves, nothing was paid to the survivors of the 20 million Africans who had been enslaved by them. Great changes can be brought about by small beginnings when a cause is just.
A paradox of this despicable epoch of human history is that it has also been the occasion for an almost superhuman act of forgiveness. The rape and pillage of Africa have so far not been followed by any vengeful atrocities against vulnerable Europeans. On the contrary, the recent peaceful transition from apartheid South Africa to democratic South Africa is but a particular example of a general African sense of generosity and forgiveness. Similarly, the modern Caribbean is a microcosm of what the world could be like where, in the aftermath of slavery and colonialism, people of every ethnic group can have the freedom to be who they are.
I have been trying to impress upon noble Lords that the appalling act of enslavement must never be forgotten and needs to be recorded so that trade in humans should never be tolerated again. Poets like Homer recognised that need, and the horror that descendants have felt at the thought of the annihilation of Africans should give us courage to carry on with the quest lest it be said by the spirits of our ancestors, "We lost heart and we forgot the task".
Today, as I remind your Lordships' House of our combined history—when the continent of Africa saw its children abused, treated as less than human, degraded and humiliated in ways which led the African, in his chains and being whipped, to ask the question, "Am I not a brother?"—I should like to join other noble Lords in the task of not only highlighting the plight of the victims of present-day slavery but of ensuring that human rights are at the core of any anti-trafficking strategy.
I realise that I have gone past my time; I shall hurry. We do not often recognise it, but some of the problems that we deal with daily in Britain arise from that legacy, which has been described by other noble Lords as "degrading". The traumas of slavery run deep and could blight future generations. I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to support the four proposals outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. A memorial to the unknown slave would not go amiss in our country as it would highlight the fact that we are against slavery.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, and her moving historical survey.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Alton for the comprehensive way in which he introduced the debate. He will know that I come to it from the experience of working to prevent, first, the exploitation of domestic workers coming to Britain from overseas; and, secondly, the exploitation of children in poor countries for the purposes of sex tourism.
Both kinds of exploitation stem from extreme poverty in certain countries and, in particular, from rural poverty. Trafficking in people usually involves deception in the country of origin and coercion or debt bondage in the country of destination. This abuse would be less widespread without the poverty of those being trafficked.
It is well known that Russian, Ukrainian and Albanian organised crime gangs are exploiting both young women and street children. The Republics of Moldova and Romania are countries of origin and also countries of transit. I have visited both and I know that between half a million and a million Moldovans are obliged by economic poverty to seek work abroad. Some end up trapped in prostitution, in Italy and elsewhere.
In Romania, a journalist friend of mine plans a thorough study of trafficking. He confirms that poverty and unemployment are its root causes. People lack solid information and are easily seduced by stories about the glamour of the rich west. In Romania, the legislation on trafficking is not very effective, although there is sonic police co-operation with Interpol.
I thank successive governments for what they have done to improve the situation of domestic workers from overseas now in Britain. Their efforts to curb sex tourism and paedophilia by British residents are good and have had notable support from the Thompson travel organisation.
There are several practical steps that the Government could take to prevent trafficking. They could, for instance, remove reservations from the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This would benefit children who have reached this country and then been taken into care by local authorities. They should ratify the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. They should ensure that trafficking is defined in future legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, in the same way as in the protocol to the UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime and the EU framework decision on trafficking.
A new Bill was promised last May. When will the Government publish it? When will it he introduced? I trust that the minimum penalty for trafficking will be no less than six or seven years' imprisonment, with a much higher maximum for cases involving prostitution and child abuse, together with the confiscation of the proceeds of trafficking.
894
Much also should be done without legislation. Will the Government propose that the European Union and the ODIHR should provide full information, in Eastern Europe and other countries of origin, on the policy against trafficking; on the dangers of deception and bogus job offers; and also on bona fide work opportunities that exist or could be created in Western Europe?
At home, will the Government allow victims of trafficking to remain here if they are willing to give evidence? I believe that that is already the intention, but it may need better witness protection. Exceptional leave to remain may also be needed in some cases to protect both the victims and their relatives in the country of origin. A delay for reflection to allow victims to decide calmly on their next steps can be critically important. I believe that the Netherlands allows three months in such cases. Can we do the same here? I hope so.
Secure accommodation for victims of trafficking has been mentioned. In my view, it is urgently needed. Medical and legal help should go along with this. Will the Government fund a specialist NGO to fill this gap? The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is not in his place, spoke about this issue on 17th July, as did the noble Lord, Lord Brett, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol today. What is being done now?
The problems we are discussing reinforce the importance of dealing with poverty at source. In Europe, this means European Union enlargement, the South-East Europe Stability Pact, the PHAR and TACIS programmes, and micro-finance in generating additional works and jobs in countries of origin. In Britain, the corollary is ever-increasing co-operation between departments—for example, Immigration, Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, police and social services. I know that the Foreign Office is well aware of this, is encouraging it and is spreading the word abroad. But has the message of co-operation been fully received at home?
To end on a positive note, I congratulate the Government on the successes attained through Project Reflex. I believe that there have been 37 arrests and 13 convictions of traffickers.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this timely debate which highlights a widespread and persistent horror—the trafficking in human life. This abhorrent practice is no less than a modern form of slavery.
From children trafficked to work as forced labour in the cocoa industry of west Africa to child camel jockeys as young as four trafficked from the Sudan to the Gulf states and girls trafficked across Asia into sexual servitude, this is a boom trade which we are nowhere near to eradicating.
We may like to think that this is not an evil which stains European soil. As we have heard today, we would be wrong. Inconceivable though it is in the 21st century, trafficking in human beings is taking place all over the world, in developed and developing countries

895
alike, in countries where human rights are routinely violated and in countries where human rights are respected. This is a truly global plague, the victims of which can find themselves in London or Paris as well as Bangkok or Manila. The OSCE has warned that trafficking affects all its member states, either as countries of origin, countries of transit or countries of destination.
To pick up on the point made by the right reverend Prelate, globalisation has had a mixed effect on the invidious practice of trafficking. On the one hand, it has a beneficial effect. New communication technologies are enabling information to flow more and more freely. As a result, there are now fewer dark corners in the world in which the perpetrators of this evil crime can hide.
However, the wider availability of information is proving to be a double-edged sword. The Internet is being misused for the purpose of promoting sexual exploitation; and a sinister triangle has developed between globalisation, cross-border trafficking in human life and weaknesses in national immigration policies. The net result is that this trade is allowed not only to exist but to flourish and expand.
Faced with a growing body of evidence, the spotlight of international attention is now beginning to focus more sharply on trafficking. The UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, which supplements the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised crime, was adopted by the UN General Assembly in November 2000. This is an important new tool to facilitate international co-operation. Last month, the European Union adopted a comprehensive action plan to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings in the European Union.
NGOs have also sought to turn up the heat on traffickers. In November 2001, Anti-Slavery launched a two-year campaign against human trafficking: to draw attention to it; and to lobby for national and international policy changes to penalise traffickers, protect trafficked people's rights and address the root causes. It should be praised in this work.
Individually and collectively, states hear primary responsibility for the implementation of measures to combat trafficking; but this is a trans-national problem which no country alone can tackle. Trafficking is a complicated and multifaceted problem which requires a co-ordinated, interdisciplinary and international response.
Current legal frameworks, policies and strategies have to date proved inadequate either to prevent trafficking and prosecute traffickers or to protect the human rights of the trafficked. Co-ordination, at both national and international level, has been the exception rather than the rule. As a result, the victims of trafficking are often treated as criminals, while the traffickers go unpunished.
We have heard evidence of how hundreds of women and children, from China to Kosovo, from Africa to Asia, and from Lithuania to Nigeria, are being
896
trafficked through and into the United Kingdom. We have heard how these girls are told to apply for asylum at the ports, and are then referred to social services but disappear when the traffickers make contact with them. We have heard how, since 1995, 66 children have gone missing from West Sussex social services in this way.
For some time it has been clear that there is an urgent need to adopt legislation which concretely criminalises trafficking in human beings and to give priority to combating this pernicious and odious form of slavery. The UK has no specific legislation prohibiting human trafficking, and law enforcement bodies are hampered in their efforts to tackle this scourge because of lack of guidance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, legislation that is nearly 50 years old, such as the Sexual Offences Act 1956, is being applied which provides for maximum sentences of only two years. While the UK is a signatory to the UN protocol on the prevention and suppression of trafficking and the EU framework decision on trafficking for the purposes of sexual and labour exploitation, domestic legislation is needed to give effect to them. I therefore welcome the Government's recent immigration and asylum White Paper, which includes a commitment to legislate in this area and to increase the penalties for those involved in trafficking. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, remarked, it is rare to have such an opportunity in advance of legislation to make constructive suggestions on the framing of new laws, and that is most welcome.
This is an important opportunity for the Government to send a strong message world-wide that they are serious about fighting traffickers; and secondly, to ensure statutory protection for victims of trafficking in the United Kingdom. I hope that any new legislation will form the backbone to a tripartite approach—policies and programmes aimed at the prevention of trafficking, the protection of the victims and the prosecution of the perpetrators.
It is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Brett, pointed out, that the new legislation clearly distinguishes trafficking from smuggling. Will the Minister give an assurance that the legislation will use the same definition of trafficking as has been adopted in both the EU framework decision on trafficking and the UN protocol on trafficking, so that there is much-needed consistency in the definition of the offence of trafficking? If the state intervenes at all, it is usually the victims who are arrested and deported, while the traffickers continue to operate with near impunity.
Few victims—in the destination countries or upon return to their country of origin—receive any assistance, protection or legal remedy against their traffickers. As the noble Lord, Lord Brett, mentioned, the victims of trafficking who are returned home may face torture, rape, detention or even death at the hands of the traffickers.
When we treat the symptoms, we must at the same time look to the root causes; namely, poverty and corruption. International action to address slavery and trafficking will not be successful unless it tackles

897
these root causes. Poverty breeds abusive labour practices. Poverty and the exploitation of desperation is at the heart of bonded labour. Poverty, which particularly affects women, is at the heart of the exploitation of women. The poverty of parents is at the heart of their decision to sell their children. The victims of slavery-like abuses are generally from the poorest and the most vulnerable social groups. The cancer of slavery is a symptom of the malignancy of poverty, and the two must be treated together.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, let us make no mistake. This debate is, literally and firmly, about slavery, as many speakers have said. It is true, if perhaps a little facile, to say that slavery has not been abolished; it has simply been modernised by the demographic changes that have taken place and by economic forces. France—a wise and logical country—has recognised this by setting up a committee under the appropriate name, Le Comité Contre L'Esclavage Moderne—the committee against modern slavery. We ought to recognise trafficking for what it is.
We have been given a great many estimates of the numbers involved. I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, and venture to agree with him that evidence as to the scale of the problem is uncontested. It is not confined to a number of well-known groups or a number of well-known countries as the old slave trade was. It is perhaps more difficult, therefore, to get to grips with it. Nor is it limited to a definite and recognisable status in terms of the persons concerned. Anyone can recognise a slave; it is not so easy to recognise a victim of trafficking. As a consequence, the organisation Anti-Slavery International, of which I have the honour to be president, has taken the matter very seriously. It has conducted inquiries, attended meetings and is working very actively indeed on the basis that trafficking is a modern form of slavery.
I want to make two preliminary points before coming to my argument. First, there are plenty of case notes, some of which we have heard in the debate. I shall not add to them, except to recall a rather moving occasion at which I was present, with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, when an award was made by Anti-Slavery International. Two young Bangladeshi girls, Roushan and Golan, aged about 13, spoke to the meeting about their experiences. They recounted how they were trafficked at the age of about 12 or younger for sums of six US dollars in one case and 13 US dollars in the other. They recounted their experiences, and they were able to say what has happened to them since then and since they have been taken in for rehabilitation by the Association for Community Development. It was therefore moving in two respects: first, the fact of the trafficking; and, secondly, the equally important fact that something can be done and—as I think we all agree—must be done to rehabilitate those who have been through the process.
898
The second preliminary point is very short. It is simply to endorse what has been said: there are plenty of international instruments dealing with this matter. They have been listed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and others, and they include the United Nations, the International Labour Organisation, and now the European Community. I am glad to say that this country has a good record of joining in with those instruments, and no doubt we will be active in carrying into effect the European Union framework communication.
I shall concentrate on three points which are perhaps relevant to the practical implementation of those many international instruments. The first, of course, is the question of definition. It sounds like a dry legal point, but I think that it is rather more important than that. Trafficking is a vague word. Although it has become a term of art which everyone involved in the affair knows and understands, it is not so easy when one tries to analyse it and see what it includes. The United Nations protocol has therefore given a much more elaborate definition focusing on the word exploitation, which is said to include as a minimum sexual exploitation, forced labour and so on. The definition brings out some interesting and important points. This trafficking is not limited to sexual exploitation, although those cases catch the headlines, but involves all sorts of forced labour, exposure to hazardous work and even the involuntary enlistment of soldiers in military service. There are said to be 300,000 such soldiers.
We now have this rather comprehensive definition, although the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has twice given a rather cautious reply about its incorporation in British law. I completely understand that, and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, may do the same. It is a rather wide definition and perhaps needs to be refined. However, I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—perhaps the Minister who is to reply to this debate will be able to confirm it—that this definition is acceptable and must be made part of the law in the interests of police trying to enforce it and welfare organisations trying to implement it, and of the general public who need to understand what it involves.
The second point is police reinforcement, about which much has been said. There is a low rate of conviction. Very often as a rule, victims will not give evidence. There is also big money on the other side. Moreover, the area is a very difficult one and includes a great number of countries in eastern Europe, West Africa and elsewhere. There are problems with language, and problems about visas and passports which are falsified and may enable people to come in illegally. The ambassador in the Cote d'Ivoire has said that there is evidence there of many children's visas being false. That brings us to what has already been described as the difficult case of unaccompanied children, of whom there are said to be 10,000 in this country.
Additionally, when one is considering how to deal with a particular problem, one is faced with human rights problems. Mrs Mary Robinson, the United

899
Nations High Commissioner, is on record as saying that human rights should be at the centre of this problem, and that this problem should be at the centre of human rights. However, one still has to ask who is to take up the human rights aspect of the problem and see to it that effect is given to human rights. Then we have the final problem. When one has identified a case and brought about a prosecution, what is one to do with the victims? It is not enough to send someone to prison; that is the least important and interesting side of it. What is one to do with the victims, who very often are women and children with all sorts of problems of their own at home?
All of this is very much beyond the resources of the ordinary police force which is not used to doing this sort of work. It has probably never heard of trafficking. We have the evidence of Kelly and Regan, researchers who have given excellent help to the Home Office. They say that the majority of police forces have little knowledge of the problem. So, there must be a specialised unit, either a police force or mixed force, which is expert at dealing with it. It is not enough to have even a sufficient number of policemen expert in it. We had a meeting with ECPAT the other day, and we were told that there were only 12 trained policemen capable of dealing with this problem. That is a serious figure that we have to bear in mind.
So there is a problem of police enforcement. I was going to go on to say something about the problem of rehabilitation, but I see that my time has expired. Other speakers have spoken of it. I think that we are behind other countries in what we do in the way of rehabilitation. We need money to enable refuges to be set up, to which victims, particularly young children, can be sent before they are sent back. We also have the problem of giving evidence about their condition, and the Dutch experiment of three-months' respite before action is taken.
I cannot do more now than conclude by heartily endorsing and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for the splendid way in which he has brought this subject to our attention.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for tabling this debate. It is a very timely debate. Only last week, the Government produced a very interesting video on forced marriages and abduction. I commend the video to noble Lords and urge them to watch it.
In the past few years, I have travelled to various European countries and to various parts of the Middle East and Africa. Trafficking in women and children is a common factor affecting many of those countries. My own involvement with the Save the Children Fund has confirmed the alarming scale of the problem in the Far East as well. The problem has an international dimension and is literally out of control.
While I was in Zanzibar, I was able to see at first hand the remnants of the slave trade there, including chains and shackles. People who protested against that
900
trade were beheaded. No one could fail to be moved by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids. What we have done is to move from chains and shackles to blackmail and corruption, which are some of the factors now oppressing women and children who are least able to defend themselves.
Although no accurate statistics are available on the number of people being trafficked internationally, it is clear that this contemporary form of slavery is affecting hundreds of thousands of people each year. I contacted Anti-Slavery International, and it believes that, every year, at an absolute minimum, hundreds of women and children are being trafficked to the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation. It also believes that the situation is getting worse. That view is shared by the deputy director of Europol, who recently said that human trafficking to EU member states for sexual exploitation and illicit labour is increasing significantly.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, provided statistics on the number of foreign nationals, including children, who have been lost from the system. That is a frightening thought. Many of these young people have escaped from care and into the hands of those who exploit them. They face frightening consequences. Not only are they blackmailed to perform various tasks, but their families abroad are being blackmailed to ensure that they do not complain about their treatment here or elsewhere in the European Union. Evidence from law enforcement officials indicates two new and worrying trends. First, the victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation are getting younger and more children are involved. Secondly, there are increasing links with organised crime, with those responsible for trafficking in people also being involved with drugs and arms trafficking. Those factors make tackling trafficking an even greater priority for governments everywhere.
The right reverend Prelate was right to draw attention to the UK Government's proposal in the White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe, Haven, to bring forward a stopgap measure in the Bill dealing with immigration to introduce an offence of trafficking with a maximum penalty of 14 years. That is a positive step to end the current situation where no offence for trafficking exists, thereby making it a high-profit and low-risk crime. The commitment in the White Paper to bring in detailed legislation to cover people trafficking for both sexual and labour exploitation "as soon as possible" is also welcome. I hope that the Government will hasten that legislation. I believe that the next Queen's Speech should bring forward a definition of "trafficking" to be used in domestic legislation. Such a definition should mirror that used in the UN protocol on trafficking and the EU framework decision on trafficking which is currently still under discussion. Using the same definition will ensure consistency in terms of what constitutes an offence of trafficking in people, both within the European Union and internationally.
I also welcome the acknowledgement in the White Paper that victims of trafficking should be offered the care and support that many noble Lords have

901
mentioned. But the Government need to go further and detail the specific measures that they will take to ensure the protection and support of victims of trafficking in the United Kingdom. Victims' protection should be at the centre of an anti-trafficking policy and the system in the UK is clearly inadequate. Currently, for example, there is no agency to which the police, immigration, local authorities or nongovernmental agencies can refer adult victims of trafficking where they can receive specialised support services and advice, including secure accommodation. My own authority, West Sussex social services, is the only body to provide such services for children. It is absolutely essential that the Government fund the provision of secure accommodation and assistance for victims of trafficking as a matter of urgent priority.
It is also important that victims of trafficking should have a breathing space that will give them the opportunity to receive assistance from such a specialised agency and to make an informed decision about whether they wish to co-operate with authorities in prosecuting the traffickers. Such a system already exists in other European countries like Holland, Belgium and Italy, as has been pointed out. That breathing space will give support workers the chance to gain victims' confidence and to assist them to recover from their traumatic experiences. During that process, information regarding how they were recruited and transported will come to light, so that even if the victim decides not to testify against the traffickers, the authorities will still have vital information about the traffickers' modus operandi that will allow them to profile possible victims and to disrupt the traffickers' networks.
In that context, I draw your Lordships' attention to the model that has been used in Italy, which has much to recommend it. Under Italian law a special permit to stay can be issued when,
"situations of violence or grave exploitation towards a foreigner have been identified, and concrete dangers for his or her safety emerged as a result of the intent to withdraw from the circle".
The permit is valid for six months and is renewable for one year, with the possibility that victims may be allowed to remain permanently. Both the police and non-governmental organisations can apply for the permit and the issuing of permits is not made contingent on the victim collaborating in a prosecution.
According to a senior expert for social policy in the Italian ministry of manpower, that system has helped to ensure more co-operation with the authorities because victims feel more secure and, therefore, prosecutors support the use of the special residency permits. According to information supplied by the National Anti-Mafia Directorate, currently there are 1,682 investigations or prosecutions under way against traffickers in Italy. Given that that system has proved effective in terms of protecting and supporting the victims and in ensuring effective prosecutions of the traffickers, I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the Government will give serious consideration to operating such a system in the United Kingdom.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, human trafficking is human suffering of the most extreme kind. On my journeys abroad I have seen a 12 year-old girl, carrying a baby, sold into prostitution; six, seven and eight year-old children in labour conditions that are appalling, working 12 or 14 hours a day; and in Columbia a 10 year-old taken from his family by guerrillas to be trained as one of their soldiers. Such suffering, which is the product of the crime of trafficking, demands a message of clarity from this House.
The trafficked must be given sanctuary. Those who traffic must be the subject of firm law and condign punishment. The problem of trafficking must be recognised in our society as being of the highest significance and demanding action by us all. First, those who are enslaved look for refuge, somewhere to go to escape. I ask rhetorically, in our society do we have a system that provides such refuge? I regret that the answer is no.
If there is refuge, the trafficked want security against those who exploit them. The blackmail of which we have heard is not financial in essence, but fear against the person—woman or child, or their families in the country from which they have been trafficked. Without that reassurance, that security, they will not look for refuge. If given refuge, if reassured, they want to know that those from whom they have sought help will not treat them as an asylum cipher, a problem to be disposed of in the most rapid and cost-effective way. They need to know whether they will be given—in that terribly insensitive phrase—reflection time, whether they will be allowed to stay in the country, and whether they will be able to go home to whatever they may face there. I put sanctuary first. It is the aspect of Christian compassion, which I am sure is common to other religions, that we should first mark in analysing this problem.
The trafficker must be the subject of firm law and condign punishment. I fully endorse the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, about the difficulties of creating a plain, straightforward offence of trafficking that can easily be enforced. We lawyers will solve the problem once given the problem to solve. Given the offence, it is much more important to ensure enforcement of the law. I suggest three ways. The first may offend my libertarian spirit, but I propose very powerful rights of search by the police in brothels or similar places where women and children are being kept for trafficking purposes. That will instil fear into the traffickers and their systems; the fear of being caught. Secondly, once caught there will be a ruthless search to obtain the assets they have acquired from this crime, both here and abroad, through international co-operation if necessary. Thirdly, once convicted they go to gaol for a very long time. Trafficking demands tough law.
This is a problem of the highest social and moral importance. This country's citizens—like any other country's citizens—will think to themselves, "This problem cannot possibly exist in the United Kingdom.

903
It is a problem from abroad. Let someone else solve it. I refuse to accept that my nation is part of it". That I suspect is the thinking of many people in many countries. How wrong it is.
We need to establish the scale of this problem in our own community by public debate, research and, if necessary, annual reports and what is being done about it. In addition—here again I endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said—we cannot simply pass a tough law and expect a police force that is inexperience not only in detecting this type of crime but in handling the victims of it to cope with it. Once training has been given, this crime should be a key performance indicator in major police forces in this country.
In raising the size of this problem in the community, let it be put on the basis that the problem must be solved. In Bleak House Charles Dickens made the following statement which I adopt, because of my concerns for children's charities, and which I connect to this problem:
"In the little world in which children live, nothing is more keenly felt, nothing more finely perceived than injustice".
What a terrible injustice it is for a child to be treated as sexual merchandise, cheap labour or a second-rate soldier. It is appalling. It demands action. I have no doubt that those speaking for the Government today will explain to us what can be done.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lord Alton for giving us a chance to discuss this very distressing topic today. His timing is impeccable, at least I hope that it is, because the Government have promised to legislate on the matter. I hope that that promise can be spelt out tonight with rather more specific timing. It is quite unacceptable that police forces and prosecutors have to rely on two clauses in a 46 year-old statute which was not designed for the purposes of human trafficking and which offers penalties wholly inappropriate for that trade.
Other countries are ahead of us both in legislation and in care. Therefore, it behoves the Government to treat this matter with great urgency. We cannot drag our feet. I know that the Minister will tell us that he cannot forecast future legislative programmes. But I hope that he will be a little more constructive than that. I look forward to his stretching the bounds of ministerial responsibility in a positive direction.
I strongly support the notion of a reflection break. However, I want to sound a note of caution which I hope will not be regarded as unduly timid. We are dealing here with children who have been abused in a dreadful way and who have systematically been stripped of all sense of dignity, self-confidence and trust in others. So they must have time to consider their position and have support to regain some of those qualities. It may take some decades, if ever. But they need some months for that.
I differ from some of the action groups in the notion that, if at the end of that time they conclude that they cannot give evidence, they should not thereby be
904
debarred from long-term asylum. That sounds harsh. But we must deal with a dreadful trade. It is one which is growing and is driven by traffickers. It would be a Faustian bargain indeed if we were to lean so hard to help the present victims that we allowed that trade to grow and endanger future generations of children. So one needs to have a balanced situation. That is not an easy stage to reach. It sounds very unfeeling, but certainly on my part it is not meant to be.
I have greatly enjoyed today's debate. I agree with everything that has been said. It is not in my character or nature to repeat those things, so I propose to terminate my contribution here.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I join all other noble Lords who have expressed their thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on initiating a notable debate which I hope will be influential on the Government's thinking when they frame the legislation.
There are no statistics, as has been said, on people trafficking, because the majority of the victims are not recorded. Most of the victims suffer in silence in their brothels and sweatshops, terrified into submission by threats, blackmail and violence. But various figures have been given. Among other commentators, the Home Office Minister, Angela Eagle, has said that the scale of the problem is almost as great as that of drugs. There is no doubt that we are looking at what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has called a huge global plague.
There are two aspects to this menace, both of which have been touched on by your Lordships this evening. There is the need for domestic and European legislation and policing, which is dealt with in the White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven. The second is the much harder question of how we cope with the social and economic factors which give rise to the phenomenon in the countries of origin. The White Paper says that we are determined to address the overseas component of organised immigration crime. It acknowledges that we have to,
"address the factors which make people vulnerable to exploitation such as poverty, war and repression".
Much of that has been echoed in your Lordships' speeches today.
The White Paper makes a distinction between people smuggling, which is the facilitation of illegal entry with the consent of the immigrant, and people trafficking, where the agent plans to exploit the immigrant by coercing that person into low paid work or sexual servitude. The Home Office believes that the majority of illegal immigrants fully consent to the transaction although there is a grey area between the two categories, where the person first agrees to certain conditions but later wants to escape from the illegal bargain.
With others, we fully support the Government in their intention to make human trafficking a specific offence in accordance with the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and the EU

905
Framework Decision on trafficking. I take it that, as many noble Lords have already said, the definition is bound to follow that which is contained in these two instruments. I cannot see how any other solution would be possible.
However, I am not sure that increasing the maximum sentence for the offence of being concerned with arrangements for bringing illegal entrants into the UK to 14 years is likely to have much of a deterrent effect on the traffickers. I agree that the sentence should be long one, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said. But the money that these people make is enormous, so the deterrent effect of the possibility of conviction is quite small. We have no accurate information about the scale of the crime, but the White Paper calculates that some 35,000 people who tried to evade border controls in 2000 were assisted by the criminal gangs. If one compares that with the number found guilty of offences equivalent to trafficking, which has varied between 115 and 150 over the past five years, one can see that the number of people detected is a minute fraction of those who commit the crime.
The only way to increase the conviction rate would be to put more police and Immigration Service resources into catching the offenders. That would be the most effective deterrent. Perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, suggested, we need to give police more powers to search brothels and other sexual establishments to enable them to catch such criminals. Where they have done such work, they have been effective. There have been several major police raids on sex establishments, and each trawl has netted quite a few people. I do not know why they do not undertake more, but perhaps it is because so few officers are engaged in such work.
Since it was established in March 2000, we have heard much about Project Reflex—although the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was the only one to mention it today—but it is not clear whether it is simply a label for doing things that we should have been doing anyway. The Government say that they have brought together all the key agencies involved in the interception and prosecution of traffickers, such as the Immigration Service, NCIS, the security agencies and the police, and have co-operated with law enforcement agencies in the European Union and further afield. In a Written Answer, the Minister, Bob Ainsworth, said that NCIS had been a major contributor to a project managed by Interpol in Lyons to improve the collection and sharing of information on organised crime groups involved in illegal immigration and trafficking.
Again, the question is whether any of the agencies concerned have been given extra resources, or whether they are expected to manage those tasks on the same budget. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that. I note that some additional funding was provided by the EU's STOP II Programme to, for example, NCIS and the Crown Prosecution Service, and it would be useful if the Minister said something about the projects that they have undertaken.
906
One highly visible initiative has been secondment of immigration liaison officers to the key countries where the gangs are operating—especially the Balkans, I understand—and we are supporting an EU initiative in Bosnia and an International Organisation for Migration initiative in Kosovo. Unfortunately, where a large number of international personnel is present, as in the Balkans, there is a ready market for the trafficking of women into prostitution.
Helga Konrad, head of the Stability Pact for South-eastern Europe's new Task Force on Trafficking of Women and Children, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Maclennan, said that:
"the influx of men in uniforms creates a market for sex work".
The International Organisation for Migration, which published a study on trafficking in the Balkans, states that the region is particularly vulnerable to trafficking, being in a post-conflict situation and adjacent to both rich and poor countries.
The UN protocol on trafficking requires state parties to consider measures for the physical, psychological and social recovery of victims, as has been mentioned several times during this debate, and it is good to see that the south-eastern Europe task force will support the development of shelters offering security, medical care, legal and psychological counselling and repatriation assistance. Ms Konrad says that it is not enough merely to provide places to store people until they can be sent home.
In Britain, only one local authority, West Sussex, is providing any support. What support will the Government offer West Sussex, and are they concerned about the 66 children who have gone missing while in the care of social services? Several noble Lords asked whether the Government have any further thoughts about the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, last July that they were considering how an NGO could provide support and advice for victims of trafficking. Will they request bids in the near future so that the arrangements can be in place before the legislation, which I assume will be in the next Queen's Speech—although I do not expect the Minister to answer that question this evening?
Anti-Slavery International, which has done so much to call attention to the problem of trafficking, calling it a modern-day slave trade, cited Mary Robinson as saying that human rights must be at the core of a credible anti-trafficking strategy. The UN Secretary-General, in a note to the sub-commission last July, said that trafficking and related practices such as debt bondage, forced prostitution and forced labour constitute violations of the most basic human rights. He also said that special attention should be given to the needs of trafficked children, including their health and educational needs.
The issue of trafficking has been discussed by several UN agencies, especially by the rapporteurs on the sale of children and on the human rights of migrants. The question is: how can the work of those UN agencies and other human rights bodies be

907
dovetailed into the policies of Britain and the European Union so that, as the Secretary-General put it, those issues are,
"not simply reduced to problems of migration, problems of public order, or problems of organised crime"?
With the Human Rights Commission's annual meeting about to start in Geneva, will the Government consider what can be done there to focus international attention on the victims of trafficking and to ensure that the work of the special rapporteurs is facilitated by adequate funding and support personnel?
Perhaps I may give one example from last year's report by the rapporteur on the rights of the child. She expressed concern about the extent to which Nigerian women and girls are falling victim to trafficking gangs. They are lured to Europe, mainly to Italy, apparently, by promises of a better life—in the same way as my noble friend Lord Maclennan described happening in the Ukraine—but end up owing 50,000 dollars to the pimps to pay for their passage, which they can hope to redeem only by years of squalid servitude. If they are caught, they are dumped unceremoniously back in Nigeria—500 of them in 1999 alone—but the traffickers are rarely brought to justice. We must do something to persuade the victims of such offences to give evidence. It will not be enough, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, suggested, merely to offer victim protection programmes here. There must be protection against victimisation of their families in their countries of origin.
The wicked trade in human beings—largely women and children—is a global menace on the scale of drugs. We fully support the measures that the Government have taken so far, and we will co-operate with them on the promised legislation. We appeal to them not to forget the victims and to use their best endeavours in the European Union to see that the human rights dimension of this dreadful phenomenon is high on the agenda.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I found it profoundly disturbing when I began to consider this problem to realise that trafficking in human beings is probably as old as mankind. It existed as a normal condition of life in all communities, including our own, until relatively recently. That gives me no satisfaction, but we must recognise that fact.
What is new today? We have had centuries to grow and develop out of that problem, while other parts of the world have, sadly, perhaps not yet had time to get away from it. That is one problem. We see such problems in a light different from that of other places. My noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned information systems in the modern era, but the engine of change that is driving this appalling trade is the ease of international travel.
Trafficking in human beings when they had to be walked 200 miles perhaps may not have been serious. Today, when they can be flown around the globe in hours, we have a very different scale of problem. This
908
is a most desperate and difficult problem. We must also realise that we will not remove the problem if we merely cure it within our own boundaries. We shall still have on our conscience what is happening elsewhere. That is a profound difficulty.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, I do not intend to go over ground that has been extremely well covered, but two or three things stand out. First, at present we do not have adequate machinery in this country to deal with the problem. We need a multidisciplinary agency to deal with it. We must involve the Immigration Service, Customs and Excise, the police and the social services. That can be put together in a co-operative way, and I am sure that all those people can be brought together. However, the most important point about bringing them together is that, if we can begin to get evidence of the scale of the problem and, more importantly, get some of the victims of that appalling trade into respite care where they can be properly looked after, we have some prospect—only some—of getting adequate intelligence to begin to take action against the perpetrators of that desperate, awful trade.
Intelligence is everything, which takes us back to the international nature of the problem. We desperately need international intelligence. It will take strong international co-operation to begin to tackle the problem. It will require co-operation between agencies that can supervise the transport business. We are not just talking about air transport. Although air transport is quick, road transport comes into the business as well. We must be able to work through the ports. As we have seen in a limited way, if the supervision at ports is inadequate—I refer to the appalling situation at Sangatte in France, where failure adequately to protect the transport depot has stopped freight traffic through the Channel Tunnel—we will have a real difficulty. We must work hard to make sure that there is international co-operation. I am sure that the Minister will cover that in his reply. It is agreed in the international bodies, but I am not convinced that the necessary work is being done.
We must also consider seriously the point that it does not really matter what the victims of trafficking are tied into. They are victims, whether it happens to be the child sex trade, cheap child labour in an unregulated and often dangerous environment or domestic work in conditions of virtual slavery, which is not unknown. The offence is the same—the destruction of that person's freedom and right to live the kind of life that we would consider right and proper. The offence of trafficking, whatever the end-product, is the same.
It is not a question of handing down a severe sentence if the people are caught. I suspect that, at this end of the line—we are, so to speak, importers of trafficked people—we will not get the people who initiate the trade and create the market. We will probably get relatively small players, but they certainly need to be stopped. The other side of the matter, about which the Government are taking action, is the need to be able to deprive people of their profits from the enterprise. I take my hat off to the Government about

909
that: the Proceeds of Crime Bill, when it eventually goes through, should be a strong weapon in that regard. The Bill has had its First Reading in this House, and most Members who saw it took one look and nearly panicked at its scale. However, once it is on the statute book it will be enormously helpful.
I suspect that the trade is part of the global economy. It may be that we cannot stamp it out absolutely, but we can certainly go a long way towards removing it from within our own boundaries. I support any government action to achieve that. It is an appalling trade, and we should use all our international influence to diminish it elsewhere in so far as it is possible for us to do so.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on introducing such an important and timely debate and on his graphic description and analysis of the problem. It set the tone for a debate that, we all recognise, has included many contributions of high quality and proper emotional content. The heinous crime of trafficking and its appalling consequences for the victims is a profoundly emotional issue.
My noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids offered an important historical perspective on the issue. I may not be able to describe the debate as historic, but my noble friend will recognise that the city of Liverpool has been represented in the debate by the noble Lord who introduced it and the city of Bristol by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. She will also have noticed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, was present and contributed to the debate.
As has been graphically and accurately described, in people trafficking we see the modern manifestation of the worst aspects of enslavement and the subjection of people to terrible privations. People trafficking differs from people smuggling, which is the facilitation of illegal entry, and should not be viewed in the same light. People trafficking is transporting people in order to exploit them through forced prostitution or bonded labour. As such, it is a serious, organised international criminal activity and an evil trade on which we are determined to crack down. Because of the ongoing exploitation involved in trafficking, it is not primarily an immigration offence, although it can, of course, involve crossing a border. It can occur within a country, as well as between states.
Trafficking is a largely hidden crime, and it is difficult to form an accurate estimate of its extent. A Home Office research study Stopping Traffic, published two years ago estimated that between 140 and 1,400 women were trafficked to the UK each year for the purposes of sexual exploitation. However, we must all recognise that that is a rough estimate. Although the number of people trafficked into the UK may be small, when compared to the number smuggled in, the seriousness of the problem demands an appropriate response. Our debate emphasised the range of questions that must be answered.
910
I might add that I wish that my noble friend Lord Rooker were in position to provide the definitive answers required. As noble Lords will have recognised, Lady Rooker is seriously ill, and Lord Rooker is at her side, where he should be. I am sure that we all wish Lady Rooker well.
The debate has done a great deal to highlight the scale and complexity of the problem and the devastating effects that the crime has on its victims. I shall do what I can to highlight the measures that the Government have set in train to address the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, said, the fact that the victims are, in the first instance, willing parties to the crime adds an extra dimension to the difficulty. As we know, however, many victims, having been grievously misled, seek to get themselves out of the situation in which they find themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, properly asked that the UK should be at the forefront of an international effort. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave the Government credit for adopting this position. I should like to emphasise that fact. The Government were instrumental in negotiating the UN protocol on the prevention and suppression of trafficking, which has become the basis of international action to combat the crime. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who also reflected on this point.
The Government followed that up with a negotiation of an EU framework decision on trafficking for the purposes of sexual and labour exploitation that has just been adopted by member states. I wish to assure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that this is now in place.
The Government set out a comprehensive strategy for addressing trafficking in the recently published White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Havens. This strategy recognises the need for a multi-faceted response and is a four-pronged approach, covering the introduction of legislation, enforcement, prevention and protection for victims, and international cooperation to combat human trafficking.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, asked where legislation fits in. We have acted in response to concern about the inadequacy of current legislation and available penalties by introducing a new offence of trafficking for prostitution in the forthcoming nationality, immigration and asylum Bill which will be brought before your Lordships' House shortly. The new offence will carry a severe maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, indicated that such punishments should be severe. My noble friend Lord Brennan used the word condign. Fourteen years may not entirely meet his definition of that but it expresses the Government's view that these are very serious crimes. It is the same as for many drugs trafficking offences.
The new offence is a stopgap measure to close a current loophole. The Government intend to create new wide-ranging offences for trafficking for both

911
sexual and labour exploitation, using future criminal justice legislation that will implement the reform of sex offences.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, invited me to foresee the next Queen's Speech. From my lowly position, I dare not do that but I can indicate to the House that I would not be talking in such assertive terms about this legislation unless I believed it was about to happen.
I assure my noble friend Lord Brett that these measures will also take into account our international obligations under the trafficking protocol to the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and the EU framework decision on trafficking for the purpose of sexual and labour exploitation. It has been estimated that the profits from people trafficking are equal to those from drug trafficking and the effects on the lives of those involved can be just as damaging.
In recognising this, we also intend to use the Proceeds of Crime Bill, currently making its way through Parliament—of which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, gave favourable notice—to seize and confiscate the criminal assets of those involved in crime. It will provide another way of dismantling and disrupting traffickers and we shall, of course, have an early opportunity to debate that legislation.
We are determined to ensure there is an effective enforcement response to people trafficking. That is why we set up Project Reflex in 2000 to focus on combating wider organised immigration crime, including trafficking. Reflex brings together key agencies—the National Crime Squad, NCIS, the Immigration Service, the security and intelligence services, FCO, the Metropolitan, Kent and other police forces—in a co-ordinated strategy to tackle the problem. Reflex has been working to develop intelligence in the UK and overseas and to co-ordinate national and international investigations against organised immigration crime.
I can assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that additional resources in the last spending round led to the creation of a joint operational unit involving the National Crime Squad and Immigration Service that has recently become operational. It will significantly enhance the available capability to tackle people trafficking. It will be able to carry out an investigation into organised crime syndicates which several noble Lords have indicated are responsible for so much of this activity.
In committing ourselves to the UN protocol and EU framework decision on trafficking, we recognise that effective action must be conducted with our international partners. That point was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, stressed the international dimensions of this issue as did the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
The European Council at Tampere set out an agenda for tackling illegal immigration, especially human trafficking. The UK welcomes the progress already made there, as well as some successful returns programmes with a range of countries. Bilateral and
912
multilateral collaborative operations are equally important, such as the EU high impact operation in 2001. That was a joint initiative with EU applicant countries to tackle illegal immigration across the eastern borders of the EU. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, accurately described some of the problems which occur in countries on the borders of the EU where a good deal of this activity is generated.
The UK is developing a network of immigration liaison officers, working with other governments to encourage and support action to disrupt criminal gangs and create a joint intelligence structure across Europe and beyond. Across the EU and elsewhere, other liaison officers have proved very valuable. In the light of this, we are considering extending this network into other source and transit countries.
We also support EU member state organisations responsible for action against the trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of women and children in particular. This is done via the UK contribution to the EU STOP Programme, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred. That was established by the European Council in 1996. A second phase, STOP II, got underway last year and the UK currently takes the lead with five projects through NCIS, the NGO Change and other organisations. We are active on this front, although, of course, it will take time for the results to show.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, emphasised the need to offer support to the victims. Other noble Lords emphasised the distressing aspect of this trade in terms of its victims. They may need particular support to help them escape their circumstances and in certain cases, help law enforcement tackle organised criminal gangs through their testimonies. The Government will make special arrangements for the protection of victims, where they are willing to come forward to help us deal with the criminals, a point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
The Government will also consider whether it is appropriate to allow victims to remain in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, suggested, we will look at the Italian and Dutch models on this issue, but there already exist provisions for victims of trafficking to be granted exceptional leave to remain in this country. What all noble Lords will also recognise is that we need to strike a balance between that and ensuring that we put as strong a limit as we possibly can on the opportunities for this trade and the rewards derived from it by criminals.
Where the victims wish to return home, we shall help them to do so. That will provide initial counselling for victims, ensure that they have suitable accommodation at their destination and provide help to enable them to reintegrate into their own community. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, emphasised that we will need to be assured that they are not returning to an environment in which they are under threat from those who perpetrated the original crimes against them.

913
Over the coming months, we shall discuss how to take that work forward with statutory and voluntary organisations. My noble friend Lord Brett asked about that point. The White Paper also sets out our intention to develop a best practice guide on victims of trafficking, which will act as an A to Z manual for immigration officers, police and others who may deal with trafficking victims.
Having outlined the Home Office's response to trafficking, I should also mention that other departments of government are active. I feel less than qualified to speak on behalf of the Home Office, but it would be remiss of me if I did not also mention the responsibilities of the Foreign Office and DIID in combating the trade. Both are committed to tackling trafficking on a global scale. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol emphasised, this is an international problem that can be tackled only through international co-operation. We are seeking to raise awareness in source and transit countries through bilateral and multilateral development programmes targeted at the issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to Sudan. I am not able to spend the amount of time on that that she deserves, given her great interest in the issue, but I think she will be reassured that our ambassador in Khartoum continues to work closely with the Committee for the Eradication of Abduction of Women and Children and with UNICEF and Save the Children on these issues. The Sudanese Government recently agreed to the US proposal for an international team to investigate the problem in Sudan. The team will include members of British NGOs, such as Save the Children. We look forward to the outcome of that activity with some optimism.
We have also given £3 million to the International Labour Organisation programme in the greater Mecon region, covering parts of Cambodia, China, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. I am sure that that commends itself to my noble friend Lord Brett, given his close relationship with that organisation.
In conclusion, we are committed to tackling people trafficking. We are conscious that we cannot do that alone. To have a significant impact on people trafficking, in particular the trafficking of women, we need to work together internationally. We must work with our partners in the EU and with source and transit countries, as well as voluntary and international agencies, to ensure co-ordinated and effective action worldwide. In the UK, we must make certain that the enforcement agencies, the police and the intelligence agencies have an effective response to ensure that traffickers cannot profit from their crimes and that victims are afforded necessary protection and support.
We have made a start on setting up the necessary arrangements. There is a great deal more to be done, but I hope that I can assure the House that the Government are addressing the problem with the seriousness that it merits. That seriousness and the sense of urgency in this evening's emotional pleas— based on rationality, but appealing to our common
914
humanity—drive the Government towards ensuring that we tackle one of the most heinous problems that beset our fellow human beings.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the whole House will join the Minister in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and Lady Rooker our best at this time. We hope that Lady Rooker will quickly return to good health. We particularly understand that to have to step into the breach and deal with tonight's debate required a considerable effort on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to master the details of the brief, which he has done magnificently. We are all indebted to him for the way in which he has dealt with all the contributions this evening.
It is not part of the tradition of your Lordships' House for the mover of the Motion to speak at any length. I shall abide by that tradition, but I should like to summarise the three themes that have run through our debate: the desire for protection, for prosecution and for international co-operation. This has been a pre-legislative debate in every respect. We shall have the chance to bring forward proposals when we debate the immigration Bill and to hold the Government to the promises that they have made. I was particularly struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said about the opportunity to deal with the confiscation of the assets of those involved in trafficking when we consider the Proceeds of Crime Bill. Taken together with the punitive sentences that the Minister referred to, that may well be one of the best ways of tackling the problem.
I thank all those who have spoken with such power and such passion and from such a well informed basis. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sex Discrimination (Amendment) (No, 2) Bill [H.L.]
8.35 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am grateful to those who have indicated that they intend to speak this evening and I look forward very much to what each of them has to say. I have received a kind letter from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who apologises that he cannot be here this evening, but is happy for me to say that he supports the Bill. He reminds me that he resigned from the Garrick Club some years ago because he and others failed to persuade it to change the rules to admit women as members.
The Bill follows precisely the terms of a Private Member's Bill that has twice been introduced in another place by Robert Walter, the Conservative MP for North Dorset, with all-party support. I thank him for the guidance and support that he has given me, together with his wife, Barbara Gorna, and the Fawcett Society for the work that they have done in

915
drafting the Bill. The Bill is also supported by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which proposed in November 1998 that there should be a new sex equality Act to update the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts. The EOC said then:
"The new statute should cover all private members' clubs which have admitted both sexes to a membership category, and where some club facilities and services have been open to both men and women".
The EOC's report Equality in the 21st Century—A new sex equality law for Britain says:
"The evidence available to the EOC indicates very little voluntary change in the sector and complaints reinforce the views that the exclusion of such clubs results in a variety of discriminatory rules and arrangements which seek to perpetuate stereotypical images of men and women; and which limit women's participation in club activities in a number of ways".
The Bill would amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to bring it broadly into line with the Race Relations Acts 1968 and 1976, which prohibit race discrimination in private clubs with 25 or more members. The Bill does not make single-sex clubs unlawful. Nor does it outlaw single-sex sporting events or single-sex changing rooms, saunas, gyms or lavatories. It applies equally to discrimination against men.
The Bill has nothing to do with political correctness. It is about decent, civilised behaviour. The aim is to say clearly and unambiguously to private member clubs that if they have membership categories for men and for women, those categories must be open equally to both sexes. If a golf club, for example, wished to offer a cheaper associate membership that restricted the hours of play or limited the rooms in the clubhouse to which that category of member had access, or perhaps did not grant full voting rights, that arrangement would be lawful as long as one category of membership were not restricted to men and another category to women.
The Bill also says that a single-sex club that admits male and female guests must do so on equal terms and provide them with equal access to club facilities. That would put an end to women guests being excluded from men-only bars or being prevented from walking up a club's main staircase.
The Bill is very simple, with only one substantive clause. That clause introduces new sections to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which would follow the existing Section 29 of that Act. New Section 29A makes it unlawful for a private member club to discriminate against a woman or man in its terms of membership. It provides also that facilities offered to male members must be offered on equal terms to female members. New Section 29B provides for single-sex clubs to remain so and new Section 29C allows clubs to continue offering sporting events and competitions on a single-sex basis but provides that where there is sufficient demand from female members for an equivalent competition, one must be provided. That new section also provides that if prize money of less than £1,000 is offered in such an event, equal prize money must be offered in the female competition.
916
When considering whether to introduce the Bill, I sought to establish the extent of the problem that women face in private member clubs. I was shocked by the number of reports that I received—particularly those relating to golf and working men's clubs. The highest-profile case in the gentlemen's club category is the Carlton, which was founded in 1832 by Tories opposed to the Reform Act. I can do no better than quote the words of Robert Walter, MP, speaking in another place on 11th December 2001:
"I had personal experience of the injustice of a club that offered membership to both men and women but which discriminated against women by offering them only inferior membership. They had second-class status with no access to the governance of that club … I had been part of a campaign to remedy that injustice. On two separate occasions, the club narrowly missed the opportunity to move itself into the modern world".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/2002; col. 736.]
He resigned in November 1999. I understand that a number of other prominent Conservative supporters have also resigned.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith has, to his great credit, refused to join—becoming the first leader of his party since the mid-19th century not to do so. In an interview in the Spectator, Mr. Duncan Smith said:
"As the leader of a Conservative Party that believes that there should be no `no-go' areas for women, I will have to say that I can't do it while it is different for many of my colleagues here who would like to become members but cannot".
Good for him—and well done those members of your Lordships' House who have resigned or declined to join the Carlton because of its policy towards women.
Mrs. Wendy Lea is the licensee of the Red Lion pub in Crown Passage, just across the road from the Carlton. She was quoted in the Daily Telegraph on 29th December as saying of Mr. Duncan Smith:
"He's just gone up in my estimation. Fair play to the man. He is standing up for women's rights".
Mrs. Lea was asked whether she would like to be a member of the Carlton and replied:
"I am not necessarily saying that I'd like to be but I would like the chance to be. I just think women should have the right. I could understand if they was running around naked and they didn't want women in for that reason. But you would no longer be able to run a club that's whites only but you're still allowed to exclude women because of their sex. You're not allowed to be racist but you can still be sexist".
The Carlton is clearly different from the Athenaeum, which admitted women as full members without restrictions from 2nd January. I offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, on being among the first distinguished women members.
In the interests of political balance, I will refer to the problems in working men's clubs. There are about 5,500 such clubs on the register of the Committee of Registered Clubs Association—known as CORCA. There are eight main groups, including political clubs and service clubs such as those of the Royal British Legion, RAF and Royal Navy. The principal group is the CIU—the working men's Club and Institute Union, which represents 2,700 of the total.

917
Of those clubs, 1,080 or 40 per cent grant women full membership rights. Of the remaining 1,620 clubs, eight are single sex. They will not be affected by my Bill unless they discriminate against women as visitors. That leaves 1,612 clubs—60 per cent of the total— where women join as a different class of member, generally at a lower subscription. They are likely to find some parts of the club barred to them and will be prevented from attending the AGM or standing for election.
An example of the sort of problem that women face is that of Sunnybank Social Club in Silsden, near Skipton, where a group of young women were caught playing snooker and told they had no business there. Two men who came to their aid were charged with bringing the club into disrepute. One of the women members said about the men to the Independent:
"They have a Victorian attitude. They'd rather have women at the kitchen sink, on a ball and chain".
The CIU, to its credit, is trying to do something. At its conference on 6th April, a motion to move the infamous rule 12(e) will be proposed. That rule states:
"Associate pass cards cannot be purchased by women".
Those cards are a means of identification and allow a member of one CIU club to visit another and enjoy as a guest almost the same level of membership. If rule 12(e) were abolished, women who are full members of a non-discriminating club would be able to visit a club that does discriminate and insist on equal treatment. That would do nothing for women who are members of clubs that discriminate but would help. But your Lordships should not hold their breath. The CIU has tried three times previously to abolish rule 12(e) and failed each time to get the necessary two thirds majority. I suspect that it will be necessary for the Bill to be on the statute book before the CIU scraps rule 12(e), even though many members believe that clubs must change just to survive.
The Penlan Social Club in Swansea voted to give women full membership two years ago. Its general secretary, John Morgan, commented:
"It's simple: female unfriendly clubs will close. Giving women full membership has made a big difference in terms of the dynamism of our club. We have a lot more going on. We need to persuade that flat-cap element who don't like change".
That is wholly in line with the official view of the CIU. Its general secretary, Kevin Smyth, is happy for me to quote him:
"The union's National Executive firmly believes that the future of clubs in our organisation is tied up with giving women full equality".
Probably the thorniest problem of all is golf clubs. Just one year ago, Golf World published a survey of social attitudes. The findings, as reported in the Independent on Sunday, were that golf clubs were
"the final bastions of British snobbery, discrimination and prejudice".
Nearly one quarter of British clubs were found to be preventing women becoming elected captains and more than two thirds operated under rules that discriminate against 140,000 regular women golfers. Half the clubs admitted that men and women were
918
charged different fees for full membership and that there was a restriction on the hours that women can play.
A couple of years ago, a survey in Women in Golf magazine showed that only 56 per cent of women could stand for election to the main committee, 21 per cent had men-only access in parts of the clubs and 35 per cent did not provide women with full voting rights.
The descriptions of some of the practices followed and the attitudes displayed beggar belief. There are scores of examples of sexist, humiliating treatment. According to the Daily Telegraph, at Gay Hill Golf Club at Wythall in Worcestershire, a white line was painted across the floor of the bar to mark the territory that women could not enter. The Royal Liverpool Golf Club imposed a 30 per cent levy on subscriptions for men and women members alike but denied women any vote on whether the levy should be raised.
Progress is to be found here and there. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, informs me that Woking Golf Club granted full membership rights to women at its 2001 AGM and that other clubs have extended the hours that women may play. The most accurate comment on the state of women's golf generally is from Tim Howland, chief executive of the Ladies European tour. He is quoted in the March 2001 edition of Golf World as saying,
"It's mainly men who laugh about signs like 'No dogs, no women'. It's not something that women find funny. This sort of behaviour doesn't happen on the continent, only in Britain, and it's a sad indictment of how golf treats women and children".
That comment applies with varying degrees of force across private clubs generally. I hope that the House agrees that it is time we did something and will give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Faulkner of Worcester.)
8.50 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, may I be the first to congratulate the noble Lord on introducing a most sensible Bill and doing so with great élan and panache. He has both amused and horrified us with the various stories he has told.
I very much welcome this sensible approach which fills a gap left by the Anti-Discrimination Act 1975. I can remember being a young MP at that time and warmly welcoming and assisting in the passage of that Act. It was very much a landmark at the time. Although it could not deal with everything, one of its most sensible provisions was the setting up of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which provided a permanent watching brief; but it did leave that particular gap.
I was reminded by the noble Lord's reference to the staircase of an experience that I had in a gentlemen's club. I was astonished, astounded and infuriated at being hustled up a back staircase, as though I were being surreptitiously smuggled in as an illegal entrant. At that time I swore that I would never again enter that club until I could sweep up and down its main grand

919
staircase. That was many years ago and still the position is not altogether satisfactory, as the noble Lord has clearly indicated.
That kind of example applies not only to grand gentlemen's clubs. It certainly applies to sporting clubs. My late mother would have been absolutely thrilled by this Bill. She was a keen sportswoman and also very keen on equality for men and women. I remember her being irritated intensely by the second-rate treatment of women in golf clubs and even, I am sorry to say, in the bowls world of that time. I remember one indoor bowls club that contained both men's and women's clubs. The men and women had to share the various indoor rinks, which had to be rationed because there were more people who wanted to play than rinks available. Surprise, surprise! Who got the lion's share of both the rinks and the time allocated? Always the men. To some extent, that also applied outdoors, where there were several clubs, some for men and some for women—none mixed at that time—which used the same outdoor greens. It was common practice that the women always made do with the poorer greens and the poorest times.
My mother was not one to take things lying down. She always fought a fierce battle on these matters. But there was no legislation to back it up and at that time too many were prepared to be submissive. So my mother's preaching rebellion did not always work, but she did her damnedest, and had she been alive today she would have been particularly pleased with the provisions of this Bill.
I have only one reservation—absolutely nothing to do with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner—which is that the Bill amends the existing legislation. It seems to me a great pity that we cannot have one new Bill that would bring together the anti-discrimination legislation and the equal pay legislation, updated to fill the gaps, so that we could have one Act of Parliament to which we could all refer on this subject. One of my constant beefs is that nowadays one can never read a Bill without having to read another in order to make full sense of it, and that is a distressing trend.
However, having got that beef off my chest, I welcome this sensible Bill which takes a moderate but firm path. I wish it well; I hope that it has a speedy passage and quickly becomes law.
8.54 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner for introducing this extremely important Bill, which I fully support. It represents yet another attempt to end discrimination and prejudice against women.
Only a short time ago we were debating the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which has now received Royal Assent. That Act allows political parties to have all-women shortlists when selecting candidates. It came about in recognition of the fact that women of all political parties experienced great difficulties in getting selected without special measures being in place.
920
Over the years many Acts of Parliament have been designed to break down barriers that prevent women from taking part in activities that they wish to pursue—the 1918 Act, which allowed women to vote and to be elected to the House of Commons, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the establishment of the Equal Opportunities Commission—a raft of measures assisting women at work, women in politics, enabling women to play their part in the democracy of the country, as well as laws to protect women from domestic violence. In those heady days of the 1970s, many of us believed that the battle for women's rights had been won. Only later did we realise that still many battles lay ahead of us.
Today we have before us another Bill that will be of great assistance in eradicating discrimination against women. But why do we have such a Bill before us? Why, at the beginning of the 21st century, should it be necessary to have legislation to ensure that women will be treated as equal citizens? Surely, we should by now have a much more enlightened approach to the rights of women. There should not be a need for legislation. Unfortunately, however, there is.
I am sure that a number of noble Baronesses in your Lordships' House today could, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, could give examples of discrimination encountered when entering private clubs.
Perhaps I can give one experience that I had several years ago when I was working in a by-election in a constituency in Wales, which I shall not name. After canvassing one evening, the people I was with invited me to a club to take a drink with them. I happily went along. Approaching the club, the men walked ahead and I followed them. When I got to the door, the door steward stopped me. He said, "You can't go in this way". I asked, "Why not?", because my male colleagues had just gone through the door ahead of me. He said, "This is a male-only bar and you will have to walk down the back lane to get to the lounge bar". Instead of using the back stairs, I had to go down a back lane to reach the bar. As I did so, I had never felt such a sense of total humiliation. The only reason I could not go through the main door was that I was a woman. That is one example of discrimination that I have experienced. There are others, such as being refused a drink when I inadvertently entered a male-only bar. Unfortunately, still too many private clubs operate in that discriminatory way.
Based in the heart of Cardiff is the Cardiff and County Club. Several prominent women in Wales have tried to join that club. Glenys Kinnock and Eluned Morgan, Members of the European Parliament representing Wales, applied to join but were rejected. The Welsh electorate thought that they were good enough to serve Wales in the European Parliament but not good enough, because they were women, for the Cardiff and County Club. Apparently, there are no application forms in that club. One has to be invited to join. If one does not receive an invitation, one does not have an opportunity to join, and if one is a woman, one never gets an invitation.

921
In Cardiff, the capital city of Wales—one of the most exciting and innovative young capitals in Europe—we still find, in 2002, that women are rejected in this type of club. Carolyn Hitt, a journalist for the Western Mail, commented on Monday about this very club. She wrote:
"This exclusive clique is the last bastion of sexual inequality in Wales".
But even with this club there are occasions when women can enter. They can go there for Saturday lunch, provided they are the guests of a member. However, male guests can attend any day of the week. Women can also go to the club if a member has hired a room for a private function such as a birthday party. Carolyn Hitt also said:
"An establishment that includes women may seem a straightforward case for the Equal Opportunities Commission, but there is nothing illegal about the Cardiff and County. The Sex Discrimination Act does not apply to private clubs".
Can my noble friend Lord Faulkner say whether his Bill covers the actions of the Cardiff and County Club and other clubs that operate in a similar manner? Will this Bill make their actions illegal? I hope that that is the case. However, if it is not, perhaps we can amend the Bill to ensure that it is.
I am sorry to say that there are many clubs in Wales and in the rest of the country that operate men-only bars, as well as other forms of restrictive measures towards women. It is a grave insult to women that this type of gender apartheid should have any place in today's society. I believe that the Bill will be a great step forward. I very much look forward to the day when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
9.1 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I should like, first, to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, on bringing forward this Bill to get rid of sex discrimination in clubs. When I was at the Equal Opportunities Commission, almost from day one we received complaints from those who felt that they had been discriminated against in all sorts of clubs. Those complaints ranged from ones where, quite literally, women were allowed in free—although, perhaps, for rather different purposes—and men had to pay a rather high subscription, to all the other sorts of clubs that have been so well outlined tonight.
It is a great pleasure to be participating in such a debate and to note that the recommendations are being accepted by the other side of your Lordships' House. I well remember the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who was so supportive when the Sex Discrimination Act was going through Parliament. We should never forget that that legislation was passed by a huge majority of both Houses. Indeed, only one or two people, who shall be nameless, took a different line. We must not overlook the fact that much has been achieved.
I have to confess to being, as it were, the "partner in crime" of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. After having had lunch with him one day at the Garrick Club, we walked up the stairs—contrary to what was allowed—
922
as a form of protest. I have to say that they were rather clever about it: they took not the slightest bit of notice of us, which rather deflated the action that we had taken.
I find it rather depressing that this is the second time within two months that I find myself supporting a Bill that it really should not have been necessary to bring forward. The first, of course, was the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill. Frankly, determined and effective action by all political parties from 1975 onwards to ensure a balanced representation of both sexes in Parliament—based, of course, on merit—could easily have prevented the need for that legislation. More importantly, over the past 25 years it would have provided an enriched and far more representative Chamber against which the priorities for legislation of both sexes (both 50 per cents of the population) would have been debated and become law.
If that is so for parliamentary candidates, the case for clubs—which are not genuinely single-sex clubs—to have put their house voluntarily in order over the past 25 years is, frankly, even more glaring. As early as one year after the Sex Discrimination Act was passed, we know that the Race Relations Act actually included discrimination as regards clubs. Even as late as last year, a question on this very subject from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, was put to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. She replied that she felt that clubs would really like to be given time—yet more time——-to do this voluntarily. I am a patient person. When I took over as deputy chairman of the EOC, I said that I thought it would be at least 20 years before we saw any real action in many areas. But 25 years on—indeed, nearly 26 years—from that Act, I believe that the time has come for this very clear and specific Bill. It certainly has my support.
This also illustrates the point of the 1974 government, who said that,
"any exception weakens the principle of non-discrimination".
I am afraid that that has proved to be all too correct. It is interesting that a number of organisations have adjusted themselves as regards exceptions. I have in mind, for example, some aspects of retirement and the height of police officers. I used to tease the miners' union leaders about the fact that women were not allowed down the mines— indeed, it might be a rather better paid job these days than it was in the past—but we know that there were reasons for that exception. Many of those exceptions have been ironed out, but, although it is another matter, much remains to be done on pensions.
What should the rules be for clubs, given not only that the concept of sex discrimination in employment, in education and in the provision of goods, facilities and services is illegal but also that, over the past 25 years, non-discrimination has become the generally accepted standard of behaviour in all areas covered by the Act? Of course, that is not always followed, but it is the generally accepted standard of behaviour. I will refer back to the famous case of the well-known men-only Fleet Street pub, "E1 Vino's", at which journalists

923
made contacts and swapped stories. Women journalists were relegated to a different bar and therefore missed out on important professional relationships. Admittedly, that was a pub, not a club, but the economic and social disadvantage of being unable to mix with one's professional peers was firmly established when the complainant in that case won.
Certain men-only clubs recruit from specific groups; for example, the Garrick Club, which admits clergymen, actors, politicians and lawyers, and the Carlton Club, which is for Conservative politicians. Not only do those clubs discriminate on the grounds of sex, they deny women the opportunity to mix with their colleagues and to advance professionally. It is not too early to make that final breakthrough. All clubs have membership rules. Most select new members on the agreement of existing members, and the most popular clubs have considerable waiting lists. The Bill does not affect those aspects; it deals solely with sex discrimination in the selection of members and the granting of second-class membership to females, without their being given the right to influence change.
I am especially irritated by sex discrimination in sports clubs, although I am glad that the population's enthusiasm for sport is growing. Membership should be granted on the basis of such criteria as the applicant's sporting ability, enthusiasm or knowledge, regardless of sex. Golf clubs and others have not woken up to the fact that huge numbers of women earn a good deal of money. In addition, many women have the financial and professional expertise to contribute a great deal to the running of the club and to take into account women's needs. Certain golf clubs have rules that women cannot play at weekends as if only men work during the week. A much fairer way to allocate weekend playing time would be to appeal to those who can play during the week to give way voluntarily at weekends.
Working men's clubs, which have huge numbers of members, are crucial. Many are located in remote areas, so it is important that the whole community, including both sexes, can meet there.
There have been heroic battles about the opening of club membership to women. In the case of the Oxford and Cambridge Club, it was the heads of colleges who won the battle. Rather like lain Duncan Smith, they said that they would resign unless changes were made. In addition, I congratulate the Reform Club, which was among the pioneers of those changes. However, I once attended that club for lunch, after which my host was embarrassed to be told that, because I was among his guests, we would have to have our coffee in a tiny hidden room. Thank goodness that has all gone and the Reform Club was ahead of the game. I am glad that the Atheneum—the natural haunt for top academics, scientists, medics and so forth—after many debates has finally made the change, although it took a little time. The change happened only this year
This Bill should not be necessary. However, given that legal requirement is now needed, I guess that within a very short time the fuss will die down. Given the rather different experience of life that women have,
924
and what they can bring to the party as well as their economic input, power and influence which is growing everywhere, clubs will soon see that they are on to a good thing. The pity is that they were made to do it.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote. In 1975 she and I were founder members of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I was an ordinary member and she was the deputy chairman.
I need to declare interests in that I am a member of both the Reform Club, to which reference has just been made and which has admitted women on equal terms for 20 years, and of the Garrick Club, which does not admit women at all.
In many ways I know the Reform Club better because I have been a member for nearly 30 years and was chairman for two years in the early 1990s. I checked with the current secretary and understand that at the monthly election of new members at the present time, women come in as a proportion of the total new membership at around 25 to 30 per cent, as against 65 to 70 per cent of men. They come in on equal terms though it will take some time before the total membership is anywhere near equal. In fact at the present time, even after 20 years of equality with women, 85 per cent of the membership are men.
I believe the club has benefited immensely from taking women members and in my experience women often play a bigger role in the governance of the club than their share of the membership would suggest. The club currently has its second woman chairman.
On the other hand, the Garrick Club voted some years ago to continue to exclude women totally from membership. One of the major reasons was that, unlike many clubs such as the Atheneum, the Oxford and Cambridge and the Reform, the Garrick was never a purpose-built club. I have never understood that women were excluded from the main staircase, but those who have been there will agree that it is a relatively small club. It has an enormous waiting list. I waited for around seven years to be a member and the waiting list at the moment is still seven or eight years. One of the problems would be that if women were admitted to the club, it could only be meaningful if there was a positive discrimination admissions policy over a number of years, with the result that the men still on the waiting list would have to wait much longer.
I enjoy both my clubs. One is mixed and one is not. I am glad—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, will agree—that this Bill does not seek to legislate out of existence such few men-only clubs as still remain. I am of course sympathetic to the idea that where women are in membership of a club, be it gentlemen's clubs, golf clubs or working men's clubs, they should have equal rights to the facilities and to a proper share of the governance, membership of the committees and so forth. But unlike other Members who have spoken so far, including the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I am not at all keen on using the law to achieve that end.

925
Some clubs in practice—examples have already been given—have moved from being exclusively male to the other end of the spectrum, completely unisex by way of women being admitted with certain restrictions. Indeed, I recall that the Reform Club, for a short period 20-odd years ago after it admitted women, kept its smoking room, one of the main public rooms, for the exclusive use of male members. As will be appreciated, that was a sop to the old guard. Possibly it was necessary in order to get the vote for women members. The policy did not last very long.
Women who are associate members of the Oxford and Cambridge Club enjoy restricted use of certain facilities and pay a lower subscription, and they do not necessarily wish to alter that situation. That club may therefore move to a different set-up where it is completely mixed—it may not—but if the Bill is passed, certain clubs may prefer to remain exclusively male if they are not permitted to admit women on a limited or restricted basis, at least for the time being. So, if the Bill is passed in its present form, the law may perhaps be counter-productive.
Indeed, it may be counter-productive in another respect. If a club that already allows women members on an associated or restricted basis does not wish to be forced by the new law to give women completely equal rights, it might instead decide to revert to being exclusively male, which, as I understand it, the new Bill will permit. Many noble Lords who have spoken would not think that that was a positive and useful step forward but rather a step backwards.
Without law, clubs—and I am talking about the types of clubs that I know best; the gentlemen's clubs, so-called—have come a long way over the past 20 or 30 years. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to some of the changes that have come about through social and other pressures, where perhaps a modest cluster of women eager to become members of clubs have managed to secure admission to and policy changes in the clubs concerned.
I doubt the value of a new law to cover what, after all, in 1975 was carefully determined as a distinction between private facilities, which are extensions of one's home and so on, and the provision of facilities and services which are publicly and/or commercially available. As I suggested, the law may be counter-productive and invite antagonisms that are otherwise gradually—it may appear only gradually—in the process of being reduced.
9.22 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner for introducing the Bill. It is clearly a very important contribution to an on-going debate about the various ways in which women continue to be excluded from certain networks. I do not wish to make a long contribution because a great deal of what I wished to say has already been said.
Many people would feel that we in this Chamber are members of one of the most exclusive clubs in the world, with recruitment processes and membership
926
rules as arcane as anything the Bill is designed to address. Some might say that the Palace as a whole still retains at least some of the physical characteristics of the gentlemen's home from home that once it was. A brief glance into the Library after lunch will often bear that out.
However, that would be a superficial assessment, as we all know, because slowly but inexorably the building and its customs have changed, bowing to the recognition that men and women work and rest here together on equal terms and that the wishes of one group cannot be assumed to take precedence over the needs of another. If the House of Lords has been able to meet this challenge, surely it cannot be too much for others to contemplate.
Occasionally I visit the Garrick Club, which has been very much mentioned in the debate. I suspect in fact I believe I know for sure—that the Garrick Club will not be caught by the terms of the Bill. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Bonne that this is a good thing—it is not. In common with my noble friend Lady Gale, I wish that clubs such as the Garrick were caught under this legislation. I hope that influence will be brought to bear on such clubs—ultimately through the application of this legislation, but by other forms of pressure—and will result in their no longer being able to act as they do.
I want to explain why I feel that way. It is germane to the debate. I am not a member of the Garrick Club because I cannot be a member—which is odd. It has a very fine collection of paintings, as Members of this House who have attended the club—and I am sure there are many—will know. They are mostly paintings of people, several of whom are women who have been prominent in one of the professions with which this club has been especially associated—the theatre—which is also my profession. The club is named after an actor.
Women have had the freedom to be actors (if freedom it be—only on the "equal misery for all" principle perhaps) since the end of the 17th century. That was long before they were allowed to be doctors, lawyers or Members of either House of Parliament. Of course, being an actor was for centuries regarded as only one step up from vagrancy or prostitution—indeed, in some minds it still is—but the theatre has always been an inclusive community, and women have long been honoured in it, as often as they have been reviled. How curious then that none of the string of eminent actresses from Sarah Siddons and Dora Jordan in the 18th century to Dame Judi Dench and Dame Maggie Smith in our own time could have been, or can now be, members of a club that bears the name of one of their own kind.
A couple of years ago, one of my dearest friends had her birthday party at this same club. It was a lovely occasion, of course—but my friend was in effect a guest at her own table. The fact that she was, and is, a senior member of the Government makes no difference—she cannot be any kind of member of this club. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice would say.

927
The Bill does not, as I understand it, seek to prevent clubs or associations from choosing to recruit members exclusively from one gender group, provided that the benefits of membership are,
"to be enjoyed wholly by men or wholly by women".
But that condition is clearly not met in the case of clubs such as the one I have mentioned, where the benefits are frequently enjoyed by both men and women, often together. Women are welcome guests, at least in my experience. They are treated with courtesy, sometimes even deference, by staff and members alike.
I have heard no complaints about this establishment, or about any of the several other clubs applying similar rules, from those fortunate enough to enjoy their hospitality from time to time. But being a guest, however hospitable the host, is very different from being at home. Apart from the necessity to be on one's best behaviour and not put elbows (or feet) on the table or fall asleep in front of the television and so on, as one might if one were at home, there is the constant awareness of being on the outside, excluded from the codes and discourses that come with belonging, whether to a club, a family or a profession, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, eloquently pointed out in respect of El Vino's. The way in which women were treated in that particular establishment was an issue of professional exclusion.
Knowing that one cannot aspire to anything other than guest status simply because one is a women is a singular and piquant kind of humiliation. I should be misleading your Lordships were I to suggest that it is at the top of the list of things that keep me awake at night; but periodically I wonder what it is that makes me a fit person, allegedly, to be a Member of this House but unfit for membership of the Garrick Club.
The Bill seeks to prevent the kind of discrimination which, however subtly or elegantly it manifests itself, perpetuates the notion that women can legitimately be sidelined or excluded from positions of influence. I am sure that many members of organisations applying such restrictions would regard these words as at best silly and at worst offensive. They would say that they have no such intentions—that they are merely continuing in time-honoured fashion to do what has always been done. Along with my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and many other speakers, I believe that this will no longer do. It is, as they say, the principle of the thing.
Although I recognise that what most irritates me about the way in which such clubs operate is not caught by the Bill, I none the less support it in the hope and belief that, if it is passed, it will begin to exert the kind of influence that will eventually mean that clubs such as the ones we have been discussing no longer operate the policies that they currently operate.
9.29 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I, too, should like to give a round of applause to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for introducing this most
928
welcome and long overdue amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. In doing so, I acknowledge the excellent work of Robert Walter MP on this issue.
As chair of the Women's National Commission, I am only too aware of the frustration, bewilderment and downright astonishment that many of our partner organisations feel at the current situation of women's second-class membership and third-rate treatment in a significant number of Britain's private clubs. They are clubs that allow women through the door, but do so with such grudging acceptance that an open-door policy actually means restricted membership—restricted club times, restricted voting rights, restricted use of facilities, and more restrictions if one is a female guest.
A glance back at the past 24 months' of press coverage and surveys conducted on discrimination against women in private clubs reveals even to me a surprisingly strong and persistent set of prejudices against women in modern Britain. In April 2001, in the Daily Telegraph, Liz Khan stated:
"At Royal Troon Golf Club women visitors can only play with a member of the club and women may not normally enter the clubhouse".
She went on to say:
"The Royal and Ancient club house, home of golf, is barred to women and a few years ago, the Royal and Ancient, who offer all former male presidents of the United States Golf Association, honorary Royal and Ancient membership, gave Judy Bell, the first woman president of the United States Golf Association, not honorary membership, but a diamond brooch instead".
In that instance, diamonds rather than men seemed to be a girl's best friend.
In March 2000, in the Daily Telegraph, Maurice Weaver reminded us that,
"Recently during refurbishment at a golf club in Worcestershire women were temporarily admitted to the men's bar and snooker room on condition that they did not cross a white line specially drawn on the floor. Men drank on one side of the white line/women on the other".
In normal times women would not have been allowed into the men's bar even to sell charity tickets. As other speakers have said, women are also barred from playing the course before noon on Sundays, 3 p.m. on summer Saturdays and 1 p.m. on winter Saturdays. As one woman said in the article,
"It takes 3½ hours to get round the 18 holes, so on dark winter weekends it is practically impossible for women to get in a full round. The rule is so strictly enforced that women players are kept waiting for their start time, even though the tees are totally empty".
As we have heard, however, not all clubs are as stone age in their thinking, and some have heeded the call by the Government and—in earlier days—by the EOC to reform their practices voluntarily. We welcome those more enlightened boards and echo John Morgan, General Secretary of the Penlan Social Club, in Swansea, whose 3,000 members—as my noble friend Lord Faulkner reminds us—voted two years ago to give women full membership. John Morgan said:
"Giving women full membership has made a big difference in terms of the dynamism of our club, we have a lot more going on now".

929
Yet too few clubs have taken the voluntary route to equality. In 1999, about three quarters of all private golf clubs retained extra privileges for male members, such as men's bars and banning women from playing the course at certain times. That is why the Bill is so timely in forcing through change and why we need the Government's support.
We live in times when diversity and equality should add up to a modern, forward-looking society. It is a great insult to today's modern women that so many private clubs operate on rules that are based on totally outmoded views of men's and women's lives, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, has said. There is the idea that women do not go out to work and, therefore, can use the golf course when men are out earning bread; that only men need the business, social and political networks that form the culture of many clubhouses; and that women must be kept away from the voting and decision-making machinery of a club at all costs—perhaps in case they run them better.
A successful passage of this Bill will mean that if a club chooses to admit women it must admit them as equal members. That does not go far enough for my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, whose concerns I understand, but it is a terrific start and one that I believe we must support. The Bill does not say that a club or an organisation cannot remain a single sex club. We do not expect to see, in the near future, muscle-bound men muscling in on the WI's next calendar.
The Bill applies to private member clubs of 25 or more members and it applies equally to discrimination against men. Like several noble Baronesses, I recently spoke on a Bill dealing with the need for political parties positively to encourage women to become members. In preparing for our debate I read that a pre-selection meeting was held at the Carlton Club for the 2001 general election. As we have heard, that club does not admit women as full members. The messages that many such clubs send out about their strong belief in women's inequality, not only damages the leisure and the sporting lives of many women, but also their working and political lives and ambitions. I wish my noble friend Lord Faulkner every success in his endeavours.
9.37 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, like other speakers, I welcome the appearance of this excellent little Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, on the extremely thorough way in which he introduced it.
I have never sympathised with the determination of some women, including noble Baronesses who have spoken in the debate, to close down all single-sex clubs. I have a sneaking suspicion that one day I may want to belong to a club that admits only women. From time to time there is a certain comfort in not having to get oneself dolled up because one is public, of being with other women and not having to make allowances for anyone else. I know that different views have been expressed.
930
If both men and women are members of a club I support the idea that they should both have equal rights. That is the thesis at the heart of the Bill. I want to quote from a letter sent to my noble friend Lady Williams. The writer says:
"Many of the reasons for offering women different membership conditions are based on outdated views of men and women's lives such as assuming that women may be able to use club facilities during the day as they do not work, or that women will not want to use a club bar. At present the second class membership which women are offered excludes them from the business, political and social networks that the clubs offer. Women are also often prevented from being able to take part in the running of the clubs, meaning that they are not able to effect change from within".
That final point is particularly effective. Other noble Lords have mentioned one or other of those points.
The key to this situation is that if one is to have associate members of a club with lesser access to the facilities, then those members should do a deal. They will presumably get fewer facilities for less money. But that should apply equally to men and women. The discrimination results from the fact that in general because full memberships are for the men and associate memberships are offered to women.
I have not been as hardworking as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. However, following a random sample of London's glamorous club land, I can now exclusively reveal that the Bill is causing different reactions in different clubs depending on their current position with respect to women members. We have already heard that for a long time clubs such as the Reform Club and the Liberal Club have had men and women on equal status. They are unconcerned because they are unaffected. One of the people with whom we spoke wondered whether in fact the equal status membership might have the effect—this point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie—of forcing some clubs back into not offering any type of women's membership at all. Someone wondered whether men would dare to put women forward as full members of a man's club. It is a curious assumption that men are more lacking in courage than women.
This club—the House of Lords—let me in, but only because at the time when Paddy Ashdown was offered two peerages, after a very long period when he had not been offered any, he decided that he would choose one woman and one man. That is what he did. I hope that does not put me into a situation of not wanting to be a member of a club that would allow me to join.
Clubs that do not accept women as members differed in their approach when we talked to them. One interesting comment that we received was that it was,
"not right to prevent men or women from enjoying the full benefits of club membership, but equally not right to prevent men or women from enjoying the company of their own sex".
That is the view I expressed at the beginning of my speech.
There was an interesting arrangement at the Army and Navy Club which responds very much to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall. That club was originally all male. Men and women now have equal access to membership if they

931
have been officers in the armed services. Many women are now officers in the armed services. Even more interestingly, their spouses, whatever their sex, have equal rights to associate membership. As a result of taking a practical view of life, as the armed services so often do, the club has come up with precisely the result that the Bill seeks to achieve.
Several noble Lords referred to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. This is the second small Bill that we have considered in this Session to modify that original and very breakthrough Act. It is a pity that we must go about it in this kind of "take a clause here and take a clause there" way, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.
I do not know how many noble Lords share my view that if there is no rational explanation of why women are not paid enough or do not have the same access to employment or any kind of right, the explanation is prejudice. It is as simple as that. I have fought that prejudice in my party—someone spoke about party selection processes. The Act did not assist us in that, as we discovered when the Labour Party decided to go for all-women shortlists and was prosecuted under the Act. The most recent Act that we passed was directed precisely towards removing that danger. It does not remove all the dangers of positive action to promote women candidates, but it gets rid of that one. One could be prosecuted in a different way, if one were unlucky.
We cannot solve all of the world's problems or all women's problems with the Bill. It is to be hoped that we can make a good stab at solving the particular problems that the Bill addresses. I wish it well and hope that we will shortly hear from the Government Front Bench that they support it.
9.46 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, it is late, so I will be brief. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for introducing the Bill, which gives us the opportunity to debate sex discrimination in private members' clubs. Let me also congratulate him on an excellent speech that illustrated by poignant examples the almost irresistible arguments in favour of the Bill. Let me also say that we are reticent about succumbing to legislation on the issue—not because we do not believe in its aims but because the law can be a blunt instrument when used in such a way. We are therefore somewhat sceptical about inflicting legislation on how people choose to behave in private.
That said, we recognise that there is a serious need for a cultural change within some of our private institutions: a cultural change that is essentially about confronting closed minds. We recognise that the Bill is intended to meet that objective.
It is important, albeit at the risk of repetition, to make clear to all those beyond your Lordships' House who may not have read the Bill, what measures it would introduce. First and foremost, if a club chooses to admit women, it must admit them as equal members. Further, a single-sex club does not lose its
932
status as a single-sex club if women are admitted to club functions on an occasional basis. Indeed, only if all the circumstances are such that the club cannot be genuinely described as single-sex does the Bill apply. Further, any club can choose to be or remain a single-sex club and the Bill applies only to private clubs with 25 or more members.
The Bill would outlaw, for example, single-sex bars where women were admitted to other bars in the club, golf clubs allowing women only at certain times and men-only enclosures. It would not outlaw, for example, single-sex changing rooms, gyms and lavatories. It would not outlaw single-sex sporting events—thank goodness for that. Importantly, the Bill applies equally to discrimination against men.
In truth, I am not entirely convinced that the Bill as drafted will achieve those objectives in practice. Further consideration of its clauses in Committee will be essential before we decide whether it should reach the statute book. I agree with my noble friend Lady Fookes that the Bill is sensible in its approach and deserves serious consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred to the public stance taken by some of us in the Conservative Party, including me, who decided with a heavy heart to resign from the Carlton Club because it continues to exclude women members from full membership simply on grounds of sex. While it is a private club, the Carlton Club holds itself out to be a leading club of the Conservative Party—a very public institution.
I was interested to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, resigned from the Garrick Club some years ago because he and others failed to persuade it to change the rules to admit women as members. I am somewhat surprised that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has failed to do likewise. I was also interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, seeking perhaps to defend the Garrick on the grounds of physical capacity. It reminded me of a biography of the Mitford girls that I read recently. The first Baron Redesdale, their father, argued in your Lordships' House that women should not be admitted as Members as there was no ladies' water closet close to the Chamber, in which case they would be inconvenienced. They are matters of principle.
I recall how in a debate in your Lordships' House last year on the lamentable lack of elected women Members of Parliament I felt that it was depressing that in the 21st century we should even be discussing the need to address issues concerning irrefutable discriminatory behaviour on grounds of sex. This evening, like the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, I feel equally depressed, although this Bill may at least cause some to re-think their attitudes. That said, we must tread carefully, as there is surely a limit to how much we should interfere with the rights of individuals acting in a private capacity.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say this evening. In particular, I would like to know whether the Bill will, as some newspaper reports have suggested, become a government Bill when it reaches another place. In that case, will it be taken out of

933
Private Member's Bill procedures and given proper government time or will it have to take its chances like any other Private Member's Bill? That is an important question.
9.52 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to respond to this Second Reading debate and to join noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for introducing the Bill and helping us to have this important debate.
During the debate I was particularly reminded of the sad case of private clubs covered by the Race Relations Act 1976. One of my former constituents in Preston was banned from entering the dockers' club on grounds of race. Occasionally, I thought, on the one hand, "Why are we debating this? Why don't we give up? It's all taking so long", but I do not think that a case of the kind that I have mentioned could occur now. Perhaps change will happen to the benefit of women.
The Government are firmly committed to equality of opportunity. Not only is it inherently right, but it is essential to Britain's future economic and social success. My honourable friend Barbara Roche, the Minister for Women, also welcomes the Bill in principle. Although the Government support the principles of the Bill, we must also consider the impact that it will have, as we do with all legislation.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, I believe that the background to what has happened is extremely important. I was very taken by the thought of any conspiracy to cause mayhem and overthrow the rules that could bind together the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I would have thought that they could privately conduct a conspiracy to deal with some of the issues that would not be covered by the Bill, were it to become law.
The SDA does not currently cover private clubs because it does not extend to the provision of goods, facilities and services that are private and of a personal nature. Private clubs fall within that category. The law was framed that way in the 1970s because it was felt that genuinely private members' clubs should be able to reflect their members' requirements and preferences and because of concerns about the impact that it might have on freedom of association. Over 25 years later, many private clubs now have both men and women as members but can lawfully restrict access to some or all facilities in that club to members of one sex. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, raised that point with reference to golf clubs. Other noble Lords referred to the assumption that women could play only during the week and the difficulty that that presented for working women who could play only during peak hours at weekends.
Many working men's and constitutional clubs deny full membership benefits or refuse access by making the position impossible, uncomfortable or unpleasant, as my noble friend Lady Gale described. This kind of sex discrimination by private clubs is not acceptable. If
934
clubs allow both sexes access to membership and some facilities and benefits, there can be no justification for them doing so in a discriminatory way.
My noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lady Crawley referred to the previous calls for the Government to change sex discrimination legislation. Many women have also written in individually. As my noble friend said, in 1998 the EOC proposed that the SDA should be extended to apply to clubs which have men and women members. The Government responded then by indicating a preference for voluntary action to be taken by clubs to eliminate discriminatory practices before imposing a legislative duty.
Several years later, very little has been done to rectify this inequality. Our expectation that clubs with both male and female members would want voluntarily to make sure that their arrangements were not discriminatory was, sadly, not borne out. I understood some reservations put forward by my noble friend Lord Borrie, but how long do we have to wait for voluntary action to provide that equality within the membership of clubs?
My noble friend Lady Crawley referred to the fact that many clubs have less equal memberships available—usually offered solely to women. Noble Lords have questioned whether there is any possibility of such clubs changing their minds. I suspect that in some cases the decision to allow women to become associate members may be associated with the fact that associate membership often involves a payment of money to help to support the club. I suspect that a club's finances might be quite severely affected were it suddenly to try—even if legally it could—to revert back to being male only. I know that that would be the case with some of the clubs in the CIU. I say to my noble friend Lady Gale that there may be hope of change.
I join my noble friend Lady Crawley in paying tribute to the work done in the past by Robert Walter and his attempt to amend the Sex Discrimination Act. There was a spate of misleading articles which said that the Government wanted to ban men-only clubs. I can give an assurance that my noble friend does not have this intention. The Government have made no criticism of genuine single-sex clubs.
As my noble friend Lady Gale said, we do not hear complaints about single-sex clubs such as the Women's Institute, the Girl Guides or Business and Professional Women UK. Nor would one expect to hear complaints about support groups for male single parents or for men who are the primary carers of preschool children within a family. We know that the general public would not want such groups banned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, recognised.
To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, we are focusing on new legislation to combat discrimination in employment on the grounds of age, sexual orientation and religion. We do not believe that the important issue is the introduction of a single

935
equality Bill. We are committed to eradicating discrimination and to providing clarity and coherence. We do not believe that this is the time for a fundamental review of the legislation.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh spoke of hope and belief. We hope that the Bill, with some amendments, would in principle lead to an improvement in the situation. As virtually all those who have spoken have recognised, it would require members' rights to be equal if men and women were both in membership of the same club.
There is no question that the inequalities that persist among mixed-sex clubs are out of date and contrary to the Government's principles of equal opportunity for all. My noble friend Lady Gale and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Buscombe, know that we were all delighted by the passing of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002. Virtually all those who have taken part tonight recognise that that is the beginning of securing equality for women in consideration for candidature. It is enabling legislation that does not impose anything on the political parties. We all need to go away and start undermining the system again. Perhaps we could get advice from the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and be prevented from being taken to court by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, working with her.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that we support the principles that the Bill embodies. There is some important work to be done to ensure that it does what it is intended to do—and only what it is intended to do. As the noble Baroness said, addressing discrimination by private clubs raises some sensitive issues and requires a delicate balance between the rights and wishes of one group against those of another. The Government will welcome the views of noble Lords at later stages.
Finally, I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about government time for the Bill. There are established procedures and time available for Private Members' Bills to progress. I have set out that the Government's support for the Bill is qualified and some changes will need to be made to allow the Government to give their full support. That said, we shall of course listen to representations at the appropriate time, should the Bill pass this House and be picked up in another place. However, we have a packed legislative programme, so I cannot give assurances. Perhaps I should conclude by quoting again my noble friend Lady McIntosh—we must all have hope.
10.4 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am most appreciative of every contribution, I hoped that my Bill would receive some support but the overwhelming support in all parts of the House is most touching and I appreciate it.
As the hour is late, I will not pick up every point. If the Bill receives a Second Reading, we will have the opportunity to consider such matters in Committee.
My noble friend Lady Gale told the horror story of the Welsh club in the by-election, then referred to the Cardiff and County Club and asked whether the Bill would cover the way that guests are treated there. The answer is yes. Clause 1(4), (5) and (6) deal with exactly that situation. If guests are admitted to a single-sex club, they are to be treated on an equal basis.
My noble friend Lady Farrington, in a contribution that I particularly appreciated, picked up my point about how long we should wait. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, made the same point and was modest enough not to refer to a quote of her own in the Daily Telegraph piece on 2nd April 2001 to which my noble friend Lady Crawley referred:
"In 1978, Lady Howe,"
—as she then was—
"deputy chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, said that golf clubs restricting women at the weekends should change their rules".
That was 24 years ago and is the answer to my noble friend Lord Borrie. Perhaps the time for waiting is over and the time for legislating is here. I appreciated my noble friend's contribution. His was the odd one out and I hope that he will argue his points in Committee. I am afraid that I disagreed with much of what he said—and believe that many of your Lordships did as well.
We had a good tour of most London clubs and visited some golf clubs and working men's clubs. The general picture that emerged was that it is time for the law to be changed. I am happy to listen to my noble friend Lady Farrington, as I always am, when she suggests change and amendment. I hope that we will be able to agree on a raft of amendments that will make the Bill entirely acceptable to the Government and to the Opposition. I appreciated also the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and was pleased that she referred to her own brave experience with the Carlton Club—which I am sure was appreciated in all parts of the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eight minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Employment Bill
Wednesday 13th March 2002.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Paternity leave]:
Lord Henleymoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, leave out lines 12 and 13.
The noble Lord said: Before moving Amendment No. 1 in my name and Amendment No. 2 also in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Miller and Lord Rotherwick, perhaps I may say a word about the Bill being in Grand Committee. When I was part of the usual channels, I was part of the process whereby agreements were done under which Bills of one sort or another were sent to the Moses Room or, rather, into Grand Committee. The original idea behind that process was that certain Bills might be dealt with more appropriately in Grand Committee rather than on the Floor of the House. I understand that this was the case particularly where the Bill was very complicated, or highly technical, but the process was also designed for those Bills that were not controversial. It was always understood that it was not designed simply to make life easier for the Government, or for the Government to get their own legislation through and to get more of it through.
I am no longer part of the usual channels but the procedure does not seem to apply to this Bill. First, it is a big Bill with five clauses, eight schedules and a total of 82 pages. I do not believe it is an uncontroversial
CWH 2
Bill, particularly, dare I say it, on the Minister's own Benches, where there is a degree of controversy about it.
I understand that deals have been done and it is right and proper that that is the case in certain circumstances. I also understand that all of us have benefited from that in that it has allowed us to have that extra bit of paternity leave to spend more time with our families over half term. That was part of the deal that was done through the usual channels to ensure that the Bill went into Grand Committee. I put on the record—I imagine that there will be others who will agree with me—that the Bill is not particularly appropriate for a Grand Committee. I appreciate that it is difficult to get it right and that we all make mistakes. I remember an education Bill with which my noble friend Lady Blatch was involved that went into Grand Committee; again, I suspect that that was not appropriate for that Bill.
Moreover, if a Bill is to be in Grand Committee it is an improvement for us to sit in this Committee Room rather than in the Moses Room. Others might have different views on that.
I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. The amendments relate to the new provisions in the Bill for statutory paternity leave and statutory paternity pay, about which I expressed sonic concerns at Second Reading. Before I turn to the amendments themselves, perhaps I can go back a little and say what I said at Second Reading. I ask the Government to say a little more about why those measures are being introduced. What is the need and where is the demand? Are there potential fathers up and down the country demanding that they must have two weeks or whatever of paternity leave so that they can bond with their new children? Are these not matters that are far better and more sensibly left to informal arrangements between employer and employee? For example, an employee might ask if he can take the afternoon off to take his wife home from hospital after the birth of the child, or whatever. Is not that preferable to having the heavy hand of the law saying that the employer must give the employee at least two weeks off, whether it is convenient to the employer or not, simply because the father wants to? The convenience of the employer is something that can be taken into account, as we shall see in relation to later provisions of the Bill.
Can the Minister tell us on what basis the Government are introducing this proposal and what research and consultation preceded it? Exactly what was the reaction of employers to the measure? Will he also say something about the extra burden that is being imposed on business, particularly small businesses? As I said at Second Reading, big employers can often cope very easily with such matters. It is no hardship to them at all. They have no objection to taking on such measures, but for a smaller employer losing one key worker at a crucial stage can be very difficult.
Secondly, can the Minister say what research the Government will do in the future into the effectiveness of this measure? How many fathers will take it up and at what cost? I believe that the figures for average

CWH 3
earnings are around £18,000 or £19,000 per year, or £400 per week. If they are at about that level, how many fathers will want to take two weeks off on greatly reduced pay at a time when household expenses have dramatically increased? They are more likely to be asking the employer for overtime, rather than time off.
Amendment No. 2, to which my noble friends have also signed up, is designed to achieve one thing. We are told that fathers are being given two weeks. Mothers now have a year's maternity leave—six months paid and then six months unpaid. With the Bill drafted as it is, the two-week period could be extended bit by bit. No doubt there are bodies and organisations that represent fathers. I am sure that they do not represent fathers, but that will not stop them claiming to do so and demanding on grounds of equality or parity with mothers an extension of that two-week period. Gradually demands will be made for two, three and four weeks and, finally, dare I say it, for 26 weeks' paid leave and 26 weeks' unpaid. What was originally intended as a minor and, in my view, totally unnecessary, irritant becomes a major burden on the employer. I believe that if the period is to be extended beyond two weeks, it should be done by primary rather than secondary legislation. Therefore, perhaps I may have an assurance from the Government that there is no present intention to extend the two-week period and that they will not extend that period unless they can show that there are seriously good reasons for doing so and a serious demand from outside, both from potential parents and employers.
As I understand it, new Section 80A(4) mentions the period of 56 days—that is, eight weeks. Does that mean that a power exists only to extend the period from two weeks to a maximum of 56 days and that there would not be a power to extend it beyond that limit? I am not sure whether that is a correct interpretation of the subsection, but no doubt the Minister will reassure me on that point.
While on the subject of this new section, perhaps I may ask whether the Minister will take the opportunity to explain two subsections to me. Subsection (5) states:
"Regulations under subsection (1) may … (a) specify things which are, or are not, to be taken as done for the purpose of caring for a child or supporting the child's mother".
I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell me what that means and what exactly he intends the regulations to cover in relation to that section. It is not clear to me.
The same is true of subsection (5)(c), which makes,
"provision about how leave under this section may be taken".
Again, when we are talking about two weeks' leave, I am not sure why it is necessary for provision to be made about how that leave should be taken. I understand that the two weeks' leave, which we shall come to later when we deal with the subject of paternity pay, is to be taken either in a two-week block or in two sections of one week. With those questions, I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My noble friend knows that we do not support his amendment, although we
CWH 4
agree with the concept of paternity leave. The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 2, to which I was happy to put my name. In particular because this is an enabling Bill, I believe that it is important that there should be some element of precision. When the Bill states "at least two weeks", it means that the Secretary of State could fulfil the requirements if she stipulated in the order a period of three weeks, four weeks or even two months. It is important that that is clear and that people know exactly what we are talking about. The idea of issuing a blank cheque like this is taking the blank cheque system a little too far. That is why I should like to restrict it by removing the words "at least".
The Bill was first presented to Parliament over four months ago, having been preceded by fairly extensive consultation, including with the unions. I believed that by now the Government would have formed a view as to what they expected the period to be. If they have not done so, that seems rather vague. In particular, the Bill cannot be left with one of its major provisions— indeed, this is the number one provision—remaining very vague. Unless and until the Government can make up their mind and enlighten us what their intentions are in primary legislation, it may be better if we try to help to concentrate their mind by limiting the leave to two weeks.
3.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): First, we did consult extensively, including a formal consultation of 12 weeks on the Green Paper, Work and Parents. We also consulted specifically for a further 12 weeks on the detailed framework for paternity leave. It turned out that many people wanted to have paternity leave and to be present during the early stages of their children's life. He may even have felt, during his children's early days, a faint twinge that he might like to be with them some time.
Let me deal with some specific points. The amendments would have the effect of taking the period of paternity leave out of regulations and making it fixed on the face of the Bill for a period of exactly two weeks. As things stand, the Bill makes it clear that regulations will provide that leave will be for a minimum of two weeks.
If the noble Lord is concerned that we may regulate to allow a period longer than two weeks, let me reassure him that that is not our intention. We have consulted extensively and exhaustively on this subject, both in the Work and Parents Green Paper and subsequently. I will not say that the proposal for a two-week period met absolutely universal approval—inevitably, some wanted a longer period and others wanted a shorter period, but we needed to strike a balance and two weeks represents a reasonable consensus.
Having said that, we could of course fix the period firmly on the face of the Bill and leave ourselves no possibility of ever changing it by regulations. I do not see the need for that. As so often, in this aspect of the

CWH 5
paternity provisions we are mirroring the architecture of the maternity provisions. In those provisions, the length of pay is a matter for primary legislation but the length of leave is a matter for regulations. I do not say it could not he done differently but, historically, it has not been clone differently and I do not believe that causes problems—provided, of course, that we are clear what those regulations will say, so that employers know the extent of their liability and employees know the extent of their entitlement well in advance.
I cannot rule out the possibility, over time, that the Government might want to look again at the issue of the length of leave. It could happen, but it is not our current intention. The period of paid paternity leave will be two weeks and, with that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henley: I shall not withdraw the amendment just yet because I have a number of concerns that have not been addressed. I think that I am right in understanding that I have had an assurance from the Minister that the length of pay is a matter for primary legislation. If the noble Lord would extend that by primary legislation, the length of leave could be extended by secondary legislation.
The Minister has not addressed my concern about the 56-day period. In the provision, the noble Lord will see that leave must be taken before the end of the period—at least 56 days is involved—beginning with the date of the child's birth. If that is the case, that would mean that he could not extend the two-week period beyond 56 days without primary legislation. So two weeks' leave could, by secondary legislation, only be extended up to eight weeks' leave. Any extension of leave beyond eight weeks would therefore have to be done through primary legislation.
Moreover, the Minister has not addressed my concerns about the meaning of the regulations in subsection (5), particularly paragraphs (a) and (c). I would he very grateful if he would take say exactly what can he expected in the regulations under paragraphs (a) and (c) in particular.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We have put 56 days on the face of the Bill but, as I understand it, we could by regulation extend it beyond that period in particular circumstances, if we so wished.
Lord Henley: I cannot accept that. If the requirement was that leave had to be taken before the end of a period of at least 56 days beginning with the date of the child's birth, that would mean that they would not be able to complete an extension of the period of leave beyond eight weeks in a period of 56 days. In other words, either the Bill is badly drafted or there is a limit on what the Government can do by means of regulation. Obviously, the 56-day period cannot be changed by means of secondary legislation because that was there in the Bill, unless it was shown in some other part of the Bill as something different. I
CWH 6
want to ensure here that the Government know what they are doing, in terms of the power they are trying to give themselves to extend that particular period.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The situation is as I explained to the noble Lord; that we could in regulations extend the period further. However, I shall take this point away and check whether there is confusion in the drafting.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Lord and perhaps between now and Report stage he could write to me and take advice from his lawyers about the drafting of that particular point. Before we leave, perhaps the noble Lord might address my questions about subsection (5)(a) and subsection (5)(c) in terms of the precise meaning of those pages and what is intended to be in the regulations under subsections (5)(a) and (5)(c).
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Paternity leave is for the purpose of caring for the mother and supporting the child and subsection (5)(a) allows us o detail what we mean by that. We do not expect to make use of powers, as stated in our memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee. However, we have left ourselves with the opportunity, in case we discover over time that abuses are occurring and we need to be more precise about that point.
Lord Henley: It seems extraordinary that the regulations might, for instance, provide that someone could go home to look after his wife or partner but that he cannot go to watch Arsenal play at wherever. I would have thought that it was not necessary for the heavy hand of the state come into it. If you are going to give someone parental leave, why can they not just go home and take it? No doubt, however, the noble Lord can consider that and let me know any further thoughts he may have. Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert "(in which case reference in this section to the date of the child's birth shall mean the date of the still birth)"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 3 is intended to clarify an omission or an ambiguity in the Bill. It was previously proposed in the other place by my honourable friend, the Member for Runnymead and Weybridge. As he pointed out, at the same time as referring to the date of the birth of the child, subsection (7) of the new Section 80A refers to a stillborn child. Although paternity leave is provided for in such a tragic case, it is not to enable the father to help care for the child, but to enable him to support the bereaved mother. It is, however, not absolutely clear that the reference to the date of the child's birth also includes the date of the stillbirth.

CWH 7
In response to the probing amendment of my honourable friend, the Minister for Employment and the Regions referred at my honourable friend's request to the Social Security Contributions Act 1992 and specifically to Section 171. It states, and I precis, that confinement means labour after 28 weeks of pregnancy resulting in the birth of a child whether alive or dead.
The Minister admitted, after further questioning from my honourable friend, that he was "fairly confident" that maternity pay for the full period under that Act would apply in the case of stillbirth. Presumably, by analogy, the Minister would be "fairly confident" that the date of the stillbirth would be taken as the same as the date of a live birth. However, "fairly confident" is not enough.
The Minister promised to review the matter but in the intervening stages in the other place, no clarification has emerged. That is why it is necessary for me to bring this amendment back for your Lordships to consider. This is not a controversial matter. We are all agreed on the objective and support the inclusion of the case of a stillborn child in the right to paternity leave.
What is required, however, is absolute clarity on the face of the Bill. This Bill will be referred to by both employers and employees to ascertain the employees' rights. Often, indeed usually, they will not have the benefit of expert advice. It is important that an employer or an employee, acting alone, should be able to go to their local library, or gain access to the Internet, or in some other manner to look at a copy of the Act and see what their rights are.
Acceptance of the amendment does not involve any changes whatever in the Bill. It does not diminish the Bill or parental rights in any way at all. It is not acceptable for the Minister to say, if that is what he has mind, that the amendment is not necessary. It may not be necessary for him, for lawyers, trade union advisers or other experts who have expertise at construing statutes. It also has to be clear to the owner of a corner shop or to the director of a small manufacturing business, without the time or the money to spend on professional advice. Above all, it also has to be clear to the father of a stillborn child who will have quite enough to contend with without his having to hunt around at such a distressing time to find out what his rights are. My amendment is simply to clarify the Act without altering it in any way. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: A similar amendment was tabled in the Commons where the Minister for Employment Relations and in the Regions said with some confidence that it was not needed, but promised he would double-check. We have double-checked and we still believe the amendment is not needed.
I understand the concern that lies behind the amendment. We all agree that it is right that the entitlement of paternity leave should not be lost in the event of stillbirth where the need for the father to take time off, if only to support the mother, is very clear.
CWH 8
However, the amendment is not necessary. The Employment Rights Act 1996 into which the relevant provisions on paternity leave are inserted states at Section 235(1) that in the Act,
"'childbirth' means the birth of a living child or birth of a child whether living or dead after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy."
The birth of a child after 24 weeks of pregnancy will therefore count as the "birth of a child" for the purposes of eligibility, whether that child is born living or dead.
In those circumstances, the situation is clear because of where it fits into the Employment Rights Act 1996. I therefore hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: As a point of clarification, what happens if the child dies after three weeks? Would that be covered by this provision?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: It has to be after the 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Baroness O'Cathain: But what if the child went to full term and died after three weeks of being born?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, in those circumstances, entitlement would continue.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I was quite hopeful at the beginning of the Minister's reply when he said the amendment was not needed. That is a different word from "not necessary". I thought he would continue to say that as it does not alter the Bill we might as well leave it out. I never yet had the pleasure of such a problem with the Minister. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
4 p.m.
Clause 2 [Statutory paternity pay]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: This is a vast grouping, and I might mention them all in one breath. If Amendment No. 4, a government amendment, is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 5. If Amendment No. 8, again a government amendment, is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 9. If government Amendment No. 14 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 15.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No.4:
Page 5, line 31, leave out "who is, or has been, an employee"
The noble Lord said: The group of amendments we are considering here reverts in the main to an issue which we discussed at some length in the other place, and which was left unresolved. That issue is the circumstance in which an employer is liable to pay paternity pay to an employee, and whether that liability continues even when the employee has moved on and left that employer's employment at some point before the child is born and any payment comes to be made.

CWH 9
There is no disagreement about the fundamental policy intention; namely, that it would not be right for an employer to be responsible for making payments to a former employee who had left his employment some time ago. The issue under discussion was whether the Bill as currently drafted gave proper effect to that intention and the Government undertook to go away and examine whether amendments were needed to give effect to that policy.
Given our policy intention, several Members expressed concern about the phrases in the Bill that seemed to them ambiguous or even misleading; namely, that the employee should have "ceased to work" for his employer and there might be circumstances where a person not just who is an employee, but who "has been" an employee, could qualify for paternity pay from the employer. I am not surprised that the noble Baroness has returned to the charge by laying amendments to delete or modify these phrases.
Now that we have examined the Bill closely in the light of the concerns raised earlier in the other place, she will see that we agree with her. In this case, we believe that some amendments are necessary to correct the situation. Indeed, as she can see, we go rather beyond her in our view of the amendments that are needed. I hope that, once I have explained matters a little further, she will therefore agree to withdraw her amendments and agree to the Government's, which effectively subsume those she has tabled.
The package of amendments tabled in my name establishes unambiguously that an employee will be entitled to statutory paternity pay from an employer only if he is working for that employer up to the date of birth or placement of the child, and not if he has left his employment at some point beforehand. In making this crystal clear, various consequential amendments are required to maintain internal consistency, and I would like now briefly to go through the amendments in turn.
Amendments to lines 31, 37, 42, 44 and 45 on page 5 and lines 2, 5 and 6 on page 6 make clear that, in the case of paternity pay on the birth of a child, an employee must continue to be employed by his employer between the end of the "relevant week" and the date of birth itself. In this case, the relevant week is the week immediately preceding the 14th week before the expected week of childbirth, in other words the week when he must give his employer notice of his intention to take paternity leave. Amendments to lines 27, 28 and 32 make equivalent provision for paternity leave in the case of adoption, where the relevant week is necessarily expressed differently.
Amendments to line 31 on page 5 and line 13 on page 6, as with those tabled by the noble Baroness, delete references to a person who "has been" an employee qualifying for paternity pay, since, as I have said, at the time his entitlement crystallises he will necessarily still be in employment.
CWH 10
Amendments to line 37 on page 5, lines 19, 23, 33 and 45 on page 6 remove references to an "expected" child, since entitlement for paternity pay will crystallise on the birth or placement of a child, not beforehand. This does not, of course, affect the fact that notice of intention to take both leave and pay must be given in advance.
Amendment to line 33 on page 8 ensures that the requirement that pay (like leave) should be available only where the employee is taking time off work for the purpose of supporting the mother or caring for the child, which would otherwise have been lost from the drafting, is reinstated elsewhere.
Amendments to line 36 on page 6, line 15 on page 7 and line 2 on page 8 make consequential amendments to cross-references.
Amendments clarify that payment is by reference to a clearly defined "statutory pay week", where the current draft of the Bill might otherwise be seen as slightly confusing in that it refers in one place to a pay "week" and in another to a pay "period".
Finally, the amendment to lines 34 to 36 on page 8, which subsumes the noble Baroness's amendment to line 34 on page 8, tidies up subsection (4) of the new Section 171ZE. The policy intention is to regulate in a way which mirrors the existing statutory maternity pay legislation in this area. The relevant statutory adoption pay provisions (subsections (3) to (5) of new Section 171ZN) achieve this and we propose amending the statutory paternity pay provisions in Section 171ZE(4) to make them similarly consistent.
The noble Baroness may have noted that the government amendments do not take account of her proposed amendment to line 15 on page 15, to the adoption provisions of the Bill in Clause 4. This is because I do not think the amendment is right. The policy intention in respect of adoption pay is different from that in respect of paternity pay, but is consistent with that in respect of maternity pay.
We believe that once an employee's entitlement to adoption pay has crystallised at the point of matching with a child, that entitlement should not be lost, even if he or she leaves employment—for example, resigning to become a full-time parent. In these circumstances, a mother does not lose her maternity pay and I do not think that an adopter should lose their adoption pay. The words "ceased to work", which the amendment seeks to remove, perform the double function of covering both this sort of situation and the perhaps more usual circumstance where the employee merely takes leave from work with the intention of returning. The words are therefore appropriate as they are in the equivalent provisions for maternity pay. On that basis, the amendment is subsumed in the general position.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he could help me on one matter. We are dealing with a very large number of proposed amendments, and especially government amendments, which are likely to be written into the Bill. I refer to Amendments Nos. 4 to 26, 28 to 32,

CWH 11
and 36. Those who are interested in the matter—and many people are interested in the progress of this Bill, such as employers and representatives of workers too—will be interested especially in what my noble friend said about adoption pay. That struck me as being most important. Those who have not ventured into the Himalayas and climbed to hear the proceedings of this Grand Committee, and who do not have this document which sets out all the amendments, will be quite mystified. Would he arrange to have all these amendments printed in Hansard— to have all of the amendments printed in Hansard? Then those who are trying to follow his speech on this and subsequent matters will be able to read the public instrument of the proceedings of the Committee and be able to put the Bill together.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I believe that Hansard will have these automatically and immediately and people will be able to see them.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am most grateful to the Minister, for those new amendments, which certainly have dealt with most of the amendments that I have put down in this group. The Minister may be interested to know that, through a technical hitch, and it is no more than that, I asked for Amendments Nos. 5, 9, 15 and 36 to be withdrawn, but somehow that was not done and they are still on the Marshalled List. I have no intention of moving them.
However, in this group, I still have Amendment No. 30. Unless I am very mistaken, I do not think the Minister has quite dealt with that problem for me. With the leave of the Committee, I would like to mention my concern about Amendment No. 30. This is a probing amendment to enable us to find out exactly what the Government mean by a phrase. On page 8, line 34, we have asked them to leave out:
"Except in such cases as may be prescribed"
I really wanted some information as to what those cases might be.
My honourable friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked the identical question in the other place, but no answer came there at all. We believe that clarification is needed on the issue of when the Secretary of State expects to prescribe what statutory paternity pay should be payable to a person who works under a contract of service. Conversely, perhaps the Minister can explain why statutory paternity pay will therefore not be payable in those circumstances, whatever they might happen to be. That is not at all clear.
The Minister for Employment Relations and the Regions said that the Government have an amendment on that issue somewhere down the line. I have not been able to find it. It may very well be there and would make my amendment unnecessary. I would therefore agree with the noble Lord, if that is what he said. However, I have to say that I have not seen it and, looking at the clause, it is still in its original state with those words.
CWH 12
The Minister said that a person cannot work and receive benefit at the same time. Precisely. So why are the Government asking for power to make an exception to that common sense statement by the words,
"in such cases as may be prescribed"?
The Minister suggested that there was some analogy with maternity leave, but there is no indication of what happens in that case. Lastly, the Minister said that we are trying to keep our options open for exceptional circumstances that may arise. That is definitely the most blank of blank cheques.
The Government want powers to make exceptions against the financial interests of employers in certain circumstances but they cannot even give us the most fanciful examples that the entire department's fertile imagination could dream up; such examples might have indicated to us in some way what that was supposed to mean. I believe that the truth is that the draftsman let his pen run away with him when he put these words in the clause without specifically knowing what he had in mind. There is enough waffling on this subject in the other place—it went on for quite some time—and I was hoping that in this House we might have a little more precision from the Minister.
The Government did not come up with the amendment that they predicted, presumably by way of clarification, perhaps because they cannot. Two months have passed since the debate in the other place and the time has come for the Government either to come up with something else or to drop these words.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. The Minister said that all the amendments in this group would be printed in Hansard together with Amendment No. 4. The normal form would in fact be that Amendment No. 4 would be printed just before the Minister's speech. Amendments Nos. 5 to 26, excluding those that are not going to be moved by my noble friend, would appear when they were moved; that is, after the debate on this amendment. Amendments Nos. 28 to 32 would then have to be moved after our debate on Amendment No. 27; that is when they would appear. Amendment No. 36 would obviously come after the debate on Amendment Nos. 33 and 35. Is he suggesting that he will depart from the usual procedure and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, asked, print them together, before they were moved, with Amendment No. 4? That would be helpful and make the position much easier to understand. That is the relevant procedure. Is that what he was implying?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No, I said that those employers who wanted to look through Hansard and see what had been said would be able to go through the amendments and see them in that context. That was all.
Lord McCarthy: Employers will not be able to do that unless we do not do what my noble friend Lord Wedderburn was told would be done and the Government also do not do what the noble Lord, Lord

CWH 13
Henley, suggested. Is the Minister saying that the amendments will be moved at the end of this debate, as is done in the other place?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, is the answer.
Lord Henley: The answer is that the amendments will appear in Hansard but that they will be quite difficult to find. They will not appear in the easy manner that was asked for by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn although we seemed to get a response suggesting that they would all appear with Amendment No. 4.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Within two weeks the Bill will be reprinted for Report with the amendments as agreed in Committee. That is what people outside will be looking for and that will be much easier to understand.
Lord Henley: We were seeking clarity for those listening to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, to make sure that we all understood exactly what was going to appear in Hansard.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The drafting is entirely consistent on this point. The noble Baroness referred to the maternity provisions, which relate to a woman who has two part-time jobs and qualifies for pay from both. In some circumstances she is able to work for an employer while getting maternity pay from the other, and we are replicating that point here.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 6 to 8:
Page 5, line 37, leave out ", or expected,"
Page 5, line 42, leave out from first "the" to end of line 43 and insert "relevant week;"
Page 5, leave out lines 44 and 45.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 10 to 14:
Page 6, line 2, leave out from first "the" to "are" in line 3 and insert "relevant week"
Page 6, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert "at the end of the relevant week;"
Page 6, line 6, at end insert"; and
(da) that he has been in employed earner's employment with the employer by reference to whom the condition in paragraph (b) above is satisfied for a continuous period beginning with the end of the relevant week and ending with the day on which the child is born."
Page 6, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) The references in subsection (2) above to the relevant week are to the week immediately preceding the 14th week before the expected week of the child's birth."
Page 6, line 13, leave out "who is, or has been, an employee"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 16 to 26:
Page 6, line 19, after "child" insert "who is".
Page 6, line 19, leave out or expected to be placed,".
Page 6, line 23, leave out ", or is expected to be,".
Page 6, leave out lines 27 and 28.
Page 6, line 32, after "week;" insert—
"(da) that he has been in employed earner's employment with the employer by reference to whom the condition in paragraph (b) above is satisfied for a continuous period beginning with the end of the relevant week and ending with the day on which the child is placed for adoption; and".
Page 6, line 33, leave out ", or is expected to be,".
Page 6, line 36, leave out "paragraphs (b) and (d) of".
Page 6, line 45, leave out ", or expected placement,".
Page 7, line 15, leave out "(c) or".
Page 7, line 15, after "(d)" insert "or (da)".
Page 8, line 2, after "(2)(b)" insert "and (da)".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Henleymoved Amendment No. 27:
Page 8, line 23, at end insert "if agreed with the employer".
The noble Lord said: We can deal with this amendment briefly. I wish to seek some assurances from the Government, but I also want to point them in another direction. First, now that we are dealing with the section of the Bill concerned with paternity pay, am I correct in saying that it can only be paid, as the Bill sets out, for a period of either two weeks or one week, as the employee wishes? If that is true of statutory paternity pay, I presume that the same must he true of paternity leave. I also presume that that leave can be taken only at the same time as the paternity pay is given and that it cannot be taken, as was suggested earlier, in a series of 10 days spread out over 56 days. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister on that point because we need to have it on the record.
The second point behind the amendment is that this is another extra, and I would argue unnecessary, burden on the employer. It is one of those occasions where one might give the employer a little back in return and suggest that his agreement be sought if paternity leave and paternity pay were to be taken over two non-consecutive weeks rather than two weeks at a time. That might make a difference to him. Again, I am thinking of a small employer who may lose a key employee. It is one of those occasions where a degree of consultation between employer and employee might be the answer. If the words "if agreed with the employer" were included, that might at least give the right message about how this new burden should be interpreted in terms of relations between employer and employee. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps I may clarify what the noble Lord is asking us to do. At this point in the Bill, we are not talking about periods of leave but about

CWH 15
amounts of pay. I do not see why the employer, who is not paying the money—it is statutory paternity pay—should have a veto on when it is paid.
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I may clarify that point. When we talk about two weeks' pay, it is actually two weeks' pay, not three days, then four days, another three days and then another two days or whatever. The early part of the Bill states "a week or seven days". I take it that the option is between 14 days or seven days. Thus, the employee's pay would be for a week of seven days or a period of 14 days. That is not clear in the Bill.
Lord Henley: Before the Minister responds, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, my understanding is that statutory paternity pay can be paid to an employee who either takes two weeks off at a particular point or takes a week off followed by another week some time later. If that extra burden is to be placed on the employer—that is, of an employee taking not only two weeks off but two separate periods of one week—there should be a degree of consultation with the employer. I should like to see even greater consultation with the employer. However, this small amendment asks the Government to think about allowing the employer to consult a little more with the employee. It is possible that I have misunderstood that point. If that is the case, no doubt the Minister will advise me and I shall return to it at a later stage.
As I implied, the amendment was also designed as a probing amendment in order to obtain an assurance from the Government that pay and leave would cover a period of only two weeks, taken either as one two-week block or as two single weeks at separate times but not as a series of days taken off according to whether Arsenal were playing away or whatever.
Lord McCarthy: The amendment states "if agreed", not "after consultation". "After consultation" is one thing; "if agreed" is a veto.
Lord Henley: It might be a veto. If the noble Lord does not like it, perhaps I could bring in some degree of consultation with the employer and then a whole range of arbitration as appropriate. You can lengthen the Bill yet further; I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, would like that. I believe this is one occasion where the employee is getting something—he is getting a right to two weeks—so why not at least say that the employer can say, "I am terribly sorry, you cannot take it as two one-week blocks but you can have your right of two weeks all at once if you so wish"?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We need not debate too much where the provision appears, although the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is probably right because we simply do not agree with the amendment. Let me explain why.
This amendment seeks to institutionalise discussion and agreement between the employer and employee over some of the ways in which it may be possible for paternity pay to be taken.
CWH 16
I am not unsympathetic to the thinking behind the amendment. I believe it is absolutely right that there should be discussion in the workplace well before the leave is taken, so that employer and employee have the best possible common understanding of the position. I know that such discussions are already common in many workplaces where paternity benefits are provided as a contractual matter, and I would not want to see any lesser emphasis placed on such discussions in respect of the new statutory rights.
However, it would be immensely difficult to provide that a particular potential flexibility which we have now introduced into the Bill—namely the possibility that regulations will allow an employee to be able to take a period of statutory pay in a form other than a simple two-week block—in other words either a one-week block or two discontinuous periods of one week—should only be available where it is agreed with the employer.
In the first place, it is by no means certain that final regulations will allow for discontinuous pay periods of this sort. The initial draft of the Bill did not allow for it. But the Bill was amended as a result of long discussion in the other place, where many Members felt that it would be wrong to tie our hands irrevocably on the issue by enshrining the "single block" approach in primary legislation.
However, the Government are yet to be convinced that the case has been made to allow for discontinuous pay periods in practice. There are strong arguments, which were powerfully made to us in earlier consultation, for providing that leave and pay should remain available only in a single block. Of course, we will be consulting on the draft regulations, so people will have the chance to make the case to us. And the advantage of the Bill, as it now is, is that we do not rule out being able to make this change relatively simply, in secondary legislation, if experience of the new right once implemented suggests that it would be either helpful or at least painless for all concerned at some point in the future. But as things stand, I would not expect the Government to regulate in this way.
Even if we were to regulate to allow for the possibility of two discontinuous weeks, it would be very difficult also to provide that such periods are only available if agreed with the employer. What would happen if the employer delayed considering the matter, or unreasonably refused his agreement? I am not saying this would be common but we would need to consider the issue. We would need to provide for it in regulations—perhaps with a formal appeal mechanism and so on. We would risk building into what is meant to be a simple and easily-administered right a new layer of complexity and regulation, and I do not believe that it is needed.
Over and over again, employers have told us that they do not want some sort of veto over their employees' ability to take paternity leave and pay; what they want is the greatest possible certainty—advance notice and simple administration. This is what I believe we have provided for, and I fear that the

CWH 17
amendment, while in many ways understandable, would risk departing from that approach. I, therefore, ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend disposes of this obviously undesirable amendment to give employers a veto, I understood him to say that consultation on the matter at the place of work would be very sensible and that the Government intend to promote that in one way or another, which presumably will also be reflected in the regulations. Was he placing emphasis particularly on the fact that the relevant paragraph begins, "if regulations permit", because, if he was, this is one of the very large number of occasions when it would be very difficult to read this Bill before all the regulations are printed and know just what it means? Do the Government envisage that regulations might not permit this paragraph to operate? There are cases later where the scope of regulation powers to alter what appears to be the meaning of the Bill is vast.
The Minister should consider, before Report stage, whether all these powers are necessary. It might be worth knowing what the Government have in mind with regard to the phrase "if regulations permit". Do they have in mind the possibility that they may not permit this to operate? I shall ask my noble friend the same sort of question at later stages but my noble friends and I believe it to be worth raising a general point in the particular matter to see what the Government's position is.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I was merely making the point that it is clearly sensible for people to consult in this. That is not to say that the suggestion has to be a regulation, merely that it would be desirable and that people would be encouraged to consult in these circumstances. As regards how this would take place, I made our position clear: we are minded at the moment to have one period of two weeks and not to split it. We were, however, pushed as to whether we would put the flexibility in the primary legislation, which seemed a sensible move, and we have done it. Equally, I have made clear our current thinking on how that would operate. As regards powers in the regulations, the Delegated Powers Committee has looked at this and given us a clear bill of health.
Lord Henley: Obviously, my amendment has not received universal support and I will have to think carefully about how I pursue it at later stages. The noble Lord stressed the importance of advance notice and one of the great strengths of maternity leave is that you know fairly clearly when the event is going to happen.
That brings me on to the point that paternity is not always quite so simple and there are occasions when people do not discover about their new paternal rights until long after the event. I therefore suggest that possibly further amendment should be put down as to what would happen to someone who discovered he was the father some years after. Therefore, 56 days would have denied him his entitlement—but I am being flippant!
CWH 18
I am grateful to the noble Lord in that he has given fairly good assurance that the Government do not intend the regulations to do anything other than provide a two-week period. However, he felt that it was right that there should be a degree of flexibility to allow two separate periods of one week to be brought in later if after consultation that was felt to be desirable. I suspect I will not be coming back to this but I shall look carefully at what he said and if I do so, I shall follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and look carefully at where it ought to be introduced in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
Page 8, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) Statutory paternity pay shall not be payable to a person in respect of a statutory pay week if it is not his purpose at the beginning of the week—

(a) to care for the child by reference to whom he satisfies the condition in sub-paragraph (i) of section 171ZA(2)(a) or 171ZB(2)(a) above, or

(b) to support the person by reference to whom he satisfies the condition in sub-paragraph (ii) of that provision.".

Page 8, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert—
"(4) A person shall not be liable to pay statutory paternity pay to another in respect of a statutory pay week during any part of which the other works under a contract of service with him.
(4A) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (4) above whether the work referred to in that subsection is work under a contract of service which existed immediately before the statutory pay week or a contract of service which did not so exist.
(4B) Except in such cases as may be prescribed, statutory paternity pay shall not be payable to a person in respect of a statutory pay week during any part of which he works for any employer who is not liable to pay him statutory paternity pay."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 34, leave out "Except in such cases as may be prescribed,"
The noble Baroness said: I would not like to think that the atmosphere in here is such that I dozed during those few moments! All I was interested in—and it was quite short and quite easy—was what is meant by "such cases as may be prescribed as the exception". I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I covered this point: the drafting is entirely consistent with the maternity provisions. It relates to the circumstances in which a woman has two part-time jobs and qualifies for pay from both of them and in some circumstances is able to return to work for an employee while receiving maternity pay from the other. We are replicating that situation here. If it would help the noble Baroness, I shall write to her and cover in detail the rather complicated situation to which this applies.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 31 and 32:
Page 8, line 39, after "a" insert "statutory pay"
Page 9, line 3, after "section" insert—
""statutory pay week", in relation to a person entitled to statutory paternity pay, means a week chosen by him as a week in respect of which statutory paternity pay shall be payable;"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 33:
Page 11, line 11, leave out "normal" and insert "average"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 33 is a very short amendment which requires an equally short and, I trust, simple explanation. While speaking to it, I would like also to speak to the identical amendments, Amendments Nos. 34 and 37, at line 18 on page 11, and also to Amendment No. 260, on page 55 line 41. I would also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39.
The Bill talks about a person's "normal weekly earnings" and the first batch of my amendments seeks to alter the meaningless word of "normal" to "average". What are "normal" earnings? If a person is on a variable wage scale—say, hourly or piece rate, or in a job where overtime is sometimes payable—then who is to say what his "normal" wages are? Using the meaningless phrase "normal" will provide work for the court and for whole teams of lawyers. The clause, as drafted, attempts to define "normal", but how does it do so? It does it by reference to the "average" earnings, which is the intention in my amendment in any case.
I suspect that the draftsmen were simply trying to use the same word twice in the same sentence, but I am sure that we do not want to create a whole new legal concept of "normal" wages, simply because of some imaginary rule of syntax.
In Amendment No. 38, I propose to leave out the words:
"subject to subsection (8) below"
and in Amendment No. 39, I propose that we should delete the whole of subsection (8). This is because, if my first amendment were accepted—and I hope it will be, because this is a very sensible amendment—the whole of subsection (8) would be redundant. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall talk to Amendments Nos. 33 to 39. A number of these amendments to the pay and adoption clauses replace the word "normal" with "average" in relation to the way in which earnings are calculated, to work out how much statutory pay someone is entitled to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Lord referred to Amendments Nos. 33 to 35, but the group includes Amendments Nos. 33 and 34, and then 37 to 39.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall speak to all of them.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister will speak to the amendment before I have actually—
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am sorry—I have got the headings wrong. I shall speak simply to the ones in the group.
A number of these amendments to the pay and adoption clauses replace the word "normal" with "average" in relation to the way in which earnings are calculated for working out how much statutory pay someone is entitled to.
I am tempted to ask "what's in a name?" because the effect of these amendments is to replace one undefined word with another. The language of the relevant clauses follows the language of the statutory maternity pay legislation in Section 171(4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The very important question is how "normal earnings", or whatever we call them, are defined. That is what this part of Clause 2 does: it provides for "normal earnings" to be defined in regulations.
This brings me to the noble Baroness's second set of amendments to these clauses—those which have the effect of removing the ability to define "normal weekly earnings" in regulations. I note that the noble Baroness has not tabled an amendment to place a definition of "normal weekly earnings" on the face of the Bill. The cumulative effect of these amendments would be to leave both employers and employees with no clear understanding of what "normal" or "average" weekly earnings might be.
A definition of "normal weekly earnings" will inevitably be highly detailed and it will have to be included in the regulations. It cannot simply be reduced to the layman's word "average" without departing significantly from the maternity precedent. We believe that that detail is best set out in regulations, following the maternity precedent.
We must have a formula which is fair to the employee in properly reflecting what he receives from his employment and fair to the employer because it is straightforward to calculate. We intend here that "normal weekly earnings" for both paternity and adoption purposes should follow the model of the existing provisions for statutory maternity pay. The calculation of a person's normal weekly earnings for statutory maternity pay purposes is set out in Regulation 21 of the Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986. We intend to mirror that calculation for both statutory adoption pay and statutory paternity pay.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is happy with this approach. Some of her amendments would change simply names and not substance, and

CWH 21
others would prevent us placing the detail in regulations—a significant departure from the statutory maternity pay precedent.
I now turn to the final amendment in the group which we are discussing in respect of Clause 22. We have considered "what's in a name", and I should say that there is no great significance in the use of the terms "average weekly earnings" for maternity allowance and "normal weekly earnings" for statutory maternity pay. As I shall explain, the calculations are different in a number of respects, reflecting the different nature of the payments in question. However, the key to both is hat the calculations involve averaging amounts of pay in order to arrive at a fair amount on which to base entitlement.
Having said that, the draftsmen may well have felt that "average" was a more appropriate term to use in the context of maternity allowance because earnings from more than one job can be used to work out a woman's entitlement to maternity allowance, and the woman may well not have "normal" earnings as such in the same way as she might have "normal" weekly earnings from just one employer.
Let us take the example of a woman who has three jobs. Her earnings vary in each job depending on how many hours she puts in, but generally she earns £20 a week in job one, £40 a week in job two, and £5 an hour for the few hours she occasionally puts in for job three. As her wages vary, what is "normal" for her? The important concept for maternity allowance is to be able to add all her earnings together and average them out to arrive at her weekly rate of maternity allowance.
Noble Lords may find it helpful if I explain how maternity allowance works. In 2000, we improved maternity allowance by extending entitlement to pregnant women on low earnings who did not earn enough to pay national insurance contributions. We did that by basing entitlement on the level of a woman's average weekly earnings from all sources rather than on the payment of national insurance contributions.
To obtain maternity allowance, a woman must satisfy two tests. First, she must have been employed or self-employed in at least 26 weeks out of the 66-week period ending with the week before the week when she expects her baby to be born. That is known as the test period. Secondly, she must earn on average at least £30 a week. Under the current scheme, that average is then compared with the lower earnings limit for national insurance in force at the beginning of her test period. If the average is at least equal to that lower earnings limit, she will receive standard rate maternity allowance. If the average is less than that but at least £30 a week, she will receive a weekly rate of maternity allowance worth 90 per cent of her average weekly earnings. From 2003, she will simply receive £100 a week, or 90 per cent of her average weekly earnings if that is less.
Average weekly earnings for maternity allowance are worked out over a 13-week period. The woman may choose the 13-week period in which she received her best earnings; for example, she can take account of
CWH 22
any period where she may have been paid a bonus or other payment which boosts her earnings in order to maximise the maternity allowance paid to her. I should say that this is in line with the statutory maternity payment calculation where account is taken of any payments made, including bonuses, when working out the average weekly earnings for statutory maternity pay. From 2003, we intend that a woman will have even more flexibility in the maternity allowance scheme to maximise her average weekly earnings, reach the qualifying maternity allowance threshold of £30, and thus get the best rate of maternity allowance that she can. From 2003, she will be able to average out her earnings from the best 13 weeks in her test period.
Maternity allowance is intended to help pregnant women who work close to or during their pregnancy but who cannot qualify for statutory maternity pay because they are low paid, have more than one job, have broken work records or have recently left employment. By enabling those women to choose the best 13 weeks' earnings from different sources and average out their earnings, we are helping more women to obtain the financial help that they need in order to stop work for a period around the time of their babies' birth. Therefore, we believe that "average earnings" and not "normal earnings" is the correct expression. We believe that it more exactly describes a process by which relevant earnings are set for maternity allowance.
For completeness, I should explain that the rules for maternity allowance are rather different from those for SMP, which take the average of earnings over an eight-week period ending with a fixed point in the fifteenth week before the expected birth. The reason for the different approach is that for SMP we need to have a method of establishing earnings close to the start of maternity leave which achieves a balance between fairness to the employee and simplicity of operation for the employer. However, with regard to maternity allowance, we are dealing with women who may not be in employment at the end of their pregnancy, who may have a broken record of employment or for whom it is fairer to look at earnings over a longer period.
I appreciate that the different use of the terms "normal earnings" and "average earnings" may seem puzzling. However, the way in which the terms are used in the Bill simply carries forward a difference in terminology in the existing legislation on maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay. What matters is what happens in practice. Now that I have explained the maternity allowance rules, I hope that your Lordships will understand why they work in the way that they do and agree that they are entirely reasonable. Therefore, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to support my noble friend. I have lost count of the number of times the Minister used the word "average". Am I right in saying that the speech which the noble Lord has just made would win no prizes whatever from the Plain English Campaign? The response given to my noble friend was incredibly complex. Does the Minister also agree that

CWH 23
employers—in particular, small employers—will hold their heads in despair if they have to spend time unravelling and sorting out the meaning of what the noble Lord has just said?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend is to be congratulated on making very clear the need for the concept of normal weekly earnings to be used here. The difficulty that I have is not quite that of the noble Baroness who moved the amendment, which I hope will be resisted. "Normal weekly earnings" is a fundamental concept in various areas of employment protection law. A definition in Section 234 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 will not apply. A definition in Regulation 21 of the Statutory Maternity Pay Regulations, which, by chance, I have before me, is extremely complex but, when it is worked out, it is very clear.
As I understood my noble friend the Minister, the Government want to apply that notion with one or two minimal changes. I do not understand why we have to wait for a regulation in order to say so. If the Government know how they want to define "normal weekly earnings", why cannot they say so in the Bill? I have given notice on a number of occasions that I shall raise this kind of point with my noble friends. It seems to me that this is a perfect occasion on which to inquire why they need to ask officials to draft a regulation and leave everyone in suspense. The world is waiting to know what "normal weekly earnings" means in this section of the Bill. In some places that I know of, they speak of little else.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Not in my town.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend Lord McIntosh may not hear it spoken of in Hampstead, but it will seriously engage the attention of employers. However, I do not believe that noble Lords should concentrate only on employers. There will be a number of advisers in trade unions who will try to help women workers in relation to maternity pay and male workers in relation to paternity pay. I cannot for the life of me think why the Government cannot put on the face of the Bill a definition of national weekly earnings in the light of what my noble friend said. If the only reason is that they have not yet made up their minds, perhaps they had better say that, because I do not believe it. I believe that they know perfectly well what they mean by normal earnings here. I urge my noble friend to adopt a new and, with a little help, liberal approach to this matter and tell us what the Bill means as much as he possibly can.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: When I used to sit on an industrial tribunal, it was a regular discussion as to whether the word "normal" included overtime and whether it only included overtime if you were obliged to do it as opposed to it being voluntary. The same complication comes in with the word "average". These are points that should be clarified.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Having given the long answer, may I give the short answer now? The
CWH 24
provision seems to me sensible given that you have to work out average earnings which inevitably involves pages of complicated calculations. The Bill refers to normal earnings which are defined in the regulations. You cannot sensibly put that amount of regulation on the face of the Bill, not least because if there are changes in tax or anything else, that may affect it. You must sensibly put that matter in regulations. Of course, the regulations will not be exactly the same as those for maternity pay. You cannot sensibly put all that information, which covers all kinds of situations, part-time workers and others, onto the face of the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sorry to press my noble friend on this but I have in front of me regulation 21 of the 1986 regulations to which he referred. As I understand it, that is the pattern that the Government wish to adopt in this part of the Bill. I have not been able to add up the lines, and he will forgive me if I am wrong, but I estimate that there are 30 or 40 lines. Is he saying there is no room in the Bill for another 40 lines, or that he does not know which line will apply? Do we not know what the regulation will say? If we do know what the regulation will say, why cannot he put the 40 lines in the Bill?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We could do so but you lose the flexibility to change that if there are very good reasons for doing so.
Lord Henley: On that point, have the 1986 regulations which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, cited been changed since 1986, or are we still dealing with the same regulations? If they have not been changed in 16 years, it seems unlikely that there will be a frequent need to change them. Therefore, why cannot they be added to the Bill?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Some 10 minutes or so ago, I started by saying this is a very short amendment which required only a simple explanation. I added the words "I trust", and I see that my trust is somewhat misplaced, because it turned out to be an extraordinarily complicated matter when I listened to the Minister. I agree with my noble friend Lady Blatch. I lost count of how many times he described average earnings in describing the term "normal". At the beginning of the Minister's answer to me, "normal" was not defined and "average" was not defined and I have tried to point out that they are defined in some way by the term "average earnings". I believe that that really is a complication.
I take note of what the noble Lord. Lord Wedderburn, says. I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord said and see whether the matter becomes more simple and more understandable as I read it. However, while I wish we were in Office and I were standing at the Dispatch Box and the Minister were in my place, I am very glad I did not have to read out his reply because I thought it was totally convoluted and very unclear. It may be that that is one of the reasons why the matter is not properly defined at this stage. But there is no reason why, when the Government

CWH 25
define it in regulations, they will not be able to find a simpler way of putting it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Adoption Leave]:
Baroness Millermoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 14, line I0, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations under section 75A or 75B shall provide that a person suffer no detriment by virtue of taking adoption leave, but shall not be protected from any detriment that he would have suffered had he not been taking adoption leave."
The noble Baroness said: This is an identical amendment to that proposed by my honourable friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge in Standing Committee in the other place. However, it was withdrawn by him after the response of the Minister for Employment Relations and the Regions. I have read that short debate but felt it necessary to bring the amendment back today for some further consideration. For the sake of completeness and clarity I have reproduced the entire amendment, even though the Minister gave a technically satisfactory but entirely legalistic explanation of the first half of that amendment.
As this Bill is going to be relied upon by ordinary people, employers and employees alike, their rights and obligations should be entirely clear to them if they try to look up things themselves without having to employ a lawyer or consult an expert. These are important matters and the answers should be easily found and simple to understand. It ought to be possible for an employer and employee to sort out a potential problem or answer a simple question without having to go from one Act to another and so on. It is difficult enough when we are dealing with legislation ourselves. We are becoming more experienced at going from one Act to another but in the world of employment relations—the whole purpose of this Bill appears to be to make those relationships easier— simplicity and clarity are important.
The amendment is in two halves. The first provides that a person who takes adoption leave should suffer no detriment. It is to that half that the Minister gave the technically correct answer, which I would like to quote:
"Detriment is dealt with in Schedule 6, subsection 24, which will amend Section 47(c)(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996."
So for an employee to check that he is not to suffer a detriment for taking adoption leave, he has to find paragraph 24 of the sixth schedule to this Bill, which inserts an extra five words of amendment to another measure, which he would also have to read to find out what the draftsman is talking about. In the interests of the persons who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of this legislation on the one hand and those who are supposed to comply with it on the other, what possible harm is there in repeating in plain language, complete on the face of it and complete in itself, that a person
CWH 26
taking adoption leave is to suffer no detriment for doing so? Never mind that the same thing is said elsewhere in the Bill.
However, the second part of the amendment expressly stipulates that a person shall not be protected from a detriment that he would have suffered, whether he had adopted a child or not. I regret that on that part of the amendment, the Minister's reply in the other place was not satisfactory. It was factually correct but that does not make it satisfactory. The Minister said there,
"Issues on which they cannot suffer detriment are in the Bill. Matters such as whether an employee should be treated in the same way as every other employee do not have to be in the Bill."
I disagree. For the reasons I have already given, there is no reason why the facts should not be clearly spelled out that an adoptive father may not be protected from a deserved or inevitable detriment merely because he is involved in the adoption.
In 1925, Parliament passed the workmen's compensation Act, which was deliberately drafted in non-legal language so every workman would clearly be able to understand his rights. The workmen may well have understood the Act but the truth is that the lawyers did not. In consequence, it became one of the most litigated pieces of legislation that Parliament has ever passed. That does not, however, make the sentiment wrong. The sentiment is right: there is no reason why anyone should have to trawl through this Bill, even assuming that he knows where to begin looking, only to find that his rights are defined by an extension to a section in another Act when the whole problem is resolved by the elegant 42 words drafted by my honourable friend in the other place. I am not even pretending that I drafted them! I have just lifted them and it looks very good and it would be very clear if it were in the Bill. They may be repetitive of what is said elsewhere, buried in the thick schedule which is difficult to find for someone who is not conversant with this kind of matter. Saying it twice, once very clearly, does no harm. It is only belt and braces. T beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I wanted to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—and no doubt she can reply to this in due course when she responds to the debate—whether what she called this clear and elegant amendment really means what it says. It says that there is to be no detriment by virtue of taking adoption leave—most previous precedents against victimisation. Of course the word "detriment" is a polite word in employment protection legislation for "victimisation" of a worker who takes his rights or indeed proposes to take his rights. I do not notice any element of proposing.
Even more importantly, the amendment goes on to say that a worker is not to be protected from any detriment that he would have suffered if he did not take adoption leave. Does the amendment mean any lawful detriment or does it mean any detriment? There is, of course, a raft of legislation protecting workers from employers who victimise them for taking or proposing to take their employment protection rights.

CWH 27
However, not in this Bill; it is defective on victimisation, even in the schedules. It is a bad employer who does it, but anyone who thinks it does not happen should look at the law reports every month and he will find these sections being the subject of enforcement, since employees are not yet barred from access to the tribunals. If the amendment means any detriment, including those covered by sections of other statutes, its elegance mystifies me.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I suggest that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said, I can leave my response until after I hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I deal first with those two points. The first is whether one should in these cases refer back to something in a previous Act. We would not, of course, expect employers to have to refer to Acts themselves. What they do in reality is to refer to guidance and we will provide that. The approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would mean endless copying out of previous legislation into the new legislation, making it lengthier and wordier and doubtless attracting criticism accordingly.
On the substance of her amendment, as the Minister in the other place explained to the honourable Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, the question of detriment is dealt with in paragraph 24 of Schedule 7 to the Bill. This provision will amend the Employments Rights Act 1996, Part V, Section 47C(2) so that employees who exercise their right to ordinary or additional adoption leave do not suffer detriment as a result of taking or seeking to take that leave. The detriment treatment in question must relate to adoption leave. This includes the intention to take it. For example, it would protect an employee from detrimental treatment if he were selected for redundancy on grounds of his being on adoption leave or the intention to take adoption leave.
On the other hand we should be absolutely clear that it will not protect an employee from suffering the consequences of any of his actions that are not related to his taking or intending to take adoption leave. It does not provide the employee with some generalised protection from being disciplined simply because he happens to be on adoption leave at that time. I therefore invite the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say and I hoped that he would comment on the point about lawful detriment in the second part of my amendment, which would have made it somewhat easier for me.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that I would not pretend to debate with him anything of this ilk in employment law, because I know that he is an authority. In view of what he has said about a number of other things that could be causing the problem when they were not lawful, which I did not know about, I would certainly beg leave to withdraw this amendment. I shall look very carefully at that particular part to see whether I consider it
CWH 28
worthy to add that provision and perhaps to make it, in the noble Lord's words, "not elegant"—I described it as elegant—and bring it back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Statutory adoption pay]:
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 7 [Funding of employers' liabilities]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 22, line 28, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Baroness said: I speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 together. Although these two amendments are for two consecutive clauses, Clauses 7 and 8, on two different subjects, they both deal with the contents of yet more regulations to be made by the Secretary of State.
Clause 7(1) requires the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning the funding of employers' liability to statutory paternity and adoption pay. The subsection begins:
"The Secretary of State shall".
Since the clause requires the Secretary of State to make regulations, it is logical that the clause should specify the content of those regulations. It is not as though the content of subsection (4) is some long, esoteric shopping list. The use of the word "may" here, as distinct from "shall", is also, in a way, objectionable, because subsection (4) relates to funding which should be mandatory and not at the discretion of the board or, even more importantly, the Secretary of State.
The straightforward contents of subsection (4) are matters which logic, good government and sensible drafting make mandatory. I would not want to accept an answer that my amendment is too prescriptive, if that is what the Minister might be minded to say in response—as he sometimes does. If the Minister will not accept this amendment, I would like him to tell me what is wrong with his own menu in subsection (4), and to tell me which of the three simple and logical provisions—(a) or (b) or (c)— the Government might not include in any regulation. If they were not going to include them, why not?
I now turn to Amendment No. 41. Clause 8(1) is permissive about whether the Secretary of State makes the regulations or not. The subsection begins:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations",
and that is why the amendment begins:
"If the Secretary of State makes regulations".
However, the amendment goes on, as in the case of Clause 7, to prescribe that they shall contain the provision set out in subsection (2). Once again, there is nothing exceptional in the list in subsection (2) and I can see no reason why the Secretary of State would not

CWH 29
wish to include the complete set of these items which the Government have selected in the regulations, if she decides to make any. Indeed, in our opinion, the Secretary of State should be obliged to make regulations on the very points that they have put into that subsection, which is why I have brought this particular amendment forward.
I would appreciate an explanation of which of the specified amendments the Minister thinks there is even a remote possibility of not including, and his reasons for that. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have had many happy hours on "may" and "shall" in legislation over the years. Parliamentary counsel will not thank me if I depart from the standard line—which I never believed when I was in Opposition and I do not expect the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to believe now.
The principle of "may" and "shall", so far as this case is concerned, is that this is a clause about administrative arrangements. It is right that the power to make regulation should be broadly permissive, and that has been observed in legislation for many years. The administrative arrangements may need to change as the scheme develops, either because they become too complex or because they do not do the job for which they were intended. We do not think we intend to make changes but we may have to do so.
I turn to the particular case now. Clause 7 is all about the way in which statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay will be recovered by employers. We have made it clear from the start that employers will be able to recover a proportion or all of the statutory payments they make, following the precedent of statutory maternity pay. Indeed, I think we would come under legitimate criticism if we departed from statutory maternity pay. The provision for recovery is on the face of the Bill and the detail will be in regulations.
Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 7 set in place the same system for recovering statutory paternity and adoption pay at the same rate as applies for statutory maternity pay. All employers will be entitled to recover at least 92 per cent and it also provides for small employers.' relief.
We see no circumstances in which we would withdraw the employer's right to recover, and indeed in Clause 7(1) in line 2 of the page we say that the Secretary of State shall make those regulations and that those regulations shall deal with the amount that an employer may recover. The amount in percentage terms is fixed on the face of the Bill, as it is for statutory maternity pay.
The amendment asks us to commit ourselves to regulations under subsection (4). There is no difference here. The subsection sets out the things that will be in regulations but it does not set out everything. As the noble Baroness rightly quoted, it sets out for funding in advance, for funding to come from monies that the employer is due to pay over to the Inland Revenue and for the Inland Revenue to recover any amount overpaid.
CWH 30
If the noble Baroness is looking for a commitment that we will do those things, we gave that commitment in the other place and I give it now. The regulations under subsection (4) of Clause 7 will do a couple of very important things.
They will enable employers to recover what they pay out in statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay from amounts that they owe to the Inland Revenue. The most important thing that the clause does is to provide for a new right for employers to be able to ask for a payment in advance from the Inland Revenue to cover statutory paternity or adoption pay payments where the money the employer is due to pay is greater than the total amount due to the Inland Revenue in the same period.
That is better than statutory maternity pay and we introduce a similar right to claim advance payments in Clause 21 of the Bill. Making this change will bring the statutory payment schemes in line with what already exists for tax credits and is an important step in easing the burden of these schemes for employers, especially for small employers who will most often he in the position of requesting funding.
I turn now to Clause 8 and the amendment to page 23 line 6. Again, the noble Baroness is asking what the regulations cover here. I think that is clearly set out in the Bill and I do not think there is any need to go into any further detail. The difficult part is the word "shall", and it is drafting procedure that we are dealing with, administrative arrangements that should be made. As I said at the beginning, it is governed by the "shall" which is in subsection (1) of Clause 7.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I was grateful to the noble Lord for the undertaking he gave when he was speaking to my amendment to Clause 7. I was not commenting particularly on the items in Clause 8, other than to say would there be any of them that he would not include, because it seems to me that they should be included. Perhaps I misunderstood whether the undertaking covers that one also.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Both Clause 7 and Clause 8.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Then I am satisfied with that answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Regulations about payment]:
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Powers to require information]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 42:
Page 24, line 24, leave out "has been" and insert "was at the time of claimed entitlement"

CWH 31
The noble Baroness said: I would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 together as they are identical. The first alters the description of a person in the regulations from,
"any person who … has been, the spouse or partner of",
any person entitled to statutory paternity or adoption pay to,
"any person who … was at the time of claimed entitlement the spouse or partner of",
any person entitled to statutory paternity or adoption pay"; in other words, it changes the entitlement from "a person who has been a spouse or partner" to "a person who was the spouse or partner when the entitlement was claimed".
The reason for that change is obvious—it is intended to clear up a manifest anomaly. As the Bill is drafted, a spouse or partner could have left the domestic home and yet could still have claimed the benefit of statutory paternity or adoption pay. The object of those benefits, as stated in the notes and as enshrined elsewhere in the Bill, is to enable a spouse or partner to take time off work in order to lend support to his spouse or partner. They are not intended to finance him if he has deserted his spouse or partner and has abandoned those obligations together with his obligations to the new child, having perhaps run off and set up home with a new partner.
Amendment No. 43 has a similar purpose. Clause 10(2)(c) refers to a person who is, or has been, an employer of a claimant. There is no reason why a former employer should have a continuing obligation to fund so-called paternity leave when the father or adopter is no longer in his employment. What is he on leave from? It could be argued that the provision seeks to cover the case of a person whose employment has terminated without thought on the part of the employee some time before the birth or adoption.
How far back does the right to claim go? Does it go back to the date of conception of the child or the date when the adoption process began? The Bill does not say how "former" the former employee must be; nor does it cover the situation where an employee is dismissed for a good cause. Neither of those omissions are suitable for inclusion in a regulation which the Secretary of State may or may not make. They should be dealt with in the Bill itself.
I had previously tabled an amendment to Clause 2 in which I proposed that an employee should not be entitled to statutory paternity pay from an employer if he no longer worked for that employer. However, in a letter to me dated 6th March, which was kindly copied to the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats and to the Convenor of the Cross Bench Peers, the Minister of State said:
"It would generally be the case that an employee will not be entitled to statutory paternity pay from his employer if he no longer works for that employer."
The Government tabled a group of amendments to Clause 2 which rectified that position. The Minister spoke to it at length earlier. I am grateful to the Minister for having addressed those problems.
CWH 32
However, as your Lordships will see, precisely the same problem arises in relation to Clause 10(2)(c). I am confident that, in the interests of consistency, the Government will accept this amendment and that, in the interests of further consistency, they will agree to apply the principle to spouses or partners who, for whatever reason, have departed from the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: I am glad that the noble Baroness has explained the position. At first I could not believe it, but it seems that it is so. Paternity leave, paternity pay and paternity benefit are being turned into a form of moral policing. If a man leaves his wife or if his wife leaves him, they do not receive the money. One only looks after a person if one lives in a home with that person. Millions of parents do not live with their ex-spouses, but they still support them and are entitled to statutory leave and statutory pay, which plays an important part. Why must we have such morality?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Morality has nothing to do with my amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, believes that it has, then obviously I did not explain it as clearly as I thought. One reason for paternity pay, which, unlike maternity pay, is a new idea which we thoroughly accept, is that a new father should have time off in order to help his spouse. The point I am making is that, if he has now separated from his spouse and is not living with her, he will not be there to help his spouse—at least, I do not imagine that he will be. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, believes that a person should be given the pay under those circumstances. The payment is not made simply because a man has fathered a child; it is made because he has a role and has time off in order to help with the child. That is my very simple view. If the noble Lord believed that the amendment concerned a matter of morality, then I am afraid that I did not explain it clearly. It does not concern morality.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Baroness tries to explain the position but she makes it worse. Simply because a person leaves the nest does not mean that he does not help. Millions of ex-spouses—some who never married—are absent and perhaps far away, but they do help. Unless one is going to be a moral policeman, one cannot try to distinguish between one group and another.
Lord Henley: Perhaps these matters will be dealt with ultimately by the section which I asked about during debate on the first series of amendments but in response to which I did not receive a proper explanation. The regulations referred to in new Section 80A(5),
"specify things which are, or are not, to be taken as done for the purpose of caring for a child or supporting the child's mother".
However, like my noble friend, I am not sure what support of the child's mother the father can offer if he has left the child's mother. As my noble friend said, this has nothing to do with morality. But what is the point of giving someone paternity leave if they will no longer be one of the caring parents?
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I say to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate that they are talking about entitlement. Whether they believe that the father should be entitled if he does not live with the mother, or whether they believe that it should be the other way round, they are still talking about entitlement to paternity pay. This clause is not about entitlement; it concerns powers to require information. Therefore, if I may respectfully say so, both sides of the argument are misconceived.
Clause 10 is very important in that it provides the necessary backstop for dealing with that small minority of individuals or employers who do not wish to co-operate. In the experience of the Inland Revenue, most employers, and most individuals, comply voluntarily with their obligations. However, sometimes that does not happen; sometimes things go wrong and need to be looked at more closely. When that happens, the Inland Revenue will need to ask people for information in order to sort things out. This clause enables the Inland Revenue to do just that.
The amendments concern the use of the phrase "has been" when referring to a former partner or employer respectively. I understand that none of us wants to give Inland Revenue officers the power to dig around and ask questions of people who are not relevant to the matter in hand, whether they are partners or employers. I quite agree with that concern. It would be a great infringement of privacy to go back to, say, an ex-wife and ask questions about her former husband's new relationship. That is not the intention of the power and there is a safeguard on the face of the Bill to prevent that. I shall explain how that happens.
The overriding principle set down in subsection (1) of Clause 10 brings in the word "reasonable". The information must be "reasonably required" in order to check whether there is entitlement to statutory paternity or adoption pay. This provides an important safeguard in that an Inland Revenue officer must have very good grounds for supposing that the person from whom he wishes to obtain information has information relevant to the matter in hand—indeed, that it is critical to the matter in hand.
However, if the Bill were drafted in the way set out in the amendments, an additional and unnecessary step would be imported into the process. The officer would have to prove the former partner's or employer's status at a specific time. That would simply be unworkable and, indeed, it could form part of the dispute. An employer could argue that an employee left his employment on a date before the entitlement to statutory paternity pay started, or the employee could say that he was still employed. In order to sort that out, the Inland Revenue officer would need to look at payroll and personnel information. However, the employer could refuse to co-operate by maintaining that he was not the employer at the time of the entitlement. Members of the Committee can see the circularity that one might get into if these amendments were included in the Bill.
CWH 34
Therefore, the amendments are neither necessary, because the effect is already achieved by the drafting of the clause, nor workable, because they would import this additional complexity into the Bill. I hope they will not be agreed to.
Lord Henley: If my noble friend's amendment and the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, are completely irrelevant, I hope that the Minister will answer a very brief question. This matter might be relevant in relation to further amendments that might need to be tabled at Report—doubtless, however, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will oppose them. Would it be possible to get paternity leave although one was no longer one of the caring parents; that is, if one had left the mother of the child before the birth of the child, and one was therefore not going to be looking after the child? Is it possible to get paternity leave in those circumstances?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am reluctant to reply because we are debating Clause 10, which is about powers to require information. However, to help the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in deciding what to do at Report, the answer is yes—under certain circumstances, paternity pay could be given to somebody who was not living with another. That is what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, and he was right.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am sorry if I have tabled the amendment to the wrong clause. I shall reconsider it. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I shall certainly think about the matter and see whether I want to table it in relation to the appropriate clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Penalties: fraud etc]:
Lord Razzall: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, moves Amendment No 44, I want to raise a procedural issue. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is about to leave—his reasons for doing so are exactly those that I wish to discuss. Without any advance warning, a Statement will be made in the Chamber which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has to deliver. I have to respond to it on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. That is of course one of the disadvantages of taking the Bill in Grand Committee. I am due to move Amendments Nos. 54 and 55. Unless I can rely on the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, or the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, to filibuster on my behalf on an earlier amendment, it is quite likely that Amendment No. 54 will be arrived at while I am still trying to deal with the Statement in your Lordships' House.
Is there any way in which this matter can be dealt with? If necessary, I could move Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 slightly later, on my return. I do not think that

CWH 35
that is the answer, in which case I suspect the only alternative will be to ask if somebody could move them on my behalf formally. I should have to return to them and withdraw them, and then move them at Report. That seems to be a strange procedure to have to follow.
Lord Henley: Is it possible for the Committee to be adjourned during pleasure in such circumstances? Obviously, we would be adjourned if we were downstairs because we would have adjourn to hear the Statement.
Lord Razzall: In which event, would the Committee be prepared— if I have not returned by the end of Amendment No. 53—to adjourn during pleasure until I return, when I could move Amendment No. 54?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We would be very happy with that arrangement if it would help our proceedings. I have no idea whether that is allowed procedurally or not.
Lord Razzall: As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, indicated, that is exactly what would happen were this Committee sitting in the Chamber.
Lord Henley: The Deputy Chairman of Committees said at the beginning of proceedings that the proceedings in the Committee would be identical to proceedings on the Floor of the House, with the one exception that we would not he voting on anything. If the Committee had agreed on something, I suspect that the Committee can do what has been proposed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: May I say a word? It is clearly possible within the rules for the Committee to adjourn. If that met the wishes of the Committee generally, we could try to do that.
Lord Razzall: In which case, I suggest that that Motion could be moved at the end of Amendment No. 53, if I have not returned at that stage.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 44:
Page 25, line 33, leave out "£3,000" and insert "£300"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47.
Clause 12 provides for penalties for fraud or negligence. In the case of fraud or negligence, or the provision of incorrect information relating to statutory paternity pay, under Clause 12(1) the penalty is not to exceed £300. In the case of an identical offence in relation to statutory adoption pay under subsection (2), the penalty is not to exceed £3,000. That is 10 times the amount of the fine in respect of an identical offence relating to paternity pay.
Similarly, under Clause 12(3), the penalty for an incorrect payment of paternity pay is £300 whereas, under Clause 12(4), the penalty for incorrect payment of adoption pay is £3,000—again, that is 10 times as much.
CWH 36
I might have assumed that the discrepancy between the two types of case was a mere typographical error—perhaps something went wrong and a typist held down the zero key for a little longer than she should have done. However, in Clause 12(5) there is a clear statement on this matter. That subsection makes it clear that for some reason the Government want the power for whoever adjudicates to exact a penalty in cases relating to adoption pay that is 10 times that for cases relating to paternity pay. That subsection is dealt with in Amendment No. 47. Why is one employee more deserving of seeing his employer have to pay a greater penalty than another? Why is one employer who commits what, after all, is an identical offence, to be liable to receive a more draconian penalty than another? I cannot think of a single reason—even a fanciful or implausible one—for such discrimination between natural fathers and adoptive fathers who have been badly treated by their employers. I await, with very rapt interest, to hear what the Minister has to say on this subject. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness's amendments to Clause 12—they relate to lines 33, 37 and 44 on page 25—turn on the amount of the penalty being imposed for fraud or negligence in respect of statutory adoption pay.
Before I deal with those issues, I turn to the noble Baroness's amendment to page 25, line 43, which also concerns fraud and negligence. Perhaps I should say at the start that, by emphasising that penalties will not be applied lightly, there will be no penalty where someone has taken reasonable care but has simply made a mistake—whether they are an employee or an employer. That is clearly stated in the opening lines of subsections (1) to (5) of the clause— fraud or negligence must be involved.
I understand from the noble Baroness's amendment to page 25, line 43, that she is understandably keen to ensure that someone who made an error and then notified the board of that error so that it could be rectified would not be in danger of being penalised for that. That situation would of course be looked at in any investigation and, if it was clear that no fraud or negligence was involved, there would be no penalty.
I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness on that point, in particular because the amendment to page 25 line 43 would impose an extra step in the process, which was quite unnecessary. It would appear to enable someone who has already fraudulently or negligently obtained wrong payments to escape sanctions, simply by notifying the board that he had done so within the required time. It would also make it imperative that a fraudulent or negligent failure to notify had also occurred, which would, in effect, mean having to prove that two actions had taken place for one offence. The single important point is whether incorrect payment had been obtained fraudulently or negligently.
I move on to the other amendments tabled by the noble Baroness to Clause 12, at lines 33, 37 and 44 on page 25. However, before I continue I would like to stress that in all cases we are talking here about the

CWH 37
maximum penalty that may be imposed, not the actual amount in every case. In practice, penalties apply in the same way whether the error results from fraud or negligence, although the amount of the penalty imposed will, of course, reflect the seriousness of the offence. In addition, the maximum level of penalties is the same for employers and for employees.
A key determinant of the seriousness of an offence is the amount of money falsely claimed and obtained. The amount that could be lost to the Exchequer in a fraudulent statutory adoption pay claim could be very significant. The amount paid over a 26-week period could be £2,600 and the small employers' relief would raise it further. A penalty of only £300 for fraud of this magnitude would be quite inappropriate and, I would argue, no deterrent at all. It would clearly be unfair if someone who fraudulently obtained over £2,000 incurred the same penalty as someone who obtained £200.
Clearly, for statutory paternity pay, where the maximum possible obtained for one person would be £200 plus the small employers' relief, which is currently five per cent, there is no need to set a maximum above £300 as for each offence the amount lost would be within that figure.
These examples are at the top end of the scale—the situation where the highest sum of money in each case has been falsely obtained. I suspect the noble Baroness is more concerned about what would happen at the other end of the scale, where an employer or employee fiddled statutory adoption pay for a week or so over and above the entitlement. As I explained, the £3,000 figure is a maximum. The Inland Revenue officer would look at various factors in deciding the level of the penalty. This would include looking at how much was obtained falsely and whether fraud or negligence was involved. In general, the Inland Revenue officer would normally impose a heavier penalty for fraud than negligence.
In addition, there will be—as always with such penalties —the right of appeal against both the imposition of the penalty itself and the amount incurred. If the employer or employee felt they had been treated too harshly they would be able to ask the independent Tax Appeal Commissioners to look at the position.
To sum up, I feel that we have got it right in terms of the amounts of penalties that could be imposed. We need to have a maximum figure which is appropriate to the seriousness of the offence, and I have explained why £3,000 is an appropriate figure to penalise fraud or negligence in respect of statutory adoption pay. We also need to build in safeguards to ensure that the amounts actually imposed are proportionate. These safeguards are in the guidance that the Inland Revenue officers will follow and in the right of appeal to the appeal commissioners where the person penalised thinks they have got it wrong.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am not sure if the Minister made an inadvertent mistake, but I think he
CWH 38
spoke about paternity pay and I was talking about paternity and adoption. It may have been a slip of the tongue. I do understand that people can use discretion, and I do understand that when the words "not exceeding" are used that is absolutely the maximum, whether it is £300 or £3,000. I understand that very well.
Having listened to the Minister, I have to confess that I still do not understand why, for an adoptive parent, the maximum—whether it is discretionary or not—is £3,000, and for a natural father it is £300. That is the point I am making, not that I think there is anything peculiar about the way the matter is handled. It is just the difference between the two that I find completely inexplicable. I understand exactly what the Minister is saying about maximum figures and the use of discretion. That is stated quite clearly in the statute itself. However, from his answer I did not understand why there is such a difference—that is, why one figure is ten times more than the other as between adoptive and natural parents.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has missed is that in one instance an individual employer is capable of defrauding more; that is why the penalty is greater. That is the point—it has to be a disincentive. That is why the penalties are fixed at the relevant level for each offence.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I do not understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on this matter. In each case there is fraud. One involves a paternity case and the other involves an adoption case. Is my noble friend advancing the argument that as a general principle of criminal law the extent of the fraud must govern the maximum penalty that is available to a court? Is that the principle? If so, I suppose that there is a distinction, but to make it 10 times larger in the case of a fraud on each side of the table seems rather large.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That involves a civil penalty. That point needs to be understood. It is to do with the amount that can be defrauded. That is why we need an active disincentive to be built into the legislation.
Lord McCarthy: The real argument is not about the £3,000 but about the £300. I see the point that is being made—there is a difference between £300 and £3,000, but I do not see how £300 will deter anybody.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, for coming gently to my aid. They have perhaps not quite adopted the direction that I pointed out, but they are certainly somewhere along that line. I think that the differential between the two sums is too great. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said about the amount that one could defraud. Perhaps that is supposed to be reflected in this regard, but the matter needs to be looked at again. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the differentials. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Penalties: procedure and appeals]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 48:
Page 61, line 21, after "insufficient" insert ", or is or has become excessive"
The noble Baroness said: Paragraph 1(5) of the schedule provides for the board or its authorised officer to increase the penalty when it is considered that it has "become insufficient". The power to increase a penalty after a case is over and judgment has been given is not one that is open to the civil and criminal courts. The phrase is that the judge had become functious officio, which sounds pretty awful but means only that the judge's part in the process has become defunct. It is only in exceptional cases that in a criminal case the prosecution can ask for a sentence afterwards to be increased. The judicial parts of the Bill do not readily render themselves open to appeal or review. I suppose that that is the reason why the Government have decided to give the tribunal the chance to have a second bite of the cherry.
However, the scales of justice are supposed to be held on an equipoise, as Members of the Committee would see if they looked at the statue of Justice in the Prince's Chamber, if only someone had not removed them altogether because the weights were always being stolen!
I suppose that it is theoretically possible that a tribunal might come to the conclusion that it had been a bit too hard on an employer and that it should reduce the penalty. I say that more in hope than in expectation. If the tribunal wants for whatever reason to reduce the penalty, it should have the power to do so in exactly the same way as the Bill gives it power to increase the penalty. That therefore is the aim of Amendment No. 48 and of consequential Amendment No. 49.
I have to confess that on re-reading Amendment No. 48, which was drafted for me by one of my advisers, I would have preferred to have used the phrase, "has been found to be excessive" because that would have been better phraseology. However, assuming that the Minister agrees to this very modest amendment as stands on the Marshalled List, we could deal with its wording at a later stage.
Amendment No. 50 calls for the total deletion of subsection 5(5). Section 5, as the marginal note tells us, deals with penalty proceedings before a court. Subsection (1) makes it clear that it applies to cases:
"Where in the opinion of the Board the liability of any person for a penalty…arises by reason of the fraud of that or of any other person".
We are talking about cases of fraud. However, subsection (5) states:
"If…the court does not find that fraud is proved but considers that the person concerned is…liable to a penalty, the court may determine a penalty notwithstanding that, but for the opinion of the Board as to fraud, the penalty would not have been a matter for the court".
CWH 40
What sort of justice is that? The board launches what, to all intents and purposes, is a prosecution alleging fraud. The court, in its wisdom, decides that there was no fraud. In other words, the person is not guilty. Nevertheless, the court is still to have the power to impose a penalty, because the board—mistakenly, as it happens—thought that one should have been imposed.
It is reported that a Scottish judge once told a defendant—I regret that I am unable to speak with the sort of accent that would make this story so much better—"Maybe you did it and maybe you didn't, but we think you would be none the worse for a hanging, so we will have you hanged!" This clause strikes me as being well up to the standard of the kangaroo court in Alice in Wonderland—sentence first, verdict afterwards.
I seriously doubt whether a law that enabled the court, which had just acquitted a defendant of the charge against him, to inflict a penalty on him none the less because the prosecution thought he must have done something to deserve it would stand up for as long as one minute before the European Court of Human Rights.
I am absolutely convinced that this provision is at variance with the certificate of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall try to plead mitigation having heard the noble Baroness's case. The amendments are to Schedule 1 of the Bill, which sets out the mechanics dealing with the penalties described in Clauses 11 and 12. The schedule applies to procedures that are in common with the procedures that are already used by the Inland Revenue when dealing with penalties for tax, national insurance contributions and tax credits. There is nothing new in the schedule—that is the way in which that happens now in relation to most other areas of the Inland Revenue's business and services.
As the noble Baroness noted, paragraph 1(5) of the schedule allows an Inland Revenue officer to increase a penalty. It states that the officer can look again at a penalty that he has determined if he discovers new information that leads him to believe that the offence leading to the penalty was more serious than was originally supposed and that the penalty should therefore be increased. For example, the amount of statutory adoption pay that is fraudulently obtained may be found to be greater than was previously calculated.
However, the noble Baroness quite reasonably concludes that that should work both ways. If something comes to light that shows that the original offence was less serious, the penalty should decrease. For example, the amount of statutory adoption pay that is fraudulently obtained may be found to be less than was previously calculated.
I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness that the arrangement works both ways—that is already provided for in the Bill. I direct her to paragraph 6 of

CWH 41
the schedule on page 63 at line 22. That paragraph contains a general power for the board to mitigate any penalty. The board can decrease the penalty if it feels that the circumstances warrant a lower amount. There is no such general power for it to increase the amount of a penalty. That is why the specific provisions in paragraph 1(5) are included.
It is also important to note that the general power to mitigate does not rely on the discovery of new information—the amendments of the noble Baroness would do so. The provision for increasing the penalty is much more tightly drawn than the provision to reduce it. Not only does any increase rely on new information but the increased amount will also carry a further right of appeal, because it is a new determination by the officer. That is quite a significant fact to take into account. In any case, the original penalty notice will have carried a right of appeal, too.
Turning to the noble Baroness's amendment at page 63, lines 17 to 21, as I started to say inadvertently earlier, this is a standard piece of drafting in tax penalty legislation, although I admit it is not the easiest for the lay person to understand. It might help if I explain what the subsection does. It permits the High Court to determine a penalty for negligence if it finds that fraud is not proved but considers that the defendant is still liable to a penalty for negligence. This prevents the need for penalty proceedings to be started again—so, if you like, it cuts through bureaucracy.
1 said earlier that provisions in the schedule were based on tried and tested procedures common to other areas of the Inland Revenue's business and services—tax, national insurance contributions and tax credits. There are good reasons for making sure that we replicate them as far as possible for these new statutory payments. They have been thoroughly examined and tested by a whole phalanx of tax experts who monitor what the Inland Revenue service does and they are familiar to the employers, who deal daily with the Revenue in a wide variety of contexts. I understand that this is not a simple matter and I have tried to explain to the noble Baroness's satisfaction why the amendments are unnecessary, since the safeguard she seeks is already provided for in the legislation. In those terms, I would invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am comforted by what the Minister has said in directing us to paragraph 6 of the schedule, which points out that they can decrease as well as increase. I am content with that.
With regard to Amendment No. 50, the Minister said it is quite complicated and that not everybody understands it, and I have to say that I still do not. I react very carefully what the Minister said. I did not realise that in respect of the negligence in this case, where no fraud at all has been found because the idea of the penalty is against fraud, the court can say that there is no fraud, but that it will fine the person for being negligent. I did not realise there was the possibility that that could happen.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is important to understand that negligence is an act or omission in itself, so that there will be an element of deliberate activity by the person involved. That is why there is the separate offence.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I must still say to the Minister that I do not understand that. These clauses are dealing with fraud, and I thought fraud was when you had the mens rea to know that you were doing something absolutely wrong. In negligence, it may be that you did not know, but I am not sure that it is right that the High Court can then impose a fine. I would like the Minister to look at that again and I will certainly speak to my own legal advisers on that because I do not feel that this is the correct approach.
I am concerned about the matter. Somebody accused by the board of fraud may go through a whole High Court trial and be found not to have committed fraud, but be found to have been negligent. The Minister did not elaborate on what kind of negligence was involved. Was it related to the way he presented his case, or what he did or did not do? It may very well be that there will be facts that will prove that what the Minister is saying is the correct approach but, from where I stand, without a very deep knowledge of the law, I find it confusing. I would like some more information.
I am sorry that I interrupted the Minister.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I seek only to be helpful and perhaps to put into the record something on the issue of negligence itself. Negligence is different. It covers the situation where perhaps an incorrect document or incorrect information has been supplied by someone who has failed to take reasonable care to ensure its accuracy. It is that duty of reasonable care which is important, and I would direct the noble Baroness to focus on that issue. Reasonable care must be exercised in providing information and providing documentation. That the core of the issue.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 48.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Supply of information held by the Board]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 51:
Page 26, line 10, leave out "or the Department"
The noble Baroness said: I would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 together. These are very simple identical amendments and I believe they need only a simple explanation. I become nervous when I say that because when I said previously that it is a simple amendment which needs a simple explanation it became extraordinarily complicated. This is a simple matter.

CWH 43
Clause 13 enables the board to supply information it or its agents hold to a third party described in subsection (2) as being,
"for use for the purposes of functions relating to social security, child support or pensions".
Clause 14(2) enables the board to provide the information for the purposes of functions relating to statutory paternity pay or statutory adoption pay.
On the basis that proceedings before the tribunals should be as much a matter of public record as proceedings before an ordinary civil court, this does seem reasonable. On the basis that it would assist the departments receiving the information to carry out their duties of assessing an individual's rights and obligations more accurately than the system of guesswork, which is quite often indulged in when detailed information is not available, it also seems to be a very useful tool.
It is, however, the question of who should receive the information which is of some concern. In Clause 13(2), at the top of the list of recipients is,
"the Secretary of State or the department",
and Clause 14(1)(a) makes the same provision. It is the words "or the department" to which we object.
The Secretary of State must take full responsibility for what happens within his department. We cannot have a situation where a Secretary of State can disclaim any personal responsibility for what happens in his department by saying that it is all the fault of the officials, or that he does not personally involve himself in such matters. Exercising your Lordships' great restraint, which I often do not do, I am not going to draw any analogies with some recent events.
Of course, we all know perfectly well that the data will not be personally handed to the Secretary of State in his Red Box. Everywhere in legislation, in the Bill, we see that "the Secretary of State shall" do this or "the Secretary of State shall" do that, and in at least one case "the Secretary of State may". We do not see "the Secretary of State or the Department shall" do this or that. I cannot see any valid reason why in these two clauses there should be a departure from the time-hallowed phraseology.
Your Lordships will notice that I do not propose to remove the words "or the department" from subsections (b) in the two clauses because there it is quite clear that the information is to be passed to a person, not to a department, and that such a person is the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
The object of the amendment is to make the Secretary of State take full and total responsibility for the actions carried out in his name by his department. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In drafting the Bill the words "Secretary of State" mean the Secretary of State for the relevant department, and through the Secretary of State, his department itself; the DTI or DWP as the case may be. The word "department", however, means something different. It is defined in Clause 16 of the Bill and is defined to mean the department in Northern
CWH 44
Ireland which has responsibility for the relevant issues. It is, I believe, the convention in legislation to cover Northern Ireland's interest in this way; for example, in the Social Security Administration Act 1992. So against this background I am afraid that the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, in deleting references to "the Department" would remove that possibility. They would mean that people in Northern Ireland would not get what one might describe as a connected-up, or joined-up service from the government departments handling their statutory paternity and adoption pay matters.
I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, does not intend such a disparity to exist, and following this debate she will happily withdraw, or perhaps less happily, withdraw her amendments.
I turn to the Government's amendment, drawing together the data-sharing provisions of the Bill. We did not include the equivalent of the Department of Trade and Industry in Northern Ireland, the Department for Employment and Learning. This I willingly concede is an oversight on our part. In the same way as the Department of Trade and Industry as well as the DWP will have an interest in the schemes in Great Britain, so too will their Northern Ireland equivalents. As I said, the term "department" is defined in Clause 16, and our amendment to this clause simply includes the Department for Employment and Learning, as well as the Department for Social Development within the data-sharing provisions.
With an apology, I would like to invite noble Lords to accept the amendment to Clause 16, which will ensure that departments in Northern Ireland are able to take a joined-up approach to statutory paternity and adoption pay just as departments in Great Britain can. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: May I return to the amendment of noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, because that is where I believe we are. I cannot understand why, if she does not like "or the Department" in Clause 13(2)(a), she leaves it in in Clause 13 (2)(b). Again, she does not like it in Clause 14(1)(a) where she takes it out, but she leaves it in in Clause 14 (1)(b). It is there twice and it disappears twice. Why is this?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thought I made that clear, though perhaps I will come back to that bit again. The point I was making was that I was not proposing to remove the words "or the Department" from subsection (b) because it is quite clear in subsection (b) that the information is to be passed to a person, not to the department. It makes that quite clear. Such a person would obviously then be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. That was the difference that I saw and I hope the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, can see the difference that I thought I was making, and was making perfectly clearly.
I have listened carefully to what the Minister said in response to my amendments, and indeed what he said to the Government's own amendment, Amendment No. 53. At one stage he said, "I hope the noble Baroness, with apology". I am not sure whether he was

CWH 45
apologising for his amendment, or telling me that I should be apologising for having put my amendments down. Without any apology whatever, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Supply of information held by Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Interpretation]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 53:
Page 27, line 7, after "Development" insert "or the Department for Employment and Learning".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I beg to move that the Committee be adjourned until 6.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 5.59 to 6.20 p m.]
Clause 17 [Rights during and after maternity leave]:
Lord Razzallmoved Amendment No. 54:
Page 27, line 40, at end insert—
"( )Any shortfall in the employee's contributions to a defined contribution pension scheme during a period or periods of ordinary maternity leave, ordinary adoption leave or statutory paternity leave attributable to statutory pay during that leave will be paid by the employer."
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should start by thanking the Commit tee for bearing with me.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove the ambiguity over the interpretation of existing rules for ordinary maternity leave. Under the current provisions for ordinary maternity leave, an employee is entitled to benefit from her usual terms and conditions, save remuneration, under the Employment Rights Act 1996. When an employee is on a period of ordinary maternity leave, the employer has to contribute to any defined contribution pension scheme as if the employee were at work and receiving normal pay. The employee, however, under Schedule 5 of the Social Security Act 1989, can only be required to contribute in proportion to the actual amount of money she receives. As a consequence, unless an employee is receiving her full contractual pay during her ordinary maternity leave, there will be a difference between the rate at which the employee would normally contribute and the contribution she makes during her ordinary maternity leave.
I understand that when the provisions of Schedule 5 of the Social Security Act 1989 were implemented, the original advice from the DSS was that the employer had to make up the shortfall. This advice, however, has subsequently been retracted but the legal position on the point is not clear. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that employees' contributions have to be
CWH 46
matched up to the defined limit, notwithstanding the reduction in the salary received during ordinary maternity leave. However, it should be clear that in circumstances of unpaid family leave, such as additional maternity leave and, presumably in future, additional adoption leave, employers should not be required to make any contributions since, in those circumstances, there are no obligations on them to continue to provide the benefits of contractual terms and conditions. The amendment is strongly supported by the Law Society. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am not aware that there is any ambiguity in the current law. Under the Employment Rights Act, women on ordinary maternity leave are entitled to their normal terms and conditions of employment, except for remuneration.
This means that employers are obliged, in respect of all other terms and conditions of employment, to continue providing the employee with the same benefits as they did before the period of maternity leave began. This includes access to, and contributions to, occupational pension schemes. Employers must contribute to these schemes, or indeed to personal pension schemes where appropriate, in the same way as before.
I believe this is both readily understandable, and right, in that it keeps pensions in line with all other terms and conditions of employment. The effect of the amendment would instead be to put an additional obligation and burden on the employer; namely, to make good any shortfall, and thus to take pensions provision out of line with other aspects of employment. I do not believe that it would be right to impose this additional burden.
1 do not know whether the DSS advice in 1989 was different from the current advice, but there is no ambiguity about the current advice which the DWP gives to employers and it is as I set out above.
On that basis, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Razzall: Before the Minister sits down, would he not accept that there is ambiguity in the Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 71(4), which he quoted, which states that under the current provision for ordinary maternity leave an employee is entitled to benefit from her usual terms and conditions save for remuneration? Any normal reading of those words would indicate that a temporary drop in salary or wages under the ordinary maternity leave provisions would not affect the pension contributions which the employer was making. That would have been the normal assumption from that wording. It has not been appreciated by a number of people that that meant that an individual during this period would receive lower pension contributions and that the employer would not simply cough up the shortfall that the employee would otherwise suffer.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: It is quite clear that in this case what the employer does continues to he the same. I refer to employers undertaking to provide a

CWH 47
defined contribution. They would go on providing that, but they are not required to make up the balance of costs. They are obliged to pay the appropriate contribution rates set out in the scheme rules, and that continues to apply in respect of women on ordinary maternity leave. The question is: do they make it up? The answer is no.
Lord Razzall: I shall reflect on the Minister's words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Rate of statutory maternity pay]:
Lord Razzallmoved Amendment No. 55:
Page 28, line 23, at end insert—
"() For regulation 21(3)(b) of the Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1960) there is substituted—
"(b) the last normal pay day to fall at least 52 full weeks earlier than the normal pay day mentioned in paragraph (a) or, where there is no such pay day, because the woman has not been employed for at least 52 weeks prior to the normal pay day mentioned in paragraph (a), the first normal pay day of her employment."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to extend the period of calculating entitlement to existing and new categories of statutory payments from eight weeks to one year. The purpose of this is to remove anomalies that would otherwise distort the calculations.
The calculation of normal weekly earnings determines two things for the purposes of statutory maternity pay. First, it is one of the criteria for entitlement to statutory maternity pay. So assuming that she meets all the other qualifying criteria, a woman will be entitled to statutory maternity pay if her normal weekly earnings for the eight weeks ending with the qualifying week are at least the lower earnings limit for paying national insurance contributions. The qualifying week is the fifteenth week before the expected week of confinement.
The second criteria for which this is relevant is that if a woman qualifies under this earnings condition, the rate at which her statutory maternity pay will be payable during the first six weeks will be 90 per cent of her normal weekly earnings.
A number of noble Lords will already have had experience of the anomalies that can be created by the eight-week definition. First, if a woman works additional overtime during the period in question, or, more commonly, reduces her hours prior to taking her statutory maternity leave, this distorts the calculation of her normal weekly earnings. Secondly—this can be significant when manipulation sometimes takes place—if an annual bonus becomes payable during the eight-week period, it will count as earnings and significantly inflate the calculation.
If, as is more likely, any such bonus does not become payable in the eight-week period, conversely the woman would be under-compensated in relation to the calculation. By extending the calculation period to one
CWH 48
year, or the period of employment when shorter, the amendment would remove the current anomaly identified above. I should also say that this amendment is supported by the Law Society. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendment seeks to extend the period over which a woman's average weekly earnings are calculated, from eight weeks to 52 weeks. The noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Sharman, wish to ensure that a woman's earnings-related statutory maternity pay entitlement is a fair reflection of her earnings so that she receives neither less nor more SMP than she might have expected to get because of temporary dips or increases in her earnings over the calculation period.
I want to reassure the noble Lords that we, too, want to achieve the same result. But it is important to do so in a way that is fair to the individual woman and at the same time fair to the employer, who has to administer the scheme, by ensuring that the formula used is as straightforward and as simple to operate as possible.
When we considered ways of simplifying SMP, we looked very carefully at the rules dealing with the calculation period of average weekly earnings. In our consultation we explored the possibility of assessing pay over a 26-week period. However, the consultation revealed the consensus view that the existing method of establishing average weekly earnings provides the best balance between a representative reflection of a woman's earnings and a straightforward calculation for employers.
That was particularly true for small employers who were perhaps not supported by elaborate payroll systems and were extremely concerned that they would have to interrogate pay records for a longer period than the existing eight weeks. The suggested change to 52 weeks would lengthen by a considerable margin the relevant period for calculating earnings. That period is currently eight weeks. While I sympathise with the motives of the noble Lords in putting forward the amendment, I have strong reasons for not going down such a path.
First, perhaps I may explain what the calculation is all about. The aim of the average-earnings calculation is to arrive at a reasonable reflection of a woman's earnings during her pregnancy in order that she may receive earnings-related SMP, which is paid as a proportion of those earnings. The aims of the SMP scheme are that it should be as simple as possible for employers to operate and that it should be as easy as possible to understand, so leaving the minimum room for disputes.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lords would mean that, in practice, employers would have to examine pay records going back to a point at least 15 months before the expected week of childbirth. Members of the Committee will see that the suggested 52-week period ends with the last normal pay day to fall before the start of the 14th week before the expected week of childbirth.

CWH 49
I believe it is doubtful whether such a period could be used because it is outside the maximum period laid down in the Pregnant Workers Directive—that is, the EC directive on the protection of pregnant workers and workers who have just given birth. That directive prevents member states taking account of periods of employment which are more than 52 weeks before the date of expected birth.
Of course, the eight-week period produces winners and losers. Some—those who are paid more than usual during the calculation period—gain from this system and some lose. A 52-week calculation period would also result in gainers and losers compared with the current system and might not produce a result that is a fair reflection of recent earnings. For example, a pay rise awarded in the latter part of the period would be averaged over the whole 52 weeks.
For all its faults, the current system is at least clear and avoids the need for difficult judgments. That is important in minimising disputes and delays in payments. I fear that the approach put forward by the noble Lords is not desirable or possible for the reasons I have explained. Therefore, I invite the noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend will appreciate that what he has just said involves all the anomalies put forward by the Law Society. No doubt those have been considered, but he has not explained why they are not anomalies. I refer, for example, to situations where a woman earns additional overtime, where she receives an annual bonus, where she is sick during the eight-week period and where she has irregular pay periods. The Law Society argues—credibly, I believe— that all those situations can produce anomalies and injustices with regard to the amount calculated on an eight-week basis.
I quote the Law Society's opinion. That states:
"By extending the calculation period to one year (or the period of employment or the period of employment where shorter) the amendment will remove the current anomalies identified above".
That is the same amendment as that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. My noble friend has not said anything at all that addresses those anomalies. Indeed, he suggested that the Government had considered a 26-week period but that was too harsh on some employers. That is my understanding of what he said—he will correct me if I am wrong. He referred to small and medium-sized employers especially, who apparently can divide, multiply or add by eight but whose calculators do not seem capable of dealing with 26 or 52. That is highly improbable. I say to my noble friend that if that is the best that the Government can do in response to a very carefully thought-out attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall—it is supported by the body that supports solicitors, many of whom deal with these problems throughout the land—it does not bode well for the amendments that are to come. Can my noble friend improve on what he has said?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I have not said that I can—the case was put so simply and well that there is no need for improvement on it. My point is that there
CWH 50
is a balance of interests, which will not necessarily work in favour in this context. With the longer period, one will not remove all the anomalies. I made the point clearly. If one has a wage increase towards the end of the period, one will get a situation in which that is averaged over 52 weeks, which will not necessarily produce a fairer result.
The argument about small employers is not to do with the use of calculators; it is to do with the fact that one has to do a great deal of work by going back through the records. If one does not have a computerised system, that is not necessarily easy to do. Therefore, in terms of administration and the fact that one will get anomalies under both systems, it was felt—there was a wide consensus on this—that the way we proposed of sticking with eight weeks was the best approach.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I do not wish to add to the difficulties of the Minister. I know what it is like when the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, with his vast experience, makes comments about difficulties, and I know that it might be difficult to find a suitable answer.
Earlier this afternoon, I moved three amendments relating to the phrase "normal earnings" and I suggested that the word "average" would be better. The Minister said that it was not absolutely necessary or right—I forget the exact phrase that he used. I bring that up in relation to this amendment because the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, has very carefully talked about "the first normal pay day of her employment" and so on and because the word "normal" appears in the amendment. However, the Minister in his reply mentioned "average earnings", but did not use the word "normal", which I find somewhat confusing.
I wish to ask the Minister about a matter of which my noble friend Lady O'Cathain reminded me. For example, the earnings of an air hostess are much higher than the earnings of ground staff but, if an air hostess becomes pregnant, she clearly cannot fly but she can be transferred to work on the ground and may be classified as ground staff. Her earnings would be much less than when she was flying. According to the Minister, it would be difficult for him to come up with criteria relating to her normal earnings in order to work out her entitlement, whereas her average earnings would be very easy to work out from her two salaries. Could the Minister could enlighten us about what would happen in that case?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We make no attempt to pretend in this regard. Whichever system is used, it will be advantageous to some but not to others. So far as air hostesses are concerned, I do not know whether they get lower wages when they are pregnant. However, as I understand it, there are clearly winners and losers—we are not pretending otherwise—but there is a general view that there is nothing to be gained from taking the longer period.
Lord Razzall: Clearly, I shall withdraw the amendment. Before doing so, I hope that between now

CWH 51
and Report the Government will reflect on this matter. There is general consensus that any period longer than eight weeks will be better.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that under Sections 220 to 229 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, 12 weeks is taken as the grid for averaging pay. That is applicable for calculating statutory redundancy pay, the basic award for unfair dismissal and pay during parental leave under the working time regulations. All the arguments that the Minister has used in favour of eight weeks would presumably apply also in relation to 12 weeks, which we would all say would be better than eight weeks. The Government's own legislation has provided for 12 weeks for averaging pay and we all accept that eight weeks is too short; anything longer would be better. I ask the Government to look at the issue again before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Funding of employers' liabilities: statutory maternity pay]:
Lord Henleymoved Amendment No. 56:
Page 29, line 14, leave out "92 per cent" and insert "105 per cent"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 57, 59 and 60. Amendment No. 59 stands in my name and Amendments Nos. 57 and 60 in that of my noble friend Lady Miller.
We come to the reimbursement rates of statutory maternity pay. The two sets of amendments tabled by myself and my noble friend are more or less the same, except that my noble friend is more modest—or more realistic—than I am. She asks only for 100 per cent, whereas, as will be obvious from the amendment, I seek 105 per cent. My proposal is designed to ensure that the employer is reimbursed for the costs that he has incurred and that he receives some compensation for administering what is to all intents and purposes a state benefit.
Before the Minister reminds us, I point out that his colleague said yesterday, at a very useful meeting on the subject, that it was a Conservative government who first reduced the rate from 100 per cent. That was done in relation to statutory sick pay as long ago as 1989 or 1990. I am fully aware of that because I was the Minister who introduced the relevant Bill in December 1989 or 1990. The parliamentary Intranet does not appear to go back as far as that, so I was not able to check up on my own speeches. Our Bill was designed to reduce the reimbursement rate for statutory sick pay. I think that statutory maternity pay came somewhat later.
I remember that Bill—it is seared in my memory. It slipped through another place without any trouble whatever and it was only when it entered this House and was spotted by the eagle eye of my late noble friend, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that trouble blew up. He
CWH 52
saw it for what it was—a Treasury saving device masquerading as a social security Bill. Having said that, there was a rationale behind the proposal in relation to statutory sick pay. It was felt that by reducing the reimbursement rate, one could provide an incentive to the employer to look hard at sickness rates and whether people genuinely needed to take time off. Obviously, the same is not necessarily so true in relation to statutory maternity pay, which is less avoidable than sickness.
Treasury saving devices masquerading as social security Bills are not an uncommon occurrence under governments of whatever political persuasion. As I said, I remember that Bill well. I particularly remember the number of defeats we suffered in the then unreformed and allegedly overwhelmingly Tory House. I can assure the noble Lord the Minister that its passage here is seared on my memory.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Late at night!
Lord Henley: Not all defeats were late at night, because many were as a result of dependence on my own Benches. As I have pointed out, and I make no defence, Lord Boyd-Carpenter led the opposition through that particular measure.
Nevertheless, concessions were made, in particular to small employers—and I am very glad to see that such concessions are still available to small employers in these measures. That is quite right. I also assure the noble Lord that, since that date, I have seen the conversion. Like St Paul, I now recognise that persecution—and in this case, persecution of employers in general and small employers in particular—is not a good thing.
Paternity pay, maternity pay, whatever they are, all impose burdens on employers. I appreciate that those burdens are not purely financial burdens. I appreciate that the mechanism whereby employers are reimbursed is very efficient, and gets the money back to them as fast as possible. Nevertheless, burdens are imposed on them which go beyond the financial—particularly in the case of a small employer losing a key worker. They can impose pretty drastic measures.
The principal matter is that this is a state benefit that is being provided—statutory maternity pay—and it is the employer who is being asked to reimburse it. Therefore, the employer must pay it and then be reimbursed later on. I therefore believe that the employer should be reimbursed and should also be reimbursed for the costs of administration of this benefit. It is for that reason that I would like to move my own rather optimistic amendment to suggest that they should be reimbursed at a rate of 105 per cent.
I apologise for the digression to explain the past, but since I had been responsible in the past I thought I should explain exactly why I was now moving an amendment which appears rather contrary to what I had done in December 1989 or 1990. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My noble friend has described my Amendments Nos. 57 and 60 as being

CWH 53
more modest, because I was asking for 100 per cent, not 105 per cent. I would not describe my amendments as more modest but I would tell my noble friend that politics is the art of the possible. While it might be difficult for the Government to accept the amendment for even 100 per cent, I feel certain that they will find a really good reason why they cannot accept the amendment for 105 per cent. Nevertheless, the intent of both of us is exactly the same; namely, that the employer should not be out of pocket by this particular payment.
Many employers are concerned that, once established, the Government will gradually reduce the employer rebate until it possibly disappears altogether. It has happened in other cases, so the proposal is not totally without foundation.
So long as the rebate is not 100 per cent, the employers are being faced with an extra business burden in having to meet what should he the Government's obligation. It is what amounts to a hidden tax. I would he very interested to hear the reason why the Minister will probably tell us that the Government are unable to meet our request.
I must congratulate my noble friend on his openness and straightforwardness, in saying that his colleague and noble friend, the late Lord Boyd-Carpenter, actually pointed out that this was much more to do with Treasury control than anything else. No doubt that might very well be the case today.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This amendment seeks to amend the reimbursement rate of statutory maternity pay payable to large employers. The current rate of reimbursement is 92 per cent. By replacing that rate with 105 per cent, the noble Lord wants to ensure that all employers can get back all the statutory pay they have paid out, plus a little extra. The noble Baroness would be a little less generous but, as she said, politics is the art of the possible, or perhaps the impossible in this case, and her amendment would extend reimbursement to just 100 per cent.
It may be helpful if I start by explaining that when the SMP scheme was first introduced in 1987, all employers received full 100 per cent plus compensation for the employers' share of any national insurance paid on SMP. As the noble Lord said, the 92 per cent reimbursement for larger employers was introduced in 1994. However, we see no reason to change that.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect larger employers to demonstrate their commitment to employees taking leave to care for new families by funding a small amount of payments made to them while on maternity leave from work. After all, those employees who qualify for statutory maternity pay from their employer will have started work for that employer before their pregnancy began and many employees will have worked for the employer and contributed to the success of his business for some years before starting a family.
CWH 54
The contribution employers make to maternity pay is an investment for the future as mothers will be more likely to return to work if they have had an adequate period of time to recover from childbirth and arrange suitable childcare. Many of the best employers recognise this by topping up the statutory scheme and are happy to bear the cost of so doing.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to give you an idea of the kind of money we are talking about here. Let me focus on an individual woman earning £255 a week on average. She will be entitled to SMP worth £229.50 for the first six weeks of her maternity leave and then 20 weeks at £100 a week, a total of £3,377 in SMP. The employer is also liable to pay employer's national insurance contributions of £143.54 on those payments so, altogether, he pays out £3,520.54. Currently, he can recover 92 per cent of the SMP paid out, so he gets back £3,106.84. If he could claim back 100 per cent as under the amendment of the noble Baroness, he would get £3,377—an additional £270. If he could claim back 105 per cent, he would get back £3,545.85, more than he has paid out in SMF and national insurance.
We feel that to enable all employers to recover their payments in this way is not right. It is different for small employers whose cash flows may be sensitive to even a modest additional cost. We believe it is right to protect them and that is why we are extending small employers' relief from April 2002 to bring in another 10,000 small and medium-sized employers a year. From 2002, 60 per cent of the employers who pay SMP in a year (or 40,000 out of 70,000 employers who pay SMP in a year) will qualify for small employers' relief and be entitled to receive 100 per cent reimbursement plus compensation for employers' national insurance.
You will note that the recovery rate for small employers is divided into two elements—100 per cent reimbursement of the SMP paid out and additional compensation which is intended to compensate the employer for the employer's share of national insurance contributions paid out on SMP. At the moment, the compensation rate is 5 per cent but in April 2002 is being amended to 4.5 per cent. This rate is reviewed annually and, if appropriate, adjusted in line with a long-standing formula that is set out in regulations.
The noble Lord's amendment is in fact flawed. By replacing 92 per cent with 105 per cent, the amendment would ensure that larger employers would be able to recover more than smaller employers whose reimbursement would still depend on the two separate elements of 100 per cent reimbursement of SMP plus an additional amount which is subject to annual review. I do not believe that this is the effect which the noble Lord wishes to achieve.
The amendment of the noble Baroness still leaves employers somewhat out of pocket by ignoring the national insurance costs. I am not sure if that is her intention. However, the real issue is whether or not a larger employer should be expected to make a contribution to help their own employees. I believe they should.

CWH 55
Overall, with the improvements we are making to both statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance, the Government will be investing an additional £355 million a year in payments to pregnant working women. In total each year we will spend nearly £1 billion on maternity payments. The additional cost to a large employer in extra SMP and national insurance is around £25 million. Overall we are asking them to meet around 7 per cent of the costs of SMP payments for their employees.
As I have explained, we think this is reasonable—as did the previous Conservative government—for employers to meet a small amount of the costs of supporting their employees on maternity leave. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley: I am sorry that my amendments were protective and I will certain have a further look at them to see how they can be made non-protective before I come back to the subject again on Report. I am grateful to the noble Lord for spelling out just how much the amendment would cost, and I take it that last figure of the cost to the employers of about £25 million indicates what the cost to the Government would be if the amendment of my noble friend, Lady Miller, were to be accepted. Therefore, I presume that the costs of my amendment being accepted would probably be something like half as much again.
It is always important to know what the costs of any amendment would be. Certainly back in my days in social security when the Lords seemed not to believe me—I did seem to suffer defeat after defeat—one used to keep a tally of the costs of all the amendments of the Opposition, so that one could point out occasionally how irresponsible they were being in terms of the expenditure of public funds. Similarly, on this occasion I will consider this very carefully before I come back to it. I am grateful for the explanation given to me by the noble Lord.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Can I just point out so that everyone understands, the £25 million is really just the result of the improvement in the terms that we are talking about. If the noble Lord's amendment were accepted, it would in fact cost £120 million.
Lord Henley: I understand. I appreciate that £120 million is a much bigger sum than £25 million, and I am always highly responsible about use of government funds. Nevertheless I will consider this amendment and that of my noble friend very carefully to see where and how they are defective before I make any decision as to whether to come back to them at a later stage. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 58:
Page 30, line 25, at end insert—
"167A REQUIREMENT ON THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO ASSESS IMPACT ON EMPLOYERS
(1) The Secretary of State shall, prior to the laying before Parliament of regulations under section 167(1), publish an assessment of the impact on—

(a) employers in general,

(b) employers of five or fewer employees, and

(c) employees in general, of the provisions of Part 7.

(2) The Secretary of State shall, on each anniversary of the date of publication of an assessment under subsection (1), publish a revised and updated assessment under subsection (1)."
The noble Baroness said: The Bill introduces a large number of additional burdens on employers, particularly small employers, because the Government do not seem to realise the difference between what the Americans call a "momma and poppa" business and giant firms such as Tesco, Ford and Zeneca, for example. The Bill also confers additional rights and some additional responsibilities on employees. Nothing comes free in this field, such as the provisions that are included in the Bill.
I would like to remind Members of the Committee that the Opposition have in general terms welcomed the principles of the Bill, and in both Houses promised the Government their support. It does not detract from that support when we ask for an accounting of the cost to commerce and to workers of the new measures. I am not detracting from that support when I point out to the Committee some of the consequences that will or may ensue from the implementation of the provisions of the Bill.
Those consequences could include: greater wage expense to employers, with consequential loss of international competitiveness and trade; reduction in the number of jobs or even the potential and possibly unprovable discrimination against employing certain categories of people; an increase in administrative costs to employers; an increase in the number of officials and staff at ACAS to administer and enforce the new regulations—I will be returning to the ACAS situation later—and a rash of increased litigation before tribunals engendered by the currently growing compensation culture, although on the plus side the conciliation procedure proposed in the second schedule may head off some of that, as may my amendment to Clause 23 if the Government or the Committee accept it.
Of course, this list is not exhaustive. I simply wanted to illustrate the point that I have just made; namely, that the benefits of the Bill will not come free of cost and consequences. The Government have introduced the Bill without, I believe, any idea of what the cost will be to employers and employees alike; nor do they have any idea of what the benefits will be in cash terms. The personal social benefits to employees are perhaps much more easily discernible.
The amendment seeks simply to require the Government to account for what is happening and to show that the benefits obviously outweigh any of the

CWH 57
disadvantages—in short, to show that, overall, the consequences of the Bill will be a price well worth paying. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: I support a subsequent amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, which relates to ACAS because at least it is relatively precise. I am not against attempts to try to work out the cost of Bills. In fact, we are now supposed to do that. However, she and the Government should understand that these assessments cannot be made with any degree of accuracy, and not only because the Treasury cannot count—we all know that that is true.
If one looks, for example, at the lunatic attempts in Routes to Resolution to assess what would happen if we managed to get rid of 40,000 cases, one will find that it is absolute nonsense. The figures are all based on averages of averages of guesses. Those assessments are quite silly. The figures—even more exaggerated—produced by the CBI do not fit with those produced by other employers' associations. Those figures always look on the downside because, in principle, they should be measurable. The data are not available but they should be measurable. They never look a t the upside because no figures are available. One cannot compute what that might do for the welfare, security, morale or productivity of workers. It is an act of faith. We can rearrange the figures, but we really must not believe in them.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, agrees with the principle and that he has nothing against trying to work out the cost of things. It seemed to me that his difficulty lay with the list of items which I said might have to be considered. It may well be that an altogether different list will be produced. I was simply making the point that, if it were possible to obtain some costs from this, that might be worthwhile.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Before I begin, I shall assume that the amendment refers to the provisions of Part XII of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. That is the part which deals with statutory paternity pay, rather than Part VII, which deals with income support.
The amendment has two interpretations. It might require an assessment of the impact of regulations made under Section 167(1)—that is, the reimbursement of employers—to be published and revised annually. Alternatively, it might require an assessment of the impact of all the regulations concerning SMP made within Part XII to be published and revised annually. The placing of the amendment within Clause 21 suggests the first interpretation. Therefore, I shall respond directly to that, but the points that I make will apply to both.
The Government's policy is to regulate only when necessary and to ensure that such regulation is both necessary and effective. It is established government policy that new legislation affecting business must be accompanied by a full regulatory impact assessment
CWH 58
unless the costs or savings are negligible or where statutory fees are increased by a predetermined formula.
The purpose of the assessment is to provide an analysis of the costs and benefits of proposals for regulation and a detailed assessment of any impact that regulatory changes will have on businesses—in particular, small businesses.
The regulatory impact assessment for the SMP measures in the Bill was published at the same time as the Bill. However, a preliminary assessment of the costs was published in December 2000, alongside the Green Paper, Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice. It covers in full the effects of the two major proposed changes to SMP; namely, the increase in the rate of payment and the extension of the payment period on both small and large employers. There are no plans to add anything further to that assessment.
While these two significant changes to statutory maternity pay receive detailed attention in the assessment, the same detail is not required for Clause 21. The clause is largely a reworking of existing maternity legislation, but the changes it makes are undoubtedly positive for employers. First employers will be able to recover their statutory maternity payments from tax and other allowable payments due to the Inland Revenue, not just from contributions payments. Secondly, employers will be able to apply for advance recovery of their statutory maternity payments.
These changes have no negative impact on employers and are comparatively minor in comparison with the increase in the rate and payment period for statutory maternity pay. That is why they do not appear in the accompanying impact assessment.
Since departments already produce regulatory impact assessments, introducing a requirement for additional, annual assessments would be superfluous and time-consuming. However, we are fully committed to monitoring the effects of the new maternity package on employers and employees. For that purpose, we have commissioned a survey of parents and employers to establish a baseline against which the changes in maternity legislation can be properly evaluated. We envisage undertaking a further survey in 2005 to ascertain the effects of the changes made in 2003. Whereas the proposed amendment would limit annual assessment exclusively to the effect of changes to statutory maternity pay, the use of a more general survey will provide a broader picture of the effects of the changes to the pay and leave arrangements available to parents.
Finally, Members of the Committee will be aware that a change to the small employers' relief scheme will take place in April 2002. Regulations were laid before Parliament on 8th February and a full regulatory impact assessment was placed in the Library. That assessment details the effects of the changes to the small employers' scheme. It also gives a full account of the impact of change to the compensation rate from 105 per cent to 104.5 per cent, which was announced

CWH 59
on 19th December 2001. Thus, the effects of employers' recovery of statutory maternity pay—the subject of Clause 21—are fully covered within this separate regulatory impact assessment.
I hope that that assures Members of the Committee that there is no need to regulate for the Secretary of State to provide further impact assessments. Government departments are already committed to assessing the impact of new legislation on employers, so the amendment would add nothing to what is already established practice. I therefore invite the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for that lengthy and clear exposition. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Employment tribunals]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 32, line 10, at end insert "where in the opinion of the tribunal a party has in bringing the proceedings acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or the bringing or conducting of the proceedings by a party has been misconceived"
The noble Lord said: In view of what has been done earlier, it may be convenient if I suggest that, in relation to the amendments, we refer to Part 2—my noble friends and I have tabled amendments to Parts 2 and 3—because it will avoid saying such things when we come to the cases.
Three comments need to be made in light of our debate at Second Reading. The basis of our criticisms did not involve the Government's objective of settling cases at the workplace—who could object to that?—but the way in which the Government set about attempting to decimate applications to tribunals as a necessary part of that. The three comments have become more relevant in view of our proceedings today in Grand Committee.
First, our amendments attempted to take account of what was said by my noble friend, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who we are all happy to see restored to us here in Committee. He said:
"If we are doing it in the wrong way, I have no doubt my noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy will seek to show us how to do it better. We shall listen with respect, as we always do, and we shall seek to come to a proper judgment".—[Official Report, 26 February 2002; c.1405]
We understood that to mean—I hope that this is true—that the Bill is not set in stone. Whatever pacts and deals have been done about the Bill, I hope that the Government will listen and seek to come to a proper judgment in a constructive way.
Secondly, at Second Reading, we showed that the statistics—or alleged statistics—that the Government relied on to form the basis of their case, were in fact not sustained. They were not even sustained by their own
CWH 60
research, which was finally published just before the debate. I mention the horrendous model of wicked applications to the tribunals, which my noble friend, Lord McIntosh, will remember especially, and whose vital statistics were 64, 62, 37. Huge proportions of workers rushed to the tribunals without any attempt to reach a settlement, and their employers made no attempt to reach a settlement. That was not justified by the research and it is certainly not justified in real life. That led us to introduce, in parts of the Bill to which we shall come, a series of probing amendments, which touch on the unfair way in which the Government are aiming to reach their stated objectives.
Thirdly, we are very conscious in our amendments of the procedure in Grand Committee. I quote from the House's Companion to the Standing Orders. At page 122, it states:
"The proceedings in Grand Committees are identical to those in a Committee of the whole House save that no votes may take place."
It continues:
"The principle followed is that amendments may be agreed to in a Grand Committee only without dissent".
The following section states:
"If there is opposition to an amendment, it should be withdrawn in Grand Committee, to enable the House to decide the matter on report."
We take this objective and statement seriously and we shall of course withdraw amendments where there is a single murmur—let alone voice—of dissent. The objective that we shall keep in mind, as stated in the Companion, is that we shall enable the House to decide any controversial matter on Report.
I hope it will not be thought that I have exceeded the bounds of order by introducing those three thoughts. I now come to Amendment No. 61. This amendment deals with the replacement of the power to make regulations for provision of the award of costs or expenses—"expenses", of course, is the Scottish term—in employment tribunals. That exists at the moment and, in our submission, there is a perfectly good regulation in the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2001, which deals with the matter. Regulation 14 provides that,
"where in the opinion of the tribunal a party has in bringing proceedings, or a party or party's representative has in conducting proceedings, acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or the bringing and conducting of proceedings by a party has been misconceived".
It also provides that the tribunal shall consider making and, if it so decides, may make an order containing an award against that party in respect of the costs incurred by another party. That, of course, is quite different from the principle in the ordinary courts. It is different in a way that is measured and matched in all the labour tribunals and labour courts of Western Europe. It is one of the basic principles of justice in industrial tribunals, as they were called, or employment tribunals, as we now call them; moreover, in research people tend to refer to labour courts. A worker who is faced with the possibility that costs will be awarded against him if he happens to fail, albeit that

CWH 61
he had a reasonable case—and laymen as well as lawyers know that reasonable cases do not always succeed—will be prevented in real life from bringing cases which it is quite reasonable to bring on the basis of injustice at the place of work.
This principle should not need to be restated, lit was stated by the Donovan commission in 1968, and it has been accepted everywhere else, including in the Leggatt report, to which I hope the Minister will refer in his reply. The Leggatt report was on tribunals generally, and it includes extensive passages relating to employment tribunals.
Again and again, in Committee in another place, the Minister, my honourable friend Alan Johnson, said— it is better in his own words—
"To avoid doubt and bearing in mind our curious exchange about the explanatory notes, I should say that we are clear on the fact that the cost awards will not change".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Cttee F, 11/12/01; col. 58.]
Indeed, he went on to point out:
"We must not get carried away with the idea that a large proportion of applications are vexatious or unreasonable. That is not the case. On anyone's assessment, the percentage is tiny".— [Official Report, Commons, Standing Cttee F, 11/12/01; col. 59.]
The percentage is tiny as shown by the fact that there were only 247 cases last year in which any costs were awarded. That is not to say that some other cases may not have been unreasonable, but in that case they frequently did not survive a pre-hearing session. We come to pre-hearing reviews later in the Bill.
There are few cases where the tribunals have decided that the ability to award costs is inadequate, or even that the existing power should be frequently used. I refer to the figure of 247 out of 130,000 applications last year, which was less than in previous years.
Why do I stress that? First, the Minister said that the Government did not want to change the basis on which costs are awarded in these industrial employment tribunals. If I may quote him again, he said at col. 60 of Hansard that,
"We are dealing with the basis on which costs are now awarded, not extending it".
The Government have been clear that costs awards will be made on the same basis as they are now. The question that arises from that is not whether we can rely on the present Secretary of State. If the Minister says that in another place, that is what we expect our Secretary of State to do, but why take power to give the tribunals the competence to award costs on a wider basis? Why replace Section 13(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996? They are basically the same words, but why put it in without making it clear on the face of the Bill that the Government are secure in their understanding, as was stated again and again in another place, that they do not intend to increase the incidence of costs in these employment tribunals?
Some people may say that that is a very suspicious approach. That ignores the fact that there has been a great deal of pressure to extend the ability to award costs. Indeed, we shall hear from the Conservative Opposition, as was argued in another place, that workers should pay more costs, should pay special
CWH 62
deposits and make all sorts of payments before they have access to justice which is untrammelled in the ordinary principles of labour tribunals. Secondly, I refer to the pressure to expand the competence to award costs and, indeed, in some cases for tribunals to explain why they do not award costs. That is a quite extraordinary idea for anyone with any experience at all of comparative industrial jurisprudence.
The matter was also extensively examined by the Leggatt committee. The Leggatt report, Tribunals for Users, dealt with employment tribunals. At page 147 it said the following:
"We recommend a joint study by the DTI and the LCD on costs…In the absence of detailed research and a systematic review of the policy options in the light of it, we would not recommend the introduction of a general costs regime"—"
I pause to say that that is in employment tribunals. The report continues,
"that should be risked only in the light of clear evidence that there is a substantial problem and that change in the costs regime is the only effective answer".
It is widely known among lawyers, laymen and trades union representatives of those who have to enforce their rights in employment tribunals that some people want to impose costs upon applicants beyond the present rules.
The Government have said in another place they do not wish to change the basis of the award of costs. All that this amendment does—and if 11 may say so it is characteristic of our amendments in that it is a most modest amendment—is say to the Government, "Put your words where your money and your mouth are and let us have it on the face of the Bill. If you will not put it on the face of the Bill, why are you replacing Section 13 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996? What do you want to do with these regulations for the award of costs or expenses? You cannot mean to have new regulations. Are you just going to print Regulation 14 out again and, if so, let us have a guarantee that that is what you will do"?
It is difficult to understand the necessity of wasting a little tree to print Clause 22(1) of the Bill in that case. The Government have that power already. However, if all they have to do is reprint it, then let us say so. If not, why not clear the fog of doubt away and say to a future Secretary of State—and I am not concerned with the present Secretary of State for the moment—"If you want to exclude the possibility that tribunals cannot award costs other than on a vexatious basis, if I may put it that way, then you must come up with primary legislation"? Why are the Government so afraid of leaving to a future Secretary of State the obligation to come to this House and the other place and explain in primary legislation any extension of competence to award costs? The replacement of Regulation 14 is quite unnecessary; it is undesirable and the Government say they do not wish to do it. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am particularly interested in this section of the Bill as I have sat for 23 years as a member of an industrial tribunal. I support

CWH 63
the amendment although I wonder whether it is necessary because in my experience we would always have abided by the rules suggested in the amendment.
I wish to ask the Minister a technical question. In the Explanatory Notes and in the Bill itself the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 is referred to in three different places. I spent quite a long time this afternoon trying to obtain that Act from the Printed Paper Office. Finally, I discovered that there was no such thing. It is called the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996. I wonder whether the Minister has already covered that point and replied to it. Perhaps I may ask him by what procedure an Act which has been passed and enacted is suddenly renamed in this Bill on page 32 and again on pages 76 and 80, possibly as well as in other places. Does a procedure exist by which one can rename an Act retrospectively? If so, can the Minister explain to me how and when that procedure was brought about?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to curtail the debate, but I should like to answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, while it is in my mind. The Act was called the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996. It was amended in 1998 and, when that happened, the title was changed to Employment Tribunals Act. Therefore, it is now properly called the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for that explanation. As I understand it, the date of the Act did not have to be changed to 1998. The date, 1996, could have been retained and the name of the Act altered.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is right.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Therefore, why is the Act not available in the Printed Paper Office? I had great difficulty in obtaining it. Eventually the staff managed to uncover it, but it is still issued from the Printed Paper Office as the "Industrial Tribunals Act 1996".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to criticise them, but people in the Library would look up the Act in a book listing the statutes in force and would find the 1996 Act, as amended, including the change of title.
Lord McCarthy: They have some old copies.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: That may be, but they had great difficulty in finding the Act. Perhaps the problem was that the staff in the PPO went through their list of 1996 Acts and did not find it. If an Act is subsequently amended, it should perhaps at least be cross-referenced to the year 1996 so that the authorities can trace it more easily.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Reading Clerk has noted that point.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for that reply. I return to Amendment No. 61. I support
CWH 64
the sentiment behind the amendment and believe that it is common practice for costs to be awarded in that way.
Perhaps I may make a slight digression. I was pleased to see the proposal to insert new Section 13A, which relates to compensation for preparation time. I conducted a case against someone on behalf of a charity. That person lost the case, but it cost our charity a great deal of time and many thousands of pounds in preparing the case. There is a point to be made here. Perhaps that could be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not to award costs. The situation in relation to a charity is rather different. People who sit on an industrial tribunal, in whatever capacity, have less sympathy for a huge corporation than they have for a charity.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Without responding to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in relation to what amendments I or other Conservative Members might table later or in relation to what we believe or do not believe, the noble Lord might like to know that I support the amendment. I took note of what he said with regard to the standing orders and how, if there were one word of dissent, the amendment could not be agreed. I hope—perhaps without much expectation—that the noble Lord does not feel the need to be that one voice of dissent.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As we are moving on to Part 2, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn properly introduced the amendment with some general comments about Part 2. I shall not be as ambitious as that, but I want to say something about Clause 22 because we shall be debating a whole series of amendments on it—most of them tomorrow.
There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about Clauses 22 and 23. Clause 22 is not in any way radical; it makes very few changes. It is in four parts. The first part is subsection (1), which substitutes the words for those in Section 13 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn said that it is generally the same. It is not generally the same; it is precisely the same. There is no change whatever in the wording of Clause 22(1)(1). Subsection (1A) is new, and all that does—and we will come on to this with future amendments—is remedy a defect whereby costs in the past could be awarded only against a party and not against the representative of a party. It recognises the case—and this came up in the consultation after the consultation document last year—where it is the representative who is at fault and it is the representative against whom costs should be awarded.
Subsection (1B) is about taxing or otherwise settling the costs, and that is identical to the existing legislation.
Clause 22(2) is indeed new because it is compensation for preparation time.
I wanted to make that clear because the point that I want to make about Amendment No. 61 is that, in addition to the fact that no change is proposed in

CWH 65
primary legislation proposed—and this has been going for many years perfectly successfully; I do not know whether it goes back as far as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, would take us into the Donovan commission, but it certainly goes back over many years—no change is proposed in the regulation.
I can say without any qualification whatever that I agree with the principle which this amendment seeks to enshrine. The regulations which support the Bill will limit the cases in which costs are awarded and the circumstances set out in the current regulations are repeated in this amendment. What has survived for a number of years over more than one government without it being on the face of the Bill will continue both in primary legislation and in regulation. I put it to the Committee that this amendment is not necessary.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I want to be clear. Is my noble friend saying that reference in subsection (1A) to a representative's conduct of proceedings—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are not debating that.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I do not understand why the amendment to subsection (1) is being resisted. If I could have an assurance that what we are talking about is what both the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and I know about, which are cases that a tribunal decides are misconceived, then this provides a way of dealing with that process, awarding costs against a party. As I understand it, this provides a facility for awarding costs against a representative of the party. Perhaps we can try again.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I gave an introduction to the whole of Clause 22 because I thought it might be helpful. This amendment is not about subsection (1A) and it is not about representatives. It comes in line 10, it is about subsection (1). What I am saying about Amendment No. 61 is that the Bill does not change, and I give a flat guarantee that the regulations will not change. It works now; why change it?
Lord McCarthy: It works both ways. If it be the case that nothing is intended to change, why are we putting something in the statute book which already exists in primary legislation? What is the point of putting it in if we are not going to change it? It is bound to make people suspicious, especially if you do not put what is in the regulations on the face of the Bill. I do not see why, if the Government want to reassure us at the beginning of the debate on Part 2 that they cannot accept this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I asked that question myself because it seemed a sensible question to me. The answer I have been given is that it is easier to understand if we have both the original legislation repeated here together with the changes that are
CWH 66
proposed to it in subsections (1A) and (2). Then it is all in the same place. It is not a matter of very great significance, but that is the explanation.
Lord McCarthy: With respect, it is not all in the same place. If you took our amendment, what is now in another place—namely, "vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably"—would be in the sentence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment uses the wording of the regulation.
Lord McCarthy: Precisely.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Nobody has said it does not work. Nobody has complained that there has been any misuse of this provision in the regulations. Why change it?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am utterly mystified. I had hoped that the Bill was not set in stone. I seem to be hearing stonemasons all over the place who have thrown away their tools!
I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken to the amendment. The Minister introduced the question of representatives and the amendment is not concerned with that. It is not about Clause 22(1A); it is about Clause 22(1)(a) in line 10. It is true that the Donovan report was not published at a time when such regulations applied. The Donovan report recommended that this rule should apply. The Minister rejoices in his support for this principle. He says it is the answer he has been given. I suspect I would rather have the answer he wants to give me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, I asked a question, I was given an answer, which seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate one. You will not drive a wedge between me and officials on this matter. There is a perfectly good argument for saying that Clause 22 makes sense as a whole, including both the old parts and the new parts.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I thank the Minister for his explanation and I shall look at Hansard with interest. I am not addressing Clause 22 as a whole—I shall argue in the next sitting of the Committee that other parts of it not only do not make sense but that they are unjust and in one case in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, I am not addressing that at the moment and, with great respect, that is confusing and has already confused one of my noble friends who mistook "A" for "a"—we do not want to get into that sort of thing. This is a very simple point.
The Minister says this rule has been basic. I believe he said it has survived more than one government and that is absolutely true. However, he cannot guarantee that it will survive every government who are to come in the next five years and he cannot guarantee even that a government in the near future will have to make a good argument to change it. What he is doing is refusing to put the rule in primary legislation. We cannot do more than put rules in primary legislation,

CWH 67
I appreciate that; we cannot bind our successors nor would we wish to do so. However, if we have it in primary legislation, the Government have to make an argument.
We all know perfectly well that regulations sometimes get through, without very good arguments, by vote and we do not want to leave this matter to regulations. We do not want the power in regulations to change the basis on which costs are awarded in our employment tribunals. We say there is a risk of that— and we say it albeit that the Minister's advisers appear to treat it with some levity—because there is a very strong body of pressure not least from certain groups of employers, not all by any means, which the Government know perfectly well, to change the rules in tribunals so that more workers have to pay costs. Indeed, you 'do not need to be particularly suspicious about the Bill. The power to award more costs and higher costs in the future under these regulations would be one way of cutting down applications to the tribunals. The Government want to cut out 40,000— good, bad or indifferent, 40,000 have to go. How much better than to threaten costs against workers who dare to assert their rights in industrial tribunals. I do not for a moment think the Minister thinks that—he understands perfectly well that that would be an atrociously unreasonable thing to do. He knows the real world, as we all do, and he surely understands that there is great pressure on the Government to do that. The Secretary of State would only have to pass some regulations the year after next—that is what we are against.
My noble friend, Lord Gladwin, suggests that we want to stay where we are and that we want the rules not to change. The Minister in another place assured us that the rules would not change. The Minister today said that he also agrees that the rules should not change. Why not put that in primary legislation? This is not the last time that I will say that during the passage of this Bill—this Bill is extremely dangerous. It is taking powers to make regulations that are wider than the objectives that the Government set themselves. There is absolutely no case for reenactment—similar words are used, although they are not put in exactly the same order, in paragraphs (a) and (b). There is no place at all for Clause 22(1).
That is all that I am addressing. I ask my noble friend to reconsider this matter with his advisors. If he does not, we will begin to believe that this Bill, even on the most reasonable points and the most modest amendments, has been set in stone by some pact or agreement at a higher level, which allows ministers no flexibility in Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry, but I must resist the proposal. Motives are now being suggested and officials are being accused of treating matters with levity, which I resent because it is quite untrue.
The full cost rules were not raised in Routes to Resolution. There was no question of that and no intention of introducing any change, whatever the pressure there might be; moreover, I give the assurance that there is no pressure.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With respect, two points arise from what my noble friend has said. First, the Government may not have outlined plans to increase costs, but the Minister seems to have forgotten that they revived what we may call "The Lord Young of Graffham" principle from 1986 in their first proposal. That involves imposing charges on workers for going near the tribunals.
Lord McCarthy: The Government are the victim of their own announcements. If the Government are suspected, it is because they have said in the consultation document and throughout the Committee stage in another place that they want to get rid of one-third of tribunal cases. The whole thing is aimed at getting rid of 40,000 cases. How is that to be done?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend is right. I cannot forget the historical fact that the Government even began with a proposal to impose charges. Call it a charge, call it costs—I do not care what it is called. Later on in this clause it is called a payment; we shall come to that. Nevertheless, however that is disguised in words, more money will be taken from a worker or there will be the threat to take money from a worker, whose objective is to enforce his rights in an industrial tribunal. That is absolutely indefensible.
I said at Second Reading that a right that cannot be enforced, and a right against which people threaten one with measures so that one cannot enforce them, is an exercise in rhetoric. It is not a right at all.
I had a second point, which I have entirely forgotten, in view of the interruptions. I shall read Hansard and make it on Report. I cannot think that my noble friend the Minister will wake up tomorrow morning and be convinced. I appreciate that the Government, as so often, it seems, are unable to say "Yes" to amendments to the Bill.
I have now remembered my second point. I am not suggesting that my noble friend would not be flexible—he is the most reasonable of men. However, it looks as though this Bill is set in stone because no argument is accepted, even on the basis that Ministers will go away and think about the matter again. Usually in Committee, Ministers say, "All right, we don't agree with you, but we'll go away and think about the matter again". It appears that we are never told that; if we are not going to be told that tomorrow, I wonder whether we will be here later than we should be—we are already here tonight later than we should be; we were given an assurance that Grand Committee sittings ended at 7.30 p.m. The rules are that I must withdraw the amendment, but we do not intend to drop it—we shall return to it on Report, as the Companion advises. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until tomorrow at four o'clock.
The Committee adjourned at fifteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Pakistan: Landmine Casualties
  Pakistan: Landmine Casualties
  China: UNFPA
  China: UNFPA
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Financial Services Authority
  Financial Services Authority
  Children Act Guidelines
  Children Act Guidelines
  Defence Logistics Organisation Expenditure
  Defence Logistics Organisation Expenditure
  Gulf War Veterans
  Gulf War Veterans
  Kabul: Shooting Incident
  Kabul: Shooting Incident
  Army Divorce Rates
  Army Divorce Rates
  Strategy for the Army
  Strategy for the Army
  Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman
  Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman
  Consumer Batteries: Disposal
  Consumer Batteries: Disposal
  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: Resignations
  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: Resignations
  Lancashire: Council Tax
  Lancashire: Council Tax
  National Air Traffic Services
  National Air Traffic Services
  Air Shows: Safety
  Air Shows: Safety
  A570 Ormskirk/Southport Link
  A570 Ormskirk/Southport Link
  Local Authority Pension Funds
  Local Authority Pension Funds
  Building Regulations
  Building Regulations
  A303 Stonehenge Improvement Scheme
  A303 Stonehenge Improvement Scheme
  A406 Trunk Road: Litter Clearing
  A406 Trunk Road: Litter Clearing
  Windmills and Windfarms
  Windmills and Windfarms
  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: Consultants
  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: Consultants
  Clay Pigeon Shooting
  Clay Pigeon Shooting
  Road Congestion Charging
  Road Congestion Charging
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Disabled People: Protection of Rights
  Disabled People: Protection of Rights
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Strategic Communications Unit: Cost
  Strategic Communications Unit: Cost
  Better Regulation Task Force
  Better Regulation Task Force
  Wales Office: Expenditure
  Wales Office: Expenditure