Sitting of 18 March 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Procurement (North-West)
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on the impact on the north-west of planned MOD procurement projects. [40897]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The north-west was successful in winning defence business worth about £1.2 billion in 1998–99—some 14.5 per cent. of total defence equipment expenditure—sustaining in the process an estimated 11,000 jobs. The current equipment programme offers significant opportunities, such as the joint strike fighter and the future carrier, for companies in the north-west to compete to sustain that level of business.
  Mr. Hoyle: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. What consideration is he giving to the important contract for which Leyland Trucks is tendering, involving an important part of supply to the armed forces? The
  2
  company has held the contract in the past and it is coming up for renewal. What support can he offer for the thousands of jobs that depend on it?
  Dr. Moonie: I am well aware that Leyland Trucks Ltd. is one of five companies invited to tender for the role of prime contractor for the supply of approximately 8,500 support vehicles over a 10-year period that is planned to start in late 2004. It is too early to give an indication of the specific industrial implications of the planned programme, but there will certainly be opportunities for subcontractors at least in the north-west.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I point out to the Minister the cuts in defence announced by the Government since the last defence questions? They scrapped HMS Fearless nearly nine months early, so there will be no assault ship in the British Navy until the end of 2003. They scrapped HMS Sheffield, which was due to remain in service until 2012. They scrapped the Navy's Sea Harriers, which were due to remain in service until 2015. Those announcements followed the decision to scrap 5 Squadron—the Tornado fighters due to remain in service until the deployment of the Eurofighter.
  The Government have delayed, cut or cancelled the Tracer ground reconnaissance vehicle, the future offensive aircraft system, the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, Brimstone—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Some of those delays or cancellations should have taken place in the north-west.
  Mr. Jenkin: I regret that the list is long, Mr. Speaker, but how can the Minister give any assurances to manufacturers in the north-west until he has the money that the Treasury has so far refused him? Or is it to be cuts, cuts and more cuts in defence under this Government?
  Dr. Moonie: I suppose that I should have started by requesting your permission to make a statement, Mr. Speaker. However, I shall attempt to make my answer rather shorter.
  I do not recall that any of those points had much to do with the north-west. However, on HMS Fearless in particular, while the ship has given sterling service, it is not considered financially worth while to spend more money on maintaining her in service for the short time that she will be needed. We have adequate assault capability through HMS Ocean and other ships at our disposal. It is not true to say that the early scrapping of HMS Fearless will have any constructive effect on our ability to deploy.

  Russia-NATO Relations
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on steps to improve the relationship between Russia and NATO. [40898]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The United Kingdom has taken a leading role in encouraging a step change in NATO's relationship with Russia. A confident and co-operative partnership between the allies and Russia, based on shared democratic values and the shared commitment to a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe is essential for stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area. The alliance and Russia are working towards the creation of a new NATO-Russia council to identify and pursue opportunities for joint action at 20. NATO will maintain its prerogative of independent decision and action at 19 on the alliance's fundamental objectives.
  Dr. Starkey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he outline some of the more practical measures to encourage joint working between Russia and NATO on issues of mutual interest?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her interest in this important subject. We are keen to develop the relationship with Russia as an essential further element of building stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area. The practical measures that we have in mind include co-operation against terrorism, dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, peace support operations and new threats. Those are areas where NATO can seek to deepen its involvement with Russia immediately.
  Mr. Mark Prisk: My question relates to the NATO-Russian council. Given the sensitivity of new members from eastern Europe that are now part of the alliance, will the Secretary of State confirm that he sees no danger of possible conflict between the existing North Atlantic Council and the NATO-Russian council? What is the Government's position on the council's remit?
  Mr. Hoon: There cannot be a conflict because the existing council will have to agree to any areas of deeper consultation with Russia.
  4
  Having recently met my Czech counterpart both in Prague and in the United Kingdom, I certainly recognise that there are different perspectives on this important issue, which is, welcomed by countries such as the Czech Republic as a means of ensuring closer contact and deeper consultation with Russia.
  Mr. John Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply and the fact that NATO and Russia will work much more closely together, but can he assure the House that that closer relationship will not have any bearing whatever on the decision to enlarge NATO at the Prague summit?
  Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Having recently visited three of the candidate countries where that issue is obviously extremely important and sensitive, I assure him and the House that there will be no relationship between the two issues.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: I, too, welcome what the Secretary of State has said about improved relations between NATO and Russia, but, following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of (Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), can he tell the House whether that improvement is, in effect, dependent on the expansion of NATO? What happens at Prague will be an important test for NATO's relationship with Russia, so does he agree that any proposed enlargement of NATO presents no threat to Russia? Are Her Majesty's Government supporting all the applicant countries, especially the three Baltic states?
  Mr. Hoon: Working backwards on those questions, no decision has yet been taken by Her Majesty's Government on which of the candidates should be offered an invitation. As I have said already, there is no relationship between this issue and enlargement. Although this is clearly also subject to the views of allies, it is certainly the preferred view of Her Majesty's Government that this matter should proceed quickly—that is, before enlargement is resolved.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the bodies working for a closer understanding between NATO and Russia is the NATO Parliamentary Assembly? Indeed, the largest-ever conference and seminar between NATO parliamentarians and Russian elected representatives will take place in Moscow later this week. Does he agree that Russia is apparently growing towards a feeling that it is in its own interest to be surrounded by prosperous and democratic countries and that, if the Baltic states wish to join NATO and that wish is accepted, NATO could even play some part in improving the situation in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad?
  Mr. Hoon: I pay tribute to the work conducted by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. It is important to have a range of contacts at every level between the democratic elements of Russia and allies in NATO, and I am delighted that that process continues. Having recently visited the Baltic states, and having discussed Kaliningrad at length, I recognise that there are issues, but that they can be resolved—if the House accepts this—not necessarily in the context of NATO, but certainly in that of the European Union and the free movement that the

  5
  EU requires of member states. However, I was assured that that issue was being regularly discussed and that it presented no difficulty whatever to the accession of the Baltic states to NATO or, indeed, the EU.

  Forces (Manning Levels)
  Mr. David Cameron: What progress has been made in reaching full manning levels in the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [40899]
  Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on trends in manning levels of regular forces since 1997. [40901]
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): At 1 May 1997, the deficit for the Royal Air Force stood at 4.8 per cent. At 1 February 2002, that deficit was 2.4 per cent. By any standard, that is good progress. Turning to trends overall, there continues to be a shortfall in trained strength against trained requirement. However, I am pleased to report that, across the services overall, recruitment is favourable and retention is holding steady.
  Mr. Cameron: I thank the Minister for that answer, but perhaps the raw figures should be considered instead of the percentages, and they show that the RAF was short of 1,149 personnel in January. Is he aware of the widespread concern that the Government plan to reduce the shortfall between actual and total manning strength by closing bases and scrapping squadrons, rather than by improving recruitment and retention? What assurance can he give to the many thousands of my constituents who work at or around the RAF base at Brize Norton that the Government will make an effort with recruitment and retention, rather than closing the squadrons in which they serve?
  Mr. Ingram: I am surprised at such criticism from the hon. Gentleman about the RAF base in his constituency. In the past few weeks, we have made a major announcement that will have a significant impact at Brize Norton. Clearly, we have to ensure that all our recruitment and retention strategies are as well focused as possible. He will be aware of the significant effort that is put into that, particularly in relation to RAF aircrew retention packages, about which a major announcement was made on an improved enhancement structure. We are conscious of all those issues and considerable effort will continue to be made to ensure that we not only retain our skilled crews, but recruit people into the RAF.
  Mr. Syms: Overstretch and undermanning seem to be the most serious problems. We know that the Army is 8,000 under strength and will perhaps only reach full manning by 2008, yet we are taking on new commitments daily. What new initiatives do the Government have to recruit more troops now?
  Mr. Ingram: Again, we recently announced a significant uplift in the remuneration package for the services. Having said that, part of the assessment of how we intend to encourage people to join the forces is not necessarily based on remuneration. There are many other pulls and draws to encourage people to join the different
  6
  services, including the Army. A wide range of initiatives is in place, including the remuneration and operational welfare packages. We are also considering how to deal with family welfare. The taskforce that I chair, which goes across Government, is examining ways to improve on some of the stresses and strains experienced by service families. As I said, recruitment is doing well in current circumstances with a significant increase in Army strength of 800 in the past six months alone.
  Mr. David Crausby: In light of the changing nature of the threat facing us, what consideration has my right hon. Friend given to stationing regular forces in different parts of the country, such as the north-west, which is a major recruiting ground for the armed forces?
  Mr. Ingram: That is one issue that we need to address. It is important to consider the imbalance throughout the country in terms of the footprint of where bases are located. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is on record as saying that the problem needs to be tackled. The focus has been on the south-east for a variety of historical reasons. As we rationalise and improve the focus of some of our basing activities, we are considering how to improve that footprint across the whole country, including the north-west.
  Mr. Stephen Hepburn: I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on recruitment. South Tyneside has traditionally been a great area for armed forces recruitment. Is the Minister aware that there were 826 recruits from the region in 1997 and 902 in 1999, but that last year the figure plummeted to 420? Is that because youngsters think that they are more likely to be shot in Baghdad or Kabul, or is there a budgetary crisis? If there is not a budgetary crisis, will the Minister work with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to discover why recruitment is so low?
  Mr. Ingram: It is for neither of those reasons. People who serve in our armed forces do so with great pride. They recognise that they may have to make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of their country, and they do so. I said that overall Army strength has increased by 800 in the past six months alone. Substantial recruitment is taking place in some parts of the country, although we are not doing so well in other areas. That is why we are involved in various initiatives to discover why there is a recruitment shortfall in some areas and, if recruitment has dropped off, why. We also want to know what additional commitment we could make to particular areas to increase the levels to at least what they were before. I referred earlier to the range of initiatives in place to encourage people in the north-east to join all parts of the armed forces, not just the Army.
  Mr. James Gray: The Minister is putting what could be described as either a brave face or a complacent face on an extremely worrying situation. The truth of the matter is that we are short of 131 pilots in the RAF, 8,000 soldiers and hundreds of people in the Royal Navy. We simply do not have enough soldiers, sailors and airmen to carry out the difficult tasks that they already have, and the statement this afternoon by the

  7
  Secretary of State may, for all we know, add more tasks to that list. When does the Minister intend that all three services should be fully manned? Will he put his job on the line and guarantee that they will be fully manned so that they can carry out their difficult tasks?
  Mr. Ingram: It would be a brave Minister who put his job on the line over such a question. I have indicated the range of initiatives that we are taking. We could spend considerable time looking at some of the RAF's problems with the training of pilots and at the reasons for the shortfall, which goes back several years to when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. There was great demoralisation in the 1990s. This party addressed that in 1997, and we have given greater focus to the armed services. We have now embarked on major procurement strategies to lift the quality of equipment, some of which is inadequate for the job. We inherited that problem too, and we are having to address it, so any criticism from Opposition Members is grossly misplaced.
  The whole strategic defence review and the operations to which we have committed our troops in recent years have proved highly successful. The hon. Gentleman should know that his party was critical of our Macedonian deployment. We said that we would be in and out in 30 days, and we were. Not once did we hear from the Conservative party any acknowledgement of that success; not once did Opposition Members say, "Well done. The Government got it right." All we get is carping and criticism—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. David Kidney: At RAF Stafford, there are more civilian workers than services personnel. Will my right hon. Friend keep a watchful eye out for opportunities to base more service personnel at Stafford? Will he acknowledge the tremendous contribution of the civilian work force, who enable our services to complete their full range of duties?
  Mr. Ingram: The civilian staff, who number about 100,000, against an overall strength of about 200,000, clearly make a major commitment to the wide range of services that our armed forces are called on to deliver. I pay tribute to all who serve, either in the armed forces or in support of them, and to their efforts, especially when our forces are deployed in the dangerous circumstances that apply in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

  Afghanistan
  Hugh Robertson: If he will make a statement on troop deployments in Afghanistan. [40900]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Around 1,600 United Kingdom service personnel are currently deployed with the international security assistance force in Kabul. I will make a statement to the House later today on our plans for future deployments.
  Hugh Robertson: Given the difficult security situation, which is likely to continue for some time, and the desire of the Afghan Government and their people for troops to remain in Afghanistan for a protracted period, does the
  8
  Secretary of State foresee an extension to the deployment beyond July? Will British troops be part of that? What will trigger a withdrawal?
  Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the current United Nations mandate is scheduled to last only until June. However, I would be being less than honest with the House if I did not anticipate an extension. It is a matter for the UN, but any reasonable person looking at the situation in Afghanistan would have to say that there was a likelihood—I put it no stronger than that—of the UN wanting to extend the mandate. Obviously, any British participation will be contingent on the situation of our armed forces at the time, and on whether we feel that we can make a contribution to what will still, I am sure, as the hon. Gentleman has conceded, be a dangerous, difficult situation.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is reported that President Bush said last week that there is no place for politics in fighting the war. Does my right hon. Friend agree that politics is integral to fighting the war against terrorism because it ensures that military action is directed towards justice and not revenge? In that context, does he agree that there should be no extension of hostilities towards Iraq, and that an attack on Iraq should not be countenanced without further authorisation—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The subject is Afghanistan.
  Mr. Mark Francois: The Secretary of State will recall that when he made his statement to the House three months ago announcing the original deployment, he intimated fairly strongly that, with the exception of headquarters troops, three months would be the maximum period. We are now told that it will be six months, and he has just intimated that it could be even longer. When will the Ministry of Defence take effective action to make sure that other European partners bear a fair share of the burden, because our armed forces are overstretched enough as it is?
  Mr. Hoon: I apologise to the House and to the hon. Gentleman if I gave him that impression. If he reads my comments more carefully, I am sure that he will see that I did not commit the United Kingdom's armed forces to anything at all. I indicated the importance of considering the situation at the time. If he had to deal with those situations, I am sure that, being fair-minded and reasonable, he would come to precisely the same conclusion.
  Syd Rapson: Would the Secretary of State consider visiting Royal Marine headquarters in Portsmouth in my constituency to pass on the nation's grateful thanks for what the Royal Marines are doing, with our special services, in Afghanistan? Their contribution is unheralded and unpublicised, but efficient and very effective.
  Mr. Hoon: I will certainly be willing to do that. I am sure that if my hon. Friend has the time to stay for my statement to the House later, he will learn still more about the plans for the Royal Marines.

  Arms Exports
  Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the role played by his Department in the promotion of arms exports. [40902]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The Defence Export Services Organisation, within the Ministry of Defence, is responsible for co-ordinating Government support to industry in promoting legitimate defence exports. Other areas within the Department provide assistance as required.
  Dr. Cable: Is the Minister aware of the work done by senior economists in his Department, as well as by independent academics, that suggests that the economic benefits of such export sales are negative? In particular, is he aware of the York study's conclusion that if arms exports were cut by half within the life of a Parliament, the national income would be unchanged, and there would be a net gain of jobs from civil redeployment? In view of that, why are the Government promoting arms exports in highly inflamed situations, such as with the export of Hawks to the Indian subcontinent?
  Dr. Moonie: An independent study by two leading academic economists and two MOD economists into the economic costs and benefits of defence exports was published on 11 December last year. The Government broadly agree with its findings. It concluded that, rather than being subsidised, defence exports represented a significant net benefit to Government and to the UK economy more broadly. The study reported that defence export sales averaged about £6 billion in 1998 and 1999, and supported almost 100,000 jobs, many of which are high-quality jobs in cutting-edge industry. Its conclusions suggested that the ending of defence exports from the UK would involve a one-off adjustment cost of between £4 billion and £5 billion, which is equivalent to about 0.5 per cent. of one year's gross domestic product. In addition, there would be a continuous net cost to Government of between £90 million and £200 million.

  European Defence Co-operation
  Dr. Nick Palmer:If he will make a statement on progress in multinational defence co-operation in Europe. [40903]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Both the NATO defence capabilities initiative and the European capabilities action plan encourage nations to co-ordinate their efforts and work together in enhancing military capabilities.
  The United Kingdom participates in a wide range of successful multinational co-operative arrangements, such as the UK-Netherlands amphibious force and the European air group. We also operate daily in multinational formations in the Balkans. We are actively seeking to build on such experiences and initiatives. The United Kingdom and France reviewed recently the work
  10
  conducted under the letter of intent on naval co-operation signed in 1996, and further useful progress has been made.
  Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Anyone except the most fanatical of Europhobes would accept that progress in this area is valuable. Can he give further concrete examples of projects on which we work with our European allies, and of the impact on our defence capability?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this subject. As he indicates, this is hardly an area where there ought to be any kind of criticism at all. By improving our joint capabilities, we are clearly enhancing the ability of European nations to contribute not only to their own defence but equally to the defence of others through the NATO alliance. One practical example is our work with Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden to develop a Nordic brigade under the Nordic co-ordinated arrangement for military peace support. I shall attend the conference of NORDCAPS Ministers in April.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State recall the advice that his office gave to No. 10's foreign policy adviser that, if an EU-led force goes into Macedonia at this stage,
  "the fledgling European Security and Defence Policy mechanism is not ready to undertake an operation of this magnitude and risk".
  The advice continues:
  "An EU-led operation in Macedonia would not be 'premature' but simply wrong."
  I congratulate the Secretary of State on the forthright position that his Department took and remind him that, by contrast, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said:
  "if we do look like becoming isolated, we would do better to accept an EU mission".
  What was the outcome of that disagreement in view between his Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
  Mr. Hoon: Of course, there are never any disagreements between different Departments, or between hon. Members. However, I have to note the exception to my earlier comments about Members taking a sensible view of European initiatives.
  To bring the hon. Gentleman completely up to date, I refer him to the outcome of the Barcelona summit that considered the possibility of European Union operations in Macedonia. It was a very good outcome that reflected the prudent British approach to the issue. It allows the European Union to make decisions later in the year on the basis of military advice and after agreement has been reached on permanent arrangements for EU access to NATO capabilities and staffs.
  Mr. John McFall: I remind my right hon. Friend that the regular forces at Faslane in my constituency will, as ever, wish to play their part in the multilateral defence force. However, the need for harmony at the naval base is important and the concerns of the civilian work force should also be considered. He knows that my colleagues from Portsmouth, Plymouth and Rosyth have been pressing the case for the civilian

  11
  work force in the naval warship modernisation programme. Does he recognise the loyalty and the commitment that the work force have shown and accept that the status quo is not an option? Will he allow them to play their full part in any proposals regarding multilateral defence force co-operation?
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend and I have had regular discussions about the excellent work conducted at the Ministry of Defence naval yards. He and I recognise that the working arrangements and practices of those places cannot remain at a standstill, and I pay tribute to the work force's efforts to try to find new ways of organising their work. The Government have yet to take a decision about how the matter will go forward, but I assure him that we will take fully into account the views of the work force concerned.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I point out to the Secretary of State that the document quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) was an account of the military advice that had been given? It said:
  "Military advice is that the fledgling European Security and Defence Policy mechanism is not ready to undertake an operation of this magnitude and risk … There would be a real risk that the EU's first mission would end in failure".
  By agreeing in Barcelona to an EU operation, has not the Prime Minister chosen to ignore the military advice for reasons of politics and nothing else?
  Mr. Hoon: Before the hon. Gentleman asks questions of that kind, he should read the text of the Barcelona summit statements. It says that it will allow the EU to make decisions later in the year on the basis of military advice.
  Mr. Jenkin: I put it to the Secretary of State that we have the military advice already. Besides, the Government have always given the assurance, in the words of the Prime Minister, that
  "European defence would operate only when NATO chooses not to be engaged".—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 349.]
  NATO has not been given any right of first refusal in this case, so why has the Prime Minister betrayed that assurance?
  Mr. Hoon: Again, all I can do is refer the hon. Gentleman to the details of what was agreed. He is trying very hard to suggest that something other than what was actually agreed was decided upon. However, if he looks very carefully, he will see that the EU said that it could take decisions later in the year on the basis of military advice. That seems to me to be a wholly sensible, practical reaction to the very difficult situation in Macedonia. Had he read the text carefully, I would have thought that he would have strongly supported that view.
  Mr. David Heath: The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of the amphibious capabilities of the United Kingdom and its co-operating allies. Naval capacity is fundamental to that, so when will the two new carriers, HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion, enter service? Given that there is only one bespoke helicopter carrier—HMS Ocean—has any
  12
  thought been given to permanently converting one of the old carriers for rotary-wing use in the way that one was deployed recently?
  Mr. Hoon: The timetable for procurement is proceeding according to previous announcements; there has been no change to it. We certainly look consistently at the range of capabilities, including platforms required for military operations. However, I am entirely confident that the present plans and proposals meet the needs of the United Kingdom, as expressed in the strategic defence review and as part of the work currently being conducted in response to the appalling events of 11 September.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Gregory Barker: What his policy is on the Territorial Army. [40904]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The strategic defence review concluded that the main role of the Territorial Army should be to provide an essential reinforcement for its Regular Army counterparts when deployed on operations. In keeping with that, both volunteer and regular reservists have contributed significantly to operations at home and overseas in recent times.
  The strategy for the Army, announced in March last year, identified a number of areas where further study was required to ensure that it can undertake its role as effectively and efficiently as possible. Those studies are ongoing and include how to maximise the contribution of the reserves in an expeditionary environment. In parallel, work on a new chapter of the strategic defence review, following the 11 September attacks, is exploring the role that the armed forces, including the reserves, have in defending and protecting the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Barker: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he now admit that it was a catastrophic mistake by the Government since coming to power in 1997 to slash the Territorial Army by more than 18,000 men? Now that it has 2,000 fewer members than his own target of 41,000, how does he expect the hard-pressed TA to cope with the additional responsibility of homeland defence?
  Dr. Moonie: The cut in TA numbers was entirely appropriate, given the end of the cold war and the reconfiguration of reserve forces.
  Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State said it was a mistake.
  Dr. Moonie: No, it was not mistake. To put the record straight, the Secretary of State said that initial assumptions involved a much larger cut than the one that was in fact made; the number of reserves therefore remains much higher than might otherwise have been the case—[Interruption.] I am sorry to have to point out to the Opposition that the cold war ended some years ago and that armed forces, even reserves, configured for the cold war have no relevance whatsoever to the situation in which we find ourselves. Reserve forces today are appropriately trained and are of an appropriate number to

  13
  handle the many tasks that we give them as forces much closer to the regulars than they ever were under the previous Administration.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Uncharacteristically, that was a less than frank answer from the Minister. It may have escaped his notice that the previous Administration made a serious cut in TA numbers at the end of the cold war; the cut made by the hon. Gentleman's Government was indeed a cut too far. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman wrote me a letter on 4 March in which he said, in reply to a parliamentary question, that he was unable to provide the
  "strength and establishment of the TA by unit and location"
  as that information was not available? May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he now reassess the stance of the TA, finding out where it is and what it does, thus producing for Parliament an altogether more coherent, responsible and sensible plan on the deployment of the TA?
  Dr. Moonie: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the structure, function and roles of the TA. The fact that it may be inappropriate to provide a reply on the grounds of cost is well recognised in the civil service; the answer that the hon. Gentleman received was no exception to that. I point out again that our TA forces today are better trained, have higher morale and are far more appropriate than they ever were under any Administration to whom the hon. Gentleman belonged.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I have to say that it is perfectly clear from the Minister's answer that the Government are in a shambles when it comes to our reserve forces. Not only is he out of step with his Secretary of State, who at least had the courtesy to acknowledge that we were right all along in warning that drastic cuts to the TA would damage our armed forces, but he was unable to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) where those reserve forces are located. It is high time that the Government answered the question that my hon. Friend put to the Minister. Will the Minister tell us when the cuts will be reversed, and give the House an assurance that any extension of TA responsibilities to homeland defence will not be at the expense of its valuable role reinforcing our regular troops?
  Dr. Moonie: I suppose that, by convention, I must welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that, during future questions, he will perhaps he better informed than he is just now. Let there be no doubt—I am well aware of where our units are and of what they comprise. It is hardly surprising that I am unaware of the exact numbers in each unit, given the amount of work that we in the Ministry of Defence have to do.
  A key part of the new chapter work is exploring the role of the armed forces, including the reserves, in defending and protecting the United Kingdom. The SDR aims to make the TA more relevant, more usable and more integrated with its regular counterparts. The fact that Opposition Members seem to think it appropriate to return to the old TA, consisting of static infantry battalions that would be of no use to anyone, reflects very much to their discredit.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Ross Cranston: What progress has been made in advancing United Kingdom participation in the joint strike fighter project since the selection of Lockheed Martin as a contractor. [40905]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): A number of UK companies are already closely involved with the joint strike fighter project as part of the Lockheed Martin team. Work is in progress on arrangements for placing lower-tier contracts, for which a range of UK companies are expected to tender. The Ministry of Defence is facilitating such involvement, and earlier this month it hosted a well-attended briefing day for industry.
  Ross Cranston: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer; Members on both sides of the House will doubtless welcome news about progress on the joint strike fighter project. However, may I ask him a very blunt question? What does that news mean for jobs in this country, and for manufacturing and engineering jobs in the west midlands in particular?
  Dr. Moonie: I am very well aware of the valuable contribution made by west midlands companies to our effort and procurement. The Government's decision to participate in the joint strike fighter project could reap as much as £3 billion for the UK economy in the system development and demonstration phase, and a potential further £24 billion for downstream production activities. On employment, the demonstration phase should sustain or create some 3,500 high-technology jobs nationwide, potentially rising to 8,500 in a few years' time. The west midlands will be one of the main regions to benefit: in particular, Smiths Industries will be heavily involved in work on the standing take-off, vertical-landing variant.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: May I remind the Minister that the joint strike fighter is, among its other roles, supposed to be a naval fighter? For that purpose, it is most important to have naval aviators with recent fixed-wing experience. Is it not therefore extraordinary that, before the joint strike fighter comes into service—indeed, perhaps some four or five years before—the Fleet Air Arm should lose its fixed-wing aviation and have its Sea Harriers withdrawn from service?
  Dr. Moonie: Sea Harriers are being withdrawn from service because the Air Force considered it a waste to spend a great deal of money on updating them. That decision does not affect the pilots' future employment. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, they will be integrated into the joint Harrier project, and all of them will be retained in service. There will be no problem with the retention of pilots and, ultimately, the joint strike fighter's coming into service will enhance capability on board our carriers.

  A400M
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: When he expects to sign a production contract for the A400M. [40906]
  Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on the A400M programme. [40909]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The A400M development and manufacture contract between OCCAR, which is acting as agent for the eight nations participating in the A400M programme, and Airbus Military was signed on 18 December 2001. The contract will become effective once Germany has gained Bundestag funding approval and is therefore able to make its full commitment to the programme.
  Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that reply. Of course, he touched on the vital point, which is when Germany will confirm the number of aircraft that it will order. What will be the minimum number of aircraft Germany will need to make the project viable in terms of development costs? What discussions has he had about the content of Rolls-Royce engines? That aspect is very important to a company in my constituency, Dowty Propellers, which hopes to have a great input into the project.
  Dr. Moonie: Germany has promised to order 73 of the aircraft. In Berlin the week before last, I had discussions with my opposite number in the German Defence Department and stressed to him the importance of proceeding with the contract. He appeared in no doubt that—provided of course that the present Administration are returned at the next election—there will be no problem with Germany's continuing participation in the programme. With regard to Rolls-Royce, I am well aware of the importance that the project has for future employment and we are losing no opportunity to, bring that to the company's attention.
  Mr. Turner: Will the Minister return to the issue of the number of planes being ordered by Germany? He does not appear to have a fallback position if the Administration are not returned or do not confirm the numbers about which he sounds so optimistic.
  Dr. Moonie: We have to rely on the information that we have at the present time. There is little point in speculating about what will happen, as the Germans assure us that the contract will be signed and that the appropriate number of aircraft will be involved. Clearly, should that not be the case, we will have to re-evaluate our position on the cost of the aircraft and whether the programme is still viable. However, at present I am convinced of the Germans' intention to go ahead with the project at the number specified.

  Afghanistan
  Richard Ottaway: What representations he has made in the last two months to
  16
  his European counterparts regarding the extension of the international security assistance force's mandate beyond six months; and if he will make a statement. [40907]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have regular discussions with my European counterparts on a variety of issues, including the international security assistance force. As I have already indicated to the House, any extension of the force beyond six months would require a decision by the United rations Security Council.
  Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. In January, he indicated to the House that the balk of the British troops would be deployed only for three months. In the circumstances, can he say which nations will make up the bulk of the six-month deployment and exactly what is the position with Turkey at the moment?
  Mr. Hoon: I will make a statement to the House later this afternoon in which I will deal with those issues. However, I can say that discussions are continuing with Turkey, which has expressed an interest in taking on the leadership role in the ISAF. In recent discussions, we have felt more confident of its ability to do so.

  First World War Soldiers (Pardons)
  Vera Baird: If she will take steps to obtain pardons for soldiers executed during the first world war. [40908]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The question of granting pardons to those executed during the first world war was the subject of a careful and detailed review by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), the then Minister for the Armed Forces. The legal difficulties in considering pardons were fully explained in his statement to the House on 24 July 1998.
  The position has not changed but that should not obscure the important and very positive steps taken to recognise those men as victims of the war and to remember them among their fallen comrades. Their public commemoration in the new memorial in the national memorial arboretum is very fitting.
  Vera Baird: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. I ask him to consider two factors that have reignited the issue for some of my Redcar constituents. The first is that New Zealand passed the Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Act in 2000, which pardoned the few people that it had executed in the first world war, thus showing that it can still be done. The second is that the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission routinely reviews convictions that are more than 50 years old, including executions, and makes sensible suggestions. Do not those two factors together suggest that a short independent inquiry might be able to give at least some people more satisfaction?
  Dr. Moonie: Again, I should refer my hon. Friend to the careful and well-researched statement that the Minister made in 1998. The whole subject has been considered with great sympathy and care. The review took a wide

  17
  range of expert legal, medical and historical advice from within and from outside the MOD, including from those who seek pardons. The representations from the families of those who were executed and the views of surviving veterans of the war were of course fully considered, as was surviving evidence on the individual cases.
  We understand that many people still seek pardons for the executed men, but pardons are an exceptional legal remedy requiring a level of evidence that, particularly in relation to medical matters, no longer survives. However, the difficulties over considering pardons should not obscure the important measures that have been taken publicly to recognise those who were executed as victims of the war.
  Michael Fabricant: The Minister is right to say that this subject is far from simple. He may recall from the history books that when many of the executions took place there were mass desertions from the French army and that, rightly or wrongly, it was feared that similar events might occur in the British Army. He is also right to mention the national memorial arboretum at Alrewas in my constituency. If he has not already visited it, may I invite him and his colleagues to see that fitting memorial to those who tragically lost their lives?
  Dr. Moonie: Yes. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have every intention of visiting the national memorial arboretum in the near future, and I shall of course inform him, as a local Member, when that visit is to take place.

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Mr. Neil Turner: What the spending implications are of the revised procurement strategy for type 45 destroyers; and if he will make a statement. [40910]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The revised procurement strategy announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in July 2001 on the type 45 provides better value for money to the taxpayer, secures welcome stability for our warship-building industry and preserves the possibility of future competition for a number of naval programmes. The £2 billion order for the first six ships was confirmed on 18 February 2002. Once completed and fully equipped with their principal anti-air missile system, the overall procurement cost for the six ships will be £4.3 billion.
  Mr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Can the good news that he has announced on savings be applied to future contracts to ensure that we get increased capability and best value for the taxpayer?
  Dr. Moonie: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Value for money remains the cornerstone of our procurement policy, with competition a key means to achieve that. The revised type 45 strategy shows that, through smart acquisition, the Government, working with industry, can deliver key national defence industrial capability and ensure best value for money. In the type
  18
  45 decision, as in other contracts, the implications for the UK defence industrial base are always considered before any procurement decision is reached.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: May I remind the House that I served with the armed forces parliamentary scheme on HMS Cumberland, where we saw at first hand the work that the fleet is doing? In answer to a previous question, the Minister referred to Sea Harriers remaining in harness until the new aircraft come into operation. When will the type 45s be available for operations, and what is the deadline for the Sea Harriers to come out of action and the new aircraft to go into service?
  Dr. Moonie: The pilots will continue in service; the Sea Harriers will be withdrawn. That is what I said.
  The armed forces have carefully considered the implications for the next few years, and the type 45s will come into full service in 2007, with their armaments. Given that our procurement strategy is very successful, that date will be met. Until then, there is a perfectly adequate screen of protection available for our carriers and any forces that we send abroad. We have been guaranteed of that, and it was very relevant to the decision on the Sea Harriers.
  John Robertson: My hon. Friend is aware that the type 45 contracts were signed in my constituency; may I thank him on behalf of the constituents and those who work in all the yards affected by the decision? Has the strategic review considered any future ships so that we can meet the needs of the coming century? The yards of Scotstoun and Govan will be only too happy to build any more ships that he wishes to announce.
  Dr. Moonie: I am sure they are, and I await their bids with interest. In addition to the type 45, there will be work on future carriers to be considered. That will provide opportunities for shipyards and other companies to compete for further much-needed business.
  Patrick Mercer: During a visit last week to the dockyards in Scotland with the Select Committee on Defence, we found HMS Monmouth lying untended in dry dock, where she had been since January. No work had been carried out on her, her crew is lying idle, and the workers who would normally work on her are unable to do so. Would the Minister care to comment on that?
  Dr. Moonie: Being completely unaware of the situation, the comment that I shall make is that I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

  Military Presence (North-West)
  Dr. Brian Iddon: What the size of the military presence in north-west region is: and if he will make a statement. [40912]
  Ms Ann Coffey:What the size of the military presence is in north-west region; and if he will make a statement. [40915]
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): As at July 2000, there were 1,904 service personnel based in the north-west. In addition, there are 2,128 civilian Ministry of Defence staff and more than 4,000 reserve forces based in the region.
  Dr. Iddon: Under this Government, unemployment has fallen significantly throughout the north-west. Has that had any significant impact on recruitment to the armed forces in our region?
  Mr. Ingram: Undoubtedly. One of the characteristics that we are having to deal with is fuller employment in all the regions where before we would have had very good recruitment returns. Because of that, we have to renew our efforts and raise our game, so to speak, to ensure that we continue to attract the high-quality recruits that we need. The north-west is one of the areas in which we have a very good record of recruitment—one of the highest in the country.
  Ms Coffey: I am pleased to learn that there are 4,000 reserves based in the north-west. As my right hon. Friend's Department is undertaking a new chapter in the strategic defence review to consider a greater role for the reserves in homeland defence, will he confirm that the north-west should see an increase in the number of reserves in future?
  Mr. Ingram: That is an important question because the new chapter, which has been mentioned in responses to previous questions, will clearly have an important impact across the wide reach of our armed forces, not least in the reserves and the territorials. It is too soon to say precisely what the impact of any change in activity will be on the regional footprint, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend is kept up to date with any changes in her area.

  Veterans
  Mrs. Betty Williams: What steps he is taking to improve the handling of veterans' issues. [40916]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Since the announcement of the veterans initiative, and my appointment as Minister with responsibility for veterans' affairs one year ago, we have built up a partnership with veterans organisations and with other Government Departments to develop an integrated policy for veterans. This is well advanced, and will address veterans' concerns across government and identify means of improving the delivery of services to veterans, particularly the most vulnerable.
  20
  Working through a veterans forum and a ministerial taskforce, we have agreed an action plan and commissioned nine working groups, made up jointly of representatives of the veterans community and of interested Departments, to identify ways of giving practical expression to the plan. We expect to see the first results of this work later this year.
  Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Several of my constituents were very grateful for the settlement for far east prisoners of war that was announced in November 2000. Does my hon. Friend recognise, however, that prisoners of war who suffered horribly in German camps and on forced marches have still not been recognised in this way? I believe that they have been unfairly treated.
  Dr. Moonie: This is a matter to which we return time and again during parliamentary questions and in Adjournment debates. I recognise the level of suffering of former prisoners in German prisoner of war camps, but it did not, in general, match that experienced by the prisoners of war of the Japanese. This matter has been very carefully looked at in the past, and I believe that the prisoners of war to whom my hon. Friend refers have been treated sympathetically and appropriately.

  Terrorism
  Lawrie Quinn: What plans he has to adjust defence capabilities in respect of the coalition against international terrorism. [40917]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The work being conducted in the Ministry of Defence on a new chapter to the strategic defence review is designed to ensure that we have the right concepts, forces and capabilities in place to deal with the threats that were manifest on 11 September. This work builds on the solid foundation of the strategic defence review, which left the United Kingdom well placed to meet the additional challenges that we now face. I expect to be in a position to announce some conclusions in the spring or early summer.
  Lawrie Quinn: Notwithstanding the deliberations that his Department is undertaking, will the Secretary of State tell us whether, in the event of a new problem appearing on the horizon, the Department would have the facilities needed to implement the changes, representations and conclusions embodied in the work in progress, and to respond to any further terrorist threat?
  Mr. Hoon: I can give that assurance. Obviously further policy work is under way, but it does not affect our practical ability to deal with a new terrorist threat should it manifest itself.

European Council (Barcelona)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Council in Barcelona on 15 and 16 March.
Two years ago at Lisbon, the European Union set out to become the world's most competitive and dynamic economy by 2010. Since that time, the European Union has created 5 million new jobs. There are now neatly 3 million more women in work. Tax rates on low wage earners have been falling. We have agreed a new framework for competitive telecoms markets. Telecoms liberalisation has cut the price of calls across the European Union by almost a half. As a result of the EU action plan, internet access has doubled across the EU. We have cut red tape for small firms so that a private limited company can now be set up in under two weeks in 10 EU member states. We have recently agreed proposals to deliver a single EU securities market, and cheaper capital for small firms.
However, the recent difficulties faced by the world economy mean that we cannot rely on cyclical growth to deliver the employment that Europe's citizens need. We must therefore push ahead with the structural reforms to Europe's economy.
At Stockholm a year ago, progress stalled. Barcelona had to recover momentum. There is no doubt that after Barcelona we are indeed moving again, although there is still much ground to be made up by 2010. Such progress as there is represents a tribute to the European Commission and the leadership of the Spanish presidency, and I pay tribute to the excellent chairmanship of Prime Minister Aznar.
We set a timetable under majority voting to complete the single market in financial services, itself capable of boosting Europe's national income by half a percentage point. No fewer than 25 different liberalising measures have already been agreed. Seven more key measures will be agreed by the end of the year. Most of all, we made a breakthrough in opening up the European energy market. All member states have now agreed fully to open up the non-domestic market by 2004 with free and fair competition. That represents over 60 per cent. of the total market in gas and electricity. In addition, it is clear that the overriding majority of EU countries are now ready to open up their domestic markets as well. We agreed a decision on the relevant directives to be taken by majority vote, at the latest by the end of 2002. That means that for the first time a single market in energy is now attainable.
We agreed to deliver broadband technology across the European Union by 2005. That means internet access at 10 times the present speed. We agreed to boost our commitment to research and development towards a target of 3 per cent. of gross domestic product by 2010. 1 he new research framework programme will spend 17.5 billion euro to that end. New industries such as the growing biotech market will benefit significantly. We agreed to implement by the end of 2002 proposals to reduce regulation on business, and a new system for consultation with business before regulation is introduced.
Those steps go hand in hand with a social policy that seeks to encourage more and better jobs for all. The record of the British Government in this regard is strong.
22
We have guaranteed fair rights at work. We have a national minimum wage. Our disability, gender and race equality legislation is among the most advanced in Europe. We have introduced a new system of tax credits to make work pay. Our new deal has put more than 300,000 young people into work. Since we came to power, unemployment in Britain has therefore fallen to its lowest level for 25 years. We have one of the highest employment rates in Europe overall, including for women and for older workers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Barcelona?"'] At Barcelona, Europe agreed that the enlargement agenda must focus on measures such as those, targeted at jobs, enterprise and moving people into work rather benefit, without heavy-handed regulation. It was, in other words, in agreement with the British approach—increasingly a European one. As the Barcelona conclusions say,
"employment is the best guarantee against social exclusion".
The enlargement countries came to Barcelona and for the first time participated in policy debates. We also discussed how to make our decision making more streamlined and efficient once we become a European Union of 25, 27 and more member states. I welcome the proposals of the Secretary General of the Council, Javier Solana, which will now be taken forward by the Spanish presidency. In many respects, those echo the ideas that Chancellor Schröder of Germany and I put forward in a recent paper on Council reform.
The Council also addressed a range of pressing international issues. The European Union committed to increase its average development aid to 0.39 per cent. of GDP by 2006. That achievement owes a lot to the lead given by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the International Development Secretary. It is worth an extra $7 billion a year. If delivered it means another 80 million children in schooling for the first time in Africa and elsewhere.
On the middle east, we underlined the extreme gravity of the present situation and called on both sides to take action to stop the bloodshed. We welcomed the resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council last week and the initiative taken by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia offering full normalisation of relations with Israel in return for full withdrawal from occupied territories. There must be an immediate ceasefire all round to give the peace process a chance to start to work again.
On Zimbabwe, the European Council accepted our judgment that the elections were neither free nor fair. It agreed to take forward specific measures through the Foreign Ministers.
On the Balkans, the Council warmly welcomed the agreement brokered by Javier Solana between the authorities in Serbia and Montenegro for a new relationship within a single state. That agreement underlines just how far the countries of south-east Europe have come in the past four years. A democratic Government is in place in Belgrade. Milosevic is on trial in The Hague. Kosovo has held successful elections for its provisional Government. Moderates are in power in Croatia and Bosnia. The noose is tightening around Karadzic. In Macedonia, active diplomacy last year stopped what would have become another Balkan war.
Progress at Barcelona came about in large part through Britain acting in alliance with others. Prior to the summit, we took initiatives with no fewer than seven different countries. Five years ago, such alliances between Britain and those other countries would have been unthinkable.

23
Under the last Conservative Government, Britain was marginalised, without influence appropriate to our weight and size, in the isolation room of Europe. Now, from the economy to defence to institutional reform, Britain is in there, shaping Europe's future, making Europe work in a way that is better for Britain and for Europe. The policy of constructive engagement is right. Britain's proper role is as a leader and partner in Europe. We will continue to get the best for Britain out of Europe. Under this Government, the days of weakness and isolation will not return.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement on the Barcelona economic summit and for giving me early sight of it.
We on the Conservative Benches deplore and condemn, as he would, the violence that we yet again saw on the streets of the city while Ministers were discussing, their various points. There were, however, some good points to come out of Barcelona, and I want to start with them. On overseas aid, we say unequivocally that we welcome the goal of increasing the average EU contribution to 0.39 per cent. by 2006, and we look forward to the Economic and Finance Council's report on debt relief for the least developed countries. However, I suspect that we will still need to see greater speed in the delivery.
Out of the 30-odd pages of the presidency's conclusions, only about four short paragraphs can possibly give the Prime Minister cause for any significant claims to progress. Those are only aspirational anyway. For anyone reading it, 99 per cent. of the document is simply Euro-waffle. For example,
"The euro clearly demonstrates what the European Union can achieve when the political will is there."
What on earth does that mean? Does the introduction of the coins demonstrate "political will"? What of the euro's decline in value against the dollar and the pound?
What about the serious crisis in pensions? In Europe that has been going on for years. Governments have been warned about it. The document states that
"the European Council calls for the reform of the pensions systems to be accelerated to ensure that they are both financially sustainable and meet their social objectives"
That is meaningless. There is a crisis, and that is the best that Ministers can do. Let us hope that what is proposed is more coherent than paragraph 32, which calls for—this is the ridiculous bit—"early retirement incentives" and in the next breath states that they want an
"increase of about five years in the effective average age at which people stop working".
Wonderful muddle and contradiction.
At Lisbon two years ago, did not the Prime Minister describe that summit as a "sea change"? After Barcelona, it is difficult to find out from the Prime Minister's words whether he sees the tide as coming in or going out. In October last year, did he not refer to Barcelona as
"make or break for Europeans' future prosperity"?
Yet yesterday those two high-flying aspirations had been reduced to—I quote his own words—"limited but solid achievements".
24
The Prime Minister said a moment ago that the EU was getting more like this Government in Britain. Well, there is another 10-year plan that they seem to have copied.
Did not the Prime Minister fail to get any action to enforce the lifting of the illegal French ban on British beef, which is costing our farmers so dear? Some £200-million worth of exports would be a shot in the arm for the beleaguered agricultural sector. I seem to recall the Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, criticising my predecessor for failing to get any movement on that, yet it is five years later and there is still no movement from the Prime Minister.
Did the Prime Minister get firm action on asylum seekers, who are costing the rail freight companies £500,000 a week? There was nothing in that regard.
Was not the Prime Minister pushed into accepting UK involvement in further military operations in Macedonia—both militarily risky and essentially a political gesture on our part—knowing full well that the Ministry of Defence has said that it is against it?
Did the Prime Minister really sign up to the dishonourable concept of the EU effectively offering 30 million pieces of silver to bribe the Gibraltarians, to try and get them off our hands?
What of Zimbabwe? No words on decisive action; just more delay and more talking. Once again, under the Prime Minister's leadership, the wrong message was sent to Mugabe.
Would the Prime Minister tell the House how a strongly worded statement on the US steel tariffs sits with the refusal of the French to open up their energy markets? We have a French state-owned subsidised energy sector buying up British utilities while refusing to open up to free and fair competition. Where was the make or break there?
In Lisbon the aim was "a fully liberalised and competitive telecoms market by the end of the next year." That was 2001. Two years later in Barcelona, we are told that "further progress is needed." A telephone call in Europe costs three times as much as in the United States. Where was the make or break there?
Lisbon was about making Europe more competitive. Since then, Europe has gone backwards. Hourly labour costs in the EU have risen—risen—by 3.5 per cent. between 2000 and the autumn of 2001. The working time directive, the European works councils directive and so on have all reduced market flexibility. Where was the make or break there? The Prime Minister went to Barcelona to urge the need for less red tape on industry, yet in Britain alone more than 5,000 more regulations have been imposed on industry in the past year. Where is the make or break there?
Was not the Prime Minister isolated in his support for America in dealing with the potentially lethal problems of countries possessing weapons of mass destruction—Saddam Hussein and Iraq? Where was the make or break there? Absolutely nothing. The Prime Minister claims to be at the centre of European decision making. After the last summit, he said:
"Europe needs Britain to be engaged and Britain needs to have influence in Europe."—[Official Report, 17 December 2001: Vol. 377, c. 27.]
Let us look at the facts. On asylum, he has lost the bilateral agreement with France that Germany and Denmark retain. On Zimbabwe, the Commission,

25
the Belgians and the French have all rolled out the red carpet for Mugabe. Where was the Prime Minister's influence? Is that what he calls having influence in Europe? I doubt it. At Nice he gave up the veto in more than 30 areas. What influence did he gain in Barcelona from any one of those? None.
Once again, Barcelona failed to address the future of the common agricultural and fisheries policies. Without this sweeping reform, all talk of economic reform founders at the first hurdle.
The Prime Minister came back with so little from Barcelona that half his statement was taken up in talking about what Britain had been doing in the past three to four years—there was nothing about the EU. The truth is that Barcelona was, once again, all about fine words from the Prime Minister and no action. After claiming for five years to be at the centre of Europe, is it not an indictment of him that such an important summit can have achieved so little and at such great cost?
The Prime Minister: That response was certainly as anticipated and expected. I should like to deal with some of the points that the right hon. Member raised. He said that we had to speed up our delivery on overseas aid. I might point out to him that it was this Government who increased overseas aid after years of the Conservative party refusing to increase overseas aid. As for his strictures on Europe not going further on pensions, the reason is that we do not want Europe to run all the pensions systems of various countries. I am not sure whether he is saying that he does want Europe to do that.
The right hon. Gentleman made the extraordinary remark—extraordinary for reasons that I will explain—that nothing whatever had been achieved at the summit: no dates, no timetables. In fact, as I pointed out, 25 measures on financial services have been agreed and another seven were agreed at the summit, with dates attached. In respect of energy, the right hon. Gentleman said that nothing was agreed. In fact, it was agreed that 60 per cent. of the energy market—the non-domestic market—would be liberalised by 2004. The right hon. Gentleman accused us of giving away the veto on directives, but it is only because we have qualified majority voting on the directive to open up the domestic market that we agreed and were able to agree at Barcelona that by the end of this year there will be agreement on opening up that market too. As ever, with the greatest respect to the Conservative party, it has to be negative about everything to do with Europe.
The right hon. Gentleman also made the extraordinary statement that we should not be in Macedonia—that we should have nothing to do with it. I cannot believe— [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman will have to be a little less excitable and listen for a moment. I know that he does not believe that we should be in Afghanistan. [Interruption.] I think that the right hon. Gentleman should calm himself for a moment. He does not believe that we should be in Afghanistan; he does not believe that we should be in Sierra Leone; and he certainly does not believe that we should be in Europe, after the statement we have just heard. Then he said that we should not be in Macedonia, when it is as a result of our action there that we have managed to prevent civil war.
The right hon. Gentleman then said, in another extraordinary aside, that nothing was achieved in Barcelona and that it was a total failure and disaster.
26
Why does he have to say that? Because, for the Conservative party, it is necessary always to be totally negative about Europe. There was one name that he did not mention in his response—one little thing that he did not get round to talking about: the position of Margaret Thatcher on Europe. The Conservative party has worked out its new policy on Europe, which is to be silent about it. Why does it want to be silent? Because it has moved further and further against Europe with every change that it has made. Just a few weeks ago, the shadow Foreign Secretary said again that he wanted to renegotiate the treaties.
Mr. Michael Ancram: Revisit.
The Prime Minister: Oh, I see—that is the policy. That is clear, then. When the shadow Foreign Secretary revisits the treaties, what do we think that that visit will entail? Will he revisit it and say, "That was a good treaty; I liked that one."?
The Conservatives' policy on the single currency is, "Never. Not in any set of circumstances." We did not get a single word of dissociation from the remarks of Margaret Thatcher. [Interruption.] Well, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with her remarks? A nod of the head would do.
The Conservative right and the right hon. Gentleman say that nothing good comes out of Europe. How can anyone seriously argue for withdrawal from Europe? How can anyone seriously argue that nothing good has come from Europe in the past half century? What about rising prosperity and peace for our people? What about the queue of countries that want to join the European Union, with only the British Conservative party wanting to exit?
The right hon. Gentleman's policy is to talk about withdrawal and end up ruling out a single currency for ever, whatever the economic circumstances. I say in response that his policy on Europe is not an act of patriotism: it is an act of folly.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: To coin a phrase, it is a joy, as ever, to hear another prime ministerial statement on a European summit. The only thing that was missing in the response that we have just heard was, "And another thing—I had that EU in the back of the cab once".
Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that, in the politics of this summit and increasingly in the politics of British involvement in the European Union, welcome and vital as that is—we obviously strongly support it—the fact that we do not have a clear timetable for a referendum on our participation in a successful single European currency is holding us back from making the diplomatic contribution that we could make in Europe?
When that referendum campaign comes, we will want a broadly based coalition of interests, which will involve some Conservatives, the Government, the Liberal Democrats, the CBI and the TUC. To be seen cavorting with the likes of Berlusconi, given the response that that has elicited from John Monks, is not helping to build that long-term coalition for the referendum.
We welcome the progress that was made on the liberalisation of energy policy, and we would have liked it to go further. None the less, it was a positive step and is to be welcomed.

27
On Zimbabwe, when the three leaders are in the country tomorrow, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to stress to them the continuing British concern, which is certainly shared by his party and by ours, and the need for trenchant action following that rigged election?
The Prime Minister: On the last point, our views have been expressed on many occasions and will be expressed again. What has happened is a tragedy for the people of Zimbabwe. It is important continually to emphasise that the main victims of violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe are not whites: they are black people—ordinary Zimbabweans—who wanted the right to elect a Government freely and fairly.
With regard to the initiatives that we took prior to the summit, as I said in my statement, we took a range of initiatives with seven different countries. Without any apology or hesitation, I shall continue to work with all Governments inside the European Union when I believe that it is in the interests of this country.
The tests, for the single currency must be passed. That is the basis for the referendum, and that is the position that we have taken for many years. I believe that it is right to judge the tests on the basis of the national economic interest, and if they are met, to put the case to the people in a referendum.
Ms Gisela Stuart: I am sure that we all look forward to receiving postcards from the Leader of the Opposition when he revisits the various treaties of Europe. In the meantime, the Prime Minister referred to the progress that was made in Barcelona on constitutional and institutional reforms. Will he give us more details of how he sees the next steps, especially on reform of the workings of the Council of Ministers?
The Prime Minister: The important thing about the proposals that we put forward with Germany before the summit was that we were saying that, when the European Council enlarges—and, frankly, even now—we should try to deal with a lot more of the detail of the business and the dossiers before we get to the Council, and that we need to make Council proceedings shorter and simpler. It is important to do that now, and it will be essential when we enlarge. The comments and proposals made by Javier Solana in that regard tie in well with that. Many people do not understand—although I know my hon. Friend does—the implications of the probable addition of 10 member countries to the European Union in 2004. That will significantly change the whole nature of the EU. These proposals for detailed change may seem anoraky, but they will be vital to the proper working of the Council.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: First, I congratulate the Prime Minister on the modest advance that has been made towards energy market liberalisation in Europe. I also congratulate him on using arguments about labour market flexibility against his critics in the TUC that are identical to those that were used a few years ago by Ministers in the Major Government when the right hon. Gentleman was leading the Labour movement in opposition to that Government.
Will the Prime Minister comment on progress towards a single market in financial services, from which this country could benefit considerably? It is all very well to
28
have seven directives, but they are a modest advance towards the aims of the Lamfalussy agreement. Does he think that it will be possible to improve on the target of 2005 for an integrated capital market, and does he think that his new alliances with centre-right politicians in the European Union might enable him to improve on that?
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for those generous comments on the achievements of the summit. [Interruption.] I thought they were fine, actually; I liked them.
In respect of energy, it is worth pointing out that before we got to the summit people thought that we would not be able make advances on any front. In fact, on non-domestic we have done so. The important point is that only one country is standing out against liberalisation, but because we will he able to decide the matter on a majority voting basis we should be able to get round that in time.
On financial services, I agree with the right and learned hon. Gentleman that we have to do far more to make progress on the Lamfalussy proposals, and I think that we will be able to do so. I also hope—this is not directly in relation to financial services—that we can unblock the single European patent negotiations, which are essential for the future.
As for the Governments with whom we work, we work with both centre-left and centre-right Governments when it is the country's interests to do so.
Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend may know that prior to the summit the European Commission estimated that the European Union's gross domestic product per head of the European Union stood at around only 65 per cent. of the equivalent figure for the United States. In view of that, and given that enlargement will further reduce the European figure, is not it reasonable to assume that Europe may never catch up with the United States and that the euro may never be able to look the dollar in the eye?
The Prime Minister: I think that my right hon. Friend takes too pessimistic a view. If Europe makes the necessary structural reforms—the single currency makes those all the more important because of the lack of exchange rate flexibility—we will indeed be able to compete with the United States and we will have a huge opportunity to do so. When the European Union finally enlarges we will have a market of about 500 million, which is bigger than those of the US and Japan combined. If we look back over the past few years at the changes that have been made in Europe, it is clear that many parts of the continent are enjoying a prosperity that was previously unheard of.
I am not minimising the challenges—that is why I described the progress at the summit as solid but limited. It is important that we continue the process. I repeat the view that I have taken throughout—that we are far more likely to get a Europe that is more shaped in Britain's image and in agreement with what we believe in if we are in there pursuing our interests in a constructive way.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the commitment to fair and free elections in Zimbabwe wholly consistent with the widely reported comments in

29
the Spanish press and in The Daily Telegraph that the Prime Minister and the Spanish Prime Minister discussed making an offer of £35 million to the people of Gibraltar if they voted yes, but offering them not a penny, and the undermining of their financial institutions, if they voted no? If that is in any way true, would not it be worse than Mugabe ballot rigging?
The Prime Minister: Well, it is not.
Kate Hoey: Following on from the question of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), did my right hon. Friend speak to the Spanish Prime Minister during the private chit-chats that happen at Council meetings? If so, did he convey the feeling of the House and the country against any dilution of Gibraltarians' rights to be British? Did he also tell him that Gibraltarians, who are marching in their thousands today, will not be bought off?
The Prime Minister: The Government's position and the constitutional guarantees remain, as we have said constantly. I stress to my hon. Friend and those on the Conservative Benches who want to disown the Brussels process, which the previous Government began, that it is manifestly in the interests of the people of Britain, Spain and Gibraltar to find a proper modus vivendi for the future. It is in everybody's interest, and the constitutional guarantees remain. Maintaining the stand-off that has occurred between people in Gibraltar and people in Spain when they live side by side cannot be in anyone's interests. The conspiracy theorists can have their theories, which abound, but what we are trying to achieve is in the interests not only of this country and our relationship with Spain but of the people of Gibraltar. That is why the Brussels process was started.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The Prime Minister was right to say that at least the summit was moving in the right direction. However, for those of us who are committed to Britain's playing a full role in the European Union, it was rather disappointing.
Away from the public discussions, did the Prime Minister sense that the leaders of France and Germany were genuinely prepared to make progress and thus make a success of the single market, which Baroness Thatcher helped to create when she was at her peak as Prime Minister? Were they prepared to put in an effort to increase research and development by Governments and to deliver the broadband objectives for telecommunications by 2005?
Will the Prime Minister confirm that, under qualified majority voting—another great achievement by Margatet Thatcher—the energy market will genuinely open up after 2004?
Was there any discussion on the Galileo satellite network for global positioning, which seems vital if we are to make a full impact on world politics?
The Prime Minister: On telecoms, I believe that we will achieve the goal. I also believe, as I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), that we can be confident about achieving the goal for energy because we are able to open up the domestic market through qualified majority voting.
30
It is not for me to speak for the leaders of France or Germany, but I believe that the overwhelming desire of those who attended the summit was to push forward opening up the market. The Commission supports that position strongly, as do almost all the member states, whether centre right or centre left. I believe that there is an unstoppable momentum towards it. The pace of change will be governed by many matters, including political considerations. However, the atmosphere of the discussion of economic reform was qualitatively wholly different from four or five years ago.
We have agreed in principle to take Galileo forward. We insist on its civil application and proper systems of sound financial management. If they are in place, we believe that it could play a big part in the technology and technological opportunities for Europe in future.
Ms Debra Shipley: What does my right hon. Friend consider to be the environmental impact of the European energy market that he described?
The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that at the same time as opening up the energy market, we must push forward on energy efficiency and fulfilling the Kyoto targets. We are well aware that opening up the market may benefit consumers on price but that it is important to take other measures on energy efficiency that are necessary for the environment. All the evidence that I read week after week suggests that climate change has become a more serious rather than a less serious issue. It is essential that the Governments of the world face up to its seriousness.
Mrs. Angela Browning: To be generous to the Prime Minister, I believe that he misunderstood or misheard the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) in response to the statement. My right hon. Friend challenged what the Prime Minister signed up to on British military deployment in the Balkans because it was specifically against the advice of the Ministry of Defence. Why did he disregard that advice?
The Prime Minister: Of course we do not disregard the advice that we receive. The point that I was making to the Leader of the Opposition—I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees that he requires translation nowadays—was that, if we are to play our proper role in the Balkans, it is important that we are part of the system of peacekeeping there. We learned from Bosnia, where we did not go in in the early 1990s when we probably should have done and where tens of thousands of people died, and in relation—[Interruption.] If the Leader of the Opposition will forgive me. In respect of any European role on defence, it has been made clear that it, too, must be consistent with the Berlin-plus arrangements for NATO. I say to the hon. Lady—as I keep trying to tell Opposition Members—that it must be right that Europe upgrades its defence capability so that, in circumstances where NATO does not want to be engaged, Europe has the ability to act. That, de facto, is what is happening in Macedonia. It is important that we take forward European defence and it would be a very, very great shame if we turned our back on it.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Prime Minister accept that there is great concern both in this

31
place and elsewhere that a British Prime Minister—a Labour Prime Minister—appears to have as his closest ally a Spanish Conservative and an Italian neo-fascist? Do not we spend our time trying to marginalise the right here, and is it not therefore contradictory to seek to ally ourselves with the right in Europe?
The Prime Minister: We spend a lot of time trying to marginalise the right and on the basis of the last two elections I think we have been reasonably successful. The reason for that is that we have been prepared to do things that sometimes, traditionally, people would not have done.
I am happy in the alliance that we had before the summit with Italy and with Spain. We also had one with Germany and with Sweden—both of which have centre-left Governments. It is important that when this country works with other Governments we are prepared to work across traditional lines. I see no problem whatever in that; in fact, it is one of this country's strengths. It is in part because we have been able to do that that we are making a difference in Europe, whereas previously we were entirely isolated. We should leave that type of ideological prejudice to the Conservative party and not adopt it ourselves.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Prime Minister recall, two years ago, after the Lisbon summit, promising to lift the regulatory burden on small and medium-sized businesses, since when there has been a steady stream of new EU measures adding to business costs? Specifically, does he remember the pledge on page 17 of the Lisbon conclusions promising to set up an action plan to deal with that regulatory problem by 2001? Why was that action plan never brought forward, as the Barcelona conclusions recognise? Would it not be simpler if the Prime Minister and his colleagues agreed to keep the promises that they made in the past rather than waffling on, as they did at the latest Council, about what they hope to do in the future.
The Prime Minister: First, when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, I should have said that the numbers given by the Conservatives for new regulations on business are actually the numbers of statutory instruments. Vast numbers of those have nothing whatever to do with regulation on business; indeed, some of them are deregulating measures. In respect of the action plan on Europe, that is precisely why we brought forward the Mandelkern report—to ensure that there is less regulation on small businesses—
Mr. Duncan Smith: What happened to it?
The Prime Minister: I am just about to explain what happened to it.
Secondly, we put in place a new mechanism for deciding regulation in Europe. The principles of that plan were agreed at Barcelona, so we did not fail to take it forward—we actually agreed to take it forward.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether there were any discussions about how to tackle the international terrorism
32
supported by Iraq, Iran and Syria? When his European partners were discussing a solution to the middle eastern conflict did they agree that those who support the suicide bombers and the suicide gunmen who kill young people on the streets of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Natanya do not want a just solution to the conflict but the annihilation of Israel?
The Prime Minister: The summit focused on economic reform as regards the foreign policy issues that we discussed, although of course the issue of the middle east was raised. I agree with my hon. Friend that the acts of terrorism that are taking place in Israel are absolutely appalling. In this country, we have experience of that type of terrorism—as have other countries in Europe—although on nothing like the scale seen in Israel. It is important, however, that the reaction of Israel and the Israeli Government is proportionate. That is why we welcome very much the moves that have been made by the Americans to send General Zinni back to the region. I think that Vice-President Cheney is there today. Without repeating all that I have said before, may I say that some people will condemn the Israelis and some people will condemn the Palestinian terrorists—we can all state our position on this—but the absolute essence of this is what action we are going to take to resolve the situation, because I understand the reaction.
I spoke to Prime Minister Sharon when I was in Barcelona, and I understand how difficult it is for a Prime Minister in situations where he knows that terrorist attacks are about to happen. Does he sit back and do nothing; or does he take pre-emptive action? I understand the problems that Israel has. My only point the whole time is what is the strategy to get from where we are to where we need to be, and that strategy has to involve minimum confidence-building steps of security and then, as soon as possible, going back into a process. There are signs, first, that Israel recognises, as the UN Security Council did in an open way, that there will have to be a viable Palestinian state at the end of this negotiation and, secondly, in respect of Israel itself, that the whole of the Arab world—this is why I welcome the initiative that Crown Prince Abdullah wants to take—must respect Israel's right to exist.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I very much welcome what the Prime Minister said in his statement about the middle east peace process—or so-called peace process—and the move towards it, but does he agree that, even allowing for the fact that Saddam Hussein and his regime have to be dealt with, it would be an act of culpable folly if any action against Iraq were to take place before there was a proper move towards a resolution towards peace between the Arabs and the Israelis?
The Prime Minister: As I said when I was asked about that at the summit, I totally understand why there is a lot of speculation about action on Iraq, but, as I constantly repeat, no decision has been taken at all in respect of any action. There is a very clear view, which must be right, that Iraq should come back into compliance with UN Security Council resolutions and that it certainly posed a threat on weapons of mass destruction, but no decision-making process has taken place as yet. I think, though, that it is very clear that, for the sake of the whole of relations with the middle east—with Israel and the

33
Arab world—we should all be doing what we can to get the peace process back on track there. That is pretty much a statement of the obvious, and there are many signs from the US Administration that they take their responsibilities seriously and are significantly upgrading their efforts to find a way through.
Mr. John McFall: May I gently chide the Prime Minister for being too hard on the Leader of the Opposition? After all, when that right hon. Gentleman was a humble Back Bencher in the early 1990s, he worked tirelessly with the then Labour Opposition and others to ensure the defeat of his own Government on European matters, so all is not bad. May I remind the Prime Minister of the pre-eminence of London and Edinburgh as financial centres, with more than 1 million jobs involved? Can Europe not learn from our example of having a single financial regulator? What steps is the Prime Minister taking to ensure that the voice of business and finance is heeded when it comes to regulation and EU directives?
The Prime Minister: I agree very much with my hon. Friend about London and Edinburgh being major financial service centres, and I hope and believe that the changes that we agreed at Barcelona will make a difference, although the devil will be in the detail and we must make sure that whatever intentions are expressed in the Barcelona summit are carried forward in the directives that come through on financial services.
On the point about business and regulation, as I say, we agreed to commission a report by Mr. Mandelkern. That has now been agreed effectively, and that will make a difference to the way in which Europe views regulation. An indication of that was the agreement by Europe that industrial restructuring issues should be taken forward by the social partners—by the trade unions and business sitting down and talking together—rather than through regulation.
Mr. Simon Thomas: What became of the decision in the Gothenburg Council meeting that the following spring Council should be dedicated to sustainable development? How was the cause of sustainable development advanced in Barcelona? Although the extra £7 billion of international development aid is welcome, the target of 0.39 per cent. is barely half the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. Will the Prime Minister at least give an undertaking that his Government will beat the EU average?
The Prime Minister: We have done a substantial amount on sustainable development aid and we led the way in securing that agreement at the EU summit. There are two ways to advance sustainable development: first, through our endorsement of the Kyoto process, our measures to improve energy efficiency and by having regard for environmental considerations in economic growth; and, secondly, through our decisions on aid and development. The hon. Gentleman might be right in one sense by saying that 0.39 per cent. is not ambitious when set against the UN 0.7 per cent. target, but it would be a huge advance if countries achieved the target of 0.39 per cent. because they are so far distant from 0.7 per cent. at the moment. We should not make the best the enemy of the good.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Does my right hon. Friend understand the concern in North
34
Warwickshire that while he was building stronger trade links with Europe in Barcelona, he was being undermined in this country by a former British Prime Minister who was in effect calling for us to leave the EU? Companies such as BMW, TNT and the IM Group are investing in the future in my constituency by creating jobs because they need that European trade link. The failure of the Leader of the Opposition to dissociate himself from the comments of a former leader of the Conservative party will raise questions in the minds—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is out of order and does not require an answer.
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) mentioned manufacturers in the west midlands. Is the Prime Minister aware of the logjam in that region because manufacturers are unable to export to the EU through the channel tunnel? He will be aware that despite all the negotiations between the British Government and the French, there are still only 15 gendarmes and five security men guarding the Calais port. What steps have the Government taken while formulating the Barcelona treaty to ensure the permanent reopening of the channel tunnel for freight? May I remind the Prime Minister, when he says that Britain is in there shaping Europe's future, that the west midlands happens to be in Europe too?
The Prime Minister: This is a serious issue and of course we raised it with France at the summit. It is important that, over the next few days and weeks, the French authorities take proper measures to ensure that the exit route is secure. There is no doubt that the responsibility primarily rests with them. That point has been made repeatedly and will be made again.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend elaborate a little more on the course of action likely to be taken by EU Foreign Ministers on the tragic situation in Zimbabwe? Given the condemnation of the election by the Commonwealth observers and statements by individual members of the Commonwealth refuting those observations, it might be necessary to recall the whole of the Commonwealth to repudiate what happened in Zimbabwe. That would be for the good of democracy in Africa, where other countries are also about to have elections.
The Prime Minister: European Union Foreign Ministers will discuss what further sanctions should be taken in respect of Zimbabwe as a result of what happened there. On the Commonwealth, my hon. Friend probably knows that crucial meetings will take place in the next couple of days. The conclusion of the Commonwealth observers' report, of most independent observers and of the parliamentary delegation from the Southern African Development Community is clear. That is why I believe that there is no serious alternative but for the Commonwealth to act against Zimbabwe. The EU will deliberate, in the limited way that it can, on what further sanctions to take in a couple of weeks.
Mr. Edward Garnier: What precise arrangements did the Prime Minister reach with the Spanish, either bilaterally or within the context of the

35
Barcelona summit, on the future of Gibraltar? Is he prepared to go to Gibraltar, prior to the conclusion of the Madrid-London talks on the principles, to explain to the people there what he and his Spanish counterpart have in mind?
The Prime Minister: The process of discussion between Britain and Spain has not yet concluded. When it does, the proposals will be announced and people in Gibraltar will be able to see them. I appreciate what political advantage the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues may squeeze out of this issue, but they would be very unwise to try to derail a process that was begun under the previous Conservative Government for a very good reason. In a European Union that is moving closer together, when relations between Britain and Spain are not those between the Britain and Spain of 20 or 30 years ago and when people in Gibraltar desperately need a good relationship with Spain so that they can go about their daily lives, it is important that we try to come to a proper accommodation.
The constitutional guarantees remain: in the end there will be no constitutional change unless people in Gibraltar agree to it. It would be very unfortunate—in fact, it would be misjudged and wrong—if the Conservative party attempted to inflame feelings in Gibraltar in a way that was irresponsible and wrong. In the end it is right for Britain, for Spain and for the people of Gibraltar that we find a sensible way forward.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend mentioned some of the complex alliances that develop in negotiations such as those in Barcelona. In view of the fact that many of the applicant countries were participating in the negotiations, what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of our relationships with those countries, particularly those in central Europe where there seems to be real enthusiasm for joining the European Union and an unstoppable momentum towards that end?
The Prime Minister: All those countries have made huge changes. In the past it would have been impossible to conceive of them entering the European Union in the numbers in which they will enter in 2004. Some of the initiatives that we took before the summit were with applicant countries, not least with the centre-left Government in Poland, and those countries look on Britain as a champion of enlargement. One of the most unfortunate things about the Conservative party's position is how far it seems to be moving away even from enlargement.
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Most people saw Barcelona as a chance to get to grips with deregulation and liberalisation. I appreciate the Prime Minister mentioning the start of the deregulation process and the reports that are part of that, but is he not aware that businesses in this country see this Government as a regulatory Government and that regulations are increasing rather than decreasing? That being the case, will he now
36
commit himself to practising in this country what he preached in Barcelona, and cut regulations on our businesses?
The Prime Minister: What business really welcomes is the economic stability that has delivered us the lowest interest rates and the lowest inflation for decades, the lowest unemployment that this country has had for 25 years and the highest employment of any major industrialised country. That is in addition to the measures taken, such as the reduction of corporation tax to boost business. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The procedures that we have agreed will allow us to take account of the views of business far better before regulation is made in Europe, and that is a significant step forward.
Mr. James Plaskitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to press on with enlargement in the EU, not only in the interests of the candidate members who were present in Barcelona but because enlargement will provide an added essential spur to structural reform?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. The enlargement process is essential for the future of Europe and for its security. It is one reason why it is so important that this country carries on playing a leading and constructive role in Europe. When the EU enlarges to 25, 27 or 30 members, it would be absolute madness for this country to be on the sidelines of Europe. Our national interest is heavily engaged in Europe, and all our experience teaches us that when we are engaged and we are constructive, we achieve results.
Brian Cotter: Will the Prime Minister give the House more information on the consultation with small businesses which he talked about? Will he give us specific information on the implementation of the small business charter, with firm dates and tick boxes? Will he consider the paper produced by Small Business Europe, which I have in my hand? Bearing in mind that that organisation was set up by the Government and has only recently started to operate in Europe, the paper contains important recommendations for small businesses in particular, and we would welcome views on it.
The Prime Minister: Small business co-operation in Europe is far better now, because of the changes that we have been making, as the hon. Gentleman implied. We have agreed a whole series of measures to take forward work with small businesses, but the important point that we have been trying to establish is that the right way forward on jobs, the labour market and enterprise is not for Europe to try to impose uniformity in all circumstances, but for us to agree certain objectives, benchmark that process, and then say that it is up to individual countries to take the measures necessary to get there. That is why a major issue in next month's Budget will be measures to stimulate small business and enterprise. Our belief is that in Europe, this is about getting the right process to judge the impact that regulation is having on small businesses, and the support for small businesses set out in the charter.

Afghanistan
4.26 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I would like to bring the House up to date by making a statement about the continuing role of the British armed forces in Afghanistan. It is just over five months since the global coalition, assembled in response to the terrorist attacks in the United States, began military action in Afghanistan. At that time we set out a number of specific short and longer-term campaign aims. Those included preventing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat, breaking the links between Afghanistan and international terrorism, and reintegrating Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community.
Five months later, it is clear that that action has been remarkably successful. Afghanistan is now a very different country. The Taliban Government, who harboured the al-Qaeda terrorists, are no more. Terrorist training camps have been put out of action. The first steps towards creating a functioning state have been taken. Aid agencies operate with increasing freedom. Refugees are beginning to return to their homes.
I am particularly proud of the vital part that British forces have played in this success. I have set out on a number of occasions the contribution that they have made to the international coalition—reconnaissance and air-to-air refuelling flights, troops on the ground engaged in operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban elements, and Royal Navy participation in submarine and interdiction support operations in the Arabian sea.
Britain's armed forces have also played a significant role in leading the international security assistance force in Kabul, with some 1,600 British troops currently deployed with the force. ISAF's full operating capability was achieved on time on 18 February, bringing together more than 4,600 troops from 18 different countries in a harsh and demanding environment at a considerable distance from home. I pay particular tribute to General John McColl for his role in this.
ISAF is helping the Afghan Interim Administration to provide a secure and stable environment in Kabul. Life in the city is at last beginning to return to some kind of normality, as I was recently able to see for myself. ISAF is already training the first battalion of an Afghan national guard about 600 strong, with an ethnic make-up that reflects that of Afghanistan itself. It is also providing advice to the Afghan police. Where it can, ISAF has helped with much needed-physical reconstruction work—projects that range from repairs to schools to getting the city's dustcarts back on the road.
British forces deployed with ISAF include troops from the second battalion of the Parachute Regiment. It was always planned that they would return to the United Kingdom at the end of March to prepare for their deployment to Northern Ireland later this year. They are now in the process of handing over their responsibilities to the first battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment.
Germany has agreed to provide a new headquarters for the Kabul multinational brigade—ISAF's subordinate headquarters—which has until now been provided by the headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade. A Bundeswehr brigadier will formally assume command tomorrow.
38
That will enable us to withdraw a number of British troops from theatre, and is a demonstration of genuine international co-operation. So, too, is the Czech Republic's offer of a field hospital for ISAF. Following my discussions with my Czech counterpart earlier this month, the Czechs signed the ISAF memorandum of understanding last Thursday. Their contribution is very welcome.
The House will also be interested in the handover of the United Kingdom's responsibilities as lead nation for ISAF. Our talks with Turkey, which has expressed an interest in taking on the role, continue. It would not be appropriate to say too much before the talks are concluded, but the atmosphere in the high-level discussions between the United Kingdom, the United States and the Turks in Ankara last week was extremely positive.
We are therefore still working to transfer the leadership of ISAF. We are working hard to tie down the details, with the reassurance that Prime Minister Ecevit of Turkey has told my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he strongly supports his country taking on the role.
However, for all the progress that we have made in Afghanistan, the threat of attack from al-Qaeda and Taliban-related groupings and individuals across the country remains very high. The recent Operation Anaconda in the Paktia province, led by the United States, tackled one group of al-Qaeda terrorists and Taliban fighters. That showed that those people are still in Afghanistan in large numbers and that they are heavily armed. Left alone, those groups would threaten all that the Afghan people and their supporters in the international community have achieved so far and would strive to retain Afghanistan as a base for training and organising terrorism. They do not recognise the Afghan Interim Administration and will work to destabilise the situation across Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda and its supporters continue to pose a direct threat to states outside Afghanistan, including the United Kingdom.
I know that the House will join me in offering its sympathies to the families of the Afghan and American soldiers who died during Operation Anaconda and in paying tribute to all the coalition forces that were involved, including the crews of the RAF Tristar tankers and Sentry AWACS aircraft that supported coalition air strikes during the operation.
The United States has now formally requested that the UK provides forces to join in future military operations against other remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban elsewhere in Afghanistan. I have therefore authorised the deployment to Afghanistan of a full United Kingdom infantry battle group, built around 45 Commando, Royal Marines. That group will join a US-led brigade, forming a potent force ready to undertake such operations.
We have held 45 Commando ready for offensive operations in Afghanistan for precisely that purpose. The lead elements of 45 Commando—its headquarters company and "Whisky" and "Zulu" companies—are already in theatre, embarked aboard HMS Ocean. Arrangements are now in hand to deploy those elements to Afghanistan, where they will be joined by the remaining companies of 45 Commando—held at high readiness in Arbroath—and also the combat support and services support elements integral to the Commando Group. Those include: 7 Battery of 29 Commando

39
Regiment Royal Artillery, equipped with 105 mm light guns, from Plymouth; 59 Independent Commando Squadron, Royal Engineers; and elements of the Commando Logistics Regiment. There is already a versatile range of helicopters aboard HMS Ocean to support 45 Commando Group. To increase the Commando Group's operational capabilities still further, we are also deploying a further three Chinook helicopters of 27 Squadron, RAF.
That is a powerful force, in total up to 1,700 strong. We will ensure that it is ready to take part in operations as quickly as possible. The force will go initially to Bagram, with the first members of 45 Commando Group on the ground within days, and ready to commence offensive operations by mid-April.
The deployment of 45 Commando Group is not a decision that has been taken lightly. It is our largest military deployment for combat operations since the Gulf conflict. It is important that the House is under no illusions about what this might involve. These troops are being deployed to Afghanistan to take part in war-fighting operations. We will be asking them to risk their lives. Their missions will be conducted in unforgiving and hostile terrain against a dangerous enemy. They may suffer casualties.
No Government take such decisions without reaching the absolute conviction that it is something that must be done. The appalling events of 11 September demonstrated very clearly that these al-Qaeda and Taliban elements have the ability and the desire to launch attacks right into the heart of nations such as ours. Both the deployment of the Commando Group and our deployment to Kabul as part of ISAF contribute to our overall objectives of ending the threat posed by international terrorism and restoring Afghanistan. Both are entirely consistent with the campaign objectives that we set out last October. However, the troops with ISAF in Afghanistan have their own difficult and demanding job to do; 45 Commando Group will have theirs.
By deploying 45 Commando Group we shall make a new and important contribution to defeating finally al-Qaeda and the Taliban. By our continued commitment to ISAF, we are helping Afghanistan regain her place as a stable and prosperous nation. I have no doubt that our armed forces will succeed in both tasks.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement, which I received earlier today. However, I am bound to say that I am a little surprised that we and the minority parties have had no advance discussions about this very significant announcement.
Nobody should be under any illusions that this is the most significant statement by the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister since 11 September. The Secretary of State has announced the commitment of the largest force to combat operations since the Gulf war in 1991. Moreover, this deployment follows Operation Anaconda in and around Gardez where American and German troops have been killed on operations. This is not just a continuation of existing operations.
Before asking about the deployment of 45 Commando Group, may I join the Secretary of State in congratulating our forces who are already in Afghanistan? In addition to
40
other operations, 16 Air Assault headquarters and 2 Para have been doing an absolutely outstanding job. We are proud of them. We remain concerned about the future of our role in the international security and assistance force, so will the Secretary of State confirm that ISAF is proving a more protracted operation than he had initially hoped? Moreover, will he confirm that, as of two weeks ago, there were more than 2,000 troops committed to Operation Fingal in ISAF? When will we see substantial reductions in that number, so that we can go some way to reducing the over-commitment of British troops?
On the question of Turkey's leadership, I can tell the House that Turkey's decision on whether to lead the force is imminent, but has yet to be made. I can only assume that the Secretary of State had hoped to be able to make that announcement today. What assurances has Turkey been seeking? Is it true that, like Her Majesty's official Opposition, it has been seeking clarification of the nature of the ISAF commitment, so that it is not left stranded with an open-ended commitment without clear objectives? Will the Secretary of State confirm that it would prefer ISAF to be a NATO operation and that it wants ISAF's mandate to be confined to Kabul, as he suggested it would be when he first announced ISAF? Is it also true that only the United States and the United Kingdom will shoulder the financial burden of finding the $100,000 that Turkey has requested to undertake the operation? Why should Britain and the United States be the only countries to carry this financial burden?
The announcement about 45 Commando comes as a surprise. However, we unequivocally support the Government's decision to continue standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the war against terrorism. We recognise the dangers to which the Secretary of State has referred, but it is entirely appropriate that we should be prepared and proud to make this commitment. We supported the Government's initial deployment for fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and we continue to support continuing operations.
I have some immediate questions. Under whose command will the operation be undertaken? Will the United Kingdom commander of ISAF have any role in the command of this brigade? We have warned in the past of complications and the possible confusion that might arise from the split chains of command that now exist in the Afghan theatre, with two UK deployments under separate commands undertaking diametrically opposite roles? Will the Secretary of State say anything to address that ongoing potential problem?
There will be further and urgent questions, which I am sure the House will want to discuss. May I ask the Government, through the Secretary of State, to consider replacing Thursday's debate with a debate on the war on terrorism and the war in Afghanistan to give the House a proper opportunity to debate the serious issues raised by this very significant statement? In the meantime, on behalf of the Opposition, I wish our forces every success in the challenges ahead. They fight far away for our security at home; they risk their today for our tomorrow. We think of their families. God go with them.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support and, indeed, his good wishes to the armed forces involved and their families. I shall endeavour to deal in turn with the points that he made. First, the deployment of ISAF is governed by a United Nations resolution that

41
is due to expire in June. As I told the House in defence questions earlier today, to be honest, I recognise that there is every prospect of the resolution being extended in June, but no specific decisions have been made, nor have any decisions been made about the involvement of British forces in any operation that might continue thereafter. However, all of us looking at the situation in Afghanistan must recognise that it is difficult and demanding and that ISAF is making a significant contribution to improving it; the likelihood of an extension of ISAF's mandate cannot possibly be ruled out.
As for substantial reductions in our forces, the hon. Gentleman gave some figures that showed that there has already been a significant reduction. Initial elements have been withdrawn, having completed in particular the task of bringing up to standard the runway at the former international airport, which is now being used successfully and regularly.
As for discussions with Turkey, it is not appropriate to go into detail now about the continuing negotiations with Turkey. I have told the House about the attitude of Turkey's leadership; I am sure that once many of the outstanding questions have been resolved, the commitment that Turkey has expressed in principle can be carried through.
On the Royal Marine contingent, clear command and control arrangements are essential, as the hon. Gentleman said. As part of our deployment, Brigadier Lane, the commander of 3 Commando Brigade, and his headquarters will deploy to Bagram, joining the headquarters of United States Central Command— Centcom—which is already there, to work alongside their American counterparts in Afghanistan. It is obviously important that there should not be any confusion between the various forces deployed in Afghanistan, particularly those on offensive military action. Ultimately, of course, the responsibility for command lies with Centcom, as it has done throughout operations. However, its role will he clearly distinct from ISAF's; there will not be any confusion of roles, subject to the agreement already entered into, for the avoidance of difficulty.
The hon. Gentleman requested a debate. The Opposition could doubtless pursue that through the usual channels, so I shall not make a specific response at this stage. However, there is a full Opposition day tomorrow, part of which is already devoted to a defence matter. If the hon. Gentleman thought it vital to have that debate tomorrow in time already available to the Opposition, I am sure that the Government would accede to his request.
Mr. John Smith: I am not in the least surprised that 45 Commando is to be deployed in Afghanistan. I have just returned from Central Command; enormous tribute was paid to British service men already serving on the front line in Afghanistan. Because of our traditions and conventions, we are unable to pay them proper tribute, yet in the United States, people can. Is my right hon. Friend looking at the role of our special forces and our ability—I appreciate the complications—to pay tribute to them for the fantastic work that they are doing?
Mr. Hoon: It is obviously important to pay proper tribute to the role of British forces, particularly in Afghanistan, but also in other theatres. It is equally important that we maintain operational confidentiality and do not in any way put at risk those forces carrying out tasks on the Government's behalf.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for sending me an advance copy of his statement, although I echo the concerns of the shadow Defence Secretary; a deployment of this kind merits prior discussion, at least among party leaders.
May I pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces, who continue to risk their lives in Afghanistan? As always, they perform an incredibly difficult task with great courage and skill. I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to General John McColl, who is doing an excellent job. The whole House will offer its support to the men of 45 Commando—and their families—in the endeavours that they are about to undertake.
On ISAF, I welcome the Secretary of State's comments about Turkey. Does he agree that withdrawing any peacekeeping force before an indigenous law and order force can take over would deeply destabilise the people of Afghanistan, and throw away much of the good work already done? Does he therefore agree that the success of Operation Fingal is just as important as that of Operation Veritas? Given that ISAF is a UN-mandated force, does the UN plan to extend the duration of its mission or the mission boundaries? Indeed, is deployment of 45 Commando requisite on UN authorisation?
Will the United Kingdom or the United States provide logistic support for 45 Commando's deployment, and what is the timetable for deployment? How long, in the Secretary of State's view, will the Royal Marines be there, and can he assure the House that their rules of engagement will be robust? I echo the concerns of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) about command and control. Will the operation be controlled directly from Centcom, in Tampa, or via Operation Veritas?
Most importantly, although we Liberal Democrats offer our support, can the Secretary of State confirm that our forces are being deployed not just as a replacement for American forces? What assurance has he been given that the United States will remain committed on the ground, as well as in the air, until the terrorist threat from Afghanistan is ended? Does he agree that "shoulder to shoulder" surely means not only going in together, but coming out together?
Mr. Hoon: I began by writing down that the hon. Gentleman's initial observations were practical and realistic, in that he did not ask questions that cannot be answered properly in a fast-moving and difficult situation. Unfortunately, he then proceeded to ask a number of such questions, but I shall do my best to deal with each of them.
On UN authorisation, the operation is being conducted in self-defence against those elements of al-Qaeda and the Taliban that continue to threaten the United Kingdom and other countries. Logistic support will be provided through the numbers that I gave, to the House. In such difficult and dangerous environments, it is important that the forces deployed be self-sustaining.
I shall not give the hon. Gentleman a specific answer on timetabling; clearly, it will depend on what the forces find on their deployment on the ground, the resistance that they meet and the operations that they will have to conduct. Such deployments always demonstrate that there is a limit to how long we can keep people in the field—particularly a field such as that.

43
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman ended with that comment about the United States, which recently lost soldiers on the ground in conducting extremely dangerous and difficult operations. The United States will remain committed on the ground, and I am proud that British forces will work alongside their American counterparts in precisely such operations.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I welcome the progress made so far in Afghanistan, and the new deployment. It is vital that we remain committed in Afghanistan for as long as it takes, and we should not allow short-term domestic considerations—I know that my right hon. Friend will not—to pressure us into jeopardising what has been achieved so far. However, the lesson of the complications that we are encountering in Afghanistan surely is that we will not have resources available for any adventures in other parts of the middle east, such as Iraq.
Mr. Hoon>: I think that I shall probably stick to talking about Afghanistan.
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the need to be there as long as it takes. No one who has read accounts of Operation Anaconda could be anything other than concerned about the level of resistance, the numbers involved and the determination of fighters, many of whom were not native Afghans but foreigners who remained to prosecute continuing attacks—in this case, against the United States. It is likely that there are similar organised elements in other parts of Afghanistan and it is vital for the future of Afghanistan—and the safety of the rest of the world—that we take the fight to those elements and deal with them.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall assuring me before Christmas that the British Government would certainly not be sending British troops in to Afghanistan on the ground for any permanent combat operation, but would send them in only for special operations from which they would come out quickly? Does he recall what happened to the Russian army when it went into Afghanistan? Why should he suppose that our experience would be any different?
Mr. Hoon: The Royal Marines are ideally suited to precisely the kind of operation that I and the hon. Gentleman describe to the House, which involves moving fast, deploying quickly and dealing with the type of threat that I have described to the House.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am sure that the Secretary of State will confirm that this is mission creep on a massive scale. Will he tell us how many extra troops are being committed from the other 18 countries in the coalition? Will he confirm that parts of Afghanistan are now being carved up by some of the old warlords and that people are moving out of those areas? Can he give us an assurance that our troops will not be deployed in those areas, where they might get caught up fighting the Northern Alliance?
Mr. Hoon: The purpose of the operation is as I have set out. It is to deal with the remaining elements of
44
al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who pose a continuing threat arid it will involve other countries. I do not have the precise details to hand because that is a matter for those countries and, ultimately, for the United States. There are already other countries involved—countries other than the US were involved in Operation Anaconda—and I do not accept that there is any risk of British soldiers becoming involved in any fighting against the Northern Alliance, because this is a specific mission designed to deal with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Secretary al State accept that I welcome the deployment, not least because I am in no doubt—given its size and composition—that it would not be going unless it were absolutely necessary. I share the views of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence in wishing them well.
Will the Secretary of State pay tribute, in the way that only he can, to the astonishing skill at arms of British forces in Afghanistan in the past few weeks? They have behaved remarkably and we owe them an enormous debt. I mean not only the special forces, but the soldiers doing the run-of-the-mill work around Kabul and elsewhere, which has been very hazardous. Will he also say a word about the imrportance of the ongoing commitment to getting aid into those areas of Afghanistan that find themselves in a difficult state? Will he assure us that there will continue to be that commitment to Afghanistan that was so lacking last time?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who makes his points effectively and with his customary clarity. I have had the privilege of seeing the full range of commitments that Britain's armed forces have engaged in and he is right that they have displayed remarkable skill in what they do. He is also right that that applies across the board, because it is not only those at the sharp end—although I pay tribute to them as well. Deploying forces at this distance for this length of time—and sustaining them in a difficult and dangerous environment—is a considerable achievement by our logistics people, who have done a remarkable job.
I shall not go into too much detail on the question of aid at this stage, save to say that I am assured that aid is continuing to flow and that the flow of aid is improving day by day. That is a recognition of the much improved security environment across Afghanistan and not simply in Kabul.
Mr. Nigel Beard: What is the latest assessment of the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden?
Mr. Hoon: The latest assessment is that we still do not know. Determined efforts continue to bring him to ac count, together with other prominent figures from al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Tony Baldry: The ISAF operation is mandated by the United Nations, but is there not a broader point here? Is not the UN Secretary-General entitled to seek wider support among the community of nations for his mandates? Of course everyone fully supports what the United Kingdom is doing, but does the Secretary of State think not that we are doing too much, but that other countries are not fully pulling their weight? That issue

45
involves not only Afghanistan, because there are, I am afraid, other failing states around the world. Unless other nations prepare to support the Secretary-General, the prospects for civilisation are bleak.
Mr. Hoon: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). The difficulty is not lack of commitment or support from other nations. Indeed, unusually for an international operation, I have had to turn down contributions to the ISAF. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) will recall from his days in government that that is unusual. Normally, the Defence Secretary spends a good deal of time on the telephone trying to persuade other countries to participate in international operations, but the reverse is true on this occasion.
The reason for that is that we required particular, specialist skills. Those necessary for the early deployment of the ISAF involved engineering—rebuilding runways and ensuring that the basic infrastructure could accommodate a force of such a size. The operations that I set out in my statement involve determined war-fighting skills and the ability to deploy rapidly in extraordinarily difficult and dangerous surroundings. Again, there ate simply not that many armed forces in the world that can complete those tasks at such notice.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I congratulate our armed forces on their operations to date and acknowledge that the announcement is indeed significant. Of course, 45 Commando will go, and ought to know that it goes, with the full support of the House. Can my right hon. Friend reassure us that he has received assurances that 45 Commando will have available to it full air and logistic support where necessary from US forces in any combat operations that it may undertake?
Mr. Hoon: This will be an integrated force working alongside its US counterparts and receiving US back-up in precisely the way that my hon. Friend describes.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In pursuing his forward strategy in Afghanistan—a debate on which would be highly desirable at the earliest possible date, preferably tomorrow—will the Secretary of State ensure that he balances it with vigorous efforts to maintain the closest liaison with and support for the Government of Pakistan, without whose stability no progress towards pacifying the region and eradicating terrorism could be achieved? That is particularly so in view of the horrendous atrocity at an Islamabad church yesterday.
Mr. Hoon: I recently visited Pakistan and had a meeting with the President and other senior Government figures. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is vital that we take forward those operations in consultation with the Government of Pakistan, as well as with other countries that neighbour Afghanistan. Their role not only in operations in general, but specifically as part of the political process of rebuilding Afghanistan is vital.
Hywel Williams: Clearly, the thoughts of Members in all parts of the House are with the forces
46
in their perilous task. Have the Government considered seeking a precise UN mandate for the continuing campaign in Afghanistan?
Mr. Hoon: There is a precise mandate for the ISAF operation. The follow-on operations that I announced this afternoon are covered by the UN charter as justified in self-defence.
Mr. John MacDougall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that fears over loss of life among the troops in Afghanistan, which we all share, will increase if we do not move with the speed and stealth referred to in the statement? Indeed, if we are serious about tackling terrorism, we must use the tactics that have been applied in this instance.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes a number of very good points with which I entirely agree. It is vital in this kind of operation that security is not compromised in any way.
Mr. John Maples: Are the 1,700 troops that we are deploying precisely what the United States requested, or did it ask for more? Secondly, will the Secretary of State tell us which other countries are providing combat troops, as part not of ISAF but of this operation? Presumably, this force was put together in consultation with Centcom and other national headquarters, so he must be able to tell us what other countries will provide combat troops to fight alongside ours.
Mr. Hoon: I can certainly give the House an idea of which other countries are likely to be involved, but I anticipate that those countries will have to make the same kind of announcements to their Parliaments as the one that I am making this afternoon, and it would be wrong at this stage to give the House a definitive list. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be able to do that in due course, however.
So far as American requests are concerned, I am absolutely confident that we are providing to the Americans precisely what they have been looking for to work alongside their own forces dealing with the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am delighted that the ISAF troops have managed to help the humanitarian effort in Afghanistan, but will the Secretary of State tell us how many Afghans have been killed during the operation, either by military action or by starvation? Does he not agree that the United States should finish its job in Afghanistan before it embarks on another war with Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: I cannot tell the hon. Lady precisely how many Afghans have been killed during these operations. That figure is simply not available to anyone. I anticipate, however, that it is much lower than much of the hysterical comment has suggested from time to time. As a result of an astonishingly well targeted bombing campaign, I expect the number of civilian casualties to be very low. I will not deal with the other subject.
Mr. Mark Francois: May I ask the Secretary of State several brief questions? First, will he

47
confirm whether there is any plan for a call-up of elements of the Royal Marine reserves to bolster 45 Commando group's proposed operation? Secondly, will he give the House some idea of what medical facilities will accompany the group on operations? Will they be provided by the UK, the United States or, perhaps, a combination of the two nations? Thirdly, I support this initiative, but I would like the Secretary of State to give us some idea of the effect on the tour plot back home of the decision to deploy yet another regular battalion on operations abroad.
Mr. Hoon: No decisions have been taken yet about calling up reserves as a result of this operation. I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's third question next. It is unlikely that the operation will have a significant impact on tour plots, for precisely the reason set out in my statement earlier, which is that elements of the Royal Marines are already deployed and have been on HMS Ocean for some time. The remaining elements that we intend to deploy are being held at very high readiness for precisely this kind of operation.
There are now some excellent medical facilities in and around Kabul. I mentioned the contribution that the Czech Government were prepared to make, and we are discussing with them the best way of deploying a state-of-the-art field hospital that they have available. That is why I was so pleased with the contribution that they were able to make. It is this kind of specialist contribution that allows this kind of international operation to be so effective in difficult circumstances.
Patrick Mercer: Last year the Select Committee on Defence—of which I am a member—was lucky and privileged enough to visit the men of 45 Commando Royal Marines on Operation Saif Sareea. They struck me as the finest body of men that we are ever likely to deploy overseas. However, the additional troops that are going to Afghanistan, and that we may or may not be deploying to the Balkans, and the lack of any apparent reduction in the forces in Northern Ireland, will all make the pips—which are already hard-pressed—begin to squeak even more. May I seek from the Secretary of State—whose presence here I applaud after his illness at the weekend—an assurance that new and imaginative ideas will be used to reduce commitments and deployments elsewhere?
Mr. Hoon: As I have told the House on many occasions, I am responsible for ensuring that our commitments are balanced and can be maintained within the capabilities we have available. That continues to be my responsibility.
Hugh Robertson: In his statement, the Secretary of State rightly drew our attention to the continuing threat from al-Qaeda. Some of those fighters will no doubt stand and fight, as in Operation Anaconda; others may well contemplate guerrilla action, which we have seen many times in Afghanistan over the years. Can the Secretary of State tell us what plans we
48
have to meet that threat, and in particular how we will seal the border to ensure that people cannot come and go as they wish?
Mr. Hoon: The one thing I have become in recent months is something of an expert on maps and the topography of Afghanistan, and I will not pretend that sealing the border is in any way realistic. That applies not least to the border along Pakistan. A number of Afghanistan's external borders consist of extraordinary terrain, and frankly there are not the troops to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Let me say, however, in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's question, that the operations in prospect, consistent with Operation Anaconda, deal with precisely the kind of guerrilla threat about which he is rightly concerned. It is important that we get to those elements before they are in a position to conduct a guerrilla campaign. That is why Operation Anaconda was necessary, and why the follow-up operations I have described are also necessary.
Mr. David Laws: In his statement, the Secretary of State said that 45 Commando and other forces would be used against the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Can he tell us how large those remnants are, in his judgment and that of the intelligence we have?
So far, in their military operations abroad, the Government have been careful to set precise time scales and targets for the deployment of our forces. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to the question of when our mission—the mission of 45 Commando—can be said to have been completed?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman's questions are perfectly proper and perfectly fair, but I will not go into the detail of the numbers with which we expect to have to deal. I said earlier that the resistance to Operation Anaconda had been significantly greater than might have been originally anticipated, and had led to some serious fighting. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that if he studies the nature of the deployment we propose, he will see that we are delivering a particularly potent force to Afghanistan. That is not coincidental; it will sit alongside similar deployments from the United States and a number of other countries. It is designed to deal with the elements concerned, and to deal with them extremely effectively.
Mr. Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for the full answers that he has given. He has described a fast-moving situation. Other partners may be involved in the operation taken on by 45 Commando; meanwhile, the question of ISAF's leadership remains unresolved. May I reiterate the need for a full debate which should, I stress, be in Government time? [Interruption.] I do not think it appropriate to make light of that request. The Secretary of State has made a very serious announcement, and the House is entitled to debate it. I merely ask the Secretary of State to take the request to the usual channels, and to use his influence. I know that he has some.
Mr. Hoon: I am certainly conscious of the importance of the subject. That is why I took the first possible opportunity to make a statement in the House. If the hon. Gentleman is determined to engage in a debate, I am ready and available tomorrow.

Points of Order
5.8 pm
Ms Claire Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What instruction or advice was issued from the Speaker's office today to ensure that Members of Parliament could gain access to the House? They are entitled to that access, and to protection. I ask because for approximately 45 minutes today demonstrations outside the House blocked the road, and Members experienced real difficulty in gaining access in order to do the work that we are here to do.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I understand that both pro and anti-hunting demonstrators assembled in the area of Parliament square, totalling some 500 people, from midday today. The first priority for the police was to keep the two elements apart, and initially that was achieved successfully. Shortly after 2 pm, demonstrators blocked the traffic at the junction of Bridge street and Parliament street. Subsequently, police forcibly moved the demonstrators from the roads, and by 3 pm access to Carriage Gates and Parliament street was restored. Mr. Speaker has asked the Serjeant-at-Arms to investigate the full circumstances of the disruption.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that in dealing with these matters all the authorities concerned will bear in mind the sessional orders that require free access of right hon. and hon. Members to this building.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is precisely why Mr. Speaker has asked for an investigation. There is nothing I can add to what I have already said.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you had any request from Foreign Office Ministers to make a statement on the demonstration in Gibraltar by the majority of people who live there, 20,000 plus, to stand up for their right to self-determination?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no information that any such statement is about to be made.
Mr. Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to your statement about the demonstration, I was watching the demonstration, and there did not seem to be any force used by the police in dispersing demonstrators. An agreement seemed to be reached whereby they parted and let the traffic through.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that there is anything I can usefully add to what I have already said.

Orders of the Day

  Business of the House
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the Minister to move motion No. 1, the business motion, it might help if I say how Mr. Speaker proposes to proceed, assuming that the motion is agreed.
  Mr. Speaker proposes that motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on hunting with dogs be debated together. He has not selected any of the amendments to the motions, so at the end of the debate—presumably at 10 o'clock—he will put the questions on motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 one after the other.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I tabled an amendment that attracted cross-party support. More than 80 Members, including many luminaries—former Cabinet Ministers and current Ministers—support it, yet to my surprise it has not been selected for debate. Can you give me any advice so that, should this arise again, I shall have a better chance of getting my amendment selected for debate—perhaps by seeking more signatures, more prominent Members of Parliament or whatever?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House. All I can say is that all proposed amendments were given the most careful consideration. The reasons for selecting or not selecting amendments are never given, for very good reasons.
  The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I beg to move,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put successively the Question on each of the Motions in the name of Mr. Alun Michael relating to Hunting with Dogs not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Question on any Amendment which has been selected and may then be moved, and those Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of time for opposed business.
  The motion provides that, following the debate, there will be a series of votes on three options for dealing with hunting. The alternatives are, first, "supervision", which is nearest to the status quo; secondly, "hunting under licence" or regulation, known as the middle way; and, thirdly, what has been described as a ban or prohibition of hunting.
  In each case reference is made to "Bill 2", which is the Hunting Bill from the previous Session in the form in which it was introduced in December 2000. I understand that copies are available in the Vote Office.
  All three campaigning organisations have told me that they accept this as a fair way of allowing the range of opinions across the House to be clearly expressed. Not later than 10 o'clock, the Chair will successively put each of the motions for voting, enabling hon. Members to vote for or against each of the options. The normal procedure would have the potential to constrain the House by preventing further votes once one motion had been carried.
  I hope that the House will agree that this arrangement will allow us to cover the range of opinions, while still clearly expressing hon. Members' views through the votes at the end of the debate.
  5.14 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: When I was first taken hunting as a child by my mother, I never expected that one day I would be standing at the Dispatch Box to defend the right of the individual to take part in one of the greatest of our traditions. Hunting and ponies definitely played a part in my eventually standing for Parliament, because it was while I was a member of South Staffordshire pony club that I met my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Lady gets too far into her remarks, may I say to her that we are discussing a very narrow motion on how we shall proceed this evening? This is not the time for a broader debate.
  Mrs. Winterton: I am so sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I misunderstood. I am happy with what the Minister said when he moved the business motion.
  Norman Baker: My colleagues and I are happy with the business motion, which is very narrow. That is probably the only point of agreement that there will be in the Chamber this afternoon.
  Question put and agreed to.

Hunting With Dogs
5.15 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I beg to move,
That this House considers that arrangements for the supervision of the hunting of wild mammals with dogs should be given statutory effect by provision similar to Schedule 1 to the Hunting Bill as introduced into the Commons last session [Bill 2].
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss motion No. 3—hunting with dogs: supervision—and motion No. 4—hunting with dogs: hunting under licence. [Interruption.]
Alun Michael: I heard some advice to quit while I am ahead, but I am a greater optimist than that.
Today's debate fulfils our manifesto commitment that the House would be given an early opportunity to vote on the future of hunting with dogs. It also fulfils the announcement made in the Queen's Speech after the election. It is an important step towards fulfilling the second part of our manifesto promise, which was to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue.
The issue of hunting is firmly on the House's agenda. It is extremely contentious and it needs to be resolved. There is no right time to try to resolve it, but it is an important issue for many who want to see an end to cruelty and for those who want things to remain as they are.
There have been numerous legislative attempts to deal with hunting through private Members' Bills, but last year the Government introduced a Hunting Bill. It was an honest attempt to enable each of three groups to set out their preferred option, with the Government remaining neutral. It was the subject of a free vote on both sides of the House.
It was hoped that that process would lead to opinion at ross the piece coming together behind one option, but that did not happen. Rather than coming together, views had polarised between the Houses by the time the Bill was considered in the Lords.
I remind the House of the Burns report on hunting, which the Government commissioned in 2000. The report set out the facts about hunting and the consequences of a ban. Hon. Members who have been involved in the hunting debate, whatever their views on hunting, have been united in their admiration of the fairness of the report produced by Lord Burns, and I am sure that it will again inform debate today.
As promised, we now return to the hunting debate. A vote on the alternative motions provides a straightforward method of taking the views of both Houses in a clear and unambiguous manner, without taking too much time out of the busy programme faced by both Houses. Again, it is as simple as that.
The options contained in the Hunting Bill of 2000 form the basis of the options in the motions that we are considering today. They are, first, supervision, which is nearest to the status quo; secondly, hunting under licence, or regulation, known as the middle way; and a third option, which has been described as a ban or prohibition of hunting.

53
I have held discussions with all the interest groups, all of which have considered refinements to the detail of their option as originally drafted, in the period since the Bill was introduced in the House. Things have moved on—in particular, the Deadline 2000 option was amended during its consideration by the Standing Committee and on Report. Referring to the three options as set out when the last Bill was introduced is the simplest way of defining the choices on which right hon. and hon. Members are being asked to vote. All interest groups are represented in the House, and anyone speaking in the debate can explain the nuances of the latest thinking on their preferred option.
I remind the House that the Government have remained neutral on the question. No Whip has been imposed on Labour Members for the votes that will be called at the end of today's debate. I understand that that is also the position taken by the official Opposition and other parties. It has essentially been a parliamentary issue rather than a governmental issue, and we respect that fact.
The way in which I have voted on hunting is on the record. I have always voted for a ban on hunting, but that does not interfere with my responsibility for managing the process and encouraging debate from all sides. I promise that all points made in the debate in both Houses will be listened to and considered. Once the votes have been held in this House, and in the other place tomorrow, I intend to make a statement on the way forward before the Easter recess.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend able to be precise about when that statement will be made?
Alun Michael: No. I have seen suggestions that it is likely to be towards the end of this week, but that is a matter for the business managers and they have not confirmed the time to me. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a fairly narrow window of opportunity between now and next Monday, let us say, and it will be within that time frame.
Mr. James Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for the balanced and sensible nature of his introduction so far and look forward to the balanced and sensible nature of the statement that will be made later this week. However, given that he has committed himself to an outright ban on fox hunting, does he agree that it is impossible for him to be dispassionate in his consideration of what is said?
Alun Michael: Were that the case, it would be most disappointing because it would have to apply to everyone taking part in the debate. It would mean that nobody who had voted one way in the past could possibly be open to serious points made by people with other views. That is not the position as far as I am concerned. Tonight's vote will allow Members on both sides to indicate the strength of view on each of the three broad options. My responsibility, in addition to being able to exercise my vote freely, like everyone else, is to enable the House to reach a conclusion on the issue. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will do that as logically and dispassionately as I can.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I respect the integrity of what the Minister says, but he also brings
54
another aspect to the debate. He is a Minister in the Department responsible for rural affairs, which represents a change from the way in which the matter has been handled in previous Sessions. Can we take it that he will assess the impact on rural communities and the rural economy of any decision or compromise that is reached and that he will be briefed by his Department following analysis of those matters?
Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman can certainly take it that I will consider all aspects of this matter before carrying out the responsibilities that are mine at present.
In the past, this matter has been left to Back Benchers, through the drafting of private Members' Bills, and three groups were allowed to draft on the last occasion. The Government took office with a manifesto commitment made at the last election to enable Parliament to come to a conclusion on the issue. That is the responsibility that I have as a Minister, which is what has changed. The matter is not being left to Back-Bench initiatives; I have a job to help the House and Parliament as a whole to reach a conclusion on the issue.
Mr. John McFall: My right hon. Friend will remember the private Member's Bill that I was responsible for in 1994, which received the massive endorsement of the House—yet, like other such Bills, it was defeated. The will of this House to ban hunting has been shown time and again. Therefore, if there is any jiggery-pokery at a future date, will the Minister consider invoking the Parliament Act?
Alun Michael: I take it that my hon. Friend is suggesting that there might be obstruction in another place. I hope that in their debate tomorrow, Members of the House of Lords will make a constructive contribution and that we will be able to move forward. My hon. Friend knows that I am an optimist. I encourage Members speaking and voting in another place to approach the matter in the same constructive way that I expect of Members of this House.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to hear that more of a Government line is being taken and that the issue will be resolved one way or another. The Government have been reluctant to use the Parliament Act. Will the Minister consider using a Joint Committee of both Houses to come up with a Bill that Parliament as a whole can agree so that this issue is settled by the will of Parliament?
Alun Michael: I hear what the hon Gentleman says. He is effectively starting to make a contribution to the debate. He can, I am sure, make his point if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have undertaken to consider all the points made in the debate.
David Winnick (Walsall, North): Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), is not it obvious that there is no way in which the other place will agree to a total ban, no matter what majority there is tonight for that option, as we expect? The question of whether the Government will have the courage to use the Parliament Act is crucial. I hope that there will be an overwhelming vote for a total

55
ban, but, no matter how we vote tonight, it will be a waste of time unless the Government understand the need to act decisively.
Alun Michael: I certainly do not rule out that approach. I hope that my hon. Friend's comments will be borne in mind when Members of the other place debate and vote on the issue. I have already said that I intend to carry on being an optimist, and to encourage intelligent debate from all sides of the argument.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will listen carefully to the debate in this House, and that if there is a vote for a ban he will make clear in his statement in a few days' time the Government's position on the use of the Parliament Act to bring this matter to a conclusion, as the Government have promised they will do for some time?
Alun Michael: I understand precisely my hon. Friend's point, and the importance placed on it by the many Members who signed amendment (b) to the motion for a ban, although it is not being considered. I shall take that point on board, and I shall respond to it when I make a statement in the next few days.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I remind the Minister and the Government that this House was elected by the British people, whereas Members of the other place were put there by privilege.
Alun Michael: That point can be made in a variety of ways, gently or bluntly. My hon. Friend does it in his own inimitable manner.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: My right hon. Friend has been most generous in giving way. He will have noticed that Members from all parts in the other place, when discussing its future reform, repeatedly said that even in a reformed state it should be subservient to this House. That should also have an important influence on how we judge the decisions made here against those made there.
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes an important constitutional point. I want to encourage rather than threaten Members of the other place, as I encourage Members of this House, to approach this debate constructively and positively. I know that there is a temptation to say that we have debated this issue before, so why are we debating it again? We are debating the three motions, and they will be debated tomorrow in the other place. On the back of those two debates and the votes cast, I shall make a statement to the House. It would not be fair to go beyond that. I am hoping for a constructive debate, with more light than heat in both Houses.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: As my right hon. Friend will know, a decision on this subject has already
56
been made in Scotland. What advice would he give to Members representing Scottish constituencies on using their vote tonight?
Alun Michael: On a free vote, all Members can decide how to cast their votes. It is for hon. Members to decide how to vote.
Judy Mallaber: Has my right hon. Friend received any indication that Members of this House who have previously voted for a total ban and who I expect to do so again tonight would be influenced to change their mind if the other place voted tomorrow for the middle way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I say that he has been very generous in taking interventions, but they do not directly relate to the subject matter before the House? An enormous number of Members want to catch my eye, and unless we get going, more and more of them will be disappointed.
Alun Michael: I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) that I have received no such indications. I have seen in the press many reports of deals being done and negotiations going on, but that speculation is inspired by nothing. I have listened to a variety of views. That is a sensible approach for any Minister with responsibility for an issue to take. I shall now listen to the debates in this House and in the other place.
The purpose of the motions is to give all right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to consider the matter and to vote. Hunting is an emotive issue. It remains to be seen what debate we will have here and in another place, but in the past both Houses have risen to the occasion when there has been a debate on a free vote. I shall listen with interest to what is said in the hope that it will illuminate the way forward. I have always been an optimist, and I hope that contributions will generate light, not just heat, and inform the debate.
5.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Earlier this afternoon I was rather too keen to get on with the debate in order to share my own experience with the House. I have never spoken in a debate on hunting before, and I thought it important to set out my stall.
It was when I was a 17-year-old at grammar school, which will be another red rag to the bulls opposite, that I was first invited to become joint master of the South Staffordshire hunt, and I served for five seasons as field master. During that time I learned many of the skills that are needed for politics, not least the ability to lead from the front and to develop a thick skin to withstand the slings and arrows that are sometimes aimed at us. At the time, I was the youngest master of foxhounds in the country, but I am not sure whether that record still stands. I continued to hunt with my family, on and off, until the early 1980s, and now occasionally go out with the Forest and District beagles in Cheshire. I especially enjoy being up in the hills, where life is pretty hard but the people are the most genuine.

57
In all that time I have never considered hunting cruel—if I had, I would not have taken part. It always seemed to me to be the greatest privilege of all to be able to follow hounds and to watch them work in the company of others who respected and loved the traditions of the countryside as much as I did. When I was a joint master I worked to a voluntary code drawn up by the Masters of Foxhounds Association; I therefore know from personal experience that the system of self-regulation works. That arrangement has more recently been superseded by the Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting, which operates at no cost to the taxpayer but ensures that all recognised hunting with dogs is accountable. I support that organisation wholeheartedly and believe that the best way forward is to back it and self-regulation.
The breathtaking arrogance and insensitivity of this Government have to be seen to be believed. At a time when the countryside is still reeling from the shock of a devastating outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and on top of the deepest farming recession since the 1930s, the Government seek to kick the countryside in the teeth once again by introducing this debate on hunting. In the current climate of rural crisis, it is an unacceptable distraction from the real issues that face the countryside, let alone the nation.
Mr. Colin Challen: Given how well the hon. Lady knows the countryside people she has mixed with through hunting, will she denounce those in the hunting lobby who have said that if the House passes a law outlawing their activity, they will break the law?
Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman refers to the people whom I have met through hunting. In fact, I come from a farming background and have lived in the countryside all my life, so not all the people I know hunt, although most of them support field and country sports. Like him, I do not believe that any group should break the law of this land. I believe in the rule of law.
To most rational people, it seems extraordinary that the Government have dropped what we were told were important pieces of legislation owing to a shortage of parliamentary time, yet—surprise, surprise—have miraculously found time to buy off the hounds on the Labour Back Benches who are giving glorious tongue to their dissatisfaction with their party and its obvious failures. The deal to save the skin of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—for the time being—has not gone unnoticed by the people of this country, especially by those whose lives will he adversely affected by a possible ban and those who may lose both their livelihood and their homes.
While the nation's priorities on the domestic agenda, such as health, rising crime, transport and education, are being sidelined, this matter is being driven by single-issue Back Benchers and campaigning groups who do not have the best interests of the countryside at heart, know little of its ways and care even less about its people. If they succeed in banning hunting, they will be personally responsible for a worsening of animal welfare.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: As someone who was brought up in a village at the base of the Pennines and who knows how hard it is to be a hill farmer, may I ask the hon. Lady to accept from me how little foxhunting has to do with many in the rural community? What does
58
she have to say about the priorities for the people among whom I was brought up—education, housing and rural transport? They are far more important to communities in the countryside than foxhunting.
Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Lady has just shot her own fox. It is the Government's choice to debate this matter at this time instead of the issues in which she says her constituents are most interested.
Bob Spink: May I take my hon. Friend back to the point that she was making about the welfare of the fox? Is she aware that four senior executives of the League Against Cruel Sports have withdrawn their call for a ban on hunting precisely because it has been shown that such a ban would have adverse consequences for the welfare of the fox?
Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend makes a true and worthwhile point.
Farmers have a statutory obligation to control pests such as foxes. That control should include both dispersal and culling, but never the extermination of an indigenous species. Following the voluntary suspension of hunting owing to foot and mouth last spring—this will answer the question put by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons)—including suspension of the lambing call service, farmers started to report to hunts that acute fox predation was occurring, resulting in severe lamb losses.
In January, the Farmers Union of Wales reported that:
"The ban on foxhunting over the last year has led to an explosion in the fox population to unprecedented levels. In some cases, farmers who lost six or seven lambs to foxes normally have seen the numbers jump to between 35 and 40"—
[Interruption.] Labour Back Benchers who are shouting "Rubbish" should tell that to Welsh farmers.
The need to control the fox population cannot be challenged, but the debate, more often than not, focuses on cruelty or perceived cruelty. I commend the former Home Secretary for setting up an independent committee of inquiry into hunting with dogs in England and Wales, commonly known as the Burns committee after its distinguished chairman. I only wish that the Government had been as forthcoming in seeking after the truth about the cause and handling of the foot and mouth epidemic—but we all know why they were not.
At no point did Lord Burns conclude that hunting was cruel. While making the obvious point that hunting
"seriously compromises the welfare of the fox",
the report noted that
"insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught".
One of the most senior vets in the UK, Lord Soulsby, went on record to condemn the organisations which claimed that the former phrase equated to cruelty and hence justified an end to hunting. He said:
"At no point did the committee conclude, or even attempt to conclude, an assessment of cruelty. Yet many bodies have erroneously—I repeat the word 'erroneously'—quoted the Burns

59
report, stating that it clearly demonstrated that the practice of hunting wild animals with dogs caused cruelty. The report did not state that."
Mr. Gordon Prentice: In the hon. Lady's pony club days, did she ever go hare coursing? Did she consider then or does she consider now that hare coursing is cruel?
Mrs. Winterton: In fact I did not go hare coursing in my pony club days, but I did go hare coursing once with a local veterinary surgeon. Funnily enough, it is the only field and country sport in which people do not seek to kill the quarry, and I do not personally believe it to be cruel, but the hon. Gentleman obviously does.
In addition, Burns concluded that none of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. There are welfare implications for all legal methods of managing the fox population and, on welfare grounds, no clear case has been made to separate hunting from other forms of control as a method that should be banned.
The question that has to be answered by those who seek to ban hunting is: what alternative method would cause less suffering, would be more natural—after all, foxes themselves live by hunting—and would provide such benefits to conservation and biodiversity? Farmers sympathetic to hunting have enhanced the British landscape by ensuring that hedgerows, thickets and woodland are well managed, providing an appropriate habitat for a variety of species. Research has shown that areas managed for hunting are significantly more biologically diverse than unmanaged areas.
People are important too, however, and what a terrible impact a total ban on hunting would have on the rural economy, which is still reeling from the after-effects of foot and mouth disease. With average net farm income having fallen to £5,200 per farm in England and £4,100 in Wales, it seems an act of spiteful vandalism to destroy literally thousands of jobs in deeply rural areas, when it is simply not necessary to do so and where no meaningful alternative employment exists.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The Burns report clearly said that the abolition of hunting would have an impact in some parts of the country, and my constituency, with its six hunts, would be just such an area. In July 2000, The Mid Devon Gazette showed from a four-week survey in my constituency that 69.32 per cent. of the population wanted to retain hunting. That shows how important hunting is not just to huntsmen, but to the wider community.
Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. Hunting and other field and country sports are very important to the rural economy, and a ban would have truly devastating knock-on effects on rural businesses, such as feed merchants, blacksmiths, veterinary practices, the horse industry, and village pubs and hotels, among others. Even a former Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin)—has acknowledged that hunt kennels provide a valued service to the farming industry by removing casualty and fallen stock, the considerable cost of which would have to be borne by farmers themselves if hunting were banned, thereby adding to their current financial difficulties.
60
Hunts are not only at the heart of economic activity in the countryside, but play a vital role in organising a whole range of social activities that provide a lifeline in the more remote areas, which are so badly served compared to their urban and suburban counterparts; and everyone is welcome to participate, irrespective of age, income or social background. [Interruption.] Sadly, when I say such things, Labour Members merely scoff. No doubt they live very comfortable lives; they do not know how hard it is in the upland areas of the United Kingdom to farm and get a living from the land, or how remote and cut off people often are.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Winterton: I do not intend to give way for the very simple reason that many other hon. Members wish to speak, and I believe that we should hear their voices.
Before Members vote on the three options before them today, perhaps they should also consider the efforts to legislate on this difficult and sensitive issue north of the border. The Scottish Parliament set a damaging constitutional precedent by ignoring the findings of its own Rural Development Committee, which spent 15 months taking evidence before concluding that it would be
"difficult or impossible to amend the Bill into a form which will adequately meet the aim of ending cruelty and for this reason recommends that the general principles of this Bill should not be agreed to".
Yet bigoted Members of the Scottish Parliament, who played no part whatever in the scrutiny of the legislation, voted for a ban without even arguing the case, let alone mentioning animal welfare. If the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) thinks that an honourable course of action, he and I must differ.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Winterton: I am sorry, but I said that I would not give way.
The Bill was promoted in Scotland as a modernising measure to take us into the 21st century, without offering 21st century solutions for species management. As a result, the Bill is the equivalent of a dog's breakfast, and police in the borders have said that it is
"almost unworkable … because the legislation is not clear".
Serious concerns were also expressed about the lack of police resources—a valid point that is reflected throughout England and Wales, too.
We have the precedent before us of an in-depth independent inquiry set up by the present Government, and we should, if we use common sense, avoid the trap that Holyrood fell into, which generated headlines such as "Daft as a Brush" in the Sunday Mail, "NHS not foxes is top priority" in The Sun, "A vote for flawed and ambiguous legislation" in The Scotsman, "This law is an ass" in the Daily Mail, "Executive must intervene with compensation" in The Herald, and The Independent said:
"The mark of a civilised society is its tolerance of unpopular behaviour".
Surely this issue is about civil liberty and personal freedom. It is quite wrong in principle to make criminal an activity just because a certain percentage of the

61
population, often guided by misleading information, disapproves of it. Labour Members may say that a majority of people think that way, but they should read the most recent polls, which show that opinion has changed.
In the light of the Scottish Bill, which will most certainly be subject to at least two legal challenges when it has gained Royal Assent, it would surely be foolhardy to follow in those flawed footsteps. However, I recognise with a certain amount of sadness that tonight's votes will reflect not the arguments for hunting put before the House in the debate, but perhaps the prejudices of the past and the imagined prejudices of the present.
The opportunity to destroy yet another institution of our great nation will be irresistible to some people, including the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who was heard to boast on Jimmy Young's show the other day that they have the numbers in this Parliament to do just that. He and his ilk loathe anything to do with tradition and seek to destroy it at every opportunity, but perhaps he and others should recall that this Parliament cannot constitutionally bind its successor and a future Parliament can undo anything it wishes to. I urge the House to reject the ban and to vote unequivocally for the status quo: self-regulation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has put a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches during the debate and that that limit starts now.
5.49 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The House has a shameful record on social reform which stretches over centuries. It always lags behind public opinion and has done so on divorce, capital punishment, ending the criminalisation of homosexual acts, and animal welfare. The same arguments have been expressed throughout—the very same arguments that we heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
Let me remind the House of a similar argument. Talking about a countryside pursuit, a right hon. Member of this House said that it
"had existed for more than 1000 years without … having been supposed to be pregnant with any of those crying evils that are now"
associated with it. He went on to say that there was
"a busy and anxious disposition to legislate on matters in which the laws are already sufficient to prevent abuse. The House should intervene only when an Act was generally and gravely called for, not to glorify petty, personal and local motives which were infinitely below the dignity of Parliament."
That is almost identical to the hon. Lady's statements, but those remarks were made on 18 April 1800 by the right hon. William Windham in defence of the practice of bull baiting. The hon. Lady talked about a red rag to a bull. The fact is that it took 35 years from that date to get bull baiting banned.
Ever since I was elected to the House of Commons 32 years ago, I have been voting and instituting measures to ban hunting with dogs. I am perfectly ready to spend the second half of my parliamentary career doing so, but I would prefer to spend my time on other matters.
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to pursue my argument a little further, I will give way if I have time.
62
The House will vote tonight, and the Minister confirmed that he will make a statement in the next few days. If the House votes for a complete ban, as I very much trust it will, I cannot understand what it is that the Minister will have to tell us. If he believes that our House voting for a ban will persuade the other House to vote for a ban, then he is indeed an optimist, but to quote "South Pacific", he is a cockeyed optimist, because that will not happen. I cannot understand what my right hon. Friend will say other than that a Bill implementing a full ban will be introduced by the Government in this Session preferably, or in the next Session at the latest, and that if the Bill is passed by this House, the Government will put it through under the Parliament Act if it is blocked in the House of Lords.
If my right hon. Friend turns out to have something else to say other than that the Government will introduce a Bill instituting a full ban, one must assume that it is what the press is going to call a compromise, and that is utterly unacceptable. In addition, that would introduce a new constitutional doctrine. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister invited me to be a member of the royal commission on the reform of the House of Lords, he gave me terms of reference that began:
"Having regard to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament".
That is the policy of the Prime Minister and the Government, but it is not pre-eminent unless the House of Commons gets its way in a conflict with the House of Lords. Any compromise will mean not that the House of Commons is getting its way, but that the House of Lords is getting its way, and that will mean that the Government are abandoning their position on the pre-eminence of this House.
The doctrine does not say that the Government get their way; it says that the House of Commons gets its way. What is more, for the House of Commons to get its way, whether with Government legislation, which this measure would be, or with private Member's legislation, it does not need as big a majority as it is possible that we will get tonight. When I was Minister of State at the Department of Industry, we used the Parliament Act to get through the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill when we had a majority of one in this Chamber. If we can do it on a majority of one, we can do it on the kind of majority that we will have tonight.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 was taken through the House, I asked why Opposition Members had voted in support of a Government move of which many Opposition Members and I strongly disapproved? Sir Keith Joseph told me that it conformed with the proprieties and rules of the House. In what way does it conform with the proprieties and rules of the House that a Bill that forms no part of the Government's manifesto is taken through under the Parliament Act?
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman knows little if anything about the history of the House of Commons if he promotes that point of view. The Parliament Acts were introduced first by the pre-war Liberal Government and then amended by the Attlee Government so that the House of Commons could get its way in a conflict with the House of Lords. That is what the Parliament Acts are

63
about, and I am simply asking my right hon. Friends to endorse and reinforce my terms of reference as a member of a royal commission.
If my right hon. Friends adopt a new doctrine that when there is a difference between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, there has to be a compromise that gives way in some degree to the House of Lords, I will assume that that will apply not merely to legislation on hunting with dogs, but to everything else. I give notice to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip that if this House of Commons votes for a total ban and then gives way to the view of the House of Lords, she need not expect to see me in the Division Lobbies in the future when this House is asked to vote down Lords amendments to Government legislation. I very much hope that we shall not come to that. The whole point about being as sickeningly loyal as I am is that when one does rebel, one does it with a vengeance, and if necessary that is what I shall do.
I deliver that message to the Chief Whip and say to Ministers that there is only one way to resolve the problem—to enact what the House of Commons votes for tonight. Let no one believe that if that does not happen, we will stop. We will go on until we get the complete ban. It will have to be done some time, so do it now.
5.58 pm
Norman Baker: It falls to me to kick off the debate on behalf of my party because I am responsible for animal issues. I should make it clear that it has long been a tradition of the Liberal Democrats to have a free vote on the subject and I confidently expect my colleagues to split three ways in the Division Lobbies at 10 o'clock. [Interruption.] Members of other parties make a noise about that, but I think that there is a free vote on both sides of the House. It is worth pointing out that we have heard only from Labour Members in favour of a ban and from Conservatives in favour of the status quo. I look forward to hearing from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) who will help to balance the debate.
Mr. Swire: Given that the Liberal Democrats will operate a free vote, is it still official Liberal Democrat party policy to ban hunting with dogs?
Norman Baker: We have explained many times that it has long been a tradition for our party conference to vote for a ban on hunting. It has equally been the case, however, that the parliamentary party has consistently decided that this is a matter of conscience and people can vote accordingly. There is nothing wrong with that, and it would be healthier if we saw greater diversity in the other parties.
I have a sense of déjà vu because this is far from the first debate on hunting in which I have participated, and the same is true of many Members. My constituents say to me, "Another debate on hunting? Why are you not discussing the NHS, Government sleaze or Iraq?", and I have some sympathy with that view.
Mr. Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Norman Baker: No, not at the moment.
64
I have sympathy with that view not because this issue is not important—it is—but because we are going round and round in circles. We have discussed foxhunting many more times than any other issue. We have had at least three votes on this substantive issue since 1997, and today we will have the fourth. On each occasion there has been a clear majority in favour of an outright ban. Two Committees have undertaken long proceedings—25 sittings in all. Since 1997, Parliament has spent 125 hours and 47 minutes discussing hunting, and the clock has been started again today.
As I said, in each vote there has been a substantial majority in favour of a ban. On 20 November 1997, on Second Reading of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, 411 voted for the principle of the Bill, which was to ban hunting, and 151 voted against. On 20 December 2000, when we were offered a multiple choice option similar to the one that we are faced with today, 387 voted for an outright ban and 174 voted against. On 27 February 2001, on Third Reading of the Hunting Bill, 319 voted for a ban and 140 against. Nobody can be in any doubt about the view of the House of Commons. Some Members may feel that that view is misguided, but it is absolutely clear. The view of the House of Commons is that there should be a ban.
I wonder how we have managed to proceed through an entire Parliament and into the next one without seemingly making very much progress. Frankly, an abdication of responsibility and leadership by the Government has led us to the situation today. There has been a failure to respond to the general public and the views of the House. The Labour party promised a vote on hunting in its 1997 manifesto. It stuck to the letter of that promise, but although everybody thought that the vote on hunting would be followed by legislation, there was nothing of the sort; it was an indicative vote. What was the point of it? It got us nowhere.
There followed a period in which the Countryside Alliance was making its views very plain and Ministers took fright. The previous Home Secretary set up the Burns inquiry and hoped that the issue would go away or somehow be resolved, even though there are irreconcilable views in the House. Most cynically of all, as I pointed out in my last speech on the matter, in January 2001, when the election was approaching and it was obvious that traditional supporters of the Labour party in particular were unhappy with the Government's inaction on the issue, a Bill was introduced which stood no chance whatever of becoming law.
Mr. Roger Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the nature of the Welsh countryside and Welsh agriculture means that legislation on hunting would be best undertaken by the Welsh Assembly, although given the circumstances we would like to work towards agreement in this House?
Norman Baker: I agree. I remember the Minister picking me up on that point in the previous debate on the subject and disagreeing with that in principle. However, although I personally strongly hold the view that hunting should be banned, I think that it is for the Welsh Assembly to sort out the situation in Wales. It is wrong

65
for us to legislate on this issue in Wales. The position would be stronger if this were a devolved matter, and the Welsh Assembly could reach its own conclusions.
Alun Michael: Just to make it clear, this is not a devolved matter; that is the point.
Norman Baker: Absolutely. We are saying that it should be a devolved matter, and that is an area of unity between Liberal Democrats and, I suspect, Plaid Cymru and members of other parties in the House.
We have come full circle. Today we will have an indicative vote—exactly the same sort of vote as we had in December 2000. We are no further forward. I listened to the Minister carefully, and he made no guarantee that the Government will do anything after the vote. They will make a statement, but we do not know what it will say, and nobody has been able to tease that out of the Minister.
I make one plea to the Government: for goodness sake, put this issue to bed. It has been going on long enough. I suggest that, constitutionally, the Government ought to adopt the views of the Commons. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) expressed the view that that is the proper position. We will have had four votes in two Parliaments delivering a large majority in favour of a ban. The Government cannot go on having these votes year in, year out, only to leave them hanging in the air. They may want to sit on the fence and they may hope that something will turn up to save them, but it will not. In the end, they will have to get a grip and do something.
I ask the Minister to make it clear what the Government will do if the House again votes for an outright ban and the House of Lords votes for retention. Will the Government invoke the Parliament Acts and bring the Bill back? We have not had a clear answer to that question. What if the Lords votes for the so-called middle way? Does that make a difference? I do not think that it does. Will the Minister agree that the issue needs to be settled once and for all, and that this should be the last substantive debate on hunting in this House?
I turn briefly to one or two personal remarks to set out my position. I have listened carefully, as I am sure have hon. Members throughout the House, to my constituents on this issue, and there was a diversity of views, as one might expect. The majority is clearly in favour of a ban. The letters in my postbag are about 10:1 in favour of a ban, and they come from people in urban and rural areas. I do not believe that this should be portrayed as an urban versus rural issue; that is a red herring. There are people in towns who want hunting to continue, and there are people in rural areas—a majority, I believe—who want hunting to be banned.
A ban is appropriate. As I said, these are my personal views; I am not speaking on behalf of my party. I do not accept that the method of foxhunting, which involves cruelty and stress to the animal, can be justified by the pleasure that it gives to those who hunt or by the ancillary benefits which I accept flow from hunting.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: What would happen to fallen stock on farms if hunting were banned?
Norman Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come on to farming issues in a moment.
66
If hunting is essentially cruel, as I believe it is, the question is whether there are any other factors in the calculation that outweigh that so that hunting can be allowed to continue. I make that calculation carefully because no Liberal wants automatically to jump towards a ban. Indeed, we are often accused of wanting to legalise things rather than to ban them. Is the damage done by not banning something greater than the loss of freedom caused by such a ban? In this case, the answer to that question is yes.
Mr. Gregory Barker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Norman Baker: No, I want to conclude my remarks before long.
For me, the freedom to hunt is the freedom to inflict unacceptable stress and pain on an animal, and the human freedom to hunt cannot outweigh that consideration. There is nothing new in that argument. We had bear baiting and cock fighting, and we still have hare coursing.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: It is generous of the hon. Gentleman to give way. Is he aware of what veterinary surgeons say? More than 300 have written to Members of Parliament to support hunting. They do not agree that stress is placed on the animal. They say that the process is perfectly natural and that death is very quick. Their arguments run counter to the hon. Gentleman's.
Norman Baker: I accept that there are experts on both sides of the argument who will produce conflicting evidence. That is inevitable. However, the Burns inquiry, to which the hon. Lady referred in her speech, concluded that hunting seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. I am convinced that it is cruel.
In outlawing bear baiting, cock fighting and other such so-called sports, which were once mainstream, we have already accepted that human freedom can be curtailed. I believe that hunting falls into the same category.
Are there any other offsetting factors? The Burns report referred to 700 people who are directly employed by hunts and between 6,000 and 8,000 who are indirectly employed. If Parliament bans hunting, as I hope it will, I hope it will accept its responsibility towards anyone who loses their job as a consequence, as it did when the legislation to ban fur farming was passed.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) referred to the social structure. That can carry on. There is nothing to stop people dressing up and riding a horse across fields chasing a trail. That is drag hunting, and I would be happy to present the stirrup cup to my local hunt if that was what it was doing. I do not believe that that is a real objection.
The third factor is the effect on the fox population.
Mrs. Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Norman Baker: No, I will not.
We have had a period of foot and mouth disease in this country, and I would be interested to see some Government figures showing the impact of foot and mouth on the fox population. I have had no

67
representations from my local farmers about the fox population being out of control because hunting was not allowed during that period.
I have been to see my local hunt; I visited the Southdown and Eridge hunt kennels in Ringmer. I asked how many foxes the hunt caught each year, and the answer was about 50. I do not believe that hunting on that scale has an overall impact on the fox population: it is insignificant.
Sometimes hunts argue that by catching foxes they are eliminating the weaker strains—which would mean that the fox population was being perpetuated by the hunt. At other times they say that they are solving a problem for farmers by killing a pest. Those two arguments seem slightly contradictory, and they are wheeled out on different occasions, depending on what argument the hunts are facing.
Does hunting increase or diminish the fox population? That question has not been answered, although I have noticed reports of hunts constructing artificial earths—apparently in order to breed foxes. That seems to be at variance with the need to control the fox population.
Finally, let me say something about the middle way. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) will violently disagree with me in a moment, but I have to say that in my view the middle way is the worst option of the three. It is a legitimate position to say that hunting should be banned. It is also legitimate to say that hunting has long been the tradition of this country, and should be continued; I do not happen to share that position, but I respect its integrity.
However, it does not make sense to say that the Government should interfere and set up a massive bureaucracy. Not only would that involve lots of red tape—which we are all supposed to be against—but it would appear to give Government approval to what I regard as a cruel sport. The middle way is not a middle way; it is hunting by other means, hunting with knobs on—or perhaps the nobs are on the horses.
I hope that the House will be able to reach a clear conclusion tonight. I would like a ban, but if the House decides to allow hunting to carry on, that is fine. We do not want the middle way, but we do want a resolution of this matter before long.
6.12 pm
Kate Hoey: Five years ago, when the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) was being discussed, I opposed a ban and said that a way forward suggested by a former chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, Jim Barrington, might be the answer. That was a radically different approach that could have provided guarantees on the animal welfare aspects that concern people about hunting, while still respecting the rights of minorities.
I am pleased that the work carried out by my colleague Llin Golding—now Baroness Golding—and by the hon. Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and others, is now being seriously considered as a way forward. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has worked with all the groups and listened to them.
68
My reasons for opposing a ban, after looking into what happens, were related to what I discovered about the killing of foxes. I felt strongly that if we were serious about animal welfare, opposition to a ban should be our conclusion. Foxes may be furrier and sexier than rats, but they are still vermin, and need to be controlled and killed. When I consider all the different methods of killing foxes, my view, backed up by Lord Burns, is that hunting with hounds is the most natural way to kill them.
It is important to read what Lord Burns said, and remind ourselves that he did not find hunting with hounds cruel.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Kate Hoey: No, I am not giving way because I have only a few minutes.
In the House of Lords, Lord Burns was asked whether his report said that hunting was cruel, and he answered no. There is no doubt that the Burns report did not find that hunting was cruel. In fact, it said that if we stopped culling foxes in that way, many of them would die in much more horrible and painful ways, such as by gassing, poisoning or shooting—and foxes that are shot may not be killed immediately.
All that makes it clear that people's reasons for opposing foxhunting are not to do with animal welfare. There is no cruelty involved in foxhunting, any more than there is in shooting, gassing or poisoning foxes. The only people who can genuinely oppose foxhunting are those who do not eat meat, or kill anything, or wear leather. The reality is that we need to kill foxes, and we have to find a way that is as humane as possible.
We have to be honest about the fact that what really upsets some of my hon. Friends—and, perhaps, some Opposition Members too—is the idea that only toffs go hunting. If only hunters did not wear red coats, things might be different—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will have the chance to speak later.
I have spent some time with hunts now, which I had not done last time I spoke on this subject. When I visited the Thurlow hunt recently, and met many of the people involved, I found a more socially inclusive group of people out with the hunt than are to be found on our Back Benches—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
Kate Hoey: I shall now quote someone with whom I sometimes do not agree—but on this issue I do. In a recent article in The Sun, Richard Littlejohn wrote:
"I hold no brief for foxhunting. But at a time when the nation is plagued by a drugs epidemic, carjacking, burglary, street robbery, it seems a perverse set of priorities to make criminals out of thousands 01 people following a sport dating back hundreds of years".
In my constituency, just down the road in Vauxhall, there are people who want to ban hunting, but there are very few who want to make criminals out of people who hunt. People in my constituency are much more concerned about the fact that their streets are rife with criminals, that their cars are being broken into every day, that they are being mugged and having their mobile phones taken from them willy nilly, and that our streets are increasingly in the hands of real criminals.

69
I have to question the priorities of Parliament again. When the lives of our constituents are being made intolerable, what people are really asking for is a ban on being mugged, a ban on having to wait to get into hospital, and a ban on being homeless, or overcrowded and unable to be rehoused. Those are the issues that we as parliamentarians should be concerned about, rather than taking an attitude based on the feeling, "We don't like those people, so we'll ban them."
It is interesting that some people say that perhaps they will still allow fell hunting—presumably because the hunters are not on horses. The idea is that if people are on horses they are different from people on foot—or that if people, either on horses or walking, are working hard to kill foxes, so long as they are not getting any enjoyment out of it, that is all right. There is muddle and confusion among the people who want to ban hunting, and that is not in the interests of the countryside or of the people of this country.
I shall end by quoting the Prime Minister. A couple of years ago he talked about
"justice, freedom, tolerance"
and a respect for minorities and said:
"These are the values that drive and govern my political life".
I cannot believe that we have to take away the livelihood of country people and bulldoze their rights and freedoms, all for the sake of trying to pretend that killing a fox by hunting is any more cruel than killing a fox by any other means. I hope that the House has more sense.
6.19 pm
Mr. William Hague: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and to congratulate her not only on the wisdom of her remarks but on having the courage to speak out against the orthodoxy of her party. I congratulate her heartily on doing so.
It would be good if the Government could find time to debate a wide range of rural matters—this is one—in the House. They could have found the time to debate the aftermath of the foot and mouth disaster and to learn its lessons, which are not being learned by the public inquiry that ought to be taking place. They could have found the time to debate the need to make sure that meat imports into this country meet the standards of food produced at home. They could have found the time to debate the need to help rural tourism to recover from last year. However, they have not done so, and they have shown how grossly out of touch they are with the feeling of the countryside in the bizarrely inappropriate choice of hunting as the debate for today.
Some interesting points have been made. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) said that her constituents were more concerned about education, health and transport. That is precisely our point.
Mr. Savidge rose—
Mr. Hague: The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell)—I mention him only because of his sedentary interventions—warned about the other place and said that it was a place of privilege. Of course, it has largely become a place of the privilege of knowing the
70
Prime Minister. That is why a large proportion of Members of the other place are sitting there. What is more, we know that the real reason for this debate, which was announced three weeks ago, was not to prevent the pursuit of a single fox by a pack of hounds, but to prevent the pursuit of a particular Secretary of State by the media and by my colleagues in the House.
Nevertheless, the Government said in their manifesto that they would have a vote on this issue, and, at some stage, they are entitled to do so. As we have discovered, feelings run high on this matter. My constituents, from everything that I have seen over many years, are very much in favour of being allowed to continue to hunt. I represent a very rural constituency. For some, hunting is a practical matter. For example, Hawes and High Abbotside parish council in Upper Wensleydale wrote to me on Friday—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) knows about as much about upper Wensleydale as he does about Timbuctoo, if I may respectfully say so. The letter stated:
"As you will probably be aware, our local hunt. Wensleydale Foxhounds, does not hunt with horses, but on foot. The hunt is often called out at night by farmers to destroy foxes which are killing their animals and this service would be very much missed if this bill comes into force."
That is simple and practical, and is one of the reasons why the council is in favour of hunting being allowed to continue.
For others, hunting is a matter of employment. There is no doubt that scores of people in my constituency would lose their jobs if hunting were to be banned. Every Member of Parliament can sympathise with constituents who are worried about losing their jobs. For some, hunting is part of their rural way of life and of maintaining a balance in the countryside between the farmed animal and the wild predator, and of doing so as they have done for a very long time. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to 200 years ago—I know that he has now left the Chamber—and said that he would spend the remaining half of his parliamentary career campaigning against certain traditions. I will spend the remaining four fifths of mine campaigning for certain traditions, because there is value in them, and people should be free—this is a large part of the case—to pursue their customs, traditions and habits if they do not cause injury or gross inconvenience to others.
Dr. Nick Palmer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Right honourable".] I am sorry. I am grateful to the right honourable Gentleman. If he believed—I accept that we may dispute this—that suffering was caused to animals by foxhunting would he still feel that the freedom of the individual came first?
Mr. Hague: I would have to consider the alternatives. Anyone with an understanding of a rural area such as my constituency is in no doubt that some way of controlling the fox population is necessary. There is a choice between the methods of doing so. We live surrounded by predators, and not only when I am here in the House of Commons. If one lives where I live, one hears at night the screech of the owl descending on the mouse, one sees the stoat jumping on to the rabbit, and one captures in one's car headlights the fox going about its business, seeking the new-born lamb or the chicken coop door that has been

71
left open. Predators do not consider the moral rights and wrongs as we do as human beings. They are predators, and will go on being predators in larger numbers. We have created an agricultural society with large numbers of sheep and chickens to support a huge predatory population of human beings numbering 56 million. Of course, that agricultural society can also support a huge fox population—if left to their own devices—that would wipe out many other species altogether.
One can read about the ludicrous contortions into which the so-called animal rights movement gets itself. It was reported that, last month, the Essex Wildlife Trust banned foxhunting and then became the target of furious protests by animal rights activists for ordering a cull of a booming fox population. The article stated:
"Since the fox population increased from four to five animals five years ago to about 20 today, the number of breeding pairs of ground-nesting lapwings has decreased from 38 to three, and the number of redshanks from 25 pairs to 10."
The trust's development manager said about the animal rights protesters:
"When we tell them that we have seen foxes killing lambs and ground-nesting birds, they simply do not accept it."
That is what we are up against. The protesters think that if the hunting of foxes is banned, the foxes will be deeply grateful and rush round to help the farmer at lambing time. That is the kind of ludicrous misconception that they have.
We must control foxes somehow. The alternative proposed by the animal rights movement is shooting, because it is clean, easy and so on. No one who has handled a gun could possibly come up with such a naive suggestion. One person wrote to a Sunday newspaper yesterday with an account of having seen a fox shot. The first shot broke the fox's leg, the second hit it from another direction, the third shot knocked it off its remaining feet, the fourth shot failed to kill it, and, in the end, its neck was broken because it was not killed by the four shots. Foxes do not obediently line up to be shot by firing squad. We do not have laser-guided shotguns to home in on them in the night. If shooting is the alternative, it will lead to much greater animal cruelty and inconvenience.
Mr. Kaufman: It sounds to me as though the man using the gun had drunk 14 pints before shooting.
Mr. Hague: It sounds to me like the right hon. Gentleman's serious contribution to the debate was made much earlier.
In my remaining two minutes, let me make the other part of the case. What of animal cruelty? There will be far greater cruelty to animals if foxes are to be controlled in some other way. There will be cruelty to the hounds that will have to be put down—I have not noticed anyone volunteering to take hounds into their homes.
Phil Sawford rose—
Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman is volunteering. That is very interesting. We shall put down his name to take hounds into his home. I have only two minutes remaining, and I am not going to give way again.
72
There will be greater cruelty to the foxes that will be killed in larger numbers by other means. There is also the question of respecting the rights of a minority. We often hear from many hon. Members about the need to respect minorities, and about the need to respect a culture of diversity. Why, therefore, is this particular minority being picked on? Why are people who fish not picked on? One can argue that fishing is an equivalent act of cruelty. The reason is that fishermen are large in number so hon. Members who wish to ban hunting do not pick on them. Why is ritual slaughter under certain religions, in which there is no stunning of the animals, not picked on? Many people would regard it as a great act of cruelty. It is not picked on because we respect particular different traditions and cultures. Why is the tradition and culture of foxhunting not respected when there is no compelling case to do away with it? It is because it can be picked on.
That is the hallmark of the bully throughout the ages and the signal of the abuse of majority power. If a majority in the House abuse their power in that way, it will be a deeply unattractive spectacle based on prejudice, ignorance and naivety that will do the cause of Parliament no good at all.
6.29 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I have been consistently in favour of banning hunting from before I came into Parliament and throughout my time in the House. However, I must confess to the House—I know that this will disappoint some of my hon. Friends—that I have changed my mind. I shall explain my reasons, because this should be a thoughtful debate. It is an important subject.
I have been in the House for a long time and suffered a Prime Minister who believed in confrontation. She took on the miners and other minorities and made life hard and unpleasant for those who confronted her. I do not like that style of politics or the way in which some of my hon. Friends and colleagues use our position in power to drive through proposals about which I have certain concerns.
I approach this issue from a different angle and I wish to share my worries with the House. I have always cared about cruelty to animals. I have always hated it and wanted to minimise it, and I believe that my views have been consistent. However, I have also cared very much about the rural environment and the countryside that we must leave to our children and their children. I worry about both those issues, and most of those who have spoken in the debate agree on that. They want to minimise cruelty to animals and have a decent rural environment. We can have both and I positively believe that there is room for compromise.
Mr. Challen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Sheerman: No, because I have only 10 minutes.
One of my other worries is that many of the zealots on this issue—I am not referring to most of my colleagues—will not be content with banning hunting. They will go on to fishing and to the shooting of rabbits, pigeons, pheasants or whatever. They will not be satisfied until, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) says, every sentient animal is protected. That is a dangerous position to take.

73
I know that some of my colleagues will not like me saying this, but we cannot separate this debate from other issues. For example, scientific and medical research must use animals in its experiments to push forward the frontiers of science and to help people who have certain diseases. We will be able to control those diseases because, in the long term, research will find the cures. However, the zealots involved on this issue—we cannot divide them up—have caused misery to those pursuing a scientific line of inquiry and carrying out their professional job. What happened to Huntingdon Life Sciences was a blemish on our national life. We must be careful to take a balanced view. These issues go together.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) discounted the third way, but I make an appeal to the House to take it seriously. We should be able to say that the argument is not all on one side. When the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) spoke, I thought, "My Goodness, I have got to follow that and agree with some of the things that she said." [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) is giving the speech a good roasting.
One thing that many of us share is that we do not like the people who go hunting. I do not like many of them, but many of the people who hunt in the Colne valley and in Yorkshire do not have horses and they do not wear red coats. They hunt to reduce the numbers of what they regard as a pest, and do so in a fairly innocuous way.
My neighbour is an organic farmer, whom I very much admire. He cares about the environment and does not use chemicals. However, his livelihood is threatened by the fact that rabbits plague his land. The rabbit population is the most difficult thing to control, so my neighbour wants a group of well trained people with dogs and with the right equipment to reduce the rabbit population. However, what does he have to resort to? He has to resort to the use of gas. I do not know whether Members have seen a warren where the rabbits have been gassed, but it is not very pleasant.
There is something else that human beings have done to rabbits—our cuddly friends. We introduced the disease of myxomatosis and it returned five years ago. I never understood how it returned, but the effects of that man-delivered plague on the rabbit population are not very pleasant at all.
The more I have considered the subject, the more I have been concerned to learn whether the alternatives are any better. I am not convinced that they are. The turning point for me came when I read the Burns report, and I value highly the work that Terry Burns carried out. He got the balance absolutely right. The report did not conclude that hunting was the cruellest thing that one can do to animals or that it was much crueller than any other method of controlling their numbers. It concluded that there was not much to choose between the various options of killing them. It is not nice to kill an animal, and choices have to be made. I do not believe that the alternatives to hunting are much better.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend way?
Mr. Sheerman: No.
Mr. Prentice: I want to quote from the Burns report.
Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend will have his turn to speak and I shall listen to him when the time comes.
I merely wish to address the issue, and I knew that that would not be popular with some on this side of the House. I have genuinely listened to the arguments, I have thought about them and I have changed my mind. After 30 years of holding one opinion, I have every right to change my mind, to tell the House that I have changed my mind and to give the reasons. All my reasons may not please my hon. Friends and I know that they will probably think that I am something of a deserter. However, the fact is that they must recognise that some people have concerns.
I note that there are very few people on these Benches compared with the 1997 debate in which I also spoke. I suspect that colleagues and the public outside are getting a little bored with the House's antics on this matter. Most people with common sense will say, "Why don't they reach a deal? Why don't they come to some sort of compromise such as a middle way?"
I believe that the Government will be remembered for certain things. I do not want them to be remembered for an obsession with foxhunting and for the hours that we have spent on the issue in this House and in Committee. However, people might remember us for that. I disagree with every word of some previous speakers in that I believe that the Government are delivering better health, better education and better law and order on our streets. I do not want all those achievements to be forgotten or for someone to write in 10 or 20 years' time that this Government were obsessed with hunting with dogs.
There is a way ahead, and it is called the middle way. It is a compromise under which we can cluster. We can reach a compromise with the other House, and that is the way forward. I urge my colleagues to think seriously about the issue and not to remain in the trenches of prejudice where they have been for too long.
6.39 pm
Mr. John Gummer: Perhaps the earliest political discussion that I remember is one that took place when I was at university and we discussed the conclusions of the Wolfenden report and made the distinction between sin and crime. It was an important distinction to make. Many things that we do not approve of should not necessarily be made criminal. The first point that this debate should take into account is that it is not sensible to make criminals of all those of whom we disapprove or make criminal those activities that we do not wish to take part in ourselves and that we would perhaps prefer others not to enjoy.
A tolerant society is one in which we criminalise an activity only as a last resort. Toleration is not just about allowing people to do things of which we approve, but about allowing them to do things of which we do not approve. Sadly, sometimes people who want to ban hunting forget that; they also forget that many of the things that they do are not approved of by other people. As minorities—in one way or another we are all minorities—they rely on the majority respecting, whenever humanly possible, their right to act as they want; they do not want that right interfered with because they are a minority.

75
That is even more important in a multicultural and multiracial society. As a Minister, I had to face up to the issue of ritual slaughter, which I dislike very strongly. Religiously and philosophically, I believe that it is wrong; it is based on an unacceptable historical argument. However, for some people, it is a religious belief; Jews and Muslims have a right to live in our society and be respected. So, although I hated the concept of ritual slaughter, I agreed to its continuance because I believe in toleration; one should tolerate those with whom one disagrees. Above all, one does not put one's own views on such matters above the serious beliefs of others.
Andy King: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, the hon. Gentleman has already expressed his views clearly in a sedentary intervention. If he thinks that ritual slaughter, in which Jews and Muslims believe, is equivalent to bear baiting or bull fighting, he demonstrates the triviality of his thinking.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gummer: No.
One must ask whether hunting is so immoral that it cannot be accepted. Some people believe that the House can enforce a secular morality; I dread to think what kind of things it might do, or might have done, if it acted on that. Nobody with religious views in Judaeo-Christian history—whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or Orthodox—believes that hunting is immoral, which begs the question of how those who claim the right to forbid others to do something on moral grounds manage to maintain their position. People whom we do not expect to take a clear moral position make it plain that they have taken such a position. It is hard to claim to be more moral than the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury, particularly when one is an elected Member of Parliament.
Mr. Savidge: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, I have not got a lot of time and want to address the question of reality—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gummer: I find it hard to accept the arguments of people who want a ban when they do not appear to understand how the natural world works. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) gave a graphic description of the basic predatory characteristic of the natural order. We are part of the predatory chain, but our job includes keeping the balance in nature. The difference is that we have the right and ability to choose. The problem is not that we choose between killing foxes and not killing them; we have to choose the mechanism and the method by which we kill them.
The Burns report is only the latest in a series of investigations, all of which concluded that if hunting is not the least cruel option, it is certainly no crueller than the alternatives. It is all very well for people to go on voicing
76
their opinions, but anyone who has looked seriously at the issue has come to that conclusion. If we deal with the reality of the situation, and if we decide to be as lacking in cruelty as possible, we must take the view that hunting is the best way of undertaking a necessary action.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, we only have 10 minutes each; the hon. Gentleman has spoken ad nauseam on the subject, and no doubt we shall hear from him again.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks was right that some people's view on animals includes the belief that we should not intervene in the natural world at all. Dare I tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that that view is heretical because it suggests, untruthfully, that nature would be much better if humans were not here at all? One must distinguish between those who take a sentimental Mable Lucy Atwell view of animals and those who understand the nature of the countryside and the role which mankind is supposed to play in it.
On the grounds of reality, we have to choose how we are going to keep foxes under control; I maintain that hunting is much the best way. Some people, however, believe that the debate is not about morality, diversity or reality. They take a puritanical view; they do not mind what people do as long as they do not enjoy it. I find it extremely difficult to accept the position of people who wish to stop others doing what they want because they think their opinion so important that it must be imposed on the rest of society.
That fascist element has characterised much of the argument that has taken place. Fascism is about doing to the minority what one would never get away with on a majority, and has been a distinctive feature of our debate. People who wish to get rid of hunting are afraid to say that they would like to get rid of fishing. There is no need to control the fish population, and people are allowed to treat them as they wish. There is a need to keep the fox population under control, but we are not allowed to do so. Members who want to deal with hunting are afraid to deal with fishing because they are afraid of offending the many voters who fish.
At stake is the diversity of our society; a sensible morality which is not overcome by sentimentality; an understanding of the reality of circumstances; and, above all, standing up for freedom and toleration. The idea that we would use the Parliament Act to cut back—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
6.49 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has every right to change his mind, but he should have spent more time reading the Burns report, paragraph 60 of which states:
"Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out."
Mr. Barker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prentice: I do have 10 minutes; if the hon. Gentleman will let me make some progress, I will give way.
The report goes on to make observations about special circumstances in upland areas—the point on which the hon. Gentleman is presumably trying to intervene.
The other person who has changed her mind is my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I have a copy of a letter to one of her constituents, dated 22 March 1994—admittedly, quite a long time ago—in which she says:
"Please be assured that I will actively support all moves in Parliament to ban hunting and to improve animal welfare generally."
Kate Hoey: I have never made a secret of the fact that that letter was written, but the difference between me and some of my colleagues is that, since then, I have begun to listen, look and understand.
Mr. Prentice: I was going to say that I might not need 10 minutes to explain my views, but perhaps I will.
Mr. Barker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prentice: No. I want to speak bluntly, because on this issue—as on so many others—I am the Government's best friend.
The indicative votes are worse than useless and will tell us nothing that we do not already know. I believe that hunting with dogs is cruel, inflicts unnecessary suffering and should be banned. Such sentiments are not being uttered by some Marxist from a different planet—[Interruption.]—not on this occasion, at least. Blue-chip organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have argued such views for years, but matters are not straightforward. The Prime Minister said recently that the third way is entering its third phase, but on this issue we seem to be stuck for ever. We are back where we started, endlessly dancing around and—as the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said—getting nowhere.
I shall give the House three guesses as to who said, in 1999,
"It will be banned, we will get the vote to ban as soon as we possibly can."
[HON. MEMBERS: "The Prime Minister."] They guessed it—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That is his view, unless he repudiates it and publicly says that he has changed his mind. Journalists tell me that he will join us in the Lobby this evening. That is great, but how do we get from where we are to where we want to be?
When I bump into the Prime Minister in the Lobby, I shall tell him that the answer is not to bring in a new Bill—that would involve further consultation, could take another two years to get on the statute book and may trigger the Parliament Act—but to bring back the Bill that was carried by the Commons in the previous Session and sent to the Lords. I have in my hand a copy of that Bill, which generated some 60 hours of debate. I know what will happen. This evening, we will vote for a ban; tomorrow, the Lords will vote for regulation; and on Thursday the Minister will tell the House that we need to
78
reconcile those two divergent positions. I suspect that he will also say that the Bill that was carried overwhelmingly by the Commons in the previous Session is flawed, and that bringing it back is not an option.
If we endlessly prevaricate, hesitate and vacillate, we will lose a lot of support and people will start to ridicule us. Perhaps they will ridicule the Prime Minister and, by extension, the rest of us. On this issue, ridicule and mockery would be very difficult to cope with, especially when an option exists. That could be avoided by using the Parliament Act. The matter could be done and dusted by October—at the end of the current Session. The alternative is to allow it to drag on until 2003–04.
As I said, the Minister will probably tell us that the original Bill is unworkable, yet it was piloted through Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) and it covered all the ground.
Mr. Edward Gamier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prentice: No. My hon. Friend—who was a Home Office Minister and took advice from parliamentary draftsmen—said that the Bill was workable. Even if it is flawed in some respects, the answer is not to throw it in the bin but to pass it and introduce a short, technical Bill in November to plug the gaps
There is no middle way. A middle way is an illusion—it is chasing moonbeams. The issue is not just the welfare of foxes—we heard earlier about the South Staffordshire pony club—but of deer, mink and hares. According to the pamphlet published in November 2000, the Middle Way Group had no policy on hare coursing and hare hunting, although I am not entirely sure whether it has a such a policy at the moment.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) sought to intervene just a few moments ago, and I shall give way after I quote his comments in Standing Committee. He said that
"the purpose of hare coursing is not to inflict unnecessary cruelty on the hare but to watch two greyhounds competing to show how skilled they are at turning or moving another animal."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 January 2001; c. 183.]
Why are greyhounds not muzzled, therefore? I invite him to intervene and say whether he believes that greyhounds should be muzzled, but I suspect that he will not.
Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, because every time I do so I remind him of the fun that we had—
Mr. Prentice: Get to the point.
Mr. Garnier: I shall forget about that particular incident. The Minister for Rural Affairs would agree that the original Bill is unworkable because, as a Back Bencher, he participated in Standing Committee and saw how unworkable it was. I suspect that that experience is

79
seared on his ministerial memory. On muzzling, I do not accept that it would answer the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Prentice: If a hare could speak, it would answer that point.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield that the Burns inquiry concluded that hare coursing is carried out for largely recreational purposes. In essence—this always excites a reaction from Opposition Members—we are talking about blood sports and killing for fun. In 21st century Britain, killing for fun should not be allowed.
Mr. Barker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prentice: No, I will not. As my amendment was not called for debate this evening, I hope that I will be allowed to raise this issue—and, if necessary, to vote on it—at the meeting of the parliamentary Labour party at 11.30 am this Wednesday, before my right hon. Friend the Minister explains to the House the Government's definitive position. It would be eccentric if Labour MPs were not allowed to express their views on whether the Hunting Bill should be brought back and the matter resolved once and for all in the current Session.
6.59 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Future generations will look back on some things in disbelief, just as we look back in disbelief at cock fighting, bear baiting and, more recently, badger digging. One of the things on which they will look back in disbelief is that at the beginning of the third millennium we were still debating in this Chamber whether it was right and proper to allow people to chase an animal to exhaustion, with its killers closing in on it, causing it the most unspeakable fear before its death, and all in the name of tradition.
I have found some of the arguments mounted on the other side of the debate today incredible. Instead of making the case for keeping hunting, those in favour have sought to question the motives of those of us who believe that it should be abolished. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) painted a wonderful picture of life under Labour. Apparently, one cannot walk down the street without having one's phone nicked and nobody can get an operation under the NHS. She said that those issues were more important. I agree, so let us get this issue out of the way and then we can concentrate on those more important issues.
The hon. Lady also claimed that those who opposed hunting were anti-toff. Even my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), for whom I have tremendous respect—he is my wonderful and fantastic right hon. Friend—ended up by saying that opposition to hunting was a product of prejudice and not liking the sort of people who hunt. Anti-toff? Moi? I am one of the few people in this Chamber who upheld the rights of hereditary peers to carry on in the House of Lords. I actually believed in that. I was one of those—and my right hon. Friend knows it—who argued for the repeal of the iniquitous Act that stopped them. To suggest that somehow I am prejudiced against what have been called toffs—it is a stupid expression—is a nonsense.
80
Apparently, I do not like people who go hunting. My parents hunted. I like my parents very much indeed.
Mr. Bellingham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her recent appearance in the programme "When Louis Met Ann Widdecombe". Am I right in thinking that when her drawing room was filmed I saw some very nice hunting prints?
Miss Widdecombe: Yes, indeed. They are wonderful, colourful scenes of olde England, and in olde England they firmly belong.
It is true that the Burns report said that hunting compromises the welfare of the fox. The only thing that surprises me about that is that it should take all those learned men all that time to decide that.
Mr. Barker: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Miss Widdecombe: No. I have given way once and I do not intend to give up too much of my time.
One hon. Member told us to beware, because if we gave in on hunting, fishing would be next, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said that fishing would not be abolished. Pro-hunt Members must make up their minds about which side of that argument they are on.
We also heard the usual old nonsense that banning hunting would affect employment. Yes, it will affect employment, but as I said in a previous debate, if we abolished crime we would put all the police out of work. If we abolished ill-health we would put all the nurses and doctors out of work. Will anybody argue that we should preserve crime and ill-health in order to keep people in jobs?
Hunting is either right or wrong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that we must respect certain things because people sincerely believe in them religiously. I am not sure who believes in hunting religiously, but he argued that people's religions must be respected and that they should be allowed to do anything in the name of liberty that their religion dictates. Fine. I look forward to my right hon. Friend's private Member's Bill to legalise polygamy.
Even from my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, who should know better, we heard all the arguments about how it is natural to hunt and to be a predator, and that that is practised widely throughout the animal kingdom. Yes, but should Members of Parliament take their standards from the animal kingdom? Do we seriously think that we should determine whether something is right or wrong by whether the animals do it? That seemed to be the proposition made by some of those who support hunting.
We are also told that the issue is one of liberty, and nothing else. It is about the liberty to do anything one wants to do. However, it has always been the purpose of the law to curtail liberty to do something that is believed by the democratically elected body of this House to be wrong. We eliminated cock fighting, bear baiting and badger digging. I do not say that those activities equate

81
with hunting. Hunting is much less wrong than those activities, but my argument is that we curtail liberty when we believe that something is wrong.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend think that fishing is wrong? If she is taking a stand on the issue of cruelty, her speech is illogically nonsensical if she would not also argue for banning fishing.
Miss Widdecombe: I shall come to that point in a minute. Some people argue for the retention of hunting on the basis that it is the normal method of fox control and that if we get rid of it something vastly more cruel will be put in its place. The Burns report says that hunting is responsible for only 6 per cent. of all fox destruction—[interruption.]
Mr.Barker rose—
Mr. Simon Thomas rose—
Miss Widdecombe: The other 94 per cent.—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is on her feet and is entitled to be heard.
Miss Widdecombe: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your protection against my various colleagues who wish to take issue with me.
Hunting is responsible for only 6 per cent. of fox destruction. The idea, therefore, that we wish to abolish the only means of fox control is wrong. What that figure proves beyond doubt is that hunting is not even an efficient pesticide, which is just about the one argument that could be made for keeping it.
If hunting is not an efficient pesticide, it has no purpose. There is some purpose in fishing—and I come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). I agree that not all fishing has a purpose, but one can fish and then eat the result. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not all the time."] I did not say that that applied to all fishing. Either my hon. Friends were not listening or they did not want to listen.
The last argument that is often mounted is that those who hunt want to be left alone and that they cause no problem to other people. Those who make that argument should read a letter from a rural resident who has lived for 20 years in a foxhunting area of Hampshire. Her animals have been attacked, and she has to keep them in whenever the hunt is in the area. She talks about the immense damage that hunt supporters do to verges and other parts of the countryside and she says that although the hunt claim to care for their own animals, the state of the horses and hounds at the end of the day calls that claim into question.
It is right that this House should consider whether to ban hunting. When everything is added up, the argument is decidedly in favour of a ban. However, we are all entitled to our views and neither side should imagine that the views of the other are the product of prejudice or ignorance.
7.9 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful for having been called—
Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that it is now the convention of the House that only Members who were present for the opening speeches are called during a debate. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) came into the Chamber at five minutes to 6.
Madam Deputy Speaker: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that he is correct, save that the hon. Member for West Ham was attending a meeting of the House of Commons Commission? I call Mr. Banks.
Mr. Banks rose—
Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I attended that meeting, may I be called too?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may well succeed in catching my eye.
Mr. Banks: I was about to make that point. I had no choice but to attend on Mr. Speaker at the Commission, and it was a privilege to do so. I found the experience a damn sight more intellectually stimulating than certain aspects of this debate.
May I say to, on this occasion, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), that it is a privilege to follow her? She made a brave speech. Frankly, nothing more needs to be said and we could all go into the Lobby, but I have brought my speech and I intend to make it. If the Conservative party chose her as its leader, the Labour Government would find themselves in considerable difficulties. Fortunately, I know that such good sense does not prevail on the Opposition Benches.
I say to the right hon. and pious Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who unfortunately has gone— [HON. MEMBERS: "He is back."] I say to his holiness that it is interesting that he mentioned ritual slaughter, about which I have said a number of things in the House before. He says that we should respect those religious conventions. What about Sharia law and stoning to death for adultery? Would he suggest that we must also respect that? If we did, there would be an awful lot of stone dodging in this Chamber.
The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), for whom I have a great deal of respect, says that we should get on to other matters and asks why we are obsessed. I have heard him make two speeches since he stood down as Conservative leader, both on this subject. A large number of Members are in the Chamber, so clearly we are interested, and the idea that the debate is forcing other issues out is nonsense.
People may say, "Why aren't you dealing with the problems in law and order, education and transport?" Well, we are, but the fact is that this is not an administrative Chamber. We do not run the education service or the transport system or the hospitals. We pass laws. That is what we are here to do. Some say that we are obsessed, even though we have made our decision in

83
favour of a ban so clear on so many occasions, and that those at the other end of the Palace are not obsessed, even though they keep obstructing it. We have our priorities right; Opposition Members and Members of the other place have their priorities wrong.
We spent more than 100 hours debating the last two Bills on the issue and there is no doubt about what will happen tonight, but I must pick up a couple of points. The first is the idea that foxes are vermin. If they are vermin, why is there a close season? I do not understand that; it makes no sense whatever.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite incorrect. Most foxes are killed outside the close season, which applies only to killing foxes with hounds.
Mr. Banks: It seems to me that continual pressure on vermin is the way to deal with them, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, those who support hunting do not want foxes to be eliminated. That is why, for example, foxes were introduced to the Isle of Wight and why certain hunts put carcases out to feed foxes—they need the sport.
The idea that foxhunting is an effective method of fox control is nonsense. Only about 5 per cent. of foxes are dealt with through the hunt and most are killed on the roads. Indeed, we would probably be better off issuing the hunts with four-wheel drive vehicles so that they can run the foxes over. For me, this is a moral issue. I cannot understand how anyone takes pleasure from killing a wild animal, and the aspect of bloodlust fills me with detestation.
We have made clear in the Chamber how we feel, and it is about time that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench respected that. I have a lot of time for my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is a man of great compassion, and I know that he wants foxhunting abolished. The fact is that our manifesto said that we would bring the matter to a conclusion, but we can reach a conclusion only if the will of the House of Commons as expressed in a vote is respected.
I do not understand what the Government are frightened of. The issue is not about town versus country and I have received a large number of letters, as other Members have, clearly from people in rural areas who abhor foxhunting. Indeed, the most recent opinion polls, taken in late January, suggest that a majority of the public favour a ban on foxhunting, hare coursing, stag hunting and mink hunting. Do not forget: this issue involves not only foxhunting, but all those other creatures. No one could call stags and hares vermin or pests.
With such a majority, what are my Government worried about? Is it the Countryside Alliance? Frankly, they should not worry. Most of its members are die-hard Tories who would not think of voting Labour even if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister formed the Downing street hunt and went into the royal parks to get hold of foxes.
84
There might be a reason for doing that. Not many people know this, but last year 110 foxes were removed from the royal parks.
Mr. Mark Simmonds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the poll in The Sun today, which says that 76 per cent. of people who took part in it favour the continuation of foxhunting?
Mr. Banks: That is effectively a straw poll based on telephoning, but the MORI poll that I referred to was scientific. The hon. Gentleman should take note of that. Now, what is 17 minus nine?
Mr. Ian Cawsey: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Banks: I cannot, because my mental arithmetic, which is rather deficient, tells me that I have only two minutes left.
Let me say something about the middle way. There is no middle way. We cannot compromise on cruelty. We cannot have some system of Queensberry rules whereby an animal can be ripped to pieces and that is okay. It is totally unacceptable, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister does not come back with a recommendation, following a change of opinion in the House of Lords, that we should accept the middle way. I am sure he will not. Why would the House of Lords change its position and go for the middle way? Because the middle way is hunting by another name. That is all it is—hunting with a bit of bureaucracy. Quite honestly, that is totally unacceptable to us.
We will face an electoral backlash, and I recommend that my right hon. Friend the Minister read the many hundreds of letters that I have received from people who say, "This is a matter of good faith for the Government." He must bear that in mind. I trust that he will look after us and I hope that he does not become the political equivalent of St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes, because he has suffered from that in the past. I want him to prosper and do well. The best way to achieve that is to recommend to the Prime Minister that we bring back the Bill that the House passed and the House of Lords rejected.
7.18 pm
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have never taken part in a debate in the House on foxhunting, but we have debated it so frequently in recent times that it is necessary for me to give a word, at least for the benefit of my constituents.
I have not changed my mind, although I have the greatest respect for those who have over the years. I have always voted against a ban on foxhunting and I have always made it perfectly clear to my constituents on both sides of the argument that I oppose any attempt to ban it. I feel that it would be particularly wrong to invoke the criminal law against people in my constituency who take part in the three hunts that enter it in their traditional pursuit of foxhunting, unless some compelling public interest reason can be found so to do. It is the use of the criminal law that would most appal me.
I shall not have time, in 10 minutes, to go into all the arguments—which the aficionados of this debate seem to know backwards—about the number of foxes killed in

85
particular ways at different times of the year, the employment consequences, and so on, although I have become familiar with most of them over the years.
I find myself allied with the majority of people who have spoken on this side of the debate so far, when I single out the one thing that places me on this side—my instinct. The more I listen to the debate, the more I believe that most people on both sides are reacting by instinct when making their personal judgments. No doubt they are doing their best on the subject on behalf of their constituents. My instinct is on the side of a liberal and tolerant approach to society. I agree with all who have said that it should be the aim of the House, in setting the laws for society, to encourage the greatest possible degree of tolerance of a wide variety of lifestyles and customs, and we should hesitate strongly before we intervene against that.
The remarks of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), with whom I have often debated, were particularly wide of the mark. I do not know whether he was trying to comfort himself by saying that those in favour of foxhunting were somehow akin to those who have been against every other social reform of the last 200 years. I have always been against capital punishment, and on the side of liberal divorce reform. I regard myself as a liberal social reformer. It is absurd of the right hon. Gentleman to say that the invocation of the criminal law in these circumstances is somehow akin to all the enlightened liberal reforms that have been supported on both sides of the House over the last three decades, and which will, I hope, continue to be so supported.
I sympathise with the difficulty of the courageous Members on both sides of the House who are out of touch with their party majority on this issue, as I suspect that I am out of touch with the opinion of the majority of my constituents. I do not deceive myself on that. There are three hunts in the rural part of my constituency; one third of my constituency is suburban, and two thirds are rural. I suspect that, if an opinion poll were held there today, there would be a majority in favour of banning foxhunting, although I am encouraged by the way in which the national opinion polls appear to have been moving recently, as people face up to what is involved in the issue.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said that there was an enormous majority in favour of a ban in his constituency. With the greatest respect, we do not make the criminal law on the basis of opinion polls. A majority of 9:1 could be in favour of a ban in my constituency, but I would not regard that as conclusive, and I hope that we never would. That would lead to the intolerant attitudes to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has referred. If we start having opinion polls about all the unpleasant and distasteful habits and customs of some members of society, and suggesting that their findings should be made part of the criminal law, foxhunting would come way down the list, and quite a lot of strange enactments would have to go through the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made a brilliant speech, and, as usual, I admire her courage. I have to say to her, however, that we tolerate polygamy in this country. We do not allow polygamous marriage, because of our views on the family and because we do not think that our civil law should encourage the legal formation of polygamous
86
unions. Unless we change the law, however, someone who comes to this country with his coterie of wives—having legitimately been married in a country whose jurisdiction allowed him to do so—is indeed allowed to enjoy a polygamous marriage in this country and even, occasionally, to claim benefits for his various family members if anything goes wrong. That would not be popular with my constituents, but I would defend his right to have his polygamous marriages recognised.
The criminal law should be used only with great care, when someone's behaviour is not only something of which the majority—or any of us—disapprove, but is doing positive damage to the legitimate interests, property or well-being of other citizens, or doing great damage to society. That is the reason we do not normally use the criminal law in areas of this kind.
Of course, we use the criminal law in relation to animal welfare. This is a matter of judgment and degree. I entirely support the continuance of the ban on bull baiting and badger baiting, because they involve capturing an animal and placing or tethering it in a confined position for the purpose of setting up a bloody fight with dogs, on which people bet or from which they take a certain amount of satisfaction. We regard that as so distasteful and disgusting that it damages society to encourage its prevalence. These are matters of judgment, however, and it is frankly bizarre to leap straight from that standpoint to the banning of the countryside method of foxhunting as part of the cull of foxes that has to take place.
This is relevant not only because foxhunting is traditional, although that is important, but because it takes place in the setting that it does. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has already mentioned the natural setting, and people's enjoyment of it. I take a great interest in conservation, and in bird watching. When I support the protection of the peregrine and the hen harrier, I am in favour of inhibiting "man the hunter". I think that it should be a criminal offence to shoot such birds, because society is impoverished by reducing their numbers. We therefore encourage their numbers to grow. They are, however, fairly deadly killing machines when they attack some of the other birds that I watch. Nature is red in tooth and claw, and everyone who understands nature knows that many animals are predated upon, and that they, in turn, predate.
In the context of conservation plans, however, we do not have a natural environment any more. We have a man-made environment in this country. We have to manage even the nature reserves that we preserve, and we have to cull. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds often has great difficulty explaining to its members that it really has to cull that Walt Disney-like little duck, the ruddy duck, because it will otherwise damage other, rarer species. Foxes have to be culled, and I find it impossible to draw a judgmental line that involves saying that it is all right to carry on shooting and gassing them—and that it is all right to do that to rabbits—but that it is uniquely unacceptable for people to hunt, in a traditional way and in a natural setting, an animal that hunts in the same setting itself by pursuing and killing its prey.
We should not be allowed to make criminals of the perfectly respectable, civilised people who take part in hunting. They are law-abiding, decent citizens. I do not hunt, but they are people who would not understand why they were being classed with the criminals of Vauxhall if they were subject to a law such as this. Many of them

87
hunt and fish, and there is no logical distinction between the two activities. With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, people do not fish because they are starving and need to eat. They fish because they enjoy the process of pursuing the fish, and many of them throw them back again. Such people do not go rough shooting because they want to eat all the rabbits that they shoot, and we cannot get through all the pigeons that get shot. Pigeons are not shot in sufficient numbers nowadays to protect crops. This is a way of life enjoyed by respectable people, such as the people of the Vale of Belvoir, in my constituency.
This measure is being driven through largely for the benefit of the prejudices of the Labour party, and being handled in a ridiculous way by dragging it out and by making us vote and vote again until we all become good people and vote in the moderate way that lets the Government off the hook. It is a bizarre way of proceeding, and a parliamentary majority, even of this size, should not be used in this intolerant and unfeeling way. We should vote on the side of reason.
7.28 pm
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I want to start by quoting from an article by John O'Farrell in The Guardian on Saturday 2 March, in which he asks:
"If 'country sports' really are a sport, how come the same side always wins? Does this always come as a surprise to the participants? Do the hunters look on excitedly with their fingers crossed to see whether the fox rips the dogs to pieces or vice versa? You don't get the fox being interviewed on Sportsnight beforehand, saying: `Well Brian, I'm really confident about this one. I've had a couple of fights in the run-up; there was that easy win against Mr. Rabbit, but this is the big one I've been training for'.
'So you're not worried that the bookies have you at a 1,000:1 against beating this pack of foxhounds?'
'What, you mean there's more than one of them? Er, excuse me—I've just got to call to my agent'."
Foxhunting is as much a sport as badger baiting or cock fighting was, and it is just as barbaric. One form of cruelty that is often overlooked in this debate is the unnecessary suffering caused to the thousands of dogs used in fox, deer, hare and mink hunting. I am in no doubt as to the immense suffering caused to wild mammals when they are chased to exhaustion, brutally savaged by a pack of hounds or forced to fight underground with terriers. The Burns inquiry into hunting with dogs in England and Wales has been mentioned often today, as we might expect. It concluded that hunting with dogs "seriously compromises the welfare" of the foxes, deer, hares, and mink. What is often forgotten, however, is the plight of hunting hounds and terriers. No one has mentioned that today.
The plight of the foxhound starts early in its short life. Contrary to what the Countryside Alliance would have us all believe, it is not natural for foxhounds to hunt foxes. It sickens me to say that puppies that do not show aptitude for hunting, or whose colouring or body shape does not meet the requirements, are usually shot by the kennelman. Foxhounds fortunate enough to make the grade as puppies are trained to chase and kill foxes during the cub-hunting season. It is a particularly unpleasant aspect of hunting that involves the chasing and killing of fox cubs for the purpose of teaching young hounds to kill.
88
Hunts will head for wherever the scent of their quarry takes them, which is what makes the route of hunts for live quarry so unpredictable. Many hounds are run over on the roads, or even hit by speeding trains after straying on to railway lines. Others are injured on barbed-wire fences, or are lost from the pack for days on end.
In November 1999, six hounds were electrocuted and killed as the New Forest Foxhounds trespassed across a railway line. The incident was witnessed by passengers on the London to Bournemouth train that ran over the dead bodies of the hounds. Not only did the incident cause the senseless loss of the lives of six hounds; the delay caused to the train led to further huge delays. Sixty-one other trains were delayed.
The Wiltshire Times reported the needless deaths of three beagles from the Wiltshire and Infantry Beagles at Steeple Ashton, near Trowbridge. A car hit two of them as they chased their hare across the A350 between West Ashton and Stoney Gutter, and one sustained fatal injuries. Another dog was killed at a nearby roundabout, and the third fatality occurred as the dog tried to make its way back to the pack.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steinberg: No. I have not enough time.
That is not all. There is no gentle retirement home for these poor animals. When hounds reach the age of six or seven, about half their normal life expectancy, most are simply shot by the very people whom they have served loyally since their birth. That makes a mockery of the hunts' claim that in the event of a ban on hunting with dogs they will have no alternative to shooting them: they shoot them anyway. It is estimated that between 3,000 and 5,000 hounds are killed in that way by hunts each year.
For some time the Countryside Alliance has used its dogs to blackmail the public by arguing, for instance, that all hounds would need to be destroyed in the event of a ban. Being a dog lover, I have looked into that claim. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a mass slaughter of hounds in such circumstances would be irresponsible and unnecessary. The RSPCA has pledged to do all that it can to prevent such needless destruction at the hands of the hunts. The committee of inquiry into hunting with dogs found that
"any need to put down hounds or horses, in the event of a ban, could be minimised if there was a suitable lead-in time before it was implemented".
The Government's Hunting Bill, produced in March last year, provided for such a lead-in period—although I believe that responsible hunts should start to wind down their breeding programmes immediately to reduce the number left in the event of a ban.
When the time comes for hunts to disband, three options will be open to them: to disband and rehome their hounds, to disband the hunt but keep their hounds, and to convert to drag hunting. I believe that a switch to drag hunting is the preferable option, as it would allow the hunt to continue the so-called sport, the pageantry and the social side while allowing the hounds to continue to be kept in packs. Hounds that cannot be rehomed with drag hunts should be assessed for their suitability for rehoming elsewhere. The RSPCA has offered to work with hunts to help find alternative homes for puppies and grown dogs.

89
Perhaps the most brutal and callous form of cruelty inflicted on dogs in the name of sport occurs in what is known as terrier work. Most registered foxhunts use the services of terriermen or fox diggers—people employed to find, dig out and kill foxes that have found an underground refuge during a hunt. That activity has become a "sport" in its own right, attracting thousands of enthusiasts who kill an estimated 50,000 foxes a year just for the fun of it.
Most people are familiar with the illegal practice of badger digging, in which terriers are sent underground to find badgers. That often results in appalling injuries to both dog and badger. Fox digging works in exactly the same way; the only difference is that fox digging is legal, because foxes are not afforded the same legal protection as badgers.
The legal loophole that allows the digging out of foxes while outlawing the same practice in the case of badgers has provided those engaged in the illegal practice of badger baiting with a convenient alibi. In recent years there have been several court cases in which suspected badger baiters have escaped—or attempted to escape—conviction by claiming that they were hunting for foxes rather than for badgers.
Only last month, a gang of suspected badger baiters escaped conviction owing to the very same loophole. The six men, who were accompanied by 12 dogs—12 dogs for one fox!—were found by police at the entrance of what was believed to be a badger sett in Wales. They claimed that they had been digging for a fox that had gone to ground. The court heard that two of the dogs had been seen trying to get into a tunnel at the bottom of the hole, and that a squealing noise could be heard. When one of the dogs was pulled out of the tunnel it was heavily bloodstained, and was later found to have badger hairs in its mouth. A veterinary surgeon who examined the dog said
"The injuries to the dog were consistent with dogs fighting a badger".
The six were acquitted by magistrates who felt it could not be proved that the men were hunting badgers rather than foxes.
When a fox finds an underground refuge during a hunt, terriers are sent into the earth to locate it. If a terrier finds the fox an underground battle may ensue between the two animals, in which both dog and fox can suffer horrific injuries. The fox is then either flushed from the earth by the terrier, or dug out and shot at close range by a waiting terrierman.
Not surprisingly, there have been several successful prosecutions of a number of terrier owners for failing to seek veterinary treatment for terriers injured during such encounters. I am pleased to say that a recent case of that type led to recognition from the High Court that those who send terriers into earths where an underground battle may ensue as the terrified quarry tries to defend itself can be guilty of cruelly ill-treating their dogs—not to mention the suffering inflicted on the fox. These can hardly be regarded as the activities of animal lovers.
Hunting wild animals with dogs inflicts immense cruelty on both dogs and wildlife, and is totally unjustifiable. It can be prevented only by the introduction of a complete banning of such barbaric and bloodthirsty so-called sports.
90
Finally, let me make a few observations about the so-called middle way. Again, I quote from John O'Farrell in The Guardian.
"In fact the government is promoting a middle way which would involved foxhunting only being permitted under licence. This would be like solving the problem of burglary by issuing housebreaking permits and requiring the burglars to close the door behind them."
Proponents of the middle way tell us that it is not a compromise, and I agree. That is about the only sensible thing they say. It is not possible to make hunting "slightly" barbaric, or to allow animals to be "almost" torn apart. I cannot see for the life of me what difference it will make to the fox that is torn to shreds if those doing it are licensed. It is plain stupidity: it is a hunter's fallback, and it rubber-stamps cruelty. It is merely—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
7.38 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The speech of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) reflected an earlier observation by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who said that there could be no compromise over cruelty. The hon. Member for City of Durham delivered a similar message at greater length—but this whole area is riddled with compromises, as it has to be.
Even the legislation preferred by those who want a total ban is full of compromises. It is a compromise that it does not include fishing; it is a compromise that it does not include stalking. Actually it does include stalking, but the last time we considered the Bill the Government tabled an amendment—after I had pressed them on the point—to exempt it from the effects of the Bill.
These are not simple black and white issues. We are discussing how species are controlled, and what methods can be used to control them. Some people feel strongly that hunting is a particularly cruel method. As I shall explain, I do not agree. At the end of the day there are compromises. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and others who have worked with him on the middle way proposal seem genuinely to seek a compromise to allay public anxieties about activities that some think should be banned or restricted, while not banning the sport altogether.
My view has been that we do not need to go that far, and that the kind of supervision that would be put on a statutory basis if one of the options that we are considering tonight were accepted is sufficient. I understand why people want to go further. All these issues involve compromises.
It is difficult to bring something new to the debate at this stage of the evening, especially given that many of those hon. Members who are here are determined to speak later to express their own strongly held views, whatever side they are on. I want to contribute something from the standpoint of someone who represents an area in which hunting is pretty significant. It is part of the way of life, as are shooting and fishing, although many people hold contrary views; there are plenty of opponents of hunting in my constituency as well as people who take part in it. As someone who is philosophically a liberal, I have to look at it from that philosophical standpoint.

91
I first have to look at what we are doing. We are not discussing whether we disapprove of hunting, as some hon. Members do. We are discussing whether it should be a criminal offence—whether it should be banned by law. We should therefore look first at what consequences may follow if it were made a criminal offence. It would undoubtedly—I do not think that the proponents can disagree with this—deprive a lot of people of the freedom to carry out an activity that they have carried out for many years in the genuine belief that it is a reasonable contribution to the life of the countryside and does not involve unreasonable cruelty.
A ban would clearly restrict freedom. It would affect jobs. A number of people in my constituency depend wholly on hunting for their employment and indeed their home. It has a wider effect on the rural economy. A great many businesses in areas such as mine would be very adversely affected by a ban on hunting. Saddlers, for example, derive most of their income from hunt-related horse activity, which would reduce sharply if hunting were banned. In an area such as mine, there are landscape benefits when people who support hunting, landowners and farmers, preserve parts of the land in a way that is not the most economically attractive or viable because it is beneficial for hunting or shooting. We all gain benefit from that.
Those arguments would in themselves still not be sufficient if we could demonstrate that hunting were sufficiently cruel to justify our making it a criminal offence and sending people to prison for it, but that is the argument. There are some arguments that are irrelevant, such as, "We do not like the people who do it," which I have heard quite often outside the Chamber and occasionally inside it, or the argument that people who do it enjoy killing. I have often heard that in this Chamber. It is misleading because most of the people who take part in hunting do so for the excitement of the ride and the chase, not for the kill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Beith: I must try to deploy my arguments. I will see if I have any time at the end to allow interventions.
It is also the case that if the argument had any force, it could be applied to all the methods of controlling vermin, or indeed any species. If a person gets job satisfaction from his work as a mole-catcher, do we ban the control of moles as a species? If a person enjoys rough shooting, do we ban it simply on the ground that he enjoys it? We cannot do that.
Huw Irranca-Davies: What we should be very concerned about is the excesses and the abuses. Where we see hunts where the fox is torn away out of the hole and thrown to the hounds, we have to be very concerned. Where we have hunts where foxes are bred for the sport of it, that is not pest control. That is pure bloody sport. However—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could come to the point.
Mr. Beith: I think that the hon. Gentleman is on the same tack. He is looking for ways of ensuring that hunting
92
is carried out properly. That can be done by the supervisory system in the first option. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and others suggest a method that may give more public confidence but that is not the same thing as saying that the proper and well-regulated conduct of hunting should be a criminal offence.
I was dealing with some arguments that one cannot apply and that are irrelevant. Then there are arguments that are insufficient, such as the fact that one personally does not approve of hunting. Many hon. Members feel very strongly that hunting should not happen, or for that matter that many of their constituents do not approve of it. Again, there is an important distinction between what we do not like and do not approve of, and what we pass laws against.
Philosophically, as a liberal, I have to address that question time and again. Sometimes I have to revise my opinions on what I am entitled to ban. I am faced with the question: why am I entitled to prevent someone else from doing something that they feel strongly they should be allowed to do? I have to have an overwhelming argument and the overwhelming argument in this case has to be the cruelty argument.
Any serious examination of the evidence cannot draw a wide distinction between the amounts of cruelty or suffering involved to the fox in the different methods of control and killing. If there are distinctions, they are quite small and marginal. If anything, they may err in favour of hunting. They may not. They may go the other way, but on any analysis, the distinction cannot be said to be of the scale that makes the difference between sending someone to prison and accepting that their activity can be legally carried out even if one does not like it. That is where the argument for a ban falls.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: I must try to ensure that I have deployed all my arguments before I give way again.
My fear, and it has been expressed by others, is that the only consequence of a ban would be that, in those areas where hunting takes place, much more use would be made of other methods. The Burns report points out that, in some of those areas, it is difficult to do that. In particular, the report refers to upland areas. Paragraph 61 comes just after the bit that was quoted by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who came to an unexpected stop in the middle of a sentence. The following sentence says:
"In the event of a ban on hunting, it is possible that the welfare of foxes in upland areas could be affected adversely, unless dogs could be used, at least to flush foxes from cover."
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Beith: I was talking about the hon. Member for Pendle, who did not go on to read that sentence—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Beith: Any serious look at the evidence fails to provide that broad distinction, which could properly be the basis of saying that hunting should be illegal, whereas the other methods of controlling foxes can remain legal.

93
Hardly anyone is trying to say that we should not kill foxes. It is generally recognised that there is a need to kill at least some foxes and to control the population. People are not arguing for the elimination of foxes, either. Hunting does not eliminate foxes. It is in the interests of hunts that there should remain some foxes. It is an argument about keeping a level of population that is tolerable in relation to the farming activities upon which the foxes are predators. It is a question of balance.
One of the things that fascinates me is that the legislation has never been defined in those terms. The legislation has never been defined as an attempt to ban the killing of foxes except in certain circumstances. The legislation has never been defined in terms of attempts to ban cruelty. The word "cruelty" does not really appear in the Hunting Bill. The legislation concentrates on the use of dogs. When we start to look at it in detail, we discover that many of the other methods of control that would have to be used if we did not have fox hunting also rely on the use of dogs.
The Minister for Rural Affairs will remember vividly the discussions in Committee. We came to the point where it became clear that the Bill as drafted banned stalking with dogs, and it had not been the intention of the promoters or of the Government that it should. That is the problem. Bills have never been drafted in terms of what are supposedly the objectives of those who want them passed into law: they have never been drafted in terms of killing or in terms of cruelty. It comes down to drafting a Bill in terms of the use of dogs. Then the practical difficulties begin.
In Committee in the previous Session, we found when we looked at the Bill in detail how difficult it was to get the Bill into the sort of order that would not preclude all sorts of other activities, including other forms of pest control involving other mammals—for example, rats—so there is a whole area of difficulty about drafting the legislation correctly.
Technical difficulties cannot be the only reason for taking a view that the legislation should not go forward, because one assumes that a solution can be found to take it forward. What they point to is the inability to define the purpose of the legislation in terms of bringing an end to cruelty or to killing. That is not what it is about. If those who promote this legislation go to their constituency and to the country in general and say, "We are going to get a Bill through that will mean that foxes will never be killed or suffer any more," that would be seriously misleading. The question they then have to face is why they are prepared to send people to prison for hunting—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
7.48 pm
Mr. Bill Etherington: When I spoke on this subject approximately 14 months ago, I had high hopes that we would make some progress. Since I came into the House in 1992, we have had numerous debates and free votes on this issue and we are no further on. I issue a friendly warning to my right hon. Friend the Minister. The credibility of the Labour party is on the line over this issue—it is as simple as that. I want to spend more time talking about that than the issue of cruelty, anti-hunting, and what is right and what is wrong.
94
In a democracy, when a majority of the population want something, it is the duty of the Government to ensure that they get it. If the Government do not do that, and the situation goes on for 10 years, the whole political process becomes denuded. Like many other Members of Parliament, I have had numerous letters along those lines. Some people think that there is an unholy alliance between the Labour party hierarchy and the Countryside Alliance. I should like to think that that is not true. I do not think that it is true, but I well understand that there are people who feel that way.
Lembit Öpik rose—
Mr. Etherington: I am not giving way; I do not have time. The hon. Gentleman will have his chance.
When people say that they see no progress being made, and ask, "What is the use of the political process?", they have a point. If the Labour party does not get things right, and if my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs does not make the right sort of statement after the vote against hunting, is it will affect us badly at the next general election. I do not doubt that for one minute. I hope that people will take note of that.
I shall say a word or two about the merits or demerits of the case. We have not three, but two options tonight. We can abolish hunting with dogs, which the majority of people want, or we can use one of the other two systems that keep it going. There is no difference between an unregulated system and a licensed system. The licensed system simply appears to give a little more credibility to what is barbaric and unacceptable.
We are not talking about people being against the culling of foxes. That is as old as mankind. We no longer have wolves and bears in this country, because they were a threat to man's food supply, and they were eliminated. I have no doubt that foxes will be kept down, whatever method is used.
People wax lyrical about what a wonderful thing the hunt is, but I cannot think of a worse way of destroying an animal. Only two other methods come to mind, and they are similar. One is to boil the fox alive, and the other is to burn it alive. Those are just about the only alternatives that are worse than hunting.
A small vociferous minority have been able to hold sway for far too long. The vast majority do not want hunting to go on; they want something done about it. It is all right talking about tolerance. Like everyone else, I accept that it is wrong for minorities to be persecuted, but we are not speaking of persecuting minorities. The minority will not be affected in any way, other than losing a certain type of enjoyment.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) made it clear that there was a simple alternative. If people want to go on enjoying the pageantry, the uniforms and all the rest of the rigmarole, they can use a drag hunt. It is quite satisfactory. That is the real compromise, not licensing.
The same arguments in favour of hunting have probably been used for the past 500 years. No doubt the same arguments were put forward when eminent people were trying to abolish the slave trade—"Oh, you can't interfere with people's rights. People have a right to buy and sell slaves." When we stopped children cleaning chimneys, the

95
opponents no doubt said, "Oh, we can't interfere with someone's personal freedom." Those arguments are ludicrous. They have no credibility whatever—none at all.
A small, extremely influential minority seem to have the Government frightened. That is my impression, and the impression of many members of the public. If, after the vote against hunting tonight, the Government do not do something about it, and if my right hon. Friend the Minister's statement is not to the effect that we will use the Parliament Act if the House of Lords once again proves obstructive, we will lose a tremendous amount of credibility.
I shall not say much more, as I said all I had to say 14 months ago. Hunting is a barbaric practice which we in the House should be ashamed to say still goes on in this country. Unless we are prepared to do something about it, the rest of the country will hold us in the contempt that we will thoroughly deserve.
7.54 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: I begin with two words of thanks. First, a word of thanks to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, after my earlier challenge to the Chair about the right to speak of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), my fellow Chelsea supporter. His speech was entertaining but, I am afraid, not particularly convincing.
I also express my gratitude to the Minister for the evenhanded way in which he has approached the matter so far. I have every confidence in his evenhandedness, despite his earlier record and voting on the issue. I am grateful to him for the great courtesy that he showed to the Middle Way Group at the meeting that we had with him.
Scylla, as hon. Members will remember, was a horrible six-headed monster who lived on a rock on one side of a narrow strait, and Charybdis was a whirlpool on the other side. When ships passed close to Scylla's rock in order to avoid Charybdis, she—the monster—would seize and devour the sailors. Aeneas, Jason and Odysseus all had to pass through the narrow strait, and when they passed, they were not engaging in some soggy compromise or refusing to take some braver, nobler path; they were taking the only safe path, a middle way, and one that demanded great courage and skill.
So it is that I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who spoke earlier, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and an increasing band of adventurers in the House, including the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and, I believe, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I am proud to count myself among their number as we steer the middle way between the hunt banners of Scylla and the countryside campaigners of Charybdis.
I shall not rehearse all the arguments in favour of hunting—that has already been done spectacularly well, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—nor will I rehearse all the arguments against, although others have done that less persuasively.
I shall simply try to demolish eight of the arguments most frequently deployed against our proposition—a twofold proposition, remember, that hunting should be
96
licensed and a new offence created of causing unnecessary suffering to a wild mammal. Hunting without a licence issued by the new authority would be a criminal act attracting a fine of up to £5,000. The authority could revoke a licence as a punishment for breach of a tough code of conduct.
Let us consider the eight arguments—first, that to license hunting is to license cruelty. Nonsense. That is just wrong. To ban hunting is to increase the suffering of the fox population, as speech after speech from Opposition Members has made clear. Alternative control methods would be used more frequently. To ban hunting—I look at the hon. Member for West Ham as I say this, because he is fond of the line about licensing cruelty—is to increase unregulated and uncontrolled killing of mammals. That is the simple truth, which the hon. Gentleman must accept.
That is a paradox, I know. The Burns report used the word "paradox" extensively. To ban hunting is to increase animal suffering. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), for whom I usually have such respect, and whom I am glad to see in her place, cannot see that.
The second argument is that hunting is perfectly all right as it is. It is not. Monitors have filmed activities by hunts that are unacceptable and that should not be occurring under the current Independent Supervisory Authority's rules. In my constituency, hunts have frequently shown insufficient respect for the rights and freedoms of others by trespass, selfish parking and reckless behaviour. Those can be dealt with by licensing, not by a ban.
The third argument, which was deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) in her opening speech, is that self-regulation is good enough. It is not. Even if all the codes of practice of the Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting are perfect—I think that some of them are pretty good—self-regulation lacks credibility and effectiveness. It lacks credibility because it is a creature of the hunting world. The wider general public will not accept its independence. It lacks effectiveness because it polices only those who want to be policed by it. It excludes several hunts—not all hunts subscribe to ISAH—and it excludes all individual dog owners, the lurcher owners. ISAH does not regulate hunting effectively or comprehensively. It is not a sufficient answer. Only statutory regulation of the kind that we suggest can do that.
The fourth argument is that hunting must be banned because most people want it banned. We have heard that argument repeatedly, most recently from the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) and the hon. Member for West Ham. The claim is not true. There is no longer a majority for a ban among the British general public.
Opinion poll after opinion poll, and some straw polls such as that conducted by The Sun, show 74 per cent. opposition. Some scientific polls conducted by National Opinion Polls and others show a majority in favour of keeping hunting, either on its current basis or on a regulated basis. There is no longer a majority of the public backing a ban. That fact cannot be disputed. It is

97
demonstrably true. Even those who want a ban could not care less about the issue; they think that there are much more important things that we should be worrying about.
Mr. Banks rose—
Mr. Luff: I shall give way once briefly to the hon. Member for Newham.
Mr. Banks: Incidentally, my constituency is West Ham. A MORI poll in late January showed that an overwhelming 72 per cent. of British people think that foxhunting should be illegal, 80 per cent. that deer hunting should be illegal and 81 per cent. that hare coursing should be illegal. What am I going to do with this?
Mr. Luff: I took advice on the hon. Gentleman's constituency and I am sorry that the advice was wrong. I will give him a list of opinion polls showing quite the opposite.
Mr. Swire: I was listening to what the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said. The latest poll, which is more recent than the MORI poll to which he alluded, came out over the weekend. It showed that only 48 per cent. of people support hunting being made a criminal offence, while 49 per cent. said that hunting should be allowed to continue—22 per cent. were in favour of it continuing in its present form and 27 per cent. supported a licensing regime. Those are the latest statistics.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions, as I have already said, are meant to be brief.
Mr. Luff: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who makes my point for me.
Most opinion polls show a significant majority against the ban in one form or another. In any event, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, this House cannot be dictated to by opinion polls, whatever they say. [Laughter.] I am sorry that Labour Members find that so funny. We would be reintroducing the death penalty today rather than seeking to ban foxhunting if we had been guided by opinion polls. We must take judgments on what is best and, in doing so, be guided by all the voices that talk to us, such as vets, police officers, animal welfare academics, lawyers and all the other experts who oppose a ban, as do most serious newspapers.
That leads me to the fifth allegation that the Middle Way Group is a front for the hunting world. It is not; that is a silly attack. I have magazines attacking the Middle Way for being a front for banning hunting. The truth is that we are unpopular with both sides of the argument because we threaten their prejudices. We are not a front for anybody; we have never taken money from any organisation that wants to keep hunting going. That is simply not true. We believe that we should keep hunting going because it is in the animal welfare and human liberty interests of the nation.
Mr. Savidge rose—
Mr. Luff: I am not giving way again, I am running out of time.
98
The sixth allegation is that we lack credibility because we have no view on hare coursing. Frankly, I am in this debate for foxhunting—that is the sport in my constituency that drives me to the middle way position. There is a bit of hare hunting but, as far as I know, no hare coursing. I do not like hare coursing. It is not hunting as I understand it, and although most hares escape the dogs, the deaths are watched by the spectators. That puts it in a different moral category from foxhunting, where most participants never see the death of a fox. The motives are completely different.
The Middle Way Group believes that our proposals could be applied to hare coursing if the House so chose. Equally, hare coursing could be banned and our proposals applied to other, real forms of hunting. We regard that as a matter for the House, not for us, but I speak for myself when I say that I would vote for a Bill that sought to ban hare coursing and introduce the middle way for other forms of hunting with dogs.
Our proposals would crack down on illegal hare coursing, which is disliked by everyone in the House. The fines are derisory at present. Illegal hare coursing would automatically be classed as hunting without a licence; it would attract a fine of £5,000, giving the police a real incentive to enforce the law and providing a real deterrent to the illegal hare coursers. We have that unique benefit.
The seventh accusation is that the Middle Way Group is an attempt to ban hunting by the back door—the mirror image of my earlier point. We are not. It is true that we have taken on suggestions from hunting interests following the hearings that took place after the last election. Sadly, none of the campaigners for a ban would participate, which was a matter of great personal regret. However, that fear, held by many Countryside Alliance members, is misplaced.
If the Government bring forward their own middle way proposal—I have no knowledge of any deal or discussions in that respect—they must ensure that it could not be used or corrupted by a future Minister or a hunting authority improperly composed to introduce a ban through the back door.
The eighth accusation is that our proposals are expensive, clumsy and bureaucratic. I have some sympathy for those criticisms, which were made the last time these proposals came before the House. We have radically streamlined our proposals to make them less bureaucratic and costly and easier to implement. I hope that that point will commend itself to the House and that if the Minister is framing proposals along these lines he will guided by the need to be as unbureaucratic as possible.
For the Middle Way Group, our only resource has been our idea. We have had invaluable help from a couple of individuals who have stuffed envelopes for us. Not for us, however, the expensive advertising campaigns of the League Against Cruel Sports, the RSPCA, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and others. Not for us the immense resources of the Countryside Alliance. We were not even given a shoestring budget—we could not afford the shoestring. However, our idea is a compelling one, which is why it is winning.
We have a recipe that will improve animal welfare—uniquely, of these three options—and protect human liberty. We have been David taking on two Goliaths, and with informed opinion, the public and the media on our

99
side, we have won. Anyone who votes for a ban tonight is voting to make animal welfare worse. To vote to ban anything for no better reason than disapproval is the route to tyranny.
8.5 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall: I gently remind the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) that after negotiating Scylla and Charybdis, Odysseus and his men were confronted by the sirens. The sirens, he may recall, were beautiful and sang beautifully but were surrounded by piles of bones from previous travellers—the siren voices of compromise, I suggest.
I support a total ban. The middle way is essentially the same as the status quo. In fact, as has been said, it is the status quo with added bureaucracy. It would continue the acceptance in our law of human cruelty exercised to no necessary end and the acceptance of unnecessary cruelty by sentient creatures. It is ridiculous to say that the activity is cruel but if there is a chit or licence, we can put up with it. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said in her excellent speech, hunting is either right or it is wrong, and that is what we are talking about tonight.
The House has voted overwhelmingly, twice, to bring an end to unnecessary cruelty to wild mammals. There can seldom in parliamentary history have been an issue on which a large majority of the people, almost the entire Labour party and the parliamentary Labour party have held views that are so much in tune. It is remarkable that that coincidence should not have quickly manifested itself in legislation.
Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pickthall: No, I do not have the time.
I fully support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). We already have a Bill that stood a lot of testing in Committee and there is no reason why on Thursday, or whenever, that Bill should not be re-presented to us, with the Parliament Act following thereafter.
I want briefly to address some of the arguments, such as they are, that pro-hunters adduce to defend the continuance of their diversion. I could at least respect the argument that simply went, "I like hunting animals and, even more, I like seeing them killed." There is an honesty about that, as there is in the confession "I like driving fast cars at 100 mph through city centres." Instead, we get a rag bag of quasi-moral assertions that do not bear a great deal of scrutiny.
The first argument, put by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), is about individual rights. The hunters say that Parliament has no place in interfering with their individual human rights in this matter. Of course it has. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was absolutely correct: if Parliament judges that inflicting cruelty and death on an animal for human pleasure is wrong, Parliament will, if given a chance, stop it. All legislation circumscribes individual freedoms to some degree, whether it is, at one extreme, the freedom to rape or, at another, the freedom to drive at whatever speed we wish. That is why we need Parliament, why we need governance at all—to determine these matters.
100
We already have laws to prevent cock fighting, bear baiting, bull baiting, badger digging and otter hunting. They all circumscribe human rights. These laws have huge public approval. The public are saying, as we are, that we need to go further and get rid of hunting wild mammals with dogs.
The second argument is that Parliament has more important things to do. Baroness Mallalieu traipsed out that argument on "Today" this morning and we have heard it a few times tonight. It does not bear a moment's examination but it is spun heavily by pro-hunting apologists and by the Conservative party. The argument presupposes that Parliament can do only one thing at a time.
Mr. Savidge: Did my hon. Friend find a slight incongruity in what the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said? Having argued that there were better things for Parliament to do, she then said that if she ever got back into power and there was a ban, the first thing she would do would he to legislate to reverse it?
Mr. Pickthall: That is a highly theoretical and unlikely eventuality.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pickthall: I hope that I get some injury time for giving way to the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Winterton: What I said has been misrepresented. I said that the sovereignty of Parliament was the issue, and that the House can decide in the future, if it so wishes, to undo what this Parliament has done. It is a constitutional issue.
Mr. Pickthall: The hon. Lady makes her own argument.
The contention that Parliament can do only one thing at a time induced a letter from a constituent, who chastised me for trying to get rid of hare coursing while there was still crime on her estate. Crime is still committed on her estate, but that is like my telling her not to clean her windows because her garden needs digging. Parliament deals with dozens of issues at the same time. It is worth remembering that in the five years since Labour came to power, the House of Commons has spent only three days discussing hunting, although 25 of us have spent rather more hours in Committee. I shudder to think how many days we have spent discussing crime, health and the other big issues of the day. Moreover, the parliamentary timetable is hardly overstretched at present, thanks to the timetabling, of which I heartily approve.
The third argument used is that these are country matters, as Hamlet might have put it. The debate on hunting has successfully been elevated by pro-hunters into a bogus country versus city stand-off—I give them credit for that—whereas polls consistently show a high level of anti-hunting feeling among rural as well as urban citizens. In the letter that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) helpfully put around today, he says that this issue concerns
"very large numbers in the towns".

101
I have no means of knowing how many active hunt supporters are urban dwellers who are out for some jolly fun in the countryside at the weekends or on their days off.
Since coming to this place in 1992, I have taken a consistent interest in ending hare coursing, partly because a major event, the Waterloo cup, takes place in my constituency, partly because the vast majority of my constituents demand that I see to it that it is ended, and partly because it is in my view the most horrible of all blood sports. It is a spectator sport, and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) described it perfectly. Hares are torn to bits. They are not pests, but that is done to appease a peculiar lust among a largely urban audience for the Waterloo cup. The question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle was never answered. If coursing is done just to turn the hares and to score points, why are the greyhounds not muzzled? The answer to that question never came.
In recent years, it has been suggested in pro-hunting circles that hare coursing could be offered as a sacrifice to save other blood sports. The spin since last week, which has been confirmed tonight, suggested the same thing, but added stag hunting as another sacrifice. It has been put to me, even by friends, that I should accept that to ensure the end of hare coursing. That is not good enough, and it is not logical. The same cruelty is involved in all blood sports: the cruelty of human intention and the cruelty experienced by the hunted and attacked mammal.
All hunting of wild mammals with dogs is unacceptable to me and, I believe, to most of my fellow citizens. The killing of an animal is justifiable only if it is done for food or to protect people, other creatures, property or crops. If we have to kill animals, it is incumbent on us to do it as humanely as possible. Killing animals for pleasure is little short of sub-human.
I began with a comment on human rights, and I shall end with a variant on the same theme. What makes hunt supporters assume that they have the right to do what they wish to animals, and to kill them by whatever means they fancy? Those mammals do not belong to the hunters. If they belong to anyone, it is to all of us: to the community as a whole; to the many, not to the few. They certainly do not belong to the tiny minority who want to destroy them vicariously with dogs.
8.15 pm
Mr. Richard Page: In view of the fact that many points have already been made, I shall not gallop too heavily over the ground that has been covered. Knowing the paranoia in the House about declaring an interest, I shall begin by declaring that in my youth, when I was younger, fitter, stronger and faster, I went on the odd hunt, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. We had a good burn up across the countryside, and we went over the odd fence and hedge. Catching the fox was secondary: it was just a good day out, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
A cost-benefit analysis of hunting would show that it is remarkably inefficient and expensive. It is said that it is enjoyed by people from all walks of life, but I have to say that it leans towards the more wealthy rather than towards the poor.
Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Page: No.
102
I shall not take up the religious-spiritual argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), but I agree with him that there is a fairly high jealousy quotient. That is why so many Labour Members are against the activity.
As a number of hon. Members have said, hunting is a matter of the quick and the dead. The fox is either caught or it gets away: there is no halfway house. A constituent wrote to me last week arguing that I should vote against hunting and get it abolished, because a cull of foxes could be achieved by the painless, quick rifle shot. As someone who has shot in most disciplines, I can tell the House that when one is lying on one's stomach in Bisley with a sling round one's arm to hold the rifle steady, it is hard enough to hit the target on the right spot even when it is obligingly staying still. Foxes do not stay still. They move with remarkable rapidity. No shot can achieve the clean, quick painless kill.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said about other methods of killing foxes. I do not know whether any hon. Members have seen snares or poison being used. Shooting, snaring and poisoning do not measure up to the clean sport of hunting in which the fox is either dead or alive.
It is interesting that, as more and more people get to know exactly what is involved in this issue, the percentage wanting to keep hunting is going up and up. This debate has shown that certain hon. Members need to have their education broadened. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is not present at the moment, but he asked why hunting does not take place all year round. It is quite simple. Foxes do not know that they should not go into growing crops. If we could train them not to go into growing crops, we could hunt all year round, but farmers get upset about foxes going into growing crops, and that is why there is a hunting season. People can shoot all year round, but hunting takes place only at certain times of the year.
I must make another announcement. I have the privilege of being the joint chairman of the all-party racing and bloodstock committee. It is a position of immense influence and power, and one that I thoroughly enjoy.
There have been many comments about the wide range of associated activities that are involved in and depend on hunting. One such is point-to-point training, which is absolutely vital for national hunt rules and racing. Anyone who looked down the Cheltenham race card last week would have seen the names of many horses that came into national hunt racing through the point-to-point route. I shall not labour the point, but getting rid of hunting would mean getting rid of point-to-pointing and reducing the number of horses that take part in national hunt racing. People who suggest that drag hunting would provide an alternative are completely and utterly wrong.
We all read in the media over the weekend about the idea of introducing some form of licensing, and I see the sticky fingers of No. 10 all over those comments. I have no objection to licensing—it would be a good thing. We just heard about certain practices that are engaged in by certain of the hunts. Those practices should be banned and the law should be able to take action against the hunts that use them.
If, as I hope, we take the licensing route, the basic terms of the licence must be spelled out in primary legislation, not introduced by regulations. Right hon. and hon.

103
Members who experienced the progress of the Child Support Agency legislation will remember that when we were asked to vote for a Bill to chase parents who were not fulfilling their obligations towards their children we all said yes and it went through without a ripple. But when we saw the regulations that emerged and the way in which the CSA was operating I, for one, held my head between my hands. My surgery and local advice centres, like those of every other Member of Parliament, were full of people complaining about the operation of the CSA. It is much better now, but when it was first introduced it was a nightmare. I therefore hope that if the licensing route is chosen, we will see the basic terms of the licence in primary legislation or, at least, be given an idea of what it will entail, so that we can consider it when the Bill passes through the House.
The licensing route is the right one to take. Let us put this matter to bed, get it off the Floor of the House and start to concentrate on matters that are far more important to the country, such as the national health service, schools, transport and housing. Let us get on with the things that matter.
8.23 pm
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on hunting. It is the first time that I have done so, although the subject has been discussed on the Floor of the House on two previous occasions.
I give my support to all hon. Members who have spoken in favour of a total ban on hunting with dogs and reiterate the point that although there are three options for us to vote on, we really have only two choices—in favour of hunting with dogs or opposed to hunting with dogs. I do not accept that licensing or regulating hunting in any way is acceptable—the status quo may as well prevail.
I have no hunts in my constituency, but I do have foxes. I sometimes see them near my house in the early hours of the morning or near the marshes late at night when returning from Westminster to Great Yarmouth. I have also seen many foxes lying dead on the road or by the side of the road having been killed by vehicles. That saddens me, but nothing saddens me more than contemplating an animal being chased by a pack of hounds accompanied by people on horseback.
As leader of my local authority, I had the unenviable job of having to give permission for a fox to be shot by a marksman. I shall explain the circumstances. In the nesting season, Great Yarmouth has one of the largest tern colonies in the United Kingdom on an area of marram on our north beach. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds fences it off to stop people accidentally treading on a nest or frightening the birds away, and an RSPB warden oversees the area. Approximately seven years ago, the warden informed me of the destruction of a substantial number of terns' eggs by an animal. Evidence suggested that it was a fox that had been sighted more than once.
The solutions available were to trap or shoot the animal. I opposed the latter, but on further discussion it became clear that the fox was destroying a number of eggs and something had to be done urgently. No one dared suggest that a hunt should enter the area. Given the RSPB's predicament, I reluctantly gave permission for a marksman to shoot the fox. Fortunately, it never returned; perhaps it had a sixth sense.
104
There will always be times when we agree that a fox may have to be humanely killed. Even an animal lover like me understands that. However, I shall never understand the apparent enjoyment that the hunter derives from chasing an animal to exhaustion.
To my knowledge, there is no hare coursing in my constituency; the nearest hare coursers are the Waveney Harriers. Again, I must admit that I have not been to a hare coursing meeting, but I learned enough through talking to individuals who have witnessed the activity at first hand. I have also seen the usual video footage.
In the past century, hare numbers have declined dramatically, largely because of the advent of intensive agriculture methods. The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales chaired by Lord Burns heard evidence for and against the practices that we are considering. It concluded that
"there is little or no need to control overall hare numbers."
Indeed, brown hares are the subject of a biodiversity action plan that aims to maintain and expand their population so that numbers double by 2010. Lord Burns also found that
"hare hunting and coursing are essentially carried out for recreational purposes."
In hare hunting, packs of beagles are used to chase hares to the point of exhaustion. The hunting season runs from September to March after some litters of leverets have been horn. That means that some hunted females leave orphaned and dependent young. A single hare is chased until dogs kill it or it escapes. Hunted hares are beaten not by speed but by the stamina of dogs. The hare is worn down by a protracted chase, which provides more satisfaction for the followers, until it is simply overwhelmed by the hounds and killed.
Hunted hares are reluctant to leave familiar territory and will run in a large circle until worn down, caught and killed. The Burns inquiry concluded:
"This experience seriously compromises the welfare of the hare."
Coursing enthusiasts claim that when a hare is caught, it dies instantaneously from the bite of one dog. However, post mortem reports show that hares can die a gruesome and painful death as they are savaged by the dogs.
Mr. Gray: If, as the hon. Gentleman claims, the carcase is ripped to pieces by the dogs, how is it there for the post mortem?
Mr. Wright: Those carrying out the post mortem can tell that the hare has been stretched between two animals and killed by horrendous methods.
After the 2001 Millennium cup coursing event, the RSPCA arranged for the carcases of five of the hares killed in the competition to be examined by an independent vet. After the post mortem, the vet concluded that none had died instantly from a bite. All had suffered injuries before being retrieved from the dogs. From 1977–79, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare carried out 53 post mortems on coursed hares. None had been killed by a bite to the neck and several had to be killed by the handlers when they were retrieved from the dogs.
The Burns committee commissioned research into how hares are killed during coursing. It showed that only one of 12 coursed hares was definitely killed by the dogs.

105
Of the remaining 11, five were killed only when the picker-up arrived and broke their necks, and in six cases the cause of death was uncertain. The committee concluded:
"It is clear, moreover, that, if the dog or dogs catch the hare, they do not always kill it quickly."
I have been made aware of threats against farmers and landowners who have attempted to prevent illegal hare coursing on their properties. Resentment of the landowner's attitude has been made clear, even to the extent of physical threats. Illegal hare coursing is widely condemned, but the only difference between legal and illegal coursing is the issue of the landowner's permission—the cruelty is the same. The Hunting Bill would provide a real means for the police to address illegal coursing and would deal with the issue of permission.
Finally, I want to turn to the debate that will be held in the other place tomorrow. I understand that there will be a report to this place after debates and votes have taken place in both Houses. The Government's view will be based on those responses.
We are currently considering the second phase of House of Lords reform. The Select Committee on Public Administration, on which I serve, recently examined proposals for that reform and took evidence. Nearly everybody commented on the need to protect the pre-eminence of the House of Commons, mainly because we are accountable to our electorate, but in this instance the pre-eminence of this place is contested because of the suggestion that the views of both Houses will be taken on board.
This is the third time that we have debated the ban on hunting. Furthermore, it has been mentioned twice in the Labour manifesto. The will of the people of the country is clear; the will of the elected Chamber is clear, so let us he clear that nothing less than a programme for the abolition of hunting with dogs will be acceptable when the Leader of the House makes his statement. I hope that that will lead to the reintroduction of the Hunting Bill.
8.31 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I shall be brief.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and I have a couple of things in common. She is in a minority on her side of the House, and I am in a minority on my side. I have great respect for what she said and for her right to say it. I do not share her views, although I agree with her that the House has more important things to discuss.
The House has more important animal welfare issues to discuss. Currently, the United Kingdom imports thousands of chickens, thousands of pieces of pigmeat and tonnes of veal bred throughout Europe and beyond in conditions that we would not allow in this country. That is being done to the detriment of our farming community, so when we talk in a holier than thou way about foxhunting and about animal welfare we should remember that there are priorities. I care passionately about the issue, but when it is set beside the tens of thousands of other animals that suffer and about which Parliament and the Government are doing nothing, a few hundred foxes almost pale into insignificance—almost, but not for me.
This charade tonight is a disgrace. This debate is a fig leaf, designed to cover the embarrassment of a rotten Prime Minister who has broken a promise. This Prime
106
Minister has a tendency to blame the "last Government" for everything. Well, it was under the "last Government" that this Prime Minister promised on television that he would end the practice of hunting wild mammals with hounds. This Prime Minister has forgotten that he was also the Prime Minister in that "last Government".
The House of Commons has debated this issue under the Labour Government many times before and has made its decision plain. Let us not try to pretend—as the Minister for Rural Affairs did when he introduced the debate, in measured terms—that this is the Labour Government honouring a manifesto promise. That promise was broken by the Prime Minister in the last Parliament.
This debate is irrelevant. When we vote at 10 o'clock, most Members will vote against option 1; most Members will vote against option 2; and most Members will—as they have done before, and I will be with them—vote for a complete ban, because one cannot be a little bit pregnant. One cannot be not very cruel to foxes. One either believes that there must be a ban or that hunting is in order.
I respect the views—which I do not share—of my hon. Friends who believe that somehow the 6 per cent., 7 per cent., or, being generous, 10 per cent. of foxes killed by the hunt is a form of pest control, but it has already been pointed out that more foxes are killed on the roads. Foxes are killed in my North Thanet constituency. North Thanet does not have a hunt. The population lives on the coastal strip, but the overwhelming acreage of my constituency is rural and most of it is farmed.
There is no hunt in Thanet, nor is there a fox problem. There is no Tooting hunt, no Wandsworth hunt and no Clapham hunt, but we can see foxes on their streets at night. If we want to control vermin we should work out how to deal with that problem. The idea that foxhunting controls the fox population is arrant nonsense.
The debate is a fig leaf. It is a way of trying to get a discredited Prime Minister off the hook. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) said that the credibility of the Labour party is on the line. Yes, it is—because the Labour party has failed on health, failed on education, failed on transport and failed on animal welfare, on which it has delivered none of the promises it made before both the previous elections. The Government's record on animal welfare is pitiful. This issue should have been put to bed under the last Labour Government. This Government should have the guts to do the job and finish it once and for all.
8.37 pm
Dr. Nick Palmer: This debate reminds me of what the American baseball coach said: it is déjà vu all over again. Most of us have been here before and made similar arguments. There are some new elements, however, and I shall concentrate on them. I shall briefly summarise the central case that has been discussed and then consider compromise.
Most Members would agree on some basic principles. First, we should not frivolously ban sports merely because we do not like them. For instance, I would not ban boxing. I think it a degrading sport and I am against it, but the participants consent to it so it is not appropriate to make it a criminal activity.

107
Secondly, most Members would agree that if a practice causes real distress to animals merely for the sake of sport, it is not frivolous to want to ban it. I refer to distress rather than to cruelty, because I do not think that most people who take part in hunts are motivated by cruelty in the sense of wishing to cause pain. They are motivated by a wish to enjoy themselves, and they accept that, as a by-product, the animals will be caused some distress. But we tie ourselves in knots if we talk about cruelty. I am interested not in the motivations of the riders but in the effect on the animals.
Thirdly, I believe that most hon. Members would accept that, if genuine distress is being inflicted, it is not right to do so merely for the sake of generating employment; otherwise a great many activities would be legal that are not legal today, and we would be horrified if they became legal.
Mr. Bellingham: Such as?
Dr. Palmer: Such as bear baiting and torture. No doubt, the manufacturers of torture equipment would be happy to supply it.
The opponents of a ban today have primarily concentrated on the argument that the alternatives would be worse. I draw their attention to three points. First, the Bums report, which we all happily cite when we agree with it, makes it clear that the Burns committee considered lamping an adequate alternative in most circumstances, with probably fewer welfare implications, and it makes an exception for uplands, where it thinks gun packs are necessary; I shall return to that issue.
Secondly, as several hon. Members have said, hunting is, in fact, only responsible for the deaths of 6, 7 or 8 per cent. of foxes. In all areas outside the Welsh uplands, hunting is not a serious contributor to the control of fox numbers, and the House will not be taken seriously if it argues otherwise; it is simply not the case. Thirdly, I note that the supporters of hunting have quietly tossed aside the arguments for coursing and stag hunting because, of course, neither hares nor stags are generally considered pests that need to be controlled. One gets the impression that, like the proverbial Cossacks being pursued by wolves, they are chucking coursing over the back of the troika in the hope of satisfying those in pursuit.
Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Palmer: No, I had better concentrate on the time.
The bottom line for me is the chase. Some hon. Members focus particularly on the kill, which I find distressing as well. We have to accept that there will be occasions when the kill is swift and occasions when it is less swift, and it will be particularly horrible in those cases. But for every fox killed by a hunt, a number of others will be chased and caused considerable, lengthy distress. Indeed, the hunts make a point of stressing that many foxes escape, especially the healthier ones. I spoke to a supporter the other day and he said that, in 40 years of hunting, he had seen only two foxes killed. If we were
108
trying to deal with insect pests and succeeded in deterring one wasp every 20 years, we would not feel that we were using a very effective deterrent.
Mr. James Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Palmer: No, I am sorry, but I will not.
The reality is that we are accepting something that is essentially a sport based on terror and painful deaths for animals. We hear about compromise, and I have to say that I am an inveterate compromiser. If I had been a Member of the House at the time of William Wilberforce, I might have been seriously tempted by a new deal for slaves—slavery with a human face. I can understand the temptation to split the difference, not to go too far and to find somewhere in the middle. However, there is a difficulty with the proposed compromise—either people can chase animals with dogs, or they cannot. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and I am grateful to him for sticking the debate out this long to hear my contribution.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Palmer: I had better not give way, because I have already said I would not.
By far the most sensible alternative for all hon. Members is to deal with the issue by simply reintroducing the previous Bill and finishing it in this Session. However, I have the sneaking feeling that the Minister may have a different view, and I want to give him some input on the kind of compromise that would tempt me. If the Government believe that there are areas where foxes are a serious pest—perhaps in the Welsh uplands—let them authorise gamekeepers to conduct culls when necessary. Further, if they think that it is sometimes necessary to flush out foxes with dogs in upland areas, as suggested by the Bums report, I can reluctantly accept that, as we did in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster).
My bottom line is this: a compromise that involves the continued existence of organised pursuit across the countryside and of causing terror and death through a chase is not a compromise. I would vote against it regardless of the number of lines on the Whip and I believe that the majority of hon. Members feel the same way. If we wish to dispose of the problem, as the Government have rightly said, ultimately we shall have to push through the same Bill as we put through last year.
8.45 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: Plaid Cymru did not want a free vote tonight. We hoped that our amendment would be chosen so that we could have a whipped vote on the constitutional relationship between the National Assembly and this place as regards hunting and agriculture. Although the Assembly was not granted all powers over animal health, significant powers were devolved to it to deal with agricultural matters, and it is right that it should decide the matter in Wales.
The National Assembly voted to ban hunting. It undertook its own study of the effect of the different options on Wales. I hope that whatever happens, the

109
Minister will see fit to consult the National Assembly and consider the evidence that its Agriculture and Rural Development Committee took on hunting in Wales.
The debate has been good and some contributions have been most useful. I found myself agreeing with much of what hon. Members on both sides of the argument have said. In particular, I agreed with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when she said that it was right for the House to address and legislate on the subject if it thinks it wise to do so, although the idea of whether something is wise raises problems of its own.
I also feel strongly that we are discussing a compromise. Not even the ban in the previous Bill would have led to the complete cessation of the killing of wild mammals. It simply dealt with killing wild mammals in certain way. Rats, for example, were not included. I do not know what the difference is between Basil Brush and Roland Rat, but the Bill certainly made such a distinction.
I also think that the timing is nakedly cynical. The Government are in trouble, whether it is Tony Blair cosying up to Italian fascists in Barcelona—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language when he addresses Members of the House.
Mr. Thomas: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course the word "fascist" is in order, but the Prime Minister's name is not.
So whether it is that problem or the Prime Minister's relationship with Mr. Mittal, the purpose of the Bill is to reignite the socialism on the Labour Benches. They are socialist, red in tooth and claw, and nothing else is behind the Bill's timing. I know that the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) wants it to go through no matter what, but he must recognise that that is why it has been introduced now.
In the Animal Health Bill the Government created massive powers to slaughter animals because they were not prepared to face the reality of vaccinating against foot and mouth, so it ill behoves them and those Back Benchers who supported them—I certainly did not—to talk about animal cruelty and animal slaughter. For me there are only two absolute positions: either we accept a vegan's point of view and reject the use of animals for human purposes, or we accept that we use, eat and conserve animals, both wild and domesticated. I am firmly in the second camp and I have only to look at all right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber to know that the vast majority are also in that camp. I know that not from their faces or speeches, but from their footwear.
The question is the degree to which we deal with the problem. There is no doubt that we will continue to kill foxes no matter what form the Bill takes. The problem is how we do that. On considering that, my first principle is that we cannot allow and legislate for gratuitous cruelty, which undeniably happens in some hunts and in some forms of shooting and fishing. However, hunting is in an anomalous position. Without licensing, the hunt can go at it and hunt in any area that it wants, including places where it would be difficult even to stage a simple party. Hunting therefore needs a licensing and regulatory scheme.
110
Secondly, we have to accept that the countryside is managed, and in England and Wales there is no real wilderness. The fox is the top predator in the countryside—there is no predator of the fox apart from man. In Wales, we have 5 per cent. of the population and 25 per cent. of the nation's sheep; indeed, we have 5 per cent. of the total number of sheep in Europe. The situation in Wales is different from England's, and that has been recognised in the Burns report and in the comments of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer).
The Burns report found that terriers and hounds were involved in at least 70 per cent. of fox culling in Wales, which is very different from the 7 or 8 per cent. quoted by other hon. Members. The report concluded that in areas dependent on sheep rearing and game management there is no real alternative to using dogs for flushing out. The topography and afforestation of upland Wales mean that that needs to be taken into consideration.
The third principle is that we must legislate equitably. This is a central moral question about our approach to animal welfare in the House. Why should the hunting of foxes be banned, but not the hunting of rats, or shooting, fishing, vivisection and slaughter? There are moral gradations here and no moral absolutes. Of course, it is for the House to gauge where that moral decision lies, and we must do so in consultation with our electorate. However, I would argue strongly that it is hypocritical to say that foxhunting with hounds is in some way morally less acceptable than shooting, fishing or hunting other animals with dogs.
There is no moral gradation there, so we must ask why people are so upset about hunting foxes with hounds. If it does not stem from a class mistake—certainly in the Welsh context—I do not know where it comes from. I accept that there are Members who firmly oppose the killing of animals in the wild, full stop. However, the vast majority of Members are motivated by other thoughts, and there is no moral certainty in that.
There is, however, public distrust and disquiet about practices such as hare coursing. I am open-minded, but I cannot see an ecological or conservationist reason for hare coursing. I have similar feelings about stag hunting, although there may be a conservationist argument to be made. Certainly, there is an ecological reason to catch mink in the way that we hunt foxes.
There is disquiet also about aspects of hunting. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is a new Member of the House, but I understand that his position on this matter has not changed since he stood as a candidate in Brecon and Radnor, and he is to be congratulated on that. There are aspects of hunting that we need to address in legislation. It is not right that animal cruelty perpetrated by hunts should be accepted under the law as it stands. We have to bring those practices within the ambit of the law.
For me, there are two unresolved issues. We have to ensure that matters of welfare and any cruelty practised by hunts are examined openly, and that there is accountability for them. In my experience, the independent authority on hunting is not sufficiently powerful or interested to deal with the matter. We need a supervisory authority on hunting to be set up on a statutory footing.

111
The second unresolved issue is conservation. I have heard nothing yet that convinces me that, in upland areas at least, hunting can be replaced by equally useful tools. I am open-minded about that too, but I have not been convinced.
The social aspect of hunting is important and cannot be ignored. For me, however, it is not in itself sufficient to justify the continuation of hunting. It has to be considered alongside conservation and welfare aspects. Nevertheless, the Government, who are responsible for the countryside as well as the towns, should remember that, post foot and mouth, the hunting fraternity, in all its manifestations, provides an essential social glue.
In conclusion, I think that the killing of animals and cruelty to them merely for sport are not justifiable. The killing of animals for human use, with safeguards that change from generation to generation and on which this House decides, is acceptable, as long as those decisions are made openly and in consultation with the electorate. Finally, it is acceptable to kill or control wild animals for the maintenance of the countryside and its population and for reasons of biodiversity and sustainable agriculture. In that context, the continuation of hunting with hounds under a statutory licensed authority is acceptable to me and, I think, to the majority of my electorate.
Hunting should therefore be allowed: first, if it can be shown that the fox population needs to be controlled; secondly, if it can be shown that the countryside environment is maintained or improved by that method; thirdly, if deliberate acts of cruelty or interference in the hunt are outlawed. Those are the three principles that should underpin any future hunting in this country, and they must be achieved by a statutory hunting authority.
8.55 pm
Mr. Ian Cawsey: I shall make a few brief comments on hunting with dogs—although when the Government announced that we would have three votes this evening, I thought that perhaps we did not need a debate at all, but could go straight to the votes, because I shall be surprised if, at the end of the debate, any hon. Members have changed their views since they came into the Chamber. Nevertheless, as we have this opportunity it is important to say what we feel on the subject.
I want to talk about three issues—the effectiveness and welfare aspects of hunting with dogs; public opinion and its merits or otherwise; and the liberty argument that several hon. Members have mentioned. I was delighted to listen earlier in the debate to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), whom I followed as chair of the all-party animal welfare group. As he said, there are lots of other animal welfare issues for us to get stuck into, so I hope that the Government will put this matter behind us, so that the Members in all parts of the House who share a great interest in animal welfare can begin to consider some of those other issues.
I must take up one small issue with the hon. Gentleman, however, because he said that the Government had done nothing for animal welfare since they came to power. It was the late Alan Clark who said that the Labour Government had done more for animal welfare in their first 18 months in office than the Conservative
112
Government had done in 18 years, and I rest my case on his words, not mine. None the less, there is much more to be done.
I live in, and represent, the countryside. I have spoken to many people in my constituency about the rights and wrongs of hunting with dogs and the necessity, or otherwise, of a ban. We have heard it said tonight that hunting is a seasonal activity, and many hon. Members, particularly if they are in favour of hunting, have said that it is the lesser of the evils—that foxes have to be killed somehow, and all the other methods are worse than hunting.
I do not agree, partly because I have seen many people' who work in and manage the countryside and look after the stewardship of various species, and in my experience most people who use other methods do not act out of cruelty; they have an interest in protecting and enhancing the countryside that we all enjoy and love.
I think that everybody has acknowledged that, in controlling foxes, hunting is hardly used as a method at all. To say that other ways of killing foxes, such as shooting, are crueller is to accuse all those people who work in the countryside of being more cruel than they need to be. In all the time that I have lived in and represented the countryside, I have seen no evidence that those people have that view.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, accept what Burns said—that in some parts of the United Kingdom hunting is regarded as the most effective means of controlling fox numbers. He has already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that although the proportion might be 6 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole, hunting accounts for 60 to 70 per cent. of the control methods in areas such as ours.
Mr. Cawsey: There are issues involving gun packs and flushing out that I would be the first to acknowledge; indeed, I am on record as saying that in the past. However, in general terms it is on the record that shooting is used more by the people who work in the countryside—and they do not do it because they want to be cruel.
The only person who has offered an argument against that is the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), who rightly pointed out that hunting with does is seasonal because at certain times of the year hunts cannot go through the growing crops. He then rather gave that argument away by saying that although people can hunt with dogs only in certain seasons, they can shoot all the year round.
If the point at issue were cruelty, logic would say that people had to hunt with dogs in the appropriate season, and would be allowed to shoot only when it was not possible to hunt with dogs. However, that is not the arrangement—because the alternatives are not more cruel. I once visited an RSPCA hospital in Norfolk. I spoke to the vets working there, and asked them how many times they had had to treat a fox that had been brought in with a shooting injury. The answer from a vet who had worked there for many years was, "Not once." When I asked him why, he said, "You can take it from me that when the fox is shot in the countryside by somebody trained, it is dead." Hon. Members shake their heads, but I return to my initial point: if they are saying that that is not true, they are accusing people who live and work in the countryside,

113
and who manage it, of engaging in more cruelty than is necessary to do their job. I simply say that, in my experience, I have not seen that.
Mr. Barker rose—
Mr. Paice rose—
Mr. Cawsey: I shall give way to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who used to be on the Front Bench.
Mr. Paice: I am still a Front-Bench spokesman, but not on this occasion. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise the fallacy of his argument about foxes being taken into animal hospitals? The simple fact is that if a fox has been wounded with a gun, a rifle or a shotgun, it will not be readily visible for somebody to pick up and take in. It will either go to ground or hide under brambles or whatever, where it will lie until it dies, probably of gangrene. It will not be found in a place where someone will pick it up and take it to be treated.
Mr. Cawsey: I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman who is nearly on the Front Bench tonight—and who, I understand, usually still is—but that would also apply to lots of other animals that get injured in the countryside. However, one would think that, perhaps once in those many years, someone at that RSPCA hospital would have come across a fox in that situation. The simple truth is that no one ever has. I therefore do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument.
Furthermore. I do not accept the argument that dogs kill a mammal in the most humane way—the single nip on the back of the neck argument. Every single year—I accept that this is not the intention of those who hunt—there are instances of hunts attacking other prey or quarry. It might be people walking the dog—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, they don't."] Opposition Members are saying that they do not, but I can give them as many examples as they like of domestic pets that have had to be taken to the vet because they have been attacked by a hunt. As a result, those animals have had to he treated. There are two remarkable things about that. First, their injuries do not tend to be in the neck area—they tend to be in the hind legs or the underbelly. Secondly—we should remember that the hunt has to separate the dogs from the quarry—they are still alive. If the hunt is such a wonderful, quick way of killing mammals, why do we find, every year, examples of animals that survive the process and can be treated and returned to their owners? It is complete rubbish.
A lot has been said about public opinion this evening. I do not believe, like many Opposition Members, that Governments should legislate purely on the basis of opinion polls. What is remarkable, however, is that public opinion hardly moves. I suspect that we shall see a similar lack of movement in this place this evening. When my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster)—who is in his place now—introduced his private Member's Bill in 1997, a MORI poll showed that 71 per cent. of the electorate wanted hunting with dogs to be banned. The latest poll shows that 72 per cent. of the population want a ban. There is very little change in that. Similarly,
114
a recent NOP poll showed the figure as 67 per cent. I understand that Opposition Members are quoting a telephone poll in The Sun, which shows 76 per cent.
Mr. Luff: A poll in The Sun was quoted, which I think showed a 74 per cent. result. However, we are quoting scientific opinion polls collected by NOP that show a clear majority against a ban.
Mr. Cawsey: I have not seen a single poll that has reached that result in which the question has not been geared one way. When the question is open, there is a clear result in favour of a ban. Just before the last general election, a phone poll found that 80 per cent. of people were going to vote Conservative, but that did not happen in reality.
Mr. Mike Wood: They believed that as well.
Mr. Cawsey: As my hon. Friend says, the Opposition believed that as well. So we must therefore be cautious about polls that are unbalanced.
I shall finish my speech by considering the issue of liberty. I spoke in the previous debate on this subject when I told the House that I had attended the New Forest drag hunt. When I got there, like many other people, I was subjected to a chap shoving a camera in my face. He took photographs of me and everyone else who attended the hunt. When I asked the people who had converted the old New Forest hunt into a drag hunt why that was happening, I was told, "They are taking photographs to show around the pub tonight so that everyone can see who is letting the side down." That is an issue of liberty.
I also referred to the hunt that came through the playground of a school and to a village in Essex where the villagers had held a poll establishing that they did not want it. The hunt, however, continued to go through the village and, when the leader of the hunt was questioned by the press, he asked, "What's that got to do with the people of the village? Why have they got any say?" That is the sort of libertarian issue the debate is all about. It is not about people's right to hunt, because one cannot control a hunt. It will follow the quarry and go wherever the quarry goes. Because of that, other people's liberty is affected.
Those who take a libertarian view about how people live in the countryside should vote for a ban. That is the only way of achieving their aim. The other proposals are a cop-out and should be defeated in the Lobbies, as I am confident they will be this evening.
9.5 pm
Mr. James Paice: I have listened to contributions from both sides and, unlike one speaker, I do not think that this has been a particularly good debate. I have been saddened by the superficiality of the arguments made—and not just by those who want to ban hunting.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) clearly does not understand hunting. I accept that everyone is entitled to reach their own conclusions, but it was clear from his speech that he does not know very much about hunting. It behoves hon. Members to acquaint

115
themselves with all the facts, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) did by going to see the Thurlow hunt. I do not know whether it met in my constituency or one of the neighbouring ones, but I would have been happy for her to visit my constituency. That was an example of someone trying to find out what is going on.
When the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) said that all his information about coursing came from the Waveney Harriers, he underlined my point about ignorance. Harriers on horseback hunt hares with packs of hounds.
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: As a matter of clarification, I never said that I received all my information from the Waveney Harriers. I received it from several other individuals who had been involved in hare coursing. I also received information from video footage.
Mr. Paice: If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I shall, of course, withdraw my remarks. However, I urge him to read Hansard, because that was not the impression that he gave to me or to any of my hon. Friends.
Some of the arguments that have been advanced are clearly spurious. We have heard about animals being ripped to pieces. They sometimes are but, as the Burns report made clear, that is after they are dead, so that argument cannot be used against hunting. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) has clearly put to bed the nonsensical figure of 5 per cent. In many parts of the country, the figure is much higher than that.
I want to speak about the two central issues. The first is cruelty and the second is the rights and wrongs of people participating in acts that others may perceive as cruel. The phrase
"seriously compromises the welfare of the fox"
appears several times in Burns, and I suspect that Lord Burns wishes that he had not used it. It has been so misquoted. However, he is adamant—he said this in the debate in the other place—that the phrase should not be taken to imply that hunting is cruel; and, nor for that matter, should it be taken to mean that hunting is not cruel. It was not a comment on the cruelty of hunting, even though some people have proclaimed that it should be seen as such.
Does the animal that is pursued feel distress during the chase part of the hunt? There is no doubt that there is physical distress or exhaustion, but there is a big question mark as to whether that is over and above that which occurs regularly in nature. When Professor Bateson produced a report on deer hunting, his peers who examined it quickly took issue with his conclusions. Even he has backed away from the finding in the report.
A further issue is whether pursuit causes the animal any mental distress. There is no evidence either way, but it is wrong of people to adopt the anthropomorphic approach and say, "Well, how would you like it?" Animals do not have the same perceptions, sense of reasoning and, perhaps, the premonition of pain or death as humans; there is no evidence whatever that that is the case. Indeed, if they had all those abilities, they would no longer be the animals that they are. Anyone who knows about animals—anyone who keeps dogs or other pets—knows that an animal does not have any conception from its
116
experience of something of what will happen next. A dog is trained by repetition; most animals are taught by being trained repetitively, which is how they learn the consequences of individual actions.
The process of death may sound like a harsh term, but it is the only way I can describe it. In stag hunting, the process of death is by shooting, so death is instant and not drawn-out; the same is true of hinds. A number of Members have spoken about coursing; my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) was rightly reported as saying that the objective is not to catch the hare; coursing is a test between two greyhounds. Only one in seven or eight hares is caught, but I am the first to accept that when a hare is caught, it is a distressing sight, and obviously dreadful for the hare. The question of muzzling was raised; I, too, have asked why the hounds cannot be muzzled. I have been told that hares are fragile animals; trials with muzzling in Ireland have shown that if hounds cannot catch the hare, they bang it hard with their muzzles; the hare suffers internal haemorrhaging, goes away and still dies. That is the reason I have been given for muzzling being unacceptable.
With mink, of course, there is a huge size difference; for them, death is instant. Foxhunting, however, dominates the debate; death, according to Burns and every other study, if not instantaneous, takes only a few seconds. There is clear evidence that alternatives are equally likely or, in some cases, more likely, to cause a lot of pain in the process of death.
Another issue is whether people enjoy what is described as inflicting cruelty. If that were so, a lot of people following hunts would be extremely disappointed. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) spoke about someone seeing only two foxes killed in 40 years of hunting, and took that to mean that only two had been killed. I suspect, however, that he is wrong; few people following a hunt see the kill. The field is usually a couple of hundred yards or more behind, and the only person up with the hounds is the huntsman. Anybody who goes hunting to enjoy the spectacle of a fox being killed by hounds will be sorely disappointed. The issue is not relevant to stag hunting, as the animals are shot; with hare coursing, inflicting cruelty is not the purpose.
If there is an argument about cruelty, fishing must come into the frame. I know that this is not a debate about fishing, so I shall not test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there is ample evidence that fish feel pain and respond to it. A report prepared for the RSPCA makes the point that
"it can be argued that the pain fish feel as a result of injury is likely to be just as important in their own way as human pain is to humans."
I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was plain wrong; the vast majority of people who fish do not do so for food. In coarse fishing, with the exception of a few pike and eels, almost all fish are returned to the water. Given the water most of them come from, frankly no one would want to eat them anyway. In game fishing, catches of trout and salmon are consumed, but the bulk of fish is put back in the water. I would argue strongly that that is just as cruel as any form of hunting with dogs, if not more so, as there is no aim of control.
The debate has dealt with many issues, but I hope that those hon. Members who are prepared to stop and think for a moment before they walk into the Lobby in a few

117
minutes' time will consider the consequences of passing legislation that would criminalise a small minority that is as significant as many others in this country. Every minority has a right to be heard and, wherever possible, understood. Such legislation would not lead to a net reduction in pain or distress to animals; in many ways, a great deal of inconvenience and disruption would be caused to individual lives.
The issue is: should this House make a moral judgment on whether it is right for people to enjoy what some perceive as inflicting pain on animals? I believe that that judgment should be made by individuals, according to what is right for their soul. It is not a judgment for this House, and that is why I shall resist—as I have always done—any attempt by it to stop people hunting with hounds.
9.15 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: In the past few years, the paper by Professor Bateson and Dr. Bradshaw—entitled "Physiological effects of hunting red deer"—has been a significant feature in debates in this place, in Committee and elsewhere on hunting with dogs. Following its publication, vitriolic attacks were made on Professor Bateson. Accusations were made concerning his competence, integrity and powers of manipulation; he was even accused of slanting his report of April 1997, thereby precipitating the National Trust's decision to ban stag hunting on its land. However, after taking evidence from his opponents, it reaffirmed that decision. After listening to both sides of the argument, the Forestry Commission independently reached the same conclusion.
In his letter to me last week, Patrick Bateson—who is still alive and well and has not recanted—said that, despite attempts to discredit him, he still agrees with what he wrote in 1997. He showed that, according to the measurement of various hormones, hunting deer with hounds led to high levels or stress. If they were chased over 10 km, which is no mean distance, they had no fuel left—I shall not use technical terms—and were unable to move quickly because their muscles had gone. He pointed out that their vascular system and muscle tissue had broken down, and, interestingly, that the biochemical and physiological state of animals that had been knocked down by a car were comparable to those of deer that had been hunted over long distances. The effect on the welfare of deer was further illustrated through examining behaviour patterns during the later stages of the hunt.
A further, joint universities study on deer hunting was commissioned by the Countryside Alliance and interested parties such as stag hunts. It did not comment on the wider aspects of the behaviour of deer, but it considered all the biochemical factors. There are great similarities between the two studies, and very few differences.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Gibson: I am sorry, but I must move on.
However, there was a major difference between the two studies in terms of interpreting results. The authors of the latter study disagreed with Bateson, maintaining that the physiological effects of hunting are merely those of exercise, with suffering restricted to perhaps the last 20 minutes before the kill. They argue that deer are well-adapted to being hunted by hounds.
118
That is a narrow view of the demands placed on hunted deer, which are exhausted when they go to bay. The joint universities study likened their condition to that of an exhausted footballer, but it is many years since I have seen such a footballer. Given the size of modern squads, players are substituted before they become exhausted. None the less, such a comparison was drawn with an animal that is chased by a noisy pack of potential predators and suffers harassment from shouting human beings—we will still call them that—but we should remember that fear itself is a great factor in causing stress. A deer is hardly the same as a self-motivated athlete.
We need to consider what others have said about those two studies, and I shall quote one of the many eminent people who have reviewed them.
Sir John Krebs, who was head of the department of zoology at Oxford university, became chief executive of the National Environmental Research Council and now heads the very successful Food Standards Agency, says that the essence of the findings in both studies is that red deer show certain physiological symptoms at the end of the hunt. He says that Bateson concluded that hunting causes a greater degree of suffering than does stalking. According to the summary paper that he has looked at, the new work does not shed significant new light on that question. I could mention other people with the same opinion.
It has been argued that it is necessary to cull populations of animals. Bateson argued that the contribution of hunts to the necessary culling of red deer is small, and chasing wounded deer before killing them is not a contribution to the welfare of those injured in road accidents or entangled in fence wire. He recommended stalking, so he does recommend some degree of culling as against hunting.
The supporters of the middle way option argue that it would guarantee an improvement in animal welfare and boldly attempt to merge that point with arguments about human liberty and freedom—but we will ignore that one. Is it necessary to regulate animal populations, and will that lead to unregulated and uncontrolled killing? I have seen no published evidence showing that that will happen. It is a surmise by the proponents of that argument.
We may need to cull populations, and Bateson agreed. Burns was ambivalent on the need to control foxes or any animals. The report said that
"landowners and gamekeepers consider that it is necessary".
That is not the same as saying that it is necessary.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree with the Burns report where it says, two paragraphs below the bit he has just quoted, that
"in upland areas, where the fox population causes more damage to sheep-rearing and game management interests, and where there is a greater perceived need for control, fewer alternatives are available to the use of dogs"?
Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There is no argument about the need in certain instances for some degree of culling. Bateson admits that and I agree, but the issue is how it is done and the extent of it. How many animals need to be killed to regulate a population? The urban fox studies in Bristol have shown clearly that no regulation is needed. The fox numbers go up when people feed them and down when

119
the animals become infected with mange. The control and regulation of animal populations is done naturally. Studies from across the world show that. Territorial changes take place, with animals moving to bigger territories, or the animals' social interactions change. The animals control their own numbers.
I understand what people say about the comparison of suffering being a complex matter, and it is. Is one animal suffering for many days worse in welfare terms than many animals suffering for a few hours? We do not know how much time deer wounded by stalkers spend suffering. However, at least Bateson made an effort to tackle the problem by obtaining some measurements on which we can make a judgment.
Of course we need to make a moral judgment on whether culling is acceptable, but that will not rest only on the considerations that I have mentioned. It will also depend on the extent to which people who cull red deer knowingly inflict suffering and the extent to which the suffering inflicted by their method of culling may be minimised. Those are deep questions. In opposition to the views of some vets, about which we have heard, and the Middle Way Group, there is solid evidence that the regulation of populations of animals is controlled by a complex interaction of variables.
The Burns report did not conclude that we would see an inexorable rise in fox numbers if we stopped culling them. He did not accept that argument, although he was put under pressure to do so. There are some reasons for culling, but the arguments on how it should be done and to what extent require serious and proper debate. There can be no compromise on the issue. A total ban is what the public want and there is no evidence that the middle way will benefit the welfare of animals or help to control numbers. It is not a time for political fudges but time to listen to the public, the science and the House of Commons.
9.24 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) that, in many ways, the debate is not particularly well informed. At the outset, I must declare my interest as a farmer who has hunted almost every season since the age of six and, I think, the only Member of the House to have ridden winners in point-to-points and under national hunt rules. So, I have a role to play in the debate, although which role depends on one's point of view.
There have been two important events since we last debated the matter in the House. First, the Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting is up and running, so it is worth describing exactly what it does. The authority is chaired by an independent retired High Court judge, Sir Ronald Waterhouse, who has no bias and has seven independent commissioners who run the authority. All 11 hunt licensing bodies and all the hunts have signed up voluntarily to the authority, which has a considerable code of conduct, powers to fine masters a considerable sum and the ultimate power to suspend a hunt. On that basis, I recommend that the House seriously considers the supervision option.
The second important event is the foot and mouth epidemic, which was catastrophic for people in rural areas. Above all, it led to a system under which everybody
120
who goes hunting must fill in a form to say that they have hunted. In other words, we have a de facto licensing system. Taken together, the ISAH and the licensing system imposed by foot and mouth are an effective supervisory system. Having said that, I am sure that all my constituents and all my hunts—I represent 10, at the last count, which is more than any other Member of Parliament—would consider some form of licensing enshrined in statute.
The foot and mouth crisis brought further misery on my constituents. We already know from parliamentary answers that 44,000 jobs have been lost in agriculture in the past three years, but the Burns report estimates that we will lose another 8,000 to 10,000 if we ban hunting, so anybody who votes for a ban is voting to put my constituents out of a job. [Interruption.] Those Labour Members who are laughing should be ashamed of themselves if they want to put my constituents out of a job.
In a superb speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said that hunting is the glue that binds the rural areas together. He is absolutely right. Let me give two brief examples of why that is so. First, agriculture, which is already suffering, plays a good role in disposing of fallen stock. If we do not have the hunts, farmers will have to go to a great deal of trouble and expense to find someone, if there is a knackerman out there, to get rid of dead and fallen stock from the land.
That is one example of hunts performing a useful role in rural areas; the second is less tangible, although it applies to all those in urban areas who like to go out into the countryside and enjoy it. The countryside was laid out as it is by our forefathers and by many of the current generation because they like hunting and enjoying the countryside in a proper environmental situation, so hunting is the glue that binds rural areas together. Often, hunts are the first to notice that stock has escaped on to a road and report it.
As well as job losses caused by the foot and mouth crisis and the general decline in agriculture, we have suffered a decline in tourism since 11 September. Tourism draws a significant number of people and a significant amount of foreign exchange to this country. The hotels and the bed-and-breakfast accommodation in my area and in many others badly need tourism during the winter, and they depend on the hunting fraternity to fill them so that the businesses can survive.
Some of the ignorance of the facts of the debate centres on the alternative methods of disposing of foxes. I was brought up in the countryside. I know how to use a high-powered rifle, and I can tell the House that, unless it is skilfully used, it is very difficult, particularly at night, to kill a fox with the first shot.
In paragraph 60 of the summary and conclusions, the Burns report makes it clear that high-powered rifles can he used only in certain areas. A high-powered rifle of the sort necessary to kill a fox with one shot is lethal to a distance of well over a mile, so footpaths, buildings and, increasingly, the right to roam will restrict the areas in which such a weapon can be used. Burns says that a shotgun is not a suitable instrument for killing a fox, and

121
anyone who has seen a fox in its lair, as I have, knows that it can suffer a slow and lingering death from shotgun wounds. Even worse, a fox that has been poisoned can go away and spend many days suffering from gangrene before it finally dies following the poisoning that has been inflicted.
I would like to address the issue of imposing criminal sanctions on people who transgress any law that we might pass. Imposing criminal sanctions on anybody is a serious matter. The resources that we have to uphold the Queen's law in this country are always going to be scarce; there is always going to be a shortage of policemen. Do we really want to use them to chase around the countryside trying to arrest otherwise law-abiding hunting people? The reason that criminal sanctions are accepted in this country is that the generality of thinking by the majority of people is that a particular crime ought to be outlawed by society. We can all identify with murder, robbery and rape attracting criminal sanctions, but to make criminal those people who otherwise want to go about their lawful business, by banning hunting, does not seem to be a very good use of scarce resources.
This country has always had a reputation for tolerance. In the 18th and 19th centuries, many poets, philosophers and authors came here because they would have been guillotined or otherwise executed in the rest of Europe, merely on account of their views. We have always been tolerant of minorities, and the way in which some hon. Members are laughing and chatting instead of listening to this speech shows that they are not tolerant of minorities, and that they do not really understand the issues. I would say to those hon. Members that, before they vote for a ban, they should think about putting my constituents out of a job, make sure that they have read the Burns report and understood it, and, above all, make sure that they are tolerant of minorities. It has been said:
"We have a fantastic wealth if history and tradition in Britain. You'd be a fool to want to turn your back on our past culture and achievements. I certainly do not."
Those are the words of the Prime Minister on 30 April 1998, when he was doing a partisan issue for Country Life. I say to my constituents, "Do not be beguiled by this Government saying that they will do a deal. Protest at every opportunity." We want to protect our minorities.
9.32 pm
Lembit Öpik: I used to back a ban on hunting with dogs. I changed my view on the basis of observation, of talking to people, and of having the courage of my convictions not to try to put through the measures that I started with, but to try to win the arguments on the way that seems to be right. Far from criticising the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I think that the fact that he was honest and courageous enough to say that he has changed his mind is at the heart of a debate that relates to conscience. The general public are changing their minds. Soon, perhaps, the House of Lords will change its mind. What kind of Chamber is this, if it is not willing seriously to contemplate an alternative such as that put forward by the Middle Way Group, if that is genuinely in the interest of the welfare of the animals that we seek to help and protect?
Let us be clear—this debate is not about whether we kill foxes. All three options, including the ban option, acknowledge that it is acceptable in some circumstances
122
to control—in other words, to kill—foxes. Even the Scottish ban makes provision for various loopholes allowing the use of dogs. So, let us be clear that this debate is about improving the welfare of wild animals in a context in which we still kill such animals. Crucially, Lord Burns accepted that point. He accepted that, in some circumstances, killing a fox with dogs was not necessarily the most cruel way of doing it. It seems strange, therefore, that so many speakers in this debate are using Burns to argue something different. We all know that an animal's welfare is compromised if it is killed. The question for all of us is whether there is such compelling evidence about this one specific method that we should criminalise the people who think that it is the most fair.
I do not support the status quo; nor do I agree with those who say that self-regulation has worked.
Mr. Savidge: The hon. Gentleman says he does not support the status quo. Am I not right in thinking that he has voted for it in the past?
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman will find that I am voting against it this evening. Moreover, I do not see the relevance of his point to the philosophical and practical points that I am trying to make.
I have spoken to an organisation called Protect Our Wild Animals. I am indebted to, in particular, Anita Knittel and Penny Little for the time they devoted to discussing the issue with me, although I accept that they are implacably supportive of a ban. Such cross-organisation dialogue has helped the Middle Way Group to develop its ideas.
I know that I did not convince those two people, but they gave me a series of videos illustrating unequivocally the failure of self-regulation to do away with some of the harm and damage that hunts currently cause. Dogs killed on roads, dogs dead on railway tracks, the physical intimidation of individuals monitoring hunts and many examples of trespass were all on film.
Let no one pretend that the Middle Way Group is sitting here saying that the status quo is acceptable. By the same token, however, although I understand why people support a ban—because I once did myself—I no longer believe that it will deliver the welfare benefits that we all say we want to achieve.
Let us think about the contradictions. If welfare is the key issue, why are Members focusing on a method that, on their own admission, involves only 6 per cent. of fox kills? If the welfare of the fox is the primary concern, why are they not dealing with the 94 per cent. of kills that are carried out in other ways? If we care about animal welfare we must maximise the benefits of the regulations, and we will not do that by focusing on a minority pursuit. Let us also remember that the damage done by focusing on that minority pursuit is tremendously important to certain sectors of British communities, such as the fell packs and the mid-Wales packs. Lord Burns said explicitly that in those areas it is probably the best way in which to control the fox population.
People describe the middle way as a compromise. That ignores what we are trying to do. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said that it was not possible to compromise on cruelty. What an irony! As we know from the Scottish so-called ban, the ban option itself is the biggest compromise on offer. As I have said, it does

123
not deal with the 94 per cent. of foxes killed by other methods; but, even more important, it would be forced to include various exemptions that would not be necessary in the context of regulation. That is why the Middle Way Group regards the middle way not as a compromise, but as a potential solution in all our interests.
Let me remind Members that we propose the establishment of an independent hunting authority with statutory powers to enforce a legally binding code of practice and tough penalties to ensure that it works. We want that to apply to all methods of fox control, not just one. Our proposal goes further than any other option in the Bill. [Interruption.] Shouting about it does not change the reality: the Middle Way Group has taken the issue very seriously indeed.
We also propose the appointment of inspectors—paid for by a licence fee—who could drop in unannounced on all hunts that must be licensed to ensure that the code was adhered to. Unlike a ban, the middle way does not depend on an overstretched police force to police the countryside. It would be manifestly ridiculous to imagine that it would have the necessary resources.
I ask Members to acknowledge—even if they have problems with the details of our proposals—that we have created a coherent and comprehensive policy. Not only do we seek sincerely to ensure that all wild-mammal control is regulated; we do not expect a police force to implement a policy that it does not even consider to be workable.
The idea has been tried elsewhere. There is licensing across Europe in many different ways. In Finland, for example, there is a sophisticated procedure that really works.
We have heard a lot about polls. Hon. Members will know that the Middle Way Group has consistently improved its rating in the polls on tiny resources: on five-figure investment compared with the seven or eight-figure sums that the larger organisations have invested. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) cited polls. He will know not only that 47 per cent. cite regulation as acceptable, compared with 53 per cent. citing a ban as acceptable—far too close a call to justify a ban—but that 64 per cent. said that it was not an issue that we should be discussing in Parliament.
If our ideas are so weak, why have four directors of the League Against Cruel Sports decided that we have a more acceptable proposal? If our procedures are so weak, why do so many independent arbiters, including two out of three vets, think that there should be something other than a ban in the interests of animal welfare? I bet it is because they understand what a ban means and how limited its achievements would be.
There is a public mood developing—not necessarily a public mood that hon. Members want to hear. It says, "Do we really want to criminalise honest people who genuinely think they are doing the right thing and that they are not imposing cruelty?" The Middle Way Group is looking not for victories but for solutions. Long after the foxhunting debate ends in this Chamber, we will be picking up the pieces of the results in the wider community. We have not been rich, except in our idea, which seems to have gained some resonance.
We do not ask hon. Members to feel a sense of victory or defeat—quite the opposite. We ask hon. Members to think sincerely about our proposals, to accept that,
124
whatever they think the flaws of our idea are, we have tried to reach out to people on all sides and improved our proposals on the basis of that.
The Middle Way Group proposals may not be perfect but they are a genuine attempt to move the debate forward. Again, should there be a split decision between this Chamber and the upper House, we hope that hon. Members will do what the Minister said they should do at the beginning: have a constructive and positive dialogue towards a result. If we achieve that, we will have proved that conscience votes are exactly what they say: votes based on commitment and principle, not on personalisation and emotion.
The Middle Way Group stands up to be counted in what it has put forward. I hope that in the months ahead we can achieve something significant, something humane and something that is practical and fair, and that hon. Members will find it in their hearts to think about our proposals and to vote for them in the minutes ahead.
9.42 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I will be brief because hon. Members have come here this evening not to hear me but to hear the winding-up speeches and to vote in about 20 minutes.
I should declare an interest as well because I used to hunt a great deal. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), I have ridden in point-to-points and under rules, and have had some winners, so he is not the only hon. Member who has won a race. I also own two bits of land across which the hunt comes from time to time.
I do not believe that this debate has anything to do with Labour's concern about the welfare of foxes, deer or hares. It has much more to do with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. It also has quite a bit to do with Labour's concern about membership of the party. I saw a letter that was sent to Back Benchers from Millbank, which says:
"Retention of members"
of the Labour party
"is our most important activity … make the most of legislation coming up"
in the near future
"such as the free vote on hunting with dogs on March 18",
so I do not think that this debate has anything to do with Labour's concern about the welfare of foxes.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said, we should be debating issues that really concern people such as health, transport, education and housing. If I were to knock on 50 doors in my constituency and asked people what the top 50 issues were, I do not believe that hunting would crop up once. People are not that concerned about it.
In the past, the opinion polls showed a majority of people in favour of banning hunting, but the results are very different when the question asked is, "Do you want to criminalise and lock up the people who go hunting?" My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) spoke about recent opinion polls, as did the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). In an NOP Solutions poll only four days ago, 48 per cent. said that they supported hunting being made a criminal

125
offence, and 49 per cent. said that hunting should continue. Of that 49 per cent., 22 per cent. thought that it should continue in its present form, and 27 per cent. supported licensing. In other words, 1 per cent. more were in favour of keeping hunting in one form or another, so I do not believe that there is an overwhelming demand to get rid of hunting.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) pointed out, there are other animal welfare issues that cause concern—issues such as experiments on animals, and welfare on farms and in slaughterhouses. Let us consider welfare on pig farms. I saw in the papers this weekend a story about the Labour Chief Whip in the Lords. On a farm that he owns, pigs were crammed illegally into tiny pens, where they had no room to turn round or lie down. Others were said to have died from heat exhaustion and related conditions. I tend to agree with Joyce d'Silva, the director of Compassion in World Farming, who said:
"I am appalled"—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House.
Mr. Bellingham: Joyce d'Silva said:
"I am appalled that a member of the Government allegedly was linked to the keeping of animals in illegal conditions".
We should be discussing the welfare of farm animals, not hunting.
Many hon. Members have spoken about cruelty. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer,) who said that there is cruelty in any form of field sport. Of course there is. There is cruelty in shooting. There is cruelty in fishing. There is particular cruelty in coarse fishing. There is cruelty in any form of killing animals. There is cruelty in slaughterhouses. We eat meat for our pleasure. We wear leather shoes for our pleasure. Any form of killing animals is cruel, but the question is how cruel it is.
I believe strongly, as a number of hon. Members have argued this evening, that it we ban hunting, foxes will suffer more and more. More foxes will be shot, snared or gassed. As we heard a number of times this evening, a fox that is shot is rarely killed cleanly. Frequently, the fox will be wounded and it will die a lingering death from gangrene.
I shall deal with the social fabric of hunting in the community. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks said, hunting is crucial in many areas. At a time when foot and mouth has caused devastation in the countryside, hunting may provide only a small number of jobs—perhaps 6,000, 10,000 or 14,000—but every one of those jobs is precious and deserves our concern and our interest.
If it were not for hunting, we would not have point-to-point racing. Point-to-point racing depends on hunting. If it were not for hunting, we would not have the knackerman. In my constituency, when farmers have fallen stock, or a pony that is too old and needs putting down, it is the hunt that comes along and removes that cow or sheep, or puts down that pony. If hunting goes, the knackerman goes.
Finally, we are dealing with the freedom of the individual. The Prime Minister has made a great deal of noise about tolerance in our society. We do not want any
126
more divisions in this society, and by picking on a minority we will sow a huge amount of discontent in the countryside, a great deal of anger and many more divisions. That is why this evening I will vote firmly against a ban and if we do not win that vote, I will vote for the middle way.
9.50 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I want to sum up after a very interesting debate in which there have been good contributions from Members on both sides of the House. There have been some stars—the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) was, as ever, courageous, full of common sense and had the best motives in supporting the middle way. The biggest star of all was my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who was scintillating—a real tour de force. He reflected the view of the countryside and of Yorkshire.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) showed equal courage in changing his view and deciding not to vote for a total ban. He gave his speech amid much heckling from his own side. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) gave a thoughtful and philosophical speech that even preached tolerance. In contrast, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was as feisty as ever but her arguments would, at a stroke, have brought to an end all angling competitions, which would not be very popular.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) repeated a point that was made many times: there is no compelling public interest in introducing a ban on hunting and, in his view, it should not be part of the criminal law. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) made his usual passionate speech. As the voice of Wales in this debate, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) referred to the cruelty in the Animal Health Bill and in the Government's proposals. There was a trenchant contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who is going to buy me a drink later, was as articulate as ever in promoting the middle way option.
We have heard powerfully held views on both sides of the argument—some polarised and others more reflective. Many speakers have commented on the timing of the debate, which they believe is insensitive and a distraction from more important national and animal welfare issues.
In a matter of individual judgment and conscience, there are practical difficulties, some of which were not addressed, especially by Labour Members. What will replace hunting? How will the fox population in particular be controlled, especially when they are predatory? Will gassing, poisoning or shooting be the answer? What of the wounding of animals after they have been shot and the lack of retrieval of the wounded? Is that not an issue? Is hunting not the more humane method of controlling the fox population?
I do not envy the Minister. He is in a difficult situation, but it is of the Government's making. At the end of the day, this is a class warfare issue—we saw that rear its ugly head during the debate. It is nothing to do with animal welfare. This is them against the countryside. This is class warfare on the Labour Benches, while on this side of the House the argument is freedom, freedom, freedom.
9.54 pm
Alun Michael: I said that I hoped that the House would rise to the occasion, as it sometimes does in a difficult and contentious debate that ends in a free vote. That is difficult when an issue has been debated on many occasions, so it is to the credit of the House that the quality of debate tonight has been high.
Let us remember that the Government have stayed neutral on this issue; right hon. and hon. Members have made this a parliamentary issue that has to be resolved. The normal mechanisms of the private Member's Bill or Back-Bench amendments have not enabled Parliament to reach a conclusion. Neither the Burns report nor enabling the three campaigning groups to give legislative form to their preferred option revealed a simple way forward. There is no magic wand. This debate is the first stage of a process that rightly starts with listening to Members of this House. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that they will not have wasted their time in this debate or in the Lobby.
The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said that the Government are entitled to have a debate on hunting. Actually, it is the House that is entitled to have a debate on hunting. He made an entertaining speech, but he is clearly unaware of the Government's efforts to aid rural recovery, to support parish councils and to help the enormous success of "your countryside, you're welcome" by supporting some 50 organisations in promoting visits to the countryside and bridging the perceived divide between town and country. He is unaware of our work to implement the rural White Paper, even in a year when foot and mouth disease swept the country.
This is not a town versus country debate. It is a debate on three motions to enable all Members to exercise their individual vote.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alun Michael: I shall not give way; we have cut our speeches to give Members a chance to contribute.
It is nice to see tonight's turnout of Conservative Members, who are rarely present when we debate rural issues in the House. [Interruption.]
Mrs. Ann Winterton rose—Mrs. Ann Winterton rose—
Alun Michael: No, I shall not give way.
There were some puzzling contributions, such as that of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who did not explain whether his opposition to whale hunting is based on a belief that it is a sin or a crime. We are legislators.
I reject the view of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who is a nationalist and not a supporter of devolution, that the House should abrogate its responsibility on a non-devolved issue. I was disappointed to hear the class warrior, the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), allege arrogance on the part of Government in allowing time for debate. We have made it clear that education, health, transport and care for the elderly are our priorities. All MPs who want this matter to be dealt with have said time and again that it is not their most important issue, but that it needs to be brought
128
to a conclusion. I understand that message, which was made with passion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) dealt with how things could be done and with the principle.
There were some excellent contributions, with a good deal of memorable wit and humour. If I had to choose one sentence of advice to the House, it would be from the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who said that neither side should assume that the views of the other have been reached on the basis of prejudice. She was not suggesting that we should listen to the views of others and always accept them. Conservative Members will have noticed that she made a robust contribution and argued passionately for a ban on hunting. Hers was a challenge to listen and think.
In pursuing our beliefs, we should be practical about the application of any principle. Often, when pursuing a principle, the devil is in the detail, and those whose views we dislike may say things that are worth hearing. That is why I have listened tonight to opinions on all sides of the argument. I will listen to all sides in the other place tomorrow. Of course I will have regard to the votes cast on the three motions tonight. Respect for democracy requires attention to basic arithmetic. That is the point of having a vote.
I must refute the suggestion that a deal is being done behind closed doors, or that there is to be a sell-out. I ask hon. Members to cast that notion aside, and to accept that the Government are trying to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue. That was the commitment that we made in our manifesto at the time of the election. This is an issue for Parliament, and our commitment is to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion. Having been given that responsibility, I shall do my best to ensure that the process has integrity, and that Parliament can reach a conclusion. After the two days of debate, I shall come to the House to make a statement on the way forward, and I hope that I shall carry the House with me. It is now time for Members to express their choice.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 401.

Division No. 197]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Burt, Alistair

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Butterfill, John

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Cameron, David

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Cash, William

Bacon, Richard

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Baldry, Tony

Barker, Gregory

Chope, Christopher

Beggs, Roy

Clappison, James

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Bellingham, Henry

Bercow, John

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Beresford, Sir Paul

Collins, Tim

Blunt, Crispin

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Boswell, Tim

Cran, James

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Brady, Graham

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Brazier, Julian

Djanogly, Jonathan

Browning, Mrs Angela

Donaldson, Jeffrey M

Burns, Simon

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

129

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Motion)

Moore, Michael

Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

Moss, Malcolm

Evans, Nigel

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Fallon, Michael

Norman, Archie

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Flight, Howard

Page, Richard

Flook, Adrian

Paice, James

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Paterson, Owen

Fox, Dr Liam

Pickles, Eric

Francois, Mark

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Garnier, Edward

Prisk, Mark

Gibb, Nick

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Robathan, Andrew

Goodman, Paul

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Gray, James

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Greenway, John

Rosindell, Andrew

Grieve, Dominic

Ruffley, David

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hague, Rt Hon William

Selous, Andrew

Hammond, Philip

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Harvey, Nick

Shepherd, Richard

Hawkins, Nick

Simmonds, Mark

Heald, Oliver

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

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Hendry, Charles

Soames, Nicholas

Hoban, Mark

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Spicer, Sir Michael

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Spink, Bob

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Spring, Richard

Hunter, Andrew

Steen, Anthony

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Streeter, Gary

Jenkin, Bernard

Swayne, Desmond

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Swire, Hugo

Keetch, Paul

Syms, Robert

Key, Robert

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Kirkwood, Archy

Thurso, John

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

Trend, Michael

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Tyler, Paul

Lansley, Andrew

Tyrie, Andrew

Leigh, Edward

Viggers, Peter

Letwin, Oliver

Walter, Robert

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Waterson, Nigel

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Watkinson, Angela

Lidington, David

Whittingdale, John

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Wiggin, Bill

Llwyd, Elfyn

Wilkinson, John

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Willetts, David

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Wilshire, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Malins, Humfrey

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Maples, John

Yeo, Tim

Mates, Michael

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Tellers for the Ayes:

May, Mrs Theresa

Mr. Tony McNulty and

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Mr. John Heppell.

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Baker, Norman

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Banks, Tony

Alexander, Douglas

Barnes, Harry

Allan, Richard

Barrett, John

Allen, Graham

Barron, Kevin

Amess, David

Battle, John

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Bayley, Hugh

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Beard, Nigel

Atherton, Ms Candy

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Atkins, Charlotte

Begg, Miss Anne

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Benn, Hilary

Bailey, Adrian

Bennett, Andrew

Baird, Vera

Benton, Joe

130

Berry, Roger

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

Best, Harold

Betts, Clive

Dawson, Hilton

Blackman, Liz

Dean, Mrs Janet

Blears, Ms Hazel

Denham, Rt Hon John

Blizzard, Bob

Dhanda, Parmjit

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Dismore, Andrew

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Dobbin, Jim

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Donohoe, Brian H

Brake, Tom

Doran, Frank

Brennan, Kevin

Doughty, Sue

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Dowd, Jim

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Drown, Ms Julia

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Bryant, Chris

Edwards, Huw

Buck, Ms Karen

Efford, Clive

Burden, Richard

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Burgon, Colin

Ennis, Jeff

Burnham, Andy

Etherington, Bill

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Fabricant, Michael

Cable, Dr Vincent

Farrelly, Paul

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

Cairns, David

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Flint, Caroline

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Flynn, Paul

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Follett, Barbara

Caplin, Ivor

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Carmichael, Alistair

Foster, Don (Bath)

Casale, Roger

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Caton, Martin

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Cawsey, Ian

Foulkes, George

Challen, Colin

Francis, Dr Hywel

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Galloway, George

Chaytor, David

Gapes, Mike

Clapham, Michael

Gardiner, Barry

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Gerrard, Neil

Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Gidley, Sandra

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Gilroy, Linda

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Godsiff, Roger

Clelland, David

Goggins, Paul

Coaker, Vernon

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cohen, Harry

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Coleman, Iain

Grogan, John

Connarty, Michael

Hain, Rt Hon Peter

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Cooper, Yvette

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Corston, Jean

Hanson, David

Cotter, Brian

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Cousins, Jim

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Cox, Tom

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Cranston, Ross

Havard, Dai

Crausby, David

Healey, John

Cruddas, Jon

Heath, David

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hendrick, Mark

Cummings, John

Hepburn, Stephen

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Hermon, Lady

Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Heyes, David

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Hill, Keith

Daisley, Paul

Hinchliffe, David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hodge, Margaret

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Holmes, Paul

David, Wayne

Hood, Jimmy

Davidson, Ian

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hope, Phil

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hopkins, Kelvin

131

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Marris, Rob

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Martlew, Eric

Humble, Mrs Joan

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hurst, Alan

Meale, Alan

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Merron, Gillian

Iddon, Dr Brian

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Miliband, David

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Miller, Andrew

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Moffatt, Laura

Jamieson, David

Mole, Chris

Jenkins, Brian

Morgan, Julie

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Morley, Elliot

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

Mudie, George

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Mullin, Chris

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Munn, Ms Meg

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Keeble, Ms Sally

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

O'Hara, Edward

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Olner, Bill

Kelly, Ruth

O'Neill, Martin

Kemp, Fraser

Öpik, Lembit

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

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Owen, Albert

Khabra, Piara S

Palmer, Dr Nick

Kidney, David

Pearson, Ian

Kilfoyle, Peter

Perham, Linda

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Picking, Anne

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Pickthall, Colin

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Pike, Peter

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Plaskitt, James

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Pollard, Kerry

Lamb, Norman

Pond, Chris

Lammy, David

Pope, Greg

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Pound, Stephen

Laws, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Lepper, David

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Leslie, Christopher

Price, Adam

Levitt, Tom

Primarolo, Dawn

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Prosser, Gwyn

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Pugh, Dr John

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Purchase, Ken

Linton, Martin

Purnell, James

Lloyd, Tony

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Love, Andrew

Quinn, Lawrie

Lucas, Ian

Rammell, Bill

Lyons, John

Randall, John

McAvoy, Thomas

Rapson, Syd

McCabe, Stephen

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

McCafferty, Chris

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

MacDonald, Calum

Rendel, David

McDonnell, John

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

MacDougall, John

McFall, John

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

McIsaac, Shona

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McKechin, Ann

Rooney, Terry

McKenna, Rosemary

Ross, Ernie

McNamara, Kevin

Ruane, Chris

MacShane, Denis

Ruddock, Joan

Mactaggart, Fiona

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McWalter, Tony

Ryan, Joan

McWilliam, John

Salter, Martin

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Sanders, Adrian

Mallaber, Judy

Sarwar, Mohammad

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Savidge, Malcolm

Mann, John

Sawford, Phil

132

Sedgemore, Brian

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Shaw, Jonathan

Touhig, Don

Sheerman, Barry

Trickett, Jon

Sheridan, Jim

Truswell, Paul

Shipley, Ms Debra

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Singh, Marsha

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Skinner, Dennis

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Vaz, Keith

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

Walley, Ms Joan

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Ward, Ms Claire

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Wareing, Robert N

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Watson, Tom

Soley, Clive

Watts, David

Southworth, Helen

Webb, Steve

Spellar, Rt Hon John

White, Brian

Squire, Rachel

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Wicks, Malcolm

Steinberg, Gerry

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Stevenson, George

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Willis, Phil

Stringer, Graham

Wills, Michael

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Winnick, David

Stunell, Andrew

Wood, Mike

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Woodward, Shaun

Tami, Mark

Woolas, Phil

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Worthington, Tony

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Wray, James

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Wright, David (Telford)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

Wyatt, Derek

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Younger-Ross, Richard

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Tellers for the Noes:

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Mrs. Anne McGuire and

Timms, Stephen

Dan Norris.

Question accordingly negatived.

HUNTING WITH DOGS: HUNTING UNDER LICENCE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day],
That this House considers that the hunting of wild mammals with dogs should be required to be regulated in accordance with arrangements similar to those set out in Schedule 2 to the Hunting Bill as introduced into the Commons last session [Bill 2].—[Alun Michael.]
The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 371.

Division No. 198]

[10.14 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Brady, Graham

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Brazier, Julian

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Burns, Simon

Bacon, Richard

Burt, Alistair

Baldry, Tony

Butterfill, John

Barker, Gregory

Cameron, David

Beggs, Roy

Cash, William

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Bellingham, Henry

Beresford, Sir Paul

Clappison, James

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Blunt, Crispin

Boswell, Tim

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Collins, Tim

133

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

May, Mrs Theresa

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Mercer, Patrick

Cran, James

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Moore, Michael

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Moss, Malcolm

Djanogly, Jonathan

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Donaldson, Jeffrey M

Norman, Archie

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Oaten, Mark

Doughty, Sue

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Öpik, Lembit

Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

Ottaway, Richard

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Page, Richard

Evans, Nigel

Paice, James

Fabricant, Michael

Paterson, Owen

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Pickles, Eric

Fisher, Mark

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Flight, Howard

Price, Adam

Flook, Adrian

Prisk, Mark

Fox, Dr Liam

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Francois, Mark

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Garnier, Edward

Robathan, Andrew

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Gibb, Nick

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Goodman, Paul

Rosindell, Andrew

Gray, James

Ruffley, David

Grayling, Chris

Sayeed, Jonathan

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Selous Andrew

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Sheerman, Barry

Greenway, John

Shephard,Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Grieve, Dominic

Shepherd, Richard

Gummer,Rt Hon John

Simmonds, Mark

Hague, Rt Hon William

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

Hammond, Philip

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Harvey, Nick

Spicer, Sir Michael

Hawkins, Nick

Spink, Bob

Heald, Oliver

Spring, Richard

Heath, David

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Hendry, Charles

Hermon,Lady

Streeter, Gary

Hoban, Mark

Swayne, Desmond

Hoey, Kate

Swire, Hugo

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Syms, Robert

Horam,John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hunter Andrew

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

Keetch, Paul

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Key, Robert

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Thurso, John

Kirkwood, Archy

Trend, Michael

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Tyler, Paul

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Tyrie, Andrew

Lamb, Norman

Viggers, Peter

Lansley, Andrew

Walter, Robert

Leigh, Edward

Waterson, Nigel

Letwin, Oliver

Watkinson, Angela

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Wiggin, Bill

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Wilkinson, John

Lidington, David

Willetts, David

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Luff, Peter

Wilshire, David

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Malins, Humfrey

Yeo, Tim

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Maples, John

Mates, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Mr. Tony McNulty and

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Mr. John Heppell.

134

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Connarty, Michael

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Alexander, Douglas

Cooper, Yvette

Allan, Richard

Corbyn, Jeremy

Allen, Graham

Corston, Jean

Amess, David

Cotter, Brian

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Cousins, Jim

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Cox, Tom

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cranston, Ross

Atkins, Charlotte

Crausby, David

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Cruddas, Jon

Bailey, Adrian

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Baird, Vera

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Baker, Norman

Cummings, John

Banks, Tony

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Barnes, Harry

Barrett, John

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Barron, Kevin

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Battle, John

Daisley, Paul

Bayley, Hugh

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Beard, Nigel

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

David, Wayne

Begg, Miss Anne

Davidson, Ian

Benn, Hilary

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bennett, Andrew

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Benton, Joe

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

Berry, Roger

Best, Harold

Dawson, Hilton

Belts, Clive

Dean, Mrs Janet

Blackman, Liz

Denham, Rt Hon John

Blears, Ms Hazel

Dhanda, Parmjit

Blizzard, Bob

Dismore, Andrew

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Dobbin, Jim

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Donohoe, Brian H

Brake, Tom

Doran, Frank

Brennan, Kevin

Dowd, Jim

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Drown, Ms Julia

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Edwards, Huw

Efford, Clive

Bryant, Chris

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Buck, Ms Karen

Ennis, Jeff

Burden, Richard

Etherington, Bill

Burgon, Colin

Farrelly, Paul

Burnham, Andy

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Cable, Dr Vincent

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Flint, Caroline

Cairns, David

Flynn, Paul

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Follett, Barbara

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Caplin, Ivor

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Carmichael, Alistair

Foulkes, George

Casale, Roger

Francis, Dr Hywel

Caton, Martin

Galloway, George

Cawsey, Ian

Gapes, Mike

Challen, Colin

Gardiner, Barry

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Chaytor, David

Gerrard, Neil

Clapham, Michael

Gibson, Dr Ian

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Gidley, Sandra

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Gilroy, Linda

Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

Godsiff, Roger

Goggins, Paul

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clelland, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Coaker, Vernon

Grogan, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hain, Rt Hon Peter

Cohen, Harry

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Coleman, lain

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

135

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

McDonnell, John

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

MacDougall, John

Hanson, David

McFall, John

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

McIsaac, Shona

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

McKechin, Ann

Havard, Dai

McKenna, Rosemary

Healey, John

McNamara, Kevin

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

MacShane, Denis

Hendrick, Mark

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hepburn, Stephen

McWalter, Tony

Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

McWilliam, John

Heyes, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hill, Keith

Mallaber, Judy

Hinchliffe, David

Marris, Rob

Holmes, Paul

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hood, Jimmy

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hope, Phil

Martlew, Eric

Hopkins, Kelvin

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Meale, Alan

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Merron, Gillian

Hoyle, Lindsay

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Humble, Mrs Joan

Miller, Andrew

Hurst, Alan

Moffatt, Laura

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Mole, Chris

Iddon, Dr Brian

Morgan, Julie

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Morley, Elliot

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Mudie, George

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Mullin, Chris

Jamieson, David

Munn, Ms Meg

Jenkins, Brian

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn HatHeld)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

O'Hara, Edward

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Olner, Bill

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

O'Neill, Martin

Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Owen, Albert

Keeble, Ms Sally

Palmer, Dr Nick

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Pearson, Ian

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Perham, Linda

Kelly, Ruth

Picking, Anne

Kemp, Fraser

Pickthall, Colin

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

Pike, Peter

Plaskitt, James

Khabra, Piara S

Pollard, Kerry

Kidney, David

Pond, Chris

Kilfoyle, Peter

Pope, Greg

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Pound, Stephen

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Primarolo, Dawn

Lammy, David

Prosser, Gwyn

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Pugh, Dr John

Laws, David

Purchase, Ken

Lazarowicz, Mark

Purnell, James

Lepper, David

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Leslie, Christopher

Quinn, Lawrie

Levitt, Tom

Rammell, Bill

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Rapson, Syd

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Linton, Martin

Rendel, David

Lloyd, Tony

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Love, Andrew

Lucas, Ian

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Lyons, John

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McAvoy, Thomas

Rooney, Terry

McCabe, Stephen

Ross, Ernie

McCafferty, Chris

Ruane, Chris

MacDonald, Calum

Ruddock, Joan

136

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Ryan, Joan

Timms, Stephen

Salter, Martin

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Sanders, Adrian

Touhig, Don

Sarwar, Mohammad

Trickett, Jon

Savidge, Malcolm

Truswell, Paul

Sawford, Phil

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Sedgemore, Brian

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Shaw, Jonathan

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Sheridan, Jim

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Vaz, Keith

Singh, Marsha

Vis, Dr Rudi

Skinner, Dennis

Walley, Ms Joan

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Ward, Ms Claire

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Wareing, Robert N

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Watson, Tom

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

Watts, David

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Webb, Steve

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

White, Brian

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Soley, Clive

Wicks, Malcolm

Southworth, Helen

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Spellar, Rt Hon John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Squire, Rachel

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Steinberg, Gerry

Willis, Phil

Stevenson, George

Wills, Michael

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Winnick, David

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wood, Mike

Stinchcombe, Paul

Woodward, Shaun

Stoate, Dr Howard

Woolas, Phil

Stringer, Graham

Worthington, Tony

Stunell, Andrew

Wray, James

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Tami, Mark

Wright, David (Telford)

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Wyatt, Derek

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Tellers for the Noes:

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mrs. Anne McGuire and

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Dan Norris

Question accordingly negatived.

HUNTING WITH DOGS: BAN
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day],
That this House considers that the hunting of wild mammals with dogs should be prohibited in accordance with provision similar to Schedule 3 to the Hunting Bill as introduced in the Commons last Session [Bill 2].—[Alun Michael.]
The House divided: Ayes 386, Noes 175.

Division No. 199]

[10.27 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Barrett, John

Ainger, Nick

Barron, Kevin

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Battle, John

Alexander, Douglas

Bayley, Hugh

Allan, Richard

Beard, Nigel

Allen, Graham

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Amess, David

Begg, Miss Anne

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Bell, Stuart

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Benn, Hilary

Atherton, Ms Candy

Bennett, Andrew

Atkins, Charlotte

Benton, Joe

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Berry, Roger

Bailey, Adrian

Best, Harold

Baird, Vera

Betts, Clive

Baker, Norman

Blackman, Liz

Banks, Tony

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Barnes, Harry

Blears, Ms Hazel

137

Blizzard, Bob

Dismore, Andrew

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Dobbin, Jim

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Donohoe, Brian H

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Doran, Frank

Brake, Tom

Dowd, Jim

Brennan, Kevin

Drown, Ms Julia

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Edwards, Huw

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Efford, Clive

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bryant, Chris

Ennis, Jeff

Buck, Ms Karen

Etherington, Bill

Burden, Richard

Farrelly, Paul

Burgon, Colin

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

Burnham, Andy

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Cable, Dr Vincent

Flint, Caroline

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Flynn, Paul

Cairns, David

Follett, Barbara

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Caplin, Ivor

Foulkes, George

Carmichael, Alistair

Francis, Dr Hywel

Casale, Roger

Gale, Roger

Caton, Martin

Galloway, George

Cawsey, Ian

Gapes, Mike

Challen, Colin

Gardiner, Barry

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Chaytor, David

Gerrard, Neil

Clapham, Michael

Gibson, Dr Ian

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Gidley, Sandra

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Gilroy, Linda

Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

Godsiff, Roger

Goggins, Paul

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clelland, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Coaker, Vernon

Grogan, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hain, Rt Hon Peter

Cohen, Harry

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Coleman, Iain

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Connarty, Michael

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Cooper, Yvette

Hanson, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Corston, Jean

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Cotter, Brian

Havard, Dai

Cousins, Jim

Healey, John

Cox, Tom

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Cranston, Ross

Hendrick, Mark

Crausby, David

Hepburn, Stephen

Cruddas, Jon

Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Heyes, David

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hill, Keith

Cummings, John

Hinchliffe, David

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Hodge, Margaret

Holmes, Paul

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Hood, Jimmy

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Daisley, Paul

Hope, Phil

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

David, Wayne

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Davidson, Ian

Hoyle, Lindsay

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

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

Humble, Mrs Joan

Hurst, Alan

Dawson, Hilton

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Dean, Mrs Janet

Iddon, Dr Brian

Denham, Rt Hon John

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Dhanda, Parmjit

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

138

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Morgan, Julie

Jamieson, David

Morley, Elliot

Jenkins, Brian

Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Mudie, George

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Mullin, Chris

Munn, Ms Meg

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

O'Hara, Edward

Keeble, Ms Sally

Olner, Bill

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

O'Neill, Martin

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Kelly, Ruth

Owen, Albert

Kemp, Fraser

Palmer, Dr Nick

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

Pearson, Ian

Perham, Linda

Khabra, Piara S

Picking, Anne

Kidney, David

Pickthall, Colin

Kilfoyle, Peter

Pike, Peter

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Plaskitt, James

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Pollard, Kerry

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Pond, Chris

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Pope, Greg

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Pound, Stephen

Lammy, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Laws, David

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Lazarowicz, Mark

Primarolo, Dawn

Lepper, David

Prosser, Gwyn

Leslie, Christopher

Pugh, Dr John

Levitt, Tom

Purchase, Ken

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Purnell, James

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Quinn, Lawrie

Linton, Martin

Rammell, Bill

Lloyd, Tony

Randall, John

Love, Andrew

Rapson, Syd

Lucas, Ian

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Lyons, John

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

McAvoy, Thomas

Rendel, David

McCabe, Stephen

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

McCafferty, Chris

McDonagh, Siobhain

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

MacDonald, Calum

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McDonnell, John

Rooney, Terry

MacDougall, John

Ross, Emie

McFall, John

Ruane, Chris

McIsaac, Shona

Ruddock, Joan

McKechin, Ann

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McKenna, Rosemary

Ryan, Joan

McNamara, Kevin

Salter, Martin

MacShane, Denis

Sanders, Adrian

Mactaggart, Fiona

Sarwar, Mohammad

McWalter, Tony

Savidge, Malcolm

McWilliam, John

Sawford, Phil

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Sedgemore, Brian

Mallaber, Judy

Shaw, Jonathan

Mann, John

Sheridan, Jim

Marris, Rob

Shipley, Ms Debra

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Singh, Marsha

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Skinner, Dennis

Martlew, Eric

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Meale, Alan

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Merron, Gillian

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Miliband, David

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Miller, Andrew

Soley, Clive

Moffatt, Laura

Southworth, Helen

Mole, Chris

Spellar, Rt Hon John

139

Squire, Rachel

Vaz, Keith

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Vis, Dr Rudi

Steinberg, Gerry

Walley, Ms Joan

Stevenson, George

Ward, Ms Claire

Stewart, David (Invemess E)

Wareing, Robert N

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Watson, Tom

Stinchcombe, Paul

Watts, David

Stoate, Dr Howard

Webb, Steve

Stringer, Graham

White, Brian

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Stunell, Andrew

Wicks, Malcolm

Sutcliffe Gerry

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Tami, Mark

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Willis, Phil

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Wills, Michael

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Winnick, David

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Wood, Mike

Woodward, Shaun

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Woolas, Phil

Timms, Stephen

Worthin'gton, Tony

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Wray James

Touhig, Don

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Trickett, Jon

Wright, David (Telford)

Truswell, Paul

Wyatt, Derek

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Mr. Tony McNulty and

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Mr. John Heppell.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Flight, Howard

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Flook, Adrian

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Bacon, Richard

Fox, Dr Liam

Baldry, Tony

Francois, Mark

Barker, Gregory

Garnier, Edward

Beggs, Roy

Gibb, Nick

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Bellingham, Henry

Goodman, Paul

Bercow, John

Gray, James

Beresford, Sir Paul

Grayling, Chris

Blunt, Crispin

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Boswell, Tim

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Greenway, John

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Grieve, Dominic

Brady, Graham

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Brazier, Julian

Hague, Rt Hon William

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hammond, Philip

Burns, Simon

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Burt, Alistair

Harvey, Nick

Butterfill, John

Hawkins, Nick

Cameron, David

Hayes, John

Cash, William

Heald, Oliver

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Hendry, Charles

Chope, Christopher

Hermon, Lady

Clappison, James

Hoban, Mark

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushdiffe)

Hoey, Kate

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Horam, John

Collins, Tim

Howard, Fit Hon Michael

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Hunter, Andrew

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Djanogly, Jonathan

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Donaldson, Jeffrey M

Jenkin, Bernard

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Keetch, Paul

Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

Key, Robert

Evans, Nigel

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Fabricant, Michael

Kirkwood, Archy

Fallon, Michael

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

140

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Selous, Andrew

Lamb, Norman

Sheerman, Barry

Lansley, Andrew

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Leigh, Edward

Shepherd, Richard

Letwin, Oliver

Simmonds, Mark

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

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

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lidington, David

Soames, Nicholas

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Llwyd, Elfyn

Spicer, Sir Michael

Luff, Peter

Spink, Bob

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Spring, Richard

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Steen, Anthony

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

McLoughlin, Patrick

Streeter, Gary

Malins, Humfrey

Swayne, Desmond

Maples, John

Swire, Hugo

Mates, Michael

Syms, Robert

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Tapsell Sir Peter

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

May, Mrs Theresa

Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

Mercer Patrick

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Moore Michael

Thurso, John

Moss, Malcolm

Trend, Mchael

Murrison Dr Andrew

Tumer, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Norman, Archie

Tyler, Paul

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Tyrie, Andrew

Öpik, Lembrt

Viggers, Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Walter, Robert

Page, Richard

Waterson, Nigel

Paice, James

Watkinson, Angela

Paterson, Owen

Whittingdale, John

Pickles, Eric

Wiggin, Bill

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Wilkinson, John

Price, Adam

Willetts, David

Prisk, Mark

Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Wilshire, David

Robathan, Andrew

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Yeo, Tim

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Tellers for the Noes:

Rosindell, Andrew

Mrs. Anne McGuire and

Ruffley, David

Dan Norris

Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community Documents.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

EUROPEAN TRANSPORT POLICY
That this House takes note of European Union documents No. 11932/01, Commission White Paper: European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide, and No. 12597/01, draft decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending decision No. 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network; and endorses the Government's approach to discussions on these document.

COSMETIC PRODUCTS
That this House takes note of the unnumbered explanatory memorandum dated 14th November 2001 from the Department of Trade and Industry on the amended draft Directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending for the seventh time Council

141
Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of member states relating to cosmetic products; and welcomes it as a positive step towards maintaining the current high levels of protection for human health and safety whilst promoting animal welfare.— [Mr. Stringer.]
Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 90) (HC 611), which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
That the draft Royal Mint Trading Fund (Extension and Variation) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
ELECTRICITY
That the draft Electricity and Gas (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

SOCIAL SECURITY
That the draft Social Security Administration Act 1992 (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.—[Mr. Stringer.]
Question agreed to.

REGULATORY REFORM
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders, etc., orders),
That the draft Regulatory Reform (Golden Jubilee Licensing) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 26th February, he approved.—[Mr. Stringer.]
Question agreed to.

Fire Safety (Storage Premises)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stringer.]
10.40 pm
Helen Jones: I am pleased to have this short Adjournment debate on the question of fire safety in warehouse distribution and storage premises. My interest in the matter arose from a fire that took place in my constituency in premises that were used for food storage and distribution. However, it is fair to say that there are several constituencies such as mine which, because of their position on the way to a port or at the junction of several motorways, have acquired a large number of distribution premises, so we need to take a particular interest in ensuring the safety of those buildings and of those who work in them.
I visited the site of the fire in Warrington after it took place with officers from the Cheshire fire service. I wish to place on record my appreciation of those officers for the work they do generally and also for their patience in answering my questions on points that must have seemed to them blatantly obvious. The mistakes in what I am going to say are mine: the good bits are probably theirs.
What was obvious, even to someone like me, was the startling speed with which the fire took hold. The premises were not far from the local fire station and officers were on the scene in a few minutes. Nevertheless, the building had partly collapsed 15 minutes after the fire had started and the firefighters had to withdraw. Within 30 minutes, the building had totally collapsed. It was completely burned out, together with several lorries that had been parked nearby.
Cheshire fire service estimates that the immediate cost of the fire was some £30 million. Other costs are more difficult to quantify, but they include damage to business, loss of jobs and damage to the environment. Sad to say, fires in such premises are not rare. It is difficult to get exact figures because of the way in which records are kept, but an answer my hon. Friend the Minister gave me on 25 October 2001 showed that, in the nine years to 1999, there had been between 702 and 883 fires in storage and distribution premises. Many of those fires will, thankfully, have been small, with the damage resulting from smoke or late calls.
It is not unusual for blazes to occur in such premises. Indeed, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association considers that the figures are much higher. It believes that some 25 per cent. of the fires that occur in the retail and distribution and industrial and transport categories are warehouse fires. It puts the number at some several thousand each year.
Many of those fires are serious. The Fire Protection Association estimates that there have been some 240 large fires in warehouse distribution and storage premises since 1990, leading to insured losses of hundreds of millions of pounds. Its figures are likely to be an underestimate, because it deals only with fires that cost more than £50,000 and it believes that insurers do not report all losses to it.
It is strange that we allow that situation to continue when we could do simple things to minimise the risk, such as changing building regulations and ensuring that sprinklers are fitted.

143
Although approved document B on fire safety recommends that sprinklers be fitted in single storey retail buildings, it does not do the same for single storey warehouse premises, which reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the sector has developed. Single storey buildings may be very large indeed, covering up to 140,000 sq m, and may be up to 30 m high. The nature of the business demands that the most cost-effective use of space be made, so buildings are often densely packed and goods stored on high racking systems.
That in itself poses a danger to the people who work there and any firefighters who have to tackle a blaze. Fires can spread very quickly in such an environment. Indeed, research by the Building Research Establishment shows that fires started in a flue formed by boxes stacked on 10 m racking more often than not reach the top of the stack within two minutes. Multiplying that by the amount of goods and racking in big buildings gives some idea of the scale of the problem.
The problem is compounded by the fact that many modern buildings often have no windows and few doors, which makes it difficult for people to get out and extremely difficult for firefighters to gain access if there is a blaze. Once inside, they may find themselves dealing with fires that are above ground level, approachable only through a maze of unprotected steelwork and facing the hazard of that steelwork collapsing during the fire.
A further hazard is caused by the sandwich panels that are often used in such buildings to create a closed environment in which food may be kept chilled, although they are used for other food hygiene purposes as well. Such panels usually have an inner core sandwiched between sheets of galvanised metal, usually steel, and PVC fixing. That inner core may consist of several materials, usually polystyrene or a mix of polystyrene and rock wool. As such, it is highly inflammable.
Approved document B sets out the hazards of such a construction—it may cause toxic black smoke in a fire, it allows fire to spread unseen in the sandwich panels and it may create flashovers—and a number of fire services have reported on the problems it causes. For example, the Norfolk fire service reported on a fire in 1995 that it believes started against the outside wall of a building. The heat transferred through the wall and ignited the sandwich panels. The fire then spread inside.
The London fire brigade graphically described a fire in these terms:
"The heat caused the polystyrene filling to melt and the metal sheets to distort. The heat and fire travelled through the panels and into the false ceiling and through the remainder of the sandwich panels."
Humberside fire brigade has reported on several such fires, one of which destroyed a building.
The cost of all those fires is hard to estimate because of the way in which we keep our records, but we ought to include in the equation not just the insurance costs, which, in the end, we all pay, but the cost of fighting the fires, the benefits paid to those who unfortunately lose their jobs, the revenue loss to the Exchequer when firms cease to trade and clearing up the resultant environmental pollution.
The Warrington fire took place at a food distribution depot, so afterwards residents nearby suffered what I can only describe as a plague of flies, which were attracted to
144
the food. I was surprised to find that milk, which we think of as harmless, can seriously pollute a water course if it gets in after a fire, and clearing it up costs a great deal.
Set against those costs, the cost of providing sprinklers in these buildings is negligible. Cheshire fire service estimated that the cost of putting sprinklers into the building in Warrington when it was built 10 years ago would have been about £30,000, which is nothing by comparison with the cost of the fire.
I am not primarily making an economic argument, however, although I believe that it is a strong one. My argument is about the safety of the public. The people who work in these buildings, and the firefighters who have to go into them to tackle the fires, face unacceptable risks which could be greatly reduced. The theory has been that single-storey retail buildings required sprinklers where possible, because of the possible loss of life. The same did not apply, however, to single-storey warehouse buildings. I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that the situation on the ground is much more complicated than that.
These buildings are very large. They are often crammed with goods and can be difficult to get out of. The fire service knows that, in these circumstances, managers are often reluctant to confirm that everybody has got out of the building. If that happens, firefighters have a duty to enter the building and search it whenever possible. When they do so, they face hidden fires, toxic smoke and the possible collapse of panelling and racking around them. That is an unacceptable risk for any public servant to have to face when it is not necessary to do so.
In these cases, it is certainly not necessary, because we have known what needs to be done for many years. Committees have reported to successive Governments about what needs to happen with these buildings, but the measures have never been enforced. As far back as 1946, the post-war building studies that aimed to learn the lessons from firefighting in the second world war recommended that warehouses of more than 10,000 sq ft should have sprinklers fitted. I am not very good at converting feet into metres, but I think that that is about 940 sq m, a tiny area by comparison with the buildings that we are dealing with here.
In 1970, a departmental committee on the fire service under the chairmanship of Sir Ronald Holroyd drew attention to the fact that fires could spread unseen in this type of building, and recommended the installation of sprinklers and automatic fire alarms. A report produced for the Home Office in 1980 suggested that 90 per cent. of our industrial buildings could effectively be protected by sprinklers. Yet we have not legislated for this. We prefer the risk assessment option, but that option has clearly not worked. We continue to have a great many of these fires, and people continue to be put at risk.
It is time for the Government to act. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I know many local authorities, including my own, that are very concerned about these buildings. They are afraid to act on their own, however, because they are afraid of chasing away jobs and investment. What is needed is Government action. We should, through our building regulations, be limiting the size of unsprinklered compartments to 2,000 sq m, and requiring the fitting of sprinklers in buildings such as these.

145
I hope that the Minister will also think seriously about ensuring that proper research is carried out into the use of alternative materials for sandwich panels and, if possible, about moving to require non-combustible cores to be used in them. I hope that, in any regulatory impact assessment that is undertaken, we will put into the equation not only the insurance costs but all the other costs that I have mentioned, which we, as members of the public, have to pay in the end.
The issue is about more than cost, as I have said. It is about whether we are prepared to put people's lives at risk inside these buildings. We hear a lot about reducing red tape, and I am not in favour of imposing unnecessary bureaucracy on anyone. However, I am not in favour of removing a single piece of red tape if it puts someone's life at risk.
I think my constituents who work in such buildings are being put at unnecessary risk, and I think that those in the fire service who have to deal with fires in them are also being put at unnecessary risk. I hope we will act to minimise that risk in the future. I hope we do not have to wait until, tragically, someone is seriously injured or killed before the necessity to act has been realised. We have seen that happen in the case of retail buildings; we should not wait for a similar tragedy to happen in a large single-storey warehouse before being prepared to amend the regulations to deal with such warehouses.
10.55 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on securing the debate, and on her speech. She clearly takes considerable interest in the subject, not least because of local experience, and she also has great expertise. She has raised this important issue not just in written parliamentary questions, but in early-day motion 241.
I am concerned about the number of fires that occur each year in all buildings, not just those that occur on warehouse, distribution and storage premises. This is a serious matter. It is important to learn lessons from fires that have occurred, and important for us all to take reasonable steps to prevent losses—and not just those in relation to death and injury—through fires.
The last decade has seen a considerable increase in the number and size of single-storey warehouse buildings. However, when we consult the supporting fire statistics we note that the occurrence of death and injury has remained reasonably static during the last seven years, and, in comparison with those in other buildings, is thankfully very low. I refer to the last seven years because our fire reporting system was revised in 1994, and before that a separate category for warehouses did not exist. According to our provisional figures for 2000 there were 630 recorded fires in warehouse-type buildings in England and Wales, giving rise to 30 injuries and—I am glad to say—no deaths.
My hon. Friend raised a number of issues relating to potential fire hazards on single-storey warehouse, distribution and storage premises. As in her early-day motion, she called for the building regulations to limit the compartment size of such single-storey buildings, and to require the installation of sprinklers in buildings where compartments exceed 2,000 sq m and the use of only non-combustible cores in all sandwich panels.
146
The building regulations—which are important in terms of the regulation of construction of such buildings—apply to most building work undertaken in England and Wales, typically the erection or extension of a building. The fire safety aspects of the regulations are intended to secure reasonable standards of health and safety for persons in or about buildings. However, they do not in themselves address economic loss or the effect of fire on the environment. The issue of economic loss is generally something that individual companies, in liaison with their insurers, are best placed to quantify. They are also best placed to establish what additional measures may be necessary to reduce the potential risk of property damage or business interruption from fire.
As my hon. Friend said, guidance on fire safety measures that will meet the requirements of the building regulations is given in approved document B, on fire safety. The guidance aims to ensure that buildings are as safe as can reasonably be expected, while giving designers as much flexibility as possible. The latest edition of approved document B, which came into force on 1 July 2000, includes a new provision limiting the compartment size of single-storey shops to 2,000 sq m, where previously there was no limit. The provision suggests, however, that where sprinklers are provided there should be no limit to the floor area of compartments. The need to restrict compartment size in single-storey shops was first proposed following a number of high-profile fires in large supermarket and DIY-type outlets, which led to concern about public and firefighter safety.
It is important to note that the definition of "shop", as given in approved document B, includes premises used
"for a retail trade or business".
It therefore generally includes all single-storey retail buildings, including the increasingly popular discount warehouse-type stores that are open to the public.
The provision of a 2,000 sq m threshold was set after consideration of the comments that were received as part of a much larger public consultation on approved document B, which closed in March 1998. The original proposal was for a compartment size threshold of 4,000 sq m in single-storey shop premises. However, we considered that a threshold of 2,000 sq m would ensure an even greater level of safety for occupants and firefighters alike.
The decision to limit the guidance on the use of sprinklers in the 2000 edition of approved document B to single-storey shops, as opposed to other types of building such as warehouses, was based on the central fact that there is greater potential for loss of lives in fires in shops. That is because of the large number of people who will be present within a shop, the fact that they will generally be unfamiliar with their surroundings and the level of managerial control that can be placed on members of the public, which is somewhat different from that which can be placed on staff in, say, a warehouse-type building. The decision to provide such guidance on single-storey shops was arrived at following a full regulatory impact assessment.
Owing to the recognised fact that the level of risk to occupants and firefighters can increase with height, the approved document already suggests maximum compartment volumes, both with and without sprinklers, for multi-storey storage-type buildings.

147
My hon. Friend suggested that only non-combustible core materials should be used for sandwich panels that are provided within single-storey warehouse and distribution buildings. The 2000 edition of approved document B offers guidance for the first time on the use of sandwich panels within buildings generally. The approved document recognises that the potential for problems in fires involving non-combustible cores is less than those for polymeric core materials and offers guidance accordingly.
The guidance suggests the type of core materials, including polymeric, that may be used in various circumstances, and recommends that where deviation from that guidance occurs, a risk assessment should be undertaken and appropriate additional fire precautions put in place. It also offers design recommendations in relation to the associated jointing and fixing systems that typically support such panel installations.
Given those amendments to approved document B, there are no immediate plans to introduce further amendments in relation to other single-storey premises. However, we are continuing to keep the issue under review. As with any new guidance within an approved document, any decision with regard to single-storey premises would need to take account of a range of views and expert advice, and be subject to a full regulatory impact assessment.
We shall consult in the summer on proposals for the reform of fire safety legislation for buildings in use, using an order under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. The purpose of the reform is to rationalise and modernise fire safety legislation, which is currently spread over numerous different statutes. It would provide for a risk-based approach to fire safety allowing more efficient and more effective enforcement by the fire service. We shall also aim to remove legislative overlap where possible.
Under our proposals, warehouses in use would be subject to one fire safety regime, which will apply to all occupants, not just employees. We shall also be considering whether the regime may protect people in the vicinity of a warehouse in case of fire. I would stress that the reformed legislation will not be prescriptive, but require fire precautions to be provided on the basis of risk assessment. Employers will be free to arrive at their own fire safety solutions so long as they meet the basic and central fire safety requirements. The regulatory reform order giving effect to these changes will, of course, be subject to a full regulatory impact assessment.
In the mean time, and in order to address concerns that have been raised in relation to large warehouse-type buildings, my Department has supported and contributed to the development of a guide for fire precautions in large storage and distribution buildings. The working group that has produced the guide was chaired by a member of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, and the Fire Brigades Union is also a member of the working group.
The guide will provide information and advice on issues to be considered in relation to fire precautions and firefighting in large warehouse-type buildings. It has been
148
written to assist developers, designers, property owners and managers in satisfying their statutory duties and aiding their commercial considerations.
In addition, the guide is intended to assist building control bodies and fire authorities to take an informed and consistent approach to the application of building regulations, firefighting precautions and the enforcement of fire precautions legislation, with respect to warehouse and distribution buildings. I understand that the guide is soon to be published by the Fire Protection Association.
My hon. Friend expressed concerns about ongoing fire safety in warehouses and the fact that even warehouses that are not frequented by a large number of members of the public often have poor escape routes. She suggested that that was a further cause for anxiety. In addition to guidance note B, there are fire precautions that are required in warehouses once they are in use. Those are normally governed by the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 and, where the warehouse has been designated as a factory, by the Fire Precautions Act 1971.
The Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations apply to virtually all places where people are employed to work, not just to retail establishments. The regulations, together with the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, require employers, first, to carry out a fire risk assessment; secondly, to identify the significant findings of the risk assessment; thirdly, to provide and maintain such fire precautions as are necessary to safeguard those who use the workplace; and lastly, to provide information, instruction and training to employees about the fire precautions.
Where certain processes are carried out at a warehouse, it may be designated as a factory and may therefore require a fire certificate under the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The fire certificate will be prepared by the fire authority, which in practice will be the local fire brigade. Before issuing a fire certificate, fire brigade officers will inspect the premises and satisfy themselves that adequate fire precautions are in place including the means of escape in case of fire, the means of fighting fire, and the means of giving warning in case of fire.
As with the building regulations, fire safety legislation is concerned with life safety. The requirement for any fire safety measure, such as a sprinkler system, will be determined according to whether it is necessary for the protection of employees or other occupants of the building.
I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates from my remarks that we fully recognise the importance of fire safety in all buildings, including warehouse, distribution and storage premises. I can assure her that the merits of any changes to the fire safety guidance in support of warehouse-type buildings will be a subject for consideration as part of our regulatory reform order proposals, on which we will be consulting over the summer, and any future revisions of the building regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Code of Conduct
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will set out the circumstances in which he considers it acceptable for major policy changes not to be first announced in the House in accordance with the Ministerial Code of Conduct; [43371]

  (2) on how many occasions since 8 January the No. 10 Press Office has, in accordance with paragraph 88 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, authorised initial announcements of (a) Government White Papers and (b) other major policy changes outside the House; and if he will make a statement. [43370]

  The Prime Minister
  Individual Ministers are responsible for determining the timing and form of individual announcements taking account of the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) which Minister is responsible for the enforcement of the Ministerial Code of 2001; [43843]

  (2) to whom complaints about breaches of the Ministerial Code should be made; [43842]

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister how many breaches of the Ministerial Code there have been since July 2001. [43839]

  The Prime Minister
  Section 1 of the Ministerial Code makes it clear that Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct in Parliament. It also sets out Ministers' responsibilities in relation to alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2002, ref 42839, for what reason Ministers' responsibilities in relation to the public do not specify giving accurate and truthful information outside Parliament. [43838]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Ministerial Code and for justifying their actions and conduct in Parliament.

  Ian Stillman
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Prime Minister if he raised the case of Ian Stillman with(a) President Narayanan and (b) Prime Minister Vajpayee on his trip to India in January. [43910]

  The Prime Minister
  The case was not raised during my discussions with President Narayanan and Prime Minister Vajpayee, which focused on other issues.
  2W
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the case on 27 February 2002 with the Indian Home Minister, L. K. Advani, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office raised it on 18 February 2002 with the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, Omar Abdullah.

  Our high commissioner in New Delhi raised Mr. Stillman's case with the Indian Home Secretary, Kamal Pande, on 20 December 2001. He also discussed it with Mr. Advani on 2 January 2002.

  Our high commission is doing all it can to ensure that the Indian authorities are meeting Mr. Stillman's welfare requirements adequately and that his forthcoming appeal to the Supreme Court is heard as quickly as possible.

  Senior Salaries Review Body
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an announcement about the Chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body. [44664]

  The Prime Minister
  I have appointed John Baker CBE to be Chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body from February 2002 for a period of three years.

WALES

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, columns 706–07W, on stolen equipment, what criminal proceedings have been undertaken for cases of theft against his Department, stating in each case (a) whether the proceedings (i) led to a criminal conviction and (ii) were unsuccessful, (b) the cost incurred by his Department in pursuing a conviction and (c) the value of items recovered; and if he will make a statement. [41502]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Unfortunately no culprit was identified for either theft, so it was not possible to launch criminal proceedings.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what her policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in her Department. [41026]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, is a small Department situated in central London and its staff are seconded to it from a number of parent Departments. The issue of relocating LSLO staff does not, therefore, arise.
  3W
  In the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service provides financial assistance to staff who are permanently transferred to a new location in the interests of the Department and, as a consequence, need to move home. The general principle employed in this situation is that staff will be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses actually and necessarily incurred as a result of the relocation. Details of the financial assistance available to CPS staff are contained in the Department's Travel and Subsistence Code.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  All the Treasury Solicitor's Department staff are located in London apart from a small group of eight staff who are co-located with their clients, the Ministry of Defence in Bristol. This small section was relocated from London to Bristol in 1998 and they were given the same relocation terms as applied to MOD staff.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department policy is that, where moves are voluntary, relocation expenses are not paid. As nearly all Treasury Solicitor's Department staff are based in London, the Department does not have a specific relocation policy. The circumstances where the Department might pay relocation expenses would be where staff who were co-located with their clients were being compulsorily moved. In such cases the Treasury Solicitor's Department would ensure that its staff received the same benefits as the clients.

  Serious Fraud Office

  Almost all of the Serious Fraud Office's permanent staff are based in central London. The very few that are not based in London are regionally based investigators working either from home or in local police stations.

  Therefore, the Serious Fraud Office does not offer relocation expenses to its existing staff

  Nor does the Serious Fraud Office offer relocation expenses to persons transferring to the Serious Fraud Office from other Government Departments, or to newly recruited staff who need to relocate in order to take up a post with the Serious Fraud Office.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many staff have been employed by her Department in each of the last 10 years. [42460]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The total numbers of staff employed by my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, over the last 10 years are included in the Treasury Solicitor's Department figures. Records are not available for the years 1992 to 1994.

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

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service has employed the following number of staff in each of the last 10 years:

  5,920.5 in 1992

  6,327.5 in 1993

  6,386.5 in 1994

  4W

  6,409 in 1995

  6,202.5 in 1996

  5,677 in 1997

  5,461.5 in 1998

  5,666.9 in 1999

  5,562 in 2000

  5,593.9 in 2001.

  These figures include all lawyers and administrative staff. Casual staff numbers are not included.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has employed the following number of staff in each of the last 10 years:

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  484.5 in 1992

  363.5 in 1993

  404 in 1994

  387.8 in 1995

  382.4 in 1996

  378.2 in 1997

  376.3 in 1998

  394.6 in 1999

  440 in 2000

  476.2 in 2001

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  24 in 1995

  26 in 1996

  23 in 1997

  30 in 1998

  28 in 1999

  30 in 2000

  30.8 in 2001

  Government Property Lawyers

  125.5 in 1993

  138 in 1994

  135.6 in 1995

  119.1 in 1996

  118.1 in 1997

  101.3 in 1998

  82.2 in 1999.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office was established in 1988. The numbers of staff employed by the Department since April 1988 are as follows:

  63 in 1988–89

  103 in 1990–91

  117 in 1991–92

  136 in 1992–93

  138 in 1993–94

  137 in 1994–95

  162 in 1995–96

  166 in 1996–97

  154 in 1997–98

  149 in 1998–99

  170 in 1999–2000

  178 in 2000–01.

  5W
  The figures have been obtained from Serious Fraud Office annual reports. The report for 1989–90 does not quote staff numbers. There are no other historical records containing staff numbers.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the total cost of her Department's website was in real terms in each of the last four years; and how many hits it received in each of those years. [36150]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, has had a Department website since February 2000. The costs incurred in connection with the Department website since its introductions are as follows:

  December 1999 to September 2000

  £1,000—Web hosting foundation

  February 2000

  £255—Housing costs

  £1,500—Design and build costs

  October 2000 to September 2001

  £1,000—Web maintenance

  February 2001

  £75—Hosting costs

  October 2001 to March 2002

  £600—Web maintenance

  February 2002 to February 2004

  £80—Domain name fee

  March 2002

  £7.50—Domain name hosting fee.

  The website has received approximately 20,414 homepage hits since February 2000.

  Details of the other Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The costs which have been incurred by the Crown Prosecution since 1998, in connection with its website are as follows:

  £625 in 1998–99

  £2,394 in 1999–2000

  £2,063 in 2000–01, and

  £5,721 from April to December 2001.

  These figures represent development costs as well as annual maintenance charges. The number of hits the website received in each of the last four years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 were 17,139, 31,152, 37,904 and 36,823 respectively.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) has hosted the Treasury Solicitor's Department website since February 1997 at a maintenance cost of approximately £500 per annum. In October 2001 the maintenance level was upgraded at an additional cost of £1,413.67 to the end
  6W
  of 2001. The website was upgraded in 2001 at a cost of £15,552. The annual costs since 1997 have been as follows:

  £549.06 in 1997

  £534.13 in 1998

  £521.54 in 1999

  £512.50 in 2000, and

  £17,465.97 in 2001.

  No records were kept of the number of hits on the website until April 2001. Since 30 April 2001 there have been 43,820 hits.

  Serious Fraud Office

  Prior to 1999 Serious Fraud Office website costs were subsumed into other CCTA costs and so cannot be identified without disproportionate cost. The Serious Fraud Office website which was in use between 1998 and 2001 was designed at no cost.

  The annual costs incurred by the Serious Fraud Office since 1999 are as follows:

  £750 in 1999–2000

  £585 in 2000–01, and

  £32,825 in 2001–02.

  The costs indicated relate to charges for amendments to the website rather than design or hosting. The new SFO website activated in August 2001 is considerably more sophisticated and up-datable than the previous website and this is reflected in the increased costs.

  Information on hits has been provided by the website administrative staff from the Open Government website, where Serious Fraud Office website hit details were previously displayed. More recent information on the new Serious Fraud Office website has been provided by IDnet, the current website host.

  A 'hit' has been interpreted to mean a request for information in the commonly accepted sense. The details of hits provided do not therefore equate with the number of individuals looking at the website.

  The annual number of hits received by the Serious Fraud Office website since 1998 are as follows:

  4,628 in 1998

  15,886 in 1999

  58,131 in 2000, and

  172,771 in 2001.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41053]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: In my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, costs incurred in relation to travel and accommodation form part of the Treasury Solicitor's Department's records. The Treasury Solicitor's Department could not provide information in the form

  7W
  requested without incurring disproportionate cost. The total amount spent on travel and accommodation in each of the last four years was as follows:

  £56,000 in 1998–99

  £58,000 in 1999–2000

  £83,000 in 2000–01

  £51,000 in 2001–02.

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

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The records held by the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to hotel costs do not permit the identification of hotel accommodation costs from the overnight subsistence rates paid to CPS staff.

  The total cost of hotel accommodation and overnight subsistence payments for Crown Prosecution Service staff working away from home in each of the last four years was as follows:

  £306,740.37 in 1997–98

  £436,269.76 in 1998–99

  £690,934.96 in 1999–2000

  £915,051.34 in 2000–01.

  Night Subsistence Allowance (NSA) is available to members of staff to cover the costs of overnight absences on official business. The Crown Prosecution Service reimburses the cost of bed and breakfast accommodation, within certain limits, and provides a flat rate personal allowance to cover the cost of meals and incidental travel. An additional allowance is payable to cover telephone calls, newspapers and soft drinks etc. The current accommodation cost limits and personal allowances are:
  London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle and York—up to £95 per 24 hours bed and breakfast accommodation.
  Elsewhere—up to £65 per 24 hours bed and breakfast accommodation.
  24 hour meal and incidental travel allowance—£20.
  24 hour personal and incidental expenditure allowance—£5.

  The CPS also employs a hotel-booking agency through which staff are obliged to make arrangements for overnight accommodation. This provides the Department with discounted hotel rates and management control over accommodation expenditure.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department could not provide information in the form requested without incurring disproportionate cost. The total amount spent on travel and accommodation by the Treasury Solicitor's Department and its agencies in each of the last four years was as follows:

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  £327,000 in 1998–99

  £202,000 in 1999–2000

  £396,000 in 2000–01

  £318,000 in 2001–02

  Government Property Lawyers

  £10,000 in 1998–99

  £37,000 in 1999–2000

  £1,000 in 2000–01

  £0 in 2001–02

  8W
  Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  £0 in 1998–99

  £0 in 1999–2000

  £0 in 2000–01

  £130,000 in 2001–02.

  The above figures do not distinguish between travel and accommodation, nor between costs incurred in the course of official business and on events such as training courses.

  Serious Fraud Office

  Serious Fraud Office incurred the following subsistence costs in each of the last four years.

  £129,707 in 1997–98

  £92,628 in 1998–99

  £97,564 in 1999–2000

  £158,879 in 2000–01.

  SFO staff incur expenditure on hotel and similar accommodation when on official duty, both within the UK and overseas. Costs are incurred in relation to both operational activity and administrative activity (training etc.). Costs incurred and recorded are either based on subsistence rates, actual cost or a mixture of the two but often include the additional cost of food (ie bed and breakfast).

  Therefore the above subsistence costs include the cost of hotel accommodation. To derive the actual costs of hotel accommodation in each of the last four years would involve disproportionate cost.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in her Department. [41045]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: In my Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, there are currently no members of staff who job share.

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

  Crown Prosecution Service

  There are currently 14 members of staff who are job-sharing in the Department: 10 administrators/caseworkers and four lawyers.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department strongly encourages job sharing. In the last year there have been four job share partnerships, two of which recently came to an end. Currently there is one legal and one administrative job share partnership in the Department.

  Regular meetings are held to encourage those people who wish to work part time, to raise issues common to part timers and to promote the job sharing policy.

  On recruitment, the Department will offer a person the opportunity of working part time or job sharing. The normal presumption is that any post can be job shared.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office offers permanent staff the option to job share; however, at present none of the Department's staff has opted to do so.
  9W
  In December 2001 the Serious Fraud Office introduced a range of flexible working arrangements for staff, including the option to job share. The purpose in doing so was (i) to offer staff more family friendly options and thus improve morale and motivation (ii) to improve the recruitment and retention position and (iii) to promote Government policies.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment she has made of the extent of the gender pay gap among staff in her Department. [41001]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, which has less than 35 permanent staff, is generally staffed by officials on secondment for a period of two to three years from their parent Departments. Their pay is determined by the particular arrangements of their parent Departments and as such is not susceptible for review by LSLO. Disparity of pay within LSLO is a reflection of the differing pay scales of parent Departments and so no useful assessment of gender pay gap could be made.

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

  Crown Prosecution Service

  In accordance with Government policy, the Crown Prosecution Service is committed to an audit of its pay systems and structure and the preparation of an action plan to address any equal pay issues, by April 2003. The Crown Prosecution Service is currently engaged in the trial of a new Equal Pay Audit Model to be published by the Equal Opportunities Commission in due course. This trial will produce data on the extent of any gender pay gap in the Crown Prosecution Service by the end of May 2002.

  Following the Equal Pay Review, the aims of the Crown Prosecution Service are to:
  Jointly consider whether any reasons the Department may identify for differences in average basic pay or total earnings for men and women doing equal work provide an objective justification for that difference;
  Introduce an equal pay policy for the Crown Prosecution Service;
  Change the processes, rules and practices that may give rise to unequal pay;
  Give equal pay to current and future employees;
  Set up a system of monitoring and clear accountability to ensure the pay system is free of sex bias.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  In line with the Government policy enunciated last year by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Treasury Solicitor's Department is reviewing its pay systems to establish whether any equal pay gaps exist and, if there are gaps, to prepare an action plan to close them.

  Serious Fraud Office

  In response to the Government's programme to improve reward management systems, in August 2001 the Serious Fraud Office conducted a comprehensive review of its pay and grading systems. This resulted in the introduction of a new pay structure for all permanent staff below the Senior Civil Service, with effect from 1 August 2001. Staff were assimilated into the new structure by
  10W
  reference to their seniority and performance. The new structure guarantees satisfactory performers progression to 80 per cent. of their pay band within five years, and to the top of their pay band within a further seven years.

  The Serious Fraus Office has not yet conducted an Equal Pay Audit, not least because central "How to" guidance was only issued by Cabinet Office in mid February 2002.

  Rail Travel (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General 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. [37494]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: In my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, details of the cost of rail travel incurred by the Department in each of the last four years is included in the Treasury Solicitor's Department's records. Separate details could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

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

  1997–98

  Total Cost: £483,000

  First Class: £168,000

  Percentage: 34.8.

  1998–99

  Total Cost: £583,000

  First Class: £247,000

  Percentage: 42.4.

  1999–2000

  Total Cost: £770,000

  First Class: £387,000

  Percentage: 50.3.

  2000–01

  Total Cost: £742,000

  First Class: £318,000

  Percentage: 42.9.

  The Crown Prosecution Service does not retain records of the number of rail journeys and cannot provide the average cost of a first class journey. Nor can the total cost be broken down by civil service grade.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The contract management and financial analysis systems currently in place in the Treasury Solicitor's Department mean that the information requested could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  The relevant systems are being upgraded as part of the improvement in financial management on which the Treasury Solicitor's Department embarked some months ago. Most of the improvements should be concluded during the course of the financial year 2002–03.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The details requested could not be provided without the Serious Fraud Office incurring disproportionate cost.

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by her Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost to public funds in each case is. [38940]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The costs of the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, in the last four years are included in the Treasury Solicitor's Department figures.

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

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service has equipment leasing arrangements for reprographic equipment. The expenditure for each of the last four financial years has been as follows:

  £1,132,260 in 1998–99

  £1,306,327 in 1999–2000

  £1,378,663 in 2000–01

  £1,001,299 in 2001–02 (to date).

  The Crown Prosecution Service has had contracts with various reprographics suppliers during the period in question. These contracts provide a range of services including the rental of machinery, managed print room services and the provision of maintenance.

  The expenditure quoted for reprographics includes all elements of the services including copy costs. It has not been possible to determine the costs of the equipment rentals themselves from the centrally held data.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers have entered into equipment leasing arrangements for photocopying facilities. The costs in each of the last four years were as follows:

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  £76,728 in 1998–99

  £45,884 in 1999–2000

  £101,612 in 2000–01

  £71,879 in 2001–02 (to date)

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  £7,804 in 1998–99

  £6,875 in 1999–2000

  £6,151 in 2000–01

  £1,972 in 2001–02 (to date).

  Serious Fraud Office

  The cost of the equipment "leasing arrangements" entered into by the Serious Fraud Office in the last four years is as follows:

  Photocopiers

  £146,895.33 in 1997–98

  £98,184.79 in 1998–99

  £118,237.36 in 1999–2000

  £53,070.75 in 2000–01

  Office Equipment

  £0 in 1997–98

  £0 in 1998–99

  £69.33 in 1999–2000

  £423.01 in 2000–01

  12W
  Fax Machines

  £0 in 1997–98

  £636.72 in 1998–99

  £699.58 in 1999–2000

  £0 in 2000–01.

  Much of the equipment is held on short-term hire arrangements rather than on leasing arrangements.

TREASURY

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 704W, on stolen equipment, what criminal proceedings have been undertaken for cases of theft against his Department, stating in each case (a) whether the proceedings (i) led to a criminal conviction and (ii) were unsuccessful, (b) the cost incurred by his Department in pursuing a conviction and (c) the value of items recovered; and if he will make a statement. [41584]

  Ruth Kelly
  Our policy is to involve the police in all cases that involve theft. In the cases of those items recorded as stolen as set out in my answer of 22 January, there was insufficient evidence to support criminal proceedings.

  Sponsorship
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 116W, on conference sponsorship, if he will place in the Library the document that sets out the benefits of sponsorship for the sponsor referred to in the July 1998 Cabinet Office guidelines on sponsorship; and if he will make a statement. [38311]

  Ruth Kelly
  I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to the "Mintel Report 1998" which is referred to in the first paragraph of the July 2000 Cabinet Office Guidance on Sponsorship of Government Activities. This is a commercial publication entitled "Sponsorship 1998" and available from Mintel International Group Ltd. (Tel. 020 7606 6000). Mintel issued a further report in 2000 entitled "Sponsorship 2000".

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many meetings he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review. [43224]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Secretary of State for Wales represents Welsh interests within the Government. Treasury Ministers meet on occasion with Ministers of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the National Assembly for Wales regarding the Comprehensive Spending Review within the last 12 months. [43223]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury Ministers receive representations from the National Assembly for Wales on a range of issues.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [43256]

  Ruth Kelly
  Public Service Agreement targets are an integral part of the spending review process. No changes have been made to the targets since the 2000 Spending Review.

  International Monetary Fund
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the Assessment of the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund following the conclusion of its 2001 Article IV consultation with the UK; and if he will make a statement. [43929]

  Ruth Kelly
  We welcome the IMF's 2001 Article IV report and the Assessment of the Executive Board, which commended the Government for the "impressive" performance of the UK economy, saying this "owes much to sound macro-economic policies, the unwavering observance of a strong policy framework, and sustained structural reforms".

  Our response to the report is set out in the UK's statement to the IMF Executive Board, published on 7 March 2002.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he collates on the relative value of public and private pension schemes in determining equivalence of remuneration. [43135]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury does not keep data centrally on equivalence of remuneration and does not collate information on pensions for that purpose.

  Travel-to-work Areas
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of residents of each travel-to-work area work outside that area. [43244]

  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. Turner dated 18 March 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about travel-to-work-areas. (43244)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of employment rates according to the travel-to-work-areas (TTWA) in which people are resident. Although information about people's workplace is also available from the LFS, this could only be analysed by TTWA at disproportionate cost.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he intends to reply to the National Audit Office report entitled "Joining Up to Improve Public Services"; [43102]
  14W
  (2) when he intends to reply to the National Audit Office report entitled "Managing the Relationship to Secure a Successful Partnership in PFI Projects"; [43104]

  (3) when he intends to reply to the National Audit Office report entitled "Modern Policy-Making: Ensuring Policies Deliver Value for Money"; [43106]

  (4) when he intends to reply to the National Audit Office report entitled "Giving Confidently: The role of the Charity Commission in Regulating Charities"; [43105]

  (5) when he intends to reply to the National Audit Office report entitled 'Innovation in PFI Financing: The Treasury Building Project'. [43103]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Public Accounts Committee held hearings on each of these reports on the following dates:"Managing the Relationship to Secure a Successful Partnership in PH Projects"—12 December 2001.
  "Joining up to improve public services"—17 December 2001.
  "Modern Policy-Making: Ensuring Policies Deliver Value for Money"—2I January 2002.
  "Giving Confidently: The role of the Charity Commission in Regulating Charities"—28 November 2001.
  "Innovation in PH Financing: The Treasury Building Project"—21 November 2001.

  The Government will of course reply at the earliest opportunity to the Committee's reports on these topics when they are published.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Rwanda
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what work her Department is funding to aid the refugees clustered around Lake Kivu in Rwanda after January's volcanic eruption in Congo. [43078]

  Clare Short
  DFID made contributions totalling £2 million to relief agencies active in addressing the needs of people affected by the eruption of Mount Nyaragongo shortly after the eruption. These agencies have been active both in DRC and in Rwanda. In Rwanda the Red Cross have been particularly active, assisted in part by a grant from DFID.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the impact on the stability of north-west Rwanda of the population moves following the volcanic eruption in the Congo in January. [43079]

  Clare Short
  We understand that relatively few of those affected by the eruption of Mount Nyaragongo are in north-west Rwanda. Although many sought sanctuary there immediately after the eruption, most returned to DRC soon afterwards. The Red Cross reported on 7 March that just over 5,000 people have remained in Rwanda. There is no evidence that the presence of these refugees is causing instability in the region.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the number and expected cost to her Department of special advisers in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [43269]

  Clare Short
  The number of special advisers is two and the expected salary costs are as follows:

  £

  2001–02

  83,923

  2002–03

  101,000

  Corruption
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of possible levels of corruption in relation to agreements under the CFP in(a) Angola, (b) Cape Verde, (c) the Comoros Islands, (d) the Cote d'Ivoire, (e) Gabon, (f) Guinea Bissau, (g) The Republic of Guinea, (h) Equatorial Guinea, (i) Madagascar, (j) Mauritius, (k) Mauritania, (1) Sao Tome and Principie, (m) Senegal and (n) the Seychelles; and what measures the Government have in place to monitor corruption in those countries. [43021]

  Clare Short
  UK responsibility for EU Common Fisheries Policy is taken by DEFRA. My Department has not assessed corruption in relation to Common Fisheries Policy agreements with the countries mentioned. However, the Government is seeking, along with our European partners, greater coherence in the implementation of EC's development and other external policies. We welcomed the endorsement of the EC's "Poverty and Fisheries" strategy at the Development Council in November 2001. The strategy calls for future fisheries agreements to be subject to "observance of the principles of good governance, with financial compensation having to be paid and used in accordance with sound budgetary management practice".

  St. Helena
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she is giving to the Government of St. Helena to diversify its economy; and if she will make a statement. [43496]

  Clare Short
  A Country Policy Plan, for the three year period 2000–01 to 2002–03, was agreed between HMG and the St. Helena Government (SHG) in January 2000. SHG committed itself to a significant change programme, designed to make St. Helena more self sufficient, by promoting the private sector and raising the efficiency of the public sector. In return, we agreed to provide £29 million in development assistance over the period 2000–01 to 2002–03. This represented an increase of £3 million over the previous three year agreement, and a modest increase in real terms. We hope to discuss a new three year programme towards the end of this year.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the humanitarian problems in Afghanistan are; and how her Department is helping to tackle them. [43080]
  16W
  Clare Short
  Despite three years of drought and 23 years of conflict, and the recent insecurity and population displacement, widespread famine in Afghanistan has been averted by the early and effective actions of the humanitarian community. Over 6.6 million people have been provided with food aid over the past six months, as well as other essential relief supplies such as tents, clothing and cooking equipment.

  However, with the prospect of a fourth year of drought this year, and continued limited access to some areas of Afghanistan, the humanitarian situation remains fragile and significant needs will remain for a least the coming year in challenging and volatile operating conditions. The Immediate and Transition Assistance Programme for the Afghan People, prepared by the UN and agreed with the Afghan Interim Administration (AIA), sets out the current humanitarian situation and the challenges ahead, up to the end of December 2002. The programme estimates that approximately 9 million Afghans, including over 1 million internally displaced persons (IDPs), are in need of assistance in Afghanistan in 2002.

  My Department has committed over £60 million since September 2001 to support both the AIA and the United Nations-led humanitarian and recovery effort. This assistance is being channelled through United Nations agencies, the Red Cross movement and non-governmental organisations for projects covering a wide range of sectors. In addition, at the Tokyo Conference on the Reconstruction of Afghanistan, we pledged £200 million over the next five years for both reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. The World bank is in the process of establishing the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF) as a way of streamlining donor assistance to Afghanistan from July 2002 onwards. We intend to contribute to the ARTF on its establishment, as well as continuing to channel funds directly through humanitarian and development agencies working in Afghanistan.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 698W, on stolen equipment, what criminal proceedings have been undertaken for cases of theft against her Department, stating in each case (a) whether the proceedings (i) led to a criminal conviction and (ii) were unsuccessful, (b) the cost incurred by her Department in pursuing a conviction and (c) the value of items recovered; and if she will make a statement. [41586]

  Clare Short
  It is our practice to report thefts to the police. In the absence of any evidence as to who was responsible no criminal proceedings have been taken, nor have we recovered any of the items.

  Departmental Contracts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by her Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [43669]
  17W
  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development gave on 28 February 2002,Official Report, column 1464W.

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the functions of her Department that have been(a) market tested and (b) outsourced in each of the last five years, specifying the (i) money saving and (ii) percentage saving in each case. [42995]

  Clare Short
  DFID has not market tested or outsourced any functions in the last five years.

  Food Security
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many responses have been received to the consultation document, "Eliminating Hunger: DFID food security strategy and priorities for action". [43081]

  Clare Short
  We have received 27 written responses on the consultation document. In addition, verbal feedback has been received from a number of other organisations, which intend to provide a written response in due course.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she 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. [43261]

  Clare Short
  No public service agreement (PSA) targets have been revised or newly introduced since the publication of DFID's 2001 departmental report. We will report on progress against targets under the 1999–2002 and the 2001–04 PSAs in our 2002 departmental report, which will be published next month.

  Cuba
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid the UK Government have provided to Cuba in each of the last five years and for what projects. [42906]

  Clare Short
  Total bilateral aid to Cuba for the years 1996–97 to 2000–01 is detailed in Table 7.2 (on page 89) of DFID's report, "Statistics on International Development" (2001 edition), which is available in the Library of the House. A list of projects will be placed in the Library of the House.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  London Underground
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will 18W
  make a statement on the level of Government guarantees being provided to Metronet and Tube Lines for debt raised to fund investment in the underground. [36317]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on Monday 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 786W. No Government guarantee is being issued to Metronet and Tube Lines in respect of the debt they are raising to fund investment.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) for what percentage of the debt on the moneys borrowed under the PPP for the London Underground he is prepared to offer a letter of comfort; [37212]

  (2) if he will ask Ernst and Young to consider what effects a letter of comfort guaranteeing 95 per cent. of the debt on the PPP for the London Underground would have on their value for money report; [37211]

  (3) if he will publish the letter of comfort written to the bidder under the PPP for the London Underground. [37213]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on Monday 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 786W. Ernst and Young were aware of the terms of the proposed letter when they produced their value for money report.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [39156]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1072W.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 782W, how much Coucher Pender Ltd. is being paid for the services rendered. [39159]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The amount of payment will depend on how long the process continues and whether the CLG bid is successful or not.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many new carriages have been brought into use by train operating companies on the UK network in the last six months; and how many new carriages have been ordered since Railtrack went into administration. [44235]

  Mr. Spellar
  Approximately 270 vehicles have entered service on the national rail network in the last six months and 603 new vehicles have been ordered since Railtrack went into administration on 7 October 2001.

  Transport Budgets
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of total local government grant provided by central Government have been allocated to local transport plans and budgets in each of the past six years. [39429]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Resignations
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what severance package was offered to Mr. Martin Sixsmith as a result of his resignation. [40177]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by Sir Richard Mottram, the permanent secretary of my Department, on 25 February 2002. A copy of this is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many press releases were issued by his Department or its predecessor(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40043]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The infomation is as follows:

  (a) DETR (central) and the former Department of Transport and Environment:

  1 May to 31 December 1997: 577

  (b) DETR(c)

  1998: 1,121

  1999: 1,248

  2000: 789

  DETR(c)/DTLR

  2001: 562.

  Correspondence
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter from the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for electoral law written to the hon. Member for Lichfield dated 12 February, ref: AW/001457/02. [40685]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have arranged for a copy of this letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Melton Borough Council
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department has to remit the payment to Melton borough council under the Government's Pathfinder scheme owing since October 2001. [40845]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Melton borough council have had up to date funds paid to them against claims made in connection with their work on the local government online pathfinder scheme. Under the conditions laid out in the Special Grant Report to Parliament, release of such funding is subject to satisfactory performance. Additional 20W
  funding for dissemination activities will be paid to all pathfinder authorities following the completion of their projects, subject to the approval of Parliament.

  Railways
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what advice he has received from(a) the Strategic Rail Authority and (b) the Rail Regulator on the ownership of assets by special purpose vehicles in the rail industry. [43631]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 4 February 2002, Official Report, columns 728–29W. Ownership of the assets created by special purpose vehicles is one of the matters to be resolved case by case.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many meetings he has had with the Rail Regulator since 5 October 2001; and on what dates those meetings took place. [43639]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 11 December 2001, Official Report, column 789W.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 28 February, ref 32696, on rail passengers, if he will list those TOCs which have been required to develop action plans and indicate the type of action plans which have been undertaken. [41246]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A list of each train operating company, and the type of action plan that they have been required to produce has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will state the proportion of stations which have access to(a) customer information screens, (b) public address announcements and (c) help point buttons; and if he will list the stations which (i) have and (ii) do not have access to each; [40948]

  (2) how much has been invested by the railway industry since 25 February 1999 on (a) security staff and (b) installation of video camera surveillance at stations and station car parks; and if he will state (i) how many and (ii) which stations and station car parks have received additional (A) security staff and (B) video surveillance over this time; [40960]

  (3) how much has been invested by the railway industry between 25 February 1999 and April 2000 in passenger information systems in stations. [40959]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the period from 1 April 1999 until September 2001, private sector capital of £155 million was secured by train operating companies, of which around £54 million was invested in stations. The detailed information is not held centrally.
  21W
  The National Rail Summit commitments were made by the industry and the associated data were provided by them.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the responsibilities of his(a) Rail Delivery Directorate and (b) Railways Restructuring Directorate; if he will list the projects which are (i) under way and (ii) have been completed, in each directorate since June 2001; and if he will make a statement. [40954]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Rail Delivery Directorate works with the Strategic Rail Authority, other railway stakeholders and other parts of government to improve the performance of today's railway and to deliver the key 10-Year Plan targets. The Railways Restructuring Directorate is working to ensure that the successor to Railtrack, and the regulatory system within which it will operate, are fit for purpose.

  Both directorates support DTLR Ministers in a range of duties focused on these objectives.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list(a) the number of staff employed in each key area of the railway industry, (b) the total requirement for staff in each key area, (c) staff shortage numbers for each key area, (d) the number of individuals (i) in training and (ii) trained for each key area and (e) the number of individuals (A) retiring and (B) leaving employment in each key area for each year since 1995. [41125]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent research he has commissioned on the linkage between rail fares and demand. [41647]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The linkage between rail fares and demand was modelled for the 10-Year Plan, with the results published in the Background Analysis document. This modelling work will be reviewed and developed as part of the first review of the Plan this year, both in a rail specific context and on a multi-modal basis as part of the National Transport Model.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the improvements to the rail network in the West Midlands outlined in the 10 year plan document. [41759]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's (SRA's) Strategic Plan sets out its priorities for the short, medium and long term and includes national schemes which will benefit the West Midlands, for example, the Train Protection & Warning System, Freight Facilities Grants, Incremental Output Statements for track, signalling and stations, and Rail Passenger Partnership and Rail Performance Funds.

  The West Midlands will benefit too, from enhanced services provided under the Cross Country and West Coast franchises and from proposed freight upgrades—such as Felixstowe-Nuneaton. The SRA's Plan also identifies a number of specific projects for the West Midlands including service, performance and infrastructure improvements, as well as additional rolling stock.

  Local Government Finance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the local authorities which lodged complaints with his Department about SSA allocations for 2002–03. [41675]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department consulted local authorities on its proposals for the funding of local government revenue expenditure in 2002–03 on 4 December 2001. As part of that consultation the Government, as usual, received a large number of responses from councils with their view on the proposals and also correcting where necessary the data used in standard spending assessments as we had requested.

  Council Housing
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has collated on the average(a) market value based on right to buy sales, (b) adjusted vacant possession values and (c) value for stock transfer purposes of council houses in Walsall (i) under direct council management and (ii) managed by a tenant management organisation. [41750]

  Ms Keeble
  Walsall metropolitan borough council has provided the Department with an average market value based on right to buy sales of £35,100 for both the council houses in Walsall under direct council management and those managed by a tenant management organisation. Walsall is not required to submit information on adjusted vacant possession values of their stock. The valuations for housing transfer purposes have yet to be agreed.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers the Government have to compel councils to build houses under the unitary development plan. [43508]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The Government have no powers in relation to unitary development plans to compel councils to build houses. However, unitary development plans are expected to provide sufficient housing land to meet the housing requirements of the whole community. Priority should be given to re-using urban brownfield sites in preference to greenfield land.

  The Secretary of State can direct changes to unitary development plans which conflict with national and regional housing policies without good local justification. He can also call in planning applications where the provision of housing is at issue.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to his Department of the Parental Leave Directive. [42476]

  Dr. Whitehead
  It is estimated that the financial costs to the Department are minimal. There has been no significant take-up within DTLR since the directive was implemented. The Department is committed to implementing policies that help members of staff achieve a better work/life balance.

  Electoral Reform
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans the Government have to review the electoral system used for elections to(a) the office of London Mayor, (b) the Greater London Assembly, (c) the Scottish Parliament and (d) the Welsh Assembly; and if he will make a statement on the structure and timing of any review; [42777]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to implement the recommendations of the Jenkins Commission on changing the voting system for the House. [42780]

  Mr. Byers
  In our manifesto setting out our intentions for this Parliament, we said we would review the experience of the new electoral systems for the devolved Assemblies, the European Parliament and the Greater London Assembly, together with the report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System chaired by Lord Jenkins, to assess whether changes might be made to the electoral system for the House of Commons. We have no plans for other reviews of voting systems.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to review the closed list electoral system for the European Parliament; and if he will make a statement on the structure and timing of the review. [42776]

  Mr. Byers
  A Home Office review of the 1999 European Parliamentary election, published in May 2000, and available on the DTLR website, included a review of the effect of the closed list voting system on turnout.

  Staff Suspensions
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many members of staff have been suspended on full pay in each of the last five years; and how many were subsequently reinstated. [41994]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: There have been a small number of cases over the last five years, in which members of staff have been suspended on full pay, eg if alleged gross misconduct or criminal offences need to be investigated. Papers relating to such cases are kept separately and only added to personal files in the event that the allegations are proven. In the event that the allegations are unfounded and the individual is reinstated, any papers relating to the investigation are destroyed. It is not therefore possible to answer the question in the form requested.

  Farming
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what advice his Department provides to local authorities and the Inland Revenue concerning the collection of business rates from farms engaged in(a) share farming, (b) contract farming and (c) machinery rings. [42679]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Valuation Office Agency of the Inland Revenue, and its valuation officers, have a statutory duty to maintain the non-domestic rating lists, under the legislation in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and relevant case law. It is a decision for the 24W
  valuation officer in each case whether or not a farm qualifies for the current agricultural exemption from rates, in accordance with his or her statutory responsibilities.

  It is not for my Department to provide formal advice to valuation officers on the exercise of their statutory duties. Nor is there any need for formal guidance to local authorities, whose responsibilities in this case are simply to issue bills in respect of hereditaments that valuation officers have entered in the rating lists. We will, of course, review policy when necessary and this process has led to the proposal in the White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", to amend the legislation to extend the agricultural exemption to share farming, contract farming and machinery rings.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will define the meaning of contract farming in paragraph 7.52 of the White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership-Quality Public Services". [42703]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The consultation paper on "Extending the Agricultural Exemption from Non-Domestic Rates to Machinery Rings and Share Farming Enterprises", published on 16 February 2001, referred to in paragraph 7.52 of the White Paper, included a detailed explanation of the meaning of contract/share farming.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Government plans to introduce legislation to extend agricultural exemption from business rates to share farming, contract farming and machinery rings as outlined in paragraph 7.52 of the White Paper Strong Local Leadership-Quality Public Services. [42708]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We will introduce legislation when parliamentary time allows.

  Rural Work Force
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the rural work force travel to their place of work by(a) foot, (b) bicycle, (c) bus, (d) train and (e) car; and if he will make a statement. [42904]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information is available only in respect of people living in rural areas, not by place of work. From the National Travel Survey, the distribution of mode of travel to work for people living in rural areas in Great Britain over the period 1992–2000 was as follows:

  (a) foot—10 per cent.,

  (b) bicycle—3 per cent.,

  (c) bus—4 per cent.,

  (e) car—79 per cent.

  The sample size is too small to give an accurate figure for transport by train, but it is less than 3 per cent. Rural areas are those with a population of less than 3,000 as defined by the 1991 Census.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the rural work force lives(a) less than 30 minutes, (b) 30 minutes to one hour, (c) one to two hours, (d) two to three hours and (e) more than three hours away from their place of work. [42911]
  25W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Information is available only in respect of people living in rural areas, not by place of work. From the National Travel Survey, the distribution of time spent by travelling to work by people living in rural areas in Great Britain is as follows:

  (a) less than 30 minutes—78 per cent.

  (b) 30 minutes to one hour—29 per cent.

  (c) one to two hours—12 per cent.

  Data have been aggregated over the years 1992–2000 because the number of rural dwellers in the sample each year is small, and it is not possible to give accurate figures for journeys that take more than two hours. The figures are taken from travel diaries so they reflect actual journeys, rather than usual journeys, and may contain double counting as some people will have journeys of different lengths during the survey week. Rural areas are those with a population of less than 3,000 as defined by the 1991 Census.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will undertake an analysis of the effectiveness of the Australian system of liquefied petroleum gas identification to alert emergency services in the result of a fire; [43097]

  (2) what assessment the Government have made of the effectiveness of the voluntary red sticker system for identifying cars running on liquefied petroleum gas; and if he will make a statement. [43096]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have no knowledge of the voluntary red sticker system and have made no assessment or analysis of the Australian system for alerting their fire services to the use of vehicles fuelled with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Consideration is being given to the marking requirements of vehicles fuelled in this way as part of the LPG construction standards.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many cases of boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion involving vehicles which run on liquefied petroleum gas have been reported in each year since 1999. [43094]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We do not hold any information on such incidents. The Fire Service is discussing safety issues with the vehicle manufacturers

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment the Government have made of the effectiveness of the guidance which is available regarding pressure relief valves in the conversion of UK vehicles to liquefied petroleum gas. [43098]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department does not issue guidance regarding the use of pressure relief valves as their performance requirements are clearly stated in the Road vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. The LP Gas Association (LPGA) issues guidance (COP 11) to its members and the general public, part of which refers to ECE Regulation 67:01 which is currently being implemented in the Construction and Use Regulations as an alternative to the existing requirements. We are content that this information is satisfactory.
  26W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what markings are required on UK vehicles to show that they run on liquefied petroleum gas. [43095]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no markings required by legislation to show that a vehicle is run on liquefied petroleum gas.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what regulations exist covering the fitting of liquefied petroleum gas conversion kits to UK vehicles. [43090]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The fitting of liquefied petroleum gas conversions kits is regulated by regulations 40, 94 and schedule 5 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have further to regulate(a) the sale and (b) the fitting of liquefied petroleum conversion kits for UK vehicles. [43099]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Consideration is being given to the introduction of regulations to control the standards for the fitting of liquefied petroleum conversion kits for UK vehicles. As yet no decisions have been made as to what form these regulations may take and how they may be implemented.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [43251]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There have been no revisions to the Spending Review 2000 Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets published in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' 2001 annual report. Following the machinery of government changes in June 2001 responsibility for the following six targets transferred to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:Improve air quality by meeting our National Air Quality Strategy targets for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particles, sulphur dioxide, benzene and 1–3 butadiene;
  Improve the environment and the sustainable use of natural resources, including by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. from 1990 levels and moving towards a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by 2010;
  Enable 17 per cent. of household waste to be recycled or composted by 2004;
  Reduce fuel poverty among vulnerable households by improving the energy efficiency of 600,000 homes between 2001 and 2004;
  Open up public access to mountain, moor, heath and down and registered common land by the end of 2005; and
  Bring into favourable condition by 2010 95 per cent. of all nationally important wildlife sites, compared to 60 per cent. of sites currently estimated to be in such condition.
  27W
  Responsibility for the remaining DETR PSA targets remains with my Department. In addition, the following PSA target has been transferred to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions from the Home Office:
  Reduce the incidence of accidental fire-related deaths in the home by 20 per cent. averaged over the five year period to March 2004 compared with the average recorded in the five year period to March 1999.

  Fire Safety
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last made an assessment of fire safety at Shoreham Harbour. [43710]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: Inspections of workplaces in respect of general fire precautions are carried out by local fire authorities. Inspections are made of individual premises and other workplaces and recorded as such. Consequently it is not possible to give a date for inspection of the harbour as a whole. The last inspection of a premises in the harbour area was of a factory subject to a fire certificate under the Fire Precautions Act 1971. This was carried out on 19 February 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many fire-related deaths in dwellings in Buckinghamshire there were in each year since 1997. [43290]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is contained in the table and refers to those fires, which the Buckinghamshire fire and rescue service attended between 1997 and 2000.

  Fire-related deaths by location, attended by Buckinghamshire fire and rescue service, 1997–2000

  Total deaths

  Dwelling1

  Other buildings

  Other outdoors

  1997

  12

  7

  2

  3

  1998

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1999

  5

  4

  1

  —

  20002

  10

  7

  —

  3

  1 Dwellings are defined as buildings occupied by households, excluding hotels, hostels and residential institutions. They also include caravans, houseboats and other non-building structures used solely as a permanent dwelling.

  2 2000 data are provisional, and are subject to revision as later information from inquests and death certificates confirming cause of death is received.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list fire stations which have(a) opened and (b) closed in Buckinghamshire since 1997. [43291]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No fire stations have opened or closed in Buckinghamshire during this period.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Bercow>
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of those who were sleeping rough in 1998 and are no longer doing so are now in paid employment. [43108]
  28W
  Ms Keeble
  Personal details of rough sleepers in 1998 were in many cases not recorded, making it hard to track their progress away from the street and into housing, training and employment. As part of delivering its strategy the unit has now put in place client monitoring systems to track the progress of individuals in their move from sleeping rough to independent living. These systems are subject to review and further development.

  The Rough Sleepers Unit has worked with Government Departments, other statutory bodies and voluntary agencies to help people with a history of sleeping rough to access statutory benefits, education, training and employment. The unit has funded the Homeless Routeway to Employment, "Learning Zones", a website to help rough sleepers into employment and a "jobs-led hostel" which specifically helps former rough sleepers into work.

  The unit has also invested £2 million of its Special Innovation Fund in schemes to build self esteem and help former rough sleepers into employment, including Business in the Community which has helped businesses provide work placements, training and support to local homeless agencies and their clients.

  Tenancy Sustainment Teams in London and other cities around England also help former rough sleepers and homeless people that have moved from hostels into their own accommodation to resettle permanently and to take up training and employment. Meaningful occupation workers in each Tenancy Sustainment Team identify and maximise specific support and training to help former rough sleepers to prepare for and take up employment opportunities.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the number of rough sleepers in(a) St. Helens, (b) Merseyside and (c) the north-west. [42412]

  Ms Keeble
  Tables showing the local authority HIP estimates and results of street counts for 1998,1999,2000 and the latest figures for 2001 were placed in the Libraries of the House on 11 December 2001. Local authorities not listed in the tables for those years submitted either an estimate of 0–10 or no estimate in their HIP returns.

  Rent Increases
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the average rent increases for individual local authorities agreed for 2002–03 by(a) one bed, (b) two bed, (c) three bed and (d) four bed properties. [43237]

  Ms Keeble
  It is for each local authority to determine the rents on their properties. Neither the average nor the pattern of rents across different types of dwelling has to be agreed with the Department. No detailed information is yet available on the actual rents set by local authorities for 2002–03.

  Rail Freight
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what
  29W
  progress has been made in the last 12 months towards reaching the rail freight targets under the 10-year transport plan. [43055]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We shall publish a review of progress in July.

  Evictions
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to require registered social landlords to submit annual figures on possession proceedings from actions entered in court to evictions. [43070]

  Ms Keeble
  We have no plans to require registered social landlords to submit this information. However, as mentioned in my answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 146, my Department is discussing with the Court Service how to achieve a better breakdown of the data that they collect on possession orders by social landlords. This breakdown will show possession action in relation to rent arrears and anti-social behaviour and will enable us to monitor trends on such actions and improve our understanding of the causes of homelessness. The Court Service is aiming to put in place a revised system in the early part of 2002–03. Figures will then be available on a monthly basis.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to investigate the use of mandatory grounds for eviction by registered social landlords. [43073]

  Ms Keeble
  None. Registered social landlords (RSLs) are independent organisations regulated by the Housing Corporation. They must demonstrate compliance with the Housing Corporation's regulatory code and guidance, which requires them to seek possession of a property only as a last resort.

  The Corporation's new inspection regime focuses on the quality and efficiency of registered social landlords' housing management services. The Corporation's regulators will report on inappropriate or unreasonable use of mandatory possession grounds where this comes to light during an inspection.

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to publish the 1998–99 research for the report on provision of refuge and access to domestic violence services "Households experiencing domestic violence". [43072]

  Ms Keeble
  Our plans are to publish the research report, currently titled "The provision of accommodation and support for households experiencing domestic violence in England" in the summer, at the same time as we publish a "Supporting People" Guide to accommodation and support options for women experiencing domestic violence, and a "Supporting People" Handy Guide to domestic violence. Consequently at present we do not have a firm publication date.

  Railway Fencing
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many 30W
  miles of railway track is separated from roads by (a) wire fencing, (b) wooden fencing, (c) brick walls and (d) nothing. [42970]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department dose not hold such information.

  Road Accident (Monmouth)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about the collision involving a Stagecoach 69 bus and a car in Monmouth on 7 March; how many passengers were(a) seated and (b) standing; and how many were (i) adults and (ii) pupils. [43531]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Officials from my Department have made inquiries about this incident which it transpires was of such a minor nature (there were no injuries to passengers or damage done to the bus) that it was not reported to either the police or the vehicle inspectorate. I therefore cannot comment on the number of seated and standing passengers.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take further measures to ensure that telecommunications companies comply with guidelines regarding pre-application discussion and consultation over the siting of telecommunications masts. [43622]

  Ms Keeble
  On 22 August 2001 we significantly strengthened the public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below and for masts on buildings and structures so that they are exactly the same as for applications for planning permission. This was underpinned by revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 "Telecommunications" (PPG8) which strongly encourages operators to discuss mast proposals with local planning authorities and to consult local people on them before applications for planning permission or prior approval are submitted.

  The Department is currently drawing up, in partnership with representatives of the mobile phone operators and local government, a revised Code of Best Practice, which will include further advice and best practice on consultation.

  In addition, the five mobile phone operators have made a series of commitments to deliver improved communication and consultation with local authorities and local communities. We expect these commitments to be followed in every case. My hon. and learned Friend, the Minister for Housing, Planning and Regeneration will be meeting the operators shortly to take stock of progress in delivering the commitments.

  Roads (Somerset)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have for road improvement in Somerset. [43400]
  31W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The following Trunk Road schemes in Somerset were remitted to the London to the South West and South Wales Multi Modal (SWARMMS) Study:

  (a) the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester improvement

  (b) the A303 Ilminster By-pass widening to dual-carriageway

  (c) the A303 Ilminster to Marsh improvement.

  The Study findings are due to be reported to the Regional Assembly in early May 2002. It is up to the Regional Assembly to recommend to the Minister which schemes, if any, should he added to the Highways Agency's Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI).

  Other Major Schemes being progressed by Somerset county council as part of their Local Transport Plan strategies but partly funded by central government are:
  The Bridgwater Northern Distributor Road, which is nearing completion.
  The North West Taunton Package—Silk Mills, which has provisional approval
  The Taunton Inner Relief Road, which has received funding for 2002–03 to enable design to be progressed.

  Marine Safety
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the findings of Associated British Ports recent individual risk assessment conducted by ERM Risk into its new pilotage scheme on the Humber. [43605]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is for Associated British Ports to decide whether or not to publish assessments they have commissioned: they are not required to do so either statutorily or under the Port Marine Safety Code.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will establish public authorities specific to the individual estuaries for the authorisation of pilots. [43606]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are already public authorities—competent harbour authorities statutorily designated under the Pilotage Act—which are responsible for the authorisation of pilots in our ports. The Government has no intention of separating responsibility for pilotage from other port marine safety functions, since the Port Marine Safety Code requires them to be managed by means of an integrated safety system.

  Areas of Outstanding National Beauty
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions what steps have been taken since 1997 to strengthen the protection of areas of outstanding national beauty. [43355]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: In June 2000 we amended Planning Policy Guidance for the Countryside to make clear that areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs) and National Parks should be given equivalent protection by the planning system. This means that proposals for major developments in AONBs should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed.
  32W
  Protection of AONB's will be strengthened under the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 through the requirement of a management plan for all and the option of a Conservation Board for those where local authorities think one would be suitable.

  Broadspring Wood
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will publish correspondence exchanged between the Highways Agency and the Uxbridge and District Rifle Club, since August 2001; [43782]

  (2) what plans his Department has to (a) sell Broadspring Wood and (b) transfer it to a charitable trust for its long term conservation with public access; [43779]

  (3) what price was included in the contract for sale of Broadspring Wood, Denham, Buckinghamshire, to the Uxbridge and District Rifle Club; and how many hectares of land were to be included in the sale; [43780]

  (4) if he will set out the terms of the licence allowing the Uxbridge and District Rifle Club to use Broadspring Wood, Denham, Buckinghamshire, for multiple shot shotguns for the practical shotgun discipline; and if the licence is different to that referred to in his answer of 14 February, Official Report, column 546W. [43826]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The substance of the correspondence between the Highways Agency and the Uxbridge and District Rifle Club was set out in my letters of 25 February and 11 March to the hon. Member.

  The terms of the contract for sale of Broadspring Wood are still being finalised. If and when the sale is completed, details of the price and the area of land sold will be in the public domain at the Lands Registry.

  As I noted in my answer of 1 March 2002, Official Report, column 1588W, this whole matter is currently under review by the Highways Agency who will write to the hon. Member when the outcome is known.

  The licence between the Highways Agency and the Uxbridge and District Rifle Club permits the use of multiple shot shotguns especially adapted for the 'practical shotgun discipline'. Clause 2(k) states "not to use or permit to be used any gun other than a shotgun which shall not exceed 12 bore in calibre or a rifle and in particular not to use or permit to be used without the Owners' written consent first obtained any weapon requiring a Firearms Certificate under Section 1 of the Firearms Act provided that this shall not preclude the use of multiple shot shotguns specially adapted for the 'practical shotgun discipline'". This licence is that referred to in my answer of 14 February 2002, Official Report, column 546W.

  Asbestos
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1177W, on what pathological basis he states it is not possible to confirm the source of asbestos trading to individual cases of asbestos related disease. [43830]
  33W
  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: Individual cases of mesothelioma or of lung cancer caused by asbestos are not pathologically or clinically distinguishable from those due to other causes. The link between asbestos exposure and the occurrence of these diseases is established scientifically by the observation that the "rates" of these diseases are consistently higher in population groups with asbestos exposure than in comparable non-exposed groups. Now this link is established, a judgment can be made for individual cases as to whether their conditions are likely to have been due to asbestos exposure if the extent of the individual case's exposure to asbestos is known or can be estimated. However, such judgments are always a question of a balance of probabilities, and can never be totally certain. Since every member of the population has been exposed to asbestos from multiple sources, the definitive linkage of individual cases to a particular source is not possible.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1177W, on asbestos, if the cases of mesothelioma and lung cancer have been attributed by (a) estimates and (b) clinical pathology; and what the basis is of that methodology. [43792]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The attribution of mesothelioma and lung cancer cases to asbestos exposure by doctors participating in the Surveillance of Work-related and Occupational Disease, known as SWORD, scheme reflects the reporting doctor's best judgment based on their knowledge of the case's exposure history. The attribution is not based on clinical pathology.

  The statement that almost all mesothelioma cases recorded on the mesothelioma register are due to asbestos is an estimate based on the strongly established links between asbestos and mesothelioma, and the fact that the growth in the numbers of mesothelioma deaths at ages below 50) corresponds to the earlier growth and decline in national asbestos imports.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1177W, what assessment he has made of the independent reports of Poolety, Davies, Hoskins, Browne, Gibbs Meldrum and Donnigan. [43848]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: It is not possible to give a reply to the hon. Member without further details. If he would care to write to me with full information on the specific reports and their authors I will ensure he receives a full reply.

  Shoreham Harbour
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if his Department(a) has collated and (b) will publish statistical information on the average number of daily lorry movements on port-related activity to and from Shoreham harbour in each of the last 36 months. [43703]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: This information has not been collated.
  34W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will give his formal response to the proposed Shoreham Harbour Revision Order. [43713]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The proposed Shoreham Harbour Revision Order has not yet been formally submitted to my Department. Officials received a copy of the latest draft of the proposed order on 7 March 2002 and will be responding to the authority within the next two weeks.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions his Department has had regarding the proposed Harbour Revision Order for Shoreham Harbour with(a) Shoreham Port Authority and (b) representatives of (i) Adur council, (ii) Brighton and Hove council and (iii) West Sussex county council. [43711]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: Officials received a copy of a draft of the proposed Harbour Revision Order on 7 March 2002, and have not yet discussed this draft with the Shoreham Port Authority. No discussions regarding the proposed order have taken place between the Department and the Adur council, Brighton and Hove council or West Sussex county council.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his Department's policy is on the establishment of additional cross channel ferry services at Shoreham Harbour and other south coast ports. [43786]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The establishment of additional cross-channel ferry services is a matter for decision by individual ferry operators and port authorities.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which Ministers have made official visits to Shoreham Harbour since May 1997. [43702]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: There has been one official visit to the port of Shoreham by a Minister from my Department since May 1997. On 24 November 2000 Lord Whitty, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State of the Department visited the port as part of a tour of West Sussex arranged by the West Sussex county council.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what financial contribution will be made by Shoreham Port Authority towards the road link study between Shoreham Harbour and the A27 proposed by SEEDA; [43708]

  (2) what the funding arrangements are for the road link study between Shoreham Harbour and the A27 proposed by SEEDA; [43707]

  (3) what the remit is of the road link study between Shoreham Harbour and the A27 proposed by SEEDA; who will prepare the study; and when it is due to report. [43709]
  35W
  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: A draft brief for a multiple mode transport study is currently being prepared by the Shoreham Maritime Steering Group. The remit, funding arrangements and time scales will be considered as part of the brief.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the extent is of his responsibilities for Shoreham Harbour; and on what connected subjects he is responsible to Parliament. [43785]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: I have no direct responsibilities in respect of Shoreham Harbour, other than responsibility for making board appointments to the Shoreham Port Authority who are the statutory body responsible for the harbour.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 754W, ref. 42321, if he will list all funding made available to the Maritime Vision for Shoreham Harbour through English Partnerships through the former Partnership Investment Programme. [43795]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: Total expenditure by all partners, including English Partnerships, up to April 2001, was £305,000.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 755W, ref 42323, what proportion of land at Shoreham Harbour is considered (a) brownfield land and (b) land used for port-related activities. [43787]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: Taking Shoreham Harbour as the area bordering the River Adur, the Eastern Arm and The Canal and excluding all water areas and the beach foreshore, the whole of the site consists of brownfield land with approximately 40 per cent. of this land being used for port-related activities.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what consultation has taken place on the proposed Harbour Revision Order for Shoreham Harbour between Shoreham Port Authority and(a) Adur council, (b) Brighton and Hove council, (c) West Sussex county council and (d) local residents. [43712]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The proposed Harbour Revision Order is still in draft form and has not yet been subject to any formal consultation by the Shoreham Port Authority. The authority will be consulting with all stakeholders of the port in due course.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the businesses based at Shoreham Harbour as tenants of Shoreham Port Authority; and how many employees are employed by each. [43793]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: My Department does not hold details of these businesses or their employees.
  36W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what criteria apply to the Chairman, Chief Executive and board members of the Shoreham port authority under Nolan Standards Commission requirements. [43697]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: As the Shoreham port authority is not a public body, the authority, its board members and employees are not bound by the requirements of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life. However, 'Modernising Trust Ports—A Guide to Good Governance' published by my Department in January 2000 recommended that all trust ports should seek to adopt the Nolan procedures when making appointments to their boards. My Department does follow the Nolan principles, as set out in the 'Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies' issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, when making direct appointments to the board.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action is taken by his Department to monitor borrowing levels by Shoreham port authority. [43784]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: Although we approve the overall borrowing limits of the authority which are set in Harbour Revision Orders approved by my Department, we do not monitor the level of borrowing at any particular time.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will name the members of the interviewing panel for new board members of the Shoreham port authority. [43698]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: No interviews for the current vacancies on the board have taken place yet. The interview panel will consist of the Chairman of the Shoreham port authority, an independent member and a senior departmental official.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he has given to members of Shoreham port authority regarding remuneration figures for board members and executive employees. [43704]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The remuneration of the board members and executive employees of the Shoreham port authority is not a matter for my Department.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many applications were received for the two vacant places on the Shoreham port authority board; and how many candidates were interviewed. [43699]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: 79 applications or expressions of interest were received. No candidates have been interviewed yet.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what criteria will be used for appointing future members of the Shoreham port authority board on the basis of the proposed Shoreham Harbour Revision Order. [43706]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The criteria for future appointments to the Shoreham port authority have not yet been formally approved.
  37W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what safety measures have been taken by Shoreham port authority to deal with hazardous waste since May 1997. [43790]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: I am not aware of concerns over such safety measures. I would encourage the hon. Member to discuss his interest with the Health and Safety Executive or the Environment Agency.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the purpose was of the meeting between one of his officials and the vice-chairman and chief executive of Shoreham port authority on 1 February; who instigated the meeting; and if he will publish minutes. [43794]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The purpose of this meeting, arranged by officials from my Department, was to shortlist candidates for interview for board appointments to the Shoreham port authority. The content of this meeting remains confidential as we are still considering the shortlist of candidates proposed by this selection panel.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the terms of contract of the Chief Executive of Shoreham port authority; and what the procedure is for appointing a successor. [43701]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The recruitment and terms and conditions of employment of employees of the Shoreham port authority are not a matter for my Department.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the trust ports in the United Kingdom for which he is responsible and the members of their respective boards stating their appointing bodies where appropriate. [43700]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: I have no direct responsibility for any trust ports. We do not hold a list of the board members for every port and this information could be obtained by this Department only at disproportionate costs. The appointment procedures for each of these ports is set out in their own local legislation which we do hold copies of. However, this information could be collated only at a disproportionate cost to my Department.

  Objective 2 Funding
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will(a) list the areas which have made representations that they should be in receipt of Objective 2 funding and (b) set out where included in those representations their per capita GDP as a proportion of the UK average and the year to which these figures relate. [43827]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Modular Housing
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if modular housing has the status of mobile homes; and if he will make a statement. [43902]

  Ms Keeble
  Mobile homes legislation defines mobile homes as any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted. This may include a structure separately constructed and designed to be assembled on a site provided that, when assembled, it is physically capable of being moved.

  Subject to the views of the courts, a flat-pack home may fall within this definition. However, what is installed on a site licensed under the mobile homes legislation is a matter for the owner of the site, subject to local planning considerations.

  Planning Appeals
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many appeals have been referred to his Department under section 21 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990; what were the results of these appeals; how long it took his Department to make a decision from receipt of the inspector's report in each year since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [44561]

  Ms Keeble
  All appeals under section 21 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 are referred to the Secretary of State for decision. Since 1992 ten appeals have been made five of which were subsequently withdrawn by the appellant. Of the others, two were allowed, one was refused and two have yet to be determined.

  Only one appeal has been determined since 1997. The decision, issued on 17 February 2000 was taken within 19 weeks of receipt of the Inspector's report.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, columns 182–84W, on stolen equipment, what criminal proceedings have been undertaken for cases of theft against his Department, stating in each case (a) whether the proceedings (i) led to a criminal conviction and (ii) were unsuccessful, (b) the cost incurred by his Department in pursuing a conviction and (c) the value of items recovered; and if he will make a statement. [41500]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is the policy of the department that thefts of equipment should be reported to the police. It is for them in conjunction with the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution to take place.

  Hedges
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what
  39W
  regulations there are to control the size of garden hedges, with specific reference to permitting sufficient light for neighbours. [43043]

  Ms Keeble
  There are no regulations to control the size of garden hedges. Guidelines, which provide an objective method for assessing whether high hedges block out too much light to adjoining properties, were published on my Department's website in December 2001. We want to encourage people to apply the guidelines and use the results to settle disputes with their neighbours amicably. We are preparing a leaflet specially designed for this purpose, which we expect to launch in the spring. But the guidelines have no statutory force.

  We recognise that, in some cases, guidance and voluntary action is no substitute for a legal remedy to the problems caused by high hedges. We remain committed, therefore, to bringing forward legislation to set up a statutory complaints system for dealing with high hedge problems as soon as there is space in the Parliamentary timetable.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) whether the employee shareholders of NATS were invited to contribute to the recent re-financing; [44238]

  (2) what form the Government's recent financial assistance to NATS takes. [44237]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 807W.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold on 12 February refs 37055 and 37057 on NATS, when he will receive an answer. [39760]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on Monday 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 806W, and Tuesday 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 176W.

  West Coast Mainline
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will make an announcement on the next phase of the west coast main line upgrade. [44234]

  Mr. Spellar
  The SRA are currently working with Railtrack and other stakeholders on a review of the outputs from the west coast main line upgrade, and will make an announcement in due course.

  Coast Protection
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the extent to which the proposed pontoon for the new Brixham lifeboat will affect the activities of the Brixham Sea Rangers, in deciding whether to grant a harbour revision order under the Coast Protection Act 1949; and when he plans to make a decision. [43837]
  40W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I can confirm that the Department has received an application from the RNLI under section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 for consent for the construction of an alongside berth.

  I am also aware that a particular consideration of this case is the Brixham Sea Rangers' concern that the proposed site of the new berth encroaches on a section of water granted for their own use.

  This issue is currently being addressed by the applicant and we understand that a mutually agreeable compromise may be achievable.

  Drivers' Hours
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the status is for the purpose of drivers' hours regulations of time spent by a driver out of his vehicle during a journey by car ferry. [44280]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Time spent on a ferryboat can be treated as a break or as part of the driver's daily rest period if it exceeds one hour in duration. But a driver is only allowed to interrupt his daily rest period once to enable him to embark or disembark a ferryboat, and in doing so, must add two hours to the total rest time.

  Coalfields Regeneration Trust
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, with particular reference to(a) St. Helens, South, (b) St. Helens metropolitan borough and (c) Merseyside. [42411]

  Ms Keeble
  The total grant made by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust within Merseyside, up to March 2001, was £1,538,133. Of that, £215,322 went to projects in St. Helens, North and £733,498 to St. Helens, South. A further £589,313 was allocated to projects which spanned the St. Helens metropolitan borough.

  Playgrounds
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what regulations govern the materials which can be used to provide safety surfaces in children's playgrounds. [38698]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply

  There are no statutory regulations governing the materials which can be used to provide safety surfaces in children's playgrounds.

  DCMS funds research into children's play issues in England, including play safety. This work is currently carried out for us by the Children's Play Council, which has set up the Play Safety Forum to identify the key issues affecting play safety. DCMS officials attend this forum, which is working on a statement on play safety.

  Research
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer
  41W
  of 4 March, Official Report, column 91W, on research documentation, for what reason the Department does not hold this information centrally. [42305]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not currently available centrally without disproportionate cost because responsibility for DTLR research is devolved to individual policy areas and programmes are not managed centrally. However, the Department is developing a central research database facility which is currently being populated with data. This should enable more information on research to be made available from a central source in future.

  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Commonwealth Games
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the organisers of the Commonwealth Games about drug testing at the Games; and if she will make a statement. [43492]

    Mr. Caborn
    We continue to work with the Commonwealth Games Federation (who have formal responsibility for the development of the drug testing regime for the Commonwealth Games) as well as Games' organisers, Manchester 2002 Ltd., and UK Sport to ensure that a robust and reliable regime is in place for the Games; and which is consistent with internationally accepted standards of anti-doping

    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans United Kingdom Sport has to conduct(a) blood and (b) urine tests at the Commonwealth Games; and if she will make a statement. [43493]

    Mr. Caborn
    We are committed to ensuring that a rigorous testing programme is in place for the Games and with the other Games funders have ensured that adequate funds are made available to the Games to allow for a full testing programme.

    We understand that the tests, which will be carried out for the Games by UK Sport on behalf of the Games organisers, Manchester 2002 Ltd. and the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF), may include both blood and urine tests. A decision on testing for EPO (Erythropoietin) using blood sampling is awaited from the CGF and will need to take account of any improvements identified by the International Olympic Committee from the protocols for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. The final decision on the number and type of drug tests rests with the CGF.

    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what efforts have been made to use this summer's Commonwealth Games as a vehicle to promote inbound tourism. [43206]

    Mr. Caborn
    The Commonwealth Games form a key part of the British Tourist Authority's (BTA) overseas marketing strategy.

    Examples of promotion include a BTA stall at the Edmonton Games last year, a Commonwealth Games colour supplement for inclusion in marketing brochures and a special Commonwealth Games pack. BTA offices
    42W
    in both Canada and Australia have recently taken groups of journalists to Manchester to see preparations for the Games.

    BTA is a member of the Regional Tourism Marketing Working Group created to maximise the tourism opportunities created by the Games and has seconded a marketing expert to Manchester.

    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the tickets for this summer's Commonwealth Games have now been sold. [43205]

    Mr. Caborn
    More than 460,000 tickets have been sold here in the UK—this equates to 60 per cent. of the available tickets. A further 110,000 tickets have also been sold to Commonwealth Games Associations and other bodies.

    Celebrations
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements her Department has made to celebrate(a) St. Patrick's day, (b) St. George's day, (c) St. Andrew's day and (d) Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and how her Department celebrated St. David's day. [42294]

    Tessa Jowell
    [holding answer 11 March 2002]: There are certain days of the year known as 'named days' when the Union flag must be flown from Government buildings. The days include St. David's day (in Wales), St. George's day (in England), St. Andrew's day (in Scotland) but not St. Patrick's day. In the Department for Culture, Media and Sport there are no celebrations other than raising the Union flag.

    Consideration is being given to the Union flag flying protocol for the Jubilee. The Union flag will fly on Coronation Day (2 June) as this is a named day.

    The Golden Jubilee Office in DCMS is supporting, facilitating and co-ordinating the overall planning for the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations. I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 11 February 2002, Official Report, columns 58–59W. In DCMS all staff will be given the additional public holiday on 4 June 2002 to celebrate Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee.

    Stolen Equipment
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 727W, on stolen equipment, what criminal proceedings have been undertaken for cases of theft against her Department, stating in each case (a) whether the proceedings (i) led to a criminal conviction and (ii) were unsuccessful, (b) the cost incurred by her Department in pursuing a conviction and (c) the value of items recovered; and if she will make a statement. [41503]

    Dr. Howells
    No criminal proceedings have been undertaken for cases of theft against the Department.

    Ministerial Group on Sport
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the progress of the cross-departmental Ministerial Group on Sport. [43208]

    Mr. Caborn
    The Inter-Ministerial Group on Sport, which I chair, continues to meet monthly. It provides an opportunity for my Department, along with the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health, the Home Office, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Sport England and the New Opportunities Fund to get a cross-departmental perspective of the sport-related issues of the day, and to discuss options for addressing those that take into account the wishes and concerns of all involved. In addition, the group also receives feedback from the School Sport Alliance, which meets quarterly at official level to discuss the practicalities of putting the Government's Plan for Sport into practice.

    Jubilee Medals
    Ms Oona King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Yeoman of the Guard at the Tower of London will receive Jubilee Medals. [43126]

    Tessa Jowell
    The medal is being issued to members of the armed forces and Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and to the emergency services. Yeoman Warders of the Tower of London do not fall within these categories and are therefore ineligible to receive the medal.

    Charities
    Mr. Dhanda
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to change Community Fund regulations to allow money to be made available to charities for more than six years at a time. [43437]

    Mr. Caborn
    Decisions about the time limits on funding are for the Community Fund. Its directions require it to set specific time limits on the periods for which grants are payable, although the precise periods are a matter for the fund alone and are not subject to regulation by the Government.

    Sports Facilities (Doomsday Book)
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on the Doomsday Book of Sports Facilities. [43207]

    Mr. Caborn
    Information on sports facilities is currently held by a variety of organisations and a single database will enable more strategic Government investment in those areas and facilities which are most important. My Department is continuing discussions with Sport England on the scope, content, and cost of the proposed database and how the project will be taken forward.

    Lottery Grants
    Nick Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects the first awards to be made by the National Lottery's joint Community Fund and New Opportunities Fund fair share project; what the 44W
    final date is by which she expects all funds to have been distributed; and what measures are in place to ensure that all funds are distributed by this date. [44036]

    Mr. Caborn
    Fair Share will begin distributing funds from April this year. It will operate for three years until March 2005 and by then we estimate that £169 million of Lottery funding will have been distributed under Fair Share to benefit the areas selected. The Community Fund and NOF are developing a monitoring and evaluation strategy for ensuring that these funds go where they are most needed.

    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 708W, if she will list the 50 areas which are likely to benefit from Lottery grants following the review; and if she will make a statement. [43788]

    Mr. Caborn
    [holding answer 15 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State on 28 February 2002, Official Report, columns 1539–40W to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Tom Watson).

    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many projects have(a) been supported by the National Lottery and
    (b) subsequently failed; what the average value is of grants made by the National Lottery; and what steps are being taken to ensure that projects are revenue-funded to ensure their long-term success. [43555]

    Mr. Caborn
    To date 103,586 projects have been supported by the National Lottery and the average value of the awards amounts to £98,017. Comprehensive information on the number of failed Lottery projects is not centrally held at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Revised policy Directions issued by my Department in June 1998 freed Lottery distributors from past restrictions on revenue funding. It is for the distributors to decide the maximum period of time for which they will provide funding. It remains an important principle of Lottery funding that individual projects are for a defined period, to avoid commitments which would reduce the availability of resources for new projects.

    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when her Department stopped recording information regarding(a) the number of applications made and (b) the amount of money asked for, by organisations per constituency; and if she will make a statement. [43789]

    Mr. Caborn
    [holding answer 15 March 2002]: This Department has never held comprehensive information on applications for Lottery grants by constituency, either in terms of the number of applications made or the amount of money requested.

    Privy Council Silverware
    Miss Mclntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the bidding process for the Privy Council silverware will be when it is offered for sale to institutions willing to display the items to the UK public; whether preferred institutions will be selected; by whom; on what criteria; whether(a) public and (b) charitable funds will be used for a national museum to

    45W
    secure the silverware; whether it is her policy that the four lots will be kept together in one institution; what her policy is on the acceptable level of public access to the silverware, and if there will be admission charges; and what recent discussions she has had with other departments on the retention of assets of cultural significance held by Government Departments; [44252]

    (2) if he will make it his policy that the purchaser of the Privy Council silverware shall not impose admission charges for public access; [44251]

    (3) if he will specify an acceptable level of public access to the Privy Council silverware after sale; [44250]

    (4) if it is his policy that ihe Privy Council silverware should be kept together in one institution; [44249]

    (5) what will be the process for offering the Privy Council silverware for sale; [44246]

    (6) if it is his policy the purchaser of Privy Council silverware must be willing to display the items publicly. [44247]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    I have been asked to reply.

    Current plans are for the Government to identify institutions willing to display the items to the UK public. These institutions would then be invited to submit bids against specified criteria. These criteria would cover both the arrangements for display and the proposed price. Admission charges will not be a criterion; nor will the bidding institution's source of funding. The items would be sold as a single group.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Jon Advertisements
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the job advertisements placed by his Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39069]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    The following is a list of all job advertisements placed, by the FCO since 1 March 2001. All costs include VAT.

    £

    Policy Entry June/July 2001

    Guardian

    3,920.40

    The Voice

    1,317.40

    Asian Times

    1,645.00

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,055.16

    Glasgow Herald

    4,342.00

    Scotsman

    5,281.00

    Cardiff Western Mail

    3,347.90

    Policy Entry Economics option June/July 2001

    Guardian

    3,920.40

    Totaljobs.com

    275.00

    The Voice

    1,317.40

    Asian Times

    1,645.00

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,305.96

    Glasgow Herald

    4,345.96

    Scotsman

    5,281.00

    Economist

    5,625.00

    Cardiff Western Mail

    3,817.60

    46W

    £

    Policy Entry Economics option—second round November/December 2001

    Economist

    5,720.00

    Ethnic Media Group

    2,520.00

    Operational Entry September 2001

    Evening Standard

    6,033.39

    Guardian

    5,631.35

    Ethnic Media Group

    3,311.15

    The Voice

    1,772.56

    Muslim News

    1,086.88

    Glasgow Herald

    6,391.06

    Scotsman

    6,465.79

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,930.38

    Cardiff Western Mail

    4,996.83

    Centre point group website

    293.75

    Operational Entry January 2002

    Evening Standard

    6,171.10

    Guardian

    5,631.35

    Ethnic Media Group

    3,311.15

    The Voice

    1,713.81

    Muslim News

    916.50

    Glasgow Herald

    6,391.06

    Scotsman

    6,465.79

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,856.90

    Cardiff Western Mail

    5,445.19

    Centre point group website

    293.75

    Overseas Security Managers January 2002

    Police Review

    3,479.20

    Pathfinder

    2,695.84

    Executive Assistant option July 2001

    Evening Standard and Metro

    6,157.94

    Daily Mail

    10,734.80

    Ethnic Media Group

    3,290.00

    The Voice

    1,772.56

    Glasgow Herald

    6,379.31

    The Scotsman

    6,465.79

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,812.88

    Cardiff Western Mail

    4,998.92

    Daily News

    810.75

    Daily Jang

    940.00

    Executive Assistant October 2001

    Evening Standard and Metro

    6,157.94

    Daily Mail

    10,734.80

    Ethnic Media Group

    3,290.00

    The Voice

    1,687.96

    Glasgow Herald

    6,379.31

    The Scotsman

    6,465.79

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,812.88

    Cardiff Western Mail

    4,998.92

    Daily News

    810.75

    Executive Assistant February 2002

    Evening Standard and Metro

    6,157.94

    Daily Mail

    10,734.80

    Ethnic Media Group

    3,290.00

    The Voice

    1,687.96

    Glasgow Herald

    6,379.31

    The Scotsman

    6,477.54

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,821.94

    Cardiff Western Mail

    5,432.26

    Daily News

    831.90

    Administrative Assistants April 2001

    Evening Standard

    17,371.20

    Metro

    2,538.00

    North London Group

    4,053.28

    South London Press

    4,876.60

    Administrative Assistants June 2001

    Evening Standard

    17,371.20

    47W

    £

    Metro

    3,619.00

    South London Press

    4,876.25

    Administrative Assistants August 2001

    Evening Standard

    17,371.20

    Metro

    3,619.00

    South London Press

    4,876.60

    Administrative Assistants February 2002

    Evening Standard

    17,371.20

    Metro

    3,980.90

    South London Press

    5,420.28

    Milton Keynes Citizen

    3,302.93

    Milton Keynes on Sunday

    1,710.80

    Bedfordshire on Sunday

    4,342.80

    Northants Chronicle and Echo

    3,006.85

    Regional Medical Officer Moscow/Dhaka April 2001

    British Medical Journal

    1,894.10

    Ethnic Media Group

    3,084.38

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,791.80

    Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday

    6,433.13

    Glasgow/Sunday Herald

    6,345.00

    Cardiff Western Mail

    5,913.19

    Research Analyst, North Asia Pacific Group May 2001

    Guardian

    3,789.38

    Times Educational Supplement

    1,805.98

    Ethnic Media Group

    3,084.38

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,791.80

    Cardiff Western Mail

    5,322.75

    Scotsman/Scotsman on Sunday

    6,433.13

    Glasgow/Sunday Herald

    5,922.00

    Nurse, New Delhi May 2001

    Nursing Times

    2,812.95

    RCN Bulletin

    1,917.60

    Ethnic Media Group

    3,125.50

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,680.18

    Cardiff Western Mail

    5,677.60

    Scotsman

    6,175.80

    Glasgow Herald

    5,414.40

    Internet Editors May 2001

    Internet Business

    1,745.00

    Revolution

    1,995.00

    Guardian

    4,432.50

    Scotsman

    6,637.50

    Glasgow Herald

    5,290.00

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,467.60

    Cardiff Western Mail

    5,347.00

    Asian Times Group

    2,700.00

    Employment Law Officer June 2001

    Guardian

    4,307.55

    People Management

    5,405.00

    Cardiff Western Mail

    6,387.30

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,904.60

    Glasgow/Sunday Herald

    6,598.80

    Scotsman/Scotsman on Sunday

    6,690.45

    Ethnic Media Group

    3,207.75

    Research Officer—Drugs and International Crime July 2001

    Times/Sunday Times

    9,605.63

    Guardian

    4,406.25

    Glasgow/Sunday Herald

    5,922.00

    Scotsman/Scotsman on Sunday

    6,433.13

    Cardiff Western Mail

    3,784.68

    Ethnic Media Group

    3,084.38

    Economist

    8,093.40

    Head of Human Resources Statistics and Planning September 2001

    RSS News

    500.00

    48W

    £

    People Management

    2,874.00

    Guardian

    2,550.00

    Asian Times

    1,750.00

    Scotsman

    5,410.00

    Glasgow Herald

    5,410.00

    Cardiff Western Mail

    2,848.50

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,517.60

    Regional Medial Officer Abuja October 2001

    British Medical Journal

    2,535.65

    Ethnic Media Group

    3,084.38

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,791.80

    Glasgow/Sunday Herald

    6,345.00

    Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday

    6,433.13

    Western Mail/Mail on Sunday

    3,360.50

    Accountants October 2001

    Accountancy Age

    2,900.00

    Guardian

    4,600.00

    Milton Keynes Citizen

    1,970.00

    Scotsman

    7,600.00

    Glasgow Herald

    7,500.00

    Scottish AM

    1,000.00

    Belfast Telegraph

    3,468.00

    Cardiff Western Mail

    7,095.00

    Asian Times

    2,550.00

    Internal Auditors October 2001

    Internal Auditing and Business Risk

    960.00

    Ethnic Media Group

    3,084.38

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,791.80

    Glasgow/Sunday Herald

    6,345.00

    Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday

    6,433.13

    Western Mail/Wales on Sunday

    9,070.41

    Research Analysts—Americas Group and Research Assistant— Eastern Group November 2001

    Guardian

    4,850.40

    Times Higher Education Supplement

    2,380.08

    Ethnic Media Group

    4,963.20

    Western Mail/Wales on Sunday

    8,602.13

    Belfast Telegraph

    3,573.50

    Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday

    8,234.40

    Glasgow/Sunday Herald

    5,768.00

    Forward Planner—News Department November 2001

    Guardian

    6,961.88

    Ethnic Media Group

    3,084.38

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,791.80

    Western Mail/Wales on Sunday

    6,720.41

    Glasgow Herald

    6,334.00

    Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday

    6,433.13

    Nurse—Lagos January 2002

    RCN Bulletin

    2,077.40

    Nursing Times

    2,627.30

    Communication Support Worker February 2002

    Guardian

    7,148.70

    British Deaf News

    793.13

    Disability Now

    1,649.70

    Jobability with Totaljobs

    293.75

    Legal Researcher—Legal Adviser February 2002

    The Times

    3,354.00

    Assistant Legal Advisers February 2002

    The Lawyer

    2,990.00

    The Times

    3,354.00

    Journal of the Law Society of Scotland

    1,371.00

    Cardiff Western Mail

    5,757.00

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,546.00

    Glasgow/Sunday Herald

    5,616.00

    Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday

    5,694.00

    49W

    £

    Senior Editors and Research Assistant—Records and Historical Department February 2002

    Guardian

    6,570.00

    Ethnic Media Group

    3,510.00

    Cardiff Western Mail

    6,642.00

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,937.00

    Glasgow/Sunday Herald

    6,480.00

    Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday

    6,570.00

    Head of Internal Audit February 2002

    Internal Audit Magazine

    996.00

    Financial Times

    6,230.00

    Accountancy Age

    3,000.00

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,350.80

    Cardiff Western Mail

    2,713.00

    The Voice

    1,507.00

    White Paper

    2,000.00

    Scotsman

    4,830.00

    Glasgow Herald

    5,380.00

    Asian Times Group

    2,790.00

    Mail Room Assistant—Hanslope Park April 2002

    GWR Radio Services

    5,536.60

    Metro and News North-West

    2,538.00

    Finance Director—Hanslope Park April 2001

    Accountancy Age

    2,900.00

    Financial Times

    6,020.00

    Belfast Telegraph

    2,467.60

    Western Mail

    5,197.00

    Evening Herald

    5,290.00

    Scotsman

    5,360.00

    Asian Times

    2,700.00

    Modern Apprenticeships—Hanslope Park April 2001

    Premier Newspapers

    6,288.41

    Assistant Telecommunication Technical Officer—Hanslope Park April 2001

    Daily Mail

    5,875.00

    Path Finder

    2,285.38

    Investigating Officer June 2001

    Janes Information Group

    2,667.25

    Daily Mail

    6,688.69

    Diplomatic Service Language Centre Project Manager June 2001

    Guardian

    7,191.00

    Times Higher Educational Supplement

    2,048.03

    IT Project Manager June 2001

    Milton Keynes Citizen

    4,051.87

    IT Support Staff—Helpdesk July 2001

    Daily Mail

    5,875.00

    Evening Standard

    3,595.50

    IT Support Staff—Hanslope Park July 2001

    Daily Mail

    5,875.00

    Milton Keynes Citizen

    4,300.00

    Drivers, Freight Service—Hanslope Park August 2001

    GWR Radio

    1,943.45

    IT jobs London August 2001

    Daily Mail

    5,875.00

    Premier Newspapers

    3,079.97

    Architects Estate Group—Croydon October 2001 Engineers, Technicians, Architects, Health and Safety Adviser, Quantity Surveyor and Project Officer

    Daily/Sunday Telegraph

    28,197.65

    Building

    13,776.88

    Evening Standard

    14,551.20

    50W

    £

    Belfast Telegraph

    4,839.83

    Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday

    11,150.75

    Glasgow/Sunday Herald

    10,998.00

    Cardiff Western Mail/Wales On Sunday

    12,335.15

    Ethnic Media Group

    9,212.00

    Architects Journal

    9,973.40

    Building Design

    4,935.00

    Building Services Journal

    5,943.15

    Building Service and Environmental Engineer

    3,243.00

    Safety and Health Practitioner

    1,222.00

    www.Building/BSJ Barbourexpert

    2,350.00

    www.Careersinconstruction

    2,526.25

    Costs to follow

    Assistant Telecommunication Technical Officer—Hanslope Park November 2001

    Path Finder

    2,285.38

    Milton Keynes Citizen

    4,434.73

    Daily/Sunday Express

    5,875.00

    Librarians November 2001

    Guardian

    7,896.00

    Lebanon
    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the British Government have made to the Government of Lebanon to ascertain the fate of three Israeli soldiers taken prisoner by Hezbollah on 7 October 2000, and to encourage the Lebanese Government to work for their release. [41400]

    Mr. Straw
    Her Majesty's Government has made a number of representations to Governments in the Middle East, including the Lebanese, about the fate of the soldiers and will continue to do so. We support all efforts to make progress, whether it be obtaining news of their situation, gaining access to them by ICRC and—most welcome—their release. Most recently, I met families of the soldiers during his visit to Israel in February.

    Stolen Equipment
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 776W, on stolen equipment, what criminal proceedings have been undertaken for cases of theft against his Department, stating in each case (a) whether the proceedings (i) led to a criminal conviction and (ii) were unsuccessful, (b) the cost incurred by his Department in pursuing a conviction and (c) the value of items recovered; and if he will make a statement. [41504]

    Mr. Straw
    In every case where equipment was reported stolen, an internal investigation was carried out. Unfortunately in every case, the investigation proved inconclusive with no culprit identified. As a result there were no criminal proceedings, no convictions, no actual costs incurred and no items recovered.

    Iraq
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the European Union in respect of US policy towards Iraq. [40914]
    51W
    Mr. Bradshaw
    Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I regularly discuss Iraq with our counterparts in the European Union. We share the concerns of the US Government, and all responsible Governments, about Iraq's support for terrorism and its development of weapons of mass destruction.

    Nepal
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government are giving to the Government of the Kingdom of Nepal in the struggle against Maoist rebels. [41382]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    The UK has provided training and logistics support to the Royal Nepalese Army through the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, which is jointly administered by the FCO, MOD and DFID. We will look carefully at any requests for further assistance from the Nepalese Government.

    Biological Weapons
    Mr. Tynan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with regard to verification procedures relating to the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. [40923]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    Negotiations on a compliance Protocol to strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) concluded unsuccessfully at the 24th Session of the Ad Hoc Group of States Parties in August 2001. And as no agreement could be reached at the subsequent Review Conference in December last year a decision was made to suspend the proceedings. The Conference will reconvene in Geneva on 11 November when we hope that it will be possible to make progress in reinforcing the norm against biological weapons. In preparation for the Conference the Government will shortly present a Government paper setting out its views on ways to counter the threat from biological weapons. This will be laid in the House in April.

    Ian Stillman
    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he raised the case of Ian Stillman with(a) President Narayanan and (b) Prime Minister Vajpayee in India during his visit on 27 February. [43908]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not raise Ian Stillman's case with Prime Minister Vajpayee or President Narayanan. However, he raised it on 27 February 2002 with the Indian Home Minister, L. K. Advani, and asked that Mr. Stillman's forthcoming appeal to the Supreme Court be heard as quickly as possible.

    I also raised Mr. Stillman's case on 18 February 2002 with the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, Omar Abdullah.

    Our High Commissioner in New Delhi raised Mr. Stillman's case with the Indian Home Secretary, Kamal Pande, on 20 December 2001. He also discussed it with Mr. Advani on 2 January 2002.
    52W
    Our High Commission is dong all it can to ensure that the Indian authorities are meeting Mr. Stillman's welfare requirements adequately and that his forthcoming appeal to the Supreme Court is heard as quickly as possible.

    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Exeter raised the case of Ian Stillman with(a) President Narayanan and (b) Prime Minister Vajpayee on his visit on 18, 21 and 22 February. [43911]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    I did not meet Prime Minister Vajpayee or President Narayanan during my visit. However, I raised Mr. Stillman's case on 18 February 2002 with the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, Omar Abdullah, and asked that his forthcoming appeal to the Supreme Court be heard as quickly as possible.

    My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary also raised Mr. Stillman's case on 27 February 2002 with the Indian Home Minister, L. K. Advani. Our High Commissioner in New Delhi raised it with the Indian Home Secretary, Kamal Pande, on 20 December 2001. He also discussed it with the Indian Home Minister, L.K. Advani, on 2 January 2002.

    Our High Commission is doing all it can to ensure that the Indian authorities are meeting Mr. Stillman's welfare requirements adequately and that his forthcoming appeal to the Supreme Court is heard as quickly as possible.

    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times the UK high commissioner in India has raised the case of Ian Stillman with(a) President Narayanan and (b) Prime Minister Vajpayee in India. [43909]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    Our high commissioner in New Delhi has not raised Ian Stillman's case with President Narayanan or Prime Minister Vajpayee. However, he raised it with the Indian Home Secretary, Kamal Pande, on 20 December 2001. He also discussed it with the Indian Home Minister, L. K. Advani, on 2 January 2002.

    I raised Mr. Stillman's case with the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, Omar Abdullah, on 18 February 2002. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also raised it with Mr. Advani on 27 February 2002.

    Our high commission in New Delhi is doing all it can to ensure that the Indian authorities are meeting Mr. Stillman's welfare requirements adequately and that his forthcoming appeal to the Supreme Court is heard as quickly as possible.

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

    Mr. Bradshaw
    [pursuant to his reply, 12 March 2002, c. 864–65]: An incorrectly drafted answer was given to my hon. Friend on 12 March. The full correct answer is as follows:
    53W
    In the last two months my right hon. Friend the Foreign secretary has visited India once and met twice with India's External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh. They discussed a number of areas of partnership including terrorism, peacekeeping, defence relations, and Afghanistan and other regional issues. The two Prime Ministers' Personal Envoys, David Manning and Brajesh Mishra, also met on 4 February.

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

    Angola
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of arms exports to Angola for each of the last five years. [42522]

    Nigel Griffiths
    I have been asked to reply.

    The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation does not record actual exports. It records details of all export licences issued and refused, which are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

    The granting of a licence does not necessarily translate into actual exports.

  SCOTLAND

    Stolen Equipment
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 698W, on stolen equipment, what criminal proceedings have been undertaken for cases of theft against her Department, stating in each case (a) whether the proceedings (i) led to a criminal conviction and (ii) were unsuccessful, (b) the cost incurred by her Department in pursuing a conviction and (c) the value of items recovered; and if she will make a statement. [41585]

    Mrs. Liddell
    In the case of stolen equipment reported by my Department, I understand that no criminal proceedings have been undertaken.

  DEFENCE

    Army Strength
    Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) largest and (b) smallest shortfall was in the strength of the Army during the past five years; what the latest figure is; and when he expects all vacancies to be filled. [40918]

    Mr. Ingram
    In the last five years, the largest shortfall in personnel against the in-year requirement for UK Trained Army Personnel was 8,063 in August 2001. The smallest shortfall during the period, against the lower assessed requirement at that time, was 4,855 in September 1997. As at 1 February 2002, there was a shortfall of 7,477 personnel against the currently assessed in-year 54W
    requirement for UK Trained Army Personnel. These figures should not be compared with whole army strength targets which also incorporate the full time reserve service and Gurkha trained manpower.

    Army manpower requirements are kept under regular review. The exact size of the Army will depend on the outcome of ongoing studies into the best ways of delivering the military capabilities required of the Army.

    Veterans
    Siobhain McDonagh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review compensation for the veterans of the Christmas Island tests and, where they are deceased, their surviving spouses and families. [40919]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence has every confidence in the independent studies carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund that showed veterans' participation in the nuclear test programme has not had a detectable effect on their expectation of life, or on their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases. Consequently grounds do not exist for compensation to be paid to British nuclear test veterans or their surviving spouses and families. There are no plans to review this position.

    Mr. Crausby
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to improve the handling of veterans' issues. [40922]

    Dr. Moonie
    Since the announcement of the Veterans Initiative, and my appointment as Minister for Veterans Affairs one year ago, we have built up a partnership with veterans' organisations and other Government Departments to develop an integrated policy for veterans. This is well advanced, and will address veterans' concerns across Government and identify means of improving the delivery of services to veterans, particularly the most vulnerable.

    Working through a Veterans Forum and a Ministerial Task Force, we have agreed an action plan. As part of this we have commissioned nine working groups, made up jointly of representatives of the veterans community and of interested Government Departments, to identify ways of giving practical expression to the Initiative's core themes of partnership, identity, recognition and care. We expect to see the first results of this work later this year.

    Dr. Vis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress achieved by the Government's veterans' initiative since it was launched. [44479]

    Dr. Moonie
    Since the announcement of the Veterans Initiative, and my appointment as Minister for Veterans Affairs one year ago, we have made substantial progress towards meeting the objective of the initiative: to build-up a partnership with veterans organisations and other Government Departments to develop an integrated response to veterans concerns, focused in particular on the most vulnerable.

    I have been considering how we can improve the service offered to our veterans from within my own Department. Capitalising on the transfer of the War Pensions Agency to the Ministry of Defence in June of last year and on its excellent record for customer-service,

    55W
    I have decided that the War Pensions Agency should provide a special focus for our support to veterans and that, accordingly, with effect from 2 April, it should be renamed the Veterans Agency. As a first step towards giving substance to this change of name, the Veterans Agency will, from the end of this month, provide an integrated website and freephone helpline that will be the first point of contact for veterans seeking advice and information. For the longer term, we will also be looking at the future development of the War pensioners Welfare Service, and in particular the possibility of expanding partnerships with the charitable sector to improve the support delivered in this area by offering a better co-ordinated service.

    Working through the Veterans Forum and Ministerial Task Force, we have agreed an action plan and nine working groups, made up jointly of representatives of the veterans' community and of interested Government Departments to take work forward. These are now addressing the particular concerns identified within the initiative's core themes of partnership, identity, recognition and care. This work includes developing new resettlement training for the most vulnerable of our Service leavers who are at greatest risk of social exclusion, the development of material for the new Key Stage 3 and 4 scheme for citizenship to be part of the National Curriculum from September 2002; improving communication between Government and veterans, recognition of veterans' achievements in more recent years, and problems faced by the veterans charities' care homes. The Working Groups will be reporting their progress to me in time for the next meeting of the Veterans Forum and the Ministerial Task Force in April and May respectively.

    We are also taking steps to address two of the particular concerns that veterans have raised about the War Pension Schemes. From this April, the provisions for war widowers will he equalised to bring them fully into line with those currently available to war widows. Further, we plan to introduce measures from August that will guarantee that a war pensioner can return to Unemployability Supplement within the first 12 months of starting work.

    I place a particular premium on the partnership that we have been building with the representatives of the Veterans Organisations and am pleased to acknowledge the considerable part that their positive response has played in enabling us to take this initiative forward. I look forward to building on this partnership to develop and deliver a significant programme of further improvements for the future.

    Defence Estates
    Jim Knight
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to improve the management of defence estates; and if he will make a statement. [40920]

    Dr. Moonie
    Building on the policy laid out in "In Trust and On Trust: the strategy for the Defence Estate", we are implementing the prime contracting initiative as part of Government's "Achieving Excellence" agenda for the construction industry, and putting in place a new management structure for the estate within the Ministry of Defence. The new organisation will come into operation on 1 April 2003.
    56W
    We will establish a single new estate procurement organisation, comprising the existing Defence estates agency and specialist estate staff currently working elsewhere in the Department, and six customer estate organisations serving the Services and top level budget holders.

    Afghanistan
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what future commitments he plans in relation to Afghanistan. [40921]

    Mr. Hoon
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Mr. Robertson).

    European Rapid Reaction Force
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Britain's participation in the European Rapid Reaction Force. [40924]

    Mr. Hoon
    There is no standing European Rapid Reaction Force. Under the Helsinki Headline Goal, however, the United Kingdom has identified a pool of relevant forces and capabilities that it might contribute to an EU-led operation. This includes a maximum of 12,500 troops plus, if required, up to 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft.

    European Defence Co-operation
    Mr. Hendrick
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in multinational defence co-operation in Europe. [40925]

    Mr. Hoon
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxstowe (Dr. Palmer).

    Iraq
    Phil Sawford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the United States Government on the subject of terrorist activity in Iraq. [40927]

    Mr. Hoon
    I have regular discussions with the United States Government on a wide range of issues, including all aspects of policy towards Iraq and the campaign against international terrorism. We share the concerns of all responsible Governments about Iraq's support for terrorism and its development of weapons of mass destruction.

    David Wright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many missions the Royal Air Force has undertaken over Iraqi airspace in the last 12 months. [41423]

    Mr. Ingram
    RAF aircraft undertake a range of missions as part of multinational no-fly-zone enforcement operations. A single no-fly-zone (NFZ) patrol involves multiple aircraft types performing individual missions in an integrated package.

    Between 1 March 2001 and 28 February 2002 RAF aircraft entered Iraqi airspace as part of a coalition patrol package on 130 occasions in the northern NFZ and 220 occasions in the southern. During these patrols they undertook 1,274 missions.

    International Terrorism
    Colin Burgon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to adjust defence capabilities to deal with international terrorism. [40928]

    Mr. Hoon
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn).

    Porton Down
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the latest figures available indicate an increase in the numbers of animals involved in scientific procedures at Porton Down. [40929]

    Dr. Moonie
    The number of animal procedures (as defined by the Animals Scientific Procedures Act (1986)) conducted at Dstl Porton Down in 2001 was 12,955. This is an increase of 8 per cent. over the previous year and 12 per cent. over the last five years. The majority (92 per cent.) of the 2001 procedures were conducted on mice.

    The main reason for the growth in numbers is the increased amount of research being undertaken to develop vaccines and other medical countermeasures against materials that may be used as biological weapons, either in warfare or by terrorists. Vaccines developed under these research programmes will also be useful for travellers and for those living in parts of the world where certain diseases are endemic.

    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution has been made by the War Pensions Agency to the discussions towards the establishment of an epidemiological study into volunteers who took part in experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down. [43440]

    Dr. Moonie
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 11W. The War Pensions Agency has made no contribution to this work since that date.

    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, columns 72–73W, regarding Porton Down, if he will place the papers documenting the results of the searches in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [43498]

    Dr. Moonie
    Papers documenting the results of archival searches will be incorporated into the Historical Survey of the Service Volunteer programme at Porton Down. The survey is expected to report in the summer, and the findings will be published.

    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the minutes, agenda and papers of the meeting between his Department's staff and representatives of the Medical Research Council staff on 5 March 2001 regarding the epidemiological study for Porton Down volunteers. [43465]

    Dr. Moonie
    No such documents were produced following the meeting on 5 March 2001. This was an informal meeting, the purpose of which was to allow representatives of the Medical Research Council to visit Porton Down, meet members of staff, and view original reference material.
    58W
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates officials from his Department and the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down have held meetings with representatives of the Medical Research Council since 3 August 2001 regarding advice on the epidemiological study for Porton Down volunteers. [43443]

    Dr. Moonie
    Since 3 August 2001, the Medical Research Council (MRC) have met representatives of the Ministry of Defence on the following occasions to discuss epidemiological research into Porton Down volunteers: 9 October 2001, an MRC seminar; 16 January 2002, a meeting of the MRC's Physiological Medicine and Infections Board (PMIB); and 5 February 2002, a meeting of the MRC Liaison Group. Representatives from the MOD attended all of these meetings; Chemical Defence Establishment (now known as Defence Science and Technology Laboratory) Porton Down were only represented at the MRC seminar.

    Aldermaston
    Mr. Rendel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the level of MOD police manpower at AWE Aldermaston. [40930]

    Dr. Moonie
    Ministry of Defence Police staffing levels at AWE Aldermaston, and at other MOD establishments, are kept under regular review. A complementing review of MOD police staffing levels at AWE Aldermaston was conducted at the end of 2001. The conclusions of the review, which took account of the events of 11 September, will shortly be circulated for consideration by interested parties within MOD. No decisions have yet been taken and there will be full consultation with the Defence Police Federation before any changes are implemented.

    Coalition Against International Terrorism
    Mr. Carmichael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for further armed forces commitments overseas as part of the international coalition against terrorism. [40931]

    Mr. Hoon
    We keep our plans under constant review.

    European Security and Defence Policy
    Mr. Hendry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on European Security and Defence Policy. [40932]

    Mr. Hoon
    The European Security and Defence Policy seeks to strengthen European military capabilities and to improve EU nations' contributions to NATO.

    Mr. Francois
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the Foreign Office about the ESDP. [40926]

    Mr. Hoon
    I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on a range of issues, including ESDP.

    Armed Forces Family Taskforce
    Mr. Mudie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the armed forces family taskforce. [40933]
    59W
    Mr. Ingram
    The Service Families Taskforce was set up by the Government in 1999 to deal with service family issues that were outside the control of the Ministry of Defence. It is headed by a ministerial group which last met on 15 November last year. I also meet with representatives of service families twice a year to discuss areas of concern.

    The Service Families Taskforce has been involved in a wide range of issues since its conception. The main areas of progress over the last year are:

    (a) Consultation with the Department of Health in the drafting of new adoption legislation to ensure that service families will not be disadvantaged.

    (b) Resolution of the problems that some service families had encountered in claiming working families tax credit on return to the UK from an overseas posting.

    (c) Resolution of the problems that some service spouses had encountered in claiming Child Support Agency payments when on an overseas posting.

    (d) Discussions with the Department for Education and Skills, and with local education authorities, to see what measures can be taken to improve the schools admissions process for the children of service families.

    (e) Discussions with the NHS Waiting and Booking Team on the problems that service families face when transferring between NHS trust areas.

    (f) Discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions to identify any problems that service families have faced in claiming benefits while on overseas postings.

    (g) Since 1 April 2001 service spouses have been able to open stakeholder pensions while on an overseas posting.

    Type 45 Destroyer
    David Cairns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strategic employment implications are of the revised procurement strategy for Type 45 destroyers; and if he will make a statement. [40934]

    Dr. Moonie
    The revised procurement strategy for the Type 45 destroyer, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 10 July 2001, shares work on the first batch of ships between BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft. On 18 February 2002, my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement announced that a contractual commitment had been made for a further three Type 45 platforms, bringing the total number of ships on contract to six. BAE Systems Marine has confirmed that, once the construction programme is fully up and running, work on 60W
    Type 45 vessels will sustain a steady level of some 1,250 jobs on the Clyde and about a further 900 jobs at Barrow-in-Furness well into this decade. Vosper Thornycroft estimate that the planned Type 45 work should sustain a steady level of some 800 jobs on the south coast over a similar period.

    Former Yugoslavia
    Mr. Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contribution of the Ministry of Defence to conflict prevention in the former Yugoslavia. [40935]

    Mr. Ingram
    The Ministry of Defence has all extensive record of activity in the field of conflict prevention in the former Yugoslavia. In addition to our contribution to peacekeeping forces operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Macedonia, my Department runs a number of programmes in the region which are designed to dispel hostility, build and maintain trust, and assist in the development of democratically accountable armed forces, thereby making a significant contribution to conflict prevention. These include leadership and staff training for military officers; seminars, exchanges and visits directly concerned with security sector reform; and general underpinning outreach activities such as English language training for military personnel.

    Courts Martial
    Mr. Robathan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future changes to the court martial system and their implications for military discipline. [40936]

    Mr. Ingram
    Court martial procedures are kept under review. We are considering whether any changes will be required when the three service discipline Acts are replaced by a single piece of discipline legislation covering all the services. We are also assessing what modifications may be necessary as a result of the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Morris v. the United Kingdom. Any changes will reflect the need for service discipline to underpin operational effectiveness.

    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases were brought before courts martial in each of HM armed services in the most recent year for which figures are available; if he will break down these cases by(a) the nature of charges brought and (b) verdicts delivered; and what estimate he has made of cases which could feasibly have been considered by a civilian court. [41100]

    Mr. Ingram
    The statistics requested are given in the following list for each of the services, and cover the year 2000.
    61W
    Royal Navy (inc. Royal Marines)
    53 court-martial trials involving 56 accused persons facing 114 alleged offences.
    39 of the accused were convicted on one or more charges.
    16 were acquitted of all charges brought against them.
    The trial of one individual saw the court dissolved and the case returned for summary dealing.
    The types of charges involved were:

    29 cases of theft

    23 cases of assault

    11 cases of actual bodily harm

    9 cases of falsification of documents

    9 cases of drunkenness

    6 cases of dishonestly obtaining

    5 cases of conduct prejudicial

    4 cases of disobedience to standing orders

    4 cases of absence without leave

    3 cases of indecent assault

    2 cases of fighting

    2 cases of possession of drugs

    2 cases of damage to property

    2 cases of negligent performance of duty

    1 case of disobedience to lawful commands

    1 case of sexual harassment

    1 case of sleeping on watch.

    Army
    409 court-martial trials involving 455 accused persons facing 980 alleged offences.
    373 of the accused were convicted on 817 offences.
    82 were acquitted on 163 offences.
    The type of charges involved were:

    192 cases concerned with forms of violent crime

    100 cases of absence without leave and/or desertion

    66 cases of theft

    34 cases concerned with forms of sexual crime

    18 cases of drunkenness and/or driving under the influence of alcohol

    7 cases of drugs possession

    4 cases of drugs supply

    3 cases of criminal damage

    31 cases involving a range of offences.

    Note: The Army record only the most serious of the alleged offences faced by an individual at a court martial trial. Therefore the breakdown of types of charges totals only 455, i.e. one charge per defendant.
    Royal Air Force
    62 court-martial trials involving 81 accused persons facing 102 alleged offences.
    45 of the accused were convicted on 62 offences.21 were acquitted on 23 offences.
    15 individuals had their trials, concerning 17 offences, discontinued.
    62W
    The types of charges involved were:

    28 cases concerned with forms of violent crime

    15 cases concerned with forgery, deception and false accounting

    11 cases of disobeying orders

    8 cases of theft

    8 cases concerned with false information and statements

    8 cases of conduct to prejudice of Air Force discipline

    5 cases of absence without leave or failure to attend for duty

    5 cases of indecent assault

    4 cases of disorderly or disgraceful conduct

    3 cases concerning damage to property

    2 cases of negligent performance of duty

    2 cases of drunkenness

    2 cases concerned with drugs offences

    1 case of causing death by drunken driving.

    The ordinary courts do not have jurisdiction to try service disciplinary offences or, in most cases, offences committed outside the United Kingdom. Service courts are able to deal with all but the most serious criminal cases in the UK and are able to bring to bear a full appreciation of the impact of an offence committed in a service environment. The benefit of transferring the most serious criminal cases to the ordinary courts allows a balance to be maintained between the military and civilian judicial systems.

    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been commissioned to look at alternative arrangements, compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998, for military discipline; and what estimate he has made of the limitations there are on the use of criminal courts. [41099]

    Mr. Ingram
    The arrangements for administering discipline in the armed forces are kept under review, including with a view to their remaining compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Changes are made where necessary, to reflect the requirements of the Convention and also to keep in step with appropriate developments in the civilian justice system.

    This flexible approach to service discipline procedures is considered to be preferable to greater use of the civilian criminal courts. Generally, civilian courts are less likely that service courts to process a full appreciation of the importance of discipline to the operational effectiveness of the armed forces and of the possibility that an offence committed in a service environment may have even more serious implications that a similar offence in civilian life. Moreover, civilian courts do not have jurisdiction to try service disciplinary offences. Nor in most cases do civilian courts in the United Kingdom have jurisdiction in respect of offences alleged to have been committed overseas by service personnel or civilians accompanying them. The worldwide application of service law is particularly important for mobile forces that need to be able to maintain discipline, as a key to operational effectiveness, wherever they are deployed. The ability of service courts to try alleged offences committed outside the United Kingdom can also be a useful means of ensuring that the accused are dealt with in British courts and in accordance with a system of British law, rather than in foreign courts where the language, law and procedures may be unfamiliar to them.
    63W
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the changes that have been made to the provisions for courts martial contained within the Army Act 1955 to bring the framework for military discipline into line with Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights; and what the principal findings of the European Court on 26 February were. [41097]

    Mr. Ingram
    The Armed Forces Act 1996 made extensive changes to the court martial system in all three services, intended to reinforce the independence of the courts and those making decisions concerning court proceedings, and to make the procedures as a whole compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns the right to a fair hearing.

    The main changes were:The replacement of the convening officer, who previously had the key role in deciding whether charges should be preferred against an individual, in appointing court martial members, and in confirming court martial findings and sentences. The convening officer's functions were divided between higher authorities, who take a preliminary view on whether court martial proceedings are appropriate for cases that are referred to them by commanding officers; prosecuting authorities independent of the service chain of command, who decide whether to prosecute and what charges should be brought; and court administration officers, whose responsibilities include the selection of court martial members, drawn from a different command to that of the accused.
    The introduction of a requirement that the membership of every court martial should include a judge advocate appointed by the Judge Advocate General or the Chief Naval Judge Advocate. The judge advocate acquired an enhanced role, so that his advice on points of law is binding on the court and he has a vote on sentence.
    The introduction of a simpler process of review of court martial findings and sentences (in the Army and RAF, replacing post-trial confirmation). Any changes resulting from review are intended not to worsen the position of the accused.
    The extension of the right of appeal to include appeal against sentence as well as against finding.
    The extension of the right for an accused to choose to be tried by court martial, rather than being dealt with summarily.

    The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on the case of Morris v. the United Kingdom, published on 26 February, included the observation that these changes had gone a long way to meeting its concerns about the structure of the court martial system. The court also found that there was no violation of Article 6 of the Convention arising from the relationship between the chain of command and those involved in court martial proceedings.

    However, it found that there had been a violation of Article 6 as regards aspects of Mr. Morris's trial by court martial in 1997, namely the potential for undue external influence over certain members of the court martial panel; and the procedures involving non-judicial authorities in the review of court martial findings and sentences. We are assessing the implications of these aspects of the judgment.

    Middle East
    Michael Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the state of readiness is of the armed forces for an engagement in the middle east; and if he will make a statement. [40913]
    64W
    Mr. Hoon
    The Strategic Defence Review recognised that our national interests were directly affected by events in the middle east. Most recently, the deployment of our armed forces to Oman for exercise Saif Sareea H illustrated both our commitment to the region and ability to project military power and sustain it there.

    We have taken no decisions to heighten the readiness of our armed forces elsewhere in the region.

    Procurement
    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of Government procurement and support on the defence industry and employment among subcontractors in the north-west. [40911]

    Dr. Moonie
    In 1998–99, around £1.2 billion or some 14.5 per cent. of total defence equipment expenditure was placed with companies in the north-west, sustaining an estimated 11,000 jobs. This figure reflects jobs which arise directly from equipment contracts placed by the Ministry of Defence. In addition, work will have been placed with suppliers in the north-west on a sub-contract basis, but regional estimates for sub-contracting are not maintained.

    Defence Procurement Agency
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the savings made by the review of support arrangements in the Defence Procurement Agency. [44220]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Defence Procurement Agency's operating cost reduction target and achievement are recorded in its Annual Report (HC 243). The cost reduction in 2000–01 was 10.6 per cent., a saving of £29.7 million.

    Marine Services Royal Maritime Auxiliary
    Mr. Streeter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if STC W95 applies as the international standard for staff within the Marine Services Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service; and if he will make a statement. [43482]

    Mr. Ingram
    Although not a requirement in Marine Service Officers and Crews Terms and Conditions, the Ministry of Defence applies the industry standard, STCW 95, to the maritime operations conducted by the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service. Trade unions have supported the retraining and qualification of their members to this industry standard since the mid-90s.

    Bloody Sunday
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions were issued to members of the Parachute Regiment concerning off duty activities on the weekend of the thirtieth anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the commemorative march on 27 January; and what instructions were given to the Parachute Regiment regarding military memorabilia. [43887]

    Mr. Ingram
    No instructions were issued to members of the Parachute Regiment concerning off duty activities on the weekend of the thirtieth anniversary of Bloody
    65W
    Sunday or regarding military memorabilia. We are not aware of any commemorative march taking place on 27 January 2002.

    Efficiency Measures
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings the Royal Air Force has achieved by reducing the number of postings that require a domestic move. [44222]

    Mr. Ingram
    During financial year 2001–02 the Royal Air Force has reduced the number of planned postings that require a domestic move by 500. This is estimated to have saved approximately £0.5 million.

    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings have accrued from the introduction of flexible working practices for dock workers. [44218]

    Mr. Ingram
    A scheme of "Annualised Hours" was introduced at HMNB Devonport in 1999 to establish a group of flexible, multi-skilled workers at the waterfront, who would fulfil an annual working hours requirement rather than the standard 37 hours per week, on a fixed schedule. Annual savings achieved are estimated to have been in the region of £200,000 to £300,000.

    Territorial Army
    Dr. Vis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for the future of the Millbay Territorial Army Centre in Plymouth; and if he will make a statement. [44481]

    Dr. Moonie
    As part of the Strategic Defence Review Territorial Army restructuring process we decided to close the Millbay Territorial Army Centre (TAC) in Plymouth and relocate the units there to the other TAC in Plymouth at Derriford.

    We have now reviewed those plans in the light of the estimated cost of the move and the impact that the closure of the Millbay TAC would have on the ability of the TA to recruit and retain personnel in Plymouth. I am pleased to say that, as a result of this review, I have decided that Millbay TAC should remain open. This is excellent news for the city of Plymouth and will allow it to retain a modern TAC. By keeping both TACs open we also aim to enhance the visibility of the TA with the general public and improve recruiting opportunities.

    Press and Public Relations
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [39920]

    Dr. Moonie
    Details on central Ministry of Defence expenditure on advertising and publicity, which incorporates press, public relations, marketing and internal communications are contained in the annual MOD performance reports. For 1997–98, the information is shown on page 49 Cm 4170; for 1999–2000 the information is shown on page 60 Cm 5000; for 2000–01 the information is shown on page 68 Cm 5290.

    Copies of these reports are available in the House.
    66W
    The figures for 1998–99 were not provided in the annual performance report. They are as follows:

    £ million

    Category

    Expenditure

    Recruitment

    Royal Navy/Royal Fleet Auxiliary

    6.65

    Army

    11.77

    Royal Air Force

    10.17

    Civilian

    3.27

    PR, marketing, and business support services

    0.84

    Chief of public relations expenditure

    2.39

    Sales promotion

    1.06

    Scholarships

    0.38

    National Employers Liaison Committee1

    1 Territorial Army

    The expenditure for advertising and publicity is spread among many different budgets, and budget holders. The Ministry of Defence thus does not have a central advertising and publicity budget, and forecast information—in this case for financial year 2001–02—can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, as in recent years, information on the outturn figure is collated, and expected to be included in the 2001–02 performance report, when that document is published.

    The figures relate to programme expenditure. Running cost data (e.g. staff salary costs) for the subject headings are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, running cost data are available for the Chief of Public Relations expenditure heading—which covers the cost of Director General Corporate Communications and his staff. These figures are as follows:

    £ million

    Year

    Expenditure

    1997–98

    n/a

    1998–99

    13.77

    1999–2000

    14.03

    2000–01

    5.92

    2001–02

    26.30

    1 Allocation

    2 Forecast expenditure

    Training
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on military training areas in the UK, with particular reference to(a) their uses and (b) their value for large training operations. [41316]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence has 172 training area and range sites in the UK, the tenure of which is either freehold, leasehold or licensed land. They are used for a wide variety of Army training but fall into one of the following three categories:

    Dry training (training without the use of live ammunition although blank ammunition and pyrotechnics may be used);

    Field firing (training with the use of live ammunition);

    Fixed ranges (such as small arms ranges).

    The UK training areas can accommodate training up to unit level (Battalion/Regiment—approximately 1,000 personnel and 200 vehicles) but formation (Brigade—approximately 5,000 personnel and 1,300 vehicles, or Divisional—approximately 25,000 personnel and 7,000

    67W
    vehicles) level training has to be tailored to the respective area. In the case of mechanised and armoured formations (formations equipped with wheeled and tracked armoured vehicles), their training is usually conducted overseas. Light role formations can exercise in the UK with careful planning.

    The RAF maintains five Air Weapons Ranges and an Electronic Air Weapons Range, which enable aircrew to practice weapons delivery techniques. These are not generally suitable for large numbers of aircraft. The Royal Navy has training areas used as offshore gunnery ranges. DERA als0o utilises ranges for test and evaluation purposes.

    Competitive Procurement Policy
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect the creation of the Towers of Excellence programme has had on his Department's competitive procurement policy; and if he will make a statement. [43009]

    Dr. Moonie
    Competition remains the cornerstone of the Ministry of Defence's procurement policy. It will continue to be the primary means of securing value for money in the equipment programme. By generating technological capabilities within MOD's defence equipment supplier base, Towers of Excellence should enable industry to compete more effectively. This will not alter MOD's competition policy; in particular, deciding best overall value for money within competition has always included the consideration of wider factors, including the health of our defence technology base.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect the creation of the Towers of Excellence programme has had on the United Kingdom defence industries competitive position in relation to other international contractors; and if he will make a statement. [43008]

    Dr. Moonie
    Towers of Excellence (ToE) are an important aspect of the continuing close engagement between Ministry of Defence and industry. This strategy will focus our limited research programme funds on those areas where UK industry can excel, and where MOD requires high value technology to be available to feed into potential future equipment products. The ToE programme therefore has the potential to help reinforce UK industry's comparative advantage in these areas, and improve its competitive position both for future MOD projects and for the wider global export market.

    The ToE concept is already at an advanced stage of preparation for launch, and it is expected the first batch of Towers will be launched on a formal basis in the near future.

    Non-competitive Procurement Report
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to reply to the National Audit Office report entitled 'Non-Competitive Procurement in the Ministry of Defence'. [43107]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence Accounting Officer and officials were examined by the Committee of Public Accounts on 14 November 2001, based on the National Audit Office report on 'Non-Competitive 68W
    Procurement', which was published on 2 November 2001. When the Committee reports, we shall consider and reply to it in the normal way.

    Public-Private Partnerships (Consultants)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [43188]

    Dr. Moonie
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ingram), on 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 999W.

    Postings Abroad
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to implement a system of notifying housing staff of service personnel's postings abroad; and if he will make a statement. [42984]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence is currently investigating ways to simplify and streamline the relocation process for Service personnel when they are posted from one location to another; a key element of this is to improve the flow of posting information between the Service posting authorities, Service units and the housing organisations. As part of this work we are investigating the feasibility or providing relevant posting data directly to the housing organisations. Minor changes to the procedure in Great Britain (GB) for applying for family accommodation will enable the Defence Housing Executive to take a more proactive approach by contacting personnel up to six months prior to their anticipated end of tour date to ascertain their intentions and requirements. Other housing providers (outside GB) will consider their application and allocation procedures once the GB model has been refined.

    Service personnel being posted abroad, and those returning from overseas postings, will benefit from these improvements.

    Independent Housing Survey
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what percentage of service families are recorded as content with the standard of their family accommodation according to the Independent Housing Survey; and if he will make a statement; [42982]

    (2) what is done with the results of the Independent Housing Survey; what plans he has to publish it; and if he will make a statement. [42983]

    Dr. Moonie
    The 2001 Customer Attitude Survey on family housing recorded 67 per cent. of service families being "content" with the general standard of family accommodation. The results of the survey are used to help ensure that resources are best directed to meet the needs of service families. There are currently no plans to publish it.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Dodds
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) nature and (b) extent is of the British military presence in Gibraltar. [43503]

    Mr. Ingram
    I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 669W, to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) and on 11 December 2001, Official Report, column 740W to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).

    Mr. Dodds
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations have been made by Spain to the Government in respect of future British military deployment in Gibraltar. [43502]

    Mr. Ingram
    Gibraltar is, and will remain, an important overseas base for the British armed forces. Talks with Spain under the Brussels Process are aimed at reaching a comprehensive agreement covering all outstanding issues related to Gibraltar.

    Non-governmental Organisations
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 March 2002,Official Report, column 476W, 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. [43069]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence makes grants to a small number of non-governmental organisations. No information is routinely collated on their funding, nor is information held on the location of their operations.

    Records
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what type of records are destroyed by his Department when they are considered to be of no further administrative use; [43543]

    (2) who made the decision to destroy records relating to the sea disposal of chemical weapons in the Baltic sea after World War 2; [43545]

    (3) who makes the decision to destroy MOD documents when they are considered to be of no further administrative use; [43544]

    (4) for what reason the UK extended the period of the classification of documents relating to the dumping of Axis chemical weapons in the Baltic after World War 2 to 2017. [43546]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence and the services create a significant amount of material during the course of business. As a consequence records are initially reviewed locally by those responsible for their creation. Where records are perceived to have no more value they may be destroyed locally. Records thought to have continuing administrative or possible historical value are transferred to the MOD's main archives. They are in due course reviewed by the MOD's staff in a process reflecting the requirements of the Public Records Act, 1958 and 1967.
    70W
    I am arranging for a copy of the MOD's historical report on CW sea dumping, details of which were submitted to the Helsinki Commission, to be placed in the Library of the House. The MOD is not familiar with any record, on this subject, closed until 2017. However if the hon. Member would care to provide further details I will look into the matter and write to the hon. Member.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the extent of dumping of Axis chemical weapons in the Baltic from 1945 to 1947; and what steps he is taking to address the issue. [43547]

    Dr. Moonie
    The United Kingdom, the United States of America, Russia and France undertook dumping of confiscated German chemical munitions into the Baltic and Skagerrak between 1945 and 1947. However, after World War Two, it was the administrative practice to destroy records of sea disposals of munitions, including chemical weapons, when such records were perceived to be of no further administrative use. As a result of this practice, a detailed inventory of all conventional and chemical munitions does not exist. Where relevant British records on this subject do survive, they have been declassified and transferred to the Public Record Office in accordance with the terms of the Public Records Act, 1958 and 1967. We do not have details of the quantity or content of munitions dumped by other nations.

    The consensus of international scientific opinion is that munitions on the seabed present no risk to human health or the marine environment provided they are left undisturbed. While the United Kingdom has no plans to monitor or remove conventional or chemical munitions dumped on the seabed, I am aware that NATO was approached by the Russian Government in 1997 regarding possible cooperation in the monitoring and prevention of leakage of chemicals from the German chemical weapons stocks sunk in the Baltic and Skagerrak after World War Two. Liaison on this issue with the Russian Government is continuing through NATO's Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (CCMS), but no decision has yet been reached as to whether NATO will participate in any monitoring or preventative action.

    Colerne Airfield
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many redundant hangars at Colerne Airfield have been sold; and how much they raised; [43517]

    (2) what discussions he has had with commercial interests about selling Colerne Airfield and Azinghur Barracks. [43519]

    Dr. Moonie
    [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The Ministry of Defence has had no discussions with commercial interests about selling Colerne Airfield and Azinghur Barracks.

    The two outlying sites at Colerne contained a total of five redundant hangars. Last year, however, we sold two surplus and outlying sites of hangars at Colerne. The sale achieved £675,000. Currently there are no further surplus hangars on the site.
    71W
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters at Colerne have been sold in the last five years. [43518]

    Dr. Moonie
    [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The only such disposals recorded in the last five years are twelve surplus family houses at Colerne handed back to Annington Homes Ltd.

    Stolen Equipment
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 498W, on stolen equipment, what criminal proceedings have been undertaken for cases of theft against his Department, stating in each case (a) whether the proceedings (i) led to a criminal conviction and (ii) were unsuccessful, (b) the cost incurred by his Department in pursuing a conviction and (c) the value of items recovered; and if he will make a statement. [41501]

    Mr. Ingram
    Reported cases of theft are held centrally on a summary basis and relate to reported suspicions only. It cannot be assumed therefore that criminal proceedings for theft have or will apply in every case. Every year the Ministry of Defence investigates a significant number of suspected thefts, many of a minor nature. Inevitably, in many instances a suspected perpetrator is not identified or there is insufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution. Where a suspected perpetrator is identified prosecution or internal disciplinary action follows as appropriate. The provision of comprehensive details, including costs incurred and recoveries made, relating to the outcome of such proceedings could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Warships
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether each Royal Navy frigate and destroyer is operational or in refit; and what the period of the current or next refit is in respect of each ship. [44213]

    Mr. Ingram
    26 of the total 32 RN frigates and destroyers are either operational or engaged in preparing for service, trials or training. The remaining six are undergoing a refit or docking period as follows:

    Period (weeks)

    Vessel refits

    Manchester

    89

    Liverpool

    82

    Gloucester

    79

    Iron Duke

    61

    Monmouth

    66

    Docking periods

    Marlborough

    27

    I am withholding details of the next refits for the fleet's frigates and destroyers in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to defence, security and international relations. However, in general terms, such refits occur between seven to nine years into a commission with a planned duration, including preparations and trials periods, of between 57 and 79 weeks.

    Kosovo
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the outcome was of the local police investigation into the circumstances of the death of Fahir Bici and Avni Dudi on 4 July 1999; what the outcome of the RMP investigation was; how many rounds were discharged by British forces; what communication he has had with the families of the deceased; what compensation has been paid; what the result was of disciplinary hearings; and what notices of orders were issued to the Parachute Regiment relating to circumstances of the incident. [41095]

    Mr. Ingram
    I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

    World War Two Civilian Prisoners (Far East)
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian prisoners of the Japanese in the far east who have received ex-gratia payments under his scheme were(a) diplomatic personnel and (b) dependants of diplomatic personnel. [41234]

    Dr. Moonie
    It is not possible to say how many of those who have received an ex-gratia payment under the scheme I announced on 7 November 2000,Official Report, columns 159–71, were diplomatic personnel or their dependants as this information is not specifically held.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Correspondence
    Mr. Alan Duncan
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will respond substantively to the letters of 13 July 2001, 24 July 2001 and 29 January 2002 referring to case Ref No 117550, from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). [44082]

    Mr. Wills
    The Lord Chancellor has now replied. I am sorry the reply to the hon. Member's letter took some time but it raised a complex point of law on which Counsel's Opinion was sought.

    Community Legal Services Partnerships (North-West)
    Mr. Watts
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action her Department is taking to promote community legal services partnerships in the north-west. [40939]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Over the last two years, Ministers have supported community legal service partnerships (CLSP) by attending numerous local events. Most recently I was in Rochdale to speak at the launch of the Rochdale CLSP strategic plan. In February, Baroness Scotland launched the Halton CLSP, bringing the total coverage of partnerships in the north-west to 100 per cent. While in the region, Baroness Scotland also opened a new housing service, being provided through Chester offices of Shelter, and awarded the quality mark to the Cheshire constabulary.
    73W
    To promote the concept of partnerships generally, national partners are kept up to date on national developments and regional development activities. All community legal service partnerships (CLSPs) undertake promotional activities as part of their work.

    Domestic Violence
    Margaret Moran
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she intends to report on the use of third party orders in respect of domestic violence under section 60 of the Family Law Act 1986. [43074]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Last November I announced that we would be commissioning a short research project to assess the implications and benefits of introducing third party orders, as provided under section 60 of the Family Law Act 1996.

    The research project was awarded to Dr. Mandy Burton of the university of Leicester on 12 March 2002 and will run from 15 March to 22 September 2002. The research will consider the effectiveness of all civil remedies currently available to survivors of domestic violence. Where any gaps are identified, consideration will be given as to whether or not the implementation of section 60 would fill them.

    The Lord Chancellor and I will consider the findings of the research and announce our response at the earliest opportunity.

    Resident Magistrates
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many resident magistrates reside within five miles of the court in which they sit. [38293]
    74W
    Ms Rosie Winterton
    A resident magistrate may reside outside the district to which he or she is assigned, as the term means that the magistrate is attached to a petty sessions district. Of the 13 resident magistrates who are assigned to districts, one resides within five miles of the courthouse in the district and another, who is assigned to two adjoining districts, resides within five miles of the courthouse in one of the districts. The other 11 resident magistrates reside more than five miles from the courthouse in the district to which they are assigned. The six remaining resident magistrates operate on a peripatetic basis and are not assigned to a specific district or courthouse.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Flexible Working
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [42419]

    Mr. Leslie
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 780W. Information on numbers of staff who are term-time workers or engaged in another form of flexible working are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Women's On-line Business Centre
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with the development of the new website Women's On-Line Business Centre. [43109]

    Nigel Griffiths
    I have been asked to reply.

    SBS are working with their supplier to deliver the Women's On-Line Business Centre during summer 2002.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Short-measure Drinks
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made by her Department of(a) the retail and (b) wholesale cost of beer and cider not served to consumers owing to short measures in the last 12 months. [25883]

    Ms Hewitt
    I have today announced proposals to strengthen consumer protection against short-measure draught beer and cider. Under the proposals bar staff would have to serve a minimum of 95 per cent. liquid per pint. If consumers are dissatisfied with 95 per cent. they can request a top-up. The Government will work closely with the beer trade to ensure that consumers are fully aware of their rights, including pubs displaying signs that consumers can ask for a top-up at no extra cost if they are dissatisfied with their pint.

    The Department estimates that the total wholesale cost of draft beer and cider not served to consumers owing to short measures amounts to some £130 million a year at 2001 wholesale prices. This is based on sales of 6.6 billion pints a year, taken together with the results of surveys by local authority trading standards departments which show that 20 per cent. of pints were 100 per cent. liquid or more, 60 per cent. were between 95 per cent. and 99 per cent. liquid and 20 per cent. of pints were below 95 per cent. liquid. The retail value of this under-supply will depend on retail prices in particular establishments but will exceed the wholesale value.

    Specification Standards (Relaxation)
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence she has collated on the relaxation of specification standards for the benefit of some importers. [36831]

    Ms Hewitt
    Most standards are developed under a voluntary process facilitated by the British Standards Institution (BSI) and the content of such standards are determined by business, consumers and other stakeholders. BSI itself is independent of Government, and questions about standards for particular products need to be taken up with BSI rather than my Department.

    Records are not kept by my Department of how such voluntary standards are used.

    LNM Holdings
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department was consulted by the Prime Minister regarding the purchase by LNM Holdings of Sidex. [38392]

    Ms Hewitt
    No.

    Mr. Whittingdale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions took place between her Department and other Government Departments on the British connections of LNM Holdings. [38854]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 6 March 2002, Official Report, column 349W.

    Universal Bank
    Mr. Weir
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if sub-postmasters/mistresses or staff employed to operate the universal bank in sub-post offices who give advice on services or accounts will be required to register under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. [39107]

    Mr. Alexander
    This is essentially a commercial matter for Post Office Ltd. However, my understanding is that sub-postmasters will not be giving financial advice and will not therefore be required to register under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she had with the Post Office on the Universal Bank during the final year that her Department was responsible for the scheme. [43339]

    Mr. Alexander
    Ministers and officials at the Department of Trade and Industry have regular discussions with Consignee on a range of issues, including universal banking services.

    Visual Impairment
    Lembit Öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment her Department has made of the preparations manufacturers have made to include appropriate labelling for blind people on their packaging by 2004, in order to comply with the requirements of the Disabilities Discrimination Act 1999; and if she will make a statement; [39464]

    (2) what plans her Department has to publicise the legal responsibility of companies to make sure their products have blind-friendly labelling by 2004 to comply with the requirements of the Disabilities Discrimination Act 1999; and if she will make a statement. [39462]

    Ms Hewitt
    The 2004 access duties in Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 refer to the physical features of premises. The manufacture and design of goods and product labelling are not covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

    World Economic Forum
    Mr. Mark Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will list meetings held between her Department and HM Treasury concerning the preparations for the World Economic Forum; [40191]

    (2) who is representing the UK at the World Economic Forum conference in New York; what their aims are; and if she will make a statement after their return; [40192]

    (3) what representations she received from British businesses prior to the World Economic Forum conference; and if she will make a statement; [40189]

    (4) if she will list meetings she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on preparation for the World Economic Forum; and if she will publish the minutes of these meetings. [40190]

    Ms Hewitt
    I am in regular contact with representatives from British business to discuss a variety of trade related issues. I am not aware of any specific representations received from British businesses prior to the World Economic Forum. I did however receive invitations from
    77W
    a variety of organisations to meetings, dinners and receptions taking place during the course of the World Economic Forum conference.

    Pay Rates
    Barbara Follett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average gap is between men's and women's pay in the Stevenage constituency. [40479]

    Ms Hewitt
    Estimates for the Parliamentary Constituency of Stevenage are not available.

    According to the 2001 New Earnings Survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics, average hourly pay for full-time employees, excluding overtime, in the county of Hertfordshire, was £13.41 for men and £10.96 for women, a pay gap of £2.45

    Jim Dobbin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average gap is between men's and women's pay in the Heywood and Middleton constituency. [40419]

    Ms Hewitt
    Estimates for the Parliamentary Constituency of Heywood and Middleton are not available. According to the 2001 New Earnings Survey, conducted by the Office for National Statistics, average hourly pay for full-time employees, excluding overtime, in the Greater Manchester Metropolitan County, was £11.08 for men and £9.19 for women, a pay gap of £1.89 per hour.

    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average gap between men's and women's pay was in the Leeds, West constituency in(a) 1991 and (b) 2001. [40710]

    Ms Hewitt
    There is no data on the pay gap for the parliamentary constituency of Leeds, West. Data are available for the local authority of Leeds, albeit only from 1996.

    According to the New Earnings Survey (NES), conducted by the Office for National Statistics, average hourly earnings for full-time employees, excluding overtime, in the Leeds local authority in 1996 was £8.94 for men and £7.18 for women, a pay gap of £1.76.

    In the 2001 NES, average hourly earnings for full-time employees, excluding overtime, in the Leeds local authority, was £11.11 for men and £9.60 for women, a pay gap of £1.51.

    Litigation
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases(a) her Department and (b) its agencies have defended in (i) industrial tribunals and (ii) the courts in each year since 1997; how many were concluded in their favour; and what the total cost to his Department of litigation was in each year. [41106]

    Alan Johnson
    The information is not kept in a readily available form and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

    Congestion Charge (Consignia)
    Richard Ottaway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 28 February,78W
    Ref. 37817, on the London congestion charge, for what reason she has not made an assessment of the effect that the proposed change would have on Consignia. [41147]

    Mr. Alexander
    Any such assessment would be for Consignia plc.

    Beer and Cider
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will publish the conclusion of the Measures of Draught Beer and Cider: Consultation Paper on proposed legislative changes under the Weights and Measures Act 1985. [41336]

    Ms Hewitt
    Currently, one pint of draught beer in five contains less than 95 per cent. liquid. The licensed trade's own voluntary guidelines recommend that a pint should not be less than 95 per cent. liquid, and that top-ups should be given if requested. But under existing laws trading standards officers can only act if beer drinkers are short-measured by at least 10 per cent.

    Under proposals published today by my Department, bar staff will have to serve beer drinkers a minimum of 95 per cent. liquid in a pint, which is equivalent to an extra 60 million pints a year. Landlords who ignore the new regulations would be liable to prosecution for short-measure and would face £1,000 fines. Persistent offenders would run the risk of losing their licence.

    The Department has consulted widely with all the relevant bodies. It will now work closely with the beer trade to ensure that consumers are fully informed of their new rights. This will include pubs clearly displaying signs that consumers can ask for a top-up at no extra cost if they are not satisfied with their pint.

    These proposals strike the right balance between delivering a better deal for consumers without damaging the brewing industry and hitting beer and cider drinkers with higher prices. The cost to the industry of serving 100 per cent. liquid would be £95 million, which would have severe cost implications for smaller pubs with low profit margins.

    The Department will now consult on draft regulations prior to bringing forward legislation and hopes to lay the legislation before the summer recess.

    Insolvency Service
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets have been set for the Insolvency Service's hotline for 2002–03. [42062]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    There are no targets set for the hotline as regards the number of calls or cases it has to deal with, as it is not possible to predict the number of calls it receives.

    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level of staff turnover was in the(a) Insolvency Service and (b) Hotline team in each year since 1997 (i) including and (ii) excluding temporary staff. [42069]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The turnover of staff employed by the Insolvency Service in each of the calendar years 1997–2001 was as follows:
    79W

    Percentage

    All staff

    1997

    13.9

    1998

    11.9

    1999

    12.8

    2000

    11.6

    2001

    13.8

    Since the inception of the Hotline in January 1998 only two people have left the team; one on promotion in 1999 and one on maternity leave in 2000.

    Age Discrimination
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's policy is towards age discrimination. [42574]

    Ms Hewitt
    As an equal opportunities employer, my Department aims to be fair to everyone and ensure that no eligible job applicant or employee receives less favourable treatment on the grounds of age. For example internal job applicants are not required to give details of their age nor does age appear on staff appraisal reports. The Department regularly monitors its personnel procedures, including by age, to identify any potential discrimination.

    Departmental Objectives
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will review the objectives of her Department. [42502]

    Ms Hewitt
    I announced in November last year, on 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 397W, a series of reforms to focus my Department's objectives more sharply in driving up UK productivity and competitiveness. Those reforms are now being implemented, and the Department's objectives are also being reviewed in the context of the 2002 Spending Review.

    My Department's current objectives, activities and expenditure can be found on website http://www.dti.gov.uld about/index.htm.

    Fishing
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 152W, for what reason the limit for compensation is measured in imperial miles; and whether Working Man's Bank off Faroes is within 200 (a) imperial and (b) nautical miles. [42501]

    Nigel Griffiths
    The area within 200 imperial miles of the Icelandic coast was selected as a convenient and identifiable area that accorded with the policy aim of the scheme to compensate former Icelandic water trawlermen following consultation with their leaders. Working Man's Bank is both within 200 imperial miles and within 200 nautical miles of the Icelandic coast.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 152W, on fishing, when this was(a) decided and (b) announced. [42500]

    Nigel Griffiths
    The limitation of eligibility under the scheme to former trawlermen who served on vessels that fished within 200 miles of the Icelandic coast was a80W
    feature of the rules of the scheme when they were first drawn up and consulted upon with the former trawlermen's leaders. It was always the intention that "miles" refer to imperial miles rather than nautical, so no specific announcement was made in that regard.

    Mobile Telephone Masts
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library a copy of the Mobile Phone Base Stations Audit 2001 carried out by the Radiocommunications Agency. [42921]

    Mr. Alexander
    Yes. I am arranging for this to be done.

    Gender Issues
    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which women's organisations have been consulted on proposed legislation by her Department during the(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 parliamentary Sessions; and if their responses have been published; [42902]

    (2) if she will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by her Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been (a) put out to consultation and (b) published; [42900]

    (3) what new data series broken down by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by her Department since August 1997. [42901]

    Ms Hewitt
    The Department is undertaking a wide range of work looking at gender issues in particular sectors of the Department's business. We have commissioned research, consulted widely and published the outcomes on issues such as work and parents, flexible working, the national minimum wage, employment tribunals, women's employment and pay, work-life balance, fixed-term work, women entrepreneurs and issues surrounding women in science and IT.

    My Department regularly consults with the Office for National Statistics and other government departments ensuring that data series provided by regular surveys such as the Labour Force Survey (LFS) provide us with opportunities for analyses by gender, race, disability and age. For example, we have recently published an analysis of women's scientific employment, also broken down by age (available on www2.set4women.gov.uk/set4women/ return/feedback.htm). In addition, services such as Business Link routinely capture detailed client characteristics, including gender and ethnicity.

    My Department's policy is to consult widely and appropriately on its proposed legislation, using a variety of methods targeted to reach different stakeholders and audiences, including women's organisations. For example, we involved the Equal Opportunities Commission and Parents at Work in the Work and Parents Taskforce (which reported last year) as well as business and the trades unions.

    Yusufeli Dam
    Ann Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the social and environmental impact of the Yusufeli Dam project in Turkey on surrounding areas. [43241]
    81W
    Ms Hewitt
    ECGD has been reviewing the preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) produced by the Turkish authorities for the Yusufeli Darn project. A number of questions relating to the social and environmental impact of the project have been raised by the export credit agencies involved. However AMEC—the UK contractor for the project—has recently announced that for purely commercial reasons they have decided to withdraw from the project. ECGD therefore has no longer any reason to continue its consideration.

    Public Service Agreements
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she 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. [43263]

    Ms Hewitt
    The 2001 Expenditure Plans Report (Cm 5112) includes two sets of public service agreement targets, comprising twelve targets each, to cover the Comprehensive Spending Review period (1999–02) and the Spending Review 2000 period (2001–04). No targets from either set have been revised since the publication of the report, nor have any new targets been introduced.

    Public-private Partnerships (Consultants)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total external spending by her 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 her Department over this period; and if she will make a statement. [43200]

    Ms Hewitt
    The Department has spent the following sums on consultants in relation to the potential PPP for BNFL in the last four years.

    £

    Number of consultancy firms used in each year

    1998–99

    100,000

    1

    1999–2000

    3,500,000

    7

    2000–01

    7,000,000

    7

    2001

    5,000,0001

    9

    1 Forecast

    Other information on the number of full-time equivalent consultants used and other consultancy costs can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Regional Assistance Grant
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total amount of regional assistance grant to industry in(a) the Buckingham constituency, (b) each constituency in the south-east of England and (c) the average per constituency in each year since 1992. [43295]

    Alan Johnson
    (a) Nil—the Buckingham constituency is not within an Assisted Area or Enterprise Grant Zone;
    82W
    (b) Regional Selective Assistance Grant for each parliamentary constituency in the south-east of England in each year since 1992 is set out in the tables, and includes;

    (c) the average per constituency:

    Regional selective assistance grant awarded from 1992 to 2001

    Constituency

    Number of grants

    Total amount (£)

    Average per constituency (£)

    1992

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1993

    Faversham

    2

    36,500

    18,250

    1994

    Bexhill and Battle

    1

    40,000

    40,000

    Dover

    3

    80,570

    26,856

    Faversham

    12

    497,770

    41,480

    Folkestone and Hythe

    3

    140,000

    46,666

    Hastings and Rye

    5

    163,912

    32,782

    Isle of Wight

    10

    579,529

    57,952

    North Thanet

    1

    650,000

    650,000

    South Thanet

    10

    733,200

    73,320

    1995

    Bexhill and Battle

    5

    182,000

    36,400

    Dover

    4

    232,750

    58,187

    Faversham

    15

    831,000

    55,400

    Folkestone and Hythe

    6

    359,200

    59,866

    Gillingham

    1

    750,000

    750,000

    Hastings and Rye

    14

    449,000

    32,071

    Isle of Wight

    12

    861,100

    71,758

    North Thanet

    15

    1,367,200

    91,146

    South Thanet

    15

    921,612

    61,440

    1996

    Bexhill and Battle

    7

    1,033,900

    147,700

    Dover

    9

    1,779,000

    197,666

    Faversham

    7

    805,000

    115,000

    Folkestone and Hythe

    6

    1,106,590

    184,431

    Hastings and Rye

    7

    430,000

    61,428

    Isle of Wight

    16

    591,500

    36,968

    North Thanet

    16

    2,655,500

    165,968

    South Thanet

    17

    4,819,348

    283,491

    1997

    Bexhill and Battle

    2

    17,250

    8,625

    Dover

    4

    130,000

    32,500

    Faversham

    7

    513,000

    73,285

    Folkestone and Hythe

    5

    236,000

    47,200

    Hastings and Rye

    6

    282,000

    47,000

    Isle of Wight

    10

    257,750

    25,775

    North Thanet

    8

    405,600

    50,700

    South Thanet

    14

    3,642,000

    260,142

    1998

    Bexhill and Battle

    1

    7,000

    7,000

    Faversham

    10

    270,500

    27,050

    Folkestone and Hythe

    4

    327,500

    81,875

    Hastings and Rye

    4

    238,000

    59,500

    Isle of Wight

    5

    727,000

    145,400

    North Thanet

    8

    560,400

    70,050

    South Thanet

    11

    2,896,000

    263,272

    1999

    Bexhill and Battle

    1

    97,000

    97,000

    Canterbury

    1

    12,000

    12,000

    Dover

    6

    110,500

    18,416

    Faversham

    12

    592,100

    49,341

    Folkestone and Hythe

    3

    86,000

    28,666

    Hastings and Rye

    4

    226,500

    56,625

    Isle of Wight

    8

    1,350,000

    168,750

    North Thanet

    4

    391,000

    97,750

    South Thanet

    10

    598,500

    59,850

    2000

    Bexhill and Battle

    3

    93,000

    31,000

    Brighton Kemptown

    1

    660,000

    660,000

    83W

    Regional selective assistance grant awarded from 1992 to 2001

    Constituency

    Number of grants

    Total amount (£)

    Average per constituency (£)

    Brighton Pavilion

    1

    95,000

    95,000

    Dover

    3

    1,051,160

    350,386

    Folkestone and Hythe

    4

    369,000

    92,250

    Hastings and Rye

    4

    150,500

    37,625

    Isle of Wight

    5

    1,171,700

    234,340

    North Thanet

    4

    325,000

    81,250

    South Thanet

    7

    308,200

    44,028

    2001

    Dover

    1

    100,000

    100,000

    Faversham

    1

    75,000

    75,000

    North Thanet

    4

    2,260,000

    565,000

    South Thanet

    1

    5,000,000

    5,000,000

    1 No Grants awarded

    Enterprise grants for each parliamentary constituency in the south-east of England in each year since 1992 are set out in the table:

    Enterprise grants awarded from 1999 to 2001

    Constituency

    Number of Grants

    Total amount (£)

    Average per constituency (£)

    1999

    1—

    1—

    1—

    2000

    Faversham

    3

    100,250

    33,416

    Hastings and Rye

    2

    26,800

    13,400

    Isle of Wight

    1

    55,000

    55,000

    Lewes

    2

    100,900

    50,450

    North Thanet

    3

    105,950

    35,316

    South Thanet

    3

    116,900

    38,966

    2001

    Bexhill and Battle

    2

    98,500

    49,250

    Canterbury

    2

    89,250

    44,625

    Dartford

    1

    16,500

    16,500

    Dover

    2

    20,950

    10,475

    Faversham

    10

    330,850

    33,085

    Folkestone and Hythe

    3

    92,654

    30,884

    Gillingham

    1

    72,000

    72,000

    Hastings and Rye

    3

    175,350

    58,450

    Hove

    3

    104,700

    34,900

    Isle of Wight

    14

    239,675

    17,119

    Lewes

    3

    136,949

    45,649

    Maidstone

    1

    60,150

    60,150

    Medway

    5

    149,420

    29,884

    Mid Kent

    1

    28,800

    28,800

    North Thanet

    1

    36,000

    36,000

    Portsmouth North

    3

    24,150

    8,050

    Portsmouth South

    2

    35,437

    17,718

    South Thanet

    1

    27,000

    27,000

    1 No grants awarded.

    84W
    In the south-east region only the following constituencies are eligible for regional assistance:
    Ashford, Bexhill and Battle, Brighton Kemptown, Brighton Pavilion, Canterbury, Dartford, Dover, Faversham, Folkestone and Hythe, Gillingham, Gravesham, Hastings and Rye, Hove, Isle of Wight, Lewes, Maidstone, Medway, Mid Kent, North Thanet, Portsmouth, North, Portsmouth, South, Shoreham, South Thanet, Tonbridge and Mailing.
    Figures have been suppliedonly for these constituencies and where a grant has been given.
    The following constituencies have received no grant:
    RSA: Medway, Tonbridge and Mailing
    Enterprise Grant: Ashford, Brighton Pavilion, Gravesham, Shoreham.

    Average figures have been calculated on a simple arithmetic basis.

    Departmental Functions
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the functions of her Department that have been(a) market tested and (b) out-sourced in each of the last five years, specifying the (i) money saving and (ii) percentage saving in each case. [42986]

    Ms Hewitt
    No departmental functions were market tested and out-sourced during the last five years.

    However, in that period, a number of contracts let as a result of previous market tests have been re-tendered.

    Research Council
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Research Council held in Brussels on 11 March; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [43216]

    Ms Hewitt
    The Research Council of 11 March 2002:

    1. Held an orientation debate on the rules of participation and the specific programmes for the Sixth EU Research Framework Programme 2002–06 and Sixth EURATOM Framework Programme 2002–06.

    2. Received an oral presentation by the commission on its proposal for a negotiating mandate to discuss a framework agreement with the European Space Agency.

    3. Received an oral presentation by the commission on its proposal to amend the negotiating mandate on the legal aspects of a possible ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), in order to include possible site offers for ITER in Europe and cost sharing provisions.

    4. Received a presentation by the commission of its proposed action plan for Biotechnology and Life Sciences in Europe.

    5. Under other business, the commission gave a brief update on the work of the expert group on bioterrorism.

    6. There were no votes at this council.

    Transmission Grid
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the scope is of the new study into the transmission grid between Scotland and the rest of the UK; when it will report; and if its conclusions will form part of the Energy White Paper. [43047]

    Mr. Wilson
    I shall shortly be meeting representatives of the three UK transmission asset owners (The National Grid Company, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern) as well as the Scottish Executive and Ofgem in order to discuss these issues. My expectation is that work will be taken forward quickly and that it will inform the Energy White Paper.

    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on building a meshed grid following the publication of the concept study on the Western Offshore Transmission Grid. [43049]

    Mr. Wilson
    The recently published PB POWER report endorsed the option of an offshore hvdc link either as means of the bulk transfer of renewable energy to a suitable point on the existing transmission system, or as a means of addressing existing transmission constraints.

    The report also recommended that a more detailed investigation of the feasibility of such a link should be part of a more general review of transmission system needs. My Department is considering the best way to take this work forward in conjunction with the UK transmission asset owners (National Grid Company, Scottish Power and Scottish & Southern).

    UK Compensation Monitoring Group
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her recent meeting with the UK compensation monitoring group. [43050]

    Mr. Wilson
    I met the Ministerial Monitoring Group on 6 March. The main points covered were the significant increases since October 2001 in numbers of full and final offers made in relation to respiratory disease. It was also noted that the Department is working closely with the Claimants' Solicitors to ensure that offers are being translated quickly into settlements. The issue of ensuring priority for oldest and sickest claimants was discussed.

    In relation to VWF, the cut-off date of 31 October for the scheme was noted, following an announcement by the Department earlier that week. I emphasised that this message should be circulated as widely as possible.

    Perkins, Shrewsbury
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the assistance available through Advantage West Midlands to mitigate the effect of the 500 redundancies at Perkins in Shrewsbury. [43528]

    Alan Johnson
    The situation at Perkins is, potentially, very damaging for the company, its employees, Shrewsbury and the surrounding area, and the Government 86W
    are treating it with the seriousness it deserves. As the hon. Member knows, I met with representatives of management and unions from the company on Monday March 11, to explore ways of mitigating the effects of any redundancies.

    Perkins are now looking at ways of saving some jobs on the site and extending production beyond the end of 2002. For the time being, the number and type of jobs that will be lost is not clear. The type of activity the company hopes to continue and the type of support they will request is also not clear.

    For that reason it is currently not possible to say what support can be offered to Perkins through Advantage West Midlands, or through other Government funded agencies in the locality.

    However, a task force has been convened to look at the implications for the area and to offer as much coordinated advice and help as possible. Management and unions from the site are members, and the Government are represented through the Government Office for the West Midlands. Advantage West Midlands is a key member and other members include both Local Authorities covering the area, the Employment Service, the SBS and the local Learning and Skills Council. A key function of the task group, set out in their terms of reference, is to identify all the potential sources of funding available and to develop a coordinated response to the needs of the company, the town and the surrounding areas.

    Quality Mark
    Mr. Tynan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many inquiries have been made to the construction Quality Mark register telephone line since its launch; and how many hits have been made on the Quality Mark website since its launch; [43614]

    (2) if an estimate has been made of the cost of expanding the construction Quality Mark scheme to cover the whole country; [43615]

    (3) when her Department will publish the findings of the review of the construction Quality Mark Scheme; [43612]

    (4) how many builders have gained the construction Quality Mark in the pilot projects in Birmingham and Somerset. [43613]

    Mr. Wilson
    I refer my hon. Friend to my answer on 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 891W. 154 companies have now achieved the Quality Mark.

    TRIPS
    Norman Lamb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the outcome of the last TRIPS Council meeting on 5 March. [43533]

    Ms Hewitt
    The TRIPS Council began work on the issues remitted to it at the Doha WTO Ministerial Conference in November last year. These include TRIPS and its relationship with public health, patentability of
    87W
    plants and animals, biodiversity, traditional knowledge, a review of the TRIPS Agreement and incentives for transfer of technology.

    The TRIPS Council also began work on a multilateral registration system for geographical indications for wines and spirits for completion by the Fifth Ministerial Conference in 2003, as required by Ministers at Doha.

    Employment Legislation
    Mr. Hunter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she proposes to take to reduce the administrative demands on employers of UK and EU employment legislation. [43625]

    Alan Johnson
    The Government want the UK to be the best place in the world to do business. To help achieve this we will eliminate unnecessary regulation and minimise the burdens imposed by regulation that is necessary. We have significantly strengthened the systems that control the regulatory burden. The Government have established the Better Regulation Task Force and the Ministerial Panel for Regulatory Accountability, appointed Ministers for Regulatory Reform in the main regulating Departments, and set up the Small Business Service to ensure that regulations do not impose unnecessary burdens.

    In February we published the Regulatory Reform Action Plan—setting out proposals for better regulation and reform across Whitehall, local government and health authorities. The plan brings together in one document over 250 proposals for change—some already announced, some entirely new proposals—representing snapshot of reform plans at start of 2002. These will benefit businesses, charities and the voluntary sector. It represents a good beginning, but Government will continue working to identify and bring forward proposals to reduce the overall regulatory burden.

    The Government are working to ensure that similar disciplines and procedures are in place at European Union level. In particular we want to see an early and full implementation by the commission of the recommendations of the Mandelkern Report on Better Regulation. This report was produced by a high level group of experts from all 15 EU member states and makes recommendations on alternatives to regulation, impact assessment, consultation, simplification, access to regulation, structures and implementation.

    The Government are encouraging the European Commission, European Parliament and other member states to implement these recommendations. We look forward to the Commission's Action Plan for Better Regulation, which will be presented to the Seville European Council in June, being based on the Mandelkern report.

    Broadband
    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the growth 88W
    in level of (a) internet use and (b) broadband connectivity among small and medium enterprises over the last 12 months for which figures are available. [43816]

    Mr. Alexander
    The Government's Business in the Information Age International Benchmarking Report 2001 (October 2001) assesses the extent to which UK businesses are using information and communications technologies in their operations. The report has been placed in the Libraries of the House. Oftel's report Business use of Internet small and medium business survey contains the broadband connectivity figures.

    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what international comparators she has identified as an appropriate basis for measuring UK broad hand infrastructure roll-out. [43815]

    Mr. Alexander
    The UK Online Annual Report (December 2001) sets out the market performance metrics by which we will measure the UK's standing in the G7 in terms of the competitiveness and extensiveness of the broad band market.

    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what international comparators she has identified as an appropriate basis for measuring performance of the local-loop unbundling initiative in the UK. [43814]

    Mr. Alexander
    Oftel is working with other European telecoms regulators to collect data relating to local loop unbundling (LLU) across Europe on a consistent basis.

    Post Offices
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices there were in Wales in 1997; how many were classified as rural; and how many there are now that are classified as rural. [44043]

    Mr. Alexander
    965 post offices in Wales were classified as rural according to the latest available figures to the end of December 2001.

    I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that data by country are not available before 1998.

    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many rural network advisers there are for the Post Office. [43627]

    Mr. Alexander
    I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that there are currently 31 rural transfer advisers.

    Pensions
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she proposes to secure equivalence of treatment in respect of pensions on the transfer of an engagement from the public sector to an outside contractor. [43134]

    Alan Johnson
    It has been the policy of successive Governments to ensure that the occupational pension rights of public sector staff are protected on a "broadly comparable" basis on transfer within the public sector and
    89W
    from the public sector to the private. The Government remain committed to that policy, which is set out in the Treasury note "Staff Transfers from Central Government: A Fair Deal for Staff Pensions".

    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether pensions are treated by her Department as deferred pay in connection with industrial relations and the resolution of disputes. [43133]

    Alan Johnson
    Whether employment law would enable an employee to seek legal redress in respect of a dispute involving a pension will depend upon the nature of the dispute. If the pension forms part of the employee's contract of employment there may be redress through the employment tribunals or civil courts, for example in the form of a breach of contract claim.

    Disabled People (Access)
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the number of premises at which the provision access for disabled people would be commercially unviable. [38385]

    Maria Eagle
    I have been asked to reply.

    In order to comply with the physical access duties under Part III of the DDA that come into force in October 2004, service providers will only have to make changes to premises that are reasonable. Several factors are considered in determining reasonableness, including the cost of the adjustments, its practicality, and the service provider's resources. There is no question of unreasonable costs being imposed on businesses.

    Disability Discrimination Act
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to extend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to apply to disabled youngsters on work placements. [38278]

    Maria Eagle
    I have been asked to reply.

    We are considering what amendments should be made to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in the light of the ongoing consultation on the Article 13 Employment Directive, including possible changes in relation to practical work experience.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Advertising
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by his Department in each of the last four years, specifying the(a) purpose, (b) cost to public funds, (c) number of staff involved and (d) method of evaluation in each case. [39074]
    90W
    Angela Eagle
    The campaigns run by the Home Department in the last four years are as follows:

    1997–98;

    Accelerated Promotion Scheme for Graduates Police Recruitment

    Electoral Registration

    Special Constables

    Fire Safety—Chip pan safety pilot

    1998–99;

    Accelerated Promotion Scheme for Graduates (APSG) Police Recruitment

    Electoral Registration Special Constables

    Fire Safety—Smoke Alarms

    Crime Partnerships

    1999–2000;

    APSG Police Recruitment

    Electoral Registration Special Constables

    Fire Safety—Escape pilot

    Fire Safety—Chip pan safety national

    European Parliamentary Elections

    Passport Agency

    2000–01;

    Police recruitment

    Vehicle crime reduction

    Fire safety

    Human rights

    Rolling electoral registration and

    Postal voting.

    In answer to sections (a), (b) and (d) I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 25 January 2001, Official Report, column 718W.

    (C) Staff in the Department's Marketing Communications Unit (currently 20) work on the development and management of advertising campaigns and other publicity initiatives. The number of staff involved in each project varies as it progresses, often on a week by week basis.

    Police Stations
    Ms Shipley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the design and construction quality of new police stations. [39541]

    Mr. Denham
    The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) receives grant-in-aid from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in order to fulfil its remit to promote high standards in the design of public buildings. The Home Office, along with other Government Departments, is fully committed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's Better Public Buildings Initiative, and is working with CABE at a practical level in order to achieve excellence in design and construction in the built environment.

    The design and construction of new police stations is the direct responsibility of individual police authorities and is subject to town planning control procedures. The Department is working with CABE and police authorities to support the achievement of better design and construction quality in new police stations.

    Relocation Expenses
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in his Department. [41025]

    Angela Eagle
    Home Office policy is consistent with section 8 of the Civil Service Management Code which sets out the conditions under which Departments and agencies may provide for the reimbursement of relocation expenses to staff who are subject to permanent and compulsory transfers. Relocation terms must be cost effective compared with the alternatives and the level of reimbursement must reflect the reasonable additional costs necessarily incurred.

    The details of the Department's policy are set out in the Transfer Manual and the Permanent Transfer Guide.

    Islamophobia
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further action he is taking to tackle instances of Islamophobia; and if he will make a statement. [40970]

    Angela Eagle
    The Government are committed to tackling Islamophobia, along with all other forms of religious discrimination.

    The Government are committed to implementing the Article 13 EC Employment Directive outlawing discrimination in employment and training on the grounds of religion by 2 December 2003.

    The Human Rights Act 1998 also provides protection against religious discrimination.

    The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 created new religiously aggravated offences including assaults, threatening behaviour and criminal damage, which carry higher maximum penalties where there is evidence of religious hostility.

    A question on religious identity was included in the 2001 census reflecting the importance of recognising faith identity. When the census results are released they will provide Government with reliable data to help plan and deliver services sensitive to the needs of faith communities.

    The Government favour a comprehensive approach in which education, training and a greater effort to teach more in schools about the diversity of faith will all play an important part.

    The option of a state-supported faith-based education to those from minority faiths is being extended. This will build on the long-standing tradition of church schools and add to the inclusiveness and diversity of the school system, but will not involve the introduction of new policy or legislation.

    In addition, education in citizenship is being introduced within secondary schools from September 2002 so that for the first time, students will be taught as part of the national curriculum about the diversity of identities and cultures in the United Kingdom and the need for mutual respect and understanding.
    92W
    Many people of different faiths share common problems in our society today regardless of their religious beliefs and values. The Government support them in their pursuit to eliminate harmful and discriminatory practices.

    Our relations with the Muslim community are extremely important and we will continue to strive to improve them. I hope they—like other faith communities—will always find in this Government not just a sympathetic ear, but a friend willing to do all it can to make Britain a safe and fulfilling place to live.

    Drugs
    Mr. John Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned in the last five years on the role of cannabis as a gateway drug; what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed reclassification of cannabis; what recent representations he has received on resources and manpower directed to the detection, arrest and charging of drug dealers; and what plans he has to seek to amend the sentencing powers relating to convicted drug dealers. [40852]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    On 23 October last year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the scientific literature on cannabis, including the so-called "gateway effect". The Government have commissioned no separate research of their own.

    In assessing the impact of the reclassification of cannabis, the Home Secretary has said that he intends to consider the independent evaluation of the Lambeth cannabis policing pilot and take account of the findings and recommendations of the current Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry, which has taken a range of evidence on the issues.

    A new sentencing option for the courts in respect of convicted drug traffickers, Travel Restriction Orders, will come into force on 1 April 2002. Travel Restriction Orders will give the courts the powers in some circumstances to prevent the overseas travel of a convicted drug trafficker following his or her release from prison.

    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985 and 2001 for supplying anabolic steroids in each of the last 10 years. [41355]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The available statistics, held on the Home Office Court Proceedings database, show that there was one prosecution for supplying or offering to supply anabolic steroids in England and Wales in each of the years 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2000 and three in 1997.

    The anabolic steroids were not controlled until September 1996.

    Statistics for 2001 will be available in the autumn.

    Prison Service
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has applied for additional funding from contingency reserves in
    93W
    order to meet increased expenditure resulting from the Prison Service pay review; and if he will make a statement. [41154]

    Beverley Hughes
    No application has been made for additional funding from contingency reserves. It is intended that the cost of the Prison Service pay review be met from within existing departmental expenditure limits. Proposals to enable this are still under consideration.

    Young Offenders Institution (Aylesbury)
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if sprinkler systems have been installed at HM YOI Aylesbury. [40844]

    Beverley Hughes
    In line with current policy sprinkler systems have not been installed in any part of Aylesbury young offenders institution. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has called for a review of fire safety precautions and the use of sprinklers in young offenders institutions, adult prisons and detention centres.

    Probation Arrangements (Tenders)
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests he has received to tender for probation facilities arrangements from in-house applicants; and if he will make a statement. [41156]

    Beverley Hughes
    A report was received from London Probation Area (LPA) which included the proposal that LPA or a consortium of probation areas could run the estates and facilities management services for part of the probation estate. Following legal and procurement advice, it was determined that this request could not be considered as an in-house bid.

    Yarl's Wood
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the terms of reference are for the investigations into the disturbances at Yarl's Wood; if the findings will be made public; and if he will make a statement. [41149]

    Angela Eagle
    The terms of reference for the inquiry being conducted by Stephen Moore are:"To inquire into the events at Yarl's Wood Removal Centre on the night of 14–15 February 2002 and their causes and to make recommendations designed to minimise the risk of recurrence on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) custodial estate in relation to contracts and agreements with service providers, the operation of removal centres, building design and construction, and any other matters considered relevant.
    The inquiry will take full account of the inquiries being undertaken by Bedfordshire Police, Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service and Group 4, and will be conducted in a way which does not impede any criminal investigation. In addition, the inquiry will have available expert advice from Her Majesty's Prison Service on matters to do with the above matters."
    The findings of the inquiry will be published.

    Crime (Licensed Premises)
    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has on(a) licensing and (b) policing for night clubs and other licensed premises which are identified as generating problems of crime and disorder.[41410]
    94W
    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    We have provided the police with strong new powers to deal with disorderly or excessively noisy licensed premises. Section 17 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which came into force on 1 December 2001, allows the police to close premises, instantly, for up to 24 hours where such problems are occurring. We expect the powers to have a deterrent effect and lead to a reduction in the incidence of violence and disorder on licensed premises, as well as providing the police with effective powers to deal with problems when they arise.

    The White Paper "Time for Reform" (Cm 4696), published in April 2000, set out the Government's wider proposals for reforming and modernising licensing law. The proposals included a new graduated system of sanctions penalising licensees who failed to comply with licence conditions relating to crime and disorder and other matters. The Government intend to bring forward legislation to implement the White Paper proposals as soon as parliamentary time permits.

    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is towards enabling police services to charge night clubs and bar proprietors for additional policing costs associated with their premises. [41401]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    We made it clear in the White Paper 'Policing A new Century: A Blueprint for Reform' that we are concerned about the costs incurred in policing entertainment venues, pubs and clubs, and sporting venues where policing demands impact on policing in the area. We are keen to explore how we might encourage and develop arrangements under which entertainment venues make a contribution to the policing and public order costs generated by their activities.

    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the need for new police powers to deal with the problems of crime and disorder associated with night clubs and other licensed premises. [41409]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    A package of measures to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder were included in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. This includes new police powers to close disorderly or excessively noisy licensed premises, instantly, for up to 24 hours, and a toughening up of the law relating to drunkenness and disorder on licensed premises, and to under-age drinking. Working with the police and others, we shall keep the impact of these new measures, which came into force on 1 December 2001, under review as the basis for determining whether new or additional powers are required to assist the police and others in tackling crime and disorder on licensed premises.

    Visas
    Mr. Flook
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the fee payable by Polish citizens applying for British visas was introduced and for what purpose; how much of the fee goes to the Polish Government; and for what reason British citizens are unable to pay for the visa in Britain. [41868]

    Angela Eagle
    For many categories of entry to the United Kingdom, Polish nationals do not require a visa before travel i.e. they are non-visa nationals. However,
    95W
    there are a number of categories for which prior entry clearance is mandatory for all nationals (apart from those exempt from immigration controls). A standard fee applicable world-wide is levied, according to entry category, by visa sections for each application for entry clearance. This is payable in local currency at the time the application is lodged. Administratively this is the most effective way of collecting and reconciling fee income. The entry clearance operation is self-financing and the fee therefore directly relates to the administration costs involved. None of the fee is received by the Polish Government.

    Asylum Accommodation Centres
    John Barrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 160W, on asylum seeker accommodation centres, what health facilities will be made available to asylum seekers; and what role (a) local hospitals and (b) other health institutions will be expected to take in the provision of such health care. [42728]

    Angela Eagle
    Asylum seekers will be provided with primary healthcare on site. Any secondary healthcare needs will be provided for at local hospitals or other health institutions.

    John Barrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department contacted City of Edinburgh Council to inform them that RAF Turnhouse was being considered as a potential site for an asylum seeker accommodation centre; by what means the information was conveyed; and if he will place the correspondence in the Library. [42731]

    Angela Eagle
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 719W. A copy of the original letter will be placed in the Library.

    John Barrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the first asylum seeker accommodation centres to be opened. [42738]

    Angela Eagle
    The aim is that the first centre should open as soon as possible, but a date for this to happen has yet to be settled.

    John Barrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the transport facilities available for asylum seekers housed in an accommodation centre at Turnhouse in Edinburgh. [42732]

    Angela Eagle
    Transport implications will form a part of the planning process for the trial accommodation centres. We will provide for transport for residents where necessary.

    John Barrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 160W, on asylum seeker accommodation centres, what purposeful activities he envisages asylum seekers will undertake through volunteering. [42726]
    96W
    Angela Eagle
    No final decisions have yet been taken so I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 159W.

    John Barrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what freedom asylum seekers who are housed in the proposed new accommodation centres will have to leave the sites. [42725]

    Angela Eagle
    Asylum seekers who are housed in accommodation centres will be subject to residence and reporting requirements but will otherwise be able to come and go.

    Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Croydon
    Ross Cranston
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the performance of the 24-hour turnaround postal service for urgent straightforward cases announced in October 1997 for third party users of the IND office in Croydon. [42496]

    Angela Eagle
    The 24-hour turnaround postal service has been subject to regular quarterly reviews since its implementation in 1997. There have been regular user group meetings at which members of the Immigration and Legal Practitioners Association have attended along with a number of the existing users. Both postal recommendations from users and those raised at the user group meetings have been incorporated in subsequent reviews of the service. Any appropriate changes made are intended to reflect the views and wishes of the majority of the existing users.

    Ross Cranston
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many third party users have taken advantage of the 24-hour turnaround postal service for urgent straightforward cases for third party users of the IND office in Croydon. [42497]

    Angela Eagle
    The 24-hour turnaround postal service operated by the Public Enquiry Office (PEO) of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) based in Croydon currently has 235 registered users of the service.

    Illegal Immigrants
    Mr. Matins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the French authorities about illegal immigrants invading Eurotunnel property; and if he will make a statement. [43032]

    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 14 March 2002]: Illegal immigration through the channel tunnel is a problem shared by France and the United Kingdom (UK) and we are working closely to prevent unauthorised access both to the tunnel and its surrounding areas.

    There have been no large-scale invasions into the Eurotunnel terminal at Coquelles since December 2001 but a number of incursions have recently been made into SNCF's adjoining rail freight yard at Frethun. The Government is extremely concerned about problems over security at the Frethun terminal and the effect this is having on freight traffic and UK businesses and trade.
    97W
    My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Home Secretary have all raised the problems at Frethun with their French opposite numbers. The French Government have now given a commitment rapidly to increase police presence at the Frethun site. For their part, the SNCF have embarked on a programme for improving security, representing an investment of £3 million, which includes new higher perimeter fencing with anti-intrusion devices, infra-red barriers, surveillance cameras, additional floodlights and a new surveillance post. These improvements aim to provide a similar level of security to that already put in place at the Eurotunnel site following earlier discussions. Joint work on the situation in Northern France and its underlying causes continues at both Ministerial and official level.

    Public Figures (Protection)
    Denzil Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate has been made of the total annual cost to the EU Budget of establishing a European network for the protection of public figures as proposed by the Kingdom of Spain in a draft decision (Brussels 29 January 2002) (S361/02). [42493]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The Spanish Presidency proposal for a council decision on a European Network for the Protection of Public Figures was not accompanied by a financial statement setting out the expected costs. Our own provisional assessment is that the proposal is unlikely to attract significant additional costs. Negotiations on the council decision are at an early stage and we do not expect the proposal to be discussed by Ministers before June 2002. The financial implications will be among the issues addressed by the United Kingdom delegation in the course of negotiations.

    Internet (Racist Material)
    Margaret Moran
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further measures he is taking to prevent racist content on the internet. [42661]

    Angela Eagle
    The Government continue to apply the principle that the law should be applied to criminal material on-line as it is to material off-line. The Government condemn those who produce race hate material including those who seek to distribute this material via the internet. The Public Order Act 1986 already deals with a range of material, which is threatening, abusive or insulting and intended or likely to stir up racial hatred and can be applied to material on the internet that falls within our jurisdiction. The Government have strengthened the provisions of the 1986 Act in amendments made by the Anti-terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001. This means the maximum penalty for those inciting racial hatred has risen from two to seven years' imprisonment. It is also now an offence to incite racial hatred against a racial group abroad. We have asked the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to work together to pool knowledge and 0experience in the investigation and prosecution of race hate material.

    The Government are working in conjunction with the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) who provide a hotline for members of the public who wish to complain about racially inflammatory material they come across on the
    98W
    internet. If the material is potentially criminal the IWF will ask a British internet service provider to remove the material hosted by them.

    The nature of the internet means that individual countries cannot counter this problem in isolation. That is why the United Kingdom is actively involved in discussions in the Council of Europe on a draft protocol to the Cybercrime Convention dealing with racist material on computer networks. The draft protocol, which is being considered by the Council of Europe states with the participation of the United States of America, Canada, Japan and South Africa, is designed to provide more effective judicial cooperation on racially inflammatory material between signatories to the protocol.

    The United Kingdom is also involved in negotiations with our European Union partners on a draft framework decision on racism and xenophobia. The framework decision seeks to provide definitions of criminal racist offences and common penalties and includes draft provisions relating to racist material on the internet originating or hosted in an European Union country.

    Anne Robinson
    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was to public funds of police protection for Ms Anne Robinson in Cirencester on 16 February; whether this cost was repayable by(a) Ms Robinson and (b) those who had invited her to Cirencester; and whether (i) Ms Robinson and (ii)) those who invited her have offered to repay this cost. [40326]

    Mr. Denham
    [holding answer 4 March 2002]: I understand from the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire that no specific request was made for police protection by Ms Anne Robinson or the organisers of the pro-hunting event that she attended in Cirencester on 16 February 2002. Gloucestershire police assigned a number of police officers to the event. Gloucestershire Police do not intend to claim costs from either Ms Robinson or the organisers of the event.

    Capita
    Paul Holmes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list contracts awarded by his Department to Capita since 1997, including(a) start and finish date of contract, (b) value of contract, (c) description of work to be carried out, (d) evaluation mechanism for successful delivery of contract, (e) penalty charges for failure to deliver and (f) if penalty charges have been incurred; and if he will make a statement. [40487]

    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The Home Department has four contracts with Capita which are valued at £403 million. This includes a 10 year contract with the Criminal Records Bureau which is estimated to be worth £400 million over the term of the contract.

  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Civil Servants
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what was the(a) percentage and

    99W
    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. [37497]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The percentage number and average cost of first class rail travel undertaken in my Department in each of the past four years is as follows:

    Percentage first class

    Number of rail journeys

    Average cost per ticket £

    January to December 2001

    80

    25,156

    135

    January to December 2000

    76

    23,132

    125

    January to December 1999

    74

    27,211

    95

    August to December 1998

    76

    1,715

    117

    Information prior to contract start date 1 August 1998 is not available due to different systems in operation.

    The total cost of rail travel broken down by grade of civil servant could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

    Departmental staff have a responsibility to give due consideration to cost when planning any official travel and extensive guidance is provided on how to get the best

    Pupil:reacher ratio in maintained primary schools by local education authority area, position in January each year

    2001

    2000

    1999

    1998

    1997

    1996

    1994

    1989

    1984

    1979

    England

    22.9

    23.3

    23.5

    23.7

    23.4

    23.2

    22.7

    22.0

    22.2

    23.1

    Avon1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    23.3

    23.1

    23.6

    23.9

    24.2

    Barking

    23.6

    22.9

    23.2

    23.1

    22.7

    22.4

    22.1

    21.2

    21.7

    22.3

    Barnet

    22.2

    21.3

    21.5

    21.4

    21.3

    20.9

    21.0

    19.9

    19.8

    21.5

    Barnsley

    24.6

    25.4

    25.6

    25.9

    25.5

    25.0

    24.2

    22.3

    21.1

    23.6

    Bath and North East Somerset

    22.4

    22.7

    23.3

    23.0

    22.4

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Bedfordshire1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    23.3

    23.0

    22.0

    21.5

    23.5

    Bedfordshire2

    22.9

    23.5

    23.8

    23.8

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Berkshire1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    23.7

    23.5

    23.3

    22.9

    23.1

    23.0

    Bexley

    24.5

    24.6

    24.5

    25.3

    24.8

    24.8

    23.5

    22.2

    24.5

    25.1

    Birmingham

    22.5

    22.7

    22.7

    22.8

    22.7

    22.7

    23.3

    23.5

    22.9

    24.0

    Blackburn with Darwen

    22.2

    23.3

    23.4

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Blackpool

    23.7

    24.7

    25.1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Bolton

    21.9

    22.0

    23.7

    23.3

    23.1

    22.8

    22.0

    22.0

    23.8

    25.2

    Bournemouth

    23.3

    24.7

    24.9

    25.7

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Bracknell Forest

    23.7

    24.2

    24.2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Bradford

    21.9

    23.1

    23.1

    23.9

    23.0

    22.3

    21.3

    19.6

    20.5

    20.9

    Brent

    22.3

    22.0

    21.9

    21.5

    21.9

    21.7

    22.0

    21.3

    18.3

    18.7

    Brighton and Hove

    21.6

    22.6

    23.4

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Bristol, City of

    22.5

    23.4

    23.9

    23.3

    23.0

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Bromley

    23.6

    24.2

    24.3

    24.8

    24.4

    24.6

    24.4

    23.2

    23.4

    24.5

    Buckinghamshire1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    23.9

    23.6

    23.0

    24.2

    24.3

    24.2

    Buckinghamshire2

    22.8

    22.8

    23.9

    24.2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Bury

    24.2

    24.1

    24.4

    25.3

    24.2

    24.0

    23.4

    21.9

    22.8

    23.5

    Calderdale

    22.7

    23.0

    24.1

    24.6

    24.3

    24.0

    23.7

    22.6

    22.0

    23.8

    Cambridgeshire1

    —

    —

    —

    24.9

    24.4

    23.9

    23.3

    22.8

    23.6

    23.3

    Cambridgeshire2

    24.1

    24.6

    25.0

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Camden

    20.9

    21.0

    20.5

    20.2

    20.0

    20.3

    20.5

    —

    —

    —

    Cheshire1

    —

    —

    —

    23.7

    23.8

    24.0

    23.9

    24.1

    22.7

    23.5

    Cheshire2

    22.9

    23.3

    23.9

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    City of London

    14.7

    14.3

    14.1

    14.3

    13.9

    13.9

    15.0

    —

    —

    —

    Cleveland1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    24.1

    23.8

    22.2

    22.1

    23.4

    Cornwall

    22.9

    23.6

    24.1

    24.1

    23.7

    23.7

    23.3

    23.1

    23.7

    24.2

    Coventry

    22.7

    23.1

    23.0

    23.9

    23.6

    23.3

    22.7

    22.4

    22.1

    22.7

    Croydon

    23.1

    23.2

    23.5

    23.3

    23.0

    22.2

    21.8

    21.2

    22.2

    23.1

    Cumbria

    22.0

    22.5

    23.3

    23.3

    23.4

    23.2

    22.5

    21.8

    21.2

    23.1

    Darlington

    24.5

    24.4

    25.4

    25.2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Derby

    23.7

    24.2

    23.8

    25.3

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    100W
    out of official travel. This guidance covers items such as method of travel, environmental impact and effective use of time.

    Science/Engineering Students
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the reasons for the change in acceptances of United Kingdom students to further education engineering courses over the past 10 years. [39529]

    Margaret Hodge
    [holding answer 4 March 2002]: Although there has been a decrease over the past 10 years in total acceptances to engineering courses, those for production engineering, for example, have been broadly maintained, and those for aeronautical engineering courses have increased. This reflects the pace of technological change. The Government have commissioned Sir Gareth Roberts to review the supply of high level science and engineering skills. A report is expected soon.

    Pupil:Teacher Ratio
    Mr. Lilley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the pupil to teacher ratio for maintained primary schools was each local education authority from 1979 to date. [42545]

    Mr. Timms
    The required information is readily available for 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994 and each year from 1996 to 2001, and is given in the following table.
    101W

    Pupil:reacher ratio in maintained primary schools by local education authority area, position in January each year

    2001

    2000

    1999

    1998

    1997

    1996

    1994

    1989

    1984

    1979

    Derbyshire1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    25.9

    25.3

    23.3

    21.5

    22.2

    23.8

    Derbyshire2

    24.2

    25.2

    25.1

    26.2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Devon1

    —

    —

    —

    24.6

    24.1

    24.0

    22.9

    23.2

    23.6

    24.3

    Devon2

    23.1

    23.5

    23.6

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Doncaster

    23.8

    24.2

    24.7

    24.5

    24.4

    24.3

    23.5

    21.3

    20.7

    22.2

    Dorset1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    24.6

    23.9

    23.4

    23.1

    23.5

    23.7

    Dorset2

    22.7

    23.2

    23.7

    24.2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Dudley

    22.2

    22.3

    22.5

    22.7

    22.4

    22.4

    22.5

    22.8

    22.7

    25.5

    Durham1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    24.1

    24.0

    22.9

    22.1

    22.7

    21.5

    Durham2

    22.2

    22.9

    23.2

    23.7

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Ealing

    23.1

    22.8

    22.9

    22.8

    22.5

    22.7

    21.3

    19.5

    19.2

    20.4

    East Riding of Yorkshire

    24.7

    24.9

    25.7

    25.5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    East Sussex1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    22.8

    22.7

    22.3

    22.5

    22.1

    23.4

    East Sussex2

    22.7

    22.4

    23.8

    23.3

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Enfield

    22.9

    22.7

    23.2

    22.8

    23.2

    22.6

    22.5

    21.0

    22.8

    24.0

    Essex1

    —

    —

    —

    23.5

    23.0

    22.6

    22.8

    22.5

    24.1

    24.8

    Essex2

    22.9

    23.2

    23.5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Gateshead

    21.4

    22.2

    22.6

    22.5

    22.3

    22.3

    21.6

    20.6

    18.8

    21.2

    Gloucestershire

    22.3

    23.4

    23.6

    23.7

    23.6

    23.4

    22.5

    22.3

    22.9

    23.4

    Greenwich

    21.4

    21.4

    21.9

    21.4

    21.1

    20.9

    21.0

    —

    —

    —

    Hackney

    21.8

    20.1

    19.7

    19.6

    19.5

    19.7

    19.9

    —

    —

    —

    Halton

    21.5

    22.0

    22.7

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    21.1

    21.1

    21.4

    21.0

    20.5

    20.3

    18.9

    —

    —

    —

    Hampshire1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    23.0

    22.8

    22.4

    22.3

    24.0

    24.6

    Hampshire2

    23.0

    23.6

    23.6

    23.6

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Haringey

    22.8

    22.5

    21.5

    21.8

    21.1

    21.0

    20.4

    20.6

    18.7

    20.9

    Harrow

    21.9

    22.3

    21.6

    21.5

    20.7

    20.8

    20.5

    21.9

    20.9

    22.1

    Hartlepool

    23.9

    24.6

    25.1

    26.0

    25.2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Havering

    23.7

    24.2

    24.4

    24.2

    23.8

    23.7

    23.1

    22.4

    22.9

    23.6

    Hereford and Worcester1

    —

    —

    —

    23.9

    23.2

    23.2

    22.2

    23.4

    25.1

    24.2

    Herefordshire2

    22.5

    22.8

    23.0

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Hertfordshire

    23.0

    23.2

    23.0

    23.0

    22.9

    22.3

    22.2

    21.5

    22.4

    22.5

    Hillingdon

    24.0

    23.1

    23.2

    23.4

    22.6

    22.3

    22.1

    22.0

    22.2

    23.0

    Hounslow

    22.2

    21.9

    22.0

    21.8

    21.5

    21.6

    21.1

    19.8

    19.7

    21.9

    Humberside1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    24.7

    24.3

    22.2

    20.9

    22.1

    Inner London Education Authority

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    18.3

    17.3

    18.7

    Isle of Wight

    21.6

    22.1

    22.4

    22.9

    22.6

    23.2

    22.3

    22.9

    23.6

    23.9

    Isles of Scilly

    14.7

    16.6

    16.7

    14.1

    16.9

    15.0

    14.0

    14.1

    12.6

    15.3

    Islington

    22.2

    21.4

    21.6

    22.3

    21.1

    20.9

    20.3

    —

    —

    —

    Kensington and Chelsea

    20.6

    19.4

    19.1

    18.4

    17.7

    17.8

    17.7

    —

    —

    —

    Kent1

    —

    —

    —

    24.2

    23.9

    23.9

    23.9

    23.3

    23.9

    24.3

    Kent2

    23.4

    23.7

    24.1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Kingston Upon Hull, City of

    23.8

    24.4

    25.6

    26.1

    25.5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Kingston-upon-Thames

    22.6

    24.1

    24.3

    24.1

    23.9

    23.8

    23.5

    21.8

    22.3

    22.1

    Kirklees

    22.4

    22.9

    23.3

    24.2

    23.8

    23.3

    22.1

    20.9

    22.5

    23.6

    Knowsley

    23.4

    23.8

    24.0

    24.4

    23.8

    23.5

    23.5

    21.0

    21.6

    23.4

    Lambeth

    20.8

    20.4

    20.5

    20.4

    19.8

    18.6

    19.1

    —

    —

    —

    Lancashire1

    —

    —

    —

    24.3

    24.4

    24.1

    23.0

    23.5

    23.2

    24.7

    Lancashire2

    23.6

    24.1

    24.1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Leeds

    23.2

    23.8

    24.2

    24.2

    24.1

    23.9

    23.4

    19.5

    22.7

    24.6

    Leicester

    22.7

    22.7

    22.6

    23.6

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Leicestershire1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    23.5

    23.3

    22.5

    22.8

    22.5

    23.3

    Leicestershire2

    23.2

    23.4

    23.6

    23.8

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Lewisham

    21.3

    21.5

    20.9

    20.7

    20.6

    20.1

    21.5

    —

    —

    —

    Lincolnshire

    23.9

    24.7

    24.6

    24.1

    23.9

    23.6

    23.3

    23.1

    24.1

    23.7

    Liverpool

    22.3

    22.7

    23.1

    23.5

    23.6

    23.5

    23.4

    20.9

    20.9

    21.1

    Luton

    22.9

    22.3

    22.6

    22.7

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Manchester

    22.7

    24.0

    24.6

    24.7

    23.4

    23.0

    22.3

    21.2

    22.7

    21.9

    Medway

    23.4

    23.6

    24.5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Merton

    21.9

    22.1

    22.6

    22.0

    21.7

    21.5

    20.2

    21.0

    22.1

    22.2

    Middlesbrough

    23.4

    24.0

    24.6

    23.7

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Milton Keynes

    23.3

    23.7

    24.4

    24.3

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    22.9

    23.5

    23.2

    24.1

    23.9

    23.8

    22.9

    20.7

    18.4

    18.7

    Newham

    24.5

    24.7

    25.4

    24.4

    24.3

    23.9

    24.3

    21.4

    20.6

    21.4

    Norfolk

    22.1

    22.7

    22.7

    22.5

    22.3

    22.3

    21.9

    22.2

    22.3

    22.8

    North East Lincolnshire

    23.4

    23.9

    24.9

    25.9

    25.0

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    North Lincolnshire

    23.9

    24.2

    24.0

    25.1

    24.6

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    North Somerset

    24.0

    24.2

    24.4

    24.2

    23.8

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    North Tyneside

    22.9

    23.4

    24.1

    23.9

    23.9

    23.9

    23.1

    20.3

    19.2

    21.1

    North Yorkshire1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    23.6

    22.9

    22.0

    21.8

    22.5

    North Yorkshire2

    22.5

    23.4

    24.0

    24.1

    23.5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Northamptonshire

    22.9

    23.6

    24.1

    24.0

    23.5

    23.4

    22.6

    22.9

    22.1

    24.4

    Northumberland

    22.8

    23.5

    24.1

    24.8

    24.5

    24.6

    24.3

    22.5

    23.3

    23.4

    102W

    103W

    Pupil: teacher ratio in maintained primary schools by local education authority area, position in January each year

    2001

    2000

    1999

    1998

    1997

    1996

    1994

    1989

    1984

    1979

    Nottingham

    22.4

    22.8

    23.3

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Nottinghamshire1

    —

    —

    —

    24.9

    24.8

    24.3

    22.9

    21.0

    21.1

    24.7

    Nottinghamshire2

    24.0

    24.5

    25.0

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Oldham

    23.7

    23.8

    24.4

    24.7

    24.4

    23.7

    22.9

    22.0

    23.1

    25.2

    Oxfordshire

    22.3

    23.3

    23.8

    24.0

    23.6

    23.3

    21.5

    22.7

    23.9

    24.2

    Peterborough

    23.0

    23.2

    24.2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Plymouth

    23.4

    23.8

    23.9

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Poole

    23.7

    25.3

    25.4

    25.1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Portsmouth

    22.7

    23.1

    23.5

    23.6

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Reading

    23.2

    23.1

    23.6

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Redbridge

    23.4

    23.3

    23.0

    23.0

    22.9

    22.7

    22.9

    23.0

    23.2

    24.1

    Redcar and Cleveland

    24.2

    23.7

    23.7

    24.4

    24.3

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Richmond upon Thames

    21.9

    22.5

    22.4

    22.2

    21.7

    21.3

    20.6

    20.6

    20.7

    22.2

    Rochdale

    23.7

    24.0

    24.7

    24.6

    24.7

    24.4

    24.3

    21.9

    22.4

    22.9

    Rotherham

    22.5

    23.2

    23.8

    24.1

    24.0

    23.2

    21.3

    21.1

    22.0

    24.0

    Rutland

    21.7

    21.2

    22.1

    22.8

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Salford

    23.3

    23.8

    24.1

    23.9

    24.0

    23.8

    23.7

    21.9

    21.5

    23.5

    Sandwell

    23.9

    24.1

    23.5

    24.2

    24.0

    23.7

    22.5

    21.8

    22.6

    24.4

    Sefton

    22.4

    23.2

    23.4

    23.6

    23.2

    23.2

    23.2

    23.0

    22.6

    23.6

    Sheffield

    23.2

    23.2

    22.9

    23.2

    23.3

    22.9

    22.4

    20.9

    20.2

    21.8

    Shropshire1

    —

    —

    —

    24.5

    24.4

    24.3

    23.1

    21.5

    21.6

    23.8

    Shropshire2

    22.8

    23.4

    24.1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Slough

    23.0

    22.0

    22.9

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Solihull

    23.0

    23.5

    23.6

    24.7

    24.0

    24.1

    23.3

    22.7

    23.0

    23.5

    Somerset

    22.9

    23.7

    24.3

    23.9

    23.5

    23.2

    22.6

    22.8

    23.8

    24.6

    South Gloucestershire

    23.4

    24.0

    24.2

    24.5

    24.2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    South Tyneside

    21.3

    22.2

    22.5

    23.1

    23.4

    23.3

    23.2

    20.7

    20.2

    20.3

    Southampton

    22.4

    22.7

    22.7

    23.1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Southend-on-Sea

    23.5

    23.4

    24.0

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Southwark

    22.5

    22.5

    22.0

    22.0

    21.8

    21.7

    22.4

    —

    —

    —

    St. Helens

    22.9

    23.2

    23.6

    23.2

    23.3

    22.9

    22.0

    22.4

    22.6

    23.8

    Staffordshire1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    24.9

    24.9

    25.1

    23.0

    22.3

    23.2

    Staffordshire2

    23.7

    24.3

    24.5

    25.1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Stockport

    23.1

    23.4

    24.3

    24.5

    24.0

    23.8

    23.6

    23.3

    23.4

    26.3

    Stockton-on-Tees

    23.1

    23.3

    24.1

    24.6

    24.2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Stoke-on-Trent

    24.3

    24.7

    25.2

    25.4

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Suffolk

    22.0

    22.1

    22.0

    22.2

    22.3

    22.3

    21.6

    22.2

    22.1

    23.4

    Sunderland

    22.0

    22.3

    22.7

    22.9

    22.8

    22.6

    22.1

    22.0

    21.9

    23.5

    Surrey

    22.8

    23.2

    23.0

    22.8

    22.3

    22.0

    21.8

    21.0

    22.5

    21.9

    Sutton

    22.9

    23.1

    23.5

    23.8

    23.9

    23.3

    24.4

    22.0

    24.8

    24.0

    Swindon

    24.0

    24.2

    25.0

    25.1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Tameside

    23.6

    24.1

    24.6

    25.4

    25.4

    25.1

    24.9

    22.5

    23.6

    24.1

    Telford and Wrekin

    24.1

    24.1

    24.3

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Thurrock

    22.8

    22.8

    23.9

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Torbay

    23.7

    24.5

    24.9

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Tower Hamlets

    21.7

    21.0

    21.7

    20.8

    20.7

    19.5

    18.0

    —

    —

    —

    Trafford

    23.7

    24.1

    24.5

    24.8

    24.7

    24.7

    24.4

    22.1

    22.7

    22.2

    Wakefield

    23.8

    24.6

    24.7

    24.8

    24.4

    24.0

    23.1

    22.0

    21.8

    23.3

    Walsall

    24.1

    24.1

    24.0

    24.5

    23.7

    23.4

    22.4

    20.9

    20.8

    22.6

    Waltham Forest

    23.0

    22.5

    22.8

    22.4

    21.7

    21.4

    21.9

    21.8

    20.9

    22.4

    Wandsworth

    21.0

    21.1

    21.1

    21.2

    20.5

    20.5

    19.8

    —

    —

    —

    Warrington

    23.1

    23.8

    24.2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Warwickshire

    23.0

    23.7

    23.7

    24.4

    24.5

    23.6

    22.1

    21.8

    22.5

    23.1

    West Berkshire

    22.5

    22.4

    23.1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    West Sussex

    22.5

    22.7

    22.8

    22.8

    22.7

    22.5

    22.0

    22.8

    23.3

    24.3

    Westminster

    20.5

    18.9

    18.6

    19.0

    18.6

    18.4

    17.6

    —

    —

    —

    Wigan

    22.3

    22.6

    22.9

    23.2

    23.1

    22.9

    22.9

    21.6

    21.4

    22.6

    Wiltshire1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    23.5

    23.4

    22.9

    22.5

    23.5

    23.9

    Wiltshire2

    22.8

    23.5

    24.0

    23.9

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Windsor and Maidenhead

    22.5

    22.6

    22.6

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Wirral

    22.3

    22.8

    23.3

    23.7

    23.2

    23.2

    22.6

    21.0

    22.9

    24.2

    Wokingham

    23.1

    24.0

    24.3

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Wolverhampton

    22.4

    22.7

    23.2

    23.0

    22.4

    22.5

    21.3

    19.8

    19.3

    21.1

    Worcestershire2

    22.9

    23.9

    24.2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    York

    22.9

    23.3

    23.5

    24.6

    24.3

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1 Before local government reorganisation

    2 After local government reorganisation

    Source:

    Annual Schools' Census
    104W

    Veterinary Science (Wales)
    Mr. Simon Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students from Wales study veterinary science in(a) England and (b) Scotland; and how many are Welsh speakers. [42656]

    Margaret Hodge
    The latest available data are shown in the table. Information on the number of these students who are Welsh speakers is not held centrally.

    Welsh domiciled students on first degree veterinary science courses 2000–01

    Location of study

    Number of students

    England

    99

    Scotland

    24

    Medical Schools
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many student places there have been at medical schools in the UK; and how many candidates applied for those places in each of the last five years. [42840]

    Margaret Hodge
    [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The latest available information is shown in the table.

    Students applying to pre-clinical medical courses in the UK

    Year of entry:

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Planned intake

    5,020

    5,062

    5,165

    5,595

    5,928

    Applicants1

    12,076

    11,807

    10,972

    10,226

    10,231

    1 Home and overseas students applying via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS).

    University Students (Complaints System)
    Margaret Moran
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she is taking to introduce a UK-wide independent complaints system for university students. [43075]

    Margaret Hodge
    Universities UK have consulted the higher education sector on the establishment of an independent reviewer for student complaints once internal procedures have been exhausted. We are currently considering Universities UK's proposals. We wish to introduce an independent complaints system as soon as is practicable.

    Educational Qualifications
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of working age people in the constituency of Buckingham hold a qualification at degree level or equivalent or above; and what the national average is. [43297]

    Margaret Hodge
    The latest available figures from the Local Area Labour Force Survey show that, in 2000–01, 29.8 per cent. of people of working age resident in the constituency of Buckingham held a qualification at degree level or equivalent or above, compared to 23.3 per cent. in Great Britain.

    Schools Adjudicator
    Mr. Shaw
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what powers she has to overturn a decision by the schools adjudicator where he has ruled that a school cannot increase its intake due to cost and proximity to another equivalent school. [43981]

    Mr. Timms
    Schools adjudicators are independent of the Secretary of State. She has no powers to overturn any decision made by them. Their decisions can be overturned only by the Courts.

    Circulars
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the circular documents that have been sent by(a) the Office for Standards in Education, (b) the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and (c) the Teacher Training Authority to (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools since 7 June 2001; and how many pages each document contained. [44080]

    Mr. Timms
    Information provided by Ofsted, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Teacher Training Agency is as follows.

    Ofsted
    HMCI's Annual Report, 2000–01 (sent to all maintained schools in February 2002, 138 pages)
    Key Stage 3 Strategy: Pilot Year 1 (sent to all secondary schools and special schools with secondary-age pupils in January 2002, 32 pages)
    Good Teaching, Effective Departments (sent to all secondary schools in January 2002, 82 pages)
    Improving Inspection, Improving Schools: Consultation Results (sent to all maintained schools in January 2002, 14 pages)
    Providing for Gifted and Talented Children: An Evaluation of Excellence in Cities and other grant-funded programmes (sent to all maintained schools in December 2001, 52 pages)
    Improving Inspection: Letter from HMCI (sent to all maintained schools in December 2001, 2 pages)
    National Numeracy Strategy: Second Year (sent to all maintained schools in December 2001, 40 pages)
    National Literacy Strategy: Third Year (sent to all maintained schools in December 2001, 52 pages)
    Managing Support for the Attainment of Pupils from Ethnic Minority Groups (sent to all maintained schools in October 2001, 52 pages)
    Improving Inspection, Improving Schools: Questionnaire (sent to all maintained schools in September 2001, 10 pages)
    Improving Inspection, Improving Schools: Consultation on the Framework (sent to all maintained schools in September 2001, 20 pages)
    Extending Work-related Learning at Key Stage 4 (sent to secondary schools in June 2001, 48 pages)

    The Qualifications & Curriculum Authority
    Advanced Extension award leaflets (sent to secondary schools in February 2002, 4 pages)
    Schemes of work for citizenship at Key Stage 3 (sent to secondary schools in February 2002, 135 pages)

    107W
    Circular 137, Arrangements to secure consistent standards across Key Stage 1 schools through the process of audit and verification of assessment results for statutory tasks and tests in 2002 (sent to relevant independent primary schools in February 2002, 1 page)
    Circular 136, Key Stage 1, 2 and 3 Standards Reports and testbase 2001 CD (sent to all schools in January 2002, 1 page)
    Circular 135, 2002 Key Stage 1 statutory tasks for English and mathematics (sent to schools with pupils in year 2 in December 2001, 95 pages)
    Circular 121, National Curriculum in action: focus on pupils' work (sent to all maintained schools in December 2001, 1 page)
    Circular 134, Implications for Teaching and Learning from the 2001 Key Stage 3 tests, in English, mathematics and science (sent to schools with year 9 pupils in November 2001, 7 pages)
    Circular 133, Implications for Teaching and Learning from the 2001 Key Stage 1 tests in English and mathematics, and Key Stage 2 tests in English, mathematics and science (sent to schools with pupils in years 2 and/or 6 in November 2001, 11 pages)
    Circular 132, 2002 Guidance on administering the years 7 and 8 tests (sent to schools with pupils in years 7 and 8 on 1 November 2001, 57 pages)
    Circular 131, 2002 Key Stage 3 Assessment and reporting arrangements (sent to schools with pupils in year 9 in October 2001, 70 pages)
    Circular 130, 2002 Key Stage 2 Assessment and reporting arrangements (sent to schools with pupils in year 6 in October 2001, 70 pages)
    Circular 129, 2002 Key Stage 1 Assessment and reporting arrangements (sent to schools with pupils in year 2 in October 2001, 64 pages)
    Circular 128, Schemes of work for citizenship at Key Stage 3 (sent to secondary schools in October 2001, 194 pages)
    Circular 127. Data collection-monitoring of regulations allowing disapplication at Key Stage 4, 2001–02 (sent to maintained schools with pupils in years 10 and 11 in September 2001,2 pages)
    Circular 126, Managing curriculum 2000 for 16–19 students (sent to secondary schools in September 2001, 32 pages)
    Circular 124, Statutory test dates for 2003 for Key Stages 2 and 3 (sent to schools with pupils in years 6 and/or 9 in July 2001, 2 pages)
    Circular 123, KS3 and Y7 level thresholds, 2002 test dates (sent to schools with pupils in years 7 and 9 in July 2001, 11 pages)
    Circular 122, KS2 and Y7 level thresholds, 2002 test dates (sent to schools with pupils in years 6 and 7 in July 2001, 18 pages)

    Teacher Training Agency
    Information about Special Educational Needs CD-ROM (sent to all schools in December 2001, 1 page).

    Oxford Brookes University
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what consultations have taken place between her Department and Oxford Brookes university about the proposed closure of the university's courses in geology, civil engineering and geotechnics, mapping and cartography; and when she was informed of the proposed closures. [44081]

    Margaret Hodge
    No such consultation has taken place. The Secretary of State is aware of the proposed course closures, but these are matters for the university to determine, in discussion with the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

    Learning and Skills Council
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the circular documents 108W
    that have been sent by the Learning and Skills Council to (a) secondary schools and (b) colleges of further education; and how many pages each document contained. [44035]

    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 the hon. Member with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

    Learning and Skills Councils
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the progress her Department has made in appointing basic skills specialists to local learning and skills councils. [38855]

    Margaret Hodge
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The Learning and Skills Act 2000 does not specify the detailed composition of either the national or the local councils. This was set out in "The Learning and Skills Council Prospectus" and included an expectation that LSC members would have experience of a wide range of issues.

    The Secretary of State's grant letter to the LSC for 2002–03 set out the key priorities for the LSC in 2002–03, including taking responsibility for tackling the woeful legacy of poor basic skills. It asked the LSC to implement a strategy for raising the literacy and numeracy skills of 750,000 young people and adults by 2004.

    There is at least one basic skills expert working for each local LSC but this does not imply expertise at council level.

    Pupil Information
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) whether the group she identifies as young people at risk of becoming lost to the system includes children educated otherwise than at school; and whether she expects Pupil Level Annual Schools Census and the Connexions Service to capture all young people; [42133]

    (2) what information is collected (a) through the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census and (b) through the Connexions service about children educated otherwise than at school; and by what statutory authority that information is collected. [42388]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 11 March 2002]: We do not consider all young people educated otherwise than at school to be at risk of dropping out of learning, although some may be vulnerable—for example those who have been excluded from school and are receiving home tuition.

    We want to offer the Connexions Service to all young people, although they will not be compelled to use it.

    The Learning and Skills Act 2000 enables LEAs to supply information to Connexions partnerships. Currently LEAs are the channel of communication between Connexions partnerships and those in home education. Information other than contact information is processed with the informed consent of the young person or parent where appropriate.
    109W
    The Pupil Level Annual Schools Census currently covers pupils in maintained primary, secondary and special schools and city technology colleges only. It does not therefore cover all young people, and not children educated otherwise than at school.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether(a) maintained and (b) independent schools are required to collect information for the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census; and if she will list the information required. [42143]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC) became a statutory requirement for all maintained primary, secondary and special schools and city technology colleges from January 2002. Maintained and direct grant nursery schools, non-maintained special schools, general hospital schools, Pupil Referral Units and independent schools are required to submit a School Level Annual Schools Census (SLASC) return containing pupil information in the form of school totals only.

    Under PLASC, the following information is collected for each pupil on the school's register on the Census day:

    Unique pupil number (UPN)

    Full name

    Date of birth

    Gender

    Home postcode

    Date of entry to this school

    National curriculum year group

    Full-time/part-time indicator

    Boarder status

    Nursery class/other class indicator

    Ethnic group

    Mother tongue

    Free school meals eligibility

    Special educational needs (i.e. stage on SEN Code of Practice scale)

    Courses of study (for post-16 pupils only).

    The following information is collected for each pupil permanently excluded from the school during the previous school year:

    UPN

    Date of birth

    Gender

    Date of exclusion

    Ethnic group

    Stage on SEN Code of Practice scale (at the time of exclusion).

    Both PLASC and SLASC collect information in the form of school totals on teaching and non-teaching staff. PLASC also collects information on classes as taught at class level as a snapshot at a specified time on the Census day.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the schools which piloted PLASC under SI, 1999, No 989. [42334]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The schools scheduled to pilot the Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) under SI 1999 No. 989 were listed in schedule 1 to those regulations. A list of those schools has been placed in the Library.

    Job Sharing
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in her Department; [41046]

    (2) how many and what proportion of the staff of her Department are (a) job sharing, (b) term working and (c) engaged in another form of flexible working. [42431]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 729W.

    School Census
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (I) what safeguards she will put in place to protect children whose names are collected in the School Census; 141813]

    (2) for how long the School Census records will be kept with children's names on them. [41814]

    Mr. Timms
    Access to Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC) data including pupil names and unique pupil numbers (UPNs) is strictly limited to those technical staff for whom access is necessary in order to collate PLASC with data from other sources, as set out in my answer to the hon. Member on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 237W.

    Stringent safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorised access to pupil names or UPNs, which, once data collation is complete, will be held securely and separately from the data themselves. These safeguards will be kept continually under review in the light of guidance from the Information Commissioner.

    Information about pupils remains of statistical value after they have left school—for example to analyse young people's progression from school into further education and training, higher education and the labour market. Pupil names will need to be retained in order to render such analyses possible. The Department will be using information on past pupils for statistical and research purposes only, and any disclosures will be for those purposes only. On this basis section 33 of the Data Protection Act allows personal data to be retained indefinitely.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Bendel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the purpose of higher education. [43644]

    Margaret Hodge
    The purposes of higher education are: to provide high quality teaching to a widening body of students; to undertake research and scholarship which competes with the best in the world; to transfer knowledge and understanding to the economy and the wider community for the benefit of all; and to sustain a culture which underpins our democracy and encourages critical thinking.

    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the proportion of children entering higher education whose
    111W
    fathers are coal miners or former coal miners in the last 10 years; and what the average proportion is for the general population. [41798]

    Margaret Hodge
    The available information, showing participation by young people in higher education for each of the standard social class categories, is shown in the following table. Participation rates for individual occupations within these categories are not held centrally.

    The Government are committed to raising the participation rates for people from less affluent family backgrounds, and has introduced Excellence Challenge, including the Aim Higher campaign, which is targeted at raising attainment and aspirations among young people who traditionally would not consider going to university.

    Age participation index (API)1 by social class Great Britain 2000–01

    Social class

    Percentage entering HE

    I Professional

    76

    II Intermediate

    48

    IIIN Skilled non manual

    33

    IIIM Skilled manual

    19

    IV Partly skilled

    19

    V Unskilled

    14

    All social classes

    33

    1 The API is defined as the number of GB domiciled initial entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate HE aged under 21, expressed as a percentage of the average number of 18 and 19-year-olds in the population.

    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what planned expenditure on higher education was in 1997 for the subsequent five financial years; and what the total outturn spending on higher education was in each of those years, including proceeds of tuition fees. [41832]

    Margaret Hodge
    [holding answer 8 March 2002]: Publicly planned expenditure for higher education in England is set out in the annual grant letter issued to the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

    £ million

    Publicly planned expenditure1

    Outtrun

    1997–98

    4,699

    4,696

    1998–99

    4,884

    4,894

    1999–2000

    5,203

    5,133

    2000–01

    5,452

    25,536

    2001–02

    5,853

    3—

    1 Figures reflect grant letter announcements and include public and student contributions to tuition fees, ear-marked capital, allocations for access and widening participation paid via institutions, HE expenditure for the British Academy and directly funded DfES small programmes. They exclude funds paid to students for their maintenance support.

    2 Provisional.

    3 Figures not yet available.

    Mr. Rendel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will state the proportion of those aged 18 to 30 participating in higher education(a) as calculated using the initial entry rate and (b) broken down to show the age participation rate for each year group. [43645]
    112W
    Margaret Hodge
    The initial entry rate (IER) for English domiciled 18 to 30-year-olds was 40 per cent. for 1999–2000, the latest year for which final student data are available. This is estimated to rise to 41.5 per cent. for 2001–02.

    The individual year of age entry rates for 1999–2000 are shown in the table.

    Age1

    Initial entry rate2 Per cent.

    183

    20.0

    19

    9.5

    20

    2.5

    21

    1.5

    22

    1.0

    23

    1.0

    24

    1.0

    25

    0.5

    26

    0.5

    27

    0.5

    28

    0.5

    29

    0.5

    30

    0.5

    1 Age as at 31 August 1999.

    2 HE entrants in 1999–2000 as a percentage of separate age population; excludes entrants with previous HE experience and excludes courses of less than one year duration. Note that the individual rates are shown rounded to the nearest 0.5 per cent. and so do not add up to exactly 40 per cent. in the table.

    3 Includes a small number of entrants aged 17.

  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    City of London Corporation (Events)
    John McDonnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the functions, engagements and events which Ministers, her officials and advisers have attended which have been sponsored, funded, promoted and hosted by the City of London Corporation since 1997. [35706]

    Mr. Morley
    The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Non-governmental Organisations
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list nongovernmental organisations operating in the south-west region that receive public funds from her Department; and what amount of annual funding they received in the most recent year for which figures are available. [39188]

    Mr. Morley
    Records specifying the operational location of non-governmental organisations whose activities are supported by the Department are not held centrally. Constructing such information for the south-west region would involve disproportionate cost.

    Special Urgency Provisions
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how often the Department has applied the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments) to a development by the Department; and if she will make a statement.[38715]
    113W
    Mr. Morley
    The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was only created in June 2001. This reply, therefore, covers the period from that date. This Department has never applied the special urgency provisions of Circular 18/84. This Department makes every effort to follow the usual local authority planning procedures when contemplating land or building developments. The special urgency provisions of Circular 18/84 would be invoked only as a last resort in the most urgent of cases.

    Job Advertisements
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the job advertisements placed by her Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39057]

    Mr. Morley
    The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was created from the merger of other Departments (or parts of other Departments) in June 2001.

    Recruitment is devolved to Personnel Points across the Department and the answer to the question could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Cartagena Biosafety Protocol
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to recommend that Britain ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; and when ratification will take place. [37526]

    Margaret Beckett
    Ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety by the United Kingdom is partly dependent on legislative action at the European Community level. The European Commission has recently issued proposals for such legislation. The UK will press for early progress in negotiations on these proposals, so that we may be in a position to ratify the Protocol before the end of this year.

    Consumer prices for selected foods and the farmgate price for the nearest equivalent agricultural commodity produced in the UK

    Pence per kg. unless otherwise stated

    Food (home-grown and imported) and Commodities (home-grown)

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    Beef and veal

    432

    448

    445

    476

    476

    488

    485

    497

    487

    491

    483

    Finished cattle (dew)1

    190

    191

    196

    229

    218

    220

    189

    173

    154

    165

    160

    Lamb and mutton

    349

    343

    378

    410

    419

    415

    441

    473

    429

    450

    469

    Finished sheep (dcw)1,2

    175

    148

    182

    219

    237

    236

    283

    239

    193

    180

    196

    Liquid milk (pence per litre)

    52

    54

    55

    55

    53

    53

    52

    51

    50

    49

    48

    Raw milk (pence per litre)3

    18

    20

    21

    22

    22

    25

    25

    22

    19

    18

    17

    Bread

    86

    91

    92

    91

    90

    91

    94

    96

    98

    100

    102

    Milling wheat

    12

    13

    14

    13

    11

    12

    12

    10

    8

    8

    7

    Apples

    99

    114

    109

    91

    100

    103

    111

    112

    111

    111

    112

    Apples4

    39

    42

    25

    27

    32

    34

    39

    42

    39

    31

    30

    Countryside Alliance
    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she next intends to meet representatives of the Countryside Alliance. [37924]

    Mr. Morley
    There are currently no confirmed meetings with the Countryside Alliance in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's diary.

    UK Waterways
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of the UK's waterways are owned by the landlords who own the surrounding land. [40705]

    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 5 March 2002]: This information is not held by the Department. We do not keep records of land ownership alongside waterways, and the information is not readily available—some information might be held by navigation authorities but to obtain a complete picture it would be necessary to carry out land searches for up to 5,000 km of waterway.

    Agricultural Products (Prices)
    Mr. Breed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the average(a) farmgate and (b) final consumer price of (i) beef, (ii) lamb, (iii) milk, (iv) cereal, (v) fruit and (vi) vegetable products in the United Kingdom in each year since 1990. [40818]

    Mr. Morley
    The following table shows estimated average prices paid by consumers for selected foods and the nearest equivalent average UK farmgate prices. The consumer prices reflect the price of imported foods as well as home-grown produce. They also reflect costs, value added and profit margins upstream from the farmgate.

    All foods as purchased by consumers will differ to some extent from the ex-farm commodity. Milling wheat will be milled, mixed with other ingredients and further processed to produce bread; meat as retailed will have been de-boned, cut, trimmed of most fat and packaged; raw milk will be treated and fruit and vegetables will be graded and cleaned. These additional processes affect the validity of a direct comparison between the consumer and farmgate prices.

    115W

    Consumer prices for selected foods and the farmgate price for the nearest equivalent agricultural commodity produced in the UK

    Pence per kg. unless otherwise stated

    Food (home-grown and imported) and Commodities (home-grown)

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    Potatoes

    29

    30

    29

    28

    36

    49

    40

    35

    49

    51

    47

    Potatoes

    10

    9

    8

    6

    13

    19

    10

    7

    12

    12

    9

    Cabbages

    60

    65

    61

    65

    64

    72

    74

    70

    76

    79

    86

    Cabbages4

    18

    14

    17

    14

    16

    25

    18

    18

    22

    18

    24

    Cauliflowers

    73

    95

    85

    97

    97

    113

    105

    103

    102

    101

    98

    Cauliflowers4

    24

    25

    20

    22

    22

    28

    24

    23

    22

    22

    24

    Leafy salads

    155

    155

    156

    165

    160

    171

    183

    204

    223

    236

    244

    Lettuce

    81

    78

    87

    91

    71

    87

    143

    121

    114

    117

    100

    Carrots

    57

    60

    50

    50

    52

    54

    57

    52

    58

    55

    56

    Carrots4

    22

    12

    11

    12

    15

    20

    12

    12

    16

    12

    15

    Cucumbers

    137

    126

    128

    129

    114

    139

    130

    125

    128

    125

    129

    Cucumbers

    55

    49

    54

    57

    60

    77

    62

    57

    51

    46

    54

    Mushrooms

    260

    264

    274

    269

    269

    278

    278

    270

    278

    266

    269

    Mushrooms

    147

    153

    147

    148

    152

    160

    161

    158

    160

    165

    170

    Tomatoes

    140

    144

    131

    130

    134

    131

    141

    134

    148

    162

    173

    Tomatoes

    67

    58

    52

    59

    68

    58

    74

    54

    59

    57

    69

    1 Estimated price, dressed carcase weight equivalent.

    2 Excludes Northern Ireland.

    3 Including bonus payments.

    4 Crop year prices.

    Notes:

    1. Consumer prices are for Great Britain based upon expenditure and purchased volumes of home-grown and imported foods.

    2. Prices in italics are farmgate prices for UK produce.

    Sources:

    1. National Food Survey annual reports.

    2. Agriculture in the United kingdom 2000.

    3. Basic Horticultural Statistics for the UK.

    Accommodation Costs
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41056]

    Mr. Morley
    DEFRA was created in June 2001 so prior year figure work relates to the former Ministry of

    Account description

    1998–991

    1999–20001

    2000–011

    April 2001-year to date

    UK night subsistence

    1,178,360.93

    1,167,163.29

    2,088,876.19

    20,703,332.13

    Subsistence EC institution meeting

    284,533.74

    477,239.79

    6,712.70

    200,462.52

    Subsistence other overseas visits

    196,928.80

    305,247.24

    220,586.51

    83,582.82

    Total

    1,659,823.47

    1,949,650.32

    2,316,175.40

    20,987,377.47

    1 April to March

    Note:

    The rise in expenditure for 2001-year to date is a result of the costs incurred in respect of foot and mouth.

    Rural Development Fund
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to press for a better deal from the EU Commission for the United Kingdom over the Rural Development Fund. [41357]
    116W
    Agriculture, Fisheries and Food only. The cost of overnight accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years is indicated in the table.

    Please note our system records the overall cost of overnight stays, which will include bed and breakfast establishments as well as hotels, and some other costs (e.g. breakfast) specifically associated with stays away from home.

    Alun Michael
    Due to decisions taken by the last Government prior to 1997 and to the low historic spend in this sector, the UK's share of the rural development budget (3.5 per cent.) is disproportionately low when compared with its share of agricultural land in the EU (12 per cent.) and with the range of environmental and other problems currently faced by the UK. I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that decisions by the last
    117W
    Government placed us in a weak position but that this Government's stronger position within Europe puts us in a position to raise these issues again.

    CAP reform and increasing the financial resources going towards rural development are key aims for this Government. The mid-term review of the CAP provides us with the opportunity to press hard, not only for increased funds to be made available for rural development, but also to ensure the UK receives a fairer share of these funds.

    Foliar Disease
    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information and guidance is issued by her Department to cereal growers on the(a) prevention and (b) control of foliar disease. [42249]

    Mr. Morley
    DEFRA continues to monitor and assess the risk from non-indigenous diseases and take action where they pose a serious threat to cereal crops.

    DEFRA conducts annual surveys of indigenous cereal foliar diseases. These data are made available by DEFRA and help industry identify where control measures, particularly fungicides are justified. Research on major cereal diseases is funded by DEFRA to underpin improved crop management with reduced dependence on fungicides.

    European Union Subsidies
    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the future payment of European Union subsidies to farmers in euros. [42250]

    Mr. Morley
    The Government are committed to providing farmers with the option of receiving grant and subsidy payments in euro at the earliest practical opportunity, where they request this. We have considered the timing and practical requirements involved very carefully.

    IT systems must be in place to deliver euro payments to farmers. A manual system, even to cope with a modest demand, would be extremely expensive and inefficient. In order to be able to make payments to farmers in euro as early as possible, the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has included euro capability in the design for all of its system development. The devolved Administrations have programmed in similar work, as all CAP paying agencies must be able to deliver at the same time.

    The euro payment service for farmers is expected to be in place by the end of 2004 when RPA and the devolved Administrations have developed the necessary systems.

    Once a system for direct payments in euro is available, it is likely that farmers would be asked to commit three months in advance and to sign up for a minimum of a year. That would be in line with the system the RPA is currently running for paying traders in euro where they request it.

    Supermarket Chains
    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what 118W
    representations she has made to supermarket chains to encourage retailers to stock locally produced food; and if she will make a statement. [42251]

    Mr. Morley
    We are keen to see supermarkets stock more local produce. The issue of local sourcing has been discussed in meetings with individual supermarkets. Food from Britain, which we grant-aid, has also been encouraging the major supermarkets to introduce regional sourcing policies and most have done so.

    Varroa Mite
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government have taken to tackle the varroa mite; and what estimate she has made of its prevalence in England. [42377]

    Mr. Morley
    The Government assist the UK beekeeping sector to deal with bee health issues, in particular varroa, through programmes costing around £1.6 million in 2001–02. Under these measures, the National Bee Unit (NBU), part of the Central Science Laboratory, provides a free diagnostic and inspection service to beekeepers in England as well as training and advice (including various publications, lectures, workshops and demonstrations) to help them become more self-reliant through improved bee husbandry. Training and guidance is regularly updated to reflect the latest research findings. The NBU also carries out routine screening for varroa resistant to authorised treatments.

    Varroa is widely distributed in England. At least 5,000 infested apiaries have been confirmed since 1992, when the mite was first confirmed in the UK.

    Sheep Exports
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what percentage of sheep exports from the UK to(a) France, (b) Germany and (c) the Netherlands have been refused entry since 1 October 2001. [42126]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Commission Decision 2002/153/EC of 20 February 2002 has lifted the EU prohibition on live sheep exports from GB which has applied since 21 February 2001. As at 14 March 2002 no sheep have been exported from GB since 21 February 2001.

    Northern Ireland has been able to export sheep since June 2001 during which time one consignment of 274 sheep, originating from Ireland but on a ship sailing from Belfast, has been refused entry to France. We are not aware of any sheep exports from Northern Ireland which have been refused entry to Germany or the Netherlands since 1 October 2001.

    Ruminant Feed
    Mr. Breed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much ruminant feed was imported into the UK from(a) Belgium, (b) Germany, (c) Spain, (d) France, (e) Ireland, (f) Italy, (g) Luxembourg, (h) Portugal and (i) Finland in each of the last five years; and what proportion was found to be contaminated. [41918]
    119W
    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Overseas trade statistics do not provide a specific category for ruminant feed. However, the table shows the level of UK imports of all animal feedingstuffs over the past five years:

    Tonnes

    Country

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Germany

    146,838

    103,785

    190,198

    230,633

    221,313

    Belgium-Luxembourg

    223,981

    164,620

    159,800

    117,670

    81,065

    Irish Republic

    113,328

    93,921

    124,572

    126,434

    177,734

    France

    42,338

    104,951

    88,510

    82,403

    52,302

    Spain

    16,917

    21,569

    8,449

    6,320

    7,130

    Portugal

    10

    2

    —

    10,851

    21,440

    Italy

    6,062

    4,689

    2,180

    1,063

    4,612

    Finland

    745

    65

    69

    108

    683

    Source

    HM Customs and Excise

    Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities and Food) Accounts and Trade, ESD, DEFRA

    Figures on the proportion of animal feed found to be contaminated over this period are not available, but, for example, no case of mammalian meat and bonemeal has been detected in ruminant feed under our national feed surveillance programme since August 1996.

    New EU-wide measures (implemented domestically under the Processed Animal Protein Regulations from 1 August 2001) already control intra-Community trade and imports from third countries of a wide range of processed animal proteins, effectively preventing their inclusion in feed for farmed animals in order to stop the propagation of BSE.

    In Great Britain, a national feed sampling programme has been in place since 1996 to monitor compliance with BSE-related feed controls. This programme, operated by the State Veterinary Service, typically takes around 20,000 samples per year from feed mills, on-farm mixers and other premises handling livestock feed. The results of the programme are very encouraging and indicate wide compliance with the feed controls, confirming that prohibited ingredients (from domestic or imported sources) are being effectively removed from the market, distribution channels and farms.

    Of the 78,202 samples recorded to 6 March 2002 inclusive, 78,001 (99.74 per cent.) tested negative for prohibited proteins. The remaining 201 samples tested either positive or inconclusive. The SVS carry out a full on-site investigation to identify the cause of each positive or inconclusive result. A positive result does not necessarily indicate a breach of the feed ban as the testing mechanism detects the presence of some proteins in feed even where the presence of the protein product is lawful.

    Plant and Meat Imports
    Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 229W, on plant and meat imports, what proportion of checks between November 2000 and October 2001 were for (a) commercial and (b) personal purposes; and if she will break down the illegally imported products since April 2001 by category. [41972]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Of the 19,140 checks referred to undertaken at Border Inspection Posts, the majority related to checks on commercial
    120W
    consignments of meat and meat products which have to be declared to the port health authorities for clearance. We are aware that included within this figure will be a few checks which were undertaken on personal imports, but the data is not held in a way that the information on the personal imports can be extracted.

    A breakdown of the 1,142 seizures taken from personal baggage could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

    Sporting Rights (Grants)
    Mr. Simon Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will provide a breakdown by district of revenue received by the Forestry Commission in the last 12 months, by way of grants for sporting rights. [42680]

    Mr. Morley
    The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its Chief Executive, Dr. Bob McIntosh, to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from Bob McIntosh to Mr. Simon Thomas, dated 18 March 2002:
    I have been asked to reply to your question addressed to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs asking if she will provide a breakdown, by Forest District, of revenue received over the last 12 months from the leasing sporting rights.
    The figures you have requested are as follows:

    £

    East Anglia

    55,000

    Forest of Dean

    24,500

    Kielder

    19,000

    New Forest

    13,000

    North West England

    6,000

    North York Moors

    40,000

    Northants

    25,000

    Peninsula

    57,000

    Sherwood

    18,500

    South East Anglia

    28,500

    West Midlands

    41,000

    Total income

    327,500

    If you require any further information please let me know.

    Public Appointments
    Fiona Mactaggart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many appointments to public bodies have been made through her Department(a) from April 2000 to March 2001 and (b) since 31 March 2001; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women. [42159]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The numbers of men and women appointed, or reappointed, by Ministers in this Department to bodies sponsored by this Department during the periods in question are as follows:

    1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

    1 April 2001 to 28 February 2002

    Men appointed

    235

    96

    Women appointed

    78

    44

    Agriculture Council
    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether a Scottish Executive Minister will be a member of the UK delegation to the forthcoming Agriculture European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 18 and 19 March; and what information is being provided by her Department to guarantee effective pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [42687]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 12 March 2002]: There are no plans for any Scottish Executive Minister to attend the Agriculture Council in March. It is the responsibility of the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Executive's involvement in preparations for EU Council meetings. These arrangements are a matter for the Committee and the Scottish Executive. My Department provides information to Scottish Executive officials as part of that process.

    Tail Docking
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to ensure that the docking of dogs' tails is regulated; and if she will make a statement. [42631]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 12 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on 11 March 2002, Official Report, column 796W.

    Electric Goods Disposal
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the availability of treatment systems to disassemble waste electrical and electronic equipment. [42597]

    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The European Community Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) is still in draft.

    At present, the UK collects more WEEE than the forthcoming Directive is likely to require. There are adequate facilities for processing existing disposals of WEEE through a wide range of re-use facilities, treatment sites and shredder operations licensed or registered exempt through the Environment Agency. These include community based refurbishment initiatives for household electrical items, scrap metal processors who take in white goods and shredders which take a range of WEEE in addition to white goods.

    There have been new facilities established recently to deal with specific types of WEEE, such as the reprocessing of fluorescent tubes, refurbishment of personal computers and mobile telephones. Several of these newer operations undertake the disassembly of any equipment which cannot be refurbished for re-use in order to re-use components or to minimize cross-contamination during the recycling of different types of material.

    Ruddy Duck
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many ruddy ducks have been killed in Britain since the beginning of the campaign to eradicate them. [39534]
    122W
    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 12 March 2002]: No decision has yet been taken on whether to undertake a campaign to eradicate the ruddy duck in the United Kingdom. However, as part of the Government's control trial to test the feasibility of eradicating the UK's population of ruddy duck within 10 years, a total of 2,558 ruddy ducks have been culled.

    Regulatory Impact Unit
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many members her Department employs in its Regulatory Impact Unit; and if she will make a statement. [42931]

    Mr. Morley
    Four people work full time in the Better Regulation Unit. The Unit is supervised by a member of the Senior Civil Service who is also engaged on other duties.

    It is the job of Departmental Regulatory Impact Units to establish and promote the principles of good regulation in their departments. The staff work closely with the officials responsible for developing policies within their Department, the Cabinet Office's Regulatory Impact Unit and the Small Business Service. They focus on those regulations that impact on business, charities, and the voluntary sector.

    Complaints
    Mr. Breed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many complaints were registered against her Department and its predecessor Departments in(a) 1990 to 1996 and (b) 1997 to 2002; how many are current; and what proportion were (i) taken up and (ii) upheld by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in this period. [42903]

    Mr. Morley
    The table shows up-to-date information from records in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the number of citizens charter complaints received since 1995.

    Citizens charter complaints received by MAFF and DEFRA1

    1995–962

    1997–2002

    Total

    Number of citizens charter complaints3

    23

    141

    164

    Current citizens charter complaints

    0

    3

    3

    Number of citizens charter complaints referred to PCA4

    1

    4

    5

    Number of citizens charter complaints upheld by PCA

    0

    0

    0

    1 Prior to the creation of DEFRA, the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions did not maintain a record of complaints that were referred to its central office for citizens charter issues. A manual count of DETR's complaints cannot be conducted without disproportionate effort. Before it became part of DEFRA, the Hunting Policy Unit of the Home Office did not receive any complaints.

    2 Before the establishment of the citizens charters for Government Departments, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not have a central unit for co-ordinating responses to complaints. As a result, DEFRA cannot co-ordinate statistics for complaints prior to 1995 without disproportionate effort.

    3 DEFRA's central unit for citizens charter complaints deals with all complaints addressed to DEFRA's complaints adjudicator. Centralised records do not exist for complaints addressed directly to individual divisions, and so DEFRA cannot co-ordinate figures for these without disproportionate effort.

    4 These figures do not include complaints made directly to the PCA. The total number of complaints that the Parliamentary Ombudsman investigated are in his annual reports.

    Litter (Fines)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 901W, on littering, how many people in the UK were prosecuted in each of the last five years; and in how many cases they were convicted. [43324]

    Mr. Meacher
    In 1996 there were 626 people prosecuted and 468 of those were convicted for littering offences, in 1997 there were 505 prosecutions with 352 convictions, in 1998 there were 494 prosecutions with 377 convictions and in 1999 there were 501 prosecutions with 390 convictions. There are no central data held prior to 1996.

    Dog Fouling
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 902W, on dog fouling, how many complaints were received by (a) Buckinghamshire county council and (b) Aylesbury Vale district council regarding fouling; and how many fines were imposed nationally. [43322]

    Mr. Meacher
    Data on the number of complaints received by individual councils are not collected centrally by DEFRA. The number of fines imposed nationally for dog fouling during 2000–01 was 1,961.

    Livestock Markets
    Mr. Swire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial support is being provided to assist owners of livestock markets to re-open. [43016]

    Mr. Morley
    There are no plans to offer financial support from the public purse to livestock markets, which are commercial operations.

    Fluoride
    Mr. Syms
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what investigation she has made of the cost of corrosion damage to water providers in(a) fluoridated and (b) unfluoridated areas. [42973]

    Mr. Meacher
    The maximum permitted concentration of all fluoride in public water supplies is 1.5 mg per litre of water. The effects of public water supplies on water companies' pipes are normally measured by the water's pH although there are other factors. In general, the lower the pH value, the higher the level of corrosion. Legislation specifies two compounds of fluorine which water companies may add to public supplies at the request of area health authorities. The compound that companies would normally add is hexafluorosilic acid. This is a corrosive substance and care must be exercised when it is delivered, in bulk, to water treatment works. There is, however, no measurable change in the pH of fluoridated or unfluoridated water, on leaving the treatment works, and therefore no reason to suspect that fluoridated water is more or less corrosive in the distribution system.

    Forestry
    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to meet the Government's Forestry Strategy commitments to sustainably managed woods. [43603]

    Mr. Morley
    Our approach and commitment to sustainable woodland management is set out in the 1998 UK Forestry Standard. The England Forestry Strategy describes our priorities and programmes for forestry in England. Our aim is to ensure that all of England's woodlands are sustainably managed. We give advice to private woodland owners to encourage them to manage their woodlands sustainably and support for this is given through the Woodland Grant Scheme. All applications for assistance under this scheme must meet the criteria set out in the UK Forestry Standard.

    The Forestry Commission has been awarded the World Wide Fund for Nature's Gift to the Earth Award in recognition of the key role they played in progressing independent certification of sustainable forest management in the UK through development and delivery of the UK Woodland Assurance Standard. The UK is the only country where the entire state forest area has achieved credible certification to an independent standard recognised by the Forestry Stewardship Council.

    We recognise the need to monitor UK woodland and to take corrective action when necessary. The UK Forestry Standard explains how we will achieve this through a combination of scientific study and national surveys. We are committed to publishing results and to continue developing the Standard in the light of experience.

    Veal Crates
    Mrs. Browning
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the occasions since 1997 when Ministers or officials have made representations to the EU Commission and other member states on the abolition of veal crates. [43833]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 15 March 2002]: No such representations have been made. Council Directive 97/2/EC of 20 January 1997 imposed an EU wide ban on veal crates which will come into full effect from 31 December 2006.

    Ian Stillman
    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she had concerning Ian Stillman during her visit to India of 11 February. [43907]

    Mr. Morley
    None.

    Hedges
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures there are to encourage farmers to use hedges as boundaries on their land. [43044]

    Mr. Meacher
    Our Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Areas schemes provide financial incentives for planting, restoration and management of hedgerows on farmland. DEFRA also
    125W
    funds free initial conservation advice for farmers, provided on our behalf by the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group and ADAS, including on the management of hedgerows for their wildlife, landscape, amenity and historical value.

    Air Conditioning
    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures were taken by her Department to ensure that the consultant advising on the installation of air conditioning during the recent equipping of the new departmental building in Temple Quay, Bristol was aware of the Government's policy on the use of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants in air conditioning; and if she will make a statement on the measures taken by the consultant to source practical and safe alternatives to hydrofluorocarbon-based air conditioning. [41179]

    Dr. Whitehead
    I have been asked to reply.

    Temple Quay is a developer led project. Their consulting engineers applied their own sustainability policies to the project and were apprised of the Government's policy on the use of HFC refrigerants.

    In addition, one of the key elements of the Department's original brief to the developer and architect was that Temple Quay House must have a BREEAM rating of 'excellent'. One of the items that helped to achieve this rating was subsequently to specify refrigerants with an ozone depletion potential of zero.

    Public Service Agreements
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she 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. [43262]

    Mr. Morley
    When the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) was created in June 2001 an interim Public Service Agreement with a total of 14 targets was drawn up. These 14 targets comprised all eight of the MAFF PSA targets together with six targets covering environmental issues from the DETR PSA. The DEFRA interim PSA will remain extant until the end of this spending period.

    The interim PSA targets are listed on our website at www.defra.gov.uk/corporateibusplan/Olpsa.htm.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Public Service Agreement target to reverse the long-term decline in populations of farmland birds by 2020. [43117]

    Mr. Morley
    This Department has a number of existing policy measures which will help to achieve the PSA target, not least the continuing expansion of our agri-environment schemes under the England Rural Development Programme. We are hopeful that this year's national rollout of arable Countryside Stewardship options, based on a successful pilot scheme, will prove particularly beneficial for farmland birds. An assessment carried out last year of the underlying trend showed that the decline was slowing down and we are expecting an updated assessment shortly. However, the reasons for the decline in farmland bird numbers are complex and we 126W
    have commissioned research from the British Trust for Ornithology, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Oxford University to help us identify more precisely what needs to be done to ensure delivery of the PSA target.

    Shellfish Industry
    Mr. Caton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in what circumstances compensation is available to workers in the shellfish industry if they are unable to pursue their livelihoods. [42699]

    Mr. Morley
    This Department does not operate any schemes of compensation for workers in the shellfish industry.

    Mr. Caton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the economic and employment consequences of the outbreaks of atypical diarrhetic shell fish poisoning in(a) the Thames Estuary, (b) the Wash, (c) Whitstable, (d) the Menai Straits and Anglesey, (e) the Bury Inlet and (f) Strangford Lough. [42698]

    Mr. Morley
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 647W.

    Farmed Fish
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received regarding farmed fish; and if she will make a statement. [41693]

    Mr. Morley
    We have received representations recently on matters relating to the management, marketing and welfare of farmed fish.

    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to seek to reform the law in respect of farmed fish; and if she will make a statement. [41692]

    Mr. Morley
    The Diseases of Fish (Control) (Amendments) (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No.284), which came into force on 10 March 2002, provide for revised control measures to be taken on any farm in England and Wales where there is suspicion or confirmation of certain fish diseases. The regulations implement in England and Wales the provisions of Council Directive 2000/27/EEC of 2 May 2000.

    We are planning to amend the Fish Health Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No.1881) to reflect restoration of the Great Britain approved zone in respect of the fish diseases infectious haematopoietic necrosis and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia following adoption of Commission Decision 2000/188/EC of 17 February 2000, and to make changes in the way fish farmers should maintain fish movement records.

    Welfare of Laying Hens Directive
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many meetings her Department had with(a) scientists and (b) vets prior to agreement of the Welfare of Laying Hens Directive 1999/74/EC. [41232]
    127W
    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Interested parties, including scientists and vets were consulted during the course of the negotiations on the directive.

    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ensure that in implementing the Welfare of Laying Hens Directive I999/74/EC the requirements in the United Kingdom are the minimum laid down in the Directive. [41413]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 11 March 2002]: It is intended that the Welfare of Laying Hens Directive will be implemented in England without being added to in any way. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will follow suit. If changes are proposed there will be a full public consultation.

    Freshwater Fisheries
    Dr. Jack Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the objectives are of the Environment Agency BRITE proposals; what effect she estimates they will have on the resources devoted to all aspects of freshwater fisheries; and if she will make a statement. [41231]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 11 March 2002]: BRITE (Better Regulation to Improve the Environment) is an internal Environment Agency reorganisation with the broad objectives of improving effectiveness of delivery, achieve regulatory consistency and integrated management of the environment. The agency expects these changes to improve the environmental outcomes from existing stakeholders by reallocating existing resources. The water resource aspects of BRITE, which include fisheries, h0ave yet to be considered by Ministers.

    Dr. Jack Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the Government's response to Recommendations of the Freshwater Fisheries Review; how far the Government's position is informed by the BRITE proposals of the Environment Agency; and if she will make a statement. [41233]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 11 March 2002]: I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on 20 December 2000, Official Report, columns 205–08, in which I outlined the Government's response to the independent report of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group. A copy of the Government's formal response can be found in the Library.

    The Government require the Environment Agency to use its resources in a cost-effective manner. Although the potential impacts of the BRITE (Better Regulation to Improve the Environment) proposals as they affect fisheries have yet to be considered by Ministers they are expected to be consistent with that overall aim.

    Eggs
    Mr. Curry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she will make of the impact on the competitiveness of the UK industry in relation to other EU egg producers in 128W
    deciding whether to permit the enriched cage system of production under EU Welfare of Laying Hens Directive 1999/74/EC. [41491]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 8 March 2002]: English implementing legislation will permit all the systems of production detailed in the Welfare of Laying Hens Directive 99/74/EC. If changes are proposed there will be a full public consultation.

    Mr. Curry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has collated on which EU countries have indicated that they will(a) permit and (b) not permit the enriched cages system of egg production when the EU Welfare of Laying Hens Directive 1999/74/EC is introduced. [41492]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 8 March 2002]: No country is proposing an immediate ban on "enriched" cages. Germany proposes to ban them from 2012. Belgium and the Netherlands are considering following suit. As far as we are aware all other member states will permit "enriched" cages subject to a review of the directive in 2005.

    Mari Geni
    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the fishing vessel, Mari Geni, has been decommissioned. [42389]

    Mr. Morley
    The Department has received confirmation that the Mari Geni has now been decommissioned.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to whom the track record of the fishing vessel, Mari Geni, has been transferred. [42375]

    Mr. Morley
    The arrangements for the transfer of track record under the 2001 fishing vessel decommissioning scheme for England were set out in the answer given to the hon. Member on 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1358W. Information on individual transfers is confidential to the parties concerned.

    Foot and Mouth
    Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answers of 7 March 2002,Official Report, column 481W, on foot and mouth, when the record of local authority prosecutions will be made available; and if she will make a statement. [43129]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The Department makes an annual Return of Prosecutions made under the Animal Health Act 1981. This is due to be laid before Parliament by 27 March. However, the return does not specify the nature of each prosecution but provides a statistical report on the number of prosecutions taken under the Act. Prosecutions taken during the foot and mouth outbreak could have been taken under a number of different Orders (i.e. the Foot and Mouth Order 1983 or the Animal By-Products Order 1999) or under the Act. Due to difficulties encountered this year in collecting this information, the return for October 2000 to September 2001 may not be complete.
    129W
    The results of the exercise we are conducting with the Local Authority Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards (LACOTS) to compile a complete record of prosecutions (mentioned in my previous answer) may be presented in a future Return of Prosecutions. Alternative methods of making this information publicly available are under consideration. Given the number of local authorities from which information is required, I cannot say when this information will finally be available. We will, however, seek to complete the exercise as soon as possible.

    Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answers of 7 March 2002,Official Report, column 481 W, on foot and mouth, if the farm premises where obstruction of Government inspection took place was found subsequently to have been infected with foot-and-mouth disease. [43130]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The farm concerned was not confirmed as an infected premises.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost has been of the programme of laboratory testing of samples taken from animals suspected of carrying foot and mouth disease since 19 February 2001; and if she will make a statement. [42372]

    Mr. Morley
    The laboratory testing programme for Foot and Mouth Disease is estimated to have cost approximately £22 million.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she published an itemised cost list of the Epynt carcase and ash burial and incineration site in Powys opened for animals slaughtered under the foot and mouth disease control measures; how many animals have been interred at the Epynt burial site(a) in the form of carcases and (b) following incineration; and if she will make a statement. [42373]

    Mr. Morley
    We are unable to give final cost figures for Epynt mass burial site at this time. Invoices submitted by contractors for work carried out on the site are currently the subject of verification and substantiation by forensic accountants and claims surveyors retained by this Department.

    (a) 18,000 carcases were originally buried at the site but all have since been exhumed and burned on the pyre site.

    (b) Ash resulting from carcase burning at the Epynt pyre site has been removed for disposal in landfill.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost has been of the operation to(a) recover the carcases and ashes of animals buried at the Epynt foot and mouth disease disposal site, (b) restore the immediate environment following reclamation and (c) monitor the wider environment for pollution and contamination. [42374]

    Mr. Morley
    We are unable to give cost figures for Epynt mass burial site at this time. Invoices submitted by contractors are currently the subject of verification and substantiation by forensic accountants and claims surveyors retained by this Department.
    130W
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the cost incurred in Wales by the use of vets in relation to the recent foot and mouth outbreak. [41313]

    Mr. Morley
    The cost of employing Local Veterinary Inspectors and Temporary Veterinary Inspectors to deal with the foot and mouth outbreak cannot be broken down in the way requested by the hon. Member.

    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the mechanisms used to publicise the Make Your Views Known consultation which will be fed into the foot and mouth inquiry. [41333]

    Mr. Morley
    This is a matter for the Lessons Learned Inquiry. I understand that the Framework Document, setting out the details of this consultation, was published on the Inquiry web site on 14 December 2001 and circulated to a wide range of stakeholders. The deadline for written submissions was Friday 15 March 2002.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many inquiries are being undertaken by her Department into suspected cases of fraud in relation to the handling of the foot and mouth epidemic; and if she will make a statement. [41217]

    Margaret Beckett
    [holding answer 7 March 2002]: There are currently eight cases in England, related to the Foot-and-Mouth epidemic and involving allegations of financial irregularities in relation to claims for compensation and/or invoices for services, which are subject to criminal investigation by my Department. Additionally, three completed investigations are under consideration by lawyers to determine if prosecution is appropriate, and criminal proceedings have been initiated in one case.

    Substantive allegations of fraud will be fully investigated, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment further in respect of current investigations.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's decision to issue a press release 75/02 on 26 February on the suspected case of foot and mouth at a farm near Hawnby, North Yorkshire; what information was issued by her Department to the local authorities controlling the situation at the local level concerning the Department's intentions; and if she will make a statement. [41686]

    Mr. Morley
    Press release 75/02 was issued in line with the Department's commitment to openness. It was important that we informed interested parties, via the media, that the 8 km animal movement restrictions had been imposed around the farm at Hawnby, the first time this had happened since 30 September.

    I understand that the media had become aware of the incident shortly before the release was issued and were in contact with the Leeds COI press office requesting information. It is important that the Department does what it can to assist factual reporting and informing the public by issuing information in the public interest.
    131W
    We co-operated fully with North Yorkshire county council on the imposition of movement restrictions and the revocation of any movement licences. We did not formally discuss our intention to issue a press release with the council although council officials were aware that a press release would be issued.

    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she and her Ministers will give evidence to the European Parliament's Committee of Inquiry on Foot and Mouth. [41359]

    Mr. Morley
    Ministers and officials are ready to meet the Temporary Committee if this would be helpful. We have not yet received formal invitations.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those studies she has undertaken to investigate the impact on agricultural ancillary industries when a case of suspected foot and mouth is under investigation by her Department; what assessment she has made of the effect on ancillary industries of the nature of media reporting of suspected cases of foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement. [41687]

    Alun Michael
    DEFRA commissioned a survey of 2,445 businesses in six mainly rural districts of England (Carlisle, Eden, West Devon, East Devon, North Norfolk and Mid-Suffolk) to investigate the economic impacts of foot and mouth disease (FMD). It was undertaken during September 2001. The survey investigated the economic impacts of FMD on selected rural economies in regions which have been affected to varying degrees by FMD.

    The key findings of this report were included in the report of the Rural Task Force, published in October 2001 and entitled "Tackling the Impact of Foot and Mouth Disease on the Rural Economy".

    The Government responded in December 2001 when I published "England's Rural Future". It is difficult to see how studies could be carried out in the way suggested by the hon. Lady.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reports she has(a) requested and (b) received from other public bodies regarding the handling of the foot and mouth epidemic; and if she will place copies of the reports in the Library. [40581]

    Margaret Beckett
    [holding answer 5 March 2002]: It is for the independent Lessons Learned inquiry to make recommendations as to the way in which the Government should handle any future major animal disease outbreak. However, I have received a number of reports from organisations, including Devon county council, Shropshire county council and Northumberland county council. These reports have been placed in the public domain by these organisations.

    Honey
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government have taken to tackle European foul brood disease; and what estimate she has made of its prevalence in England. [42378]
    132W
    Mr. Morley
    The Government assist the UK beekeeping sector by funding a range of measures to protect bee health, costing around £1.6 million in 2001–02. In England, the bee health programme costs some £1.3 million annually, and is administered by the National Bee Unit (NBU), part of the Central Science Laboratory.

    European foul brood (EFB) is a notifiable disease under the Bee Diseases Control Order 1982. All new suspected cases have to be reported. In 2001, 816 colonies in 350 apiaries in England were found to be infected with EFB. Colonies too heavily infected to respond to treatment are destroyed. Lightly infected colonies are treated with antibiotic by field inspectors of the NBU.

    In addition, NBU has been conducting trials for the long-term control of the disease without the need for destruction of bees. The results to date are encouraging. The Department is also funding research under its Horticulture LINK programme to develop a method of biological control of EFB. The NBU also provides regional and national training in good husbandry, disease recognition and control for all beekeepers in England.

    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what action she is taking(a) to promote British honey and (b) to publicise the safety and quality of the British product; [42382]

    (2) what action she plans to promote the sale of locally produced British honey direct from beekeepers. [42383]

    Mr. Morley
    The promotion of locally produced British honey is a matter for the industry itself. However, honey producers are able to benefit form the trade development and marketing services provided by the regional food groups which the Department supports through Food from Britain. Honey producers may also be eligible for grants under the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP). Two measures are of particular relevance to them. These are the Rural Enterprise Scheme measure on the marketing of quality agricultural products, which provides largely non-capital grants for marketing initiatives, and the Processing and Marketing Grant which provides capital grants for processing and marketing facilities. These grants are run competitively on a regional basis.

    The safety and quality of British honey is a matter for the Food Standards Agency.

    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of honey sold in the UK is imported; and what proportion comes from China. [42381]

    Mr. Morley
    The table shows UK supply and imports of honey between 1999 and 2001. It also shows the proportion of total UK imports that came from China during this period.

    Tonnes

    1999

    2000

    2001

    UK supply

    26,299

    25,514

    27,603

    Total imports

    23,181

    24,108

    25,279

    Total imports as a percentage of UK supply

    88

    94

    92

    Imports from China

    10,400

    11,044

    10,640

    Imports from China as a percentage of total imports

    45

    46

    42

    Source:

    HM Customs and Excise and DEFRA Supply Balance Sheets
    133W
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps her Department has taken in the last five years to destroy honey that has been found to have a significant risk of being contaminated by antibiotics and other dangerous substances; [42380]

    (2) what checks are made on imported honey to ensure it is free of contaminations. [42379]

    Mr. Morley
    All consignments of products of animal origin, including honey, currently imported from third countries into the UK are subjected to a documentary check of the veterinary certification and an identity check to match the goods to the certification. A percentage of consignments are also subjected to a physical check, which may include organoleptic checks, temperature checks and laboratory tests for pathogens or contaminants. In the case of honey 50 per cent. of consignments are so checked.

    Where import checks reveal that any product of animal origin does not comply with Community import conditions it is rejected or destroyed. Figures relating to products destroyed are not kept centrally.

    The Veterinary Medicines Directorate has been sampling honey on sale since 1995. No samples contained residues of antibiotics or other substances which posed a significant risk to consumers. Therefore, no honey was required to be destroyed. All results have been reported in the VMD Annual Report on Residue Surveillance and its quarterly newsletter, MAVIS.

    Following a recent European Commission inspection visit to China, which revealed concerns about antibiotic residues, the EU has banned the importation of all animal products from China with effect from 13 March 2002. As a result the FSA carried out tests on a number of samples of Chinese and blended honey on sale in the UK. They found that most contained antibiotic residues, but at a level which scientific experts do not consider poses a risk to public health.

    Refrigerants
    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department has taken to encourage(a) producers and (b) distributors of not-in-kind refrigerants to tender for contracts for the refurbishment of Government buildings; and what (i) communications and (ii) meetings officials of her Department have had with prospective not-in-kind suppliers. [41183]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Department's Greening Government website provides advice to both civil servants and suppliers on a whole range of environmental issues including the use of refrigerants. The Green Guide for Buyers for example calls for the specification of systems free of refrigerants that deplete the ozone layer and, where it is safe, cost effective and technically feasible to do so, also free of substances that have a high global warming potential. The website has been widely promoted at conferences and in journals. It's URL is "http://defraweb/ environment/greening/gghome.htm". Our estate managers do not hold meetings with prospective "not-in-kind" suppliers, preferring to leave this to our consultants 134W
    and contractors who possess the necessary expertise. However, policy officials did meet several suppliers of `not-in-kind' refrigerants during 2001.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will indicate what her understanding is of whether sections of Article 1 of EC Regulation 2037/2000 as agreed on 29 June 2000, apply to ozone-depleting substances used in refrigerator door insulation material. [39995]

    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The UK Government's interpretation of Article 1 of EC Regulation 2037–2000 is that it sets out the scope of the legislation and lists the substances that it controls, as well as making clear that it applies to the production, importation, exportation, placing on the market, use, recovery, recycling and reclamation and destruction of these substances. This includes those used for the blowing of insulating foam for refrigeration equipment and to certain activities relating to products and equipment containing those substances.

    Dioxin Formation and Emission
    Ian Lucas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what guidance is given to operators of waste incinerators on ways of reducing dioxin formation and emission; [34520]

    (2) if she will make a statement on the controls on waste incinerators which are intended to reduce dioxin formation and emission. [34521]

    Mr. Meacher
    Design and operational techniques for minimisation of dioxin formation and emission at waste incinerators are detailed in the Integrated Pollution Control Waste Incineration Guidance Note S2 5.01 issued by the Environment Agency in 1996.

    Important factors in these techniques include temperature, combustion gas turbulence conditions and the time the waste materials spend in the combustion process.

    The Agency is currently updating this guidance note and I understand that an early consultation draft has been placed on the Agency's website.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will given a substantive answer to the question from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, ref. 12919, tabled on 6 November, relating to HF Holidays; [17803]

    (2) when a substantive reply will be made (a) to HF Holidays' letters to her of 20 June and 27 July 2001, (b) to the letter to her from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight dated 15 August 2001 and (c) to questions on these letters by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight tabled on 6 and 23 November 2001; when he will correct the answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight dated 17 December 2001, Official Report, column 147W, which referred to a different constituent and a different subject; and if she will make a statement on the cause of her delay in responding. [33713]
    135W
    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 5 February 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Rural Affairs responded on 26 February to the letters of 20 June and 27 July 2001 from HF Holidays and the hon. Member's letter of 15 August 2001.

    I apologise for the time taken to respond to these letters.

    Flooding
    David Wright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals the Environment Agency has to alleviate flooding in the Ironbridge Gorge. [41428]

    Mr. Morley
    Operational responsibility for flood management measures rests with the local operating authorities, normally the Environment Agency (EA) and local councils, who decide which projects to promote and their timing. I understand that the EA has just completed a pre-feasibility study into 'traditional' flood alleviation options for Ironbridge Gorge but has not identified one that would be economically worthwhile. I understand that the EA is continuing to consider 'innovative' options which may offer some alleviation from the impact of small flooding events.

    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to publish the report on flood funding arrangements. [33899]

    Mr. Morley
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 13 February 2002,Official Report, column 512W.

    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial assistance is made available by the European Union to assist member states in the provision of coastal and inland flood defences. [43599]

    Mr. Morley
    No significant financial assistance is made available by the European Union to assist member states in the provision of flood and coastal defences.

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to secure provision of flood risk cover for residential properties after February 2003. [42959]

    Mr. Morley
    The Government are maintaining close links with the insurance industry to help achieve the mutual aim of ensuring the continued availability of affordable flood cover as widely as possible after the end of the year. Ministers and officials in the Treasury and DEFRA have already held several meetings with the Association of British Insurers and further discussions are planned.

    Together with the flood defence operating authorities, we are reducing the risk of flooding and are communicating this to the insurance industry. We are reducing the risk through substantial increases in investment in flood and coastal defences (which now totals over £400 million a year). Flood defences are being repaired, renewed, maintained and improved. Flood warning arrangements are continually being improved. The Government have issued strengthened guidance to local planning authorities on control of development in flood risk areas, and are reviewing the financial and institutional arrangements under which the flood defence service is delivered.?
    136W
    We are working with the Environment Agency in helping develop a shared understanding with the insurance industry of the true risks of flooding in particular areas, taking account not only of the indicative flood plain but also the current and future provision of flood defences.

    Farming and Food
    Tony Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funds will be provided for the implementation of the Farming and Food report. [41354]

    Mr. Morley
    We are currently assessing the financial implications of taking forward the Policy Commission's recommendations. Decisions on the funding to be made available to implement the recommendations that fall to Government will, in the main, be made as part of the 2002 Spending Review. It would not be appropriate to prejudge the Spending Review settlement, which is expected in July, but the Department will want to target resources to achieve the best most cost effective outcome.

    Tony Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the timescale will he for implementing the recommendations of the Farming and Food report. [41353]

    Mr. Morley
    The Commission's report will make a substantial contribution to a new strategy for sustainable food and farming, which we aim to launch in the autumn. We will work with a wide range of stakeholders to determine how best to take forward the Commission's ideas and deliver positive changes on the ground. As responsibility for addressing the Commission's recommendations rests with industry and other organisations as well as Government, we will be looking for their active involvement. Before Easter we will publish a steering document which will inform and guide this and launch the stakeholder engagement process.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the interests registered by the(a) chairman and (b) members of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Foods. [42252]

    Mr. Morley
    Registered interests of the chairman and members of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food are as listed. They can also be found on the website www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/farming. The list registers interests relevant to the work of the Commission.

    Sir Donald Curry CBE

    Remunerated work and directorships

    Vice-chairman (non-executive), NFU Mutual Insurance Co Ltd.

    Commissioner, Crown Estate

    Chairman (non-executive), North Country Primestock

    Director (non-executive), Scottish Agricultural College

    Director (non-executive), Chitty Food Groups

    Land, property and shareholdings

    Owner, residential properties in Newcastle and Rothbury, Northumberland

    Shareholder, BT

    Shareholder, Friends Provident

    Shareholder, Tyne Grain

    Shareholder, North Country Primestock

    Shareholder, Hexham Auction Market

    137W
    Other interests

    Chair (non-executive), At Home in the Community

    Council Member,

    Royal Agricultural Society of England

    Member, National Farmers' Union

    Member, Farmers' Club

    Helen Browning OBE

    Remunerated work and directorships

    Director, Eastbrook Farms Organic Pigs Ltd.

    Director, Eastbrook Farms Organic Meat Ltd.

    Director, Food Ethics Council

    Consultancy, Meat and Livestock Commission

    Consultancy, Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission

    Consultancy, Sustainable Development Commission

    Speaking fees from various organisations principally on organic farming and marketing.

    Land, property and shareholdings

    33 per cent. of Manor Farm, East Grafton, Wiltshire

    Shareholder, Dairy Crest

    Shareholder, Genus Ltd.

    Shareholder, Organic Milk Suppliers' Co-operative

    Shareholder, Friends Provident

    Eligible producer, Residuary Milk Marketing Board.

    Other interests

    Chair, Soil Association

    Chair, Food Ethics Council

    Member, Royal Agricultural Society of England

    Member, Country Land and Business Association

    Member, Tenant Farmers' Association

    Member, Farm and Wildlife Advisory Group

    Member, the Farmers' Club

    Member, Rare Breeds Survival Trust

    Member, Schumacher Society

    Member, Institute of Directors

    Member, National Federation for the Self-Employed.

    Sir Peter Davis

    Remunerated work

    Chief executive, J Sainsbury plc

    Board Director, Union Bank of Switzerland

    Land, property and shareholdings

    (with Lady Davis) properties in Hertfordshire, London and France

    (with Lady Davis) trustees of a family trust that owns a property in North Wales

    Shareholder and share option-holder, J Sainsbury plc.

    Other interests

    Chairman, Business in the Community

    Member and trustee, Trearddur Bay Sailing Club

    Vice president, Marketing Council

    Vice president, Chartered Institute of Marketing

    Fellow, Marketing Society

    Member, Agricultural Forum

    Member, Policy Issues Group, Institute of Grocery Distribution

    Member. Garrick Club

    lain Ferguson QC

    Remunerated interests

    Senior vice-president, Corporate Development, Unilever plc/NV

    138W
    Land, property and shareholdings

    Owner, property in Guildford, Surrey

    Shareholder, BT

    Shareholder, BG

    Shareholder, Lattice

    Shareholder, BAE Systems

    Shareholder, Marconi

    Shareholder, GlaxoSmithKline

    Shareholder, Cable & Wireless

    Shareholder, Lloyds TSB

    Shareholder, ATL plc

    Shareholder, HBOS plc

    Shareholder, Unilever plc

    Shareholder, Unilever NV

    Other interests

    Director, British Nutrition Foundation

    Director, Food and Drink Federation

    Director, Rothamsted Research Station

    Member, the Farmers' Club

    Member, the Caledonian Club

    Deirdre Hutton CBE

    Remunerated work

    Chair, National Consumer Council

    Vice-chair, Scottish Environmental Protection Agency

    Non-executive director, Financial Services Authority

    Commissioner, Sustainable Development Commission

    Land, property and shareholdings

    Shares in Sainsburys

    Shares in Tesco

    Shares in Unilever

    Other interests

    Member, Better Regulation Task Force

    DeAnne Julius

    Remunerated work

    Non-executive director, Bank of England

    Non-executive director, Lloyd's TSB (from 1 October 2001)

    Member, National Learning and Skills Council

    Land, property and shareholdings

    Owner, house in Surrey and apartment in Verbier (Switzerland)

    Shareholdings (through mutual funds and directly) in the following companies:

    BTG; British Airways; Shell; Pearson; United Business Media

    Other interests

    Visiting Professor, University of Durham

    Member, Royal Institute of International Affairs

    Member, Institute of Development Studies

    Member, Royal Economic Society

    Member, Advisory Board, Centre for the study of Globalisation and Regionalisation. Warwick University

    Fiona Reynolds CBE

    Remunerated work and directorships

    Director-General, National Trust

    Other interests

    Trustee, Green Alliance

    Trustee, Institute for European Environmental Policy

    Vice-President, Council for National Parks

    Governor, Canterbury Primary School

    139W
    Mark Tinsley

    Remunerated work and directorships

    Managing director of P.C. Tinsley Ltd.

    Chairman, Elgro Ltd.

    Chairman, Nene Potatoes Ltd.

    Non-executive director, Greens of Soham Ltd.

    Non-executive director, Freshtime UK Ltd.

    Non-executive director, Winters Lane Storage Ltd.

    Land, property and shareholdings

    Shareholder of P. C. Tinsley Ltd., farming 500ha in Lincolnshire Shareholder of Spearhead International Ltd.

    Shareholder (through P. C. Tinsley Ltd.) in the following companies:

    Elgro Ltd.; Holbeach Marsh Co-operative Ltd.; Nene Potatoes Ltd.; Agricultural Central Trading Ltd.

    Other interests

    Member, Boston Tennis Club

    Member (through P. C. Tinsley Ltd.) of the following organisations:

    LEAF Assured Produce; Assured Combinable Crops; National Farmers' Union

    Political interests

    Member, Conservative party

    Member, Commercial Farmers' Group

    David Varney

    Remunerated work and directorships

    Chairman, mmO, plc

    Lattice pension

    Land, property and shareholdings

    Owner, residential property in Bourne End, Bucks.

    Shareholder, Anglo American plc

    Shareholder, Astra Zeneca plc

    Shareholder, Barclays plc

    Shareholder, British Land Company plc

    hareholder, BOC group

    Shareholder, CGNU plc

    Shareholder, Compass Group plc

    Shareholder, Cable & Wireless plc

    Shareholder, Diageo plc

    Shareholder, Granada Compass plc

    Shareholder, GlaxoSmithKline plc

    Shareholder, Hays plc

    Shareholder, 31 group plc

    Shareholder, Marks & Spencer plc

    Shareholder, Nycomed Amersham plc

    Shareholder, Provident Financial plc

    Shareholder, Royal Bank of Scotland plc

    Shareholder, Railtrack plc

    Shareholder, Tesco plc

    Shareholder, Vodafone plc

    Shareholder, Lattice Group plc

    Shareholder, Shell Transport

    140W
    Other interests

    Vice chairman, Council of Surrey University

    Vice president, Oil Industry Club

    Trustee, Bright Red Dot Foundation

    Member, Royal Automobile Club

    Member, Institute of Directors

    Member, Chairman's Club

    Member, Institute of Energy

    Member, Institute of Petroleum

    Member, Institute of Gas Engineers

    Member, Institute of Management

    Member, Institute of Personnel & Development

    Member, Advisory Committee, DEMOS

    Graham Wynne

    Remunerated interests

    Chief Executive, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

    Other interests

    Member, Sustainable Development Commission

    Trustee, BirdLife International.

    Cattle and Sheep (Devon)
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will remove the interim measures on the movement and sale of cattle and sheep in Devon. [43509]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The Interim rules for livestock movements, which my noble Friend, the Lord Whitty announced on 5 February 2002, allow greater flexibility for farmers to move their animals. However, there is a low but very real risk that there are still hidden pockets of live virus on a few premises or circulating at a low level in a handful of sheep flocks. This could be reactivated if animals are under stress, for example during lambing, so precautionary controls need to be kept in place.

    A copy of the Veterinary Basis for the Interim measures has been placed in the Libraries of the House and is available on the DEFRA website. The measures are expected to remain in operation until November 2002. However, we expect to be able to relax some aspects of the regime during the course of the year if there is no further outbreak.

    Sheep Transportation
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the maximum time period sheep can be held on board a ship during a live transport is. [42128]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Ships used to transport live sheep must comply with Directive 91/628/EEC, as amended, on the protection of animals during transport. The vessel must be fitted to carry livestock, with access to feed and water and meet required space allowances. If these conditions are met the statutory maximum journey times do not apply. There is therefore no maximum time period that sheep may be held on board a ship during transport, provided they are not caused injury or unnecessary suffering. Time spent by a livestock vehicle on a roll-on roll-off ferry counts towards the statutory maximum journey time.

    Energy Efficiency
    Linda Gilroy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answers of 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 409W, and 3 December 2001, Official Report, column 97W, on energy efficiency, when she will publish the overall percentage improvements in energy efficiency to 31 March 2001 as reported to her Department by energy conservation authorities in England. [39007]

    Mr. Meacher
    I hope to publish this information before the Whitsun recess.

    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of households in(a) Birmingham, (b) the west midlands and (c) England which meet the criteria for assistance under the home energy efficiency scheme. [38303]

    Mr. Meacher
    At the time of the announcement, it was estimated that some 4 million households in England would be eligible for the new home energy efficiency scheme (HEES)—households with children in receipt of an income-related benefit and people receiving a disability benefit. Around 3.7 million households were estimated to be eligible for New HEES Plus—for people aged 60 or over who receive an income-related benefit.

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    Number of cases

    Loss £

    Number of cases

    Loss £

    Number of cases

    Loss £

    Number of cases

    Loss £

    Benefits Agency

    1—

    918,790.47

    112

    430,780.04

    139

    389,874.73

    65

    44,309.65

    Departmental Directorates

    1—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    11

    —

    War Pensions Agency

    1—

    0

    —

    0

    1

    1,500.00

    2

    3,583.67

    Child Support Agency

    1—

    57.27

    9

    417.99

    12

    8,950.38

    6

    9,200.00

    Contributions Agency

    1—

    2,572.00

    6

    1,824.00

    3—

    3—

    3—

    3—

    DSS HQ

    1—

    0

    —

    0

    1

    8,317.00

    4—

    4—

    IT Services Agency

    1—

    20,959.00

    15

    10,942.00

    8

    8,325.00

    5—

    5—

    Total for DSS

    189

    942,378.74

    142

    443,964.03

    161

    416,967.11

    84

    71,112.34

    1 Not available.

    2 Departmental Directorates were formed in 2000.

    3 Contributions Agency transferred to the Inland Revenue with effect from 1 April 1999.

    4 DSS HQ was subsumed into Departmental Directorates in 2000.

    5 ITSA is now ITSG and no frauds were returned for 2000–01.

    The available information on the Employment Service, as recorded by the former Department for Education and Employment, is in the table.

    Number of cases

    Loss £

    1997–98

    12

    97,242.00

    1998–99

    36

    54,107.01

    1999–2000

    16

    45,621.83

    2000–01

    5

    3,023.20

    Benefit Systems
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what changes he proposes to introduce before the introduction of pensioner credit in regulations affecting the assessment of entitlement to housing benefit,
    142W
    Data are not available centrally on eligible households in Birmingham and the west midlands.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Theft and Fraud
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [27987]

    Malcolm Wicks
    We are taking determined steps to combat internal fraud. We have published an internal fraud policy that sets out staff responsibilities, and appointed a senior accountable officer and a supporting central probity team. There are also security specialists and staff to investigate suspected internal fraud vigorously when it arises. We know that the overwhelming majority of staff are completely honest and trustworthy, and instances of internal fraud are not common, but we remain vigilant. We employ our 100,000 staff so these cases represent a small fraction of our work force.

    The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in the current financial year.

    The available information on the former DSS is in the table.

    council tax benefit and income disregards; and if he will give example calculations of the effect of these changes. [28379]

    Malcolm Wicks
    We are proposing to make a number of changes to housing benefit and council tax benefit as a result of the new pension credit. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1124W.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total external spend by his Department was on Private Finance Initiative 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 PFI consultant
    143W
    was; how many consultancy firms were used by his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [31045]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The Department does not record information about the use of PFI consultants in the form requested and an answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) men and (b) women have neither paid national insurance contributions nor received credits for pension purposes, in each year since 1979. [32614]

    Mr. McCartney
    The available information is set out in the table:

    Number of people, of working age, who have neither paid National Insurance contributions nor received credits for pension purposes in each year since 1979—United Kingdom

    Thousand

    Men

    Women

    Total

    1979

    245

    6,668

    6,913

    1980

    305

    6,466

    6,771

    1981

    351

    6,363

    6,715

    1982

    388

    6,210

    6,598

    1983

    421

    6,058

    6,479

    1984

    468

    5,849

    6,317

    1985

    510

    5,622

    6,133

    1986

    548

    5,418

    5,966

    1987

    626

    5,264

    5,889

    1988

    696

    5,119

    5,815

    1989

    808

    4,981

    5,789

    1990

    926

    4,911

    5,837

    1991

    1,028

    4,998

    6,025

    1992

    1,125

    4,982

    6,107

    1993

    1,213

    4,947

    6,160

    1994

    1,288

    4,779

    6,067

    1995

    1,390

    4,674

    6,064

    1996

    1,652

    4,679

    6,331

    Notes:

    1. Figures are taken from a 1 per cent. sample so are subject to rounding error and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

    2. Figures exclude those not registered on NIRS in each year (particularly affecting women in the early years of this analysis and those aged 18–21).

    3. In defining credits autocredits, invalid care allowance credits, local office credits, unemployment credits and starting credits have been included.

    4. The numbers of women is thought to have decreased over this period due to the increased involvement of women in the labour market. The numbers of men may have increased because of an increase in the number of older men inactive within the labour market.

    5. Figures are not available after 1996 because of the change in the NIRs system—national insurance recording system.

    Source:

    Figures are taken from the Lifetime Labour Market Database (LLMDB), extracted from the national insurance recording system (NIRS).

    Hywel Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimated weekly income was of(a) a single pensioner and (b) a pensioner couple who are on 60 per cent. of median income in the last year for which figures are available. [41880]

    Maria Eagle
    The information requested is in the table.144W

    Money values of 60 per cent. of median household income threshold for pensioners for the financial year 1999–2000 (in December 2000 prices)

    £

    Net disposable weekly household income

    Before housing costs

    After housing costs

    Single pensioner

    104

    81

    Pensioner couple

    171

    147

    Notes:

    1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data set which is derived from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS does not include Northern Ireland. 1999–2000 is the latest year for which data is available.

    2. The estimates are presented on both a Before Housing Costs (BHC) and an After Housing Costs (AHC) basis in line with HBAI conventions.

    Hywel Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples are expected to have incomes of less than 60 per cent. of median income for each year between 2002 and 2010. [41882]

    Maria Eagle
    The information is not available.

    Hywel Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples had incomes of less than 60 per cent. of the median income in the last year for which figures are available. [41881]

    Maria Eagle
    The information requested can be found in the publication "Households Below Average Income 1994/95–1999/2000", a copy of which is held in the Library.

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the proportion of(a) men and (b) women who will reach state pension age in 2002 with entitlement to a full basic state pension based on their own contributions and if he will provide corresponding estimates for (i) 1992, (ii) 1982 and (iii) 1972. [32617]

    Mr. McCartney
    At 31 March 2001, 85.6 per cent. of 65-year-old men in receipt of a state retirement pension were getting a full basic state pension based on their own contribution record. The corresponding figure for 60-year-old women was 22 per cent. We would expect these proportions to remain broadly similar in 2002.

    Historic data are not available in the required format to estimate the corresponding proportions for 1992, 1982 and 1972.

    Mr. Mudie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners there are in East Leeds; how many are in receipt of the minimum pension guarantee; and what average amount is paid to pensioners in East Leeds. [40850]

    Maria Eagle
    As at 30 September 2001 there were 14,7001 retirement pension recipients in the parliamentary constituency of Leeds, East. At November 2001, there were 3,4002 minimum income guarantee claimants in the parliamentary constituency of Leeds, East. The average amount of minimum income guarantee paid to these claimants is £50.81.

    Source:

    1 Pension Strategy Computer System. 30 September 2001

    2 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2001
    145W
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under what circumstances two(a) married and (b) cohabiting pensioners could separately claim the proposed pension credit. [42956]

    Malcolm Wicks
    Two married pensioners will be able to receive pension credit separately if they are no longer living together as husband and wife. In practice, if one or both are living permanently in a residential care or nursing home they will be able to receive pension credit separately.

    Two single pensioners will only be treated as a couple if they are living together as husband and wife. In these circumstances they will be treated in the same way as a married couple.

    State Pension
    Mr. MacDougall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans his Department has to review the state pension system. [42398]

    Maria Eagle
    We have consulted extensively on both the state and private pension systems since we launched our pensions review in 1997. Our proposals for reform were set out in the Green Paper Partnership in Pensions published in December 1998 and this was followed by further consultations on specific issues, including our proposals for the new pension credit.

    Our pensions strategy is to combat poverty among today's pensioners, and to help future pensioners build up a good second pension to ensure a decent income in retirement.

    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) male and (b) female UK residents experienced a reduction in basic state pension on reaching retirement age on account of insufficient contributions in each of the last five years. [42634]

    Malcolm Wicks
    [holding answer 13 March 2002]: The information is not available in the format requested.

    Recently retired pensioners receiving less than full basic pension in Great Britain—September 2001.

    Males—38,300

    Females—120,600

    Notes:

    1. The figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

    2. All data from 5 per cent. samples are subject to sampling error.

    3. Recently retired have been taken as men aged 65 and women aged 60.

    4. Category A pensions only have been used for this analysis.

    Source:

    5 per cent. sample from the pension strategy computer system at 30 September 2001.

    Caseload (000)

    Appeals lodged

    Cleared at hearing

    Found in favour

    Percentage found in favour

    1 January 1999–31 December 19999

    2,275.3

    60,505

    68,130

    27,605

    40.5

    1 January 2000–31 December 2000

    2,286.2

    51,320

    41,445

    16,740

    40.4

    1 January 2001–30 November 2001

    2,337.8

    46,485

    31,900

    13,330

    41.8

    Stakeholder Pensions
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) of 4 March 2000,Official Report, columns 22–23W, on stakeholder pensions, what plans he has to ensure the remaining 20 per cent. of employers who have not complied with the requirement to offer a stakeholder scheme, do so. [41694]

    Malcolm Wicks
    [holding answer 8 March 2002]: 5,090 employers were recorded as designating a stakeholder scheme in January. The latest available figures show that up to the end of January 2002 a total of 316,811 employers had designated a stakeholder pension scheme for their workforces. This is over 85 per cent. of the number estimated to be obliged to do so.

    The regulation of compliance with the stakeholder pension scheme workplace access requirement is a matter for the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra).

    Opra will take proactive action to identify noncompliant employers later in the year having given employers a reasonable time to become familiar with their new responsibilities.

    Benefits
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are in receipt of(a) disability living allowance, (b) attendance allowance and (c)incapacity benefit in (i) Gloucestershire and (ii) the Stroud constituency. [34421]

    Maria Eagle
    The infonnation is in the table.

    Numbers of disability living allowance, attendance allowance and incapacity benefit recipients at 31 May 2001.

    Number of people in receipt of:

    Gloucestersh ire

    Stroud Constituency

    Disability living allowance

    14,500

    2,100

    Attendance allowance

    12,800

    2,400

    Incapacity benefit

    8,600

    1,400

    Note:

    Incapacity benefit figures do not include "credits only" cases where benefit is not in payment.

    Source:

    ASD information centre: 5 per cent. data. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants for incapacity benefit appealed against the determination of their claim in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and what percentage of the appeals were successful(a) in whole and (b) in part. [40786]

    Maria Eagle
    It is not possible to split the number of appeals into those which are wholly or partially successful. The available information is in the table.
    147W
    Note:

    Figures for 1 January 2001–30 November 2001 are provisional.

    Figures were only available until 30 November 2001.

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

    Lodged and found in favour figures are rounded to the nearest five.

    IB figures are taken from a 5 per cent, sample and exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

    IB caseload figures are expressed as 1,000s are rounded to the nearest 100.

    Source:

    100 per cent, download of the Generic Appeals Processing System

    Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance Quarterly Summary Statistics, August 2001.

    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2000, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison),Official Report, column 681W, on the "Do Not Redirect" scheme, how many local authorities have implemented the Royal Mail "Do Not Redirect" scheme; and what the Government's definition is of unsatisfactory take-up. [35314]

    Malcolm Wicks
    367 of the 409 local authorities administering housing benefit use the official "Do Not Redirect" scheme representing 90 per cent. of the total. Some other authorities have established similar schemes locally with Royal Mail. We are keen to see all authorities using "Do Not Redirect" and both the Department and the benefits fraud inspectorate will continue to encourage the remaining authorities to do so.

    Mr. Mark Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Government have to initiate reform of the housing benefit system, with particular reference to the single room payment. [33009]

    Malcolm Wicks
    We have a strategy for reforming housing benefit (HB) and dealing with the legacy of neglect we have inherited.

    To help promote work incentives, we have broadened the definition of the single room rent from 2 July 2001 to reflect better the type of accommodation available in the market to young single people. Our aim is both to ease the problems faced by young people in getting and maintaining accommodation, and encourage landlords to rent to young adults.

    Benefits Agency (Fraud and Error)
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much expenditure has been lost through fraud and error in each of the Benefits Agency's 13 area directorates and 118 districts that handle income support claims in each year since 1997. [42513]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The information requested is not available.

    Invalid Care Allowance
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review a person's loss of invalid care allowance when they become of pensionable age. [34425]

    Maria Eagle
    Invalid care allowance and retirement pension are both benefits intended to maintain income. Rules exist to prevent the duplicate payment of more than one benefit intended for the same basic purpose. Where a person already entitled to invalid care allowance reaches pension age and becomes entitled to retirement pension, the payment of retirement pension, a contributory benefit,148W
    takes precedence and either extinguishes or reduces the payment of invalid care allowance. Underlying entitlement to ICA is retained, which provides low income carers with access to the carer premium paid with the minimum income guarantee.

    Invalid care allowance has always been subject to these rules. We have no plans at present to change this. However, in light of the National Carers Strategy, the Government have introduced a draft order proposing to remove the ICA age restriction, thus allowing carers aged 65 and over access to ICA and therefore the carer premium. The proposal will provide the opportunity for low income carers in this group to boost their income on top of the minimum income guarantee.

    Benefits Offices (Security)
    Chris Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has had on the issue of security at the new Jobcentre Plus offices. [42526]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    [holding answer 12 March 2002]: Health and safety arrangements in the new offices have been the subject of over 60 hours of discussions between officials and the Public and Commercial Services Union. Members of the public and staff have also written to Ministers and officials in the Department to express their views.

    Chris Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which Benefits Agency offices have experienced the most incidents of violence in the UK in the last three years. [42533]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    [holding answer 12 March 2002]: Data are not held centrally broken down by individual office and the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Chris Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) deaths, (b) serious injuries and (c) recorded incidence of verbal abuse there have been in the Jobcentre Plus pilot projects. [42532]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    [holding answer 12 March 2002]: There have been no deaths or serious injuries in the Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices since their launch. Since the launch of the first Pathfinder offices in October 2001 there have been four incidents involving actual but minor physical contact, six incidents involving attempted physical contact, and 198 incidents of verbal abuse. During that period it is estimated that around a million people have visited the pathfinder offices.

    Recruit
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of leavers from the
    149W
    employment option of the New Deal in the pilot areas for Recruit found jobs (a) following the introduction of Recruit and (b) in each of the two years prior to the introduction of Recruit. [35162]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The main objective of the pilots is to help small businesses use the Employment Option, and changes in the proportion of leavers into jobs will be influenced by a range of factors, not just Recruit.

    A full evaluation of the pilot, will begin in April, and will provide a better picture of the impact of Recruit on employers and New Deal clients in the pilot areas. The pilot started in 19 areas in April 2001 and will continue until June 2002. Up to the end of December 2001, Recruit had helped 1,667 clients into work.

    The information requested on the initiative is in the table.

    Proportion of New Deal employment option clients leaving to known destinations who entered jobs (Percentage)

    April 1999—March 2000

    71

    April 2000—March 2001

    69

    April 2001—December 2001

    69

    Source:

    New Deal Evaluation Database

    In addition, we know from research that over 50 per cent. of those leaving New Deal for unknown destinations take up work.

    Advertising
    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the expenditure was per campaign for the five most expensive media advertising campaigns his Department undertook in the past five parliamentary Sessions including the current parliamentary Session in(a) Scotland,140 (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; [37401]

    (2) what the cost was of media advertising in each of the past five parliamentary Sessions including the current Session, for his Department in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland; and for the last two parliamentary Sessions and the current parliamentary Session, what the media advertising expenditure was per month in (i) England. (ii) Wales and (iii) Northern Ireland. [37413]

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

    Departmental Development
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [38714]
    150W
    Mr. Darling
    According to available records the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments) have never been invoked by this department.

    House of Lords' Judgment
    Mr. Kirkwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he(a) has taken and (b) intends to take following the judgment in the case of Chief Adjudication Officer (Respondent) v. Stafford and another (Banks) (Appellant) given in the House of Lords on 29 June 2001. [39460]

    Malcolm Wicks
    We have been considering carefully the terms of the judgment, which confirmed that term-time workers are not eligible for Jobseeker's Allowance. A change in the law to extend eligibility to term-time workers would not necessarily be appropriate, given that Jobseeker's Allowance is intended to support those who are out of work and looking for a job rather than those in employment. We shall nevertheless continue to consider this matter, in the light of the judgment and other possible means of support.

    Jobseeker' s Allowance
    Mr. Roy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many part-time employment agency workers registered for jobseeker's allowance in the last 12 months; [39426]

    (2) how many employment agency clients claim jobseeker's allowance for part of the working week in (a) Motherwell and Whishaw, (b) Lanarkshire, (c) Scotland and (d) the United Kingdom; [39427]

    (3) what the average time taken is to process a new claim for jobseeker's allowance from part-time employment agency clients. [39425]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows. The national average time taken to clear a new claim to jobseeker's allowance (JSA), as at January 2002, is 9.7 days. The national target is to clear JSA claims within 12 days.

    Winter Fuel Payment
    Mr. Breed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people(a) received and (b) were eligible to receive the winter fuel payment in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001 broken down by (A) gender and (B) constituency. [38336]

    Malcolm Wicks
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Information is available only on the number of people who received winter fuel payments. Details of the number of recipients in winters 1999–2000 and 2000–01, broken down by sex and constituency, have been placed in the Library. Numbers relating to this winter are not yet available.

    The figures for 1999–2000 exclude men aged 60–64 (and a small number of others) who became eligible for winter fuel payments from 2000–01 onwards. These people are entitled to claim retrospectively for previous years and the majority have already done so. Unfortunately it is not possible to relate these claims to specific years.

    Jobcentre Plus
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the Jobcentre Plus offices which(a) have and (b) have not closed circuit television in operation. [40274]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The information requested is as listed. Whether an office has CCTV depends on whether this was recommended in the risk assessment for that office.

    Pathfinder offices with CCTV

    Aberdeen Ebury House

    Aberdeen Chapel street

    Birmingham Ravenshurst

    Birmingham south-west

    Blackburn

    Blackburn Cardwell place

    Bridgend Crown Buildings

    Bridgend Market street

    Brighouse Owler Ings road

    Chelmsford

    Chelmsford Gemini center

    Derby 1–5 The Wardwick

    Derby Beckett street

    Derby 229–231 Normanton road

    Derby Forester House

    Gateshead Shildon House

    Greenock

    Halifax

    Halifax Dean Clough

    Halifax Horton street

    Harlesden 161 High street

    Hoylake Town Hall Chambers

    Huddersfield Crown House

    Huddersfield Castle House

    Kilburn Coventry close

    Livingston Almondvale South

    Madeley Church street

    Maesteg Commercial street

    Neasden

    Openshaw Cornwall street

    Port Glasgow

    Porthcawl Dock street

    Rayleigh 10 London Hill

    Southend Dencora Court

    Streatham

    Telford New Town House

    Telford, Telford House

    Todmorden Adelaide street

    Wallasey

    Wellington 67 New street

    Wembley 8 St. Johns road

    Winchester

    152W
    Pathfinders offices without CCTV

    Aberdeen Greyfriars

    Axminster Chard street

    Birmingham Northfield

    Birtley Pinetree center

    Blaydon St. Cuthberts way

    Darwen Green street

    Exmouth 4–6 Rolle street

    Felling 37 High street

    Gateshead

    Honiton 128 High street

    Openshaw

    Pyle Ffald road

    Sidmouth 1–2 Mill street

    Tiverton Coggans Well House.

    Risk assessments have been carried out for each of the new Jobcentre Plus offices. Following consultation with the local union health and safety representatives, all of the recommendations of each risk assessment have been implemented in full.

    Carers
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants of carers allowance have lost it on reaching pensionable age in each year since 1997; and what assistance he gives to pensioner carers. [40566]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The number of cases where payment of invalid care allowance has ceased to customers who have attained pensionable age is as follows:

    Year

    Number

    1997

    6,070

    1998

    6,143

    To 30 September 19991

    4,877

    1 The figures are not available for periods after September 1999 due to a change in recording statistics.

    Proposals are before the Parliamentary Deregulation Committees, which, if accepted, will allow carers, aged 65 or over to claim invalid care allowance for the first time. This will allow some carers to receive invalid care allowance and many more to have access to the carer premium, payable with the minimum income guarantee, which is currently worth £24.40 a week.

    Accommodation Costs
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41069]

    Maria Eagle
    The following table gives the expenditure on directly booked hotel rooms and bed and breakfast for former DSS and Employment Service staff.

    Figures prior to 1999–2000 are not available.

    Year

    Total (£)

    1999–2000

    6,896,155

    2000–01

    6,433,135

    2001–021

    8,276,366

    1 Up to and including February 2002

    Gender Pay Gap
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the extent of the gender pay gap among staff in his Department. 140998]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The former Department of Social Security and the Employment Services agreed in 2001 to undertake equal pay reviews to determine whether our current pay policies directly or indirectly discriminate against any groups of employees and provide risks in relation to equal pay.

    Draft reports have recently been produced, which we are currently reviewing with trade unions.

    Early key findings indicate that pay policies highlight the importance of equality and there is no evidence of discrimination because of vnder.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    David Wright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Telford are in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. [41427]

    Malcolm Wicks
    As at November 2001, there were 2,300 minimum income guarantee claimants in the parliamentary constituency of Telford.Source:
    Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry November 2001

    Helen Southworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the number of pensioners eligible to receive the minimum income guarantee; how many pensioners are in receipt of the minimum income guarantee; and what is the average amount received in Warrington, South. [42671]

    Malcolm Wicks
    Estimates of the number of people eligible for the minimum income guarantee are not available below national level. As at November 2001 there were 2,800 minimum income guarantee claimants in parliamentary constituency of Warrington, South, receiving an average weekly amount of £51.65.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners he estimates are claiming the minimum income guarantee in each parliamentary constituency in Dorset. [41766]

    Maria Eagle
    [holding answer 8 March 2002]: The information is provided in the table.

    Constituency

    November 2001

    Christchurch

    2,300

    Mid-Dorset and North Poole

    1,400

    North Dorset

    1,600

    Poole

    2,600

    South Dorset

    2,300

    West Dorset

    2,300

    Source:

    Income Support Statistics Quanarly Enquiries November 2001

    Departmental Employees
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employees there were in his Department at(a) 1 June 1997, (b) 31 December 1998,
    154W
    (c) 31 December 1999, (d) 31 December 2000 and (e) 31 December 2001; and if he will make a statement. [42598]

    Malcolm Wicks
    [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The Department for Work and Pensions is a new Department therefore figures have been supplied from Employment Services and DSS legacy systems. Information is readily available for the last four years, data prior to this could be supplied only at disproportional cost.

    Staff employed

    Date

    139,820

    31 December 1998

    131,539

    31 December 1999

    130,799

    31 December 2000

    134,489

    31 December 2001

    Public Appointments
    Fiona Mactaggart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [42147]

    Malcolm Wicks
    [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The number of men and women appointed, or re-appointed, by Ministers in this Department to bodies sponsored by this Department during the periods in question is as follows:

    Period

    Men

    Women

    1 April 2000–31 March 2001

    7

    10

    1 April 2001–28 February 2002

    17

    13

    Note:

    Appointment and re-appointments to the Appeals Service are not included as these are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor.

    Stolen Equipment
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 851–52W, on stolen equipment, what criminal proceedings have been undertaken for cases of theft against his Department, stating in each case (a) whether the proceedings (i) led to a criminal conviction and (ii) were unsuccessful, (b) the cost incurred by his Department in pursuing a conviction and (c) the value of items recovered; and if he will make a statement. [41513]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The Department does not hold centrally information regarding criminal proceedings, or any follow-up actions, which have been undertaken in cases of theft against the Department. Any incident of break-in is always referred to the police for investigation. Some information may be recorded locally, on a case by case basis, but meaningful retrieval would be impractical within timeframes and costs.

    The Department takes its responsibilities with regard to theft and fraud very seriously and has put in place a wide range of security measures to deter and detect such events.

    One of these measures is teams of internal investigators who investigate cases of suspected internal theft and fraud when they do arise.
    155W
    The investigations result in a wide range of disciplinary outcomes including referral for criminal proceedings.

    During a four year period from 1 May 1997 to 31 March 2001 the Department have referred 52 cases of internal fraud for consideration of criminal proceedings. Of these 52, 50 cases were successfully brought to prosecution. Although the theft of official equipment is taken very seriously, there are no records during this period of cases of internal theft of official equipment where prosecution was deemed appropriate.

    However within the current Treasury year 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002, there has been one successful investigation for theft of official equipment. Following referral for consideration of formal criminal proceedings, the outcome was successful in achieving a conviction. The offender being found guilty and a sentence of 60 hours community service imposed and a compensation order of £250.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many disabled adults have been affected by(a) the rules under which disability living allowance is withdrawn after a person has been in hospital for four weeks and (b) the cumulative effect of short periods of hospitalisation in each of the last three years. [43982]

    Maria Eagle
    The information is not available in the format requested.

    Carers
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many carers have had invalid care allowance removed as result of the adult for whom they care having(a) their disability living allowance removed and (b) having their attendance allowance removed, as a consequence of hospitalisation in each of the last three years; [43985]

    (2) how many parents caring for a disabled child had invalid care allowance terminated following their child's stay in hospital for longer than the rules allow for payment of disability living allowance in each of the last three years. [43986]

    Maria Eagle
    The information requested is not available.

    Pensioners (Hospital Care)
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners have been affected by(a) the rules under which attendance allowance is withdrawn after a person has been in hospital for four weeks and (b) the cumulative effect of short stays in hospital in each of the last three years. [43983]

    Maria Eagle
    The information is not available in the format requested.

    Pensions
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what mechanisms he proposes to prevent companies from winding up, closing down and fundamentally changing pension schemes without the approval of members; [43315]
    156W
    (2) if he will amend the accounting rules and minimum funding requirement for company pension schemes with a view to preventing unilateral changes; [43316]

    (3) if he will examine incentives and initiatives which might be introduced to support the continuation of final salary schemes; [43317]

    (4) if he will introduce legislation to create an obligation on companies to consult fund members and their unions about proposed changes in pension arrangements and to provide full financial information. [43318]

    Malcolm Wicks
    Occupational pension schemes are provided voluntarily by employers, and they are therefore free to decide whether to continue to provide such pensions in the future. The legislation that is in place is to ensure that the pension rights that individuals have already built up in schemes are protected.

    Accounting rules are the responsibility of the Accounting Standards Board which is independent of Government. The Government have already announced proposals to replace the minimum funding requirement (MFR) with a long-term scheme specific funding standard in the context of a regime of transparency and disclosure, with additional measures to strengthen security. This will be taken forward as soon as parliamentary time is available. Meanwhile the Government announced a package of changes on 26 February to improve the way the MFR operates in the period leading up to its replacement, and increase protection for pension scheme members where an employer decides to wind a scheme up voluntarily.

    We have asked Alan Pickering and Ron Sandler, in two separate studies to review the regulation and operation of the pensions, and the wider market of savings products, including final salary schemes. Alan Pickering will report, with recommendations for reform, in June and Ron Sandler will also report around that time.

    The Government will then set out its proposals, which will build on the reforms put in place since 1998, and on which it will consult, to simplify the regulatory system, to look at how the Government and employers encourage and support pension savings, and to make sure that the most appropriate incentives for savings in retirement are in place.

    We have already announced last month an interim package of measures to improve the way the minimum funding requirement works, which will reduce compliance costs for employers with defined benefit pension schemes.

  HEALTH

    Mental Health
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has collated on the relative mental health status of young(a) men and (b) women. [38096]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is responsible for compiling, analysing and disseminating information relating to United Kingdom economic, social and demographic statistics. Their report "Psychiatric morbidity among adults living in private households, 2000" is available on the website at www.statistics.gov.uk. The report contains valuable information about the prevalence of mental disorders
    157W
    among young adults over the age of 16 in private households. Guidelines are attached to the PQ reference guide.

    Cancer Awareness
    Mr. Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to increase cancer awareness in schools; and if he will make a statement. [38082]

    Yvette Cooper
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 125W.

    Relatives and Residents Association
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the organisations undertaking functions similar to those provided by the Relatives and Residents Association which are supported by his Department; [37728]

    (2) for what reason his Department has not granted further funding to the Relatives and Residents Association. [37760]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 27 February 2002]: Of the organisations that take a particular interest in the care of older people in residential care or nursing homes, three were successful in bidding for funding through the 2001–02 round of the Department's section 64 General Scheme of Grants. They are Action on Elder Abuse, Counsel and Care and Help the Aged.

    The Department has not refused the Relatives and Residents Association further section 64 funding for 2002–03 as applications from the association are currently being considered.

    Since 1996–97, the association has received over £500,000 of section 64 funding. The association's application for section 64 funding in 2001–02 was unsuccessful principally because of competition from other high quality applications.

    Care Standards Act
    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what protection residents of care homes will have against rises in charges following the implementation of the Care Standards Act 2000. [38638]

    Jacqui Smith
    Publicly funded residents' resources will continue to be assessed under the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992. These regulations are unaffected by the Care Standards Act. Differences between residents' assessed contributions and the fees set by homes should be met by the council.

    In addition on 11 March, I announced a package of measures to stop some care home providers taking advantage of the Government's national health service funded nursing care initiative to artificially raise fees for residents. Amendments to the care home regulations will be made, subject to consultation, to oblige homes to provide a breakdown of their fees. This will make it clear to residents which aspect of their fees relate to nursing care and which to residential care. A central core contract has been issued that NHS bodies should use as a basis for spelling out how any nursing contribution received by a
    158W
    care home is accounted for by them. I have also asked the National Care Standards Commission that standard two of the national minimum standards for care homes for older people should be enforced. The standard states that any contribution to fees by the NHS or a local authority is recorded separately from other contributions from the service user, a relative or other third party.

    Bed Blocking
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will place a copy of the delayed discharge figures for Q3 2001–02 in the Library; [39166]

    (2) pursuant to the answer of 26 February 2002, Official Report, column 549, to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), regarding bed blocking, if he will place in the Library the figures referred to for each trust and health authority. [40510]

    Jacqui Smith
    All the available information on delayed discharge in December 2001 has been placed in the Library. This covers:

    (a) the number and proportion of patients of all ages occupying an acute hospital bed whose discharge was delayed;

    (b) the number and proportion of patients aged 75 and over occupying an acute hospital bed whose discharge was delayed;

    (c) the main reasons for delay and the numbers and proportion of patients of all ages who are delayed for each of the reasons;

    (d) the numbers and proportions of patients who have been delayed (i) one to eight days, (ii) eight to 14 days, (iii) 14 to 28 days (iv) over 28 days.

    Each set of figures is provided on a national, regional and health authority basis.

    No other information (or breakdown of information) is collected centrally on delayed discharges.

    Hospital Discharges
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) of 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1418W, on hospital discharges, if he will provide information on the same basis for the Isle of Wight. [43368]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The information provided in my previous answer of 27 February was provided on the basis of health authority, including Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South-East Hampshire health authority. No other breakdown of information is available centrally.

    Breast Cancer Screening
    Harry Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage take-up is of breast cancer screening among the relevant population in the Redbridge and Waltham Forest area; how this compares to the national average; what activities and extra resources are being allocated to increase take-up; and if he will make a statement. [39002]

    Yvette Cooper
    Breast cancer screening services are provided by Epping Primary Care Trust for Redbridge and Whipps Cross hospital for Waltham Forest. The national target for women accepting their invitations for screening is 70 per cent. In 2000–01 nationally, 75.3 per cent. of
    159W
    women aged 50 to 64 invited for screening were screened. The figure for Epping was 70.5 per cent. The figure for Whipps Cross hospital was 66.7 per cent. Both figures for Epping and Whipps Cross hospital are higher than the regional average of 62.4 per cent.

    Whipps Cross hospital recognises that health education remains a high priority. The service regularly visits general practitioners' practices to promote screening and has given talks to women's groups in the community. Epping PCT is considering an advertising campaign among younger Asian women to encourage older family members to be screened.

    Social Services
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to the judgment in the case of R v. London borough of Lambeth ex parte A EWCA Civ 1624; and what assessment he has made of the effects of the judgment on(a) families with children who are being supported by social services departments and (b) children being cared for by social services departments. [38472]

    Jacqui Smith
    Since the issue was first brought to the attention of the Department a considerable amount of work has been undertaken to assess the nature of the impact of the judgment in A v. London borough of Lambeth and the best way to respond to it. Consideration of these issues has taken place across Government and in consultation with key stakeholders.

    The decision of the Court of Appeal in the recent case of A v. London borough of Lambeth, which considered the provision of accommodation under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, casts doubt upon the ability of councils with social services responsibilities to provide accommodation to children in need and their families. This judgment does not affect local authorities' powers to provide other services under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 that they deem appropriate in order to meet a child's needs, for example day care, nor does it have any impact on children being looked after by local authorities. It is, and has long been, our policy that councils with social services responsibilities should have the power to provide accommodation under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 where they feel that this is the appropriate way to meet the child's needs and where no other support is available. We therefore wish to restore the position so that this important safety net is available for all families. I announced on 17 January 2002 during the special standing committee on the Adoption and Children Bill that we intend to introduce amendments to the Children Act 1989 by way of the Adoption and Children Bill to make clear that accommodation may be provided by councils with social services responsibilities under section 17. In the meantime, another recent case (J v. London borough of Enfield) has made clear that local authorities are able to provide assistance, including assistance towards the securing of accommodation, to children and their families utilising the powers contained within setion 2 of the Local Government Act 2000.

    European Union Directives
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the European Union directives and regulations relating to his Department that have been implemented in 160W
    each of the last four years, specifying (a) the title and purpose of each, (b) the cost to public funds of each and (c) the cost to businesses of each. [39117]

    Yvette Cooper
    The information on the European Union directives and regulations relating to this Department and any costs to public funds of these regulations is not held centrally and can be assembled only at disproportionate cost. The Department has however produced regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) for proposals, including those originating in European legislation, likely to impose significant costs to business, charities or voluntary organisations. Copies of these have been placed in the House Libraries.

    Myeloid Leukaemia
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on trials for the drug Glivec for chronic myeloid leukaemia being conducted in the UK; how many patients are included in the trials; what the total cost of the trials will be; and if he will make a statement. [38411]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Medical Research Council (MRC) is not currently funding any studies using Glivec.

    However, the STI571 Prospective International Randomised Trial (SPIRIT) for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukaemia—which proposed using Glivec—is under consideration, and a decision is expected from the MRC by July at the latest. Figures for numbers of patients and total cost have not been finalised. It is important to note that all clinical trial applications made to the MRC are considered in open competition for funding with all other calls on MRC resources.

    Novartis, the pharmaceutical company which manufactures Glivec, have conducted pre and post licensing trials of Glivec for chronic myeloid leukaemia.

    Homeopathic Treatment
    Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his policy is towards funding homeopathic treatment in all parts of England; and if he will make a statement; [38814]

    (2) what recent representations he has received about the withdrawal of funding by health authorities for homeopathic treatment; and if he will make a statement. [38813]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Government are committed to a patient centred NHS where those in the front line in providing NHS services have maximum flexibility to develop those services in a way which is responsive to local health needs. The NHS must also take into account the needs and wishes of patients.

    Complementary and alternative medicine treatments, such as homeopathy, can feature within NHS services—and this is a matter for local decision. Our Complementary Medicine Information Pack for Primary Care Groups stated that the best evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy was in treating illnesses with an allergic component.
    161W
    I do from time-to-time receive representations from individuals and organisations about the role of complementary and alternative medicine within the NHS. I am not aware of any recent representations specifically about the withdrawal of homeopathy.

    Car Passenger Deaths (Children)
    Ms Oona King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child car passengers from social class(a) five and (b) one have been killed in car accidents in each of the last five years; and in how many of these accidents speed was a contributory factor. [39968]

    Yvette Cooper
    The social class of child car passengers killed in car accidents is not routinely recorded, nor is the specific causation.

    The 1997 ONS publication "Health Inequalities: Decennial Supplement" states that:
    "Childhood injury death rates by social class have been compared for years around the 1981 and 1991 Censuses. Death rates from injury and poisoning fell between the two periods for children in each social class, although the differential between the social classes had increased. The decline in rates for children in Social Classes IV and V (21 per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively), was smaller than those for children in Social Classes I and II (32 per cent. and 37 per cent.). Motor vehicle accidents accounted for half of all childhood injury deaths and showed a similar social class gradient to that for all accidental deaths in childhood".

    The number of child car occupant fatalities is as follows:

    Deaths

    1996

    79

    1997

    74

    1998

    64

    1999

    71

    2000

    49

    NHS Recruitment Special Envoy
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what countries the Government's Special Envoy for the national health service will visit in his recruitment drive; and what his budget is. [40459]

    Mr. Hutton
    We are working with Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub to plan a programme of international visits.

    There is £3 million to support the International Fellowship Scheme over the next year.

    International Recruitment
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the ethical foreign nurse recruitment code of practice to the recruitment of overseas(a) medical practitioners and (b) professionals allied to medicine; and if he will list those (i) covered and (ii) not covered. [40458]

    Mr. Hutton
    The purpose of the code of practice is to promote high standards in the recruitment and employment of all health care professionals from abroad.

    Recruitment of internationally qualified medical staff and other health care professionals have specific sections within the code of practice.

    MMR Vaccine
    Chris Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the system for the reporting of adverse side effects of the MMR vaccine. [40686]

    Yvette Cooper
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 24 May 2000,Official Report, columns 507–08W.

    Digital Hearing Aids
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects NHS trusts in Gloucestershire to provide digital hearing aids; and if he will make a statement. [40439]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The "Modernising NHS hearing aid services" project is evaluating leading edge digital hearing aids for NHS patients, coupled with an evaluation of associated service delivery changes. Digital hearing aids require different service delivery models as they incorporate IT based assessment and fitting procedures. £10.75 million has been made available to 20 pilot sites across the country in 2000–01 and 2001–02. On 24 December 2001 we announced funding of £20 million would be available for 2002–03. This will enable the 20 pilot sites to continue to participate in the project and will enable at least a further 30 new sites to join the project and be fitting digital hearing aids by the end of March 2003. The Gloucestershire Health Community has submitted an expression of interest in participating in the project. A decision on 0the bid will be made shortly.

    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts(a) are and (b) are not providing digital hearing aids; and if he will make a statement. [40438]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 5 March 2002]: At least 48 national health service trusts are providing digital hearing aids under the bulk purchase contract arranged by Purchasing and Supply Agency. This includes the 20 sites in the first wave of the Modernising Hearing Aid Services' pilot project. The number of trusts accessing the bulk contract is increasing as more sites attain the infrastructure needed. Around 100 sites are providing only analogue aids.

    Folic Acid
    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the Food Standards Agency is expected to complete its consideration of the legal, technical and health implications of fortification of flour with folic acid and make its recommendation to Government; [40777]

    (2) when he will announce his policy on the fortification of flour with folic acid. [40781]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Food Standards Agency (FSA), together with Health departments, is hosting a stakeholder meeting on the issue of fortification of flour with folic acid on 18 March 2002. The aim of this meeting is to ensure that, all relevant information and points of view are taken into account.
    163W
    I understand that following the stakeholder meeting, the FSA board plans to consider the issue at its open meeting on 9 May 2002. Health Ministers will, thereafter, consider the way forward on the issue taking the agency's advice into account.

    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the recommended dose is of folate for women to reduce the risk of spina bifida pregnancy. [40780]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy issued advice on the prevention of neural tube defects (the most common of which is spina bifida) in 1992.

    Women who are trying to conceive or who are likely to become pregnant, are advised to take a daily 400 tg supplement of folic acid until the I Th week of pregnancy. In addition, all women who may become pregnant are advised to increase their daily intake of folic acid by eating more folate-rich foods and foods fortified with folic acid—especially breads and breakfast cereals.

    To prevent the recurrence of a neural tube defect, folic acid supplements are a daily dose of 5 milligrams (5000 lag) are advised and this can be reduce to 4mg, if this dose becomes available.

    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the evidence relating to the effect flour fortification with folic acid has on rates of(a) homocysteine levels, (b) stroke, (c) stroke mortality, (d) heart attacks and (e) colon cancer. [40779]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA) report on folic acid and the prevention of disease (2000) noted that fortification of flour with folic acid might result in a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD, especially strokes and heart attacks).

    In otherwise healthy people, an increased blood level of homocysteine is associated with increased risk of CVD. Studies have shown that low intakes of folate are an important cause of increased homocysteine level in the general population and increasing folate intake can reduce homocysteine level. However, whether there is a causal relationship between folic acid intake and cardiovascular disease still requires confirmation. There are on-going randomised controlled trials assessing the impact of lowering homocysteine levels (by increasing folic acid intake) on incidence of heart disease.

    In 1998, the COMA report on the nutritional aspects of cancer concluded that there was insufficient evidence for any specific links between folate intake and the development of cancer.

    Vitamin B12
    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral statement of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 395, when and in what form the research on the prevalence of vitamin B12 deficiency and its diagnosis among adults over 65 years of age will be published. [40776]

    Yvette Cooper
    A common concern expressed in the Department of Health/Food Standards Agency consultation on folic acid was the potential risks for older people. It was 164W
    therefore necessary to have more information on the potential risks before proceeding with any course of action. This included:
    an estimation of the prevalence of vitamin B 12 deficiency in older people aged 65 and above;
    the appropriate methodology for the diagnosis of vitamin B12 deficiency;
    the feasibility of routine identification of vitamin B 12 deficiency in older people.

    This research was undertaken by Professor Grimley Evans and colleagues at the university of Oxford. The research was completed in August 2001. The results of the research are to be published in a peer-reviewed journal later this year.

    Mrs. Helen Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the benefits for disease prevention if vitamin B12 is added to folic acid in flour fortification. [40778]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA) recommendation (2000) on the fortification of flour with folic acid aimed to minimise the number of people having intakes of folic acid which may mask vitamin B12 deficiency.

    The committee did consider combined fortification of flour with B 12 and folic acid. It would be necessary to fortify foods with very large amounts of vitamin B 12 to allow for the low absorption in people with pernicious anaemia, which is the chief cause of severe B12 deficiency.

    COMA stated that
    "At present there is inadequate information on the amount of vitamin B12 that would be required to prevent deficiency in the population, especially those with pernicious anaemia. Although there is no formal evidence of toxicity from vitamin B12, any exposure of the whole population to levels many times their usual intake or requirements should be considered with particular caution".
    Therefore, this option was not recommended.

    Human Rights Act
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring of compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 in(a) residential care homes and (b) nursing homes his Department has undertaken in the last three years; and what resources have been made available for this. [38368]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 6 March 2002]: The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 2 October 2000. The Act did not create new rights, but enabled the European Convention on Human Rights to be enforced in United Kingdom courts. Best practice in residential and nursing home care should be fully compatible with the convention.

    Until 31 March 2002, local councils and health authorities respectively are responsible for registering and inspecting residential care and nursing homes under the provisions of the Registered Homes Act 1984. The Social Services Inspectorate carries out performance monitoring of local council inspection units. Local Authority Circular LAC(2000)17 expects local councils to ensure that procedures and practices comply with the Human Rights Act.
    165W
    From 1 April 2002, the National Care Standards Commission will be responsible for registration and inspection of residential care homes and nursing homes, under the Care Standards Act 2000, taking account of national minimum standards, which are fully compatible with the Human Rights Act.

    Cervical Screening
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the uptake among Asian women in Luton has been of cervical screening in each quarter since 1998. [40880]

    Yvette Cooper
    Figures for uptake of cervical screening are not collected by ethnic group.

    Luton primary care trust and Luton health action zone are working with the community to increase the level of uptake in the difficult to reach Asian women groups.

    Union Duties
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to answer the question of 13 February from the hon. Member for Buckingham regarding staff involvement in union duties. [41577]

    Yvette Cooper
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Health (Ms Blears) gave on Wednesday 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1405W.

    Helicopter Ambulances
    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether ambulance trusts can be reimbursed by charity for the cost of staff who serve on helicopter ambulances. [40894]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 7 March 2002]: From April 2002, the NHS will meet the cost of approximately £150,000 for equipping each air ambulance helicopter with a paramedic crew. The staff who crew these aircraft are responding on behalf of NHS ambulance trusts to emergency patients who would otherwise be conveyed by land ambulances.

    National Care Standards
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what flexibility he has introduced into the national care standards to meet the needs of care homes with small rooms and their residents and those which support drug and alcohol dependency. [41271]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 7 March 2002]: Existing homes, including local authority homes, will have until 2007 to comply with some of the more challenging environmental space standards. We decided that the requirement for existing single rooms to have a minimum of 10 square metres of usable floor space should be postponed until April 2007. In addition, the standards include flexibility to allow some rooms down to 9.3 square metres to remain in use after 2007, provided additional compensatory facilities are made available.

    We have listened to concerns from the drug and alcohol sector and have amended the standards for care homes for younger adults to meet those concerns.
    166W
    The draft standards said that new homes should accommodate up to 16 people in groups of up to eight. The final standards raise the limits to 20 and 10, and allow homes that accommodate people for less than six months further flexibility.

    The draft standards said that there should be one WC for each two people and one bathroom for three people, in both cases adjacent to bedrooms. The ratio has been changed to 1:3 for both WCs and bathrooms, and existing homes have been given two more years (until 2004) to reach the standard. The standards say that facilities should be "near" bedrooms.

    The draft standards said that all service users should be offered a single room. Existing shared accommodation is to be phased out by 2004, unless people choose to share. New provision would be built with single rooms. The standards now recognise the concept of a clinical need for sharing in the substance misuse sector. In existing homes, up to four people may continue to share a room where there is a clinical need, and in new premises, rooms can be shared by two. The standards also recognise that two people may choose to share a room.

    We have also issued statutory guidance to the National Care Standards Commission, which says the commission should consider whether care homes can fulfil the needs to service users without making environmental changes to meet the standards. The guidance particularly covers issues of room size, lifts, baths and shared rooms.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the national care standards take account of the desire of married couples to share rooms. [41212]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 7 March 2000]: Standard 23 of the standards for care homes for older people allows residents who wish to share a room to do so. Standard 23.10 states that in new build, extensions and all first time registrations, service users wishing to share accommodation should be offered two single rooms for use, for example, as bedroom and sitting room.

    In the standards for care homes for younger adults, standard 25.8 recognises that two people may choose to share a room.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the accuracy of the estimate by the regulatory impact assessment of the cost of implementing national care standards. [40886]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 7 March 2002]: Ministers at the Department have received only one representation as to the accuracy of the regulatory impact assessment for the implementation of the regulations and national minimum standards for care homes.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the basis is for the assessed capital cost of changes in the physical environment for younger adults contained in annexe A of the national care standards full regulatory impact assessment. [40889]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 7 March 2002]: The basis for the assessment of the capital cost for changes in the physical environment for younger adults final regulatory impact assessment for care homes was the same as that used for the estimated costs during

    167W
    consultation. A survey undertaken by the Department in 1999 indicated that only 13 per cent. of care homes in this sector would have difficulty in meeting the 10 sq.m. room requirements. It also showed that 7 per cent. of homes had more than 20 per cent. of places as shared places. As a result of the flexibilities introduced in relation to overall room sizes and additional flexibilities for homes dealing with drug and alcohol rehabilitation we estimated that between no more than 10 to 15 per cent. of homes in this sector would be significantly affected.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential and nursing care provisions he estimates meet the national care standards; how many have programmes to upgrade their homes to meet the standards; and what proportion each represents of all care homes. [41241]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 7 March 2002]: Following analysis from responses to the original consultation on the national minimum standards for care homes, "Fit for The Future?" the Department estimated that 50 per cent. of local authority and 20 to 25 per cent. of independent care homes for older people would have difficulty meeting the standards as proposed at that time. Subsequently the standards were amended and flexibilities introduced in relation to space standards.

    For care homes for younger adults a departmental survey estimated that 13 per cent. of homes would have difficulty meeting the room size standards. The additional flexibilities introduced following consultation on the standards for both sectors has, in the view of the Department, significantly reduced the number of providers likely to have difficulty meeting the standards.

    The National Care Standards Commission will not have a comprehensive picture of how many care homes meet the standards, how many producers have established programmes to upgrade their homes and what proportion this represents of all care homes, until it completes the first round of inspections of all homes after 1 April 2002.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the cost to local authorities of purchasing places at care homes complying with the national care standards is met by the local government financial settlement for 2002–03. [41209]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 7 March 2002]: The local government finance settlement for 2002–03 takes full account of the cost to local authorities of purchasing places at care homes complying with the National Care Standards Commission's requirements.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which representative organisations constituted the reference group referred to in paragraph 12.1 of the national care standards full regulatory impact assessment. [41210]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 7 March 2002]: The following organisations were members of the reference group for the development of national minimum standards for care homes for younger adults.

    Alcohol Concern

    Association for Residential Care

    British Council of Disabled People

    168W

    CHANGE

    Drugscope

    Independent Healthcare Association

    Leonard Cheshire

    Local Government Association

    Mental After Care Association

    National Association of Adult Placement Services

    National Association of Inspection and Registration Officers

    National Autistic Society

    National Centre for Independent Living

    National Institute for Social Work

    National Heads of Registration and Inspection

    NHS Confederation

    Norwood Ravenswood

    NSF Registered Homes

    Oxfordshire county council

    People First

    Portland College

    Richmond Fellowship

    Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation

    Royal College of Nursing

    Royal College of Psychiatry

    Royal National Institute for Deaf People

    SENSE

    Turning Point

    Voluntary Organisations Disability Group.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis he concluded that the estimated cost of changes to the environment for a home providing places for 28 residents to comply with the national care standards would be significantly lower than that estimated by the full regulatory impact assessment. [41208]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 7 March 2002]: The information provided by the provider at paragraph 9 of annexe A of the full regulatory impact assessment was a general statement from that provider. That estimate was not disaggregated into its constituent parts and it was impossible to reach a conclusion as to its accuracy. On that basis the Department concluded that the estimate of overall compliance cost based on survey evidence was a more reasonable estimate.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason his regulatory impact assessment for national care standards does not cite as a benefit of option 1 the saving of money which under option 2 would have to be spent on alterations of homes to meet new standards. [41272]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 7 March 2002]: The regulatory impact assessment for regulations and national minimum standards for care homes does not cite option 1 as a money saving option for good reason. In the first instance keeping the status quo does not mean that there are no additional costs incurred. If the system of regulation is left as of now with local authorities and health authorities regulating providers locally this would lead to increased subsidies for the cost of regulation included in the funding to these authorities. Those who responded to the White Paper "Modernising Social Services" were unanimous that regulatory costs should be

    169W
    borne by both providers and commissioners of services and that the new National Care Standards Commission should be funded through full cost recovery.

    Finally, option 1 would do nothing to improve the standards of care and accommodation afforded to service users.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to monitor the responses to the national care standards and to amend the regulations. [41211]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 7 March 2002]: The national minimum standards will be continuously monitored. We propose to review them within the first three years of operation, and in the light of the review consider any changes needed.

    Nursing and Care Homes
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many care homes have presented their statement of purpose to the National Care Standards Commission as set out in Statutory Instrument 3969; how many are expected to do so by 1 April 2002; what methods he is using to publicise the statements of purpose; how many should already have presented their statements of purpose to the National Care Standards Commission; and what steps he will take if a care home has failed to produce the statement of purpose by the required date. [40803]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 8 March 2002]: Care homes that were previously exempt from regulation under the Registered Homes Act 1984, such as local authority provision and homes set up by Royal Charter are required under transitional arrangements to make an application for registration by 31 March 2002 (SI.3852(C. 125)). They are required to provide a statement of purpose to the National Care Standards Commission with the application for registration (SI. 3969). Because applications do not have to be with the Commission until 31 March it is not possible to estimate how many will be received by that date. The Commission is now starting to receive applications but does not expect to receive the bulk of these until the last week in March.

    Currently, registered care homes will be required to comply with regulation 4 of the Care Homes Regulations 2001 (SI 2001 No. 3965) which requires a statement of purpose to be compiled. The National Care Standards Commission will establish, as part of the first inspection of care homes, that they have prepared a statement of purpose. If regulation 4 is not complied with on inspection, the Commission will agree action and a timescale with the provider for compliance to be achieved. If compliance is not achieved at the end of this period the Commission will take enforcement action.

    Information on the number of care homes failing to do so will be provided by the Commission to the Department of Health as part of the Commission's general reporting on care homes' compliance with the regulations and national minimum standards. The Department has no plans to publicise statements of purpose but providers must make these publicly available.
    170W
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the regulatory impact assessment for care homes for younger adults; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [40804]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 8 March 2002]: The Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Care Homes Regulations and National Minimum Standards for Older People and for Younger Adults were placed in the Library on 21 January 2002. We will be placing the regulatory impact assessment for care homes and for other service areas on the Department's National Care Standards Commission website shortly.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 945W, on nursing care, what plans he has to compensate those self-funding residents who have not had their free nursing care assessment money passed on to them by the care home in the form of a reduced fee; [40805]

    (2) pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002, Official Report, column 945W, on nursing care, what (a) evidence and (b) representations he has received that care homes are failing to pass on payment for free nursing care to self-funding residents; [40807]

    (3) pursuant to his answer of 27 February, ref. 26579, on nursing care, if the Government plans to (a) pay compensation and (b) pay interest to those people whose banding of nursing had not been completed by the end of December 2001. [40809]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 8 March 2002]: I have received correspondence on this subject from many people who are distressed about the way that nursing home owners are taking account of the Registered Nursing Care Contribution (RNCC) when revising their fee levels. I have written to some national providers of care homes about this and shall be meeting them shortly to discuss this matter further. Meanwhile, a core contract between the national health service and nursing homes developed by the Department has been sent to the Service. This clarifies the relationship between the parties and makes clear the relationship between the two and how the RNCC should be accounted for.

    The national health service is funding care from a registered nurse, which is being provided by the nursing home and payments are made in respect of individuals' care to the home for that care with effect from 1 October 2001 or from whenever they entered the nursing home. There is therefore no question of compensation or payments to individuals.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 February, refs. 26582 and 26638, on nursing homes, what exceptions would entail residents receiving funding under the scheme of the country other than that in which the nursing home is situated. [40808]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 8 March 2002]: A protocol to manage this is currently being developed by officials in the Department of Health and in the Welsh

    171W
    Assembly. This will set out the responsibilities for funding care and, if there are to be any exceptions to people receiving funding under the scheme of the country other than that in which the nursing home is situated, will spell out the circumstances.

    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations he undertakes into charges made by nursing homes, with particular reference to amounts paid by those who are(a) in receipt of state funded places and (b) privately financed; and if he will make a statement. [42633]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The Department has funded research by the Personal Social Services Research Unit into the closure of care homes for older people. The research looked at the impact of pricing policies. A report on the results of the research will be placed in the Library.

    Where a nursing home placement is supported by a local council, the contribution paid by the resident is determined by the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992.

    I announced on I I March that we will be amending the care home regulations to oblige homes to provide a breakdown of their fees. This will make it clear which aspects of the fees relate to nursing care and which to residential care.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1400W, on care homes, whether the regulatory impact assessment was a final document. [43367]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The full Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Care Homes Regulations and National Minimum Standards for Older People and for Younger Adults, which was placed in the Library on 21 January 2002, was the final version.

    Transplants
    Mr. Watson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients died last year while on the waiting list for(a) heart, (b) heart and lung, (c) lung and (d) liver transplants; how many people are awaiting (i) kidney transplant, (ii) heart transplant, (iii) heart and lung transplant, (iv) lung transplant and (v) liver transplant; and how many organ transplants were carried out last year. [43309]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The number of patients dying while on the United Kingdom organ transplant waiting list in 2001 are as follows:

    Organ

    Number dying

    (a) Heart

    26

    (b) Heart and lung

    30

    (c) Lung

    35

    (d) Liver

    60

    The number of patients active on the United Kingdom organ transplant waiting list at the end of 2001 are as follows.
    172W

    Organ

    Number waiting

    (i) Kidney

    4,934

    (ii) Heart

    105

    (iii) Heart and lung

    72

    (iv) Lung

    241

    (v) Liver

    158

    There were 2,717 solid organ transplants carried out in the UK in 2001. This figure includes all solid organs, including kidney and living donor transplants.

    Mr. Watson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients died while waiting for an organ transplant in the last five years for which figures are available. [43310]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The figures for patients dying while on the United Kingdom organ transplant waiting list in the last five years are as follows:

    Number

    1997

    207

    1998

    217

    1999

    227

    2000

    189

    2001

    151

    The figures for patients dying on the kidney waiting list (not necessarily from kidney failure) are only available from 2000 and the figures are as follows.

    Number

    2000

    288

    2001

    230

    The figures are not available broken down by local authority. A table of the figures broken down by region is as follows:

    Region

    Number

    Percentage of population

    Northern and Yorkshire

    835,870

    13.4

    Trent

    637,321

    12.4

    Eastern

    806,534

    15.3

    London

    910,432

    12.9

    South-east

    1,401,383

    16.4

    South-west

    916,436

    18.7

    West Midlands

    641,611

    12.1

    North-west

    920,939

    13.9

    Channel Isles and Isle of Man

    5,225

    2.5

    England

    7,088,436

    14.3

    Wales

    474,722

    16.3

    Scotland

    908,269

    17.8

    Northern Ireland

    151,793

    9.1

    Not available

    394,004

    —

    Total

    9,022,479

    15.3

    Emergency Care
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the emergency readmission figures for Q1 2001–02, broken down by(a) region and (b) health authority. [43460]
    173W
    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 15 March 2002]: Only information on readmissions for those aged 75 and over is collected centrally on a quarterly basis.

    Information relating to Quarter 1, 2001–02 has been placed in the Library.

    Cystic Fibrosis
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of suffers of cystic fibrosis have pancreatic insufficiency. [43640]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 15 March 2002]: About 90 per cent. of individuals with cystic fibrosis develop pancreatic insufficiency. Dealing with this condition is a normal part of the management of cystic fibrosis patients.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what periodic reviews of the number of outstanding parliamentary questions are carried out by his Department; and how often they are undertaken. [43987]

    Yvette Cooper
    These issues will be addressed in the report of the current investigation referred to in the reply I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W, on parliamentary questions, of those
    174W
    outstanding questions due for reply before 14 February, how many questions have been answered by the target date of 12 March; and of those not answered by the announced date, what estimates he will make for the full reply to all outstanding questions; [43643]

    (2) pursuant to the answer, of 11 March, ref 41778, on parliamentary questions, if he will list (a) the tabling hon. Members, (b) the question reference numbers, (c) the date of tabling and (d) the date the questions were falsely recorded as answered. [43646]

    Yvette Cooper
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Milburn) gave to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on 13 March 2002.

    The information about individual questions incorrectly recorded as answered will be placed in the Library as soon as the disciplinary investigation is complete.

    Care Funding
    Mrs. Calton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 12 March, ref. 28289, if he will publish the methodology used to derive the 2002–03 allocation as indicated in the document entitled "Improving Social Services for Older People"; what the rates of delayed discharge were in the 55 highest by council area and the next 45 by council area in summer 2001; and if he will publish the methodology used to derive the amounts awarded to councils in the Building Care Capacity Grant 2002–03. [43988]

    Jacqui Smith
    The methodology and information used has been placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Teachers: Performance Pay
Baroness Walmsleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they expect school budgets and teacher morale to be affected by the under-funding by the Department for Education and Skills of the teachers' performance-related pay scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, rewarding effectiveness should improve teaching morale, and there is no question of under-funding. In the coming year we are increasing education standard spending by £1.3 billion to nearly £24 billion. In addition, we expect to provide about £600 million in direct support for performance-related pay, of which £100 million will be new special grant for the upper pay scale and related reforms.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. However, she is aware that only about 50 per cent of the teachers who are above the threshold will be able to receive that money. Is she aware that at the beginning of the school year—in the absence of any indication from the Government as to how much money would be available, and in the absence of any criteria—in order to be fair to their staff, some head teachers set their own criteria and gave a commitment to those staff who met such criteria that they would be rewarded? is not the Government's under-funding of this performance-related pay a good way to demoralise the teaching profession by setting teacher against teacher and head teachers against their staff?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I must make clear that the payments are not increments but incentives to teachers. My right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment, David Blunkett, announced last March that there would be a special grant. We have set minimum criteria but we believe that it is within the gift of head teachers working with their governing bodies to ensure that they look for and reward improvements in standards and that they set their own criteria. They are used to doing that. They have been giving responsibility points for some years.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, can the Minister respond to a head teacher's comment to me last week that government grants have not allowed for incremental drift? His school has a number of teachers at the higher end of the salary scale and he has found
1092
himself considerably reduced in resources. Can the Minister assure the House that no school where the staff have remained stable and are at the higher end of the salary scale will suffer as a result of incremental drift?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord the understanding that we have here the ability for teachers to apply to go across the threshold. Where such teachers are able to go through the threshold, that is a demand-led funding, which is fully funded. Beyond that point, on the four remaining points it is for schools to make decisions about the rewards they want to give to their teachers and the criteria for so doing.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that an incentive which is given permanently for the remainder of a teacher's career hardly guarantees that it will remain in 10 or 20 years' time?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is important to understand that the incentives we are trying to bring into the system are on, top of the basic increases we have given to teachers. Noble Lords will be aware that teaching salaries have increased by quite a lot; by up to 30 per cent since 1997. The incentives we are additionally bringing in are designed to allow head teachers who are managers to make the right kind of decisions to incentivise their staff and their schools to continue to improve.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am sure she is—that the National Association of Head Teachers is very angry indeed about this matter? That association seldom complains in public, although I am sure it talks often to the department about its problems. It is being asked to do something which makes running schools difficult. We all understand that crossing the threshold is fully funded; the Government agree that. However, this is another matter altogether, setting teacher against teacher. That is not the right way to proceed. The Government never said that only 50 per cent of the proposal would be funded. It seems very unwise. Cannot they do something about that?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have funded £100 million for the rest of this financial year, and £150 million for the year 2003–04. As I have said before, my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State made clear last March that there would be a special grant. We should be careful of the assumption that all teachers who pass the threshold automatically increase on this scale. It is not an incremental scale. It is designed specifically to incentivise schools and teachers to improve, to set criteria and to reward. That practice is used in all areas of management and is one we should encourage.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether "new" government money is being

1093
made available for the performance-related pay scheme or is it money that was allocated in another year? Do the Government intend to make that new money available or do they expect local authorities to do so?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government are providing £600 million in direct support for performance-related pay in 2002–03. As I said, £500 million of that will be a special grant to cover the extra salary cost—noble Lords will be aware that that is around £2,000 per teacher—to go through to point one on the upper pay scale as a result of passing the performance threshold. As I said, that grant is demand-led. The additional money which is available is for movement under the other points of that scale. This is money available. Decisions about future funding are subject to the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Crop Improvement: Transgenic Technology
2.42 p.m.
Lord Taverneasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy for funding research into the transgenic approach for improving crops.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government recognise that the use of transgenic technology for crop improvements could have the potential to produce benefits if applied safely and responsibly. The Government have supported and support research and development programmes which utilise genetic modification approaches for crop improvements and are aimed at providing the underpinning science and developing responsible GM approaches.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, do the Government recognise the glaring contrast between the importance of agricultural biotechnology—a technology in which we have special expertise in this country and which has enormous potential in the fight against hunger and disease and for a better environment—on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the gradual decline over the years in government support for that field? Is it not particularly important that there should be public support for this field of research rather than letting it all be done by multinational companies or other countries? Could they perhaps not divert some of the millions which are spent on organic farming, the claims for which have no scientific basis, and invest that money in proper science instead?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that the House has heard the noble Lord's opinions on both sides of the argument. The Government believe that there is benefit in developing technologies in biotechnology, including GM approaches. We also believe that there
1094
is benefit in helping the development of what many farmers and many consumers regard as the benefits of organic farming. We support both. But we also recognise that there is public concern in this area. Therefore, we support technology on GM approaches, which help speed up, for example, hybridisation, and for the use of GM technology which is to the benefit of mankind in food, medicine and other fields. However, the development of products in this area is primarily a matter for commercial concerns and not for government.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that if the research is left to individual companies there will not necessarily be public confidence in that research? Sadly, we have seen an example of that over the past year or so. Will the Government therefore consider increasing their research funding to make sure that it is linked to good-quality, accessible and relevant science which is based throughout the world on a similar basis? That should include risk assessment as a major part of that funding. Can the Minister clarify where the money is going at the present time?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government spend nearly £60 million in total in these areas. Of course only part of that total is spent on GM technology. The expenditure by my own department, which is about half of that, is mainly concerned with the development of GM techniques. Those are geared to doing exactly as the noble Baroness suggests—looking at what is being developed, assessing it and helping to use such approaches in areas that will be of benefit to the community as a whole.
The point I was making to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is that government money is not primarily directed to product development. It is directed at helping to improve the Government's ability to assess products and assess the way in which science is developing.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the debate in this country on GM crops has been disproportionately focused on the risk rather than on the potential benefits of such crops? Given the point that has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that the fear of control of technologies being in the hands of multinational corporations is a large element of that, is it not important to those of us who are concerned that the potential benefits in terms of health and agriculture in the developing world are supported by research expenditure that is not commercial? That means from government.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is precisely on those noncommercial areas where we can assess development that the Government are focusing. That includes, as my noble friend indicates, supporting developments within the developing world, within medicine and within the safe and responsible development of crop and food technology. The argument has perhaps at times not been entirely rational on this issue on either

1095
side. That is why the Government have very heavily invested in ensuring that the farm-scale trials of GM crops are completed before we take any further decision. We need to allay public concern in this area. It is not just a question of media stories; there is substantial consumer concern. We need, therefore, to have proper science and a proper assessment of the actual production risk, which is what the farm-scale trials are directed at.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the degree of public scare about genetically modified foods is disproportionate? Not many people realise that the early hybridisation and first studies on this issue go right back to the monk, Mendel. People have been breeding improved crops ever since that time. Could not a little more publicity be given to that fact? Could it not be made clear that this is really modern science progressing on from that early work?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, to a degree I agree with the noble Baroness. One can regard genetic modification as being the next stage of a programme of hybridisation that has been going on for a long time. But there is also an element of step change in this, which is why it is right to recognise that there is a degree of broader concern than there would be in just one more intensification of a process. That underlines the need for us to have the science correct and to ensure that the basis on which we are informing the public is an informed, controlled and detailed assessment of the effects of commercialisation on crop growing in this country.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister was quite right to use the words "step change". It is a step of the order of many magnitudes. Does he agree that while genetic modification may look scientifically desirable or beneficial, the practical difficulties are very great indeed? Will the Government take the greatest possible care over such things as volunteer plants, escapes, hybridisation and wind pollination?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the likely controls on any commercialised growing would indeed be directed at minimising and, so far as possible, eliminating the risks on those counts. We are taking the matter carefully, but we are also taking it on the basis of sound science and sound agriculture.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister indicated that the money that the Government are investing is not in the close-to-market area but in research. Is he confident that enough money is going into research in what is an important area of science?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said, a substantial amount of money is going into research of (IM techniques. Of course, substantial commercial money is also being invested in these areas, including within the UK and within Europe. The Government must
1096
address the balance between ensuring that we understand the science and can assess proposed developments and dealing with widespread public anxiety within the UK and within Europe as a whole.

A400M Aircraft Project
2.51 p.m.
Lord Burnhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
What revised plans have been made for the future of heavy lift aircraft in the light of the partial withdrawal from the A400M project by the German Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that there ha; been no partial withdrawal from the A400M project by the German Government. The German commitment to proceed with the A400M programme is subject to Bundestag funding approval, which the German defence ministry is working to obtain by the end of March. There is therefore no present need to revise our plans for acquiring that capability.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, are not the vibes strong that the German Government will not provide the money for the project? Is it not time that Her Majesty's Government exercised the right that they rightly reserve to themselves totally to abandon the A400M programme and plan for an aircraft that has the lift, capacity and range that the services require?
Lord Bach: No, my Lords, it is not lime to abandon the A400M. It is the best deal for the taxpayer and for British industry. I remind the noble Lord that it has a 50 per cent greater payload than the ageing Hercules C130K that it replaces, with the flexibility to operate in both strategic and tactical roles. As a joint programme with our European partners, it also delivers clear benefits in interoperability, sheer development and through-life costs. Finally, I remind the noble Lord that it can create or sustain thousands of British jobs.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, while supporting the A400M, does the Minister agree that there may be a gap between the decommissioning of the ageing Hercules fleet and the date on which the A400M comes into service? If so, what will fill the gap? If it is the American heavy lift aircraft, will we have to buy it, or will we lease it?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we will not have to buy it. We have leased four Cl7s—I think that that is the aircraft to which the noble Lord refers—and will continue to do so until the A400M is on-stream. We expect that to be in 2010.
Lord Jones: My Lords, how many jobs will be created in the now hard-pressed aerospace industry by the A400M project? As the American President now

1097
aims to put steep tariffs on Britain's steel exports, why should we contemplate the leasing or buying of further C17s? Mighty Boeing is mighty enough.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall not answer any questions about steel tariffs; I am looking forward to hearing the Answer to be given by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury in a few minutes. Airbus UK, which is the company responsible for the aircraft, estimates that the programme will directly create up to 2,500 high-quality jobs, notably in design and advanced manufacturing. Indirect employment could bring that figure to more than 8,000.
Noble Lords: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, perhaps we may hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. She has risen three times, I believe.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. Is the Minister aware that last week the defence study group visited the C17 at Brize Norton and was impressed not only with the charm and morale of the three-man crew but with the speed with which the aeroplane could be emptied—30 minutes flat—and its capacity? It could take a Tornado or a Chinook or two Pumas as well as heavily loaded lorries and pallets and 50 passengers.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right: the C17 is a superb aeroplane—I have had the good fortune to see inside one myself. But that does not take away from the need for the capability of the A400M. Although the C17 is a fine aircraft, it is not an answer to our needs in the field.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, what contingencies are in place for the survival of the A400M project should programme approval not take place by 31st March? What are the implications for the European rapid reaction force if the project does not proceed?
Lord Bach: My Lords, if only partial German funding were to be achieved by 31st March—that is, for the first 40 of the 73 aeroplanes that they would still require—the contract could become effective. However, partner nations would expect the German Government to secure balance of funding for 73 aircraft at the earliest opportunity and—this is important—to compensate them for their additional cost, in other words, increased unit price, if that funding were not secured.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, is not the A400M essential to the heavy-lift capability of any European rapid reaction force, so that the credibility of such a force hinges on the project continuing? Will the Minister confirm that that is fully understood by the German Government and that he is confident that the in-service date of 2010 can and will be met?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I have no doubt that the German Government are in favour of the A400M
1098
project. They have done nothing to suggest that they are not. It is an essential part of our defence project, both at home and abroad.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it is not the case that only a Liberal Democrat Peer could think that the A400M was essential for our heavy-lift capability when it will not carry a modern main battle tank, our AS90, tank transporter equipment, heavy bridging equipment and so on? But leaving that aside—it is of course a joke of a plane as it exists only on paper at present—can my noble friend tell us what was the initial full unit cost of the A400M, what it was after the Italians sensibly cancelled their order for 20, and what it will be after we have the new engine that we are told we suddenly need, which is not even at the design stage, and after the Germans have failed to pay any of the development costs until they have received the plane?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I have the highest opinion of my noble friend. He has been extremely good and generous to me since I took on this job and it is rarely that I disagree with him, but I do so profoundly with regard to this aeroplane. I shall try to answer his questions briefly.
The original unit cost of the A400M falls under commercial in-confidence rules, so I am unable to give my noble friend the information. I should like to, but I am unable to; my noble friend should understand that better than most. The withdrawal of Italy from the programme occurred during the latter stages of price negotiation. While it is fair to say that such a reduction in overall aircraft numbers would have had a negative cost impact, it was one of many changing factors—some of which were positive in their financial effect—considered at the time. The company, which, as I said, is responsible for the project, did not identify any specific cost impact of that withdrawal.

US Steel Tariffs
2.59 p.m.
Lord Razzallasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take in view of the imposition of steel tariffs by the Government of the United States.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, steps have already been taken through the European Union to respond to this unjustified American action. A decision is expected within days on measures to protect UK and EU industry from diversion of steel products to the EU as a result of the US measures. In addition, the European Commission has sought formal consultations with the US under both the World Trade Organisation safeguards agreement and the dispute settlement understanding.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am sure he will accept that it is a somewhat

1099
Kafkaesque situation when, for example, the Democratic Party in the United States is in favour of even higher tariffs on steel and Corus, I understand, has made a significant financial contribution to the campaign for US steel tariffs. Does the Minister accept that, in those circumstances, the danger is that we in the European Union will engage in tit-for-tat measures, leading to a trade war in which the only people to suffer will be the British consumer and the British worker?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government have so far taken four actions. The EU Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, has requested immediate WTO dispute-settlement action. That will, of course, take some time, even if we win—possibly 15 months. With Commissioner Lamy, we are already considering what safeguard action we can take to protect British and European steel producers and workers against a flood of steel imports. The action that we take will be WTO-compatible; we will act within WTO rules. We are also supporting UK exclusion requests and compensation. Only if we pass through the compensation stage can we, under WTO rules, move towards retaliation. The first action will be to press the Americans on compensation.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that tit-for-tat retaliation on that scale would not be helpful to the UK or anyone else? Would he not rather bring pressure to bear on our "friends"—in quotes—in the United States for them to withdraw what they are doing on tariffs? Retaliation is in nobody's interests—neither those of the US nor those of anyone else.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in the year since the action was started by President Bush., we have, on numerous occasions, made our views clear. We are not taking any kind of tit-for-tat action at this stage. We are doing something different: protecting our industry from a flood of imports. That is what the safeguard action under the WTO rules is specifically about.
Our argument with America is that the Americans have not seen a flood of imports in the past few years. On the contrary, there has been a substantial decline in the volume of imports into America. They are 'very much down on two years ago—I think 28 per cent down compared with 1998. In this case, we are within our rights to take action to protect our steel industry from floods of imports.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the sentiments expressed in the previous two questions that, in this case, the European Union should move cautiously and avoid rushing into any impulsive retaliation? As he rightly said, the WTO and its procedures are the right mechanism with which to sort the matter out. Also, it is clear that the Bush Administration is in a complex political mode whereby this unhelpful and unwelcome move could be a precursor to more trade liberalisation and stronger emphasis on trade freedom. President Bush has indicated that that is still the way he wants to go.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand what a complex political mode is. We can be certain that the British Government will stand by the steel producers and steelworkers in this country in dealing with what many of us regard as a piece of straightforward protectionism. We will take action to defend our industry. We will do so in a measured and considered way, within the WTO rules, but we will stand by it.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, given the experience of unfair trading within the EU during the 1980s and 1990s, which greatly affected the engineering steel industry, especially in south Yorkshire, one can sympathise with the United States if it can prove that there has been dumping. Have the Government taken any action to assist the engineering steel industry to maintain its traditional, long-established export of engineering steels to the United States? That trade has gone on for a long time, and the Americans expected it to continue. Have the Government made representations and what was the response?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is the issue of exclusions. We are working with the steel industry to make certain that if a case can be made for exclusions, it will be made. That is what we are working on.
Lord Acton: My Lords, the Minister mentioned a 15-month period required for the WTO to take action. That seems a long time. Is there any thing the Government can do to speed up the WTO machinery?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the process will take 15 months, including the different stages of making representations, appeals and so on. There is nothing that we can do in these circumstances, although it is desirable in such situations that the process be speeded up.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the European Council at Barcelona. After that, my noble friend Lord Bach will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Afghanistan deployments.
Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Primary Care Trusts]:
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 36:
Page 3, line 5, leave out "It is" and insert "From 1st April 2003, it shall be"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 52. Both amendments concern the readiness of primary care trusts for the responsibilities envisaged for them in the Bill.
Amendment No. 36 is a simple one. It defers the responsibility of the Secretary of State under Clause 2 to create PCTs covering the whole of England until 1st April, 2003. The Government's current intention is to ensure that all PCTs are in place by this October. Many of them will, in fact, exist by this April, only a couple of weeks from now.
The Minister may well say that, as most PCTs will exist legally next month, the amendment is of no practical effect. However, there may be a small number of PCGs that will not have completed the transition to PCT status next month. I remind the Minister that his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, assured the House that no PCTs would be imposed and that progression to trust status would be,
"driven locally, based on local views".—[Official Report, 25/2/99; col. 1268]
We know that most of the conversions have not been made in that way. They have been driven by the centre, with a fig-leaf of local involvement.
Will any PCGs not have been converted to PCT status on a so-called voluntary basis by the beginning of April 2002? If so, will the Minister say how many, and where they are located? Will conversion to PCT status be enforced under this Bill, if it becomes law, even if local views—including, importantly, the views of local health professionals—are against it? Will he say whether enforced conversion represents an adequate foundation for a PCT to take on the major new functions envisaged in the Bill?
We on these Benches do not agree with the policy of forced conversion of PCGs to PCTs but we recognise that the Secretary of State is hell-bent on reconfiguring the NHS to his own design. Amendment No. 36 at least seeks to provide a more dignified timetable to allow the hard-pressed NHS to adapt.
1102
Amendment No. 52 is more complex and, in practical terms, more important. It requires the Commission for Health Improvement to investigate the preparedness of PCTs, both before a PCG becomes a PCT and, importantly, before the PCTs are given the new functions envisaged for them in the Bill. If in either event CHI believes that a PCG or a PCT is not ready, it must make a special report which would defer the creation of the PCT or the transfer of functions for one year. In that way, even if there are no PCTs still to be created when the Bill becomes law, the amendment would require a report from CHI on all PCTs' readiness to receive their new functions.
This will be particularly important given the continuing concerns about the ability of PCTs to cope. I am sure that the Minister has listened to the concerns of organisations such as the British Medical Association as to whether, for example, the necessary clinical and managerial staff have been recruited for the role envisaged for future PCTs. I am sure that he will also be aware of the King's Fund tracker survey last year which reported many problems in commissioning, in health improvement and in partnership working, as well as concerns about managerial capacity and information deficiencies.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the findings of district audit during its visits to PCGs and PCTs during 2001. Unsurprisingly, it found a marked variation in the degree to which those bodies were prepared for their new roles. It found specific risk areas in corporate governance, in information management, in partnerships, in commissioning, in control of prescribing costs and in arrangements for personal medical services.
The Minister may also have read an article in the Health Service Journal last week about a survey of primary care groups and primary care trusts in the south-western region. That found that many were still relying heavily on their health authority for commissioning. It concluded that the proposal to allocate 75 per cent of NHS funds to PCTs by 2004 will be unrealistic in some areas.
Can the Minister say whether the 300 or so PCTs that will be operational next month currently have a chief executive who has the competencies required for the new PCT responsibilities and an appropriately qualified finance director who will be able to cope with the new financial requirements involving 75 per cent of total NHS spending? In this connection, the King's Fund tracker survey found last year that one in seven had no finance staff at all. A cursory glance at the recruitment pages of the Health Service Journal will show that many, many posts remain to be filled.
Will the PCTs have an appropriately qualified public health specialist capable of pursuing the public health agenda that the Government envisage for PCTs, including the development and delivery of health improvement plans? Will they have appropriately qualified staff to handle the whole range of functions, including, most importantly, commissioning and the new revalidation and regulatory requirements in relation to primary care? Will they have adequate

1103
information systems? And last but not least, will they have adequate budgets to pay for all of this? These requirements are not in the "nice to have" category; they are essential if the planned additional functions are to be delegated to PCTs.
Does the Minister accept that there are major gaps in readiness among PCTs—gaps so great that it is unrealistic to think of a commencement date of October this year? If he does accept that there are gaps, what do the Government intend to do about them?
We on these Benches are profoundly concerned about the preparedness of PCTs, on whose shoulders so much of the burden of delivering the Government's aspirations for the NHS will rest. That is why we believe that the implementation of the new PCT functions should not take place until there has been an independent examination by experts. The Commission for Health Improvement seems to fit that Bill but an alternative could be to use the Audit Commission, which is even more independent.
We urge caution until it is clear that the requisite capabilities demonstrably exist. It may well he that some PCTs are, in the Government's view, ready to proceed, but I hope that the Minister will not claim that that is the position of all PCTs because all of the available evidence is against that. If the Government insist that the change must be on a 100 per cent basis rather than a more cautious, phased approach, we believe that the pace of the slowest must prevail. Will the Government now consider a phased approach? I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: We on these Benches support the two amendments, particularly Amendment No. 52, to which I have put my name. As the Minister knows, in an ideal world we would prefer a scheme whereby, as agreed under the Health Act 1999, health authorities would determine the point where PCGs had enough capacity to become PCTs. It would be a local decision and the duties would be assigned to PCTs according to their capacity at the time. Under the Bill, there will be an almost compulsory changeover to PCT status and then an assignment of duties to those PCTs in a completely nondiscriminating way in terms of whether or not they have the resources and the capacity to take them on.
The Minister will he well aware that there is considerable doubt and uncertainty as to whether PCTs across the board will be in a position to assume those roles and responsibilities. It is particularly notable how common that view is in the area of commissioning. Later this week, seven all-party groups will gather to talk about this issue—the All-Party Parliamentary Groups on AIDS, on Cancer, on Health, on Maternity, on Men's Health, on Mental Health and on Primary Care and Public Health. A fairly considerable degree of concern is being expressed by all those involved in those all-party groups. The Minister would have to be insensitive not to understand that there is great concern about the capacity of PCTs in these circumstances.
1104
We on these Benches agree with the BM A that PCTs are new organisations and the demands being placed on them by the Bill may be beyond their existing capacity. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, the reorganisation is virtually there in advance of the Bill. Whether or not they have the capacity and resources, the Secretary of State has, in effect, anticipated the outcome of the Bill. He has shown a degree of confidence that Ministers do not normally possess.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, explained, PCTs are already experiencing difficulties in recruiting clinical and managerial staff who are able and willing to participate in the roles to which they will be assigned. It has been explained in the Commons that PCTs will be up and running by October this year or next spring, but even that date is ambitious given that there are many primary care groups which were insufficiently prepared in the first place for the move to PCT status.
PCTs will be responsible for assessing the health needs of their local communities and for preparing plans for health improvement, and a strengthened public health function will be needed for PCTs to provide this needs assessment function. As the Minister is aware, the public health function is an area where there is grave uncertainty about whether PCTs will have the capacity, resources or expertise to handle their new functions.
In addition to the public health function, the Government want PCTs to be the lead NHS organisation in joint working with local authorities and others as part of local strategic partnerships. Together with the BMA, we are concerned that while advances in health may not be related to the healthcare system, the primary responsibility of PCTs must be to provide a proper and adequate healthcare service. The emphasis of PCT activities must be on that core activity. But what we now see happening is that the Government are loading them with other functions which may mean that those core functions are not going to be properly carried out.
There is the national PCT development programme. I should like the Minister to give an absolute assurance that PCTs will be in a position to carry out their functions and that they will have the resources and the expertise. That requires a considerable degree of confidence from the Minister. I very much look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the Minister replies, will he specifically answer the question of my noble friend Lord Howe? Can he assure the Committee that each primary care trust will have a competent chief executive in post and a competent finance director, somebody who is a specialist in public health and also other professionals who are able to deal with the various functions? The Committee needs a precise answer to that question because it is quite clear to anybody. whether they know about the detail of the trust functions or not, that without such people the changeover should not be made.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I find myself somewhat disappointed by the tone of the remarks made in this debate so far about primary care trusts. In our very enjoyable debates on Clause 1 for the whole of last Thursday, the theme of the criticism of the Government was that we were adopting an over-centralist approach. Before us this afternoon there is evidence of the Government's decentralist approach and our aim to ensure that primary care trusts decision-making is as close as possible to GPs, primary care and the patient. Here we come forward with exciting ideas to get decision-making down to that level and the reaction of Members of the Committee who have spoken is shock, horror and, "You can't do this. We are very worried".
I make no apologies for being an absolute enthusiast for primary care trusts. Of course, I accept that there are tremendous challenges for them to take on and that there are those who are expressing some uncertainty about the ability of PCTs to do that. In the main they are not primary care trust themselves, but various pressure and interest groups which normally seek to influence the Government to take a highly centralist approach and wish the Government to continue to do so.
I say right at the outset that my experience in meeting primary care trusts and talking to general practitioners and the staff involved leads me to believe that they are very well able to take on the extra responsibility which they have been given. It is worth remarking that the first primary care trusts were established on 1st April 2000. Subsequent waves of primary care trusts have been established. In April 2001 we had 164 primary care trusts delivering healthcare to 47.7 per cent of the population.
The fact is that there is a great deal of enthusiasm out there for becoming primary care trusts and that is why we have received over 150 proposals from primary care groups and others who wish to become operational on 1st April 2002.
As regards the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, at present it is anticipated that only one primary care group will remain as at 1st April 2002. From that date we expect that there will be 303 operational primary care trusts. The one primary care group which we believe will remain at 1st April 2002 is Braintree which proposes to become a care trust from October 2002. There is one other primary care group, Crosby and Maghull, which is part of proposals to create a South Sefton primary care trust. That is currently subject to a submission to Ministers. If that were not to approved it would become a subcommittee of Bootle and Litherland primary care trust. Therefore, there would be two primary care groups left as at April 2002.
I completely deny that primary care groups have been dragooned into becoming primary care trusts. I have visited any number of such groups and trusts over the past few months. I am absolutely convinced that there is enthusiasm for getting on with the task and being given the enormous responsibility that they have. I am sure that primary care trusts will enable this
1106
crucial inter-relationship between the decisions of GPs and primary care to be pulled together in the work they will do on commissioning, which I am convinced will lead to a much better balance of services between primary care, secondary and tertiary care.
To suggest that those primary care trusts are incapable of managing these changes underestimates enormously the calibre of managers, primary care leaders and clinicians within the National Health Service. Already within PCTs which have been established we are seeing better support practice, better support to individual clinicians, better integrated and effective services and better access and design.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has suggested, we have established a very good development programme to help primary care trusts prepare for operation. They include a co-ordinated development programme, a comprehensive self-assessment toolkit, an integrated whole systems package of development for each strategic health authority community and a robust infrastructure for all key stakeholders to have appropriate influence and to ensure that PCTs are equipped to deliver on the Government's objectives.
At local level, primary care trusts are being encouraged to develop and work collaboratively, to pool knowledge and to share capacity and expertise. I make no apology for that. For some particular functions primary care trusts will need to work together with others. But that does not detract at all from the individual ability of each primary care trust to work effectively. No one has ever suggested that each primary care trust would be totally self-sufficient. But I have no doubt whatever that co-operative arrangements which we determine locally will work effectively.
I was asked about the position of executive appointments. My understanding is that as of 11th March, chief executive appointments had been made in all except six primary care trusts. Clearly, they are crucial appointments. Once the chief executive has been appointed it will then be possible to get on with the appointment of other senior officers. No one could say that as at 1st April every primary care trust will have every senior officer position filled. However, I expect the NHS to have the arrangements in place to ensure a seamless process of transition of responsibility from health authorities and primary care trusts and that health authorities will support primary care trusts to ensure that there are no particular gaps.
Having said that, I turn to Amendment No. 52. It would require the Commission for Health Improvement to investigate whether primary care groups are properly prepared to become primary care trusts and whether they are ready to take on functions under this Bill. While I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, makes this proposal, I do not believe that it is a proper function for the commission. CHI's responsibilities are quite specific. It may already carry out investigations into the management,

1107
provision or quality of healthcare, for which primary care trusts have responsibility under the Health Act 1999. Under this Bill we are extending the responsibility of CHI, particularly to carry out general reviews of any aspect of NHS services.
The independent review of services by the CHI is of a different order from that proposed in the new clause. It is not appropriate for the CHI to make the decisions envisaged in the new clause. The decision on whether a primary care group should become a primary care trust or whether a primary care trust should take on functions is surely for the Secretary of State to make. In making that decision, the Secretary of State needs to be satisfied in four key areas: the benefits of what will be achieved, the degree of support for the proposal, the fitness of the proposed organisation to deliver and the impact on other organisations.
Having been involved in approving a number of applications for organisations to become primary care trusts, I can confirm that the decision is taken only after the fullest consideration. Careful analysis is undertaken and Ministers ensure that the key questions that need to be asked are posed. We have to be satisfied that the proposed primary care trust can take on the responsibilities that it is to be given.
I understand why questions have been asked about the preparedness of primary care trusts. They are being given an enormous responsibility. However, I am confident that they can take on that role. I have been impressed in my visits to primary care trusts. They do not need delay and uncertainty; they need to press on. I am confident that they can do so.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that response, which was not a big surprise. We on these Benches are not against the proposals to devolve functions to primary care trusts; we are against the premature delegation of functions and transfer of responsibilities before those trusts are ready. That was the purpose of my questions to the Minister.
The Minister has said that he has met a lot of enthusiasts. That often happens to Ministers. They do not necessarily meet a representative selection of opinion in the NHS. I am afraid that that is a fact of life.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Health Ministers meet all shades of opinion. I assure the noble Baroness that I have met health authorities, in particular, that have expressed concerns about the transition of power to primary care trusts. However, there is self-interest in some of those concerns. My whole experience of the NHS is that at the end of the day it always rises to the challenge.
Baroness Noakes: I do not doubt the sincerity of the Minister's views, although he has taken an unnecessary swipe at those organisations that have reported lack of preparedness. One would not suspect the King's Fund or district auditors of having a particular agenda.
1108
I asked the Minister whether each of the 300 or so bodies would have a chief executive w ho had the competencies for new PCT status. He replied that there would be a chief executive in all but six. Will they all be chief executives selected for the competencies of the new PCTs, or will they be chief executives who were in post under the old arrangements, who were not expected to have the competencies of the new roles of PCTs? I understand that there has had to be a reappraisal of those already in post to see whether they are capable of undertaking the role for the new PCTs. However, that deals only with chief executives. I understood the Minister to say that we would then move on to other posts. I asked about qualified finance directors, public health specialists and the staff who will handle functions such as commissioning, as well as the underpinning requirements of money and information systems. I must press the Minister on what progress has been made on those posts. It is all very well to say that chief executives will come in and see to the rest, but there is an awful lot to do if all those posts are not in place or substantially in place by now. Perhaps he will comment on that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is difficult for me w say the extent to which each of the 303 primary care trusts has filled each position. I can make two specific points. The chief executives, who will be in place in all but six primary care trusts, will be a combination of those who were already in post in the existing primary care trusts and chief executives who have been appointed as a result of the new primary care trusts coming into being on 1st April.
I certainly accept that we now envisage PCTs taking on a great deal of responsibility that might not have been envisaged by some primary care trusts when they appointed their chief executives. It will be for each primary care trust to consider those responsibilities and assess the strength and calibre of its existing management team. Equally, the development programme that we have put in place will enable the NHS to give support and encouragement to existing post holders as well as new post holders.
The chief executive is the key appointment to be made for primary care trusts that come ini o being on I st April. Once the chief executives are in place in the new organisations, they can work with the chairs and the non-executives to get on with filling the other senior positions. We hope that that will be done as quickly as possible. My point in my original response to the noble Baroness was that I expect there to be interim arrangements in place to ensure that primary care trusts are ready to go live on 1st April. That is one aspect of the responsibilities of health authorities in providing the support required by PCTs in the interim period.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that. Who determines whether a PCT is ready? The Minister said that it was for PCTs to consider whether their chief executives were strong enough for the roles that they would have to carry out. Is he saying that at the time that the Secretary of State makes the delegation of

1109
functions to primary care trusts, he will not have carefully considered the preparedness of the individual trusts? The Minister explained the process and the matters that were considered in the creation of PCTs. I am sure that he accepts that there will be a lot of gaps in the capabilities needed on day one, when the functions are delegated. I am very unclear as to what information flows will be coming to the department before the button is pressed on the responsibilities falling on the shoulders of PCTs. What processes does the department have—or is it expecting to leave the matter entirely to the PCTs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In the assessment that is made in agreeing to the establishment of new primary care trusts, the department takes a number of factors into account before Ministers are asked to make a decision. One of the criteria for making a decision is whether there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the proposed primary care trust is fit for the purpose. That includes consideration of whether the application identifies effective governing and leadership arrangements and whether those arrangements will deliver the local primary care trust's vision.
The noble Baroness also asked about existing primary care trusts. That is a matter for local decision. If a primary care trust is taking on more responsibilities, the board of that trust needs to see whether the management arrangements and the calibre of its leadership cadre are up to new responsibilities. The same would apply to any other NHS organisation.
In addition, we debated the role of strategic health authorities last Thursday. It is also the case that strategic health authorities will want to ensure that leadership within primary care trusts is effective, and that is also part of its performance management function. I should be surprised if the noble Baroness were suggesting that the Secretary of State should adopt a highly centralist approach to judging the capability and performance of each primary care trust chief executive. We have in place a sufficient process to ensure that judgments can be made about leadership capability as well as development programmes to help those leaders show just what they are capable of.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend continues—I apologise to her for confusing her with the noble Earl: I do not know why I did it, but I do know the difference—what the Minister is saying will not do. I am very shocked at this, as I am sure others are. In order for the Government to be able to say that they are decentralising and how enthusiastic they are about it—some of us are doubtful about the extent of this decentralization—they are prepared to let bodies take on enormous responsibilities when their chief executives may or may not continue at the moment. It is impossible to say when the finance director will take over, because he does not at present exist in a number of trusts. The Health Service cannot be asked to do that just to get political will across to the nation. The Government should ask themselves whether we need
1110
to hurry so much. People will accept a short delay until the whole matter is put in order. They are making a great mistake, and I should have thought that politically it will be disastrous for the future.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: If the noble Baroness were to ask primary care trusts whether they would like another year to potter around trying to reach the state of preparedness that she suggests they have not yet reached, they would say that that would be the worst possible thing that could happen to them. They know that they have to take on the challenge of major responsibilities, but they want to get on with the job.
The assessment criteria under which we have judged the effectiveness of primary care trusts to take on their responsibilities, combined with a development programme and the overseeing role of health authorities to ensure that things are done correctly, that there are no gaps, that the infrastructure is in place, give me confidence that the NHS is well able to take on the new structure from 1st April this year, and I believe that it should be allowed to get on with it.
Baroness Noakes: Having listened to what the Minister has said, I am left profoundly unconvinced. We are told that an assessment is made of leadership. That is all very well, but leadership does not necessarily deliver a fully functioning organisation on the ground. There is a big gap between an assessment of leadership over the past few months and knowing, when the Secretary of State comes to make the delegation, that these organisations are ready and able to take on those functions. I do not believe that it is centralist to have a proper assessment of the new organisations. The new organisations may be jumping up and down, saying that they are ready, but that does not mean that they are ready. That is why Amendment No. 52 was designed to put an independent assessment into the process.
I had expected the Minister to inform me of the comprehensive and robust procedures that the Department of Health will adopt to ensure that PCTs are not given their new functions unless they are sure that they are completely ready. When referring to this amendment, the Minister said that he thought the CHI was not up to the job, which I found rather surprising—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I hesitated to read out to the Committee the criteria for assessment because I thought it would extend our debate for many more minutes than that. Perhaps it would help the noble Baroness if I were to write to her, setting out the criteria for assessment. If she sees the extent and range of those criteria, she may feel somewhat reassured.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: I should be most grateful to receive that information. However, at this stage I remain sceptical about whether or not anything that has been said today has met the point of whether or not, first, PCTs are currently ready for their new

1111
functions and, secondly and perhaps more importantly, anyone in the Department of Health will know in October, or whenever the new functions are delegated, that that is the case. I am sure that we shall want to return to that matter at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 40 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Baroness Northovermoved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause
"DUTY OF PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS REGARDING TEACHING AND RESEARCH
Primary Care Trusts shall have a duty to foster and safeguard teaching and research."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 41 requires primary care trusts to foster and safeguard teaching and research. This amendment should hardly be necessary. It should, of course, be a "given" that teaching and research should be integral to the Health Service at every level. However, with the pressure to meet targets, deadlines and budgets, it has become clear that teaching and research can too often be squeezed out. Therefore, only by enshrining in the Bill a duty to foster research and teaching will it be protected. The NHS has an outstanding record in both, yet we know that both are currently under threat.
The noble Lord will doubtless recall that on 21st November 2001 the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, introduced an important debate on the issues now confronting medical teaching and research. That debate highlighted most acutely the problems facing those areas. If we are to have joined-up thinking, we need to remember those problems as we consider this Bill. As we heard then, the requirement to teach students, treat patients and conduct research means that clinical teachers have impossible demands made on their time. For a number of years the recruitment and retention of clinical academics has been a major problem.
According to a recent BMA survey, the heavy pressure of NHS work leaves little time for vital research. Comments in the survey include:
"The NHS has turned its back on research",
and,
"the clinical work runs away with the show".
Until the serious problem of recruitment and retention of medical teachers is addressed, the Government's plan to educate and train extra doctors for the NHS will not succeed. But that is not just a problem at secondary or tertiary level. The ethos of teaching and research must run right through the NHS. The public has much greater contact with primary care than with secondary care. There is a role for the PCTs in a wider teaching brief—teaching public awareness. PCTs should have a key role in preventive care. They should also play a part in promoting research among the public, helping to
1112
persuade people that it is in the wider public interest to participate in research and trials. If they do not take such a lead, distrust of research may well become unstoppable.
In teaching future doctors and other health professionals, PCTs clearly have a vital role to play. Those working in this sector must not be so overburdened that they cannot do that. Therefore, it has to be clear to those in administration, government and the Department of Health that they need to look to the wider picture. Much research would be better carried out at primary level if only the infrastructure were there. For example, in programmes such as screening, GPs often play the key role in compliance—hence those instances in which letters sent to patients supposedly from the GP are in reality drafted and sent by the hospital co-ordinating the trial. The poor GP has no time to play much of an active part. That is surely in no-one's interest.
If we are to see a shift of emphasis within the National Health Service to PCTs, it is vital that their aims should be clear. Teaching and research should be integral to those aims. Given that PCTs are still in their infancy, it is important that this is written into their brief. I would like to be sure that it is and I would like to know how we can be sure that research and teaching will not be squeezed out as currently happens. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling this amendment to which I give my warm support. I do not wish to go over the ground covered in the debate last December, to which the noble Baroness referred. However, from the inception of the National Health Service, there has been an agreement, never fully enforced, that clinical academics, appointed and paid by the universities, should be able to devote six sessions weekly—six half days a week—to clinical service in the National Health Service. Five sessions should be devoted to teaching and research. Under the old knock-for-knock agreement, that was co he compensated for by the teaching given by National Health Service consultants, who were not employed by the universities. That particular agreement has been breached to a remarkable extent.
The BMA survey, to which the noble Baroness referred, has demonstrated that there is a massive recruitment problem of clinical academics. Over 70 chairs and more than 200 clinical lectureships or senior lectureships are vacant for lack of suitable applicants. At a time when the Government are committed to training 6,000 medical students annually, rather than the present 4,200, it is absolutely vital that this sector should be expanded and increased and that the time available for teaching and research should be preserved.
The same survey found that practically no clinical academic was spending less than 40 hours a week in service commitments to the National Health Service. Some were spending as much as 48 to 50 hours a week, leaving little or no time available for teaching and research. This is a huge disincentive to recruitment of

1113
clinical academics. In many instances, it has been due to managerial pressure on clinical academics to see ever more patients and help fulfil the Government's commitment to bring down waiting lists for outpatient appointments and inpatient care. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that a clause with this kind of intent should be included on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I understand that some primary care trusts have teaching responsibilities which would address some of the concerns raised by Members of the Committee who have already spoken. When my noble friend the Minister replies, he may be able to give figures.
Baroness Cumberlege: I believe that to be the case. The Minister will tell us the definitive answer. As I understand it, there are designated primary care trusts that are specific for teaching. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is to try and get teaching throughout the whole of the National Health Service. I very much support that.
In Committee, probing amendments are sometimes put down. Other amendments can be teasing or have a wider aim, but some are very serious. This is a serious amendment to which I give my full support.
I chair the medical school council of St. George's Hospital. Much of the research in primary care there is conducted by GPs. Despite the pressures, they do carry out research. The British Medical Journal devotes a complete section to research carried out by general practitioners. I hope that that continues.
I should like to look at undergraduate education and how that currently works. If we are to do ever more in the community, it is essential that the people who provide that service have teaching built in at an early stage. Fifteen to 30 per cent of the experience of undergraduates is in primary care. Around 203 practices are involved. It is a huge commitment from general practice.
The graduate entry programme that St. George's undertakes is for graduates with any degree—50 per cent have a science degree, 50 per cent other degrees. This is a marvellously innovative way of educating doctors for the future. We shall have better doctors as a result. In the first week, their entire experience is in general practice. That is important if we are to reshape the way we give clinical care in the future.
In both adult and paediatric nursing courses, 10 to 25 per cent of time is spent in placements. In mental health, it is 20 to 35 per cent. This will be an enormous commitment on behalf of primary care and community services. Placements, teaching and research are all going on in primary care.
There are enormous pressures on the National Health Service. The spirit of this amendment is absolutely right. We are not asking for rights; we are asking for information and discussion. We are asking for an awareness of the responsibilities needed in primary care if we are to deliver this new curriculum.
1114
A deep concern of researchers is that if PCTs decide they wish to change their placement of future contracts, it could derail an entire research project. That could have a disastrous impact on new research that is coming forward. It is essential that PCTs, in their commissioning, recognise what those contracts will do.
We know that the Minister has exemplary skills in avoiding amendments and skirting round them. I hope that he will reconsider this amendment and make it a duty of primary care trusts to have regard to teaching and research.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I strongly support the amendment. I declare my interest as a vice-dean of an undergraduate medical school. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, have outlined many issues. I shall not repeat them.
It is crucial that we look at the benefits of teaching and research from direct patient outcome. There is good evidence that all patients entered into clinical trials, even those on the placebo arm, do better than patients not entered into trials at all. There is good evidence that standards of clinical care in teaching practices rise—even in those practices which might be considered to be providing care at a slightly suboptimal level. The standard of such practices can be pulled up by their becoming involved in teaching. They become involved in reflective practice; they audit what they are doing. A questioning student will often provide as much teaching as a so-called teacher.
Duties of a doctor, a GMC document, outlines teaching and research as a core duty of every doctor; but such duties do not exist for managers. There is presently no obligation on managers to ensure that teaching and research take place in the area over which they have responsibility. Time needs to be allocated to clinicians; but they also need rooms, facilities, computers, and a library online. Those who teach and those who receive teaching need to be able to access simple things such as paper, photocopying and secretarial support. Those must be built in to the ethos of the system that is delivered.
Research evidence is needed on the patterns of healthcare delivery. The Health Services Management Centre considers that there is no research evidence to support the changes currently proposed in the reorganisation of the NHS. We are desperate for good research evidence for different systems of management within the NHS, quite apart from clinical research and clinical teaching.
If we are to recruit healthcare professionals into primary care in the future—and there is present evidence that people are walking away from primary care—we must ensure that the teaching and research environment is valued and that that becomes a statutory duty of managers.
4 p.m.
Baroness Emerton: I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I suggest that we also

1115
extend the requirement to other healthcare professionals. Teaching in the community is much more difficult than it is within the environs of a hospital. Clinical supervision is yet another difficulty that is experienced in the community. It is important to ensure that teaching and research is included for all healthcare professionals in the primary healthcare field, particularly when new patterns of care are being experienced. I refer to hospitals such as the one near my home, where there is a multi-professional team approach. That is where research comes in and can prove that this is essential. I support the amendment.
Earl Howe: I, too, am pleased that the noble Baroness has tabled the amendment. I fully share the concern that underlies it. I shall not repeat what has been said, except to underline one of the main worries that have emerged from this short debate. The difficulties currently being experienced in medical teaching and research as a result of the acute shortage of clinical academics are of the highest importance for the health service. So important are they, that we must not for one minute allow ourselves to lose sight of them amidst the upheaval in the NHS that is heralded by the Bill.
PCTs are new creatures. Even those which exist have not been going very long. Others have yet to come into being. Much of their expanded remit is new territory for them. Many of the staff will be new, and systems will be bedding down. While I worry about the burdens of acclimatisation that the Government are imposing on NHS staff, I worry also that, without great care being taken, functions that are not central to the delivery of healthcare to local communities will simply fall out of view. The money will be directed to where it is most urgently needed.
No one is saying that PCTs should suddenly be granted a vastly enhanced role in the commissioning and delivery of medical teaching and research. That responsibility lies elsewhere. I dare say that the strategic health authorities will have a duty to oversee medical teaching and training at a local level. But it will be the PCTs, with 75 per cent of the NHS budget, that will have the financial muscle and will play a key role. There is a need to ensure that that element of the teaching and research budget currently being shouldered by health authorities and trusts and by general practice is not squeezed out by other, more immediate and visible pressures. Indeed, there is a need to ensure that it is valued. I particularly identified with the noble Baroness's remarks about maintaining the ethos associated with research and making sure that GPs and clinicians in the community are fully on board.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee and tell us that the Government have these concerns very much in mind. I hope that he will be able to explain how they are being addressed.
Lord Turnberg: I must apologise for entering the Chamber too late to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, introduce her proposal. However, as an ex-dean of a medical school and as vice-president of
1116
the Academy of Medical Sciences, I am desperately keen to see research and teaching fostered and safeguarded. It is in desperate need of that. The Academy of Medical Sciences is about to produce a report which highlights many of the difficulties facing academic medicine, teaching and research. These activities are under great threat at a time when we are keen to enhance them.
The principle behind the amendment is entirely laudable—were it not for the fact that primary care trusts will have a big load on their shoulders. It is important that they are involved in research and teaching in the ways described. However, to expect them to have a prime responsibility in this area may be going a little far. This is not necessarily just a local problem; it is a matter of national importance. The responsibility for ensuring that research and teaching are fostered should lie not only with PCTs but also with strategic health authorities in particular, which will be in place in areas where there are medical schools and universities and will have an important role in encouraging relationships with the universities. To that end, I hope that when my noble friend responds he will consider how the functions of research and teaching can be encouraged, perhaps by members of the university and the medical school becoming members of strategic health authorities to ensure that there is a link at that level. This should foster what goes on at PCT level.
Although I like this idea, I am not sure that this amendment will meet the bill. Nevertheless, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take it on board.
Lord Rea: As a former primary care physician, I strongly agree with the points made on all sides of the Committee. However, I am not absolutely sure that such an amendment is necessary on the face of the Bill or is the right way of doing things. I hope that my noble friend's response will reassure all Members of the Committee who have spoken as to the importance that the Government place on research and teaching in primary care.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Drugs are one of the biggest items of cost in primary healthcare. Therefore, to find out which drugs are most effective, there must be research. The pharmaceutical industry needs that data. Primary healthcare is having more and more put on to it. It is vital that areas of the profession work together. Therefore, I support the spirit of the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: In replying, will the Minister tell the Committee what the spread will be under the new arrangements of research ethics committees? Will there be an ethics committee in each strategic health authority which will look at research in the local area?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been an extremely interesting debate, and one with which I have a great deal of sympathy. Clearly, it is very important that we have effective arrangements in place

1117
for teaching and research functions within the National Health Service. Indeed, I would argue that it has been one of the great strengths of the NHS since its foundation that we have built up such strong links. I also accept that there are concerns about the recruitment of clinical academics and more generally about the pressures on clinicians within our teaching hospitals in terms of the amount of time that they have for teaching and hard clinical practice.
The Department of Health is very much apprised of the challenges and issues that we face. Some months ago, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, introduced an interesting debate on those issues. At the time I talked about some of the proposals that the Government were taking forward, particularly in partnership with the Department for Education and Skills, such as the individual higher education institutes and the higher education funding councils. At a time when we see a massive expansion in the number of medical school places in our universities, it is important to ensure that we are able to attract clinical academics who can provide the kind of teaching and research that is evidently required. We must also ensure that the medical schools, in their expansion of places and the development of new medical schools, are able to attract people of the highest calibre. I assure noble Lords that it is in the interests of the National Health Service and the Government to ensure that we address some of the problems that noble Lords have raised in the debate.
Having said that, I am entirely sympathetic to the general comments made by noble Lords, although I am not sure that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness are necessarily the right approach to this issue. The Secretary of State already has powers to support teaching research activities that have been delegated to health authorities and, through them, to primary care trusts. Primary care trusts also have their own directly conferred powers to conduct research and to make offices and facilities available to universities. By keeping that as a function of the Secretary of State, we are allowing maximum flexibility to involve all health service bodies
My noble friend Lord Turnberg raised a number of important issues. He asked whether a university representative would be appointed to a strategic health authority board. The Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Amendment (England) Regulations 2002 were laid before Parliament on 11th March to come into force on 1st April. They state that in relation to health authority membership,
"One of the non-officer members to he appointed to an Authority shall be a person who holds a post in an institution within the higher education sector which provides education enabling students to fulfil criteria necessary for".
It then lists professions, including the medical profession, the dentistry profession, the pharmacy profession, the nurses and midwifery profession and professions covered by the Health Professions Council.
1118
That appointment will be an extremely important one in terms of the role of the strategic health authority in ensuring that some of the issues raised by noble Lords are, in effect, carried out. I remind noble Lords that strategic health authorities will have the role of performance-managing primary care trusts and so they will be in a position to ensure that primary care trusts contribute what is necessary to enhance teaching and research within the National Health Service.
We have developed what we describe as work-force development confederations. Their responsibility within each local health community is to decide how money on education and training should be spent. Primary care trusts will be constituent members of those confederations and the performance of the confederations will be managed by strategic health authorities. As part of the strategic role of each strategic health authority, I see a particular responsibility for ensuring that the conditions are right for enhancing teaching and research.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed to the positive impact of teaching practices. I echo that. The experience of the NHS is that the teaching practices that are connected to university medical schools have an enormously positive role to play in the training of medical students and specialist registrars who are attracted to primary care. They also have a positive impact on the development of high quality practice within primary care.
In Birmingham the links between the medical schools and teaching practices in the inner city areas are seen as one positive way that we can overcome some of the recruitment and retention problems in inner city primary care practices. In the future we will want to enhance and to encourage that. I would expect primary care trusts themselves to see the value of much stronger links between constituent primary care practices within their primary care trusts and universities.
Part of the responsibility for ensuring the right conditions for teaching and research is having the right research governance framework so that research can be conducted properly. In March 2001 the Department of Health published a research governance framework that recommended framework agreements between organisations that collaborate on research work. The NHS Regional Research and Development Forum, the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health are co-ordinating discussions to develop a model framework agreement by April 2002.
It sets out that each primary care trust will have responsibilities related to research governance for research and development in primary, community and social care. By April 2003 there will be a national network of primary care trusts to act as host for shared research governance and management capacity.
Clearly, it is important that we are as encouraging as possible to research and to clinical trials. My work in the joint task force between the Government and the research-based pharmaceutical industry has identified a number of issues that need to be addressed to ensure that one has robust research governance, and that the

1119
arrangements whereby clinical trials and research can take place are as straightforward and as non-bureaucratic as possible. Within that I would expect primary care trusts to play their full part.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked me about research ethics committees. They will remain until October 2002 at health authority level and we are still discussing how, after that date, they can effectively be brought under primary care trust responsibility. A suggestion that may emerge is that one lead primary care trust within each strategic health authority area takes on a lead responsibility, but we are still working on those arrangements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked me about drugs. Of course, we are keen to ensure that the most effective drugs are used within primary care. That is one reason that we have prescribing advisers who have been successful in advising individual. GPs on their prescribing responsibilities. We also set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to give advice on what are the most cost-effective and clinically-effective drug treatments.
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley asked about the development of teaching primary care trusts. In March 2001 my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that £25 million over a three-year period had been made available to develop a number of teaching primary care trusts across the country. That is a very exciting development. Those teaching primary care trusts will provide teaching and clinical opportunities for primary and community care professionals to support and improve the delivery of services for the local population. Their importance relates not only to individual primary care trusts; they will also stress to primary care generally the importance with which we regard teaching and research.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: if the Minister ultimately feels unable to accept this amendment, is it possible that, with his characteristic ingenuity, he could at least find a way of including the words "teaching and research" somewhere in the Bill? It is remarkable that a Bill of this magnitude and scope does not even mention those particular words of great importance to the future of the NHS.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am not as yet convinced that the words "teaching and research" need to be included in the Bill, partly because the reference to teaching and research is already fully included in other NHS legislation. For example, Section 5(2)(d) of the National Health Service Act 1977 provides the Secretary of State with the power to conduct or assist others to conduct research into any matters relating to the causation, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness.
Under Paragraphs 14 and 15 of Part III of Schedule 5A to the 1977 Act, primary care trusts are empowered to conduct, commission or assist the conduct of
1120
research and to make officers and facilities available in connection with training by a university or any other body providing training in connection with the health service. Under Paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, an NHS trust may undertake and commission research and make available staff and facilities for research by other persons.
Under Section 51 of the 1977 Act, the Secretary of State has a duty to exercise his functions so as,
"to secure that there are made available such facilities as he considers are reasonably required by any university which has a medical or dental school, in connection with clinical teaching and with research connected with clinical medicine, or as the case may be, clinical dentistry".
Paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act states:
"An NHS Trust may provide training for persons employed or likely to be employed by the trust or otherwise in the provision of services … and make facilities and staff available in connection with training by a university or any other body providing training in connection with the health service".
Earl Howe: I cannot help but notice that, in that very helpful list which the Minister has just react out, many of the powers, apart from those that he related to the Secretary of State, are permissive only. They are not duties. I think that that is the concern that has been expressed. There may be the power to do all these things at a local level, but will this function in practice be squeezed out?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The short answer to that is no, because the NHS and the Government cannot allow teaching research to be squeezed out.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I should like to build on the previous comment. As the dates of the legislation which the Minister cited demonstrate, the desire to incorporate teaching has existed for well over 10 years. A paper from Freeman & Sweeney is entitled, Why general practitioners do not implement evidence: qualitative study, and an article in this week's BMJ calls for primary care organisations to create learning environments that capitalise on the wealth of knowledge. I fear that, unless the Government seriously consider including these requirements in legislation, they will continue drifting on the matter as they seem to have done for many years.
Baroness Cumberlege: What is very good about this amendment is that it uses the words "a duty", and therefore imposes an obligation. I n his reply, the Minister seems to have rested his case on the fact that the strategic health authorities will do the monitoring. However, is that not trying to put right something once it has happened? It is very difficult to do that in research because research has to be continuous and, in research, one is working with a defined patient population. I think that, in research, the danger lies in the PCTs' contracting and commissioning work. In teaching, I think that the danger lies in the pressure on the service, in that, as I explained, so much of teaching today has to be done in primary care.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I fully accept what the noble Baroness has just said. However, it does not

1121
seem to follow that simply including this amendment in the Bill would necessarily lead to any specific change.
The question surely is this. Is teaching research important to the National Health Service? If it is, how can we ensure that due recognition is given to that fact not only at government level but at the NHS local level? I believe that teaching research is critically important: it is important to the quality of services and to the quality of research in this country. Moreover, it is important not only to the National Health Service; it is important also to UK plc in terms of our science base and future investment in research and development. I do not believe that the House should have any doubt at all that the Government regard the proper support of teaching research as critically important. I am simply saying that amending the Bill as proposed would not be helpful when the powers that I have read out are clearly available for use by the NHS. I do not expect strategic health authorities to interfere and inhibit the role of primary care trusts.
Primary care trusts have a prime role to play in ensuring—first through the workforce confederations—that sufficient teaching places are commissioned and that the conditions are right for research and teaching. The point about the strategic health authorities is that they are there to check and to ensure that things are not going wrong. As I said last week in ourdebate on strategic health authorities, if there were a specific case in which an individual primary care trust was not prepared to play ball, we would have the lever of performance management as a means of intervening.
My general expectation, however, is that primary care trusts will wish to support teaching research. The impact of the increasing number of training practices has in itself had such a beneficial impact on the overall performance of primary care and the quality of services that I believe that a great swathe of primary care and primary care trusts will see the benefit of supporting teaching and research. As I said, the establishment of teaching primary care trusts is in itself a visible sign of primary care commitment to teaching and research.
I have no doubt that all the points raised by noble Lords are extremely important. They are important to the Government. We wish to ensure that effective teaching research does take place. However, I doubt whether the amendments in this group really would lead to a difference in approach or a real improvement in the way in which teaching research is dealt with. Although it is a major challenge for the NHS, it has to be dealt with effectively by means of the type of mechanism I have discussed.
Baroness Masham of Ikon: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may point out that Amendment No. 41 is not grouped with other amendments but stands on its own. Does it not emphasise the need to include research in the Bill. What harm could that do?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Baroness is quite right: the amendment is not grouped but
1122
separate. Surely there are three points here. First, even if that were in the Bill, it would have to be interpreted by the department in terms of its meaning for individual organisations. That is no different from the current position. Secondly, it would apply only to primary care trusts. Although one may wish to go down that path, I doubt that there is any specific reason to single out primary care trusts. Thirdly, as I have made clear, current NHS legislation already very comprehensively covers the issue of teaching and research.
Baroness Northover: I thank the Minister for his reply and noble Lords for their contribution to this mini-debate. I seem to have struck a chord. I may not have written this amendment quite as it should be. No doubt I shall have to revisit it, but revisit it we will need to do because there is clearly a lot of concern about this.
What has motivated me is what we have seen happen at secondary and tertiary levels in terms of teaching and research. They are not a key priority for those who are trying to fill financial black holes. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, hit the nail on the head. If this is a duty, then in a way that gives a power to those who are trying to ensure that teaching and research at PCT level is given its due emphasis. If it is not, then when the question is raised as to how resources are to be spent it will simply be pushed aside. I therefore disagree with what the Minister has said. There is a purpose in having something like this built, as a duty, into the list of priorities of PCTs.
I am very struck by what noble Lords have said about the situation at all levels of the health service: for example, the fact that we do not even have ethics committees in place. No decision has been made about that. Clearly there has been a decision within the Department of Health that it is not a key priority; that they need not address it yet; that other things have to happen first.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I thought that I had said that we have decided to keep the research ethics committees based at health authority level up to October this year. They will then be picked up by primary care trusts. We are now holding discussions on how best those arrangements might then be conducted at primary care trust level. I do not see how it follows that the Government regard it as an unimportant issue.
Baroness Northover: It seems to me that, if it were a high priority, and given that the PCT has to play such a key role in the health service so very soon, it would have been taken somewhat further forward.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, but I must confess that I find myself somewhat confused. Last Thursday the Government were accused by the Liberal Democrat Benches of taking a far too prescriptive, centralist approach; yet, in the debates this afternoon, I am being invited to take

1123
a centralist, prescriptive approach by those very same Benches. It would be interesting to know which hat the Liberal Democrat Benches are now wearing.
Baroness Northover: I have heard this argument before. What the Minister has said, however, is that he will be laying down guidelines from the department as to how PCTs should play their full part; that decisions should follow on from that. What he has not done, therefore, is to devolve this to local level. He has not set down the framework within which PCTs have then to carry forward that duty.
I would consider it appropriate that this should be part and parcel of drawing up the guidelines for PCTs. PCTs then have a duty to implement and carry that out; not the Department of Health, if they feel like it, advising that they might.
The very fact that extra money has gone to some PCTs in order to take this forward shows that the Government do not have the confidence that, without it, research and teaching would be taken forward. That seems to belie what the Minister has said about this happening automatically.
I agree, as I think everyone does, that teaching and research are vital for the NHS and that the future of the NHS depends upon them. Just wishing that to be the case, however, is surely not sufficient. More needs to be done to ensure that PCTs play their full part in this matter and that it is therefore given to them as a duty to carry this out, not simply as a power.
I have listened to what the Minister has said. I am sure that we can revisit this matter and we undoubtedly need to do so, in order to draw up something which would gain some consensus. At present, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House he now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Council, Barcelona
4.35 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the European Council which took place in Barcelona on 15th and 16th March.
"Two years ago at Lisbon the European Union set out to become the world's most competitive and dynamic economy by 2010. Since that date the European Union has created five million new jobs. There are now nearly three million more women in work. Tax rates on low wage earners have
1124
been falling. We have agreed a new framework for competitive telecoms markets. Telecoms liberalisation has cut the price of calls across the EU by almost a half. As a result of the EU Action Plan, Internet access has doubled across the EU.
We have cut red tape for small firms so that a private limited company can now be set up in under two weeks in 10 EU member states. We have recently agreed proposals to deliver a single EU securities market and cheaper capital for small firms.
"The recent difficulties faced by the world economy mean we cannot rely on cyclical growth to deliver the employment Europe's citizens need. We must push ahead with the structural reforms to Europe's economies.
"At Stockholm a year ago, progress stalled. Barcelona had to recover momentum. There is no doubt that, after Barcelona, we are moving again, though there is still much ground to be made up by 2010. Such progress as there is is a tribute to the Commission and the leadership of the Spanish presidency, and I pay tribute to the excellent chairmanship of Prime Minister Aznar.
"Here is what was achieved. We set a timetable under majority voting to complete the single market in financial services, itself capable of boosting EU GDP by half a percentage point. No fewer than 25 different liberalising measures have already been agreed. Seven more key measures will be agreed by the end of the year. Most of all, we made a breakthrough in opening up the European energy market. All member states have now agreed fully to open up the non-domestic market by 2004 with free and fair competition. This represents over 60 per cent of the total market in gas and electricity. In addition, it is clear that the overriding majority of EU countries are now ready to open up their domestic markets as well. We agreed that a decision on the relevant directives will be taken by majority vote, at the latest by the end of 2002. This means that a single market in energy is now attainable.
"We agreed to deliver broadband technology across the European Union by 2005. That means Internet access at 10 times the present speed. We agreed to boost our commitment to research and development towards a target of 3 per cent of GDP by 2010. The new Research Framework programme will spend 17.5 billion euros to this end. New industries, like the growing biotech market, will benefit significantly.
"We have agreed to implement by the end of 2002 proposals to reduce regulation on business and a new system for consultation with business before new regulation is introduced.
"These steps go hand in hand with a social policy which seeks to encourage more and better jobs for all. The record of the British Government is strong. We have guaranteed fair rights at work. We have a national minimum wage. Our disability, gender and race equality legislation is among the most advanced

1125
in Europe. We have introduced a new system of tax credits to make work pay. Our New Deal has got over 300,000 young people into work.
"Since we came to power unemployment in Britain has fallen to its lowest level for 25 years. We have one of the highest employment rates in Europe overall, including for women and for older workers. Europe agreed that the enlargement agenda must focus on measures targeted at jobs, enterprise and moving people off benefit into work, rather than heavy-handed regulation—the British approach and increasingly the European one. As the Barcelona conclusions say,
"employment is the best guarantee against social exclusion".
"The enlargement countries came to Barcelona and, for the first time, participated in policy debates. We also discussed how to make our decision-making more streamlined and efficient once we become a European Union of 25, 27, and more. I welcome the proposals of the Secretary General of the Council, Javier Solana, which will now be taken forward by the Spanish presidency. In many respects, these echo the ideas that Chancellor Schroeder of Germany and I put forward in a recent paper on Council reform.
"The Council also addressed a range of pressing international issues. The EU committed to increase its average development aid to 0.39 per cent of GDP by 2006. This achievement owes a lot to the lead given by my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Development Secretary. It is worth an extra 7 billion dollars a year. If delivered, it means another 80 million children in Africa and elsewhere in schooling—up for the first time.
"On the Middle East, we underlined the extreme gravity of the present situation and called on both sides to take action to stop the bloodshed. We welcomed the resolution adopted by the UN Security Council last week and the initiative taken by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia offering full normalisation of relations with Israel in return for full withdrawal from Occupied Territories. There must be an immediate ceasefire all round to give the peace process a chance to work again.
"On Zimbabwe, the European Council accepted our judgment that these elections were neither free nor fair. It agreed to take forward specific measures through Foreign Ministers.
"On the Balkans, the Council warmly welcomed the agreement brokered by the EU's High Representative Javier Solana between the authorities in Serbia and Montenegro for a new relationship within a single state. This agreement underlines just how far the countries of south east Europe have come in the past four years. A democratic government is in place in Belgrade. Milosevic is on trial in The Hague, and Kosovo has held successful elections for its provisional government. Moderates are in power in Croatia and Bosnia. The noose is tightening around Karadzic. In Macedonia, active diplomacy last year stopped what could have become another Balkan war.
1126
"All this progress came about in large part through Britain acting in alliance with others. Prior to the summit, we took initiatives with no fewer than seven different countries—the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Belgium and Poland. Five years ago, such alliances would have been unthinkable. Under the previous Conservative government, Britain was marginalised, without influence appropriate to our weight and size, in the isolation room. Now, from the economy to defence to institutional reform, Britain is in there shaping Europe's future, making Europe work in a way that is better for Britain and Europe. The policy of constructive engagement is right. Britain's proper role is as a leader and partner in Europe. We shall continue to get the best for Britain in Europe. Under this Government, the days of weakness and isolation will not return".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. As I believe the noble and learned Lord is aware, I have been asked to respond to the Statement due to the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
To begin with, putting aside the party political cadences in the final paragraph of the Statement, is it not the objective view of most observers that the Barcelona meeting has been a bit of a disappointment? I suppose that that is not really surprising because previous EU summits in recent times have also been disappointing. Indeed, no one could claim that it matched the hype and the rather extravagant claims that it would be a "make or break" affair, which would determine whether or not the momentum for modernising Europe was going forward.
We certainly support the rather modest liberalisation of energy trading that was achieved. It is very minor, but we support it. It still leaves Electricite de France in a complete monopoly position, both inside France and in its operations on this side of the Channel. However, it is better than nothing. We strongly support the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in their firm rejection of the protestations of Mr John Monks, and others. Protecting workers' rights is very important, but when that is really a code for protecting the rights of those in jobs at the expense of those who are unemployed, and when it really means promoting unemployment, we believe that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are right. Those who argue another line are totally wrong, unfeeling and selfish.
Having said that, it is the universal view—one that appears to be shared by the Prime Minister—that the Barcelona event was not very entertaining. In fact, the Prime Minister came very near to saying that it was a bit of a bore, and that he would rather have been elsewhere. One can see his point. The Government recently produced a vast White Paper on the subject of realising Europe's potential, which set out all sorts of

1127
high hopes; but these do not seem to have reached Barcelona. In practice, as we learnt from the Statement. the results that emerged are very thin. Indeed, if one is to judge by what was actually achieved, it looks as though the reform process is running into the ground throughout the euro zone.
Why do I make that comment? I do so because energy liberalisation in the larger sense has been blocked, although we have the small concession. We should remember that the Lisbon process was supposed to be a matter of catching up with the United States—admittedly, over a period of years—but we are two years into the system and all the statistics show that the US is still further ahead in per capita income, in technological advance, as well as in other areas. The Lisbon process was supposed to achieve a lighter and more targeted regulation on business. Coming from this Government, that would have been a shade more credible if they had not been the Government who, last year, imposed 4,642 new regulations on small business—which works out at one every 25 minutes of the working day.
Then there is enlargement, which many people believe to be the central ideal of the Union today. But that is bedevilled by disputes about second-class status for the central European applicant states, and there does not seem to be much about that in the communique. As for certain defence issues not mentioned in the Statement, but featured in newspaper reports, it seems that EU countries are still at sixes and sevens as to what relationship the rapid reaction force should have with NATO. In the end, I believe that reality will force it back into the NATO pattern as a strong European subsidiary of the organisation, and not as an autonomous force.
Newspaper reports have mentioned the same kind of disagreements over what Europe should do on the second phase of the war on terrorism. We know that there are disagreements rather nearer to home on what to do about Iraq, but none of that was covered in the Statement. Can the noble and learned Lord say whether anything was actually debated at Barcelona in that respect? Was there any discussion on common agricultural policy reform, which is very important? Was anything decided on the blocked take-over directives, or on pension reform, which is now becoming a critical issue for the Italians? Generally, we believe that Barcelona took place under a delusion—a delusion that governments create jobs. They do not.
On the foreign side, there is a hint of firmness as regards Zimbabwe. However, it would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could tell the House what the Foreign Ministers will now consider, and what their next move might be. Menacing reports have appeared in newspapers about Gibraltar; but, again, nothing was mentioned in the Statement. We need the assurance that the Gibraltarians will not be put under intolerable pressure if they turn down the joint sovereignty deal—which, of course, they will. They must not be forced to renege on their own democratic wishes.
1128
Noble Lords on this side of the House are constructive Europeans: we want new measures to defeat the euro malaise, and to restore democracy and accountability. We see very little constructive corning out of Barcelona. The Prime Minister said that the achievements were limited and solid. They are limited; indeed, they are so limited that one would almost need to use a microscope to see them. They are so solid that they appear to be on the verge of being immobile. In our view, it is high time for a fresh approach. Nothing that was done or said at Barcelona by this Government seems to reflect that urgent need.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I. too, thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place. I begin by saying that it is perhaps a little churlish not to pay considerable respect to the remarkable achievement of the turnover from national currencies into the euro. Whether or not we are part of that process at present, it has been a remarkable achievement and extraordinarily successfully carried out. Whether one is pro or anti membership of the European monetary union, one should recognise that that has been, and is recognised throughout the world as being, a remarkable achievement.
Perhaps I may mention, with approval from these Benches, two other achievements of the Barcelona summit. One is the impressive resolution to increase development aid and to bring about a more rapid move towards debt relief. In that context we on these Benches congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister for International Development on what has been a steady and consistent attempt to address the huge inequities in our global economy, for which they deserve considerable praise. We are pleased to see further measures being taken on the environment and moves towards an energy tax, although the dating of that is somewhat distant.
Having said that, and having also said that it is encouraging that there is some move towards liberalisation of the electricity market, we have to agree to a limited extent with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that, even given the extraordinary ability of the Prime Minister to burnish almost anything to a very high glow, this was not a particularly impressive summit. First, as we all know. there was no substantial move towards completing the internal market. Frankly, a figure of 98 per cent for seven countries so long after the Single European Act was passed is not impressive by any standard. To say that it will be another four years before we get anywhere near 100 per cent is to say that we are moving at a tortoise-like pace.
Secondly, to speak of research and development expenditure increasing to 3 per cent by 2010 is slow progress. That is hardly what one might call a wildly ambitious target. We are disappointed by the fact that the financial services action plan, which is vitally important to the development of the European economy, is still mired in indecision, and equally that

1129
the attempt to create a European patent is still subject to long delays because no one can agree on the languages into which it should be interpreted.
On some of the key areas of creating exactly the kind of modern, information technology-conscious economy of which the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues have spoken on many occasions, we are not making what one might describe as rapid progress. That is a pity because there is no doubt that Europe's potential is much greater than its achievement. In that respect, I ask the Leader of the House three questions. First, can he tell the House more about the financial services action plan, the Lamfalussi proposals, and what prospects there are of that being implemented within the next four or five years in line with some of the reforms that are being made globally? Secondly, can he say something about the European charter for small and medium enterprises, which is again a vital part of modernising the economy of Europe and creating more job opportunities? Finally in this respect, can he say a word or two about the proposals with regard to patents?
I turn to the international annex attached to the Statement. Again, we congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on the steps that have been taken to create a new federation between Serbia and Montenegro. It is hoped that that will be one which will provide for more autonomy for Montenegro than was the case in the old federation. It is obvious that Montenegro is tugging in the direction of having a greater say in its own future. I have suggested already that we are pleased by some of the steps towards environmental improvements, including at a global level.
However, again I must ask the Leader of the House a serious question. The summit Statement has much more to say about the Middle East than has the Prime Minister's Statement. It is clear from the visits being paid to the Arab states by Vice-President Cheney that the message has come through loud and clear from virtually every moderate Arab capital that it is the war and growing escalation of violence and tension in the Middle East that is perceived by all those governments—Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia—as being the central threat they face. Against that threat they will not get engaged in giving help for an attack on Iraq because they do not believe that that is the first priority in saving the peace of the world. It is interesting that Mr Cheney has begun to change his tune somewhat and, in the past couple of days, speak as if he too thinks that perhaps the Middle East crisis should take priority.
In that context perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House specifically about two matters the Prime Minister did not mention, and welcome one which he did. We welcome the commitment of the Prime Minister and the European Council to call on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. However, there were two other things said by the Council which the Prime Minister did not say. The first was to call again on both sides to respect United Nations resolutions, including the most recent resolution 1397,
1130
calling upon both sides to respect the sovereignty of the other, the ultimate setting up of a Palestinian state and the withdrawal of both sides from violence in the other country.
But, secondly, and perhaps even more important, the European Council called for there to be monitors sent from the European Union to oversee and monitor any attempt to try to create a peace agreement between the two sides. Many of us in this House regard that as being perceived to be more neutral between the two sides than, with great respect, American monitors. It is vitally important that we know the view of our own Prime Minister on that European Union proposal. I therefore conclude my questions by asking the Leader of the House to tell us as precisely as possible whether the Prime Minister supports that conclusion and whether he would agree to co-operate by sending British monitors along with European monitors to supervise the peace process desperately needed in the Middle East.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I confirm that the noble Lord was courteous enough to indicate the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, could not be in his place.
I do not believe that it is right to say that Barcelona was a disappointment. It would be deeply disappointing if one thought that one was going to change the world on every such occasion. Such processes are bound to be incremental. We cannot have "big bang" solutions on every occasion, particularly in a community, a union, which is expanding quickly and introducing countries at different levels of economic, political, cultural and social development. In the view of the Government, that is the key to the future of the European Union.
It was said, for instance, that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor had repudiated Mr Monks on the rights of workers. I do not think they did. He is a thoughtful, careful and, if I might say without presumption or appearing to patronise, most intelligent trade union leader. He might well be putting forward the point of view, which I recognise as having legitimacy, that if one is a worker in a company one has certain rights in the same way that one has certain duties to one's employer. He might have had in mind what sometimes strikes some of us as the grossly disproportionate outcomes one has if one is a worker in a firm which fails as opposed, perhaps, to being a director in a firm which fails. That sometimes seems to some of us to be a necessary pre-condition to receiving a multi-million pound payout.
It is right that one cannot have an endlessly static labour market. It is also right in my experience and belief that we will never have a satisfactory labour and employment market unless people who work and thereby contribute to the profit of the company have their rights properly and decently regarded. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said that the Prime

1131
Minister appeared to be bored in Barcelona. In my experience such a thing is not possible. One may go to bed very late but one is certainly not bored.
What have we brought about? It was said that Barcelona was supposed to be make or break. As regards the energy markets, for instance: 60 per cent, non-domestic, to be followed promptly by the remainder of the energy market being opened up, with every prospect that that will be done by this time next year; the progress in telecommunications and broadband by 2005; the research and development budget up to 3 per cent; the Secretary General's proposals for reform on institutional change; the desire to achieve 0.39 per cent of GDP in terms of international aid and development; the communiqué on the Middle East; and the progress on Zimbabwe. None of these could be said to be disappointing. They are not perfect outcomes because, as I said earlier, this is a continuing incremental procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked in particular about CAP and about Iraq, Gibraltar and Zimbabwe. The noble Baroness certainly asked about the Middle East and the war against terrorism. On Gibraltar perhaps I may repeat again—I know that your Lordships are perfectly reasonably concerned about Gibraltar—that the Government's position has not changed at all since a few days ago when my noble friend Lady Symons yet again unambiguously stated the Government's position, which is that there will be no constitutional change in the Gibraltarian context without the consent of the people of Gibraltar.
I shall make plain the Government's precise position yet again because I know that your Lordships are concerned about the matter. We will not enter into arrangements in which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has on a number of occasions pressed my colleague. I repeat that formulation which I hope is important to the people of Gibraltar.
Questions were asked about the Middle East. Perhaps I should deal with that matter at more length. I believe that on the Middle East there was significant progress made. We said in terms that we absolutely support the United Nations Security Council's Resolution 1397, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred. Your Lordships will know that Resolution 1397 deals with the rights and legitimacies of Israel and the Palestinians.
The Arab summit will take place on 27th March. I entirely take the points which the noble Baroness made about the dangers of the Middle East situation at the moment. We have supported the proposals made by Crown Prince Abdullah. On behalf of the Government I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that there can be no resolution of wider matters without a determined attempt to resolve the Middle Eastern question.
I agree with the noble Baroness that it is necessary that all sides—whoever they are and whatever their historic grievances—should respect UN Security Council Resolution 1397.
1132
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked a number of questions about the financial services action plan. Its deadline for implementation is 2005. There are about 45 measures needed to complete it. Twenty-five of those have already been agreed. There is a continuing review of the progress of the financial services action plan available on the Internet. It is frequently updated. I have a large number of pieces of paper in my hand. I should be more than happy to circumvent the operation of the Internet, because, on this occasion, I think that the human hand will be quicker than the Internet. I am more than happy to provide the noble Baroness with a copy later today.
The noble Baroness also asked about the small firms charter. That has been agreed. Barcelona called for full implementation of the charter. I know that the conclusions contain quite an amount of material. The reference is paragraph 15 of the conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked whether there had been any discussion of a takeover directive. In January of this year the high level group of experts on company law produced a report on how to take forward the idea of a takeover directive. The Government welcome that report and hope that the Commission will come forward with a new proposal as soon as possible. That is the up-to-date material that I have on the matter.
It cannot be said that Barcelona was a disappointing conference. I know that the noble Lord very gently chided me about reading out the more "partisan", as he described them, last two paragraphs. I cannot really disagree with that adjectival description. What seems to me absolutely critical is what was said earlier in the Prime Minister's Statement. Five years ago many of these steps would have been inconceivable. It is extremely sobering and humbling to go around Europe and see what hopes are placed on the progress of the United Kingdom in playing a full part in Europe. We are seeing countries now about to enter the European Union which have had a century of dismal history—no democracy, overborne by neighbouring countries, often totalitarian, and With the idea of human rights absent not simply from their constitutions but from their hopes, dreams and thoughts.
We are capable of exercising a substantial moral as well as political energy in the European Union. It will damage the European Union, as well as us, if we do not take our opportunities.
I hope that I have dealt with the specific points that were put to me. I repeat that this has not been a disappointing conference, except among those who believed that two days in Barcelona would change the world.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the Barcelona conclusions contain not only some welcome agreements but also some points of serious warning? Perhaps the most serious warning at a time when we are concentrating on how better to connect Europe to the citizen is not to

1133
start too many new initiatives until we have completed some of the existing ones. Therefore, should not the now more than 10-year old initiative of completing the single market be put as an absolute priority until we have got the single European securities market, the full completion of the telecommunications markets, a full single market in financial services and a single energy market? Should we not therefore be encouraging an attitude of mind that doing less and doing it better involves a self-denying ordinance on new initiatives until we have completed the agenda that we have already committed ourselves to?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that there is a good deal of virtue in what the noble Lord says. That is why I was seeking to say that these are incremental processes. We are making quite significant progress towards the conclusions of which the noble Lord speaks. I know that the noble Lord has referred to this matter in your Lordships' House on other occasions. In addition, if we are to make these changes we need to make sure that those who are involved—that is, the citizens of every state in the European Union—fully know what we are doing and the purposes we hope to obtain by bringing them about.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord did not really answer the question put by my noble friend about Gibraltar. What was said at the Council meeting about Gibraltar? Are the press reports correct that money was offered to Gibraltar conditional on it accepting whatever is agreed between Britain and Spain? Surely, the development envisaged is either economically justified or not? If it is economically justified but cannot take place at present because of obstruction by Spain, the duty of the countries in Europe is to tell Spain to stop being obstructive rather than offering a bribe to the people of Gibraltar and telling them that they had better accept any arrangement arrived at between Spain and Britain—whether or not they think it right—because if they do not agree to it they will not get the money.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure what newspapers the noble Lord is referring to. I enjoy reading newspapers but I do not always accept their entire accuracy on every occasion. What happened at Barcelona was that the Council welcomed the United Kingdom and Spanish efforts under the Brussels process, which I remind the House—I hope not tediously—was a communiqué issued in November 1984 to overcome our differences over Gibraltar. I repeat: any proposals on sovereignty would be put to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum.
I am advised that no sum of money has been agreed. The Commission has been asked to make proposals and we look forward to reading them in due course. There is no question of a "bribe"—to use the noble Lord's word. If agreement can be achieved, it would not be inappropriate to provide some financial underpinning for it. That is not a bribe if—I repeat—
1134
we make it plain that we will not enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, my noble and learned friend mentioned discussions on the Middle East. Was any comment made about the danger of our acting against Iraq in the absence of any settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian situation? That is a most dangerous matter. There must surely have been some discussion of that important matter in Barcelona.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Indeed, my Lords, there was. First, I am happy to tell my noble friend that the Council issued a strong declaration warmly welcoming UN Security Council Resolution 1397, which, as I said—I know that I was paraphrasing it—is not limited to the rights of Israel alone; it also deals with the rights of the Palestinian people.
The Council made perfectly plain that the Palestinian Authority must have full responsibility for fighting terrorism, but that Israel must withdraw its forces from Palestinian-controlled areas, stop extra-judicial killings, lift restrictions and closures and freeze settlements. Both parties—I underline this—must respect international human rights standards. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in the Commons this afternoon, if Israel is exercising a state's undoubted right in law, any response must be proportionate.
I repeat, as the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, no decisions in respect of Iraq have been made. Plainly, no one would seek even to contemplate any action in respect of Iraq without bearing in mind the possible consequences on an already deeply troubled area. On that I agree with my noble friend.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to ask about the liberalisation of the energy market. It is welcome that the liberalisation of the commercial part of the market has now been agreed. Can we also take it that when the appropriate directives are discussed at the end of the year, they will include extending liberalisation to domestic markets? Furthermore, as the other important issue facing the European Union is security of supply—because of its increasing dependence on imported sources—will that be urgently considered at a future conference?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a cast-iron assurance on his second question, although I imagine that all governments will have the concerns that he mentioned well in mind. However, I can give him an assurance on his first question. As he rightly says, the breakthrough at Barcelona deals with more than 60 per cent of the gas and other energy markets, so they will be open to full and fair competition by 2004. The noble Lord's important supplementary question was: what will happen to the remaining part of the market? Within a year, a decision will be taken on full liberalisation, as

1135
the noble Lord spoke of it. It will be taken by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers. Barcelona showed that there was a clear majority in favour—14 to 1—so we should have agreement on the further step described by the noble Lord by about this time next year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that there was a marked difference of tone between what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, had to say about the summit and what was said n the House of Commons by the Leader of the Opposition? What was the reaction of other members of the European Union at the Barcelona summit to those positive achievements of the British Government—the national minimum wage, fair rights at work and so on?
Turning to the Middle East, would it not be better if the Palestinian Authority, which controls television and radio, was far more positive about the existence of the state of Israel? Whatever one's views of Prime Minister Sharon, does my noble and learned friend agree that the state of Israel is there to stay?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is no question in the Government's mind that the state of Israel is there to stay, for all sorts of moral, historical and legal reasons. There is no future for either the state of Israel or the Palestinian people unless they are able to live together. That is a truism, but it none the less needs to be recognised.
As for television coverage of the conflict in the Palestinian media, I imagine that criticism could be made of all sorts of media coverage. It is not for outside governments to seek to interfere with media coverage in other parts of the world, any more than they should seek to interfere with media coverage here, even though sometimes one may regard it as wrong.
The tone of the response of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was indeed different. Of course, that comes as no surprise to your Lordships, as the quality of debate in this Chamber is normally higher than one finds elsewhere—I did not say in another place. Indeed, the noble Lord is free of mummy in a way that perhaps Mr Duncan Smith is not.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, why do the Government run the risk of confusing our European colleagues by claiming that the New Deal has generated 300,000 new jobs when the National Audit Office, which is a far from partial witness, states that only 20,000 are attributable to the New Deal?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I know that there are different views about that figure. I do not think that the fact of that extraordinary improvement is itself disputed. Personally, I prefer to accentuate the positive by pointing out that between 250,000 and 300,000 people now have good prospects of settled, long-term employment. That benefits not only them and their families but, critically, the operation of our society, not least in the incidence of youth crime.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that in at least two important
1136
areas the Statement is factually incorrect? One is where the Statement claims that proposals are emerging to reduce regulation on business. Does that mean that some existing regulations will be withdrawn? The flood of such regulations continues unabated. One need only consider the vibration and end of life directives, the new regulations on nitrates for farming, the reversal of burden of proof in discrimination cases, the part-time workers directive, dietary requirements for sedentary workers and even the ladders directive, which will make it an offence to climb a ladder unless someone is holding the bottom of it. Surely it is simply untrue to say that we are winning the battle against European regulation.
Nor is it true to say—this is the second prong of my question—that the United Kingdom is winning the argument in Brussels. That is clearly untrue. Did not the European Parliament vote last week to give the European Union legal personality? If that is passed, does not the whole picture fall into place—with the charter of fundamental rights, the army, corpus juris for the legal system and even the ant hem and the flag? The flag is not legal at the moment—it is advertising—but it will be when the European Union gets legal personality.
To a Euro-realist such as myself, the Statement simply does not stand up. The Prime Minister himself said that Barcelona would be make or break. Clearly, it is break. So why do not we confess that, or, at least, talk about it at greater length than we can in a debate such as this?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my memory is quite short-term, but I do not think that one can find the phrase "the battle against European legislation" in any sentence of the Statement.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, at the end of the Statement, it says that all thanks are due to the Labour Government's wonderful new policy.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It does not say that either.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it says that Barcelona would not have been possible under the previous Conservative government, that then we were "without influence" and that we are no longer "in the isolation room". We jolly well are in the isolation room, unless we want to go along with the things I have just mentioned.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, sounds like a politician. He put forward his proposition, but, when I gently asked whether it was to be found anywhere in the text, he said, "No" and quickly side-stepped the question. In fact, he did not say, "No"; he just side-stepped it.
I shall repeat what was said towards the end of the Statement, because it is worth a guinea a word:
"Under the last Conservative Government, Britain was marginalised, without influence appropriate to our weight and size, in the isolation room".

1137
As a proposition of descriptive fact, that is correct. That is a continuing reproach to how feeble we were. We now have the opportunity to go forward under a Prime Minister who wants to do the best for Britain, knows where our future lies, wants to do the best for Europe and knows where its future lies.
There is, sometimes, too much legislation, but many of the regulations about which the noble Lord complains periodically are nothing to do with Brussels. They are, in fact, domestic statutory instruments. If the noble Lord wants to talk about people standing at the bottom of ladders, I respectfully invite him to examine the regulations made pursuant—as they say in my old trade—to the Factories Act 1961. He will find lots of regulations about people having to foot ladders. Why will he find such regulations? Because, if someone goes up a ladder that is not footed, they are liable to fall off, injure themselves and sue their employer.
Not all regulations are wrong, and I shall give one illustration. The sheep are baa-ing all over the world, not least in the United States Congress, about how Enron could have been allowed to be brought to the point of collapse. What reason is given? It is that there was not enough regulation.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister advise us whether there was any support at Barcelona for the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, as published today in The Times?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not only was there not much support for them in Barcelona, there is not much support for them in the sane tendency of the Conservative Party.
I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, in his place. In 2001, he usefully pointed out:
"Until six weeks ago, Mr Duncan Smith was known to students of politics as a one-issue man. He had built a reputation by undermining the last Conservative Government's policy on Europe and resisting all appeals to loyalty".
It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, is not in his place. He has encapsulated the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, far better than I could ever attempt to do, saying that,
"her suggestions are unrealistic, undesirable and dangerous—the present leadership of the Conservative Party is so closely associated with her that unless they unequivocally and immediately repudiate those ideas, they will be assumed to have them as a hidden agenda".
As the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons this afternoon, the present Conservative policy on Europe seems to be one of total silence.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am glad to see that this is a much less partisan House than the other place.
I press the Minister to answer the question asked by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby about EU observers in the Arab-Israeli dispute. I did not hear him respond.
1138
I also want to know what plans the Government have to help the broader public—and, indeed, some of us in this House—to understand some of the deeply obscure and technical negotiations that go on under the name of the EU. There is the Lisbon process. I was not aware that the Gibraltar negotiations were called the Brussels process. I am familiar with the Tampere declaration, the Dublin convention and all the other things that one tries desperately to understand.
As we approach the next inter-governmental conference, we have a convention already under way on which the British Government have not attempted what, I gather, is now called in Whitehall domestic public diplomacy beyond the Schröder-Blair letter, which is itself written in fairly turgid, technical language. I must be one of the 155 people in Britain who have read it from start to finish. Do the Government intend to try to explain to a broader public—perhaps through a Green Paper—what the issues for the convention are, beyond the occasional multiple bilateral alliances to which the Statement refers? It is important to make sure that the British people have a deeper understanding of the issues.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord has a valid point, but I cannot commit myself to a Green Paper. However, I can say, without an excess of self-congratulation, that it is something that we have discussed many times in your Lordships' House. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, has raised the matter many times. It may well be that we ought to be able to have more defined structures and mechanisms in this House not only for debate but for the elucidation in our debates and Select Committees to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred. It is an extremely important point.
I confess that, until it was necessary to point the finger of scorn in the context of Gibraltar, I was unaware of the Brussels process. The only reason that I stressed 1984 was that I seemed to recollect dimly that there might have been a Conservative government in power at that time.
The noble Lord is right. I did not mean to be discourteous to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. She put a wide range of questions, and my note to myself did not pick up the answer to her question, for which I apologise. Our stance was that we urged both parties to consider the proposals for monitors and stressed that we were prepared ourselves to participate in such a mechanism.

Afghanistan
5.29 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"I would like to bring the House up to date by making a Statement about the continuing role of the British Armed Forces in Afghanistan. It is just over

1139
five months since the global coalition, assembled in response to the terrorist attacks in the United States, began military action in Afghanistan. At that time we set out a number of specific short and longer-term campaign aims. These included preventing Osama bin Laden and A1'Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat, breaking the links between Afghanistan and international terrorism and reintegrating Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community.
"Five months later, it is clear that this action has been remarkably successful. Afghanistan is now a very different country. The Taliban Government, who harboured the A1'Qaeda terrorists, are no more. Terrorist training camps have been put out of action. The first steps towards creating a functioning state have been taken. Aid agencies operate with increasing freedom. Refugees are beginning to return to their homes.
"I am particularly proud of the vital part that British forces have played in this success. I have set out, on a number of occasions, the contribution that they have made to the international coalition—reconnaissance and air-to-air refuelling flights; troops on the ground engaged in operations against A1'Qaeda and Taliban elements; and Royal Navy participation in submarine and interdiction support operations in the Arabian Sea.
"Britain's Armed Forces have also played a significant role leading the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul, with some 1,800 British troops currently deployed with the force. Full operating capability was achieved on time on 18th February, bringing together more than 4,600 troops from 18 different countries in a harsh and demanding environment at a considerable distance from home. I pay particular tribute to General John McColl for his role in this.
"The ISAF is helping the Afghan Interim Authority to provide a secure and stable environment in Kabul. Life in the city is at last beginning to return to some kind of normality, as I was recently able to see for myself.
"The ISAF is already training the first battalion of an Afghan National Guard—about 600 strong and with an ethnic make-up that reflects that of Afghanistan itself. It is also providing advice to the Afghan police. Where it can, the ISAF has helped with much-needed physical reconstruction work—projects that range from repairs to schools to getting the city's dust carts back on the road.
"British forces deployed with the ISAF include troops from the Second Battalion of the Parachute Regiment. It was always planned that they would return to the United Kingdom at the end of March to prepare for their deployment to Northern Ireland later this year. They are now in the process of handing over their responsibilities to the First Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment.
"Germany has agreed to provide a new headquarters for the Kabul Multinational Brigade, the ISA F.'s subordinate headquarters, which has,
1140
until now, been provided by the Headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade. A Bundeswehr brigadier will formally assume command tomorrow. This will enable us to withdraw a number of British troops from theatre and is a real demonstration of genuine international co-operation. So too is the Czech Republic's offer of a field hospital for the ISAF. Following my discussions with my Czech counterpart earlier this month, the Czechs signed the ISAF Memorandum of Understanding last Thursday. Their contribution is very welcome indeed.
"The House will also be interested in the hand-over of the United Kingdom's responsibilities as lead nation for the ISAF. Our talks with Turkey, which has expressed an interest in taking this on, continue. It would not be appropriate to say too much before those talks are concluded, but certainly the atmosphere in the high level discussions between the UK, the US and the Turks in Ankara last week was very positive.
"We are still working, therefore, to transfer the leadership of the ISAF. We are working hard to tie down the details, with the reassurance that Prime Minister Ecevit of Turkey has told my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that he strongly supports his country taking on the role.
"But for all the progress that we have made in Afghanistan, the threat of attack from A1'Qaeda and Taliban-related groupings and individuals across the country remains high.
"The recent operation, Anaconda, in the Paktia province, lead by the United States, tack led one group of A1'Qaeda terrorists and Taliban fighters. They showed that these people are still in Afghanistan in large numbers and that they are heavily armed. Left alone, these groups would threaten all that the Afghan people and their supporters in the international community have achieved so far and would strive to retain Afghanistan as a base for training and organising terrorism. They do not recognise the Afghan Interim Authority and will work to destabilise the situation across Afghanistan. A1'Qaeda and its supporters continue to pose a direct threat to states outside Afghanistan, including to the United Kingdom.
"I know that the House will join me in offering its sympathies to the families of the Afghan and American soldiers who died during Operation Anaconda and in paying tribute to all the coalition forces who were involved, including the crews of the RAF Tristar tankers and Sentry AWACS aircraft which supported coalition air strikes during the operation.
"The United States has now formally requested that the UK provides forces to join in future military operations against other remnants of A1'Qaeda and the Taliban elsewhere in Afghanistan. I have therefore authorised the deployment to Afghanistan of a full UK infantry battlegroup, built around

1141
45 Commando, Royal Marines. This group will join a US-led brigade—forming a potent force ready to undertake such operations.
"We have held 45 Commando ready for offensive operations in Afghanistan for precisely this purpose. The lead elements of 45 Commando—its Headquarters Company and "Whisky" and "Zulu" Companies—are already in theatre, embarked aboard HMS "Ocean".
"Arrangements are now in hand to deploy these elements to Afghanistan, where they will be joined by the remaining companies of 45 Commando—held at high readiness in Arbroath—and the Combat Support and Services Support elements integral to the Commando Group. These include: 7 Battery of 29 Commando Regiment, Royal Artillery, equipped with 105 millimetre light guns, from Plymouth; 59 Independent Commando Squadron, Royal Engineers; and elements of the Commando Logistics Regiment.
"There is already a versatile range of helicopters aboard HMS "Ocean" to support 45 Commando Group. To increase the Commando Group's operational capabilities still further, we are also deploying a further three Chinook helicopters of 27 Squadron, RAF.
"This is a powerful force, in total up to 1,700 strong. We will ensure that it is ready to take part in operations as quickly as possible. The force will go initially to Bagram, with the first members of 45 Commando Group on the ground within days, and ready to commence offensive operations by mid-April.
"The deployment of 45 Commando Group is not a decision that has been taken lightly. It is our largest military deployment for combat operations since the Gulf conflict. It is important that the House is under no illusion about what this might mean. These troops are being deployed to Afghanistan to take part in warfighting operations. We will be asking them to risk their lives. Their missions will be conducted in unforgiving and hostile terrain against a dangerous enemy. They may suffer casualties.
"No government ever take such decisions without reaching the absolute conviction that it is something that must be done. The appalling events of 11th September demonstrated very clearly that A1'Qaeda and Taliban elements have the ability and the desire to launch attacks right into the heart of nations like ours.
"Both the deployment of the Commando Group and our deployment to Kabul as part of the ISAF contribute to our overall objectives of ending the threat posed by international terrorism and restoring Afghanistan. Both are entirely consistent with the campaign objectives that we set out last October. But the troops with the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan have their own difficult and demanding job to do; 45 Commando Group will have theirs.
1142
"By deploying 45 Commando Group we shall make a new and important contribution to defeating the remnants of A1'Qaeda and the Taliban. And by our continued commitment to the ISAF we are helping Afghanistan regain her place as a stable and prosperous nation. I have no doubt that our Armed Forces will succeed in both tasks".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating this detailed Statement. At the start may I congratulate all our Armed Forces in Afghanistan on the outstanding job they are doing and wish 45 Commando Group every success in their new deployment? They have all displayed their customary professionalism and their usual efficiency.
On these Benches, we have fully supported the decision of the United States of America and Her Majesty's Government to share the Afghanistan burden in destroying Al'Qaeda, but we have been concerned about our contribution to ISAF. The Chief of the Defence Staff, in his speech to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies, RUSI, last November warned of getting our hands trapped in the mangle and that we would have to face the fact that our ability to run concurrent operations will be affected. Something will have to give, he said.
For ISAF, mission creep is exactly what is happening—the period for our deployment has been extended from three months to six months. Is the Minister able to say when we shall be able to withdraw from ISAF? I have noted that the Germans will provide a new headquarters for the Kabul Multinational Brigade, but does that mean that all of 16 Air Assault Brigade, which is currently doing the job, will be withdrawn? However, can the noble Lord also say whether a battalion has been warned to take over from the Royal Anglians when they are due to be withdrawn or replaced in Afghanistan?
With the additional deployment of some 1,700 personnel of 45 Commando and around 1,800 in ISAF, the British force now numbers somewhere in the region of 3,500. This is a large commitment to provide and sustain. It is not helped by the fact that we are still deployed in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo and Sierra Leone. It is an added commitment for our logistical troops and to sustain this new force will be a heavy burden on our already over-committed logistical organisations.
The mission for the British troops in ISAF and 45 Commando must be carefully defined. Our goals and how we are to achieve them should be set out in a statement. For instance, will the United Kingdom troops in ISAF operate outside Kabul?
Let me ask the Minister some additional questions. How long will British troops be involved in ISAF? Can he clearly define the mission of 45 Commando and ISAF? Under whose command will 45 Commando be placed once it has deployed? What are our goals for ISAF and 45 Commando and how will they be achieved? For what guarantees are the Turks waiting

1143
before they will agree to take over command of ISAF? If they are guarantees of USA extraction, should this be necessary? Can we be assured that the other countries contributing to ISAF will remain? If financial support is required for Turkey, why are such funds not provided by the UN? Why have we been unable to give Turkey the assurances it seems to require? Finally, what pressure is being exercised to ensure that more Afghans join their new army? Six hundred is not very many and, presumably, it will be difficult for ISAF to withdraw until the new army has sufficient numbers and is properly trained.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches value the work that ISAF is undertaking and we take pride in the fact that Britain has taken a lead role in commanding ISAF. Obviously the search to find successor to take over that lead role is under negotiation and we welcome the talks that are taking place in Turkey, especially as Turkey is suffering from such a turbulent economy at the moment.
I have only one question in regard to ISAF. Is the UN mandate, which is due to expire in June, currently being renegotiated? If so, how far have those talks developed?
The Minister said that this will be our largest deployment since the Gulf conflict. Our thoughts are very much with the men of 45 Commando and their families because, for such a large deployment to take place, the strength of the current resistance must have been severely under-estimated in the reports in the press. Obviously the Minister will not be able to give the House detailed information about deployment and strengths, but perhaps he can tell us the strength of the remaining resistance in the mountains of Afghanistan.
As the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, pointed out, we are talking about 3,500 troops in Afghanistan. Will this lead to a degree of overstretch outside the commitments that we are already undertaking?
Britain has been asked to take part in this operation. Can the Minister give an indication of whether the Americans have requested the support of any other nation? He said that this was to be a US-led operation; can he say whether 45 Commando will come directly under the command structure of CENCOM? If so, to what extent will British command be subsumed by the American command structure?
This very large commitment raises the question of cost. Obviously the cost of ISAF has depleted reserves set aside for such issues—we will return to this subject at a later date—but can the Minister give an indication of the Treasury's position in regard to funding this extra commitment if it falls outside the contingency reserve?
We support the Government's commitment in Afghanistan and the roles being undertaken by the British Array—not only in the forthcoming combat situation but in the rebuilding of Afghanistan in areas such as the training of police forces and making Kabul safe for the civilian aid workers. However, with such a destabilising influence in Afghanistan showing further
1144
resistance, is it feasible at this point to consider any future action against Iraq in the short term? If the figure being bandied around in the press—which obviously has little foundation—of 25,000 men being necessary, where would these men come from?
5.46 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Redesdale. I shall do my best to answer their questions. But, first, I thank them for their congratulations and good wishes for the British Armed Forces. They will be very well received. Secondly, I thank them for their support for the decision taken by the Government. The support of all parties in this House and the other place in regard to this conflict has been most impressive. I am grateful to noble Lords for repeating that support in such fulsome terms today.
A number of questions were raised by both noble Lords and I shall do my best to answer them. So far as concerns ISAF, at present 20th June is the end of its six-months' existence. It is true that there may be an extension of that time if the United Nations decides that that is what it wants to do—it would be foolish to pretend that that might not happen— but, as I speak today, no decision has been taken to extend ISAF's six months beyond 20th June.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, used the cliché "mission creep" unfairly. As matters stand today, we are to be the lead nation until 30th April. We hope very much that Turkey will succeed us on that date. If it does not, we shall not run away from our responsibilities, but it is our desire that Turkey should succeed us then.
As to what is holding up Turkey's agreement to being the next lead nation, I would rather not go into any details today. But negotiations are at an advanced stage and I repeat that we very much hope that Turkey will take on that important role.
As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, about whether a successor battalion to the Royal Anglians has been named, the answer is no. The Royal Anglians themselves are not yet fully in Kabul.
Let me now deal with a number of questions which were common to both noble Lords. First, the issue of overstretch. As regards overstretch, we know that there are problems which have been admitted before in both Houses. But we are comfortable that this particular deployment can be managed alongside our existing commitments. Out of the 1,700 or so personnel involved, some 400 are already in theatre. It is important to remember that when numbers are being bandied about. The remainder have been held at high readiness in the United Kingdom against just such a contingency as this. We believe that this is a realistic and sustainable deployment.
As regards the question asked by both noble Lords as to who will be in command, obviously clear command and control arrangements are essential to the success of any force. As part of our deployment, Brigadier Lane, the commander of 3 Commando

1145
Brigade, and his headquarters will also deploy to Bagram. The brigadier and his staff will join the American headquarters from Central Command who are already there. The commando group itself will join with its American counterparts now in Afghanistan and it will benefit from the support of coalition forces now at Bagram.
On the question of costs, our initial estimate is that the additional cost of this deployment will be in the region of about £65 million. I know that noble Lords will not hold me to that figure in time to come, but that is the best estimate that we can give in trying to be as frank as we can with the House.
I was asked whether any other countries were part of the deployment. No doubt the Americans are negotiating with other countries as we speak. It would be wrong of me to take in advance any decisions which might be made on that matter. I thank both noble Lords for their support.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this is a serious commitment which has been announced to Parliament today. Does it arise from a revised assessment by the Americans and ourselves following Operation Anaconda or was it always envisaged that after the earlier and brilliant successes in kicking the Taliban out of positions of power there would be, in a way rather reminiscent of Afghan history, a long and difficult follow through such as the noble Lord is now describing?
Perhaps I may raise another issue where we have a national and a European interest which the Americans do not seem entirely to have. If it is true that 90 per cent of the heroin which reaches Europe comes from Afghanistan, what steps are our forces or agencies taking to check that flow? Would it not be a bitter paradox if, as a result of all this energy and new commitments, the flow of heroin which can poison so many of our children were increased?
Lord Bach: My Lords, with his great experience in this field, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The Statement I have repeated this afternoon is indeed a serious one. I am not in a position to say whether such an event as I have announced was forecast months ago. As the noble Lord will know, these analyses change with time. As he rightly said, there were great successes which were perhaps achieved more quickly than some anticipated last autumn. It may be that the Anaconda campaign has affected both the United States and its allies in realising that the A1'Qaeda and Taliban would not just disappear. The United States has always said that it was going to be a long haul as regards the Afghanistan part of the warfare against terrorism. I do not believe that it is true that the coalition has been caught by surprise. But what is absolutely vital is that the battle against A1'Qaeda and terrorism is finally won in Afghanistan because if it is not, then why have we bothered to risk the lives of our troops and those of the coalition?
I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given me advance warning about his last question concerning drugs. That is a very important issue. It has not been
1146
the task of British forces to destroy opium crops. We do not specifically target heroin stockpiles. Some may have been destroyed during coalition military attacks on terrorist targets. It is impossible to say how many. But the Afghan Interim Authority is planning to destroy this month the Spring opium crop. ISAF is not strictly responsible for the areas of Afghanistan where these crops are largely grown. The interim authority has put on record its determination to stamp out opium production and the signs are encouraging. That is the latest information. The prediction is that this year's crop will be about one-third of what it was under the Taliban, which is one-third too much. But it is an improvement. We are working hard with the Afghan interim administration and the rest of the international community, with the funding that was promised at the Tokyo conference, as the noble Lord will recall. Some of that money will be used for crop substitution and other schemes to help wean Afghan farmers from their opium production, which was basically the result of Afghanistan being a failed state. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when the Czech field hospital is likely to be deployed? Will that mean that our own field hospital, currently there in support of ISAF, will return home or will it be used in support of 45 Commando?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord when the Czech hospital will be deployed and neither can I answer his second question. I shall write to the noble Lord with the answers when they are available.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I shall be brief. I welcome this afternoon's Statement and offer my support and that of my noble friends of the Ulster Unionist Party, for those additional troops who will now be deployed in Afghanistan. Having spent some time with Brigadier Lane and 45 Commando, Royal Marines, in the Omani desert towards the end of last year, I know that they are well equipped, that they have high morale and that they can deal with any challenge that they may face. I, and I am sure all the Members of this House, wish them well.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his party's support for this undertaking.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the Minister has made a very serious Statement committing our forces to a war-fighting role. There was reference by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, to the speech of the Chief of Defence staff as to whether we were going to be caught in the mangle. It certainly does not look like a short engagement, but a long haul. The issue of overstretch is not just whether 45 Commando can go there now, but who may replace them and who is going to undertake this continuing assignment in the future.
I do not think that the noble Lord responded to one question from the noble Lord, Lord Vivian; namely, what was the total commitment now of British troops to theatre? I am referring not just to the Royal

1147
Anglians or 45 Commando, but the total commitment we have now of forces to this theatre of operations, which will have to be sustained by further planning about which there appears to be no commitment at present.
The dates which the noble Lord has given to the House sound rather extraordinary. As I understand it, he is hoping that the Turks will take over ISAF by 15th April—
Lord Bach: My Lords, 30th April.
Lord King of Bridgwater: And then that ISAF itself is due to wind up because its commitment runs to 20th June, as I understand it. I have some experience of Turkey. While I am delighted that Prime Minister Ecevit is supportive of the Prime Minister, everyone knows the power of the armed forces in Turkey and that they are unlikely to take on anything unless they are persuaded that they are going forward on a proper basis. It does look as though the commitment may stay with us and that with those we are taking on now, for what looks like a much more difficult undertaking than it might appear in the initial stages, they present a significant military commitment. We clearly have to deal with the terrorists, but we should not underrate the scale of the commitment that we are taking on.
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is difficult to give a precise answer to the noble Lord's first and important question about how many of our Armed Forces are involved. If one includes the large number at Tampa Central Command, those working on this issue in London, those on our ships in the Arabian Sea, the troops who are already in Afghanistan and the troops in Britain who are ready to go, the figure of about 9,000 would not be wildly wrong. That is a frank answer to the noble Lord at present.
I take the point made by the noble Lord about the 30th April and 20th June dates. We hope that the Turks will soon make a decision and will take over shortly after, if not on, 30th April.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an indication of when these grave matters will be discussed by Parliament? Until recent months, it has long been the tradition for affairs of national moment to be laid before Parliament and for Parliament to give its views. Successful military and political leaders in the past have always insisted that Parliament must reign supreme and that parliamentary consent on behalf of the nation is an indispensable condition to the successful prosecution of any course that the country finally decides to take.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, with his vast experience. However, I must gently point out that we are making this announcement in Parliament at the first available opportunity. The country first knows of it as a result of my right honourable friend's Statement in the
1148
House of Commons and my repetition of it here. I think the House will agree that that is the appropriate way to announce a decision of this kind.
My right honourable friend was asked in the Commons exchanges a short time ago about the matter of debate. His reply—the one that Ministers make on all these occasions—was that it would have to take place through the usual channels. However, I find it difficult to believe that these serious matters will not be debated very soon.
Lord Inge: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for that statement and endorse what the noble Lord, Lord King, said about the importance of this commitment.
Touching on the remark that has just been made, I should like to add how important it is for the Armed Forces to feel that the nation is behind them when they are deployed. That is an enormously important point, which is sometimes underestimated by those who send them on these kinds of difficult missions.
I should also like to ask the Minister whether it is right that 45 Commando will be commanded by the Americans rather than by ISAF. For what length of tour of duty does he expect 45 Commando to be deployed in Afghanistan? Was it considered—it would be the usual practice—that a force deployed on a dangerous operation such as this would take with it its own air support? I assume that we shall be relying on the Americans for that close air support. However, will the Minister tell us whether consideration was given to sending our own close air support and, if not, the reason for not doing so?
Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for his contribution. As far as command is concerned, I must draw the distinction sharply between ISAF and 45 Commando. 45 Commando has nothing to do with ISAF. We are now talking about Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Veritas, which are part of the coalition forces in the continuing struggle against A1'Qaeda and the Taliban. They will be under the same command as other British Armed Forces have been in the four or five months of this conflict thus far.
With regard to the timescale, we hope that this tour of duty will last for three months. I make no promises to the House about that. That is the intention as I speak today.
I have no separate knowledge of air support. I suspect that the RAF has played an important role in air support in its most general terms during the course of Operation Enduring Freedom and will no doubt continue to do so. Air support for 45 Commando and the work that they do with their American colleagues, and any other country that takes part, will no doubt be under American escort.
Lord Tebbit: My Lord, first, was the implication of the Minister's last answer that 45 Commando will in fact be under American control but that he could not quite bring himself to use the words?

1149
Secondly, does he agree that the implication of his Statement is that we have now entered into an open-ended commitment in Afghanistan? Will he say whether the Treasury has entered into an open-ended commitment with the Department of Defense?
Lord Bach: My Lords, let me be explicit. I hope I was fairly explicit previously. Under Operation Enduring Freedom, the command of the coalition forces has been by the Americans from Central Command at Tampa. That continues. It will apply to 45 Commando, as it has to other British Armed Forces that have previously been there. This is not an open-ended commitment, but we are determined that A1'Qaeda and the Taliban should be destroyed in Afghanistan before Operation Enduring Freedom ends. Otherwise, I repeat, what would have been the point of entering into this difficult task in any event?
With regard to questions about Her Majesty's Treasury, the noble Lord will have more experience than I of those.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, my noble friend has quite understandably said that he cannot give the House any commitment as to how long our troops may find themselves in Afghanistan. However, will he tell us whether Her Majesty's Government have made a decision about the size of our contingent? Will it permanently be capped at the number to which he has referred at the Dispatch Box today, and, if so, have Her Majesty's Government told our allies that?
Secondly, although I understand the Minister's reluctance to identify other countries that have been invited to make contributions to this war-fighting force in Afghanistan, will he at least tell us how many other countries, without identifying them, have been invited to participate?
In conclusion, perhaps I may comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. However worthy his objectives, I can think of nothing more disastrous than having British troops sent on a war-fighting expedition being asked to take part in policing operations that are the responsibility of the civil authorities in Afghanistan.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I have no doubt that we have discussed the matter of numbers with our allies, as we discuss everything with them. The number in our ISAF force is presently down on the original number. It makes up part of the total number that I gave in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord King. He asked me for a figure in the round and my figure represented ISAF as well as Operation Enduring Freedom. That is the position so far as concerns numbers.
I regret that I am not in a position to answer the question about who else the Americans may ask to join in.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, have the Government capped the number of British troops who are going in a war-fighting ro?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not believe that the British Government have, but the decision to send in 45 Commando, with the logistics and other forces that it needs to make it operational, comes to between 1,500 and 1,700. If that is a cap, then they have.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister three questions. First, may we take it that we can now forget any British commitment to the new EU army's plans for Macedonia? Secondly, is there any truth in the press statements that a major training exercise in Canada had to be cancelled? Thirdly, how is that in any way consonant with keeping our troops properly prepared and able to rotate?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness is cleverly trying to lead me down the road to Macedonia, but I shall not be tempted on that. I have enjoyed talking about Afghanistan this afternoon, but I am not going to answer questions about Macedonia. I do not know the answer to the noble Baroness's question, but, with the greatest respect, I do not think that it is relevant to today's Statement. The issue of Canada is relevant. I do not have the answer, but I shall write to the noble Baroness as quickly as I can on that.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement and endorse the comments of those who have pledged full support for our Armed Forces in Afghanistan. I should declare an interest as chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. I have listened to the questions and answers about operational issues. One of the best manifestations of support for our troops is to ensure that their welfare is taken care of. The terrain and climate in Afghanistan are very difficult. Like other Members of this House, I have read the reports about the field accommodation and the quality of the reconstituted food that our troops are receiving. I know that some noble Lords may not regard that as a priority, but I do, having met service personnel. Will the Minister give me an assurance on this important issue, particularly as it appears that, while we may be hoping for a three-month operational deployment, the task may well take longer?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who plays an important role. Of course welfare and accommodation are crucial, even more so in hostile terrain such as Afghanistan. I can give her the assurance that she is seeking.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, is it not essential that the operation is funded by the MoD, with full indemnity from Her Majesty's Treasury? I have not given the Minister notice of this question, but perhaps he can answer it anyway. Is it not the case that counter-productive penny-pinching in the recent Gulf exercise, in which Challenger tanks were sent to the desert without desert air filters, has been found to have

1151
resulted in significant damage to their engines, for which spares are being delayed, with consequential harm to our ability to deploy those vital units?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the Treasury has not been lacking in the war against Afghanistan. The noble and learned Lord will know that there was a debate in the other place on defence funding last week. Extra money has been paid out of the consolidated fund to cover the money that was expended by the Ministry of Defence in relation to Afghanistan. The figures are available. I do not believe that there has been any penny-pinching on Afghanistan. I speak on behalf of the Government, not just on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, what about the future?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is pressing me on the future. My view is that the Government will make sure that the important decisions that I have restated today will be properly funded.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
House again in Committee.
6.14 p.m.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY OF STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES: PUBLIC HEALTH
Strategic Health Authorities shall have in place systems of surveillance to—

(a) monitor changes in the health of members of the public within the area of the Strategic Health Authority; and

(b) identify trends arising from the activities of the Primary Care Trusts within the area of the Authority."

The noble Earl said: One of the major questions begged by the Bill is its implications for public health. Public health doctors, including directors of public health, will have to transfer from existing health authorities to PCTs. Strategic health authorities will each have a doctor with responsibility for public health, but not necessarily experience in that discipline. The precise way in which the roles and responsibilities at each tier of the NHS will 'work together is as yet unclear. My purpose in tabling the amendment is to ask the Government to clarify their plans in this extremely important area, on which they have rightly placed a great deal of emphasis.
So far, the plans for NHS reorganisation have not yielded up any clear operational guidance on how the three essential elements of public health—planning, surveillance and service delivery—are to he run and co-ordinated. Ministers have referred in outline to public health networks, but there has been no indication of how such networks will relate to the statutory entities within the NHS. I am worried that, if
1152
the PCTs are to be charged with shouldering the lion's share of planning and delivering health protection and health improvement to local communities on top of what is already a huge and in part unfamiliar remit as providers of health services, we could be in a serious situation.
I am also worried that in some strategic health authorities there may be no one with the expertise of a public health doctor and that the person with responsibility for public health will not have the necessary independence that the role demands.
We then look to the regions. Regional directors of public health are to be created. Those directors will address the wider determinants of good health in the regions and will co-ordinate the design of the new public health networks. The new role for regional offices and regional directors of public health lacks a great deal of clarity. In particular, there is concern that the staff working to those offices will be working as employed civil servants, not as professional independent advocates for patients, as consultants work in the NHS.
In their recent document, Getting Ahead of the Curve, the Government have proposed a new national agency,
"to act as a source of national expertise and to provide key services at national, regional and local level in a range of specified areas of health protection".
My noble friend Lady Noakes will have more to say about national co-ordination of public health when she speaks to Amendment No. 99 later. I am not at all clear how the functions of this new agency—yet another new agency—will differ in practice from the functions of the public health networks. How will the agency relate to the regional directors of public health and the strategic health authorities? Where will accountability lie for the success or failure of public health services? It appears at the moment to lie nowhere.
As far as we can understand it, the approach to public health in this reorganisation is piecemeal. It needs to be cohesive. At the least, we ought to have a codified plan from the Government setting out how public health services are to be delivered through the various local and national bodies, as well as a clear idea of where the duties and responsibilities lie. I did not necessarily expect to see anything on the face of the Bill in that regard—although that would have been a bonus—but it is regrettable that at this very late stage in the planning for a far-reaching reorganisation of the health service there is still almost no detailed knowledge within the NHS of how precisely and in practice the priorities for public health are to be addressed across the country. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 43, 45, 49 and 51, which fall into two categories. Amendments Nos. 45, 49 and 51 are probing amendments to ascertain whether the PCTs are ready for the role that is being thrust upon them.
I must correct the Minister's earlier statements. He seems to believe that if one states that PCTs are not ready for a particular role, that is centralist. The noble

1153
Baroness, Lady Noakes, made that point. I should like to reinforce it. The Minister is developing a mantra about centralisation, which needs to be killed at the first possible moment. It is not centralist to query whether such a body is ready. It is not centralist to place a duty on a PCT if the responsibility is performed at that level. However, it must be properly performed, and a PCT must have the resources and expertise necessary to fulfil that responsibility.
There are major implications for public health services in this Bill. There is very little explicit reference to them. Public health directors will soon move from area health authorities to PCTs—on 1st April 2002. Who will fill all these roles? Will they be filled in time? What qualifications are necessary? How will PCTs deal with public health specialisms which have been built up over a number of years? What consultation has there been with public health professionals over these changes? As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, how does this fit in with the proposed new national agency?
In a speech which seems to be the one point of reference most public directors have, the Minister plays a considerable role with regard to how reorganisation will take place. That is perhaps flattering for the Minister, but not totally helpful for all the public health professionals affected. It is far from clear what resources PCTs will have.
The King's Fund, in its helpful way, is producing some valuable work, showing the problems that PCTs will have in taking on new public health responsibilities. Its document, launched on 26th March, is entitled Public Health in the Balance. We await that with bated breath. The King's Fund makes a hefty contribution to whatever it espouses. The title alone sounds as though it intends to publish some fairly formidable conclusions.
Devolution of public health functions has been uneven. There are concerns about specialisms being lost. Staff vacancy rates may hamper PCT efforts to deliver public health. Responsibilities for different aspects of public health are blurred, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has mentioned. All these difficulties need to be overcome if PCTs are effectively to discharge their public health functions.
I offer the Minister two solutions. First, for a while, exclude public health from the duties of PCTs, so we can get it right in a proper fashion. That would be my preference. Secondly, place on PCTs the kind of duties suggested in Amendment No.43 which is cognate to the amendment put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
Amendment No. 43 arises from the fact that the arrangements are by no means clear to ensure that health protection and health improvement duties are fulfilled and that the necessary resources allocated. The Government have failed to articulate how these public services should be organised to ensure coordinated delivery of programmes for health improvement, health protection and prevention programmes by the National Health Service at each level.
1154
Who will be the lead public health officer where one local authority is served by two or three PCTs? The current reorganisation of the National Health Service has yet to produce clear operational guidance on how the three key public health functions should be run and be connected with regional and national tiers. Public health networks have been mentioned, but their formal relationship to statutory entities in the National Health Service and local authorities is not clear.
Some key questions remain on public health duties and on how this reorganisation will work. How will the Government ensure that a cohesive and balanced public health service will deliver its challenging policy commitments? How will they ensure that all these components are integrated at local, regional and national levels? The collaborative arrangements between local government and National Health Service bodies are archaic. How and when will the law be updated? What will be the relationship between public health networks and PCTs and how will they be funded?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: It is very important to have the expertise of trained doctors in public health in primary health care trusts and strategic health authorities. Are there enough trained personnel in place to deal with the rising number of cases of tuberculosis in various parts of the country and the worrying rise of the many sexually transmitted diseases, such as chlamydia, gonorrhoea, HIV, AIDS, variant CJD, food poisoning, and water-borne infections such as cryptosporidium, together with an increase in alcohol and drug abuse?
We need an increase in health education, and public health needs should be pushed up the health agenda, not fragmented within inadequate departments with too much responsibility piled on them. There are not enough experts to deal with some of these very difficult and important public health matters. I hope that the Minister will give us some positive assurances tonight that public health will be adequately financed and organised to do its job.
Lord Turnberg: One of the key elements of a public health agenda is to protect the public against infectious diseases: food poisoning, meningitis, HIV, AIDS. TB and so on. A large number of different professionals are involved in that activity, including GPs, primary care trusts, environmental health officers, consultants in communicable disease control and regional epidemiologists. There is also the Public Health Laboratory Service through its local microbiological laboratories, specialist reference laboratories, the Centre for Disease Surveillance and Control, as well as the National Health Service trust laboratories. I declare an interest as chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service.
Primary care trusts clearly have to have a role. They are right in the middle. But they will have their work cut out to deliver what to them are relatively new activities. My anxieties increase when we know there will be considerable change in the way the PHLS

1155
network will run as the new health protection agency takes over in April 2003. The PHLS will cease to exist and the laboratories will be largely handed over to individual local National Health Service trusts.
There will be two almost simultaneous changes in the surveillance for communicable disease; in the primary care trusts taking up their new role and in the laboratory services as these trusts take over. Some degree of caution is required and special attention must he paid to this potentially hazardous transition period. I am encouraged that my noble friend the Minister is acutely aware of these difficulties and that there will be opportunities to discuss how they may be obviated. I very much look forward to that.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Perhaps I may quote the remarks of the president of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine, London, Sian Griffiths. She refers to concern among public healthworkers from multidisciplinary backgrounds and states:
"Since last April they have not known where they will be working on 1 April 2002. Working in public health requires a long term view".
Difficulty arises in relation to the long-term strategies to ensure equity in health and health prevention issues in the nation; and there are the infection control issues that have been referred to. There is also the problem of acute infection, in relation to which public health laboratories must form part of our national defence. We have already had scares about threats to our national defence through infection, so the coordination of these services is crucial.
As Sian Griffiths has said,
"if this reorganisation is not to weaken the public health function a sustained input of energy, time, and resources will be needed from the government to promote [the agendas required of the service]".
Baroness Pitkeathley: For the avoidance of doubt, I should state that I occasionally act as an adviser to a company providing healthcare. I am also chair of the New Opportunities Fund, which is investing £300 million in about 300 healthy living centres which are examining public health in its widest sense.
I am fully supportive of the idea of making public health central to the NHS. However, I do not believe that the amendments are necessary. It seems to me that the Government have demonstrated their commitment by ensuring that each primary care trust has a director of public health. We must also remember that public health goes far wider than what we normally think of as healthcare. It includes such issues as access to transport, access to information, and the environment, as well as issues of neighbourhood. Having a regional director of public health in each government office reminds us of the much wider agenda on the public health issue.
The duties of PCTs in relation to public health are clearly stated—and I believe that they are understood. Indeed, I am impressed by the number of primary healthcare trusts which are already taking up those responsibilities, and taking them very seriously in
1156
terms of being responsive to the health needs in the widest sense of their local community—which is, after all, why they were set up in the first place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been an interesting and important debate. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the amendments. Although I do not recommend that the Committee accept them, I recognise the importance of ensuring a cohesive public health system which enables us to tackle ill health, inequalities, surveillance and public protection. My belief is that our proposals in relation to public health will do just that.
First, the distinct advantage of the organisations that we propose is that there will be a strong public health team in every primary care trust, engaged with its own community, with local authorities and with non-governmental agencies—one that is very much focused on improving health, preventing serious illness and reducing health inequalities in the population that they serve. I believe that the combination of primary care and public health will ensure that they become powerful agencies for public health in the community.
Every PCT will have a director of public health on its board. This will be a high-level appointment. We expect the new posts to be taken up by public health professionals of the highest calibre. Regional directors of public health will have a key role in the selection process for the posts, to provide the necessary quality assurance.
For the first time, the director posts will be open to all suitably trained public health specialists, both medical and non-medical. In relation to the questions raised about the workforce and the numbers, my department is working at national level to strengthen the public health workforce and ensure that high-quality training programmes are in place to deliver the next generation of public health professionals.
As I have said, the new role of public health in primary care has enormous potential. The new directors of public health up and down the country will be the engines of public health delivery. The focus of their activity will be on local neighbourhoods and communities, leading and driving programmes to improve health and reduce inequalities.
It will be the job of the public health teams in primary care trusts to ensure that maximum health improvement is brought about by prevention and other interventions. In addition, the director of public health will be accessible to the local media to explain health inequality issues. The DPH will have a team whose composition will be a matter for local determination. They will seek to ensure that the public health role of the primary care workforce—including health visitors, school nurses, health promotion and other community workers—is fully realised by encouraging practitioners to lead specific programmes.
A number of speakers mentioned the public health networks. I agree that these are of importance. Essentially, the public health networks will provide the specialist expertise which cannot be provided in every

1157
single primary care trust. The idea of the networks will be to pool expertise and skills in specialist areas of public health which can then be available to all primary care trusts, to share good practice, to manage public health knowledge and, importantly, to act as a source of learning and professional development.
I want to make it clear that this will not be an additional tier of NHS management; nor will it adhere to rigid professional boundaries. The networks will be flexible and responsive, and they will change and evolve over time. For example, a network will be able to respond to cities for public health advice and action programmes. New NHS structures will not be able to match every local authority boundary, but a flexible, responsive network will, for example, be able to support the Health Cities initiatives, so vital in many parts of the country.
This country has a long and highly respected tradition in academic epidemiology and public health. It has been vital in contributing to the knowledge base for disease prevention. Academic departments of public health in the universities, with and without medical schools, have also played a vital part in education and training. We want to ensure that those academic strengths are preserved and maintained in the changes.
It is important that the existing public health research and development funding by health authorities continues to be spent on public health R&D, and we are considering the most appropriate management arrangements to enable that to happen. Public health networks will also include non-governmental organisations which have a key role to play in improving health and reducing inequalities, and also in dental public health.
One question that is apposite to public health at the primary care trust level—a question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—relates to the lead public health officer in an area where two or more primary care trusts cover the area of one local authority. My understanding is that the directors of public health serving that area, working within the local public health network, decide and agree on the best arrangements for ensuring the high-quality advice to each individual local authority. That will include named lead public health officers.
At the strategic health authority level, there will be a senior public health doctor in every health authority as a member of its top team. They will have a distinctive performance management role in relation to the constituent NHS organisations within their boundaries, including, of course, primary care trusts and the public health role of those primary care trusts.
While not duplicating the work of directors of public health in primary care trusts, strategic health authorities will have responsibility for performance management of public health action within primary care trusts. In order to discharge that, each strategic health authority will need a medical director/public health doctor with the appropriate strategic management skills to undertake this function as a member of its top team.
1158
From April 2002 at the regional level there will be a regional director of public health and a support team in each of the regional offices of government to provide the Department of Health's public health function. The senior officers and the teams will have a wide-ranging role: they will manage and co-ordinate the health protection and emergency planning functions in their regions; they will design, develop and maintain public health networks; and they will tackle the root causes of ill-health inequalities through the health component of cross-government policies in the regions. Overall, regional directors of public health will be accountable for ensuring that appropriate high quality health protection arrangements covering infectious diseases and other risks to health are in place in all locations in their regions. They will also be accountable for managing and co-ordinating the health aspects of the Government's response to emergencies and disasters.
In addition, I refer to the Chief Medical Officer's proposals, which were announced on 10th January and which are designed to streamline the services involved in the prevention and the control of infectious diseases. The proposed health protection agency will provide an integrated approach to all aspects of health protection, including chemical and radiological hazards as well as infectious disease control. The agency will take over functions that are currently performed by the Public Health Laboratory Service to which I pay great tribute. I hope my noble friend Lord Turnberg will convey that to the PHLS. The National Radiological Protection Board, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research and the National Focus for Chemical Incidents will also assume responsibility for employing consultants in communicable disease control.
The new agency will work closely with regional and local services and the expert government advisory committees. The new agency will also work with CHI where there are serious deficiencies in standards of infection control in hospitals, primary care or other health service premises.
I recognise the crucial importance of surveillance. The CMO's strategy makes that clear as regards infectious diseases and environmental hazards. We envisage that the new health protection agency, proposed in the CMO's strategy, will have a key role in surveillance of infectious diseases and environmental hazards and, as part of that, will work through the NHS to decide what role other players should have in surveillance.
I do not believe that it is desirable to write the requirement to carry out surveillance into primary legislation. It can be dealt with through secondary legislation, which will allow more flexibility over the precise form that the requirement should take. The responsibility for systems for monitoring the health status of the public is much wider than the role of strategic health authorities. As I have indicated, there is a crucial role to be played at the primary care trust level and at the regional level.

1159
The public health functions of PCTs are set out clearly in the Next Steps paper. To set them out in statute is neither necessary nor appropriate as the achievement of health improvement and reductions in health inequalities cannot be accomplished by PCTs working alone.
I hope that noble Lords will recognise from what I have said that the Government consider that a cohesive integrated approach to public health is important and essential, and that each part of the new public health system, whether at the primary care trust level, in networks, at strategic health authority level or the regional level, or in the new health protection agency, as announced by the Chief Medical Officer, will ensure that we have a safe integrated function.
As my noble friend Lord Turnberg has said. I recognise that a great deal of detail needs to be talked through and developed. I am happy to meet him, and other noble Lords who are interested, between now and Report stage to fill in some more of the details. I am confident that the approach that we are taking will provide a strong public health element at every level of the NHS and the required protection that the public so richly deserve in what I accept is an important area.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: I thank the Minister for such a clear exposition of how this matter will work in terms of the public health function. However, I am concerned about one point. The Minister said that at the PCT level the public health officer may not be a doctor—it could be anybody. Obviously it would be someone with a good qualification, but not a medical qualification. Is that a wise move? I understand that all kinds of people—geographers—may have an interest in looking wider in terms of public health, but I wonder about the credibility of such people among other medics whom they will have to lead and influence. We know that at times the medical profession can be chauvinistic. I am anxious that the system is robust and that we do not have a woolly social scientist who will have no credibility with the medical profession.
A new agency will be set up and my heart warms to that in terms of the debate that we had earlier in Committee. But I wonder how the Health Development Agency, which was the successor to the Health Education Authority, will work with the health protection agency and all the other bodies that will be set up. Can the Minister tell the Committee what the Health Development Agency has achieved, if anything?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Health Development Agency has made a good start. The particular focus of its work is in producing evidence-based research in the area of public health. That will be available for public health professions, NHS authorities, local government and other agencies at local level to inform them as to what is likely to work best in terms of public health intervention. I believe
1160
that that agency has made a good start. We would expect it to work alongside the grain of these new arrangements.
I was disappointed that the noble Baroness raised the issue of non-medics performing the role of public health specialists. I would have thought that she, of all people, would have welcomed this move—indeed the Faculty of Public Health Medicine has welcomed it—as she was passionate about nurse-prescribing and about developing the skills of non-medics in the health service. I believe that it will enrich the public health profession.
I accept the implication that the people appointed must have the highest public health skills. My understanding is that the non-medical public health specialists who are likely to be appointed would have either a Masters or a PhD in a public health discipline and would have years of experience behind them in the area of public health. In appointing a non-medic to that post a primary care trust would clearly have to take account of the kind of issues that the noble Baroness has raised. I would not cast aspersions on social scientists, as the noble Baroness did. I am convinced that this will be a way of bringing in new people and giving proper career development to people who have gone into public health but are not medically trained. However, I believe that they will receive support from many in the medical profession.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I can elicit further information from the Minister. I thank him for his initial statement that set out the broad pattern. However, it is regrettable that he has to set it out in that way, whereas on the face of the Bill it would not have been difficult to set out the strategic health authorities, primary care trusts and—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Earlier I said that I would be happy to meet with noble Lords between the Committee and Report stages. If it is helpful to the Committee, I shall set out in some detail how we see the public health arrangements developing and I shall be happy to send that to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
Lord Clement-Jones: That would be helpful. I was going on to ask the Minister whether, in addition to the statements made in Next Steps and what he has said today, there would be a clear statement of accountability. I believe that the accountabilities and the responsibilities at each level will be so important in determining who has the lead role on particular matters. Some will be national; some will he regional; and some will be extremely local with the involvement of the health protection agency as well. I welcome the creation of that agency, but one wants to be sure that that scoops up all the current activities in the effective way in which the PHLS has operated. So I think that that would be helpful.

1161
One matter that the Minister did not touch on is the funding of public health networks. How will they be funded? Will it be a matter of PCTs effectively chipping in to the pot, or will there be another source of funding?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think that it will be very much a matter of PCTs pooling their budgets together. PCTs are deciding that, in some parts of the public health function, it would be better to work together with a number of other PCTs. It therefore seems eminently appropriate that that should be funded from their own budgets.
Earl Howe: This has been a helpful debate. I thank the Minister for filling in a number of the blank spaces that existed in my mind before we began this discussion. It is not so much a matter of including in the Bill anything relating to public health as of setting out for the National Health Service and those who work in it how these arrangements will work. I am aware that, until very recently, many have been ignorant of how in practice these functions are to be distributed and how accountability will work. However, the Minister has explained, in more detail than we have had to date, how in practice PCTs will take responsibility for their public health function. There has been helpful clarification of the role of public health staff at strategic health authority level and in the regions and the role of the health protection agencies.
The Minister used the word "integrated". Although I am sure that that is what the aim should be, going back to those three headings of the public health—planning, surveillance and delivery of services—I would welcome further clarification of how those functions are to be parcelled out across the tiers of the health service. Perhaps between now and Report the Minister can copy me in on whatever he distributes to Members of the Committee.
Workforce planning is a very difficult exercise in the field of public health, especially in a city such as London. I am aware that the King's Fund report which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will specifically focus on London. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, was absolutely right to draw attention to the wide range of professional expertise to be found in public health, from the very specialised expert to those working in the community. This is certainly not a matter of re-arranging in some simple way the roles and the jobs that are currently being performed. The restructuring will deeply affect the way in which public health is delivered.
I am not clear in my mind what the Chief Medical Officer's role will be in terms of the ultimate accountability for public health. I imagine that, in broad terms, that will remain as it is now. However, if there is any change in substance or in nuance, perhaps the Minister could tell me.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The regional directors of public health will have a performance management responsibility in relation to the strategic health authority public health person, who in turn will performance
1162
manage the primary care trust. The regional public health directors will be managerially accountable for their public health and health protection functions to the Chief Medical Officer as well as to the relevant director of health and social care. So the Chief Medical Officer is at the pinnacle of those levels, and I think that he or she will keep a pivotal role in ensuring that the overall arrangements work effectively.
Earl Howe: I am grateful. I rather deduced that that would be the case from the Minister's earlier remarks. We may see fit to return to this subject at a later stage, but I think that it is now time to move on. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Directions: distribution of functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 51 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 53:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"PROVISION OF SPECIALIST SERVICES
(1) The Secretary of State may not make directions to a Primary Care Trust as to his functions under section 13 of the 1977 Act unless he has made arrangements for the provision of specialist services.
(2) The Secretary of State must consult health professionals who have an interest in the provision of specialist services before making the arrangements referred to in subsection (1) above.
(3) Specialist services for the purposes of this section are those services which are not provided within the territory covered by the Primary Care Trust."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment inserts a new clause after Clause 3 and is designed to ensure that the Secretary of State does not delegate his functions to primary care trusts unless he has made arrangements for the provision of specialist services. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will be required to consult health professionals who have an interest in those specialist services before making the arrangements.
The roots of this amendment lie in concerns that have been expressed not only by many doctors, but, on Second Reading, by the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg and Lord Walton of Detchant. Those concerns centre on whether PCTs will be effective commissioners of tertiary services and other highly specialised services such as neurosurgery, renal dialysis, transplantation cardiac-thoracic services, and many more. The concerns are on several levels. The first is that the new PCTs will simply not be ready for such complex commissioning. The Committee has already debated the readiness of PCTs. Although I for one am not confident that they will be capable of handling the full range of their responsibilities from October 2002, I shall not labour the point in speaking to this amendment.

1163
Secondly, on Second Reading, concerns were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, that specialist services will be "relatively neglected" by PCTs. It is a question not simply of technical readiness for commissioning, but of attitude and orientation. Indeed, I have heard concerns that the acute sector generally could be neglected by PCTs, which have a natural primary care orientation. If there are fears about the acute sector in general, those fears exist in spades for specialist services.
Thirdly, on the first day of consideration in Committee, concerns surfaced about how commissioning will work in practice. The Minister told us that he expected one PCT to take the lead in commissioning within an area covered by strategic health authorities. However, he also said that it might be possible that a PCT would not buy into what he described as the,
"agreed programme for the commissioning of specialist services".
He then said that if a PCT was,
"not prepared to play ball … the strategic health authority would have the opportunity to intervene and bang heads together". [Official Report, 14/03/02; cols. 1024–25.]
It cannot be satisfactory for the commissioning scheme for vital specialist services to depend on the head-banging abilities of strategic health authorities.
I know that some would have been reassured if responsibility for commissioning specialist services were given to strategic health authorities—much as when, in the good old days, regional health authorities were responsible for funding specialist services within their region. However, the Government seem to have an unbending view that they will place responsibility on the least appropriate tier, and then clear up any messes through intervention—or head banging—by the next tier. It is far from self-evident that those arrangements will work effectively.
'The document Shifting the Balance of Power does provide for the continuation during 2002–03 of the existing regional specialised commissioning groups. Will the Minister say what will happen if PCT capacity to take these responsibilities one year hence has not matured sufficiently? Will the Government be prepared to reconsider and keep these regional groups in place?
On our first Committee day last week the Minister said that the Government intended to continue with national specialist commissioning arrangements. Will the Minister say what those arrangements are, and will he say why they could not be extended to provide a more secure commissioning route for a wide range of specialist services?
It would be folly to proceed with the delegation of functions to PCTs if it was not clear beyond peradventure that the commissioning of specialist services would be fully effective. They are vital services and must be protected. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has very succinctly put the case for her amendment, with which I and these Benches wholeheartedly agree.
1164
The Minister will remember that. I expressed fears about the current pattern proposed by the Government for specialist commissioning when we debated a regional health authority proposal versus a strategic health authority proposal. I could tell that the Minister's mantra was coming on when the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, proposed the strategic health authority option, and I am sure that it w ill come on again when I mention the regional: health authority option. The point of devolution, however, is that the service is devolved to the point at which it can be best delivered. There is a considerable fear that these proposed consortia are not the most appropriate way of delivering specialist services.
To remind noble Lords, the Department of Health has recognised 35 treatment areas which are considered as specialist areas, ranging from cancer, to heart disease, to haemophilia, to HIV. They are some of the most serious and important conditions that need to be treated by the health service, and certainly require their own commissioning arrangements. There is no guarantee, however, that the consortia envisaged will have a sufficient number of local PCT members to provide for viable services. This could lead to a new postcode lottery for specialised services—something which the Government dedicated themselves against on coming into office—where the availability of treatment for these serious illnesses is decided not on clinical need but on geographical location.
Shifting the Balance of Power: The Next Steps, which seems to be the Bible for this part of the Bill, sets out how PCTs are expected to commission local services. Despite being billed as the definitive expression of government policy, the document does not contain any mechanism for guaranteeing that local commissioning consortia will have a sufficiently large membership to be viable. This system could lead to substantial disruption in the provision of specialised services, as PCT boards decide that local, relatively low-cost, high-volume services are a greater priority for investment than membership of consortia for high-cost, low-volume treatments.
The Government's response to these concerns has been to commit themselves,
"to maintain service continuity and allow co-ordinated service development",
for specialised services. This policy principle is to be delivered by the proposed system of PCT consortia. Although the health service circular guidance states that PCTs,
"with significant service agreements with the same provider will work together to ensure consistency in the core elements of the service agreements",
and that,
"PCTs will work in consortia to ensure that specialised services continue to be effectively commissioned at StHA and supra StHA levels",
they remain unclear how this will in fact operate on the ground.
The Government have committed themselves to a steady state of funding in 2002–03—whatever that means—with PCTs obliged to honour the service

1165
contracts of their parent local health authorities and regional specialised commissioning groups. Welcome though that is, it does not guarantee an extra year of funding if service agreements expire next year. There is no clear transitional process to cover circumstances where local health authority service agreements run out and existing consortia do not effectively cover specialised commissioning needs.
The existing regional specialised commissioning groups will continue for an extra financial year, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has explained, until April 2003 and,
"will have a specific role in developing PCT capacity to commission specialised services as part of a planned transition to successor arrangements".
The regional commissioning groups, however, will have no power to compel PCTs to join consortia. With a large proportion of PCT chief executives still to be appointed, it is not clear how many PCTs are likely to participate actively in their work.
This is rather a confused picture and it is no wonder that there is cause for concern. Local health authorities, who do have the tradition and personnel with experience of commissioning specialised services, will be replaced under the new arrangements with groups led by general practitioners and others, who may well have little experience or indeed familiarity with the priorities for these treatments. Although some personnel will transfer between the two, there is no guarantee that local health authority funding priorities will be shared by their successor PCTs once existing service agreements expire.
Although the existing consortia have had mixed success in attracting health authorities to their membership, even though local health authorities have a tradition of strategic planning for specialised services, this problem is likely to be exacerbated by devolution to PCTs—who will of course have a fairly steep learning curve—for commissioning across the board. It is likely that, under these conditions, the number of opt-outs from consortia will increase and this could undermine the effectiveness of specialised commissioning agreements.
I have painted a fairly bleak picture and I hope that the Minister will be able to dispel some of that bleakness, but those are the fears that many have about the current arrangements and I look forward to his reply.
Lord Turnberg: The problem that PCTs have in being responsible for commissioning specialist services may not be insurmountable but nevertheless will be a problem. The problem is that, by and large, the number of patients requiring specialist care is fairly small in the population for which they are responsible, of something like 100,000.
It poses particular problems for an individual PCT when there are so many more patients requiring its attention and having more pressing problems. For example, two or three patients with a rare, expensive disease such as haemophilia, moving into a new GP's
1166
practice can cause enormous problems and havoc for its budgeting. Patients needing renal dialysis or transplantation, for example, may be ill served in this system and such services may become threatened in the process.
The proposal that a lead PCT will act for several PCTs may work, but only if each PCT is willing to fund it. I have spoken to one or two non-executive PCT members and they tell me that there is considerable reluctance to fund in this way. I am not yet convinced, therefore, that specialist services should be the responsibility of PCTs, but rather should be the direct responsibility of strategic health authorities. At least there the population of a million or more provides enough patients with specialist services for them to take a particular interest.
Although I am not in favour of these particular amendments, I would look to a separate system for commissioning those services, which I think would be very much welcomed by the PCTs and by the NHS trusts. There may of course be other ways in which we can ensure that these important services are not damaged and are protected. I very much look forward to hearing how the Minister will reassure us on this.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I would like to declare an interest. I would not be here today if I had not been treated in a specialised unit—a spinal unit which was classified as a supra regional unit, that is, going beyond the region. I was very grateful to the Minister, who came down to see one of the spinal units when it was experiencing some difficulties.
What will be the national overview with regard to these specialised units? Will Ministers still be able to be involved? I believe that some of the very complicated neurological conditions must be treated in specialised units. Can and will the patients be able to be sent anywhere in the country for treatment? Sometimes their needs are very unique, and there are but a few specialists dealing with such conditions.
I should like to tell the Committee how important it is to get the correct treatment quickly, and how cost effective it is. I had seen so many disasters in the spinal injury field with people receiving the wrong treatment and suffering from horrific pressure sores that I founded the Spinal Injuries Association. Some years ago, we undertook a survey on pressure sores, which cost the country millions of pounds of extra money that could be avoided. We found that the worst pressure sores arose in the intensive care units of teaching hospitals. That may seem surprising, but, while everything is monitored, the basic skin is forgotten. It is often the basic treatment that is so important. Therefore, the expert doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, and all the ancillary staff, have an important role to play.
I believe that such amendments are very significant. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, because many people throughout the country are worried about these very specialised services. I look forward to hearing his response.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Perhaps I may express my concern over the lack of protection of secondary and tertiary services, as outlined in the Bill at present. The problem is that tertiary services are integrally linked with secondary care services: they cannot be separated. We do not have enough resources to separate tertiary care completely from secondary care. Therefore, within the hospital sector and the specialist sector of the NHS we have the full range of services, of which I should like to give the Committee some specific examples. I should declare an interest here as I am married to a dermatologist. Building on the example of skin, as used by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I should point out that dermatologists function as generalists, but within that service there are also highly specialised fields, such as paediatric dermatology, surgery, viral disease, inflammatory diseases, and occupational dermatology clinics, as well as cancer clinics.
I should also declare an interest as I have just been a patient and been in receipt of Mohs surgery, which, until I was on the receiving end of it, I did not know existed. There are a handful of specialist dermatological surgical centres around the United Kingdom, as well as a few photo-dermatology centres; yet there are general services everywhere. The difficulty with not protecting the whole of the secondary care sector in commissioning is that you may well find that you are simply buying a generalist service, and losing the highly specialised expertise that is required in the process.
I also have a concern that we might return to some of the nightmares that occurred under fund holding. At that time, it was an administrative nightmare to find that some fund holders had contracted for certain services while other fund holders had not done so. Therefore, you would have two patients from different areas under separate GPs who, under the commissioning arrangements, were able to access different parts of services. That inequity was terrible for those functioning in the secondary care or tertiary care service sectors.
My other concern is that there may be a misguided view that primary care trust commissioning will somehow act as a form of rationing and control expenditure in secondary and tertiary care. However, there is evidence to show—although it is anecdotal—that unmet needs are revealed where GPs and those in primary care are better educated about conditions. The result is more appropriate referrals, not fewer referrals. There is a need to ensure that the spectrum from high quality primary care into secondary care and on to tertiary care is protected right the way through, thereby securing the highest standard of care for patients who need it at the time that they need it; in other words, not too late when problems have to be undone. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Northover: When the internal market was first proposed, I remember a high level civil servant from the Department of Health being asked how the new arrangements would ensure that specialist services
1168
would be preserved. She replied that she did not know, and that 15 years would show whether or not they would go to the wall—by which time, of course, it would have been too late. It struck me then, and still does now, that that was a most cavalier approach. Indeed, since the NHS was introduced, specialist services have often sat uneasily in a service that tries to provide everything everywhere and ends up by not doing so. Unless this area of concern is properly addressed in the way outlined, yet again, a civil servant at the Department of Health might, truthfully, be able to say that he or she does not know; and, indeed, such services might well go to the wall.
We all know how important it is to retain specialist units given the huge variation of outcomes according to whether or not people are treated in such units. I was not reassured during the briefing meeting before the Committee stage, which was otherwise most helpful, when the Minister seemed quite unsure as to how decisions would be taken as regards which PCTs would lead in each specialist area. I trust that the Minister will be able to give more concrete guarantees today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The matter of specialist services is one that has always been of great interest to noble Lords, and rightly so. I am the first to accept that it is important not just to patients but also to the NHS—and to the wider issues of teaching and research in this country—that we support our specialist services with the right kind of resources, and the right kind of agreements, in terms of ensuring that there is appropriate patient referral.
I echo a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. My general view on the matter is that part of the approach of getting this right is to recognise the inter-relationship between primary, secondary and tertiary care rather than treating specialist services as an isolated service to be resourced and dealt with in a completely different way from that applied to other services that will be commissioned by PCTs in the future. The care networks under development in a number of important areas involve an integrated approach through from primary to secondary and then to tertiary care. They are very often roughly aligned with the strategic health authority boundaries. I certainly hope that they will provide the sensible approach in terms of commissioning, funding, and the referral of patients that we all seek.
By their very definition, specialist services are those with small patient numbers. Quality can be achieved only by bringing together a critical mass of patients in each specialist centre. Inevitably, relatively few centres will be able to offer treatment, and there will not be a specialist centre in every locality. By concentrating specialist services in a few centres, we hope to achieve the best outcomes, maintain clinical competence, sustain the training of specialist staff, support high-quality research programmes, and ensure that services are cost effective, while making the best use of scarce resources, including expertise, high technology equipment, research and development.

1169
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested earlier, typical specialised services include drug treatments for HIV and AIDS, rare cancer services, children's intensive care services, neuro-surgery, secure mental health services, renal services, and so on. Where those services are for exceptionally rare conditions, and where service provision would otherwise be vulnerable, the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group will be asked to commission the services on behalf of the whole country. I have a list with me of the designated national services in 2001, which includes over 20 services. Again, I shall be very happy to place a copy of this list in the Library of the House for the convenience of noble Lords.
It is important to stress that national commissioning can and should occur only where local solutions are impossible to achieve. That is why under Shifting the Balance of Power, which contains the principles under which the Bill is brought before the Committee, primary care trusts will be responsible for commissioning health services for their local populations. That principle applies also to specialist services.
However, we recognise that where it makes sense to organise services on a larger population base, so those services will be organised on a larger population base. That is why primary care trusts will be expected to work together on a consortium basis to secure specialised services, except for that list of highly specialised services which will continue to be commissioned at national level.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, felt that I was not explicit enough on how a PCT would be selected at local level if it was decided that one PCT would undertake specialist commissioning in relation to one service and another PCT would take on specialist commissioning for another service. I do not believe that I should be explicit, nor that it is my position to be. The point is that this is the kind of arrangement—
Baroness Northover: I thank the Minister for giving way. I was concerned at the briefing meeting about what would happen if no PCT wanted to take a lead in this matter. I would be happy if a PCT wanted to take a lead. That would obviously show an interest and an incentive to do that. However, it seemed to me in the briefing meeting that it was not clear what would happen if no PCT wanted to take a lead.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is where my "banging of heads" comes together. I shall come to that in a moment in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
A number of noble Lords asked about the existing agreements. Perhaps I may state clearly that primary care trusts will be expected to honour existing agreements, financial and otherwise, negotiated by regional specialised commissioning groups and current specialised service commissioners. In future, specialised services will continue to be defined by
1170
reference to the national specialised services definitions set. I shall place that information alongside the designated services information in the Library.
In the financial year 2002–03, regional specialised commissioning groups, which will continue in existence for the moment, will have a specific role in developing primary care trust capacity to commission specialised services as part of a planned transition to successor arrangements. We are retaining for the moment the regional specialised commissioning groups to ensure that their capacity and skills can be handed over to primary care trusts as part of a planned transitional arrangement. Although continually in our debate today doubt has been passed on both the capacity and willingness of PCTs to take up that challenge, that is not my experience. From speaking to many primary care trusts, I know that work is already taking place in terms of deciding which PCT will take on a particular role on behalf of other PCTs in developing the specification and in the commissioning of such specialist services.
We expect primary care trusts to work together to ensure that specialised services will be effectively commissioned. If appropriate, that might cover the population size of the strategic health authority or involve going across one strategic health authority boundary to another. I understand the concerns being expressed. I can assure noble Lords that it will not be a question of a haphazard approach with some primary care trusts clubbing together and others staying out. We shall expect primary care trusts to form consortia to take collective decisions about the commissioning of specialist services, and that consortia decisions will be binding on all parties.
My noble friend Lord Turnberg spoke of non-executives who said, "We are not really interested in funding specialist services". However, the reality is that the whole structure we are putting into place will not work if that "head in the sand" approach is taken. Seventy-five per cent of the budget of the National Health Service will be at PCT level. The quid pro quo of that kind of resource being devolved to that level is for primary care trusts to accept that they have a wider responsibility than simply their own primary care trust.
In our debate last Thursday, I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that if ultimately a particular primary care trust refused to go into such a consortium arrangement—I do not expect that to happen—I would expect the strategic health authority to call it to order. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that her doubts about the effectiveness of banging heads surprised me. Her reputation in the department as a most effective banger of heads is still as strong as ever within the walls of Richmond House. Surely, the new leadership skill of the strategic health authorities is not to second-guess primary care trusts nor to attempt to micro-manage, but to have an ability to intervene where necessary if there is a problem.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that I am well aware of the issues concerning spinal injury units. Indeed, I would regard the well-being of such units as a test of the new commissioning

1171
arrangements in two ways. First, it is to show that PCTs have the ability to commission such specialist services. Secondly, I took the point she made about patients who may have been cared for in such units being further treated in local general hospitals where their specialist needs may not be fully understood. One of the great advantages of primary care trusts is that they can leverage pressure at local level on those district general hospitals.
I have spoken at some length. I am confident that the new arrangements can work effectively. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Turnberg that to top-slice specialist service commissioning at strategic health authority level is a good thing. I believe that it detracts from both the competence and authority of primary care trusts. I believe that the arrangements I have described with the performance management role of strategic health authorities is the best way to get us through this issue.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that response. Indeed, I thank all other noble Lords for taking part in the debate on the amendment. I hear the Minister explain how this will work in practice, but we keep coming back to the fact that he has one view of the world—that is, that there will be PCTs which will do these things and strategic health authorities which will do certain things, largely called "performance management"—and that he seems unwilling to accept that there may be better ways to do things at different levels. He said, for example, that where it would make sense to organise commissioning on a larger population base than for PCTs, the answer—which most of us would think logical—would be to say, "Let's do it at the strategic health authority level or with a group of strategic health authorities, if necessary"—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. That was not quite what I said. The responsibility would still be with primary care trusts, but the specialist commissioning might go across strategic health authority boundaries and therefore engage a wider group of primary care trusts.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that. I was aware of it. The point was that if the noble Lord was saying that commissioning should be done on the basis of a larger population area the logical answer is to say that several PCTs should do it. The logical answer is to ask whether there is another tier in the service that more naturally can fit with the commissioning need. Yes, there happens to be another layer called the strategic health authority. So it is logical. The Minister starts from the proposition that everything must be put down to PCTs and then be lifted back up again. Some of us see the matter as being much more logical, secure and safer in terms of commissioning coherence and robustness if it was not pushed down and then brought up but was left at a higher level.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: Will the noble Baroness agree with me that we are now in the second of two debates where we get these rather precarious organisations. We have this consortium of PCTs in the case of commissioning and with regard to public health we have these rather amorphous public health networks. It seems to me that we are building rather a lot of responsibility into organisations which are highly precarious.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Could I—
Baroness Noakes: I completely agree, but the Minister may want to say more than that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is why I rose, to try to deal with the issue before the noble Baroness felt that she had to respond. The point is that as dedicated de-centralisers the Government are investing a great deal of faith in primary care trusts. I make no apology whatever for that. Of course there are some areas where commissioning needs to go wider than primary care trusts. I agree with the noble Baroness that we could have taken a different approach. We could have said to strategic health authorities, "You do all the difficult things. Top-slice the money and leave primary care trusts with the routine stuff". But that would have detracted from what we are really trying to do, which is to get decision making down to the primary care level. If one goes down the Government's route, you do—
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I express a grave concern. The Minister has expressed that he has great faith. I would call for evidence to support the changes, and evidence that patients' care will not be jeopardised. I have a real concern that while the changes go through—we know that it takes two years for organisations to bed down and find new ways of working —there will be ill patients who miss out on the services they need. There will be arguments between who is commissioning what. In the process of that, services will be destabilised. Destabilised services do not function well.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The evidence that I would pray in aid is: first, I have already described how the current regional specialised commission arrangements will hold for another year while the regional specialised groups work with primary care trusts to ensure that in the future they have the capacity to undertake specialised commissioning.
Secondly, we are working already with primary care trusts which have been in existence for some time. The evidence I have to hand is that they have worked very well indeed. They have delivered improvement to patients. They have not led to huge gaps, risks or failures to commission certain services. In Fact, they have shown that it is perfectly possible to deliver and commission services at the primary care level while at the same time recognising that they are part of a fully

1173
integrated national system. It is that balance that gives me a great deal of confidence that primary care trusts will rise to the challenge being set for them.
Baroness Noakes: That, while an admirable expression of faith in whether or not the system will work, is not much more than that. It does not constitute evidence that the system will work. Most Members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate have raised concerns about whether or not these arrangements will work in practice; whether all the PCTs will be ready, able and/or willing to participate in specialised services commissioning, as the noble Lord wishes they would; and whether within a strategic health authority area they will agree on the same things—such as whether there will be effective commissioning or whether there will be a lot of dispute. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, we really cannot wait until the specialised services have fallen apart to say whether or not this approach is right.
The hour moves on. We have had a good exchange. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I think that this subject will not go away. We shall reflect carefully on what the noble Lord has said. We look forward to the items that he will table for us to read in the Library. I anticipate that we may well return to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume. Perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage be resumed not before 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
7.35 p.m.
Lord Lairdrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the activities of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise a topic in your Lordships' House, which is of great interest to many in Northern Ireland, and which is an important part of understanding the complex picture of the Province today. The issue is the vital one of human rights and, in particular, the activities since the formation of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
At the outset I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who is widely respected in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. He is currently travelling so much to the Province that I believe that he may be in line for
1174
support from the tourist board. None of my remarks reflect on him. Since June of last year, I know that he has taken an interest in this topic.
I should like to think that those who know me accept that I hate criticism for its own sake, rather I look to the best in most things and peoples and am dedicated to the concept of positive thinking. As an Ulster unionist, I feel that over the past four years I have exhausted all my abilities in that direction and am forced to move to the area of attack and outright criticism. I take no pleasure in that task.
Much has been made of the Secretary of State's warning that Ulster has become a cold house for unionists. So tonight we shall examine one of the central factors that has contributed to the chill felt by unionists.
The concept of a Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the consideration of all issues against human rights requirements and the possibility of a Bill of Rights specifically for Northern Ireland was welcomed by all on the unionist side. But the applause soon faded away when the reality of what had been created became clear.
The right honourable Mo Mowlam's contribution to events in Northern Ireland will be the subject of much debate by future historians. Those of us who have to live with the reality have made our own judgment. To be kind to the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I would explain her appointment of the members of the commission initially as being clearly designed to appease Sinn Fein. As a body required to reflect the community balance as laid down in the Belfast agreement and promised by the right honourable Paul Murphy in another place, it failed from day one.
The community balance was just not there. Where, for example, were the representatives of the evangelical community or the Ulster Scots community, each with a substantial section of the population? Indeed, who was appointed to represent the 25 per cent of the community who rejected the Belfast agreement? It was even worse than that. The republican representatives appointed were robust in nature, most were linked to the so-called Committee on the Administration of Justice, and, in several cases, had a very suspect record of human rights activities.
In the appointment process well-known figures from the unionist community with excellent human rights credentials were not even considered. In a glaring oversight, a former Queen's University law lecturer in European human rights and author of a work on the topic did not even get an interview.
From day one the commission was off to a bad start. Then things got worse. I want to underline that there are many honest and decent people who are members of the commission and who have done, and continue to do, their best as they see it. However, my concern relates to the republican cabal that proceeded to consider the commission as its vehicle into power and to operate as it wished. During the following few years,

1175
an ongoing chapter of events positioned the commission as having, crudely and openly, a one-sided agenda.
I reject out of hand the concept that human rights apply only to republicans and nationalists and not in equal measure to unionists and others. The qualification for human rights is to be human, not Irish republican. In evidence of the attitudes of the chief commissioner, Professor Brice Dickson, I shall cite from Human Rights Law and Practice, the general editor of which is the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Professor Dickson said in 1999 that the commission's role includes,
"convincing people, especially those perhaps of a unionist disposition that human rights are for all, not just for one particular community".
There we have a candid insight into the non-unionist thinking of the chief commissioner from the start.
I can list many problems with the commission and its work, but I shall point only to a few tonight. First, there is the highlighting of areas of interest to republicans, almost ignoring the rest. Worse is misrepresenting the position of official bodies—for example, suggesting that the police used plastic baton rounds for crowd control and not just for the preservation of life. Another is funding the challenge to Belfast City Council over the possible reduction of resources for a nationalist parade, yet failing to support the families of the Omagh bomb victims.
One of the largest abuses of human rights, which I have raised in the House before, is the enforced relocation of populations. A year ago, I supplied a detailed file on the enforced movement of 250,000 unionist people from towns all over the province. That controversial issue has to my view been ignored. Why?
The extra powers sought by the commission are excessive and unwarranted. They include the power to,
"enter and search premises",
and to require people,
"to attend before the Commission to answer fully and truthfully any question put to him or her by the Commission".
The SS would have been proud of such powers.
The most evident example of the commission's hunger for power is its manipulation of the Belfast agreement. It has disregarded the Secretary of State's request for advice on the scope for devising a Bill of Rights specific to Northern Ireland. Instead, it has actually drafted a form of Bill of Rights. The consultation period for that draft Bill was only three months. First, we were informed that ideas could be added to the draft but that none could be taken out. Worse, the contents were clearly directed to aid republicans—and, in my view, those involved in terrorism. The commission spent public money on areas of activity not required of it by legislation.
Even the groups that it constructed and then consulted on areas of interest for the draft Bill were clearly weighted to the non-unionist advantage and so subject to considerable controversy. The outside groups listed in the commission's document, entitled Making a Bill of Rights and published on 4th September 2001, demonstrate a clear lack of
1176
unionist input. In several cases, I have identified organisations on the list that have not made submissions. What credibility has that document?
If we should expect one feature of a human rights body, it is openness. Perhaps that is one of the commission's greatest failings. Against a background of open hostility from the unionist community, the commission has seemed to go about its business in as much dark as possible. The only way to obtain so much information about its activities is that I and others drag it out line by line in parliamentary Answers. I resent having to do that; it is a waste of my time and of public money and makes it look as if I have a vendetta. As far as I can see, that is the only route by which the commission is held to account.
When a review of the working of the commission was due after three years, what did it do? It refused to accept £25,000 from Her Majesty's Government, so that it could run its own review by picking its own investigator, creating its own terms of reference and even supplying the investigator with a list of "suitable" organisations to contact for opinions. The investigator, Mr Peter Hosking—a man of outstanding reputation, I have no doubt—has been uncontactable by e-mail to allow the input of critical views.
If another organisation—let us say the police, for example—had organised an inquiry into its own workings and picked the judge, the jury and the witnesses, the first organisation to explode in anger would be the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Is not sauce for the goose sauce for the gander?
Having outlined only a flavour of the discontent felt by many groups in Northern Ireland, not just unionists, perhaps I may suggest what may be the only way out of the problem. First, a full, impartial investigation into the running and procedure of the commission is vital. The main area to be addressed is openness. A code of conduct on the timescale for reply to letters must be introduced. Monitoring of all considerations with equal balance must take place. All information must be available as soon as possible on the Internet. That includes minutes and correspondence that is not private.
The terms and conditions of the consultation process, the supply of money to individuals and the selection of working parties must be reviewed and made available to all. The commission must be asked to stick to its remit without excesses. I acknowledge that the letter from the Minister of State to the commission of 22nd November 2001 goes much of that distance.
Unless the commission is publicly brought into line, the aim of some republicans of making their Bill of Rights a vital part of the peace process—not open to change, like Patten—may be achieved. We want a commission that is not out of control. Added to its membership must be those who would redress the balance and allow the commission to become that which was promised in the Belfast agreement—a balance of the total community—and so become part of the solution, not part of the problem.

1177
Failure to act will ensure that the cold house for unionists outlined by the Secretary of State will maintain indeed a frosty climate.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it is not often these days that I venture to participate in debates about Northern Ireland. That does not reflect any diminution in my interest nor in my regard for the people of Northern Ireland. It is simply a recognition of the fact that I have fewer opportunities to inform myself. My reasons for speaking today are twofold. First, my noble friend Lord Dubs, who was anxious to participate, is unable to be here. He asked me to convey his apologies and, in effect, to be his messenger—particularly as, as it transpired, his views and mine are very much in accord.
My second reason for speaking is that I have had some discussion with the commission on the possible content of a Bill of Rights, although I hasten to add that my contribution was minimal. To that extent, I declare an interest, but my interest is essentially in peace and justice in Northern Ireland.
I listened with care to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Laird. I regret that we do not have more time to examine some of the detail in his speech. I have noted the Questions that he has asked in recent months, but in the brief time available today, I should like to clarify what I believe to be a misconception that is fundamental to what he said. I hope that I have established my credentials as a friend of both the noble Lord and Northern Ireland, and that he will forgive me.
There are two possible approaches to democracy. One is to say that the voice of the people is the final arbiter on all issues and that the voice of the people is ascertained by counting votes. The alternative is to say that majorities may sometimes be wrong—in particular, they may sometimes be unfair to minorities or individuals—and that there should be some machinery to adjudicate between them. That may consist of giving the majority—I mean the majority on any specific issue, not a permanent majority—an opportunity to think again. It may provide scrutiny of detail in order to expose the impact of a particular provision on an individual or group. It may go further to provide that a specific right should be entrenched or subjected to a process of conditional validation, so that no one has power to infringe that right.
Those two approaches go back far into history. They have been debated since Socrates said, "The majority has voted that I shall die; therefore, I shall remain in the city and drink the hemlock". I believe that Socrates was wrong and that he would have served posterity better by upholding the principle of free speech and declaring that the right to free speech did not depend on the counting of heads, just as the rights to due process of law, equality of esteem and humane treatment in places of detention do not depend on the counting of heads and should not be left starkly to electoral politics.
1178
The concept of human rights is a contribution to that debate. It seeks to provide a filter between the vote of the majority—the product of the electoral process—and those who are exposed to what has been decided. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said, the rights are for all, irrespective of beliefs or traditions. The concept consists in trying to secure agreement on certain general principles, so that when a specific question arises, emotions run high and the argument becomes an argument ad hominem, so that it becomes a dispute between their side and our side, there must be general guidelines that have already been agreed and which can protect us from ill considered and, sometimes, Pavlovian reactions.
As I understand it, those who concluded the peace agreement had those considerations in mind when they provided for a human rights commission. I believe that they were wise and that the whole of the United Kingdom may draw on that experience when, at some time in the future, we must consider whether to follow the precedent. Of course, the winning of confidence depends largely on the wisdom and judgment of those who are chosen as commissioners and officials. I may be prejudiced. A number of them I regard as friends, including the chairman, Professor Brice Dickson. They are trying to exercise their remit fairly and sensibly. They would do more if they had access to greater resources, but their annual reports provide ample evidence of a serious and thoughtful approach. They have a difficult remit. In their annual reports, they have included recommendations designed to encourage a balance in appointments and the independence of those who are appointed. That is not an issue; they want those things too.
In passing, I pay tribute to British-Irish Rights Watch, which can supplement the functions of the commission, as its remit is not restricted by statute. It has monitored the human rights dimension with commendable objectivity and has shown equal concern for Billy Wright and Patrick Finucane. I hope that in the future we will continue to see mutual co-operation and respect between statutory bodies and NGOs.
The commission represents an attempt to remove certain fundamental principles from electoral politics. The purpose was to help bring confidence and, with it, peace, justice and reconciliation to Northern Ireland. I suspect that that process would be set back, if the commission and its work, so far from being protected from electoral politics, are dragged into electoral politics. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Laird, will reflect further on what, I am sure, is his ultimate objective, as it is mine.
7.54 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the only human rights commission project of which I have knowledge is the proposed Bill of Rights. I understand, however, from the commission that it has established a victims' rights project and a committee for victims and closely examined the possibility of taking further legal action on behalf of families who feel that the killing of their loved ones has

1179
not been thoroughly investigated. I do not know whether it also intends to require the IRA to investigate the murder of Jean McConville, whose body is still missing.
I also know that, according to the evidence that the commission gave to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs last year, it had not, until then, conducted any research into the extent of paramilitary intimidation, especially the permanent exile, on pain of death, of whole families. Nor had it, according to its own testimony, compiled information on the steps being taken by government and law enforcement agencies to eliminate the activity, or the measures adopted by government and public bodies to assist the victims of such intimidation. It had met the Maranatha community to learn more but felt that it had no authority to grant practical assistance to individual victims of intimidation other than to help with court proceedings they might wish to pursue.
The draft Bill of Rights speaks of victims of the conflict. With the exception of one reference in chapter 6, citing some submissions highlighting concerns about the protection and safety of individuals' physical well-being, home and neighbourhood, there is no explicit reference to the greatest single current abuse of human rights, which has continued unabated and indeed enhanced ever since the Belfast agreement, namely, the merciless oppression of their own communities by the paramilitaries. It is simply not mentioned. The Bill of Rights sees the state as the only threat and speaks repeatedly of the tragedies of the past and of the need for,
"an independent and public process with international involvement for dealing with the past".
The commission is concerned to preserve the Irish and Ulster Scots languages—that is good—sign language and the language of travellers. It wants to abolish the Diplock courts and believes that the improved political and legal circumstances in Northern Ireland now negate the justification for non-jury trial. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, does not share that opinion. Nearly the whole of the section on criminal justice is aimed at curbing the powers of state, which is the target of most of the proposals. The state is a villain, seen throughout as the potential oppressor and source of violence. The commission is concerned with the right of prisoners, once released, to have as much right to enter society as a law-abiding citizen. That is very proper, but, in Northern Ireland, the hidden agenda is to ensure that they may serve in the new community police units, representing those worthy citizens.
In the section on the rights of children and women, there is no word of the real source of violence, the threat from the paramilitaries. The Government have consistently refused to recognise that many of the citizens of Northern Ireland, since the signing of the Belfast agreement, have been living under the heel of the paramilitaries. The then Secretary of State spoke of,
"an acceptable level of violence"
and said:
"the peace we have now is imperfect, but better than none".
1180
Would it be acceptable on the mainland? No. Would it be tolerated here as a price worth paying if it were a case of racist violence? No. The Government, despite the explicit assurances that there would be no more violence, given by the Prime Minister when the agreement was signed, are determined to do nothing to inhibit the so-called peace process, which allows the political representatives of the paramilitaries to sit at Stormont, allegedly involved in the democratic process while the paramilitaries remain in sole control of their unfortunate communities. Having destroyed an effective police service, they now refuse to recognise the new one, which wholly conforms to the requirement of 50:50 composition. They never intended to cede control of their communities to any legal force. The complete control that Sinn Fein, at least, exercises over its paramilitaries was twice demonstrated when they turned off the tap of violence completely when they wished to do so.
I find the priorities of the commission, in the light of the daily violence and the growing desperation and despair of the people, difficult to understand. Of course, I respect the members of the commission, but it is still extremely difficult. Many—not all—of the commission's priorities would certainly coincide with those of Sinn Fein/IRA, which wisely encouraged sympathisers to join many of the new bodies created following the Belfast agreement. That was wise, and it was their right. Their agenda, however, is, naturally, to diminish the power of the state and to advance their own green agenda. Sinn Fein/IRA, with its Marxist roots, is naturally entryist and foresaw the value of infiltration and control. It saw that power would lie with the new institutions and focus groups, many of which are lavishly funded by the EU. In some, they have quietly taken control and, at the same time, demonstrated their democratic credentials.
Unfortunately, serious recommendations such as those in Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's major report on victims have been ignored by the Government. He advocated the appointment of a victims commissioner: none was appointed. A Minister for Victims is no substitute, as the Government are determined to see no evil and hear no evil, and is part of the problem. The Government will not recognise that neither participation in power in the Assembly by political leaders nor restorative justice schemes, which are often infiltrated by the paramilitaries who wish to encourage and control any alternative to formal justice, have in any way reduced the brutal punishment and killings of young people or exilings. The guns have not been silenced, and, in the past two years, assaults have increased.
Kenneth Bloomfield also argued strongly for a senior public servant to be responsible for championing victims, co-ordinating the relevant public expenditure and enforcing the need for an understanding approach by public agencies. It is only too clear that the various agencies, from NIACRO and Victim Support to the social security agency, the compensation agency and the housing executive, do not treat the innocent victims of paramilitary violence, often political, as people in a special category needing

1181
special care and understanding. There appears to be no central machinery to co-ordinate their actions and their approach. The agencies either minimise the problem or remain indifferent to it, or think the victims must have done something to deserve it. Conversely, the victims are too terrified to seek help from any state-sponsored institution, especially the police, for fear of retribution by the paramilitaries.
I urge the commission to make it a priority to get the Government and the Assembly to co-ordinate the state-funded bodies and require of them an active and immediate plan to tackle the needs of the victims, not of the state but of the paramilitaries. I would hope to see it urging the Government to require the political parties to take immediate action to end the violence, as it is in its power to do. Next, I would hope it would call the Government to account on the total absence of coordinated support for exiles in the UK and the lack of any focal point to which the lost and frightened may turn. Finally, I urge the commission to implement the recommendations for action made to it by the Maranatha Community over a year ago.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Laird on securing this important debate. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was created as a result of the Belfast agreement. As such, the Ulster Unionist Party supported its establishment. Indeed, I believe that unionists in general shared with me high hopes and expectations for it. Up to the present point, however, I regret to inform your Lordships that those hopes have not been fulfilled.
The first major challenge for the commission was that posed by the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and, in particular, the so-called 50:50 recruitment policy contained therein. Shamefully, the commission took the decision to support this measure which, in effect, legalised religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. I simply ask the question: since when was the ability to discriminate against an individual on the grounds of their religion a fundamental human right?
Next for the commission was its draft Bill of Rights. Under the terms of the Belfast agreement, it was,
"invited to consult and to advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland".
Bearing in mind that the draft Bill was to include only rights "supplementary" to the European convention, why on earth did the commission include in it voting rights, rights for the disabled and rights for women? Did it even read the European Convention on Human Rights? If it had done so, of course it would have seen that those rights are already there.
Also on the subject of the draft Bill of Rights, the commission made great play out of the fact that it had attempted to draw on the South African experience. However, the South African Charter of Rights took six long years to put together with the aid of some of the
1182
best legal minds in that country. Yet the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission felt able to cobble together its version in a matter of months, obviously fearful that most of its members were not to be reappointed for a further term; a fear which in the end did not transpire.
I must tell noble Lords that I was completely opposed to the decision to reappoint the original commissioners en bloc. However, in addition to the reappointments, the Government also took the step of appointing another four commissioners. Your Lordships might not be aware that one of those who applied was my noble friend, and colleague of your Lordships, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass.
I am told—I am sure that noble Lords will have no difficulty in believing me—that my noble friend Lord Maginnis performed admirably, indeed, if I can spare his blushes, perhaps brilliantly at his interview for the position. However, despite his vast experience and the high regard in which he is held across both traditions in both Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, he was not successful. Why was that? I suggest that it is generally known that the Northern Ireland Office effectively blackballed his appointment as it believed that it would have been deemed "offensive" to Catholics. That episode simply reinforces the current impression across the Province that proper human rights now appear to be considered important for only one tradition that resides there.
Finally, I have serious difficulties with the huge amount of public money being wasted by the commission on what I would regard as self-promoting and, indeed, vain activities. Just over two weeks ago, for example, the commission sent a weighty and detailed document to all Members in another place. The document centred on a number of suggested amendments for Members to table on Report. Unfortunately, the document arrived too late for those amendments to be tabled. In other words, the exercise was a complete waste of time and, more importantly, of taxpayers' money.
Then this morning I received a glossy background briefing pack which I understand has been sent to each noble Lord. Given that we have a list of only seven speakers this evening in what is a one-hour debate, can that really be regarded as a proper use of public funds? Further, the detail enclosed in the pack had obviously been put together to put the best possible slant on the work of the commission. To use a term which has become popular with the media in modern times, it was nothing more than a "spin exercise".
I have to confess that I am no fan of Professor Brice Dickson. However, I will give him credit for one thing: he is able to manipulate reality in a manner that even our Prime Minister would be proud of.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, this brief debate has, I am afraid, moved along the usual lines when we debate Northern Ireland matters. There is not too much redress from people who hold a different opinion from that of the noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Rogan.

1183
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Laird, began with a scatter-gun approach which in a sense was altogether disproportionate and lacking in balance. Had he focused his criticisms of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission rather more narrowly, and prioritised them, one might have been able to grasp more than the general drift of his views.
Perhaps I may say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, gave a very considered speech which demonstrated a great understanding of human rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, spoke of a hidden agenda and, again, we heard more a general criticism of government action or inaction rather than a focus on the human rights commission in particular.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, wondered why the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, had not been successful. I should have thought that anyone who had recently been a Member of Parliament would rather have blurred the boundary referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer; that is, that on the one hand in safeguarding democracy elections are held, while on the other hand agencies are in place to ensure that the elected democracy attends to the interests of minorities at any one time.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, went on to complain that in its recent publication, the human rights commission had put forward the best possible slant on its work. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Laird, as a distinguished practitioner in public relations would advise a client to put the worst foot forward.
The human rights commission plays a vital role in a very difficult milieu. It is under-resourced to take on all the tasks with which it has been charged, and the nearly 60 Questions about it tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, have drained limited resources. If a civil servant rather than the staff of the human rights commission had had to prepare the Answers, the Government would have said that his Questions were disproportionate in terms of cost and would have sought to reduce them. The Government should do more to protect such an important agency in this way.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said, the human rights commission is without precedent in the United Kingdom. As we develop our culture of rights throughout the United Kingdom, it will provide a valuable pilot study when the other three nations of the kingdom move along this path. It is learning as it goes and it is doing its very best in the circumstances. It is terribly easy to criticise an agency in its formative year or two—and, as I said, it has a very wide remit.
I declare an interest in that I employed Professor Brice Dickson when I was vice-chancellor of the University of Ulster. He was a distinguished colleague and I can say without contradiction that he is a man of extraordinary integrity. He is fighting a very lonely battle against a historical context which has required this kind of agency to be created in order to produce a fairer and more democratic society.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I agree with the substance of much of what has been said by noble Lords today, but
1184
would not the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, be prepared to say that it is better for the human rights commission to have an open agenda where people can receive information about it, rather than to have to drag information out of it line by line in Parliamentary Questions? Does he agree that it is important that the human rights commission should look after both sections of the community, not one?
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I believe that it should look after both sections of the community and those citizens who are members of neither. I also believe that it should work with openness. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, would have been better advised first to approach the commission with his questions rather than to ask formal Parliamentary Questions. That is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It would have been more appropriate to approach the commission in the first instance and, if he was unhappy, then to ask Parliamentary Questions.
I am not despairing about the work of the commission. It is one of the many agencies which is still finding its way in Northern Ireland. We could have a debate about all kinds of shortfalls in terms of the pure canons of democracy in Northern Ireland, but there is no particular merit in singling out the human rights commission at this stage.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for introducing the debate and all noble Lords who have contributed to it.
The Conservative Party has opposed the 1998 Act since it was first introduced into Parliament. We do not believe that the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights is the best way to protect British citizens. We believe that Parliament rather than unelected judges are best placed to protect our rights and that the Human Rights Act will drag the judiciary into the political arena. Having said that, we recognise that human rights and equality lie at the heart of the Good Friday agreement. We should be concerned to ensure that that is where they stay.
It is a pity that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission started life in the way it did. It was not unlike another organisation which was in a parallel situation. I do not need to name the organisation; we all know what I am talking about—a brilliant academic in charge but consisting of a group of people less than ideally suited to do an immensely difficult task who were chosen by someone similar to that description.
We very much welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government have now acknowledged some shortcomings and that they have altered to some extent its constitution and those people who serve on the commission. I am not certain that it was wise to completely reappoint the whole commission. I am not here to knock the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, even though I may sound as if I am doing so, but it is impossible to argue against the fact that it has received a serious amount of criticism.

1185
The commission has brought some of that criticism upon its own head because of the tactless and insensitive way in which it has set out to do its job. For example, it has not shied away from controversial issues. It tried to prevent the BBC "Panorama" programme about Omagh; told unionists that they had no absolute right to parade; unsuccessfully tried to intervene in judicial proceedings; criticised the Northern Ireland schools transfer system for breaching human rights; called on the Police Service of Northern Ireland to stop using plastic bullets; and claimed that British security forces colluded with loyalist paramilitaries to murder Belfast lawyer, Pat Finucane. What a wonderful way to make itself popular and win the confidence of the people. Would I set about it that way? I would not. All of its jobs needed to be done, but what an unfortunate way to go about it.
Let me turn now to the question of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's Bill of Rights. Sadly, coming from a number of eminent people, this should have been a serious work. It should have taken a considerable amount of time to produce because, however brilliant you are, you cannot put together a Bill of Human Rights in a short space of time. However, I welcome the fact that an extension to the consultation period has been agreed and that we now have until December 2002.
It is useful to have these debates. Most noble Lords in the Chamber know the facts fairly well. I hope and believe that Her Majesty's Government know them equally well and realise how important it is to correct a number of matters.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a few questions. Do Her Majesty's Government propose to legislate fora Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland in the near future? If so, do they see a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland as being different from one for England and Wales? Or do they believe—as I hope they do—that a Bill of Rights should incorporate all parts of the United Kingdom? If there were to be a Bill for Northern Ireland, what part would Her Majesty's Government see the Government of the Republic playing in drafting a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland?
Finally, do Her Majesty's Government consider that those who constitute the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission are the right people to draw tip a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland?
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I believe I heard him criticise the human rights commission for declaring that loyalists had no absolute right to march. In the noble Lord's view, does anyone have an absolute right to march?
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. I agree that nobody has an absolute right to march. The point I was making was that it was a tactless, unnecessary and provocative statement at the time.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss these matters. I want to make it quite plain that the human rights commission in Northern Ireland is an independent body. It is not subject to approval or disapproval by me, nor to any control by any of my colleagues. That is the key to it. After all, what was the Belfast agreement about? In paragraph 5 on human rights there was an undertaking that a new commission would be set up to include keeping under review the adequacy and effectiveness of laws and practices, making recommendations to government as necessary, providing information and promoting awareness of human rights, considering draft legislation referred to it by the new Assembly and in appropriate cases bringing court proceedings or providing assistance to individuals doing so. As noble Lords have said, that was put into effect in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by virtue of Section 68 and following and Schedule 7 to that Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me whether the Government intend to legislate to bring a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland into effect. I make it quite plain that we shall not make any policy decision on that until advice is received from the commission and we have considered it with great care. There is one matter which needs clarification. The draft Bill of Rights in the consultative document is exactly that. It seems to me to be a tenable stance that if one wants consultation about a Bill of Rights it is very difficult to do that in the abstract. I may be wrong, but as I understand it, what the commission has done is to put out for full consultation a draft model which might serve as the basis for discussion. It seems to me, whether one agrees with the draft or not, that is a rational and prudent way of approaching this problem.
It was said that a background briefing had been sent out and that is so. I received one myself. I glanced through some of the correspondence. On 16th August 2001, Professor Dickson wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, saying,
"Could I please remind you of my letter of 4 May 2001. I offered an invitation at the end of that letter to which I have not yet received a reply".
Following through the correspondence, on 24th October 2001, Professor Dickson wrote again to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, saying what they had been doing. A number of questions were raised this evening about what support had been given to various victims. If one casts an eye quite briefly—I know that my time is limited—at that letter, it states that the commission,
"helped the relatives of the Omagh bomb in the following ways:"
I am having to be selective and I will go to some highlights:
"providing advice, at a specially organised meeting in Omagh, on what rights the relatives would have at the inquest … by advising HM Coroner that it was consistent with international human rights standards for him to make available to the relatives in advance of the inquest information supplied to the police about the killings".

1187
That is quite an important step forward from what relatives normally have, or used to have, before the rules were changed in coroners' courts in England and Wales. The letter continues,
"by applying to intervene in the inquest to make known the Commission's views on what the scope of the inquest should be … by applying for judicial review"—
this was mentioned—
"to stop the BBC from broadcasting … Panorama in which the Commission (and some-but not all-of the relatives) felt individuals were being improperly tried by the media rather than by a court of law; … considering whether to grant assistance for a civil action in relation to the atrocity".
That is something which is very much alive at the moment. The commission said,
"(a step we have not been able to take given our limited resources)".
That does not display to me an indifference towards the suffering of victims.
There were other steps. I stress that I have been selective, but not unfairly so, by way of assistance. It seems to me that if these letters are accurate—I see no counter to any of these assertions in any of the correspondence that is capable of disputing some of the allegations made this evening: but it is a matter for others to judge, not me, because it is an independent commission.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have not received that document. I took very great care to quote from the one letter which I had from Professor Dickson. I simply want to make that clear.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not dispute that for one moment. I stress again that these are letters sent to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, not to the noble Baroness. But in the question to which the noble Baroness rightly returns on these occasions, she deals with those who have been expelled. Other noble Lords said in a sense, I believe, that the commission ought to be even-handed. I could not agree more with what the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said. Human rights are not only for republicans and nationalists.
The letter of 24th October last year condemned the murder of Rosemary Nelson by the Red Hand Commandos. It called for a judicial inquiry into the murder of Mr Finucane, it is said, by loyalist paramilitaries. The commission investigated the circumstances surrounding the murder of Billy Wright by members of the Irish National Liberation Army.
I refer in particular to the questions put by the noble Baroness. The commission had been,
"meeting with a large number of victims' groups in Northern Ireland and discussing with them what more can be done through legal channels to ensure, for example, that the investigation of relevant killings has been thorough, that the proper level of compensation has been paid and that appropriate recognition has been given to the great hurt suffered by the relatives of persons killed by republican and loyalist paramilitaries; by holding meet ings"—
which is more to the noble Baroness's point—
"for representatives of voluntary and community organisations, and of local political parties, on the phenomenon of "punishment" attacks; by discussing with a number of people from within and
1188
without Northern Ireland how best to acknowledge the victimhood of those who have suffered at the hands of republican and loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland".
I shall continue with just a sentence or two from some of the rest of the correspondence. There is a letter dated 3rd January 2002. The allegation has been made that the commission was secretive and unwilling to share with members of the public any appropriate information. The letter is from Professor Dickson to the noble Lord, Lord Laird. It says that,
"you might find it quicker to contact us directly if you require information. We will endeavour to respond as fully and as speedily as possible in all cases".
That is rather than the device, which the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to use, of Parliamentary Questions waiting for Written Answers, which have to go through the Northern Ireland Office.
There is also the letter of 7th March, which is almost bang up to date. Professor Dickson writes to the noble Lord, Lord Laird:
"Finally, could I please once again extend to you a cordial invitation to visit the Commission to see at first hand the work that it conducts? I would be happy to buy you lunch on that occasion".
Those are the documents that I have looked at as an outsider with no responsibility for the commission. It does not seem to me, as a fair reading of those letters, undisputed as they stand in my hand, that some of the criticisms can be made out.
Of course, all organisations say that their budgets are too small. The baseline funding was set at £750,000. This year the funding has been over £1.3 million.
Perhaps I ought to turn to the membership because there has been criticism. I am not making comment, but reciting what I believe to be fact. It is alleged that it is a hopelessly partisan body. The new members were Lady Eames, the wife of our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Eames, the Primate, and outgoing president of the Mothers' Union; Dr Christopher McGimpsey, UUP councillor, with wide-ranging business and community interests; Mr Kevin McLaughlin, regional development manager for Leonard Cheshire Homes and member of the Civic Forum, who has a strong interest in rights for disabled persons; Mr Patrick Yu, director of the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities, former member of the Commission for Racial Equality, Northern Ireland, with extensive community experience. Those are all matters for judgment and individual taste. I would find it very difficult to describe any of those as improper candidates for membership of a commission such as this.
Lord Laird: My Lords, in discussing the composition of the commission, will the Minister explain why there are no representatives on the commission of the evangelical community, the Ulster-Scots community or the approximately 25 per cent of the people of Northern Ireland who do not accept the Belfast agreement? I accept the Belfast agreement; they do not.

1189
Will the Minister also take note of the fact that at one stage I offered Professor Dickson my total support for everything he did in relation to human rights, if he involved us as a human rights organisation and involved the Unionist section of the population? I further suggested to him that I would be quite prepared to appear on his platform at the launch of the Bill of Rights. I never heard another word about my offer.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot comment on conversations at which I was not present and of which I have no knowledge. The noble Lord asked me why various persons were not on the original commission. It was an open competition and all the rules were scrupulously abided by. I shall be quite happy, if it is considered useful, to go through every one of the nominees on the original commission. Perhaps I should do so.
They were: Professor Brice Dickson, Professor of Law and Head of Legal Studies at the University of Ulster; Winston Churchill fellow on Bills of Rights in Southern Africa, 1994; Professor Christine Bell, Director of the Centre for International and Comparative Human Rights Law since 1997; Margaret-Ann Dinsmore, QC, active on advisory and supervisory bodies such as the Northern Ireland Commission for the Rights of Trade Union Members; Torn Donnelly, Justice of the Peace since 1985, patron of the Belfast Charitable Trust for Integrated Education and former SDLP councillor; Reverend Harold Good, superintendent minister of the Belfast South circuit of the Methodist Church in Ireland; Professor Tom Hadden, part-time professor of law at Queen's University, Belfast, since 1985; Patricia (Paddy) Kelly, director of a children's law centre, election observer for the United Nations and the European Union; Inez McCormack, regional secretary of the trade union, UNISON; Francis (Frank) McGuinness, regional manager of Trocaire, Northern Ireland, former English teacher and education officer.
It is for your Lordships to come to your own conclusions—not for me to suggest them—that, on the face of it, that list represents a reasonably reflective balance of a community as diverse as Northern Ireland.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, with whom I entirely agree, said that majorities may sometimes be wrong; so may governments, officials, departments, and even some of your Lordships on occasions. The purpose of having a commission such as this is so that it may challenge and make itself disagreeable and uncomfortable. On the basis of my experience, such a commission would be unlikely to do its duty if it pleased everyone on all occasions. If the commission pleased governmental organisations on every occasion, my immediate instinct would be to wonder whether its time was not somewhat overdue.
1190
As I understand it, the commission's agenda is not to diminish the powers of the state. In so far as I have been able to deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, it is not fair to say that it has not attended to the issues with which she has concerned herself. It is true that it has not solved the problems, but I do not think it can fairly be said that it has closed its eyes to them.
I have dealt with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, about the draft Bill. It is a proposal, a skeleton outline as it were, on which everyone can have his or her view, on which the Government will come to their conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, fully set out his stall—that he does not agree with the Human Rights Act in this country. He and I will never agree on that. I believe that it was a triumph of this Government—I did not say "the only triumph"; I see the noble Baroness, Lady Park, smiling—but it is the most significant act of devolution of power from the Government to the individual that has ever occurred.
I shall give one example in the context of Northern Ireland. Bitterly contested has been the question whether or not those against whom assertions have been made in respect of Bloody Sunday ought to have anonymity. The courts, I stress, have given anonymity to the soldiers against whom, on the one hand, allegations have been made and about whom, on the other hand, it is said they were servants of the state carrying out their proper duties. The inquiry will decide that matter. I very much doubt that they would have been given the anonymity they wanted, were it not for the fact that they were able to say, "My human rights include the right to life, which will be imperilled if you give me no anonymity". It is quite useful to bear in mind that the Human Rights Act protects everyone, without fear or favour, prejudice or ill will.
I have spent a little time going through the correspondence. I am not commenting on it; I am simply pointing to fact, which I know is sometimes disagreeable.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for letting in the light on something that has perhaps caused trouble and distress. I respectfully suggest that he might find it helpful to take up the invitation of the human rights commission—it did not invite me, but I went anyway on Friday of last week—immediately following a meeting with the Police Federation and the Prison Officers' Association. Both those organisations have done very significant public work and discharged public duties in Northern Ireland for a long period of time. I was impressed by the comment of the Chairman (soon to retire) of the Police Federation that although things are not perfect, they may have got better. In the past several years he has followed no coffin to the funeral of any of his comrades.
We should sometimes reflect that although things are not perfect, there have been some distinct improvements. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for giving me that opportunity to say a few words.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
House again in Committee.
8.37 p.m.
Clause 5 [Local Representative Committees]:
Lord Reamoved Amendment No. 54:
Page 5, line 1, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: In contrast to some of the weighty matters that we debated before dinner, I hope that these amendments will be taken quickly. I hope to say only a few words about them.
The reason for Amendments Nos. 54 to 58 is to draw the Minister's attention to the importance of ensuring that consultation takes place between primary care trusts and local committees representing the health professions in their areas; namely, local medical committees, dental committees and those representing ophthalmic practitioners and pharmacists.
As it stands, the Bill states that recognition of such committees by PCTs is discretionary. The amendments make that recognition mandatory. My noble friend will doubtless say that that recognition is already given or will always be given by PCTs to local medical committees and the like. Such a statement, if he makes it, will be welcomed. However, it is important to note, as we discussed at some length a little earlier, that not all 300 or so PCTs are yet up and running. Some will have difficulty in becoming operational by the appointed day, and they may feel that consultation with local representative committees has a lower priority than many other conditions. On that I would value my noble friend's comments.
I speak also to Amendment No. 60, which is grouped with these amendments. This amendment enables regulations to be made requiring strategic health authorities rather than primary care trusts to consult with local representative professional committees about those functions that the strategic health authorities will retain and which have not been passed down to the PCTs in the current reorganisation. Those responsibilities and functions include the commissioning of specialist services—or some specialist services, I might say, after the debate that we had before dinner—as well as major capital developments and performance management of the PCTs. The Bill allows such consultations to take place regarding Section 28C schemes—that is, personal medical service pilot schemes—but it does not do the same for general medical services, which are those that concern the great majority of primary healthcare professionals. Decisions taken at strategic health authority level will be much more effective and widely accepted if they are informed by such consultations, preferably on a regular basis.
I shall be very interested to hear my noble friend's comments. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I shall briefly support the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on all the amendments. The first amendments in the group concern the duty of
1192
PCTs to recognise the local representative committees. The Minister may well be reminded of our happy hours discussing "may" and "shall" on various health Bills in the past, but the situation in this case is rather different. It is all very well for there to be a convention that "may" can mean "shall" as far as the Secretary of State is concerned when it comes to making regulations, but when local bodies such as PCTs see legislation granting them discretion, they will inevitably treat the provision as something that they may do if they get round to it rather than something compulsory. It is important that the Secretary of State makes it clear in the Bill or in some form of guidance what is expected of the PCTs.
The situation is rather different for strategic health authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has put his finger on a gap in the Bill—if it is possible to put one's finger on a hole or a gap in legislation; I am not sure whether the metaphor extends that far—in relation to general medical services, which are not provided by the great majority of primary healthcare professionals. Amendment No. 60 would fill a gap in the duty of strategic health authorities to consult with local representative professional committees about their functions. I should be very interested to hear whether that has genuinely been thought about in the scheme of things, or whether the Minister has some other form of consultation in mind.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: More years ago than I care to recall, I served on a regional hospital board. One of my less happy memories of those years is the plethora of committees that surrounded it. Ever since then I have cherished—perhaps that is the wrong word; I have tried unsuccessfully to suppress—a suspicion that there are far too many committees in the National Health Service. To compel one body to recognise another seems to me a mistake.
Not very long ago, I asked the noble Lord if he could give any estimate on this issue. I admit that it was rather a silly question, because I knew that he could not possibly have counted the number of committees that sat under the aegis of the National Health Service and did practically nothing useful, any more than he could oblige if I took him down to a nice sandy beach and asked him to count the grains of sand.
Perhaps I could venture this specuilation—it is no more than that, because I could not prove it. I have always had more than a suspicion that half the membership of any committee ought to be spending their time on far more valuable activities and the other half ought to be on nothing at all.
The Minister has done nothing to deserve this, except that he has my entire respect, but I am offering him my support in rejecting the amendment, as I suspect that he will. That might possibly choke off very slightly the number of committees that strangle the National Health Service without ever benefiting a patient. Committees may do something for their own

1193
glorification, but as far as the patients are concerned they are of less value than face powder on somebody else's nose.
Lord Rea: I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has said. I agree that there are far too many committees. However, they are in existence and they represent the local professional healthcare workers in each local health area. It is important for a health authority to consult the representatives of those who provide the services that the noble Lord thinks are so important.
Lord Clement-Jones: Provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I should add that these are important committees. We may talk about structures not having much positive impact on morale, but they can have a negative impact on morale if they do not provide for consultation with those most closely affected by the decisions that they take. This is a classic example. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has pointed out, there are committees representing local healthcare professionals, so we are not creating a batch of regulatory or other committees. Those committees would benefit from having their views taken into account on the way in which PCTs and strategic health authorities carry out their functions. This is not a St Augustinian view—"Lord, give me deregulation, but not yet". Rather unusually, it has some good credentials.
Lord Filkin: I am very grateful to have the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, on my side. That does not happen very often, but it is deeply welcome.
Amendments Nos. 54 to 58 would change a power to recognise local representative committees into a duty. Local medical committees have been a feature of the health service since 1911 and pharmaceutical, dental and ophthalmic committees have been a feature since the inception of the NHS after the war. In all that time, we have yet to hear of any LRC being denied formal recognition.
I understand that, of the four professions, only the BMA has expressed some interest in changing "may" to "shall". I suspect that that interest is in the form of a probing amendment rather than anything more fundamental. The BMA has acknowledged that no committee has ever been denied recognition. Elsewhere it has spoken positively about Clause 5.
We have always wanted the NHS to work closely and co-operatively with front-line professionals. That is why we amended the provisions in the 1999 Act to make LMCs and LDCs inclusive of PMS doctors and deputies and PDS dentists.
Amendment No. 60 would oblige strategic health authorities to consult LRCs. We will require primary care trusts and strategic health authorities to discharge their functions inclusively. For example, the duty of partnership working introduced by the Health Act 1999 will apply to strategic health authorities and to primary care trusts. Similarly, we shall expect strategic health authorities routinely to involve and consult
1194
local stakeholder groups as they take forward their work. The Committee will recognise that that is good practice.
However, the proposals to place a specific statutory duty on strategic health authorities to consult LRCs is unnecessary and inappropriate. The matters which most directly concern LRCs are those relating to the services provided under Part II of the 1977 Act or their newer Part I locally managed equivalents—namely PMS and PDS. The Bill provides for all existing health authority functions in respect of Part II services to be conferred on primary care trusts. For Part II services, there is, therefore, no statutory function on which the strategic health authority could consult the LRC.
For PMS and PDS, the Bill already makes specific provision to continue the existing statutory requirements. Clause 5 provides for regulations to be made requiring strategic health authorities to consult LRCs on those limited PMS or PDS matters—under both pilot and permanent arrangements—for which the strategic health authority is responsible.
For these reasons, therefore, we find it difficult to understand why we should single out LRCs for special attention. Other groups, nurses, hospital doctors, patients, have at least as great a claim to be involved in the work of strategic health authorities as do GPs or other primary care contractors, however valuable their work is.
We could list all of these groups whom the strategic health authority should consult. But shopping lists of this type put on the face of the Bill are usually incomplete and cause offence to someone who gets overlooked in the process.
For all these reasons, we have to suggest that there does not appear to be any pressing practical benefits to the amendments. I hope, given what I have been able to put on the record, that the BMA and others will be fully assured of the importance we attach to consultation without the need for further statutory direction. It is clear that primary care trusts must and should consult without our needing to teach grandmothers to suck eggs by putting it literally into the Bill.
Government Amendment No. 59 is minor. It clarifies the definition of a Section 28C dental practitioner for the purposes of the section.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I cannot easily find words to express my gratification at being able to give such valuable support to the Minister in making such a wise decision.
Lord Filkin: I shall treasure Hansard for many years to come.
Lord Rea: I thank my noble friend for giving the attention that he has to these two amendments. I cannot agree with every word that he has spoken, particularly with regard to Amendment No.60. We shall look at his words in Hansard and decide whether

1195
to take it further. It may require further discussions. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 to 58 not moved.]
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No.59:
Page 6, line 7, after "services" insert -in the area of the Primary Care Trust"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hate to disturb such rapid progress and to break into the harmony. I have long objected to this habit of putting two Bills into the same sausage skin. A new Bill is pushed rather rudely into the old Act of Parliament. The result is something which is not always easy to understand.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, or the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will reply but I would just ask them to explain, in simple language, so that I and other of your Lordships can understand what I am now going to read out.
I would not dream of trying to inflict indefinite pain on the Committee, so perhaps two lines will suffice. Subsection (11) reads:
"In subsection (1C) for 'subsection (A1)(b) or (c) or (B1)(b) or (c)' there is substituted 'subsection (ZA1)(b) or (c), (A1)(b) or (c), (A2)(b) or (c) or (B1)(b) or (c)".
I call for a moment's silence of mourning over such disgraceful garbage being put on the face of a Bill. I recently complained about this same habit when it was practised by the parliamentary draftsman at the Home Office. My punishment was to see produced out of a conjuror's hat a fair copy of the Bill as it was hoped it would emerge from Committee. I visited the Printed Paper Office this evening to inquire whether, hidden away, there was to be a repeat of such a phenomenon. No one had heard of it. Your Lordships' House is faced again and again with this revolting habit of putting something plainly unintelligible—not even meant to be understood—on the face of one Bill after another.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is someone for whom your Lordships have great respect. I hope he will justify that feeling of respect by taking this garbage away and saying it will not do.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to explain Clause 5(11)(a). I thought it would be abundantly clear to your Lordships. In essence, the clause is simply consequential on renaming health authorities strategic health authorities. It removes the need for local representative committees to be coterminous only with the relevant health authority and it provides for local representative committees to establish themselves at the level of one or more primary care trust area.
1196
I recognise that amended wording is difficult to follow. The noble Lord is right to point that out. The only crumb of comfort I can give is that work is in hand in the department on a consolidation Bill bringing together within a fairly short period of time all relevant health service legislation. This will make life easier, both for the legislatures and, more importantly, for the National Health Service.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The last comment is astoundingly good news. Only recently, when the Police Reform Bill was before your Lordships' House, I inquired at the Public Bill Office whether anybody had any thoughts about further consolidation measures. There were, I was told, European measures which were due for consolidation but otherwise nothing at all—a bleak nothingness between us and the horizon.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said in his tribute to me, but I had hoped that he would produce a simple summary of this gibberish. In so far as he has succeeded in doing so—and one would need hours to check up on the matter—it entitles me to ask why he did not place it on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Fookes: I do not want to depress my noble friend too much, but I serve on the Select Committee which examines the consolidation of Bills. I have to tell him that the committee does not meet very often.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: All I can say is that work on such a measure has begun within the department. I do not know when it will be completed and when the matter will come before the noble Baroness's committee. All I would say is that I very much understand the need for a consolidation measure on health service legislation.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
9 p.m.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 61:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"THE HEALTH INSPECTORATE
(1) There shall be a body corporate known as the Health Inspectorate, which shall take effect from 1st April 2004.
(2) The Health Inspectorate shall assume at that date the functions undertaken prior to that date by—

(a) The Commission for Health Improvement, and

(b) The National Care Standards Commission.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments of the legislation relating to the health service in England and Wales as in his opinion facilitate, or are otherwise desirable in connection with, subsections (1) and (2)."
The noble Earl said: With the proposals in the Bill to widen the functions of the Commission for Health Improvement, an opportunity has arisen for us to examine CHI's role in the round. In particular, we have an opportunity to revisit a matter that was first considered by this House during the passage of the Care Standards Act 2000.
During the passage of that legislation, we debated—at some length, and not without some fairly energetic exchanges—the respective roles of the Commission for

1197
Health Improvement and the National Care Standards Commission, which the Care Standards Act brought into being. At the time, many noble Lords, including myself, urged the Government to consider whether the demarcation line that they were seeking so firmly to draw between the NHS and the private acute sector for the purposes of inspection and monitoring was really in the best interests of either sector, and, more particularly, of patients.
I believed then, as I still do, that for quality control purposes the distinction between the two sectors is, and should be, academic. The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that wherever patients are treated, no matter who is paying for the treatment, standards of care are both uniform and of the highest possible quality. The doctors who treat patients in the NHS are the same doctors who treat patients in private hospitals.
That position begs the question of whether we need two full-blown inspectorates. Two years ago, the Government stuck firmly to their line, "Yes, we do", on grounds which I confess I have never fully understood; namely, that the NHS as a managed service, and the independent sector as a regulated service, should not be subject to the same quality control regime. I do not believe that it is unfair to say that behind that policy stance there lay a deep-rooted antipathy towards the independent sector in the minds of certain Ministers at the time. What we emerged with at the end of the day was Section 9 of the Care Standards Act, which provided for co-operative working between CHI and the NCSC, whereby each regulatory body could delegate functions to the other.
To be fair to the Government, a great deal has happened since the Care Standards Act was passed. There has been a tangible warming of relations between the Government and the independent sector. A concordat has been signed under which many NHS operations and procedures are being carried out in private hospitals. We have a target, I believe, of 100,000 such operations being performed in the private sector over the next year. As recently as last June, the Secretary of State was saying to Parliament:
"by and large, we thankfully have one monopoly provider and that is the NHS. As long as a Labour Government are in power that will remain the position".—[Official Report, Commons. 26/6/01: col. 500.]
It was striking that only a few months later, in December last year, he should be saying completely the opposite:
"Where we need to get to is a position where the NHS is no longer a monopoly provider of care, but it does become a monopoly funder of care".
That U-turn is to be welcomed because it recognises reality. However, it again opens up the issue of how quality standards should best be monitored. The more there ceases to be a meaningful distinction between the NHS and the private sector, the less one can justify the overlap and duplication inherent in having two inspectorial bodies, each imposing its own burdens on doctors, nurses and managers, each having to observe fairly artificial demarcation lines, and each separately
1198
staffed. It has to be said that the pool of expertise available for such monitoring work across the country is not that large in the first place. A single body would not only ensure consistent standards between the NHS and the private sector; it would also capitalise on the expertise gained in CHI as a result of work that has been done there to date.
I felt emboldened to table this amendment when I read the Secretary of State's response in another place to the Bristol report, when he said:
"There will be greater co-ordination among those organisations responsible for assuring the quality of care in the NHS. That will necessitate closer working and, over time, organisational integration between the CHI. the Social Services Inspectorate, the National Care Standards Commission and the Audit Commission, so that health and social care services are subject to a common set of standards, irrespective of whether they are provided by public, private or voluntary organisations".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/02; col. 456.]
What a difference from a couple of years ago! The energy expended by the Government in putting up fierce resistance to exactly that argument from these Benches could have been more usefully directed elsewhere. But if the Government are now serious about organisational integration, why not make a start now, using this Bill? It is a golden opportunity. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I want to make two points. First, I acknowledge the generosity that we always expect from my noble friend on the Front Bench. On this occasion he has rather exceeded himself. He might have challenged the Government by saying, "Let us bury, alive or half dead, the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Care Standards Commission". That would have put the Minister on the spot: he would have had to explain what useful functions these two bodies had ever performed and what degree of skill they had shown in doing so. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether their functions are so important and so well performed that they should be taken over by the health inspectorate?
My noble friend puzzled me. Subsection (3) of his amendment contains the words,
"The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments of the legislation relating to the health service in England and Wales as in his opinion facilitate".
I wonder whether one should voluntarily make such an offer to Secretaries of State, a genus for whom I am not soaked with respect. They need to be carefully checked. I am more than conscious of the fact that, given the power to do something by order, they almost always generate more bureaucratic activity from which patients are the last to benefit, if they benefit at all.
It grieves me deeply that in the first two subsections of the amendment my noble friend did not see fit to go a little further and question the usefulness of the two bodies, and whether their functions should be taken over. I appreciate that it is better to have one body rather than two. I also feel slightly uncomfortable

1199
about the prospect of inviting a Secretary of State to do something by order. That does not appear to be appropriate.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Out of kindness to my noble friend, I am bound to say that I believe that this is an extremely good idea. The battle appears to have been won and the Government appear to be persuaded that the private sector can be extremely useful in the National Health Service. They appear to have dropped their doctrinaire dislike of it. Perhaps that is dire necessity. The battle having been won, it appears to be pointless to have two bodies carrying out roughly the same task in two different parts of the service.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton, who objects so much to subsection (3). However, my noble friend Lord Howe did not draft an amendment that he expected to be put on the face of the Bill verbatim. Many other amendments would have to be made to the Bill should this extremely good idea be adopted by the Government, so I am not too worried about subsection (3). In this Bill so many matters will happen by order that this particular requirement may disappear into oblivion.
I do not believe that the Minister should launch into an endless description of the system as it now stands. Perhaps he will tell the Committee why, given the fact that the battle in relation to the private sector has been won, we need two bodies. Why not have a single inspectorate?
Baroness Pitkeathley: I confess to a certain wry amusement on seeing this amendment. Earlier today and last week, we heard a great deal from the Opposition Benches about delay, about the state of unreadiness in PCTs and so on. Now we hear the opposite: that we should hurry to merge the functions of two bodies, one of which is not even yet in existence.
However, I am in sympathy with the spirit of the amendment. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has told the Committee, the Secretary of State has committed the Government to further integration of inspection services in the future. As your Lordships know because I go on about it endlessly, I am also in favour of anything that promotes further co-operation between health and social services. The commitment to that cooperation already exists in the bodies mentioned in the amendment, as I have reason to know from my role as interim chair of the General Social Care Council.
We have to ensure that there is an ongoing review of the functions of each body and of the relationships between them, as the Secretary of State and the Kennedy report have suggested, and that those bodies should be given the utmost importance as we proceed, together with their relationships with the Audit Commission and the Social Services Inspectorate. Please let there be no merger of the General Social Care Council before it has had an opportunity to put into practice its wide-ranging and significant powers,
1200
and to capitalise on the welcome support that it will command among all those who work in the area of social care.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Recently, there was an example of a mother who had given birth to twins in a private hospital and died because she had not had her blood pressure monitored. Patients are patients wherever they are treated. Surely they should all have the same minimum standards and Parliament should try to ensure their protection. I therefore support this amendment.
Baroness Fookes: I, too, support this amendment. In fact, I think that it is very important that there should be one common standard, and I saw no reason for having two sets of regulatory bodies when the legislation was first brought in. Now, I believe that it is even more important that the situation should be simplified: one standard for all. I therefore support the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Northover: I, too, support the amendment, which proposes a health inspectorate that includes both CHI and the national care standards commission. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones explained on Second Reading—perhaps he has said this so often that he is blue in the face and it is now my turn to say it—we have long supported these proposals. We welcomed CHI when it was established in the Health Act 1999 and gave a general welcome to the Care Standards Act 2000, but we feel that the national care standards commission should he incorporated with CHI. This is a good time do that, before the National Care Standards Commission comes into effect and we have two bodies working in parallel.
In the other place, in relation to this Bill, we urged that the time had come to put the two bodies together. We also disagreed with the Conservative Party in the other place that the merger should include NICE and the proposed council for the regulation of the professions. We felt that the latter two bodies are expected to perform different functions and should remain separate. We therefore welcome the fact that, speaking for the Conservative Party in this House, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has accepted the proposal that it is CHI and the care standards commission that should be merged. We are happy that we are speaking with one voice on this side of the House—a point which I am sure will not be lost on the Minister.
We are fully committed to the objectives of ensuring the highest possible quality of care for all patients. Patients deserve the best possible protection regardless of whether they are being treated in the NHS or the private sector. A single inspectorate should help to achieve uniform high-quality patient care across both those health sectors, avoiding, as we have heard, unnecessary duplication. If we merged these two organisations, we would ensure consistent standards between the NHS and other sectors. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has pointed out, CHI would be in a

1201
position to use the expertise it has gained from inspecting the NHS and the same limited pool of expertise could be used.
It should also be clear that we are certainly heading down that road. We on these Benches have noted what Mr Alan Milburn said in his response to the Bristol report—which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has quoted—when he spoke of the,
"organisational integration between the CHI, the social services inspectorate, the National Care Standards Commission and the Audit Commission".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/01/02; col. 456.]
That is precisely what we are talking about. Therefore, as I said, it looks as though we are pushing at an open door.
The BMA has produced a chart showing the multiplicity of organisations that check on the various sections of the health service. Surely anything that streamlines the arrangements must be welcomed—although that does not seem to be the Government's intention, as demonstrated by their proposals to replace CHCs. I trust that the Minister will see the sense of this proposal. Nevertheless, even if he does not, I think that he will find that this type of arrangement is coming down the track.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I should like first to say what a joy it is to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, back to our debates on the National Health Service. I was particularly struck by his reminiscences of the work of regional health authorities. Earlier, while looking wistfully back at regional health authorities, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, expressed her wish that they should speed on and be reintroduced. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, might have something to say about that.
As for the general point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on the accomplishments of the Commission for Health Improvement and the purpose of the National Care Standards Commission, I believe that they perform very important functions. The Commission for Health Improvement provides a means of reviewing the way in which clinical governance is undertaken within the National Health Service. I think that, in its first reports, it has shown its mettle and been very helpful in identifying issues to be raised and problems to be tackled within the NHS.
The National Care Standards Commission starts its work this April, and it will lead to a much more uniform, consistent quality of legislation within the private health sector, the care homes sector and various other care sectors. It will take responsibility from both health authorities and local authorities, and I am sure that it will lead not only to a much higher inspection standard, but, as importantly, to greater consistency. That is why care homes and other parts of the independent sector were so welcoming of the establishment of the National Care Standards Commission.
1202
As far as the general principles raised in this debate are concerned, there is very little between us. The Government are certainly sympathetic to the thinking behind the amendments but consider that they are somewhat premature. At the moment, the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Care Standards Commission have discrete and distinct functions in relation to the inspection and regulation of health and social care in this country, but they already plan to work collaboratively where their respective roles impact on each other. This cooperation will also be assisted by, and extended to, other bodies through the new council for quality that we announced in our response to Professor Sir Ian Kennedy's report on Bristol. Noble Lords may well recall that the Bristol inquiry response referred to:
"in the short term, a strengthened inspection role for the CHI working with the Social Services Inspectorate and National Care Standards Commission as appropriate to give the public an independent assurance that each provider of NHS services has proper quality assurance and quality improvement mechanisms in place".
The Government said:
"We will take further steps at the earliest opportunity to rationalise the number of bodies inspecting and regulating health and social care".
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has already suggested, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health, in a speech to the new health network, said:
"The Commission for Health Improvement will take responsibility for the independent publication of information about clinical and organisational performance. It will have a greater inspectorial and reporting role over the health system's performance that will necessitate closer working and, over time, organisational integration between the CHI, the Social Services Inspectorate, the National Care Standards Commission and the Audit Commission, 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".
There is nothing between us on this matter, therefore. Our intention is that there will be a convergence between the activities of these four bodies, including CHI and the National Care Standards Commission, drawing together their expertise in joint work where appropriate, and sharing best practice.
To give an example of how we will develop this, as the National Care Standards Commission starts its work in April and as the Commission for Health Improvement develops its inspection function, we will be looking for the development of common methodologies, where appropriate, and the coordination of visiting programmes. We have made it clear, however, that we believe that it would be premature to seek to rationalise the functions of CHI and the National Care Standards Commission, or indeed other relevant bodies, in the current Bill. These issues and possible legislative requirements are complex and they need to be given full consideration before we act.

1203
We have, however, already made provision in the Care Standards Act 2000 for CHI to exercise functions of the National Care Standards Commission in relation to the independent sector. When we enacted the Care Standards Act, we considered it right that the regulation of private healthcare should be different from arrangements for the independent review of NHS bodies by CHI. But life has moved on. We have gained a lot of experience with CHI, and the Bill before us now gives CHI a new function of inspection, which will be against published standards.
While we are clear that private and voluntary health care must remain under a system of regulation or licensing of service providers, we believe that CHI should now act on the National Care Standards Commission's behalf to inspect independent hospitals. We will therefore be bringing Section 9 into force shortly and making regulations so that the Commission for Health Improvement may exercise the National Care Standards Commission's function of inspection in relation to independent hospitals.
I hope that in the immediate future that will go some way to meeting the points raised by noble Lords tonight. In the rather more long term, work will continue to look at how we can rationalise the different inspecting organisations I have mentioned. We will have to come back to that at a future stage. I hope, however, that in my remarks noble Lords will see that we are very much with the thrust of the points being put forward. We believe that this amendment is premature in terms of legislative action to bring the bodies together but, in bringing into action Section 9 ill relation to CHI and the National Care Standards Commission, we are showing, I believe, that we are moving down that route.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The Minister's response was most interesting. However, in case I gave the wrong impression, I should like to stress that I did not intend any criticism of the Commission for Health Improvement or of the National Care Standards Commission when I spoke earlier. It seems to me that bodies established to look at the work carried out in hospitals, and elsewhere, should also be inspected. I am not making a flippant point.
I was recently in a very major hospital, which is not in London. I shall not mention the name, but the chairman of the group said to me, "What we are suffering from here is death by a thousand visits". I hope that the Minister will take that message on board. Let us face it, most of those who visit and inspect hospitals do not make patients any better; they are made better by physicians, surgeons and nurses. If such people are over-inspected and over-examined, their morale may suffer.
Baroness Hanham: I am tempted to rise to my feet at this moment on the subject of the inspection of inspectorates. I should declare an interest now, and in respect of any further interventions that I may make, in that I am chairman of an NHS trust.
So far, CHI has been well received, except by those who have borne the brunt of its remarks. I support what my noble friend Lord Peyton has just said about
1204
the multiplicity of inspectorate regimes. Indeed, far more than that, there is the amount of information that is required both in advance and at the time of such inspections. I assume that the information required for the first visit will not subsequently be required when the overall picture has been grasped. But if that is not the case, we are talking about a week's visit to the whole trust involving many people's time and, prior to that, something like four weeks during which information from all sorts of sources must be collected. It is not a terribly useful way of serving patients because it is time-consuming.
As I said, I hope that such information would be required only once. Thereafter it should be available on computer records. Indeed, the information obtained for CHI could very reasonably be passed on to the National Care Standards Commission, which would mean that it does not have to be requested again. It is a question of trying to rationalise what the inspection regimes are doing. I am not quibbling about the fact that this work has to be done, but it seems to me that such inspections take up an awful lot of people's time that could otherwise be used more effectively.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not disagree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The noble Lord is right to say that it is important to keep one's eye on the activities of these bodies. We agree a work programme with CHI and Ministers have regular meetings with the commission. We also listen to comments and criticisms about CHI's performance from the NHS, which we then discuss with the commission. I am sure that the same arrangements will be put in place in relation to the National Care Standards Commission when it starts its work.
I very much share the concern about a multiplicity of organisations inspecting hospitals. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State started the process of looking at the regulatory inspection regime to assess whether we can rationalise it. Therefore, although I am sympathetic to the thrust of the arguments put forward tonight, I feel that the proposed amendment is a little premature because we have not yet completed the process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised the question of the amount of information required to assist such inspections. I accept that the task of providing it can be quite onerous. However, I should point out that CHI has undertaken many reviews. When considering the performance of the board of some trusts, the CHI was surprised at the paucity of information at its disposal in terms of judging the performance of its organisation. It was clear to CHI that, in many of those organisations, the board of the trust was not getting enough information from which to judge overall performance. It is to be hoped that CHI focusing on information will help boards to ensure that they are able to judge their own performance, benchmark it with other organisations and, through that, improve standards overall.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: I think I accepted that that was what I said; that in the initial stages the collection of information was necessary. I hope that it will not be necessary to require quite so much in future.
Earl Howe: I am inwardly distraught that my amendment does not commend itself to my noble friend Lord Peyton, whose approval, when I get it, I unfailingly cherish. I have to say to him that I do not regret tabling the amendment. I am and will remain an unashamed supporter of what is termed "the quality agenda" across the NHS and the private sector. I believe that an efficient inspectorate is an integral part of that.
I fully agree with my noble friend that those bodies should have to justify their existence. However, that is perhaps a separate question to the one I sought to raise. I also agree with him about death by a thousand visits. If he is good enough and patient enough to wait for Amendment No. 96, to which my noble friend Lady Noakes will speak at a later stage in Committee, he will find that the issue is brought into even sharper focus.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, chided me for proposing the merger between the two bodies with, as she thought, undue haste. I enjoyed the point she made. However, the fact that PCTs are, in the view of some of us, not ready for the big changes that are about to engulf them, has nothing to do with the fact that CHI and the National Care Standards Commission may be ready. The fact that the Secretary of State has spoken of organisational integration and, indeed, the fact that the Minister has tonight confirmed the department's intention is, at least to me, a hopeful and promising sign that I am on the right track. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that the amendment was not that hasty in that it proposed a two-year delay before we plunge into the merger. I was struck by the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that this was a good time to consider the merger immediately prior to the National Care Standards Commission being up and running for the first time.
I do not want to prolong the debate. I thank the Minister for his sympathetic response. I am glad that he acknowledged that life has moved on from a year or two ago. There is little between us on the issue. We wait with interest to see how the convergence of the four regulatory bodies is brought about in practice over the months ahead. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Funding of Strategic Health Authorities and Health Authorities]:
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 9, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) Subsection (3C) is omitted."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 62 is a probing amendment which would amend subsection (3) of Clause 7 by deleting the current subsection (3) and replacing it with a new subsection deleting subsection (3C) from Section 97 of the 1977 Act.
1206
Subsection (3C) of Section 97 of the 1977 Act was inserted by the Health and Social Care Act 2001. It gives the Secretary of State power to pay additional amounts to health authorities if they satisfy objectives or perform well against criteria. We debated those powers last year. Subsection (3) of Clause 7 amends that to replace health authorities with strategic health authorities while Amendment No. 62 deletes the power altogether.
When we come to Clause 8 of the Bill we shall deal with the financial arrangements for PCTs and the creation of a similar power for the Secretary of State to pay additional amounts to PCTs. The Secretary of State has said that he intends to allot at least 75 per cent of the funds available to him to PCTs. Strategic health authorities will not have significant functions other than performance management of PCTs and NHS trusts and so it is difficult to see why the Secretary of State needs these performance payment powers over strategic health authorities.
Can the Minister give any explanation of why in reality these powers created over health authorities are needed for strategic health authorities, given that the vast majority of the functions will now be taken over by PCTs?
As far as I can see, the only possible reason why the Secretary of State would require the powers is because he cannot bear to see any tiny part of the NHS over which he has less than a complete set of powers for use one day when the mood takes him. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister has any substantive reasons for these powers over strategic health authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like to congratulate my noble friend on having given us as lucid an explanation of what she was after as the Bill which she seeks to amend allows. I am just a little sorry that she allowed her natural good nature to get the upper hand of her and did not try to turn the knife slightly in the wound which I tried to inflict on the Minister just now about this awful habit of superimposing a Bill on an old Act of Parliament. No one just coming to look at the amendment could possibly understand without a certain amount of research what it intended to do. My noble friend moved her amendment very well, but I do think that she allowed herself to be a little more merciful than the situation caused her to be.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has given me the courage to stand up to ask a question. I am a novice on legislation. I find some of this rather gobbledegook to follow. But I had understood from Clause 1 that the term "strategic health authorities" applies to England and that the term "health authorities" applies to Wales. Yet the wording within Clause 7 appears to relate to England and not to Wales. Therefore, I fail to understand why the heading of this clause includes "health authorities". Have I missed something and does the clause in some way apply to Wales as well as England.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: First, I thank Members of the Committee for comments that they have made

1207
about the amendment. Essentially, the subsection as currently drafted means that the Secretary of State could give performance-related payments to strategic health authorities for meeting certain objectives notified to them. It does not compel him to do so. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would take away the power of the Secretary of State to make such performance-related payments to strategic health authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked why we needed this part of the Bill when we have stated that it is not our current intention to make performance-related payments to the new strategic health authorities out of the NHS performance fund. The intention is that we shall not make performance-related payments to strategic health authorities, but it may be that in the future, and as we see how the new arrangements develop, there may be an opportunity to make such payments.
Perhaps I may give an example. In relation to the way in which we judge and make payments in accordance with performance, while much performance relates to the work of an NHS organisation, working across boundaries and in partnership is also one of the ways in which one can ensure good quality performance. It may well be that strategic health authorities may be incentivised in future for partnership working by being given money to use to encourage partnership working between primary care trusts. We may wish to make payment to health authorities for that purpose. We have no current intent to do so, but we want to allow for that possibility in future.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may tell my noble friend Lord Peyton how much I appreciate his kind comments. Those of us on the Front Bench always look to my noble friend for kind comments; this is the first time that I have received some from him, and I hope that it is the first occasion of many.
Turning to the Minister's explanation, what he said demonstrated that there is no need for the power to make performance payments. The Government have no current intention to make such payments and the examples that the Minister produced sounded somewhat thin. He said something about working in partnership and across boundaries. I could not see the substance of that. However, in the interests of moving on, I shall consider what the Minister said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Funding of Primary Care Trusts]:
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 63:
Page 9, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) In determining the amount to he allotted for any year to a Primary Care Trust under subsection (1)(b), the Secretary of State shall consult with health professionals, local authorities and other interested parties as to the health needs of the population served by that Trust."
1208
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 63, I shall by leave speak also to Amendments Nos. 68, 73 and 81, which are grouped with it. Amendments Nos. 63, 68, 73 deal with consultation and taking account of the health needs of the population in determining allocations to primary care trusts by amending new Section 97C of the 1977 Act, which is proposed in Clause 8. Amendment No. 81 deals with taking account of health needs in the amounts allocated to local health boards by the National Assembly for Wales.
Amendment No. 63 seeks to insert a new subsection into new section 97C. It would require the Secretary of State to consult health professionals, local authorities and other interested parties about the health needs of the population served by the PCT. Amendment No. 68 would insert a new subsection after subsection (2) of new Section 97C, which would require the Secretary of State to take health needs into account when determining the amounts allotted. Amendment No. 73 is a narrower amendment, and would attach the same requirement to have regard of the health needs of the population to the powers in subsection (6) of new Section 97C, which allows the Secretary of State to reduce allotments already made to PCTs in certain circumstances.
I am sure that the Minister will say that the amendments are redundant because the Secretary of State already takes into account the health needs of the population when assessing how moneys are to be allotted, but the health Acts do not require him to do so. More importantly, whether or not in practice the Secretary of State takes into account the population's health needs, there is no requirement on him to consult anyone. I am aware that in practice there is an advisory committee on resource allocation, but that is a central body and I am not aware of locally based debates on health needs feeding into that committee. In any event, the advisory committee does not advise on all aspects of the allocation methodology. In particular, it does not advise on the subjective pace of change and health inequality adjustments.
Amendment No. 63 is therefore designed to ensure that there is more openness in each allocation process so that there is greater public confidence in the process. Although the Department of Health releases copious notes on allocation methodologies after it has announced allocations, those methodologies are not the subject of public debate—certainly not in advance of the Secretary of State's allocation decisions. The department's figures per weighted head of population for health authorities, based on allocations for 2002–03, show that the highest spending authority spends 15 per cent more than the lowest. That is on a weighted basis, so why the differences? That space cries out for more public debate.
Amendment No. 73 is important because it qualifies the Secretary of State's power to claw back moneys allocated under subsection (3) of Section 97C on the basis that the PCT has failed to meet some conditions imposed. It might be good business management theory to impose penalties for failure to meet a condition, but the NHS is not a business. Penalties can

1209
have only one target: the patients. Less money means less patient care. If the Secretary of State wants to use business-world penalties—we are far from convinced that that is an appropriate mechanism—the amendment would require him to have regard to the health needs of the population. If the health of the population would be harmed by the withdrawal of funds, the amendment would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Secretary of State to proceed.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: This may be the opportunity to talk more generally about the funding of PCTs, which has raised concerns in several quarters. The way in which the allocation of funds is devolved to PCTs is of particular concern.
There is concern that PCTs could be saddled with the outstanding deficits of health authorities, as part of the devolution process, leaving PCTs without the resources to implement their devolved responsibilities and achieve the Government's targets. Arguably, there could be no additional resources and, therefore, little opportunity to improve the provision of healthcare over and above that provided by the authorities from which the PCTs have taken the responsibilities.
It is also unclear whether PCTs' funds will be protected from the revenue consequences of any major building projects. It is understood that discretionary capital will be allocated to the new strategic health authorities. If PCTs are not protected from the revenue consequences, there will be particular concerns in areas in which boundary changes following the establishment of strategic health authorities mean that PCTs may become retrospectively liable for the revenue consequences of a major building project.
Baroness Hanham: I endorse the fact that there is concern about the resources being given to PCTs and about the way in which they will be allocated. I speak from the point of view of the acute sector, although this probably affects the primary sector as well.
As has rightly been said, resources have been secured for 2002–03. They are not secured for 2003 onwards. There are only a few pilot primary care trusts in existence, and those that are coming into existence will not really be operational and taking a strategic view of how they will spend their resources for at least six months. There is a concern about the allocation of resources and how it will be carried out, particularly in 2003–04 when the ground will hardly be secure under the PCTs' feet.
Stability of funding is vital in the short term, if not in the long term, in the health service. The amendment is important as it begins to show a way of discussion and consultation about how services should be provided. My noble friend Lady Noakes would agree that that cannot happen in the short term, but it could happen in the longer term. However, I would be interested to know how the Minister sees 2003–04 progressing in the light of the fact that PCTs will
1210
probably not be able to make serious and informed decisions about funding and the continuation of or changes to services within that timescale.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Stability of funding is extremely important. Noble Lords will know that by 2004 we intend that some 75 per cent of the budget should be devolved to the primary care trusts. The Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, to which I shall refer in more detail in a moment, is currently developing a formula for primary care trust allocations alongside a decision that will then need to be taken by the Government with regard to any pace of change policy in relation to movements from target on the part of primary care trusts.
As a point of interest, I understand that the current figures in relation to primary care trusts and distance from target reveal a range from minus 14 per cent to plus 14 per cent. Some 46 per cent of primary care trusts are within 2 per cent of target, while 83 per cent are within 5 per cent. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will give great consideration to deciding what pace of change should be introduced for PCTs when they receive the full allocation.
However, there are always counterbalancing forces. If you are in a part of the country where the primary care trust is greatly under target, you will want the pace of change to move as quickly as possible. That has to be balanced against the need for stability in general across the NHS. That summarises the nature of the decision which my right honourable friend will have to reach.
The national resource allocation formula that is used to determine fair shares for health authorities and primary care trusts reflects the fact that different locations around the country have different health needs. The formula takes account of the age structure of the local population. Patterns of morbidity vary by age group. The very young and the elderly, whose populations are not evenly distributed around the country, make more use of health services than the rest of the population. Even when differences due to age are taken into account, populations display different morbidity characteristics, so the formula includes a wide range of health and socio-economic indicators associated with the need for healthcare.
The formula is already used to establish targets, or fair shares, for primary care trusts. While allocations are still made to health authorities, they are required to pass on resources to primary care trusts in accordance with national guidance. As I have already pointed out, we are asking the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to review the operation of the formula at primary care trust level. I listened with interest to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but she will recognise that the advisory committee has serving on it NHS management, GPs, academics and clinicians. Of course one would always welcome contributions from the NHS towards more general discussions on the way in which the formula is developed.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Would the Minister be kind enough to clarify a point for me? He will have noted

1211
Amendment No. 81, which is grouped with Amendment No. 63. It relates to the local health boards to he established in Wales. Can the noble Lord give me an assurance that the formula to which he has just referred will apply equally in Wales? Alternatively, will there be different principles of allocation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I cannot answer the noble Lord's question because it will be up to the National Assembly for Wales to decide how resources are to be allocated to the health service in Wales. I hope that I am not going outside my brief if I suggest that many of the principles which govern the allocation to the health service in England will be the kinds of issues of which the National Assembly will also wish to take account when developing its own formula. However, ultimately it must be a formula that is developed by the National Assembly for Wales and not the Department of Health in England. I am reliably informed that officials of the National Assembly and of the Department of Health hold regular meetings to discuss the intricacies of resource allocation. We will allocate resources direct to primary care trusts through a national formula. That will take into account the health needs of a primary care trust's population.
Amendment No. 63 would undermine that process. If the Bill was enacted with the amendment as drafted, we would face applications from each of the 300 primary care trusts. That would be an arduous and heavy duty for both the primary care trusts—which, as we have heard, will be hard pressed to get on with the job of commissioning services from April—and for the Department of Health. The present arrangements whereby the advisory committee advises the Secretary of State about improvements to the formula is the best approach and one which has general acceptance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, suggested, the formula in Wales is different from the one in England, but it takes account of a whole range of health and socio-economic indicators associated with the need for healthcare. My understanding is that the Assembly is committed to ensuring that there is more equitable access for the entire population in accordance with their health needs. At the moment, the Welsh Assembly is considering the outcome of a major resource allocation review.
As to Amendment No. 73, Clause 8, in essence, mirrors the existing powers in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 which enable us to recover sums from health authorities if they have not met the conditions set. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said about that. I hope that the power will not have to be used, but it is necessary to have a discipline in the system to prevent abuse.
It is unnecessary and misleading to single out health needs as the one particular factor to be considered when the Secretary of State makes a decision as to whether to recover funds. In practice, the Secretary of State will take into account a range of factors. These may include health needs but could also include
1212
matters such as the performance of the organisation in general, the leadership of the trust and the chief executive, and any other number of matters.
Overall, the amendments are not required. It would be best if we put our trust in the very sensible national formula which has broad acceptance within the health service. It is as appropriate for primary care trusts as it is for health authorities.
Lord Clement-Jones: Will the Minister answer the two sets of questions that I referred to in my short contribution?
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would care to wait until we gel to Amendment No. 66, which deals specifically with deficits. I realise that the Minister has not answered the noble Lord's points, but he will have another opportunity to do so when we reach later amendments, to which I am sure he is looking forward.
I thank the Minister for his reply. He appears to be wedded to the processes of allocations being shrouded in some secrecy or, at least, confined to a small group of people at the centre. I would not necessarily he horrified by the prospect of up to 300 PCTs having their say about how they thought the process worked for them. That would seem to be an entirely sensible and rational debate for them to have, although I take the point that they must have the capability to handle their other functions before they move on to demanding the money that is rightfully theirs. I was disappointed by the noble Lord's answer to that.
I was even more disappointed with his answer to Amendment No. 73, which was about clawing back moneys. The Minister said that the Secretary of State might want to take into account performance in general or leadership. I suggest to him that that misses the point, that whenever moneys are taken away they are going to harm patients. Performance in general and leadership are just abstract concepts, but money taken away from primary care trusts will affect patient care. That is the inevitable arithmetic of the NHS.
As I say, I am disappointed by the Minister's responses. I shall consider them further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 64:
Page 9, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) From 1st April 2004 the total amounts paid to Primary Care Trusts in any financial year under subsection (1) above shall be not less than 75 per cent of the total moneys available to the Secretary of State for distribution to all NHS bodies for that year."
The noble Baroness said: The aim of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to distribute 75 per cent of NHS money direct to PCTs. In the document Shifting the Balance of Power and in the earlier announcement on the reforms, the Secretary of State committed himself to 75 per cent of the total budget being passed to PCTs. We have no problem with that

1213
in principle, but with the readiness of PCTs to accept all that money being passed down to them at this time. There is no point in revisiting those discussions.
For the purpose of this amendment let us assume that all PCTs are up and running and have the capability to handle the money coming down. On that basis we completely welcome the allocation of the majority of the resources for decision-making at the lowest possible level. Indeed, we wonder why it is as low as 75 per cent. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister why 25 per cent needs to be kept back from the decision-making powers of the PCTs.
As I have said, this amendment has the simple aim of enshrining in legislation the stated distribution policy. I have no doubts about the integrity of the current Secretary of State and have no reason to believe that he will not do what he has said he will do. But as we know, Secretaries of State come and go, as indeed do governments. This amendment will at least hold any future Secretary of State to the current intent of putting the majority of the purchasing power of the NHS in the hands of PCTs.
In replying, I ask the Minister to confirm that when moneys are allocated to PCTs they will not be ring-fenced, earmarked or have any restrictions placed on them. Otherwise it would be a complete sham if the moneys were allocated on the basis of restricted local decision-making. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The 75 per cent of the NHS budget going directly to primary care trusts is intended to cover the unified allocation for the provision of hospital and community health services, the costs of prescribing by general practitioners and GP practice infrastructure. The remaining 25 per cent of the NHS budget includes items such as funding for capital projects and for research and development, and the education and training of doctors and nurses which is not spent by primary care trusts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that Secretaries of State come and go as do governments. None the less, I believe that there is an interesting debate to be had as to whether it would be right to enshrine the 75 per cent in law or whether it is properly a matter for Ministers to decide what the resource allocation for the health service should be. They are accountable to Parliament.
The Government's view is that at the end of the day it is a matter which should properly fall to Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament, to make a decision as to the broad allocation of resources to the health service and the proportion that should be allocated to different tiers. On that basis, I do not believe that we are justified in going for a formulated approach enshrined in legislation.
What is not in doubt is that we are determined to ensure the commitment that by 2004 PCTs will control 75 per cent of the total NHS funds and that that will be put into practice. We also believe that primary care
1214
trusts will have the capacity to accept that challenge. But I do not believe that a case has been argued persuasively that one needs to enact that in legislation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Would the 25 per cent include the amount mentioned in Clause 8(3), which is the reward to primary care trusts for doing well?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I believe it would.
Baroness Hanham: Perhaps I may revert briefly to the previous amendments on which I spoke and ask for some clarification. I was specifically referring to when these allocations would start and when the primary care trusts would be in a position to deal with them. I have two questions. First, is the 75 per cent due to be passed to the PCTs in the year 2003, or will it start in 2004? Secondly, does the Minister believe that the PCTs that will not be up and running until probably October or November this year be ready and able rationally to make the kinds of decisions they will be required to make so as not to affect the stability of funding around their trust areas as they start up?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The commitment made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is that the 75 per cent will be directed to PCTs by the year 2004. We have some flexibility in relation to whether that will be done in the 2003–2004 or 2004–2005 financial year. Final decisions still need to be made.
With regard to the specific issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, we intend that every primary care trust shall be in position to accept the responsibilities laid upon them. Whatever the vesting date, we want the new primary care trusts to be in a position to do so.
I made it clear earlier in the debate that we believe that there are, at most, only two primary care groups that will not become primary care trusts by 1st April this year. In relation to October, therefore, we are talking at most about two such organisations.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for his replies. I heard him say what are to be retained—capital projects, certain developments, certain training. It appears to me that that does not amount to 25 per cent of total NHS spending. There is, therefore, perhaps a lack of ambition in the target to put 75 per cent of the funding into PCTs.
Perhaps more important is the Minister's unwillingness to accept that the Secretary of State's intention should be enshrined in the legislation. That should put a chill in the heart of every primary care trust in the land. They cannot rely on the statements already made, because the legislation will be in such a form as to allow the Secretary of State to decide how allocations are to be made, which can be changed by Ministers at will, and the primary care trusts will have nothing on which to rely. I regret that. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 65:
Page 9, line 38, leave out ", in whatever way he thinks appropriate".
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 65, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 67, 78 and 80, which are grouped with it. These amendments concern the discretion of the Secretary of State in relation to PCTs in England and of the National Assembly for Wales in relation to health boards in Wales.
Amendment No. 65 removes from subsection (2) of Section 97C, introduced by Clause 8 of this Bill, the words,
"in whatever way he thinks appropriate".
Amendment No. 78 is the equivalent for Wales under Clause 9. Amendment No. 67 deletes the two closing lines of subsection (2) of Section 97C, which allow the Secretary of State to consider any period or elements of expenditure he thinks appropriate. Amendment No. 80 is the equivalent for Wales under Clause 9. These are probing amendments to discover why the Secretary of State might possibly need to rely on those words.
Section 97C(2) specifies what the Secretary of State may take into account—general Part 2 expenditure and items that would have been general Part 2 expenditure but for an order under Section 103. The same provisions are made for Wales under Clause 9.
I am sure that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly would want to take those items into account only in a reasonable way. If that is the case, the words,
"in whatever way he thinks appropriate"
and,
"during any period he thinks appropriate"
are not necessary. However, if the Secretary of State does not want to act reasonably, he may need to rely on those words. I am sure that the Committee would be chary of facilitating the unreasonable acts of a Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister will place on record why the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales might want to use the discretion conferred by those words. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Section 97C(2) confers a general power on the Secretary of State to take into account a primary care trust's non-cash-limited expenditure when determining its cash-limited allocation. Under the existing provisions for funding health authorities, contained in Section 97 of the National Health Service Act 1977, the formula, process or mechanism by which the Secretary of State determines the allocation of each health authority is left to his discretion. It has always been for the Secretary of State to decide what each health authority should receive and how that is determined, subject to the usual constraints of being answerable to Parliament and the funding process being monitored by the National Audit Office. Of course, he must also exercise his powers in accordance with the principles of administrative law. In other words, as the noble Baroness implied, the power must be exercised rationally. It cannot be exercised in a way in which no
1216
reasonable Secretary of State would exercise it. That allows the allocation process to evolve over time, in line with policy changes. We have simply adopted the same approach in Clause 8.
The alternative to a general power would have been to take a very narrow power to allow the Secretary of State to introduce a particular scheme to take into account an authority's non-cash-limited expenditure when determining its cash-limited allocation. Such an approach might limit the ability to modify our approach over time—for example, as new information or research becomes available—and could reduce Ministers' ability to determine the pace of change policy on an annual basis. A narrower power might limit a future administration's ability to make allocations in line with their policy.
The words that Amendments Nos. 65 and 67 would remove simply make it clear that it is the Secretary of State who exercises that power and that he has a wide discretion to determine precisely how the primary care trusts' non-cash-limited expenditure is to be taken into account. The same arguments are also true for Amendments Nos. 78 and 80, as they relate to the funding of local health boards in Wales. Clause 9 as it stands allows the Assembly to take into account all healthcare resources that are available to meet the needs of a local health board's population when determining allocations. That philosophy is part of the National Assembly's determined drive to close the gap between the worst off and the better off in health terms. If those words were deleted, as the amendments suggest, the Secretary of State and the Assembly would retain a general power. The amendments would simply remove wording that helps to clarify the intention of the clause that the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales should have a general discretion as to how they take account of a primary care trust's and local health board's non-cash-limited expenditure. We would not want to agree to any amendment that made the provision less rather than more clear.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that clear and comprehensive reply, which I look forward to reading carefully in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 66:
Page 10, line 2, at end insert "; and
(c) any deficit inherited from a predecessor body,"
The noble Baroness said: The amendment deals with deficits, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to earlier. It would add a new paragraph to Section 97C(2) of the 1977 Act, as inserted by Clause 8. It may be convenient if I also speak to Amendment No. 79, which is grouped with Amendment No. 66, because it is in virtually identical terms but deals with the Welsh equivalent under Clause 9.
Amendment No. 66 allows but does not require the Secretary of State to take into account deficits inherited from a predecessor body m determining

1217
allotments to PCTs. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has already referred to the concerns that have been expressed about this area, in particular by the BMA.
There was a time, which I am sure the Minister recalls, when I seemed to spend all of my time on National Health Service deficits. That might sound sad, but it is the truth. In the back end of the 1980s, deficits were spiralling out of control. As the then director of finance of the National Health Service Management Executive, it was my job to get them under control.
Health service deficits never go away. You may think you have them under control, but they pop up again. There are various levels at which deficits can exist. What we used to call income and expenditure deficits were met by brokerage at the year end—borrowing from other health authorities to get by. Nowadays, the language is more complicated with the introduction of resource accounting, but the basic principles remain the same.
Deficits do appear to be a topical issue. We heard earlier this year about a potential deficit of £60 million emerging in the south east region. The story was that brokerage would cover that, so the National Health Service overall would remain in balance. But there would still be deficits in some authorities and surpluses in others. That £60 million is a lot of money in patient care terms, although not a big percentage of the overall money in the National Health Service.
This is not confined to the South East. The Health Service Journal at the end of January said that other parts were struggling to the tune of £150 million. I see from a Written Answer given by the Minister on 25th February that the Department of Health's expenditure limit for 2001–02, has been increased by £230 million, of which £120 million relates to the take-up of flexibility for health authority allocations. If I understand the code correctly, it means that the National Health Service has borrowed £120 million from next year's allocations. There is a deficit of £120 million to start the new financial year.
I ask the Minister to say what the deficits for health authorities for 2001–02 are expected to be. I would ask him to state that on a gross basis and not net off the surpluses in those authorities that are fortunate enough not to be facing financial pressures.
If there are any which start with deficits, I repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked. What will be done in respect of allocations to PCTs taking over the functions of health authorities with deficits? Will the new PCTs be starting with a clean slate?
I have talked about the simplest kind of deficits—the GCSE of deficits. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is clearly on to the advanced levels of deficits. He talked about the revenue consequences of capital schemes which is of particular concern where funding does not exist to meet the revenue costs of capital schemes once commissioned. Underlying deficits occur when income and expenditure are in balance or
1218
resource limits are met, but non-recurrent moneys have been used to fund recurrent expenditure. There are hidden deficits which occur when spending commitments are deferred in the hope that money will emerge from somewhere before the project can be delayed no longer.
These advanced forms of deficits are likely to be even more important than the basic levels of deficit which get recorded year by year. Will the Minister say what the Secretary of State intends to do about these areas? They are just as important to PCTs starting life with a clean slate as anything else. I look forward to the Minister's comments. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This is an important matter. We start from a position where the NHS is in receipt of record sums of resources as a result of the Government's policy on the NHS. That certainly provides a very good foundation on which we can discuss the issue of the transfer of resources to primary care trusts.
In the last financial year, all but one health authority achieved a balanced financial position. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked me about the current position. She will understand that we are not yet at the conclusion of the financial year. We are in discussions with trust health authorities and PCTs about managing their end-of-year positions, but we cannot speculate about the year-end financial position before those discussions are complete.
By the end of this financial year we expect all health authorities to live within their agreed resource limits. Where they require support at the year-end, this will be provided principally through brokerage from elsewhere in the NHS. As the noble Baroness suggested, that is normal practice in managing the year-end financial position of individual bodies for the NHS overall.
In practical terms, one accepts that while brokerage can assist an organisation to manage its end-of-year position and avoid a breach of its statutory duty, it does not of itself cure the cause of the financial problem; it essentially rolls the issue over into the next financial year. In practical terms, that means that borrowing organisations must have plans in place not only to fund the replacement of brokerage the following year but also to ensure that the problem does not repeat itself—so the underlying cause of the financial overspend needs to be addressed.
Inevitably, that means that although there may have been high levels of growth, a greater proportion of it will be used to meet the cost of the previous year's over-spending and the recurrent effect in forward years of spending above the levels allocated. There is no getting away from that.
Where a health authority has been involved in a brokered situation and its responsibility then devolves down to a primary care trust, clearly the PCT has to pick up the consequences of that. It would not be feasible simply to say that we should wipe the slate clean so that primary care trusts can start from a position as if, within a local health community, there

1219
has not been a financial issue to be dealt with and there has not had to be brokerage. That would not be fair to the NHS as a whole, and it would not ensure that the proper disciplines were in place. The overall position is that, given the overall strengths of NHS finances, primary care trusts in general will have an immensely strong foundation on which to build in the future.
So far as concerns the general point, it is clear that in a situation where brokerage has had to be entered into to deal with some specific funding problems within a local health community, the primary care trust involved will need to take forward those issues when it takes over major responsibility for the budget of the local health service.
Lord Clement-Jones: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, replies—and she will no doubt have a far more penetrating set of questions—what information will the PCT have on the actual state of finances regarding the services that it will be assuming from the health authority? It seems to me that the state of the knowledge of the PCT in the circumstances described by the Minister is of crucial importance.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Of course, the noble Lord is absolutely right, but the books will be open. I do not believe that there should be any situation where information is not available to primary care trusts taking on new financial responsibilities. I know of no reason why full information should not be available to those primary care trusts.
Lord Clement-Jones: If the strategic health authority retains certain functions carried out by the health authority, but the primary care trust assumes other functions, how transparent will the accounts of the former health authority be? How will the deficit be allocated between the strategic health authority and the primary care trust?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Such matters will be as transparent as they can be. I am talking about a situation where financial pressures have been experienced, and brokerage has had to be entered into so as to enable a particular health authority to fulfil its statutory duty. I have already said that the point of brokerage is to allow time to enable the individual health authority to get its financial situation back into a viable position. Inevitably, as strategic health authorities come forward, and as primary care trusts have to take on the major responsibility for funding services at local level, they will have to take on their share of the brokerage arrangements.
Lord Clement-Jones: Is the brokerage allocated by function which is devolved to the primary care trust: or retained by the strategic health authority?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is a matter of the NHS as a whole ensuring that we meet statutory obligations and it will enable the funding to be transferred from
1220
one part of the NHS to another. In essence, the money will have to be paid back. That would not he done by function; there would be a totality of a figure.
Baroness Noakes: I raised the matter of the £120 million. Can the Minister clarify whether that £120 million that is included in the additional expenditure limit for 2001–02 relates to deficits that are carried forward; for example, £120 million borrowed from next year?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I may have to write to the noble Baroness as I do not have the information about the specific figure that she has raised.
Baroness Noakes: I look forward to receiving that. This is an important area.
The questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, are extremely important. The Minister has suggested that it is in some way easy to parcel up a deficit and to attribute it to a primary care trust. I put it to him that there is no logical way of allocating a deficit that exists in one health authority between, say, three or four primary care trusts. Do the primary care trusts share equally in the deficit? Are some allocated larger amounts than others? If a health authority has a deficit at the end of the year, there is no logical way to allocate it to any one particular activity and to say which activity has borne the deficit. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has raised some extremely important questions on that.
I ask the Minister to consider the matter again. He may like to write to us before Report stage about how that provision will work in practice as we have concerns about it. The noble Lord said that this will he a record year for resources, but I put it to him that the signs emerging from the NHS are that next year is already looking extremely tight. I understand that the early cut of the planning framework—nowadays called "SWAFF"—is showing almost as many tensions as there were this time last year. That round was regarded as an extremely difficult and bloody round of financial planning. That may not be a good basis on which to go forward into next year.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This is the time of year for noises and squeals from the health service, because this is the time of year when the health service is trying to reach agreement on the SWAFF round. I suspect that, whatever amount of resource one might give to the health service, there will always be squeals at this time of year. I think that the noble Baroness herself will remember the process all too clearly.
Baroness Noakes: I do remember the process. I was merely remarking that people in the NHS are not saying, "Oh, what a lot of money we've got!" Until we see the end of that process, I think that we might have to take with a pinch of salt the Minister's assertion that there will be so much money sloshing round next year that a few deficits will not make much difference.

1221
Basically, however, the Minister has confirmed to us that PCTs will have to pick up the sins of their forebears. I know that that will be a considerable disappointment to PCTs, who will find it difficult to know how to start their life with a deficit, even if they do not know how that deficit is to be calculated.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Surely this is no different from any other restructuring in the health service when successor bodies take on the assets and liabilities of their predecessors. This is a normal process of structural change in the health service. Moreover, it seems to me that it would be wrong to wipe the slate clean. If we were to do that, surely we would be rewarding areas that have benefited from spending in excess of what we regard as their fair share. It would also send out the wrong signals to primary care trusts about the need to exercise financial discipline in the future. Surely this is the only sensible way in which to go forward.
Baroness Noakes: There are two ways forward. The first is to say that we shall give these new organisations a clean slate to begin with, and the second is to attribute a history from the previous organisation. Each is logical, and each has advantages and disadvantages which have been considered in previous reorganisations. There are two ways to proceed, and some PCTs will be disappointed at the Government's line.
We would like to think again about the issue. We should be grateful if the Minister will provide the additional information that he has undertaken to provide. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.]
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 69:
Page 10, line 7, leave out "may" and insert "must"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, with leave, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 70, 71, 72 and 82. This group of amendments generally concerns payments to primary care trusts under the powers in Section 97C of the 1977 Act as inserted by Clause 8 of this Bill, while Amendment No. 82 deals with the corresponding amendment for Wales to Clause 9.
The effect of Amendment No. 69, which replaces "may" with "must" in subsection (3) of Section 97C, is to convert the Secretary of State's option as to whether he makes an extra payment to a PCT if it has satisfied its objectives or performed well against criteria. If the PCT has fulfilled its side of the bargain and satisfied its objectives and so on, why should the Secretary of State have the option to renege on his side of the bargain?
1222
Amendment No. 70 deletes the words "if it appears to him" from subsection (3). The effect of that is to turn the question of whether a PCT has or has not satisfied its objectives or performed well against criteria from a subjective test to an objective one.
Amendment No. 72 inserts a new subsection after subsection (3) which provides that the Commission for Health Improvement will supply the answer as to whether or not a PCT has passed the performance tests. The Commission for Health Improvement is fairly independent and so can provide the required objectivity.
The sum of those three amendments is to turn a subjective set of tests into objective ones. We on these Benches are far from convinced that the micro-management of PCT budgets via additional payments for achieving the Secretary of State's latest set of requirements is the right route. These provisions are a part of the Secretary of State's determination—as we have discussed before—to hang on to as much power as possible over the PCTs despite his decentralisation rhetoric. In our view, if these powers are to exist and to be held at the centre, they should be operated as rigorously and objectively as possible.
Lastly, Amendment No. 71 leaves out the words,
"(whether or not the method of measuring its performance against those criteria was also notified to it)".
Amendment No. 82 does the same for Wales. This removes a particularly nasty element of the performance payment regime contained in Section 97C. It is not new to your Lordships' House and we debated it in the context of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. The words allow the Secretary of State to move the goalposts or, even worse, erect goalposts after the game has been played.
PCTs can be rewarded for performing well against criteria notified to them as criteria relevant to the satisfactory performance of their functions. Under the terms of Clause 8 it is not necessary to tell PCTs how their performance will be measured. In management terms that is complete nonsense. There is a massive library of literature on rewarding performance, and I do not believe that there is one respectable page of it which would recommend setting measurement rules separately, let alone not notifying measurement rules. But, of course, the Secretary of State may not be interested in sound management practices because we know what he wants to do is to retain as many levers as possible over his NHS. It is not decentralisation. It is old-fashioned command and control.
These amendments are modest changes, designed to give PCTs more of a chance to manage their affairs within the Secretary of State's framework, without the arbitrariness of the powers as drafted. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am particularly interested in Amendment No. 82, which is very similar to Amendment No. 71 relating to England. I am not sure whether these two gratuitous lines that we seek to eliminate do not indicate a somewhat slipshod approach towards financial allocations.

1223
I am bound to say that subsection (3) as a whole reads very oddly in this clause. It says in effect that the Assembly may add to the initial amount allocated to the local health board if (a) the board satisfies notified objectives and (b),
"it performed well against any criteria notified to it as criteria relevant to the satisfactory performance of its function".
Then, as an afterthought, come the two gratuitous lines that the amendment seeks to delete.
My question is how on earth can a local health board perform well if it does not know the criteria against which its performance is to be measured?
I note under subsection (6) that the Assembly may also take away money from boards in the event of failure, wholly or in part, to meet any conditions imposed. What if the money has already been spent in trying to meet the conditions?
The arbitrary subtraction of moneys could in these circumstances have a seriously detrimental effect on the board's services. These arrangements are hardly reassuring so far as the local health boards are concerned, therefore, and seem to confirm our view that this clause gives the Assembly absolute discretion and very considerable latitude in financial matters.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This is indeed happy, familiar territory and I hope that I shall be able to convince the Committee, as I am not sure I did last time we debated the matter, that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why the particular words the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, mentioned should be in the Bill.
What subsections (3) to (6) of Clause 8 to the Bill do is simply to mirror, for primary care trusts, existing powers to make payments to health authorities. Essentially the Secretary of State is here taking power to determine how much to allot each primary care trust based on their performance. He may consider a whole range of factors and we believe it is right that he has the flexibility to determine if and on what basis those payments should be made.
The Secretary of State may want to increase the allocation to a primary care trust for a number of reasons —either as a reward for good performance against challenging targets, or perhaps to assist those PCTs that have under-achieved against certain targets and, therefore, need extra assistance. For example, the Secretary of State might want to reward PCTs to meet challenging waiting-list targets, as in the former performance schemes in operation in 2000–01. Primary care trusts might also take part in pilot schemes, in conjunction with the Modernisation Agency, or others, to develop new ways of delivering healthcare. It would be wrong to tie our hands and remove the ability and flexibility to respond to opportunities to improve local services for people
In 2001–02 all NHS organisations have received their fair share of the new performance fund, regardless of star ratings. High-performing, three-star organisations have, however, the freedom to spend the fund as they want. Organisations with unsatisfactory levels of performance have received their funding with
1224
strings attached. The Modernisation Agency signs off their plans and oversees the implementation and spending of the fund. That will also be the case in 2002–03.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would take away the flexibility of the Secretary of State to consider whether performance payments were warranted in the light of other information. I believe that these amendments rather contradict Amendments Nos. 71 and 72, which seek to make payments dependent on reports by the Commission for Health Improvement. Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 would take away the flexibility of the Secretary of State to take into account such factors as CHI reports.
The Secretary of State should specify the precise measures used to assess performance. Indeed. I do not believe that there is any doubt in that respect. However, for important reasons, he might not be able to do so before the start of the financial year in question. Planning guidance published in autumn 2001 will affect the financial performance for the year 2002–03, which, in turn, will influence the performance ratings that are due to be published in July 2003. It would simply not be possible to commit ourselves to the precise measures and thresholds to be used 18 months in advance of the star ratings being published.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said that this was like moving the goal posts. However, perhaps I may give the Committee an example of how this provision would apply. The recently published mortality indicator for all deaths within 30 days following an operation now includes subsequent deaths in hospital and at home. This is clearly a better indicator than using only the deaths-in-hospital statistic which was previously used. Many patients are discharged from hospital and die elsewhere. If, however, we tied ourselves to the old measure purely because hospitals knew about it 18 months ago when the planning and priorities guidance was issued, that would mean using an inferior indicator of hospital performance.
In terms of the integrity of the process, perhaps it would be helpful if I inform noble Lords that in 2002 CHI will publish the performance ratings, and in 2003 will take full responsibility for the process. It will still be for the Secretary of State to determine the priorities for the NHS, but CHI will have an active role in overall assessment. As CHI is an independent inspectorate, this seems to be an appropriate division of responsibilities as opposed to the Department of Health, which is accountable through Ministers to Parliament for the management and performance of the NHS.
Indeed, the department may well act on the recommendations of CHI, as was the case last September when the star ratings of two NHS trusts were downgraded to zero stars because of adverse CHI reports. However, I believe that it would be wrong to put CHI in the driving seat when determining if and how to make specific payments based on performance. Surely that is a proper function of the Secretary of State.

1225
As I have said, the Secretary of State may want to increase the allocation to a primary care trust for a number of reasons, either as a reward for good performance against challenging targets or, as I have said, to assist those primary care trusts which have under-achieved against certain targets and need extra assistance.
Amendment No. 82 concerns Clause 9, which deals with the funding of local health boards in Wales. The National Assembly is currently considering a new framework to promote continuous improvement in health and health services in Wales. That is based on a "balanced score card" approach. The Welsh approach will be to look at the situation in the round—the resources and pressures locally as well as the current performance—and will have a future orientation. It will not simply give good or bad marks but will look at capacity, processes and results and provide a strong steer to every health organisation to sustain good performance and make improvements over time where needed.
If performance were to be measured solely on numerical indicators, it would be straightforward to specify the exact methodology for measuring performance. Although numerical indicators will play a key role in performance assessment, they cannot illustrate every aspect of performance. To give an example, one element of taking a balanced view of overall performance would be to assess whether the healthcare system is in touch with patients, its staff and partners both in terms of expectations and satisfaction. For such an area, performance will be more appropriately assessed against statements and standards. To set out exactly how performance will be measured in advance might be counter-productive and restrict the autonomy of the Assembly to take into account all the information available in reaching that judgment. The approach being taken by the National Assembly is innovative and will need to be fine tuned to best accommodate nuances in assessing performance. I hope that noble Lords will accept that a straitjacket would not be helpful in the early stages of performance funding.
I hope that my example illustrates why it is important that the amendment should not be accepted and that some flexibility must be allowed in order to arrive at a balanced view of local health board performance.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that extremely comprehensive reply. He made a bid for flexibility. One man's flexibility is another man's lack of certainty. If we look at the arrangements for performance payments through the other end of the telescope, the primary care trust end, we might find that the view from there is that the Secretary of State does not want to give certainty to primary care trusts about how the performance regime will operate for them. He wants to retain as many controls over it as
1226
possible, including using indicators that were not even relevant when the PCT set out its plan for what it was to achieve and went ahead.
These are complex matters and the hour is late. I shall read the Minister's comments in Hansard with interest. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70 to 73 not moved.]
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 74:
Page 10, leave out line 42.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 74 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 75. With Amendment No. 74 we return again to the theme of the powers of the Secretary of State over primary care trusts. The amendment deletes paragraph (a) of subsection (8) of Section 97C of the 1977 Act as inserted by Clause 8 of the Bill.
Paragraph (a) allows the Secretary of State to give directions to a PCT with respect to moneys paid to it as allocations or as additional allocations for performance. The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that on the one hand he is committed to decentralisation, to devolving decision-making to the front line and to freedoms and autonomy for PCTs while at the same time retaining massive powers to intervene in their affairs.
Paragraph (a) would give the Secretary of State carte blanche to tell PCTs what to do. This is not about strategic direction at a high level. There is no limitation on this power. It potentially attaches to every last penny paid to a PCT. The Minister may say that the Secretary of State needs these powers for when things go badly wrong and that he would not use them all the time. However, we are all well aware that statutory powers of direction, even though rarely used formally, are used often and significantly by way of background threat and inducement to achieve things. I believe that the power is grossly disproportionate and wholly out of keeping with the Government's stated intention to decentralise.
Amendment No. 75 is rather different. It inserts the word "reasonable" into subsection (9) of new Section 97C so that when the Secretary of State sets conditions as to records and certificates they must be reasonable conditions. I am sure that the Secretary of State would only act reasonably and therefore that the noble Lord will find it easy to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Amendment No. 83 relating to Wales is grouped with these amendments. It is an indication of general public concern in Wales that there should be equitable distribution of funds between local health boards in different parts of the country. That is a very sensitive issue in Wales. Ministers may have noted in Committee last Thursday that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in her proposed new clause, ascribed to the national

1227
agency that she proposed, the function of overseeing "the equitable distribution of funds" to local health services. It is a very important issue.
We are all familiar with the fact that, for example, similar operations do not cost the same in different parts of Wales. There are tremendous variations in cost for fairly standard operations. I am sure that the Assembly will do its best to reduce those differences. There are similar variations in England.
We also have postcode prescribing in Wales. Certain drugs are available in certain areas and not in others. There are also variations in waiting times for hospital treatment. In these circumstances, there is a strong temptation to concentrate resources on the worse affected areas at the expense of the best served. The result is often to reduce the level of service overall.
Of course it is certainly not easy to define, and even more difficult to provide equity where funding is concerned. All sorts of factors have to be taken into account. There is the nature of the population, levels of morbidity, the NHS inheritance and so on. Nevertheless, in a country like Wales, some regard must be paid to the equity principle; otherwise people soon sense that one area is being unduly favoured at the expense of another and discord ensues.
I am bound to tell the Minister that I am not reassured by the fact that there are going to be different formulas operating in England and Wales. I do not see why we should not have the same formula operating in, both countries if there is any objective criterion which that formula must meet.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have noted with interest the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that we operate the same formula. I suspect that many of the broad principles will be the same, but I think that there is some advantage in looking at how different approaches work out in practice. Obviously, it will be interesting to compare how this works through over the next number of years.
The effect of Amendment No. 74 would be that the Secretary of State could not impose any conditions on any of the allocations to a primary care trust. As we devolve power to the local level we clearly want to get as much resource as we possibly can to primary care trusts. But we also want to be able to set the general course for the NHS and to set national priorities. On occasion—I stress "on occasion"—we might want to ring-fence part of the allocation to ensure that funds are spent on the purpose for which they are allocated. We do that at present for out-of-hours development funds for GPs, and we must retain that facility.
On Amendment No. 75, under existing provisions for funding health authorities and primary care trusts, it has always been for the Secretary of State to decide what records each health authority and primary trust may keep, subject to the usual constraints of parliamentary accountability. So far as reasonableness
1228
is concerned, power must be exercised rationally. It cannot be exercised in a way in which no reasonable Secretary of State would act. On that basis, the wording of the amendment is superfluous. Obviously, the Secretary of State would always act in a reasonable way.
On Amendment No. 83, I listened with great interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, about the issue of equity in Wales. That is a matter for the National Assembly, but I understand that the Assembly is committed to ensuring more equitable access for the entire population in Wales. As I said earlier, the Assembly is currently considering the outcome of a major resource allocation review, which is an attempt to close the gap between the worse off and better off in health terms.
The problem with Amendment No. 83 is that if it were accepted, the Assembly would be prevented from pacing the introduction of a new formula. Pacing is important. In any move to a new formula that could lead to large differences in the new allocation compared to the old one, we must ensure that the rate of introduction is paced. The problem with Amendment No. 83 is that it would inhibit the National Assembly's ability to pace that introduction. The National Assembly for Wales is exercised by the production of a fair formula. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will not press that amendment.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply on both my amendments and that of my noble friend Lord Roberts. I cannot say that I am surprised by the Minister's views on Amendment No. 74. Of course, the power allows the Secretary of State to direct the smallest amount of activity in a primary care trust, because he is allowed to attach a power of direction to any tiny amount paid to a primary care trust. The Minister said that he may want to use that for ring-fencing to set direction for the NHS.
Of course, if it were simply a question of direction and balance, that would be much easier to understand. Perhaps at present we are lacking the words to give that sense in the Bill. In the light of the Minister's comments, I shall reflect further and see whether we can include in a direction-giving power something of a higher level to give sufficient freedom for primary care trusts. However, at this late hour, I shall not labour the point further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Lord Filkin: It is nearly 11 o'clock and I am aware that the House is sitting early tomorrow. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Employment Bill
Monday, 18th March 2002.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 22 [Employment tribunals]:
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 75:
Page 32, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) No award shall be made under subsection (1) to a party which is a body corporate where the relevant time was spent by a director, executive, consultant or employee of the company in the ordinary course of duties for which he is engaged or remunerated, whether or not those duties were executed in overtime, or to a party which is a partnership where it was spent by a partner, consultant or employee in the ordinary course of his duties or of the partnership."
The noble Baroness said: We debated this clause at some length at our last Committee sitting and my noble friend Lord Wedderburn demonstrated conclusively why Clause 22(2) should not be in the Bill at all. My noble friends and I are not alone in that view. My own union Amicus, formerly MSF, has written to me to say that it thinks it should come out. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn has quoted the Law Society's brief, which of course I have seen, and there are others as well. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which has unrivalled experience of representing people who otherwise would have no one else to support them, believes that the possibility of incurring costs is already a deterrent to potential claimants. In fact, it says that CABs are already reporting an increase in cases where applicants are intimidated by threats of costs. It concludes:
"We fear that the potential for a party's preparation time to be reflected in costs awards will simply strengthen the ability of employers' legal representatives to intimidate tribunal applicants with threats of an action for costs quoting the maximum that may be available."
It seems that the Government have not been willing to accept our earlier amendments on this issue.
So we come to our amendment, which at least seeks some measure of fairness in the matter of preparation compensation—an unprecedented provision, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has demonstrated. It seems unjust that an employer should be able to claim the cost of preparing for a case when the people involved in such preparation would have to do this kind of work anyway as part of normal duties. An employer, unless this clause is amended, would be able to claim the cost of the time of people working in his personnel department, or of people holding managerial positions (or their support staff) where staff matters are a part of their normal remit. Therefore, preparation compensation could be quite substantial, with legal costs presumably in addition.
CWH 126
An employee, however, particularly if not represented, would not be able to claim so much by way of preparation compensation. He might do his preparation on his kitchen table in the evenings. It is difficult to see how employment tribunals could be expected to handle the arrangements set out in this clause equitably.
Of course, NACAB is right. One can very well see that unscrupulous employers, or their lawyers, would be prepared to use the mere existence of a provision of this kind to intimidate potential claimants. They could tell them, "You realise that you may lose and, if you do, you will not only face costs but you will also have to compensate the employer for the time his staff have to spend preparing for the ET case. That could run into a great deal of money, so think hard. The employer intends to fight this case hard. Is it worth the risk"?
I have already had examples of what happens now. There is the case of a Mr H who claimed unfair dismissal and was acting for himself. The employer's representative wrote to him, threatening him with costs as follows:
"It is clear from the facts that your claim is wholly without merit and is bound to fail. Therefore, we hereby place you upon notice of costs as we are of the view that this claim is frivolous and vexatious and is bound to fail. For the avoidance of doubt, if you withdraw your claim, we shall not pursue you for costs".
This case was handled by a local law centre. When it went to an ET, the tribunal decided that the individual had been unfairly dismissed and awarded him the maximum compensation of £50,000.
I have a case here, too, of alleged sexual harassment. The two women concerned were threatened that.
"[there] are likely now to be awarded substantial sums against people who bring claims on the spurious grounds of discrimination, such as we are sure you will alert your client can he up to £50,000".
The two women concerned were, of course, very worried when they received that letter. If preparation costs are also added, that is even more cause for attempting to intimidate people into not taking cases.
I hope that the Minister will see that we are trying to introduce an element of fairness into this clause. We are trying to ensure that heavy preparation costs do not include the costs of people whose job it is normally within a firm to handle staff matters with the result that a heavy preparation award could be expected to be made and could be threatened. It is the deterrent effect which bothers many of us. I hope that the Government will look favourably on the amendment. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I rise to support my noble friend in her arguments for the amendment. I want to raise one or two points which, in my submission, show how important it is and how important the Government's lack of understanding on this matter appears to be.
As has already been explained by the Government, Clause 22(2), which deals with preparation time, suggests a payment which, I believe, is quite new. It is

CWH 127
a derogation from the ordinary principle of law that a company is a separate person from its shareholders, managers and employees. We are faced with a new kind of legal "payment" which, as has already been established, although drafted to look even-handed, will impact especially and disproportionately upon employees who are claimants in the tribunals. Applicants can be made to,
"make a payment to any other party"—
it could be a third party but normally an employer will be the respondent—
"in respect of the time spent by that other party in preparing his case".
It is not costs, although the Government may one day, by regulation, make it applicable where costs are payable. We believed that that should be in the Bill if that is what they intend. There will be a limit on the maximum to the costs maximum of £10,000. That is not exactly compensation because it is not payable for actual loss. Compensation is for loss. However, the amounts will not be measured by loss; they will be bureaucratically predetermined by a scale of which the logic will be known only to the Department of Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State. The amount to be paid will not even be in the discretion of the courts or the tribunals, as is the case in any parallel in relation to costs—if there is one—in the High Court.
This is a new animal in the judicial zoo of penalty payments and it should, therefore, be examined very closely. I still await the answer to my question of 9th January about any parallel precedents in the ordinary courts, tribunals or planning inquiries on the matter of preparation time.
The CBI welcomed this proposal, while the TUC and a significant number of other respondents to Routes to Resolution did not. One respondent pointed out—I am citing the Government's response to the consultation—that such a change might encourage employers to spend undue time and resources in preparing their case. However, the Government's proposals apparently did not intend to limit recovery to cases where costs are recoverable—at least, not on the face of the Bill, which is highly relevant to this amendment. Instead, in response to the consultation, they said at page 36:
"The Government believes it is right that those affected by weak and vexatious cases, applicants or respondents, to be compensated for the time spent preparing their case."
It says "weak and vexatious cases". Weak cases are not necessarily cases where costs are payable. The Government do not seem to understand the difference between weak cases, where you have to try the merits of the case to decide whether it is weak; or unreasonable and misconceived cases, where there is manifestly no cause of action at all; or vexatious cases; or cases conducted unreasonably, where a party goes on and on about a point that is obviously a failure. Those affected by weak cases—and we will come to the matter later in the Bill—are all to get their preparation time, according to the Government, which goes beyond the notion of costs.
CWH 128
My noble friend has quoted the comment of the citizens advice bureaux, that the potential of this clause would be to strengthen the ability of employers' legal representatives to intimidate tribunal applicants with threats of an action—they say, for costs—quoting the maximum that may be available. The Minister, my right honourable friend Mr Alan Johnson, confirmed on 11th December, (col. 61), that new preparation time awards would apply even where the employer was legally represented. This is not limited, therefore, to cases of no legal representation.
The importance of the matter raised by our amendment is that there is a legal howler at the root of the new animal in the zoo. Most respondents to an employment tribunal hearing are employers who are registered companies. The first principle of the legal status of a registered company is that it is a legal person, totally distinct from the natural persons who own it, from the managers who manage its business and from the employees who work for it. As Lord Halsbury said in the great precedent of Salomon v. Salomon in 1897:
"The company is a different person altogether from the subscribers"—
that is, subscribers who are shareholders. As many other cases have established, it is separate from the managers and it is separate from the employees.
Therefore, when the clause states, therefore, that the party can recover an award for time spent, "in preparing his case"—what it should say in terms of corporate bodies is "its case"—of whom is it speaking? The case prepared by the company—but who is that? Every time you have a corporate body in a section of an Act of Parliament, you have to decide who counts as the company.
Throughout the proceedings in another place and, indeed, even in government documents, it has been assumed that "his" case—or "its" case, as it should be—here means that the company includes every secretary, manager, executive, consultant who works on the case. That does not necessarily follow. As my noble friend explained, the company is already paying these people; they are already employed.
It may be that there has been a mistake and it really means cases where the company has no legal representative. I am interested in what the Ministers will say about that. However, even a litigant in person is not permitted in the High Court to claim costs incurred on his behalf by secretaries, consultants and assistants. His claim is capped to two-thirds of the amount he would have been allowed if he had been represented by a legal representative. That is in the rules of the Supreme Court; it is Rule 48 PD-003, in Section 52.4. The section goes on to say,
"The amount which may be awarded to a litigant in person under rule 46(3)(5)b and rule 48.6(4)—
which are the relevant sections—
"is £9.25 an hour".
Is that going to be the limit also in the tribunals, or is the company going to be able to charge more?

CWH 129
I would like the Minister to answer that because the Government know what is going to be in the regulations. They will tell us that it will be in the regulations; of course it could not possibly go into the Bill because then we would know. It is going to be in the regulations, so is it going to be £9.25 an hour as in the High Court, or is it going to more?
On 11th December, the Minister in another place said that they were considering—he did not say they had decided making the scale of recovery—this is the Department of Trade and Industry scale that we are going to have in regulations—
"perhaps against average costs per jurisdiction". [Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 11/12/01; co1.64.]
Therefore, it will not only be actual loss for time spent in preparing the case, it will be an average over cases in that jurisdiction. What possible justice is there in that?
The Minister also said,
"We must find a way to calculate what an hour of a person's time is worth." [Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 11/12/01: col. 62.]
How are they going to do that? What sort of mentality goes into that approach?
The Routes to Resolution, and the associated document, that notorious Survey of Employment Tribunals 1998 (SETA), told us that cases which go to an employment tribunal hearing are said to involve a median a 27 hours for time spent by persons who act for employers. Even at £200 per hour, let alone £9.25, it would come to some £5,400 to £5,500 a case. What sort of approach to the actual sums involved is to be adopted in relation to this?
The legal howler at the root of the new rule is, of course, that nobody has explained why the case of a corporate respondent should include all the work done by a manager, executive, secretary or anybody else. They are all people, as my noble friend said, who get paid for the work they do anyway. The only possible rationale and justification for such an approach is that tribunal cases are special. The personnel manager will deal with it anyway, but it is so outrageous that there should be a case in a tribunal against a corporate employer, that the employee, if his costs are awarded or anything like it, must subsidise the defendant for the work for which the corporate body is paying anyway.
When we look at the impact assessment in the Government's response to consultation, they say at page 47 that:
"costs awards will include".
I break off to say it is really rather confusing for the Government suddenly to say "costs awards". This is a different payment from costs awards, as my noble friend the Minister explained very well when we last met. They say that:
"Costs awards will include costs of time spent by parties where cases or defences are weak. Awards will be possible against paid representatives where it is their behaviour which has triggered the costs award".
The proposals, they say, should discourage a small number of weak tribunal applications. Of course, this is the objective all the time. Under the banner of introducing workplace procedure, they aim to get rid
CWH 130
of 40,000 employment tribunal applications. How many will this deal with? The Government also state that the proposal should discourage a small number of weak tribunal applications, about 100 to 500 a year. Is that right? Perhaps the Minister will tell us if that is wrong. How many cases is this going to discourage?
The response also says that in addition, more costs awards will be made providing more compensation to those at the receiving end of unreasonable behaviour. This passage is a terrible jumble. Costs are mixed up with compensation and the new animal of payment for time spent by parties. But all that is in breach of normal legal principles to save 100 to 500 cases a year. Is that right? The confusion has been confirmed in a letter which the Minister, my honourable friend Mr Alan Johnson, has written more than once, mainly to Members in another place, saying:
"I am writing to you once more to set the record straight on the Employment Bill".
I refer to the Minister's letter of 15th February, which has been widely distributed and on which I have been consulted. It is very strange. It states,
"we have already said that the compensation"—
that is, compensation for time spent—
"will probably not relate to actual hours worked but to average amounts, this is because it would require parties to keep detailed records of their case preparation time and we do not wish to impose this requirement on either party".
That is a new explanation. Parties cannot be made to keep records of the time that they spend preparing cases and, therefore, a scale is going to be drawn up out of the air. I continue with the quotation:
"We intend the implementing regulations to provide for tribunals to make these awards on the basis of guidance. Of course, we are aware of concerns that preparation time may impact harshly on applicants because respondents are in a position to rack up high costs. Consequently, as there are a number of ways to implement this proposal we intend to have a full public consultation to ensure that the specific details are right. For example, options include a cap on compensation for preparation time, and fixed costs to keep excessive claims at bay.
I do not believe that this provision gives extra ammunition for intimidatory behaviour. We are told that it is the £10,000 ceiling on costs the tribunal may award which is being used to intimidate. This limit is not part of the Bill but we will examine further how to address these legitimate concerns. In the meantime an award made by a tribunal for preparation time would have to fit within it"—
that is, within the £10,000, which is quite a lot of money. I continue:
"We believe that it is important to provide information for parties on the costs regime because the threat of high awards is not based on the facts".
Of course, we do not know that because we have not seen the scale which the Department of Trade and Industry has in its corporate mind. No doubt it includes its managers, secretaries and everyone else, but we do not know what will be put forward.
Our amendment would offset the novelty of this new type of payment—at least to the extent that an employing company should not be able to pay for persons for whom it is paying anyway and who, in the ordinary course of their duties, including overtime, deal with tribunal cases. Time spent by the company in

CWH 131
preparing its case—or, as the clause states, "his case"—is said by most people to include a great deal of time spent by people who are employed to do the job anyway. It is bad in justice and it is bad in law.
The noble Baroness frowns. I must explain the matter again. It is bad in law because, if I say that the company can charge its expenses, then one has to make an imaginative leap to ask for whom the legal person—the company—is claiming for its expenses. Is it the expenses of the door-keeper, the secretary, the managers, the executives, the noble Lord, Lord Simpson, if he deals with it, or whoever deals with the case? Is a limit to be placed on this? It is no good saying, "Yes, there will be a limit. It might be set out in regulation". This point must be made more clearly to the Committee than we have done. It is our fault that we have not made it sufficiently clear in the past.
Primary legislation is for matters of principle. If primary legislation is to be changed, Parliament must consider it and Parliament can amend it. A regulation cannot be amended and a regulation is frequently—we all know this—not adequately discussed. A regulation is an easy way for the department concerned to change the law without too much trouble.
If there is to be a limit on who is the company for corporate parties to tribunal litigation, that should be in the Bill. No doubt our amendment's wording could be improved and we would be very happy for the Minister to consider it and take it away. If the Minister will take this away we can come back on Report and discuss a much better amendment if he puts one forward. At least there will not be an open-ended offer that anybody employed by the company who touches this problem of litigation can be charged for even when it is their job to deal with the matter in any event.
I very strongly support this amendment and hope that it will be considered favourably by the Minister.
Lord Davies of Coity: I rise to support the amendment. The clause to which the amendment refers looks, on the face of it, to be extremely even-handed and it can apply to both applicants and the respondents in a case before a tribunal. However, in practical terms this clause undoubtedly is going to be of greater significance to an employer than it ever will be to an employee making an application. An employer will have a personnel department and an industrial relations department, and the costs that they incur can be considerable—I understand that. I do not think that that is so much the problem. The problem will perhaps involve intimidating the employee who has been unfairly dismissed, or claims that he is unfairly dismissed or wrongfully selected for redundancy. Indeed, he may be bullied to the extent that has to put in a resignation and then claim constructive dismissal. The employer will be saying, "All right, you take me to a tribunal, but you imagine what it is going to cost you if you lose". To that extent it will deter an applicant from putting forward an application, and that is the wrong way of dealing with it.
CWH 132
In my experience of industrial tribunals, I have known many employers over the years—particularly if they did not know whether they were going to win or lose at an industrial tribunal—who took steps to reach a settlement on the grounds that those costs would be less than those that they would incur preparing to meet the application at an employment tribunal. Those are the facts and figures that arise from my practical experience in employment tribunals, and it seems to me that in practical terms this will be wholly loaded to the advantage of an employer. Agreeing to the amendment would at least go some way towards evening the practical balance that is required.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: As we have heard several times, Clause 22 seeks to give new power to tribunals to order one party to make payment to the other in respect of the time it has been taken preparing his or her case. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, said that the arrangement looks even-handed, but he went on to suggest that perhaps it was not so even-handed and that it was much more to the benefit of employers than employees. I do not agree. I think that it is even-handed. The Government are to be commended on that.
Amendment No. 75 seeks to modify the power in Clause 22 quite drastically by refusing such compensation for time expended to corporations where the time has been expended by a director or employee of the company who would be paid whatever work he was doing, or to a partner in a firm or a paid employee.
I believe that the amendment gives rise to four questions. Why do the proposers of the amendment discriminate against, for example, a small trader who perhaps operates his corner shop via a limited company rather than his personal name? The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, said that employers will have personnel departments and so on. My experience from the employers' side is that most businesses are small businesses that employ people and there are many more small businesses than there are large businesses. I believe that the Government have been fair in taking note of that.
The second question that arises is: why is there the same discrimination against two people who are trading in partnership as distinct from a sole trader? One assumes that the tribunal will award such costs and expenses to the winner, so why should a small trader be penalised for the time and trouble that he has taken to prepare his successful case simply because he has not employed a lawyer?
Lord Davies of Coity: Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Baroness that a small trader probably will not incur the costs that would be incurred as a result of what is contained in the amendment. Consequently, the amendment would cater for that situation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I do not believe that the amendment would do so; the clause deals with that problem. The whole tenor of the amendment is to militate against employers who succeed in their case.

CWH 133
My fourth question is: is this not an instance of anti-employer legislation, whereas the Government have commendably produced an even-handed proposal? That is where I started my comments.
4 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I was worried about this provision when I first saw it. At page 32, the Bill refers to, "compensation for preparation time". One would think that that was going to be standard procedure; one would think that everybody could get back their preparation time. Employment tribunal procedure regulations may include provision for authorising an employment tribunal to order a party to proceedings before it to make a payment to any other party in respect of the time spent by that other party in preparing his case. In other words, if one knew nothing about anything else, one may think if one goes to an employment tribunal in future, one will have to pay the other party's preparation time. That is what it seems to say.
Where does it say something otherwise? If one reads the very short debate that took place in another place and what was said by the Minister, the situation is not clear; it becomes more confused. The Explanatory Notes state:
"It is also intended that the new awards could be made"—
I do not like "could", I would rather have "will"—
"only in the circumstances in which a costs award may be made at present".
That is nothing to do with losing or winning. The notes define what the circumstances are in which a costs award may be made; that is, where the party has behaved unreasonably in some way. In other words, if one reads this and nothing but this, it does not seem so bad because all that is being said is that this is another way of adding to costs. If one behaves unreasonably, one will not only get costs but will also be asked to pay for the other party's time spent in preparing his case.
My question is simple: is that government policy? Are the Government prepared to tell us that when we get the regulations, all that we will be asked to pay is a little bit extra—or rather, more extra—when costs are currently levied where the party has behaved unreasonably? As long as one does not behave unreasonably, one will never have to pay for preparing the other fellow's case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Of course, I take seriously anything that comes from the sources that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, quoted. I take seriously the views of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and of her union, which represents many low-paid and junior people and others. I understand the concern behind what the noble Baroness is saying. I understand the concern that applicants may suffer under a new system of case preparation compensation; that it may not operate evenly in practice as between employees and employers, although the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, thinks it will; and it may become a tool with which to intimidate genuine applications. I will say, baldly, that that is not what we intend.
CWH 134
The introduction of case preparation is intended to reflect the fact that in employment tribunals, most parties are not legally represented. When a tribunal considers that a costs award is just, there may be no compensation for the injured party, because that injured party has not incurred costs or expenses, but may be justified in having compensation for preparation time.
We believe—for all the reasons we explained last week and which I shall not repeat—that the introduction of case preparation provides a fairer base for recompense which reflects the nature of employment tribunals. On the whole, costs and expenses—"expenses" being the Scottish word—are more likely to be incurred by the respondent, by the employer, than by the applicant. If there is any bias at all in subsection (2) of Clause 22, it is towards those who are not legally represented; on the whole, to the applicants.
I am not able to accept the amendment as it stands because it is not the best way of achieving a fairer costs regime. It seeks to limit awards made to employers to work which has been done on the case which is outside the ordinary duties of an employer of staff. In effect, it would mostly exclude employers from case preparation compensation, despite the fact that an employer may not be represented and may have spent time preparing the defence. The principle behind the amendment is to ensure that preparation time awards do not impact disproportionately on applicants. I have every sympathy with that aim, but I do not believe the amendment is the way to achieve it.
Perhaps I may go a little further. We have been developing our thinking on this and there may be merit in developing it further since, as I said, after all, this Bill is not set in stone. Let me say what are restrictions we intend, as things stand, on compensation for preparation time.
First, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked me whether compensation for preparation time would be standard procedure. The noble Lord answered his own question by quoting the Explanatory Notes.
"It is also intended that the new awards could be made only in the circumstances in which a costs award may be made at present, that is, where the party has behaved unreasonably in some way".
That is what the regulations will say.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Is it "could be made" or "will be made"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What is the difference?
Lord McCarthy: I could say, " I may have heard you, or I may not have heard you".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is intended that they should be made only in these circumstances. How is that different from saying that it is intended that they will be made?
Lord McCarthy: Well—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is intended that they could be made, so that there is no possibility that they

CWH 135
should be made, except in these circumstances. That is what it means. I am talking about the English language now.
Lord McCarthy: The Minister is saying that it would make no difference—I cannot move an amendment on this, so he is quite safe—if it said that the new awards will be made. If I say that "could", in this case, means "will", I will be correct.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If it says that the new awards could be made only in certain circumstances, it means that they could not be made other than in those circumstances. That is the same as will, in effect. There is no difference in the English language and there is not much to be gained from this argument.
My answer to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is that it is not standard procedure. It is the same procedure as with costs and expenses. Since we have been quoted again and again, that there have only been 247 costs cases a year out of 130,000 applications, it follows that this is a very rare procedure. It also follows that there is nothing in the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, used, that this is an attempt to discourage applications to the tribunal. It would be quite a pathetic attempt if it were but it certainly is not.
I go further: NACAB quite reasonably talked about the problems of the applicant making out his case on the kitchen table. That is exactly the kind of compensation for preparation time that we are talking about. The applicant has no lawyer; the applicant has nobody to advise him. If the respondent behaves unreasonably, the applicant has no costs which can be awarded against the respondent. The applicant has only his own efforts. Compensation for preparation time precisely helps that. There is a maximum amount that may be made. That applies to costs and expenses and also to compensation for preparation time.
Costs are not intended to act as a deterrent to genuine applications, neither is compensation for preparation time. They are intended both to deter and to protect the other party from vexatious behaviour and cases which have no reasonable prospect of success. We want the costs regime and the compensation regime to operate more fairly, not less fairly.
I can say to the Committee, therefore, that the Government are prepared to think again on this issue and intend to bring forward an amendment at the Report stage. The amendment will have the effect that a party may not receive both case preparation time and a costs award for the same time period. The logic of extending the costs regime to include preparation time is that there should be recompense for people who are not legally represented. Logically, I accept that the extension should not apply to those who engage legal representation. I give that answer specifically to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, was making on behalf of NACAB.
There are of course details to be worked out, which is what will happen between now and the Report stage. We will let Members of the Committee have sight of
CWH 136
the proposed amendment as far in advance of the Report stage as we can. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Will the Minister say a word about the points that I raised about a body corporate? No doubt the Government gave great care to drafting this clause—indeed, this new section—of the Employment Tribunals Act; that it is to be time spent that is recompensed by the other party "in preparing his case". How does that apply to a body corporate? Do the Government intend that every person working for the body corporate on the case should be chargeable at so much per hour? The Minister referred in the other place to working out how much per hour. Perhaps the Government have some idea of how much they have in mind? If so, perhaps he could tell us now? How does that apply to a body corporate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer is that we do not have an idea yet, no. It will be the tribunals which will calculate the preparation time; it will not be the DTI or the Government. It will be the tribunals themselves.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With guidance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let me finish the sentence. One possibility is to link assessment to the time and remuneration of the staff of the respondent. Certainly, that is a possibility. As far as we are concerned, a party to the proceedings can be an individual, it can be a body corporate and it can be a partnership, as the amendment points out. It makes no difference as far as the Bill is concerned; there is no reference in the Bill to a body corporate. They are parties to the proceedings. They could be sole traders; they could be partnerships; they could be bodies corporate of various kinds and the rules will apply impartially to whatever corporate status they have. The fundamental answer is that these are difficult regulations to frame and we will have to consult on them before we finish framing them and before they are presented to Parliament.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sorry to press my noble friend on this. I am aware that a party may be a sole trader, which is irrelevant to our amendment. I am aware that all sorts of bodies may be involved, but I am concerned, first of all, with the body corporate. Have the Government received legal advice on what is meant in the section they are going to add to the 1996 Act about the time spent preparing the case by a body corporate who is a party to the proceedings? Whose time is included? They must have some idea of this or else they would not have tabled the new section.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have already said that one option is that we will be linking the assessment of compensation for preparation time to the time and remuneration of the staff of the respondent if the respondent is a body corporate. That is one option but there is a whole series of other options for different corporate status.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It could be that my noble friend has not decided this yet. It is a central issue to the clause but the Government have not yet decided whose time is going to be chargeable as a body corporate's time spent in preparing the case. Could it be all the staff who ever come across it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It would have to be a reasonable assessment of actual tasks. It would have to be within the cost and expenses envelope which already exists; it could not be additional to that. It would have to be assessed by the tribunal. The principal thing is that the advantage of having a compensation for preparation time is that that is available to the applicant, even if the applicant is working for himself. As regards the detail in which the regulations will go about which staff of a body corporate are eligible to be claimed for compensation, that surely is a detail that can be covered in consultation.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With great respect to my noble friend, I want to pursue this. I am sorry to press him on this. He says it is a question of what is reasonable. That is a question of fact. The questions that I am asking are questions of law. If the tribunal awards costs to a body corporate, that is not to do with applicants; I am not sure that the applicant is ever a body corporate in an employment tribunal. If the Minister knows of such cases he will tell me. I am talking about bodies corporate. They are therefore 99.9 per cent—if not 100 per cent—likely to be respondents.
Where there is a body corporate, is it as a matter of law wrong for the tribunal to award preparation time spent by the secretary in the company? It is a question of law. I want to know what the Government's law is. Would it be upset on appeal if it awarded preparation time for someone in a subsidiary company who had worked on it? Does it apply to that party, including all the employees of that party? Does it include the corporate group? We should consider a number of cases in the tribunal. The reality today involves not the company but the corporate group. Does it extend to a party who is a member of a corporate group where the matter has expanded into the issues that relate to corporate groups? The Government must have some view on these questions of law, or have they not bothered?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am advised that there is no issue of law here. I am advised that on the question of the way in which the regulations are framed, the regulations must be framed so as to be even-handed. Of course they must be framed in such a way that the tribunals can interpret them and apply them in an even-handed way between applicants and respondents. Before the regulations have been framed it is certainly not appropriate for me to say that the regulations will include or exclude secretaries or directors or whoever it may be within bodies
CWH 138
corporate. That is a matter to be determined in the regulations and to be consulted on when draft regulations are amended.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I welcome much of what the Minister has said in response to this amendment. However, in view of the most recent exchanges, I do not see why our amendment could not be accepted. If it is the Government's intention that this should not act as a deterrent, we have said enough to demonstrate that there is ample evidence that, even at the present time, claimants are often put off and the question of possible costs acts as a substantial deterrent. If preparation costs, which could include managerial costs, support staff costs, personnel departments and so on—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On the amendment that we will bring forward on Report, I said that the two are mutually exclusive. We cannot have a claim for costs and expenses and a claim for compensation for preparation time for the same time period both being put forward.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I certainly welcome the Minister's comment to the extent that one cannot claim for both compensation costs and costs for the same time period. However, we shall need to look at the wording of that amendment when it is tabled. I am pleased that the Government have accepted that it is not just a question of leaving this to regulation but there has to be a change in the wording currently in the Bill and that there will be a draft amendment, which we shall have the opportunity of looking at before Report. That is important in view of the statements that have been made this afternoon by the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Employment Appeal Tribunal]:
[Amendments Nos. 77 to 81 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Conciliation]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 33, line 29, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
The noble Lord said: Clause 24 is about conciliation. I take it to be common ground that nothing is more important than that we should have as many cases as possible settled by conciliation or other means before they go to the tribunal.
We do not quite understand parts of the clause. At first, it looks rather technical but, in fact, it amends, especially in subsections (2) and (3), which we are moving to delete. It does so rather in a probing sense

CWH 139
because we do not quite understand the provision. The provision seems to us not, as the Explanatory Notes suggest, to encourage conciliation but to diminish the opportunities for conciliation.
Clause 24(2) relates to Section 18 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which I immediately say is a most important section because, of course, it is the section whereby any case which is presented to a tribunal immediately goes, as a matter of course, to the ACAS conciliation officer. Although there is not a lot in our discussions about conciliation officers, nothing could be more important, in our view, than the function of the conciliation officers.
Section 18 is to be amended in cases where,
"the fixing of a time and place for a hearing",
has been postponed for,
"an opportunity for proceedings to be settled by way of conciliation and withdrawn".
That is a very important period. because postponements are often the period in which conciliation can take place.
During that period, under the amendment, where the conciliation officer at the moment has a duty to be continuously interested in the case and a duty to consider any step that he can take towards conciliation, that duty is to be abolished. Instead, he is to be given a power.
As I understand it, that would leave the conciliation officer in a much less favourable condition to promote a conciliated settlement. He has a power to go on with conciliation, but he has no duty to do so. Therefore, if he comes back to the parties in this period of postponement and says, "I think I can help you further", one of them—it may be the respondent/employer—can say, "Go away, you have a power, but you used to have a duty". How will that assist conciliation? Why get rid of the duty of the conciliation officer who can go on and continue to be interested in the case?
Similarly in subsection (3), Section 19 is amended. That is the section which, as the Bill makes clear, requires employment tribunal procedure regulations to provide for the originating application of an employee, and notice of appearance by the employer, to be sent to the conciliation officer. There is no more important step in employment tribunal procedure than that the case that is presented to the tribunal should go automatically to the conciliation officer. I think I am right in saying that has been so since 1971, but the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, whose government was responsible for the Act in 1971, will tell me if I am wrong. I think that has always been the case, and it is absolutely fundamental to procedure to introduce conciliation and the opportunity for conciliated settlement from the very beginning.
The Government want to introduce the phrase,
"except in such as circumstances as the regulations may provide".
CWH 140
What circumstances could justify the lack of notification to a conciliation officer that there is a dispute? Why should one keep that from the conciliation officer? Similarly, in the next paragraph, a paragraph which assists
"to give an opportunity for conciliation) shall cease to have effect",
in Section 19 of the same Act. We find it mystifying to understand—subsection (4) seems to us to lead in the same direction—the fact that this will give rise to fewer opportunities, to fewer duties and to fewer chances of conciliation than the Act as it stands at the moment.
What we do not understand is how that could possibly be in pursuit of the Government's objective of cutting out 40,000 cases a year. I have looked up the response to consultation and I see that they say there will be a year's timelag in achieving that objective. However, it could possibly be that having less consultation, fewer opportunities for consultation, fewer duties of consultation by conciliation officers, could possibly lead to any diminution of tribunal hearings. That is more likely to lead to an increase.
I await the Minister's explanation of this diminution of opportunities for conciliation with great interest and ask him whether the Government will reconsider this clause. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let me begin by saying as flatly as I have made some other comments that is not the intention of the Government to diminish conciliation; to bring about a diminution of opportunities for conciliation. What we are doing with this clause is much more limited and specific; that is, trying to diminish what is called settlement on the steps of the tribunal. I refer to last-minute settlement. The approach of having a fixed period for consultation, which can be extended and I will go into that in more detail, was debated at considerable length during the consultation period over the last year. As a result of that, ACAS has concluded that,
"a deadline could help timely settlement".
That is the purpose of this clause. There is to be no reduction in conciliation and no pressure on ACAS, or from ACAS, to reduce the amount of conciliation that is carried out. We intend simply to make the process more efficient in one specific way; that there will be no discouragement of any kind, but encouragement to have the conciliation carried out within a period known to both parties. The fixed period of conciliation is a clearly defined period, where the services of ACAS conciliators are guaranteed to be available to the parties. Outside the fixed period, ACAS has no obligation to provide those services, although it may choose to do so. The length of the fixed period will be determined in regulations which will be drawn up in consultation with ACAS, the tribunals judiciary and the Employment Tribunals Service.
The aim is to raise the profile of conciliation, to focus the minds of two sides on reaching settlement during the conciliation period. As I understand it—and I have far less knowledge of employment tribunals

CWH 141
than many of the Members of the Committee, as has become rather obvious—the problem is that too many people start considering the case seriously only as the hearing date approaches. However, if we have a fixed starting and ending date, they are encouraged to turn their minds to the conciliation process earlier and think rather harder about the prospects of achieving an amicable settlement.
ACAS has been closely involved with the development of this policy since it started. We recognise the valuable and successful work that ACAS carries out in conciliating disputes and we have no desire—it would be mad for us to have any desire—to cut back on its involvement in the resolution of disputes. On the contrary, the aim of this clause is to focus attention on the conciliation process. The number of claims that are subject to conciliation will not he reduced at all by this clause.
Let me give some detail on the subsections. Subsection (2) provides that an ACAS officer's duty to conciliate cases reverts to a power after a fixed period. This means that once the fixed period is over, ACAS officers will no longer be duty-bound to conciliate further. They will have the power to do so if they believe that there is a strong chance of settlement being reached but they can otherwise turn their attention to other cases.
Subsection (3)(a) states that the regulations may provide for circumstances where the Employment Tribunals Service might not send the application and response forms on to ACAS. The intention of this clause is that ACAS will not be send details of uncontested cases where the respondent has not returned the IT3 response form or engaged in the process in any way. Again, this enables ACAS to concentrate attention on cases where conciliation can really bear fruit.
Subsection (3)(b) makes consequential amendments to subsection 19(c) of the 1996 Act.
Subsection (4) amends Section 19 of the Act to reflect the change in ACAS's duty to conciliate. This simply ensures that parties will be notified that after the end of the fixed conciliation period, the services of a conciliation officer might not be available to them.
This is a matter of process rather than change in the effectiveness and availability of conciliation services. At the moment, conciliation can take place in parallel with the tribunal processing. The hearing date is fixed with reference to how conciliation is progressing. Surely, if conciliation is possible, it is desirable to attempt to complete the conciliation process and then the question of setting a tribunal date would not be necessary. Too often, parties do not fully consider the case until the hearing date is set. If we make it clear that the time for conciliation is fixed, then they should consider the process earlier.
Nobody has any less right to conciliation. Nobody has any less right to a tribunal hearing as a result of this clause. All it seeks to do is to eliminate or reduce one of the defects of the procedure, as it has been observed in the course of the consultation process.
Lord McCarthy: I hope it keeps fine for the Government, but I do not think they have appreciated the things that cause people not to take decisions until they get inside tribunals. The noble Lord talks about settlements on the steps. That is a new one. I hear about settlements in the side room. What happens is that ACAS tries conciliation but the employer will not move. Or, if the employer will move a little, the applicant will not move and, therefore, conciliation runs out. Conciliation runs out very fast if the two sides will not move. It may just require a few telephone calls and, if the two sides will not move, there is no more point in conciliation. However, one cannot immediately have a tribunal because the resources are not there. There is a queue.
The tribunal service is extremely reluctant to tell us how long that takes; in fact, one cannot find out how long it takes between the moment when ACAS throws up its hands and says, "This is useless!" and when it actually gets in the room for a hearing. Nobody knows. It quotes figures such as, "70 per cent get it settled in six months", but that reveals nothing. Nobody says precisely and, if asked, people who know say, "It varies enormously". What happens, however, is not settlements on the steps but settlements inside—just before they come in. They ask for an adjournment or for an extra half hour. Why? Because the lawyers have not read the papers and they all sit in the room and waste time until they come in. So if the noble Lord wants something to prevent settlement in the side room, I do not know what it is.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure the noble Lord is right. What he says has the ring of truth to me and I make no distinction between the side room and the steps of the tribunal. It will still happen, even if this clause is agreed to without amendment. We just hope that that will happen a little less if more attention is focused on the conciliation proceeding in advance. I am very modest about expectations of this clause.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: So my noble friend is saying that the Government hope that conciliated settlements—at the last minute, I suppose—will happen a little bit less and that there will be more hearings.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: There will be hearings if there is no settlement, I can assure the Minister. If there is no settlement, there will be a hearing—unless, of course, the poor employee applicant is prohibited from presenting his case; we shall come to that in Clause 33.
I really think that the Government have been badly advised on this matter. I hesitated to say this but I have to tell the Minister that one very experienced tribunal chairman has said to me, "This clause must have been drafted by people who have never been in an employment tribunal". I have to say that now because such a stout defence of the provision has been advanced.

CWH 143
I direct my noble friend to particular points that he did not answer. On subsection (3), he gave a reason why particular circumstances should avoid the notice of appearance being sent to the conciliation officer, because these were cases that were not contested. He did not give any reason whatever why every originating application should not be sent to a conciliation officer. I ask him again, under what circumstances should an originating application not be—as it always has been—automatically notified to a conciliation officer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer—
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: If I may, I shall complete the point. If we had Ministers popping up and down each time someone makes an arguable point, our procedure will dissolve into a rather funny afternoon.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: All right.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I proceed to the second matter that I want to raise with the Minister. He says that the deadline on conciliation will help timely settlements. I appreciate that sometimes it is very inconvenient for people where there is a settlement at the last minute, but everybody I know in tribunals knows perfectly well that a large number of settlements come late on. If you have ever been near a tribunal, you always hear about settlements coming late; and that is nothing special to tribunals. It happens in all courts. If the Government do not like the judicial process, they must say so; however, last-minute settlements are a feature of judicial processes.
This amendment is apparently the product of a tiny but inexperienced mind because we must have conciliation first and then we must have the rest of the procedure. Life is not like that! You cannot deal in tidy concepts with conciliation and settlement. The Minister has given us absolutely no reason whatever why the duty of the conciliation officer should become a power. Also, he has not given us any reasons involving a party who wants conciliation to continue when the other party does not—that happens; one party wants more conciliation and the other party does not. Will not the conciliation officer, having no duty to conciliate, be in a weaker position, in which he merely has the power to do so if the parties want him to? He will be in a much weaker position; of course he will. I do not believe that ACAS has given advice to the contrary on that point; it is such an obvious point.
First, what about Section 19 and originating applications? Secondly, why will last-minute settlements not give rise to more hearings? Does the Minister really think that last-minute settlements are not a natural feature of judicial process?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought that I had answered both of those questions. On the question
CWH 144
about the circumstances in which papers will not be sent to ACAS, the answer is: only in rare circumstances, such as uncontested applications.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: We do not know whether it is uncontested.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If there is any question of it being contested, it will not go.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sorry; the Minister says he answers questions but then he changes them. I return to my question. When you get an original application, you have no idea at all whether it is going to be contested; you automatically send it now to the conciliation officer. Why stop that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not see any reason to stop that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: All to the good.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That does not need an alteration to the clause; the clause does not say that. The other significant issue that is being raised returns us to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, about settlement in the side room and what happens after the fixed period. I am very modest in my expectations of the effect of this clause. By focusing attention on a period in which conciliation is the first priority, there is a possibility that there may be some reduction in last-minute settlements. I did not claim—I would not claim—that there would ever be an elimination of last-minute settlements.
My noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy both say that last-minute settlements are a feature of the judicial process, just as they are a feature of the tribunal process. We are very modestly trying to turn attention to a way in which it is possible to reduce the number. We may be wrong, but if we are wrong, no harm is done by having a fixed period. There is no threat to the applicants, there is no threat to the tribunal procedure and there is no diminution of the availability of conciliation or of the tribunals itself.
All of those matters are in the remit of the Employment Tribunal System Taskforce, which is looking at the overall deficiency of the operation and will advise on how to improve it and on whether more investment is needed. If that is the key—if more investment is needed—more investment will be made available.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: In view of the Minister's opposition, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 83:
Page 34, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall within 120 days of this section coming into force, prepare and publish an assessment of the additional resources required by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to facilitate the conciliation process as provided for in this section."

CWH 145
The noble Baroness said: The amendment follows the philosophy that lies behind a similar amendment that I proposed to Clause 21; that is, Amendment No. 58. I believe that at that time the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, indicated that he supported the proposal with regard to ACAS, although he suggested that there were difficulties in trying to assess the costs. However, he agreed with the principle that I was posing.
Parliament and, indeed, the public are entitled to know what the cost of implementing the Bill is going to be. One of the major impacts of the Bill will be the increased demands that will be made on the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—ACAS. Despite the conciliation procedures laid down in Schedule 2, which hopefully will head off an unknown number of cases from employment tribunals, there is bound to be heavily increased demands on the resources and facilities of ACAS. Both sides of industry have expressed concern about the adequacy of those already stretched resources.
As my honourable friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge pointed out when this amendment was debated in the other place, we are concerned that the Government are imposing a greater use of ACAS without at the same time giving it adequate resources to provide the necessary service.
If the issue of providing ACAS with adequate resources is not addressed, then conciliation will become a mere piece of window dressing, which could simply delay the process and would fail in its objective of reducing the number of cases reaching tribunals. This would occur because there would simply not be enough conciliation officers to operate the process.
The Minister in the other place told the Committee there, as I imagine the Minister here might very well tell us, that the changes the Government are proposing have been made in full consultation with ACAS. The Government agreed that there would be resource implications, but all the Minister could say about them in the other place was:
"They would be the subject of ongoing discussions between my Department and ACAS".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 11/12/01; col. 99.]
That is Whitehall-speak for, "ACAS is asking for as much money as possible, and the Treasury wants to pay as little as it can get away with".
As I say, the Minister told the Committee in the other place at col. 100 of Hansard that:
"Resource implications … would be the subject of ongoing discussions between my Department and ACAS."
As regards ongoing discussions, perhaps the Minister can tell us what stage the haggling reached in the three months before he made that statement? The Minister claimed that the Government do not accept that extra resources will necessarily be needed. How can they say that if, as the Minister in the other place admitted, also at col. 100,
"The proposals … are predicted to have a considerable impact on ACAS's case load"?
CWH 146
Was the Minister suggesting that ACAS has surplus capacity at the moment? I doubt if ACAS would agree. The Minister in the other place also told the Committee at col. 100—and I would again like to quote his exact words—
"Requiring the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an assessment of the additional resources required by ACAS … is not likely to be helpful."
To whom is that not likely to be helpful? I assume that ACAS would like to know what resources it is likely to be given. I am sure that Parliament would like to know how much money it is going to have to provide and whether that money will be adequate to fulfil the ambitious plans that the Government have for this new conciliation regime.
I am sure also that employers and the unions, and individual employees, would like to be given some idea how practical this whole concept is likely to be in the light of the resources that will be made available to it. I cannot imagine that the Government and ACAS have absolutely no idea of what is going to be involved.
The amendment, of which the Government have already had three months' notice since it was debated in the other place, and of which they will have several more months while this Bill completes its passage through Parliament, does not ask the Government to publish their assessment tomorrow, next week or even next month. It gives the Government 120 days; that is, four whole months, from the passing of the Act—and incidentally it is one month more than my honourable friends proposed—to work out the cost and to publish the figures, which just shows how very reasonable I am. The Government are prone to ask Parliament for blank cheques, and what we are asking for is for the Government to promise to fill in the details and tell us what they are. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: I am absolutely certain that the Government have absolutely no idea about that, but how could they have? How could they have in 120 days? If the case works out as the Government hope it works out, and they cut 40,000 applications, of course there would be less work for ACAS. There would be less work for everybody.
If, on the other hand, what Judge Prophet thinks will happen does happen and this new procedure generates more and more disputes under more and more headings, then of course there will be more work for ACAS. If the encouragement of the principle of postponing a hearing produces more conciliation and fewer hearings, then there would be more work for ACAS. If my noble friend Lord Wedderburn is right as regards the fixed term and giving ACAS just a power and not a right and that discourages it so that it will be missing and so will the hearing, and the poor applicant is stuck in the middle with nobody doing anything, then there might be less of such work. I feel extremely sorry for ACAS. It is being loaded with a completely new system and nobody can tell it what the consequences will be. Certainly no one will know that in 120 days or so. After all, we will not know what is happening as regards the total number of cases for at

CWH 147
least six or nine months. The Government may not invoke the whole Bill; they may not bring all the parts of the Bill into effect. So we have no idea about that matter.
I said earlier that I saw the reason behind the amendment, that I did not want the Government to accept it, but that I would like them to think about the problem that they have created. I said that because they have created a situation in which it is quite impossible for ACAS to say how far it will be required to deal with an additional caseload or a smaller caseload. Just remember, this is a service but it is not a service of life or death. These are not policemen, nurses or firemen. These are not the kind of people who can apply pressure to get money out of the Treasury. ACAS is in a delicate and difficult situation, and the Government should be aware of that.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I was surprised to hear the noble Lord say that he hopes the Government resist my amendment. I quote his words of last Wednesday,
"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".—[Official Report, 13/3/02; col. CWH57.]
In fact, he went on to say that it was quite difficult to do that, and I accept that. However, in principle, he agreed with me. Therefore, I was surprised when he started by saying he hoped the Government would resist my amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to intrude on that but, if I may concentrate on the amendment, it is important to recognise that, since the issue was first raised, we have set up the Employment Tribunal System Taskforce. Clearly, the Employment Tribunal System Taskforce under Janet Gaymer cannot look at the employment tribunal system without looking, to some extent, at ACAS which is complementary to it. The terms of reference of the taskforce are to make recommendations on how the service can be made more efficient and cost-effective for users, and advise on the need for new investment to meet any revised service objectives and performance measures. If that is not instructing the Government on independent advice to look at the resource elements, I do not know what is.
As a matter of historical fact, the funding of ACAS has increased considerably over recent years. If I pick the period between 1998–99 and now, in 1998–99 it was £26.2 million, in 2001–02 it is £36.6 million. That is a substantial increase and it shows that the Government, if presented with arguments for an increased used of conciliation, are prepared to provide the funding for that increased use of conciliation. On that basis, we do not believe that a requirement for a formal review of the effect of the conciliation clauses on the resources of ACAS is necessary. We believe that that kind of review goes on successfully all the time.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend sits down, he mentioned that this is relevant to a subsequent amendment but it will save time if he would just say a word about it now in addition to what he has said. He mentioned the Employment Tribunal System Taskforce. As we are discussing questions of parts of the Bill coming into force, are we going to wait to see parts of the Bill not coming into force until we have the report of the Employment Tribunal System Taskforce? Is that the intention? So we shall have to wait not merely for the regulations but also, and I am thinking aloud, the Employment Tribunal System Taskforce report before we can know what the position is on a variety of matters. This taskforce has been a matter of mystery to some people. It is now fully established and its membership has finally been announced. It is to report, I believe, in the spring.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Will we wait for that before parts of the Bill come into force?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If it is in the spring, clearly it will be reporting before the Bill comes into force—that is inevitable. However, it is probably better if, on the basis of the most up-to-date information I can obtain, I write to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate on the timing of the taskforce report and the timing of this Bill.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his reply to my amendment, and the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, which are quite helpful. I would be very grateful to receive the letter in due course. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 25 [Power to delegate prescription of forms etc.]:
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 84:
Page 34, line 12, after "State" insert ", after consultation with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and with the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals for England and Wales and for Scotland,"
The noble Lord said: It was agreed that we would take Amendments Nos. 84, 86 and 85 in a group. In fact, Amendment No. 85 is rather different, but I shall come to that later.
In relation to the last amendment—and I hope that it will not be the case in relation to the points I am making today—spring will be a little late this year I fear. Last Wednesday I hoped that I would be able to move these amendments and gain some clarity about the Government's attitude towards Clause 25. But it was not to be. I then thought I might do it last

CWH 149
Thursday, but we did not get to it then. Since we are halfway through today, I began to wonder whether we would come to it today. Gracie Fields had a song:
"I took my heart to a party but nobody asked me to play, so I took the damn thing away!"
I wondered whether we would ever get to this list of amendments and I am glad that we have done so now.
They are quite simple. In my opinion, they take us into the heart of the Bill. The Bill has several hearts, but I refer to Clause 25, which deals with what the Government plan to do to what I call "dear old ET1"—or, if you like, "dear old ET3". No one seems to know what ET2 is.
Dear old ET1 is a simple little form which the applicant fills in. He does not need to fill it in, of course, because he can write a letter. At the moment, it sets off the whole process of getting some statement other than the last word of the employer. That is what we must always hang on to these days. It is the way that the worker gets something other than the employer's final word. All he or she has to do to start the process off is simply to fill in the form, or even just write a letter, and it all begins to move forward.
The Government propose to change that. We are very concerned that they propose to change that because we cannot find out from the statements that they have made, either in the Explanatory Notes or in the various statements that the Minister has made in another place, precisely what they intend to do. Precisely why do they need the regulations that they have mentioned in the Bill? We do not see why they need all these regulations.
My first two amendments, to which I shall speak very quickly, are designed merely to ensure that, before these very important regulations are published on how we shall have these new forms, there should be public consultation. Last time the Committee met, I said that public consultation was not enough because the Government have now developed a whole range of public consultations. One needs about five definitions of what public consultation means. In particular, we seek to put into the Bill the specific insistence that ACAS and the Presidents of the tribunals for England and Wales and for Scotland in particular shall be consulted when we receive the regulations—or when we receive the draft regulations before we get the final regulations—on the new forms which are to replace the existing ET1 and ET3.
There has been very wide criticism of the problem that the Government, I believe, have created for themselves by saying that they are changing this long-established system without saying in advance and on the face of the Bill or in the notes to the Bill precisely what they intend to do. Judge Prophet has said that he regards this as the prime instrument which is to reinforce the barriers to access and to dictate the contents of the forms of application. He even seems to be saying that this is a major constitutional change; that instead of the judges deciding the forms of application to justice, this time the Secretary of State is deciding the matter. Certainly, there is power there for the Secretary of State completely to re-make these regulations.
CWH 150
I would read to you what the Bill provides:
"(a) authorise the Secretary of State to prescribe, or prescribe requirements in relation to, any form which is required by such regulations to be used for the purpose of instituting, or entering an appearance to, proceedings before employment tribunals.
(b) authorise the Secretary of State to prescribe requirements in relation to documents to be supplied with any such form, and
(c) make provision about the publication of anything prescribed under authority conferred by virtue of this subsection".
We consider that that provision could cover anything. I do not say at this stage that that is what the Government intend. I am saying that it would cover. I am saying that they are taking the powers to do so. It would cover, for example, discovering whether the applicant had a knowledge of Schedule 2 procedures. One might very well say that since the applicant has to say that he has carried out Schedule 2 procedures, he ought to know what Schedule 2 procedures are. Applicants also ought to know, since they are going into quite a new system in which all kinds of penalties exist, what the penalties are. Otherwise, is it fair that the applicant could enter the new system without realising what is involved? It is not enough now, but will it still be possible to ignore these new procedures and to write a letter? I do not know. That is one of the questions I would like the Minister to argue.
It could be otherwise for several reasons. On 11th December in Standing Committee, the Minister was very reassuring in so far as he went. He admitted that a great deal of concern had been felt about these proposals and he said:
"Some concern was expressed, particularly by Labour Members, about people who might have problems with the language and feel uncomfortable about the issues. We are determined to design the form with those fears in mind and envisage a tick-box procedure".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 11/12/01; col. 102.]
I am not quite sure how that will work. Perhaps one will have to tick to indicate which schedule one is going under and whether one is going to have a full procedure or the modified procedure. I do not know. The Minister continued:
"We should be as user-friendly as possible, particularly for people who must get used to the changing arrangements. We will address that in the regulations. I should emphasise that we will make enormous efforts to ensure that the forms are as widely available as possible".
In the past, one did not require a form and the form was not prescribed by the Secretary of State. It was required by the tribunals themselves. It was not a standard form. The Minister went on to say:
"They will be available from the employment tribunal service, job centres—or whatever their fancy new name is from April—and advice and law centres. They must be ubiquitous so that people have an easy access to them".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 11/12/01; col. 103.]
That is all very fine and very reasonable. It sounds all right but it does not say what he Ts going to put in them. That is where I come to one qualification that we would like to see put in our Amendment No. 85. I shall read it to the Committee. It states:
"Page 34, line 15, at end insert 'save that no requirement or prescription shall be made by regulations made under this paragraph which requires an applicant to guarantee his

CWH 151
observance of a statutory dispute resolution procedure falling within section 29, but that prohibition shall not extend to requirements relating to statements of honest belief".
In other words—Members of the Committee may not like the way it is written and have a better way of phrasing it—what we are trying to do is to limit what can be demanded from the applicant. All that can be demanded from the applicants is that they give their honest belief about what they feel they know about the procedures and their observance of them and the fact that they have completed them. That of course means—I accept this—that the prime responsibility for seeing that the law is obeyed passes to the employer. The employer, after all, is the person who must be expected to know what is in the Bill and to see that the provisions therein are embodied in the contract and that the worker is given the contract, which tells him or her what has to be done. All the workers can be expected to say is that they have done their best to observe what is in their contract. Nothing more than that can reasonably be expected of the worker. He cannot be expected to go out and buy incomes data services or law textbooks. All the workers can he expected to say is, as we say in our amendment, that they have related themselves to, "statements of honest belief", on the form. That is the amendment, which seems eminently reasonable. I hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support this amendment. A number of us feel a bit suspicious of what may happen if a very simple form, which ET1 is at the moment, is somehow passed over to a government department for redrafting. Some of us have experience of some of the forms which have had to be completed by claimants in the field of social insurance. We often find them very complicated and they sometimes look like an obstacle to people obtaining benefits. There seems to be nothing at all wrong with ET1. It is a very simple form that can be filled in by people with very limited educational attainments and perhaps those with language difficulties. We want to know why it is necessary for it to be redrafted at all; it has operated quite well for a number of years and there seems no reason at all for the provisions in Clause 25.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I, too, would like to agree with Amendments Nos. 84 and 86. They are based on a similar principle to my later Amendment No. 89, which relates to Clause 27. I am not sure if these two amendments in fact go far enough, in so far as the Law Society has represented to me the view that these matters should not be dealt with by the Secretary of State but exclusively by ACAS or the president of the tribunals. I agree most strongly with the sentiment in those two amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy also spoke to Amendment No. 85, which I would not accept—or, to phrase it differently, the amendment would need considerable explanation before I could understand it. It seemed to me to be saying that an applicant, who
CWH 152
would always be the employee, need not comply with the detailed dispute procedure laid down in Schedule 2. I may not have understood that correctly but that is what it seemed to be saying. I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that Schedule 2 was introduced by the Government to replace their original proposal that the employee should pay costs if he or she lost, which seems to be a compromise position that the Government have found themselves in, and which should be accepted as it is. However, perhaps I do not understand that amendment.
Lord McCarthy: Will the noble Baroness tell me which particular bit of Schedule 2 she is concerned about?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My concern was not about a particular part. It seemed to me as I read it that the applicant need not comply with the details of the dispute. I said that I was not sure I understood it, and if the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, wishes to explain it to me, then he may do so. He may not feel that that is necessary. I certainly support Amendments Nos. 84 and 86. I would need more convincing about Amendment No. 85, but it is not for me to agree to or otherwise; it is a matter for the Government.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, appears to want to help. We cannot say precisely what the applicant will he required to answer in the new ET1. This is our difficulty and that is why we have an amendment.
As I tried to say when I moved the amendment, what the Minister said may be true. At one stage, he said that he wanted this only because he had to get it on e-mail and you cannot get ET1—I do not know why, one can get everything on the e-mail or on the Web—on the Web. Another time he said that some ET1s were different from other ET1s. He wants to standardise it. Why? I do not know why he wants to standardise it. They are not very different. What does it matter?
We do not know. We know what people say. We know what Judge Prophet says. He says one could use this in order to block access to the tribunal. I am not saying that that is what they want to do. I will say, however, that the CBI still seems to think that it can get 40,000 cases out of this. It also wants the Government to introduce a review and to say in a couple of years' time that if the number of cases is not going down, they will in fact introduce further legislation.
I want to know what the Government think and whether they have given such an undertaking to the CBI. We do not know. We do not know precisely what will be on the form. That is why we have tabled the amendment. We are saying that the general limitation should be placed on what we are asking the employee to say. He wants to discharge his side of the enterprise. Once he discharges his side, if the employer does not discharge his side, the process moves forward. It is the employer's fault because the employer has not filled in the questionnaire. We want the applicant to be able to discharge his obligations—very easily and as easily as he can now do it with ET1. The simple formula we

CWH 153
have come up with is that the most that he has to do is to make "statements of honest belief". They do not have to be right. He does not have to get the schedule right. He does not have to be correct about law; he has to be correct to his honest and best belief.
The main test of that will be what is on his contract of employment. If he can point to the procedure that the employer has given him and say, "I've done all that", he is through. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend Lord McCarthy puts the point very clearly and is obviously right. When the Minister responds, will he make reference to the matters that flow from this? Two things occur to me. First, Clause 25 is, as it were, the hinge of the apparatus of the Bill. This involves the form —whatever it is to say—that the employee must put in to initiate proceedings. That relates to Clause 33, in which, of course, he can be prohibited from presenting a complaint if he has not done what Clause 33 wants; which is mainly, as my noble friend rightly says, the completion of the necessary steps in Schedule 2. If the form is going to ask him to guarantee that he has completed the step under Schedule 2, it should, in our submission, be on the basis of "honest belief".
Secondly, although other amendments could not be grouped with this amendment or with Amendment No. 85 in particular—I do not want to upset the Minister's very large file in any way—they relate to matters arising in subsequent amendments. I mention especially Amendment No. 192, in relation to which we shall say that the explanation of the effect of relevant statutory procedures should be put into the written particulars by the employer, which the employer is obliged to give under Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and which he has been obliged to give since 1963. I hope that my noble friend will not consider this to be an isolated amendment. Amendment No. 85 is absolutely central to the practical machinery of what will be put through if the Bill is enacted as it is and if the particulars ask him to say something about his position in relation to Schedule 2.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I just happen to have a copy of the ET1 application to an employment tribunal. It is a straightforward and simple document and I shall be interested to know why there is an intention to change it.
I am concerned about two matters, which have already been referred to by Members of the Committee. First, the DTI is not an infrequent party at employment tribunals—that is true—and it is questionable whether the ET1 and ET3 forms will be the products of someone who is not infrequently a party. I believe that a big question mark hangs there.
Secondly, this matter is simple but it is not prescribed. I suppose that at some point—I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is not here—most applicants fill in one of these forms, but it is not unusual to see them filled in rather skimpily. I had one
CWH 154
today—my late arrival was due to the fact that I was at an employment appeal tribunal—where the continuation page went on and on. Therefore, I am worried about what is intended by taking these powers under this part of the Bill. However, I return to my concern about the Secretary of State having responsibility for doing that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clause 25 appears to me to be extremely wide-ranging. It seems that, under the terms of the clause, one could make quite dramatic changes in the form. However, I am sure that that is not what is intended. Rather than pursue what might be done under certain circumstances but which the Government have no intention of doing, it might be better if I were to respond to the amendment before us.
Before doing so, I should say that Clause 25 has been subject to scrutiny and consultation. In particular, the Council on Tribunals, which has the overarching responsibility as the statutory body responsible for keeping under review the constitutional workings of tribunals, including employment tribunals, was content that the use of revised forms should be mandatory. It made no comments about consultation. ACAS also responded to various points in the consultation paper but did not suggest that it should be consulted on the prescribed forms and documents.
More recently, this matter has gone before the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The department told the committee that the Secretary of State would be eligible to make provision in regulations on the basis of existing powers. However, in order to have the flexibility to make changes quickly and to make minor changes to the wording and layout of the forms, which would not necessarily justify the making of a statutory instrument but which would make the forms more user-friendly, it is considered helpful for the Secretary of State to have the power to prescribe forms under the regulations. The regulations will make provision about publication of any requirements prescribed by the Secretary of State in this way in order to ensure that the forms are readily available to those who are likely to need them. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made no comment, adverse or otherwise, on that submission.
I turn to the question of consultation. I can give an absolute assurance that the tribunal presidents will be consulted—that is asked for in Amendments Nos. 84 and 86. I can also give an assurance that ACAS will normally be consulted. Clearly there may be occasions when a swift or minor adjustment to the form is required, but that will not be the normal situation and ACAS will normally be consulted. Of course, there will also be consultation with the Council on Tribunals.
We do not normally spell out on the face of a Bill who should be consulted. That is largely because, if one includes one person on a list but excludes someone else, it is assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the people who are not on the list will not be consulted. However, there is no difference in relation to the substance.

CWH 155
Amendment No. 85 is concerned with the new statutory dispute resolution procedures. The intention here is to ask applicants not about the law, or about what is going to happen in the future or anything of that kind, but what procedures they have used. That will simply involve placing a tick in a box. There is no question whatever of them being asked to guarantee. That would imply somehow that penalties would be applied if they said anything wrong. Clearly applicants do get things wrong when filling in the forms. Sometimes, in the worst case, the applicant will state on the form, "I was unfairly dismissed" and the response will state, "No, you weren't; you were fairly dismissed". That does not get one very far and one has to make further inquiries. Those further inquiries could be made by letter or telephone, as happens now. No change is proposed to that.
I am interested in the point made by my noble friend Lord Gladwin about the DTI being a party. Of course, he is right to say that the DTI can be a party to tribunals. But how could it seek to further its own interest as a party to proceedings by the way in which it framed the questions in the form? Surely the DTI's interest is in ensuring that a reasonable explanation is given about the complaint in order that the other party can understand it. Of course, we want the form to ask questions such as whether the applicant has discussed the problem with his employer. We shall deal with that point when we reach Part 3 of the Bill.
So far as I can see, the DTI has no interest in distorting the form. Only a tiny proportion of claims—fewer than 2 per cent—involve the DTI. If an assurance is required that it will not be led by those 2 per cent of claims then I am very happy to give that assurance.
Lord McCarthy: I do not want to spend any time on this because, as Members of the Committee know, we shall be opposing the Question whether the clause stand part. I shall be able to make any general comments then. I simply want to make three quick points because I do not believe that the Minister gave me an answer in relation to two of them. In addition, he said something in relation to the third which rather worries me.
First, he did not answer my question regarding whether or not the form will be compulsory. As my noble friend Lord Gladwin said, very often applicants do not use the darned thing; they simply write a letter. Some people say that they have written a postcard. It is true that they get the form back again, but it is not compulsory. One does not have to obtain form ET1 in order to start the process.
I shall ask my first question again. Will a person have to use the official form in order to start the process? Will he need to have it in his hands before he can begin to obtain an answer which is different from that provided by the employers?
CWH 156
Secondly, I asked, but perhaps did not do so with enough formality, what the Government's reaction was to the most recent statement of the CBI in which it asked for a review of the Bill—not simply of this clause but of the whole Bill. I quote from the CBI:
"We would therefore welcome assurances that the Government will review the effectiveness of this procedure after three years and consider whether further measures are necessary to promote workplace dispute resolution".
My question is: have the Government given such assurances? Will they give such assurances? Do they take the CBI's view that we have to get the 40,000 out? Somehow, the CBI still believes in 62 per cent having something to do with people like that. What is the Government attitude towards these assurances? That is directly related to this clause because the requirements could easily be tightened up in it. One could so easily discourage people from coming. I do not say that that is what the Government are doing at this moment, but if they were to be committed and were to give assurances to the CBI that it must review the effectiveness of the procedure after three years if we do not get to 40,000 or so, we have to be concerned.
Finally, the Minister did say something new, if I understood him correctly—I will read Hansard tomorrow—about what will be on the new form. He said that the applicant will be asked to say what procedure he used. That worries me because there are four models. There is a grievance procedure and a disciplinary procedure. Many—I should be careful here—applicants will not know whether they are concerned with a grievance or a reaction to a discipline. All such cases involve reaction to a management act; that is why he has a grievance or why he has been disciplined. He would not be there if there had not been a management act—but you are going to ask the applicant to tell you whether he is going forward under the grievance procedure or under the disciplinary procedure, so he has to know that.
Secondly, you must be asking him whether he used the full procedure or the truncated procedure. We want to argue subsequently that whether you are in that procedure or the other procedure, full or modified, seems to us on the face of the Bill to depend entirely on the employer. He is going to decide which one you are in. That brings me back to my amendment. You cannot ask the worker to say anything more than what he has in his contract of employment. He may not know which procedure he is in. For God's sake, why should he know what procedure he is in? All he knows is that he wants to get to a tribunal.
I would therefore like the Minister to answer these three questions for me. Why do we need to ask him this last set of questions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are three separate questions. First, is the form compulsory? The answer is: no more than it is now. What happens now is that people put in forms that are illegible or incomplete or in the form of a letter. If I am told postcards have been used, I believe it; but that is not the point. The point is that the secretary of the tribunal will accept all illegible or complete applications or

CWH 157
applications made on the form on the date of receipt for the purpose of the time limit. Then it is a matter of making further enquiries and for the chairman of the tribunal who can decide whether an application is not valid because it is out of time. As I understand it, there is no proposal for any change in that from the present position.
The second question is about the CBI demanding a review after three years. Neither my noble friend nor the CBI will misunderstand me if I say that we always review legislation and we certainly will not take more than three years to review it. That will not be because the CBI has asked us to do so; it will be because it is good practice to do so. If it happens to coincide with what the CBI wants, it does not do so for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord McCarthy about the CBI's motives; there is no such implication in this regard.
The third question comes back to Amendment No. 85 and the new form. I said that when the procedures have been used, we needed to establish whether they were dismissal procedures or any other particular procedures, and I agreed that the applicant could not be expected to know that. This arrangement is very much simpler than that. It merely involves asking questions such as, "Have you written a letter?" and "Have you had a meeting?"; in other words, it involves purely factual questions that can be answered by ticking a box and without any knowledge of the law or of tribunal procedures.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister has added to my knowledge enormously and I for one am most grateful to him. He said the new form will not be obligatory and he now says that there will be some questions of this sort. What happens if the employee applicant does not know the answer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Then he says he does not know.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: What happens then?
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The same as happens now when forms are incomplete: steps are taken to fill in the gap. There has to be something to start a tribunal procedure. The great virtue of tribunals is that they act in a relatively informal way. The assurance that is needed is that those further inquiries to make sure that one has a starting case do not affect the validity of the application by putting it out of time.
Lord McCarthy: I do not want to waste the time of the Committee. I am not satisfied but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: It is ridiculous for us in Grand Committee, when we have not really obtained any
CWH 158
concessions—any significant concessions, though we have got some information—to oppose the Motion that the clause stand part, because we do not intend to divide. We cannot divide.
I stress how strongly we feel that the Government should go away and think again about this clause. That is not just because of all the concern about the matter. I could have wasted the time of the Committee by quoting all kinds of authoritative people and groups who were closely involved with the tribunal process and who are worried. CABs do not get excited over nothing. They are worried about the replacement of the old familiar ET1 with something new.
I wish that the Government could find it in their heart to put something different in the clause so that the regulations did not look so horrendous, open or extreme. They appear as if they would justify—I am not saying the Government intend to do this—a whole list of extra conditions. I accept the Minister's statement that there is no intention to introduce such measures. I wish that there was something on the face of the Bill to reassure people about what they have done. We cannot disregard the fact that whatever the Government may say—to some extent they speak with two voices—they seem to have a desire to reduce the total number of tribunals. There are people—employers in general, not just the CBI—who believe that a central purpose of Parts 2 and 3 is to reduce the total number of applications and therefore the total number of hearings. Sometimes I have heard Ministers say—I cannot remember whether this was in public, in private or in semi-private—that that is not the Government's basic intention and that they do not really care if they get 40,000 or 20,000 out. However, they never put that on the record. They never say that they have somehow got into this because they were put under pressure and told that Parts 1 and 4 were in the interests of the trades unions and the workers, and therefore Parts 2 and 3 had to have what they now call balance.
Clause 43, which we have not reached yet, is a central place—as is Clause 25—in which the Government could say something to detach themselves from this notion that we are all on a chariot which is moving towards reductions in the total number of tribunals. After all, they know, if they are honest, that there will not be any reduction in the total number of tribunals. They know that they are stuck with introducing all kinds of legislation and directives from Europe and elsewhere.
The Government do not know yet what the effect will be of reducing the application period to 12 months; no one knows what that will do to tribunals. All kinds of accidents happen which produce additional tribunals and they know they will not get down to 40,000 or 30,000 or 20,000. The sooner they disengage from that concept, the better. This could be done under the heading of Clause 25. A new Clause 25 could be written which would be much more acceptable and which would symbolise the Government's appreciation that one of the main

CWH 159
themes of Routes to Resolution has been modified by the facts. I therefore oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend makes a powerful case. I would like to suggest to the Minister that there are two aspects that one would like a reply to. It must be the case that Members of the Committee wonder why we bother to say we oppose clause stand part because, of course, in a Grand Committee, that is a proposition almost writ in water. Nobody divides on anything in a Grand Committee.
But I must say to the Minister that this is a matter that we ought to come back to on Report. I am sure he understands that a large number of these amendments are moved both as a matter of practicality and as a matter of principle. We do not believe that workers should be inhibited in the way that the Bill could mean as regards their access, on reasonable cases, to the justice of tribunals.
Now, of the two points that I hope my noble friend can respond to, the first thing that arises from this Clause 25 is that a government should never take powers that they cannot possibly see the need of. As I understood my noble friend the Minister, he was saying, "Well, of course, we could do all sorts of terrible things under these powers to make regulations, but we could not possibly imagine ourselves doing it". Now, of course, if that is just at the margins, I quite understand; the Government want to be able to adjust things with fine tuning as time goes along. But this is an ability under Clause 25 in the new Subsection (3ZA) vastly greater than the Government say they need. It really is hubris of a government to take vast powers when they say they only need small ones, although what those small ones are going to be used for is more and more mysterious.
Indeed—and this is my second point in support of my noble friend's proposition that the Government should please go away and consider dropping or redrafting this clause in some way—I have had more communications from expert commentators upon Clause 25 and Clause 33 than upon anything else because Clause 25 is the hinge. We cannot discuss them both together because of our procedure but we will come to Clause 33 later.
Clause 33 is the clause under which, unless they fulfil certain conditions, workers are going to be prevented from getting to the tribunal at all and from presenting a case to the tribunal at all. Now, the Minister will understand, I am sure, that those conditions relate to Schedule 2. He says an applicant will be asked under the new procedures, "Have you completed certain procedures"? That is what Schedule 2 is about. So Clause 25 is the hinge that takes you to the operation of Clause 33. There is vast concern about what will be put in the new prescribed forms. I understand that there will be new prescribed forms but we cannot tell exactly what there will be that is different from the current ET1 in the new prescribed form and whether a worker will be asked to say what procedures he has followed. We have already made the case that he
CWH 160
should not be asked to guarantee that, but of course, even a statement of honest belief could go to the operation of Clause 33 if it did not fulfil the requirements of Schedule 2 and steps he has to complete if he is to be allowed even to go within the range of hearing of the tribunal.
I hope we can get some assurance from the Minister that this clause, which is so central to the operation of the new machinery of it and Clause 33, and indeed Clauses 31 and 34, is going to he reconsidered by the Government.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I, too, would like to support my noble friends who have expressed their concerns about Clause 25. As I said earlier, it can be taken that the form could be redesigned to provide all sorts of obstacles to somebody who wanted to apply to an employment tribunal. We have heard from the Minister this afternoon that that is not the Government's intention. He said that the form would not be compulsory and gave the impression that so far as present procedures are concerned, they were quite satisfactory.
If that is so, I question whether the clause is needed at all. Quite frankly, if it remains unamended in the Bill, it will give the impression to many people that the whole thing is going to be reorganised, the form will be redesigned, everything will be made much more difficult, and further obstacles will be put in the way of people who want to go to an ET.
The Government have assured us that that is not the intention; of course, I accept that. However, since that is so, it seems to me that there is a case for looking very carefully at the clause. As it stands at the moment, as the Minister has himself said, powers given under the clause are very wide indeed. Can we please have this looked at again?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I said when I was responding to Amendments Nos. 84 to 86 that Clause 25 seems to be very widely drawn. I do not deny that in certain hands—no doubt taken as it stands—these powers could be distorted or even misused. That is the nature of regulations and legislation. That is always the case; there is nothing different here. It is always the case that we do not commit future governments, and nothing is set in stone, to use the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton.
The powers are wide because there are a number of things which may be necessary, and have been suggested as being necessary in the consultation process, to improve the efficiency of the tribunal system. This has all been a matter of consultation already; it will continue to be a matter of consultation with the TUC, the CBI, the Law Society, the Council on Tribunals, the presidents of the tribunals themselves and everybody else—the "tribunal judiciary" as it is called, is it not? It is the intention that the forms will be properly designed and "plain English-ed". Indeed, I would not mind giving an undertaking that the forms will be sent to the Campaign for Plain English. Does not Chrissie Maher in Manchester do a very good job and receive awards

CWH 161
every year? She looks at things whether they are sent to her or not. They can certainly be sent to her for her expert criticism.
If it can be shown that something could be put on the face of the Bill which would give more assurance to those who are worried about misuse of regulations, we will look at it of course between now and Report stage. We always do that.
Lord McCarthy: Why cannot the Minister look at our amendment? That is what our amendment does.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are discussing clause stand part at the moment.
Lord McCarthy: Why did you not—?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendments are defective. I am sorry; I have to look at the amendments on the face of the Bill. I have no objection whatsoever to our debating in Grand Committee the Question that the clause stand part. The subject was introduced with a measure of apology. No apology is necessary; it is entirely proper that we should be debating clause stand part. However, at present we are debating clause stand part and not particular amendments. We have to choose.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I appreciate what my noble friend says. Of course, it goes without saying that our amendments are almost certainly defective in their wording and can always be improved if the Minister is intending to take them away and reconsider them. However, I rose only to obtain clarification because there is much concern about what will be done with these powers. My noble friend says that the form can be put into plain English. I have the form here. Which part of it is not in plain English?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that it is my job to criticise the existing form. I acknowledge that a number of people here are better informed than I am about tribunals. I spent my working life in questionnaire design, and I do know something about forms. Many things can be said about most government forms, and it is certainly true that many government forms are not expressed as clearly as they might be. I have given undertakings about the form being in plain English.
The matter comes back to the fundamental point that I want to make in relation to Part 2 of the Bill. We are trying to promote other ways of resolving cases. We are not proposing a mechanistic system to cut down on claims. However, we are looking for flexibility in choice and that must be to the advantage of applicants as well as employers.
I have listened to claims that there will be a reduction in the number of tribunal cases. I have no idea whether there will be a reduction in the number of cases; there may well be an increase. That is not the object of the exercise. The object of the exercise is to secure resolution in different ways and, so far as possible, to do so in advance of the tribunal to the satisfaction of all parties. It is not the intention to
CWH 162
freeze out applications. That is not what the forms will be used for. I shall consider between now and Report stage whether it is possible to be more precise about those objectives in Clause 25.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the Minister sits down. I do not support his noble friends in their opposition to the Question whether Clause 25 stand part of the Bill. In responding to his noble friends, the Minister pointed out yet again, as he did earlier when he responded to the amendment, the wide nature of the powers that the Secretary of State has. His noble friends showed their concern about it, as indeed did I, and that is why I supported their Amendments Nos. 84 and 86.
I know that we are not discussing the amendments now but, in view of what the Minister said about the extraordinarily wide powers conferred by Clause 25 and what could happen, I believe that he should look again at the amendments. They may well he defective, but there is no reason why the Minister and the Government could not return with amendments that meet our concerns some of the way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer is that the concerns are very different and conflicting. I want to say one more word about a complex form and a simple form. It is not necessarily true that a simple form is better from the point of view of the applicant. It may be better if, for the sake of a little more complexity, the applicant is encouraged to make a better case at the beginning and not to lose part of his claim. As a survey researcher and question designer, I place that into the thinking pot.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: If all the consultation that my noble friend mentioned has taken place, why do we not amend the form that we use at present? As my noble friend said, this problem is of the Government's own making. I was asked why I was concerned at the Secretary of State at the DTI being a party. Of course, I recognise that only a few cases are involved. I am no lawyer, but this is one of the first things that the lawyers who practise employment law throw at me. Of course, I am supposed to defend everything that the Government do, and in this area I do my best.
There is an air of suspicion. The Government should be working to get rid of it, and they can do so in Grand Committee. The opportunities will arise, in particular, when we deal with the amendments to which my name is attached. If there is a problem in relation to the application form and the notice of appearance, why do we not alter both forms ET1 and ET3? Why should we accept what are regarded as draconian powers? The answer is: in order to reduce the number of applications which go before tribunals.
However, the answer that I have given is not that one. I believe that the way to reduce the number of tribunal hearings is by introducing a system into the 600,000 workplaces that do not currently have a procedure. However, that goes down like a lead balloon because those workplaces believe what they

CWH 163
have been told—that is, that the intention of the Government is to reduce the number of tribunal cases. This is seen as a way of doing so. I know that the Minister says that that is not the case but, if the nature of the application to tribunals needs to be altered, then we should alter the one that we already have.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I repeat what I said. The new forms will not be designed to deter applicants or respondents, even inadvertently. If that means that we build on or adapt the existing forms rather than create new ones, I do not simply believe that that is possible—it is highly likely. One does not start from scratch when one has a variety of alternatives. One certainly starts with what one currently has and sees in what ways it can be improved from the point of view of both applicants and respondents.
Perhaps I may talk about the lawyers and talk to my noble friend Lord Gladwin. I believe that I have given all the assurances that I can give about the Government's intentions. However, suspicions relate to perceptions and not only reality. It is our duty to seek to counter suspicions which are based on misconceived perceptions as well as those which are based on realities. My offer to reconsider whether the scope of this clause can be confined more closely to the objectives which I set out in defending the clause applies precisely because I am aware that we must be concerned about suspicions, whether or not they are well-founded.
Lord McCarthy: I want to raise only a few points. First, we shall undoubtedly table some new amendments which will enable the Government to modify this and many other clauses. We thank them for looking at those amendments.
Secondly, the position in which the Government find themselves and the perceptions about which they are concerned are their own fault. Routes to Resolution refers to the 40,000 cases. Alan Johnson's introduction to the document talks about how more disputes are ending up in litigation. As we have argued time and again, there is no evidence for that, and there is no proportional increase in litigation. In response to Routes to Resolution, the combined effect of putting forward a whole series of proposals—not only in relation to Clause 25—is an estimated reduction of between 30,000 and 40,000 applications compared with current levels. That becomes a government objective; it becomes a government aim. There it is—the combined effect of all the proposals is an estimated reduction of between 30,000 and 40,000 applications.
If one really wants to change the atmosphere, one should change that target—withdraw that target. While that target is there, you will be consistently, persistently misunderstood. That is the first point—or the second point actually, because I said that we will take these amendments.
CWH 164
The third point is that you say, "Well, we have all these powers under the clause. You come along and say that they are possibly, or could be, the basis of abuse". One might say that everyone could say that—everything can be abuse. However, careful drafters and careful legislators know that. They look at their legislation and say, "Let me not demand anything more than I essentially, necessarily require. Then that suspicion cannot be so easily placed upon me".
Frankly, we cannot see why the Government cannot carry on with the same old tribunal form that we have now. They do not tell us why they need this tremendous set of powers set out in Clause 25. Until the Government come to terms with what they have on the face of the Bill, just as they must come to terms with the claim that they make, they will consistently be misunderstood.
When I first read the document, and put it together with other statements made by Ministers in the House, it seemed to me that the Government were making vast claims for what they intend to do. I know that they have taken it back, but that was the impact effect. I am sure that that is what many people thought and they really ought to have done it rather better.
Finally, successive governments have attempted to do something of this sort. The Conservative government tried to do something of this sort. My friends who sit and work on tribunals will not thank me for saying this, but it is an open secret. The reason tribunals work as well as they do is that when such things are shoved in legislation, sensible, intelligent members of tribunals know how to mitigate their consequences.
There are not many pre-hearing assessments. There could be many more but there are not because they are not considered to be helpful. One could put in powers to get costs out of applicants but, on the whole, the tribunals do not take costs from applicants because they do not think it will help. One could say that the applicants should be fined if they make vexatious presentations, but the tribunals say that they do not really think they have any vexatious presentations. Many provisions could be put on the face of the Bill but tribunals have an expertise and skill in making the system continue to work, much as it worked in the past.
However—this is where Clause 25 comes in—if Clause 25, by accident or design, discourages people—if they look at it and decide they are not going in for that—there is nothing the tribunals can do. The cases will not reach the tribunals. If Clause 25 works, in the sense that some people in the CBI would like it to work, there will be a fall off in the number of tribunal hearings because people will not get to the tribunals. Nobody can mitigate the consequences of this legislation if they do not have a simple, easy way of access to the tribunal. That is why, although we are not dividing in the Committee, we believe that the Government should take this clause away and rewrite it.
Clause 25 agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 26 [Determination without a hearing]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 87:
Page 34, line 25, at end insert "if it is agreed by the parties to the proceedings"
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 90, which are grouped together. The first two amendments deal with Clause 26, the marginal note to which describes its purpose as "Determination without a hearing". Amendment No. 90 relates to Clause 28, which deals with pre-hearing reviews.
The purpose of Amendment No. 87 is to make it clear that the regulations do not empower the tribunal to dismiss an employee's case it considers unsustainable simply on the basis of reading the application and any supporting documents. It also equally ensures that the tribunal does not give judgment against a respondent on the basis that it has decided against him without any need to consider his defence and any oral evidence. In other words, this amendment is tabled to ensure that there is no summary dismissal of a case without a hearing except, of course—and this is the point—if the parties consent.
The consent of the parties is to be an essential ingredient of any procedural regulation allowing the determination of the case without a full dress hearing. There is, in fact, ample precedent for such a limited power to dispense with an oral hearing. Some cases in the High Court are dealt with purely on the basis of affidavit evidence, including, for example, applications for summary judgment under Civil Practice Rule 24.
Quite incidental to that, years ago that rule was numbered 14 and there was a useful jingle, which all law students had to learn, which went,
"Order 14,
What does it mean?
Well it's the end,
Unless you get leave to defend".
There is also the important example of planning appeals, the vast majority of which are dealt with by written submissions to the inspector, including submissions from objectors among the general public who are not actual parties to the application.
So we can agree that there are circumstances where an oral hearing could be dispensed with and to that extent we agree with the Bill as it is drafted. However, that summary dismissal can take place only if both parties agree, otherwise, their rights under the convention to a fair and public hearing will be infringed.
The Minister may tell us that this could be covered by the regulations, but on the other hand it may not. We do not know what the regulations are going to say and, in turn, the regulations themselves can be altered by the Secretary of State. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that consent of both parties must always be had or a hearing of some sort must take
CWH 166
place—including such as I shall mention in relation to Amendment No. 90—before the tribunal takes upon itself to deprive a party who wants it of a hearing.
Amendment No. 88 is to provide for a deficiency in the clause. It sometimes happens that a party launches a claim or indicates that a claim is to be defended, then fails to turn up at the hearing. This amendment allows for summary judgment to be given without going through the formality of the attending party having to adduce all the evidence and perhaps keep witnesses hanging around while other witnesses give evidence or while the case is explained in great detail to the tribunal.
It is quite right that the tribunal should have a discretion to adjourn the case to a later date. However, to do so could add to the expense of the attending party and the inconvenience of the tribunal and witnesses alike. This amendment allows the tribunal—except where it is convinced that there is reasonable excuse for non-attendance—simply to exercise its discretion to treat such non-attendance as an admission of the other party's case or of the abandonment of its own. The Government will presumably be pleased to see a procedure where public and witnesses' time and expense can be saved.
Amendment No. 90 deals with pre-hearing reviews which tribunals will be authorised to conduct. In recent years, the civil courts have introduced a system of pre-trial review, when issues such as the number of witnesses to be called, how many expert witnesses per side, what admissions of fact either party is prepared to make, the potential length of the hearing and a myriad of other procedural points can be disposed of with a view to speeding up and shortening the actual hearing. We welcome the addition of this facility to the tribunal procedure, which is introduced by Clause 28.
However, the Government have missed an opportunity further to improve the tribunal procedure, which my constructive amendment is designed to do. I just explained that in civil cases—and again I remind the Committee that the same applies to tribunal proceedings—the court has the power under Civil Practice Rule 24 to give a summary judgment against a defendant in cases where it is satisfied that there is not a valid defence.
In the civil courts it is also a fact of life that the district judge or the High Court Master conducting the review can sometimes give an indication—which is lawyer-speak for "a nod and a wink"—as to the way the judge thinks the case is likely to go. In the civil courts, where the parties are usually represented by trained lawyers, that indication is usually enough at least to send them off to the negotiating table. Let there be no mistake—many cases are brought before the employment tribunal which everyone knows are hopeless from the start, or in which the amount that the claimant is likely to receive is out of all proportion to the time and expense that the case would involve. Equally, there are many cases in which the best advice that a respondent could be given is to pay up and to look cheerful while he is doing so because he does not have a case at all.

CWH 167
Cases before tribunals, no less than civil cases before the ordinary courts, cost money to conduct, cause considerable stress to the parties on both sides, cost public money to accommodate and take up the time of public officials to manage and adjudicate on. That is to say nothing of the fact that the lists are cluttered with what will turn out to be no-hope cases, causing parties with what I may call genuine cases to have to wait much longer for justice.
This amendment gives the tribunal power comparable to the other civil courts—I emphasise the words "other civil courts"—to dismiss hopeless cases or hopeless defences. It does not require the tribunal to do so automatically. Of course, the words "reasonable prospect of success" give the tribunal a great deal of— I use a word that is dearly loved by the Government—flexibility. I hope the Minister will agree. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, seeks to ensure that parties will have to give written consent to proceeding with a determination without a hearing, rather than attending a full oral hearing on their case. I am happy to be in a position to reassure that, as stated in the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill, the Government fully intend that such content must be received from both parties in writing before it is possible for the right to an oral hearing to be waived. It is important that neither party should be able to pressgang the other into pursuing a determination without a hearing rather than attending an oral hearing. We do not believe that it is helpful to include such detail on the face of the Bill, however. We believe that that is better set out in regulations.
The only exception to a requirement for consent will be where a respondent has failed to take advantage of his opportunity to defend the case. In such uncontested cases, the specific content of the respondent to a determination without a hearing would not be required, as he would have lost the opportunity to have a say in how the proceedings should be determined.
The Government have clearly laid down their intended implementation of the clause both in the Explanatory Notes, and on the record in the other place. In addition to the requirement for both parties to give their written consent, they will have to seek independent advice from a third party on the consequence of consenting. Such advisers will include ACAS officers and those who may advise on compromise agreements.
Furthermore, the final decision on whether or not a determination can be made without a hearing will lie with the tribunal. If the tribunal chairman believes that an oral hearing is in the public interest or is otherwise not appropriate, he may override the parties' consent if he wishes.
CWH 168
The use of determinations without a hearing will be used as part of the fast track for the consideration of tribunal claims, which was consulted on in Routes to Resolution and which received broad support. The Employment Tribunal System Taskforce is studying the fast track as part of its consideration of improvements to the management of caseflow and case management. Any recommendation the taskforce makes on the use of determinations without a hearing will be taken into account before the regulations are drafted. There will be full consultation on the regulation and I hope that this will be of some comfort to the noble Baroness.
I turn to Amendment No. 88. It would provide that where a party failed to attend the hearing, the tribunal would, without hearing oral evidence or considering written submissions, find for the party who did attend. While it is clear that it is undesirable to have cases that progress to tribunal only to have one party fail to attend, I do not believe that the method that that amendment suggests is the best way to deal with such situations.
If a case were uncontested—that is, the respondent had failed to engage in the process at any stage—the tribunal, under the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, may make a determination based on the applicant's evidence alone. Following the implementation of this clause, under such circumstances the applicant would also have the option of requesting the tribunal to make a determination without a hearing based on written submissions and without any contribution from the respondent. The respondent would have failed to take advantage of his opportunity to have a say in how the proceedings are determined by failing to submit his ET3 response form. Those are the ways in which applicants can receive a determination in a case that is not contested. They both contain some consideration of the merits of a case even though a respondent has failed to engage in the process in any way.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, however, deals not with such cases, as I understand it, but rather with circumstances in which the respondent has engaged in a process to a certain degree—perhaps even fully—but one of the parties cannot attend the tribunal on the date arranged. Where the party is ill or abroad on that date, they would be covered by the "reasonable excuse" caveat in the amendment. But what about the small employer who cannot attend for business reasons? If an employer had engaged fully in the process from receipt of the ET1 through conciliation for setting of the date for oral hearing but then had strong business reasons for failing to attend the tribunal on that day, it is unlikely that the tribunal would consider that a reasonable excuse and, under this amendment, would automatically find against the employer without consideration of any papers or the hearing of oral evidence.
There is no precedent for the determination of a case without the consideration of any evidence whatever and I believe it would be a dangerous path down which to venture. It would also allow applicants to succeed without having to make out their case before the

CWH 169
tribunal. I hope that the explanations that I have given will allow the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment No. 90 requires tribunals to dismiss or strike out proceedings unless they have a reasonable prospect of success. It is too draconian to allow no room for the use of existing deposit procedure, which is still intended to be the main weapon against cases that appear to have no reasonable prospect of success, striking out cases intended to be used only for those cases that are hopeless.
Moreover, we do not want tribunals to have the power to hear evidence at pre-hearing reviews. Such reviews are intended to be relatively quick and based on the contents of the originating application and notice of appearance, any representations in writing and any oral arguments advanced by the parties. If evidence were to be heard the review would take longer, thereby nullifying its value; that is, it would be more like an ordinary hearing. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment and urge that it be withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am comforted by what the Minister said on Amendment No. 87. If he is saying that the Explanatory Notes explain that what I am asking for can happen, that, so far as I am concerned, is perfectly satisfactory.
I am not so content with what the Minister said about Amendment No. 88. It uses the phrase, "failed without reasonable excuse", and the tribunal has the discretion either to do that or to adjourn to a later date. My amendment takes care of that. I hope that the Minister will look at that again.
I think that I accept what the Minister said about Amendment No. 90, but I shall read his comments with care. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Practice directions]:
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Pre-hearing reviews]:
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am sorry, I have not spoken to Amendment No. 89.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): We have moved on.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I have missed my opportunity.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I hope that the noble Baroness will have another opportunity to discuss that amendment. I do apologise.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: That is quite all right. In my haste to get out, for obvious reasons, I overlooked the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 91:
Page 35, line 6, at end insert—
"(aa) for authorising an employment tribunal to strike out an originating application—

(i) in the circumstances provided for in rule 15 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/1171); and

(ii) where the application manifestly discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim,

but so that no application shall be struck out on the ground only that the tribunal considers the claim to be based on weak grounds.""
The noble Lord said: This is the first of some amendments where, to put it generally, individual employment protection law intersects with collective issues. I say that because, although we can say that most of what we are concerned with in the Bill is, of course, employment protection legislation and regulations as they affect the individual employee, nevertheless it is quite impossible to keep distinct individual employment protection and collective industrial relations as between organised employees and trade unions or, indeed, those in groups outside trade unions and their employers.
The amendment concerns the interlocutory injunction which the High Court can grant against industrial action. The reason the problem arises is partly through the rules that apply to this court order against collective action, which can be granted on the basis not of a proven course of action or proven liability on the part of, in effect, the union, but where the employer or third party has shown that there is the likelihood of a liability in a trade dispute in the defendant calling for industrial action. That is to say, where perhaps the ballot has not been properly held or where for some reason that is so.
This intercepts with the problems both of striking out and of what is to follow in subsequent amendments. As far as striking out is concerned, which is what the amendment is about, there is no more serious step to take on the part of a court or tribunal than to strike out the application or claim of a claimant. Clause 28 would so amend the law, as the Minister has made plain in another place, that it would allow the tribunal on a pre-hearing review to strike out an originating application.
Our amendment suggests that this nuclear response to a claim should be specifically described and defined in its possibilities under the Bill. The amendment suggests that an employment tribunal should be allowed to strike out a claim from an employee in two sets of circumstances.
The first are circumstances which are already in the employment tribunal rules and which this amendment would apply to pre-hearing reviews under Clause 28. Perhaps it is convenient if I briefly summarise what those are.
A claim can be struck out at the moment under Rule 15, which is mentioned in the amendment, in five situations: first, where there is notice of withdrawal of

CWH 171
a claim—that is obvious; secondly, where the parties agree it should be withdrawn as struck out—that is obvious; thirdly, where the application is scandalous, misconceived or vexatious; fourthly, where the applicant or respondent has conducted proceedings in a manner that is scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious; and, lastly, where there has been want of prosecution—that is obvious.
We have no objection to the new pre-hearing reviews applying in those situations. They are well understood and we think that the power should go that far. However, we think that should be said in the Bill and not left simply vague, as at the moment, as was explained in another place by the Minister, to whom I shall come.
We also think that it is not unreasonable that an application which discloses no grounds for the claim, which is usually expressed as "no reasonable grounds", should also come within the power of striking out. I understand that that far, we are at one with the Government. However, what we object to is what is said in the Explanatory Notes. I do not know on the basis of what advice these notes were concocted but I quote them. The Explanatory Notes say about this clause:
"Although rule 15 of the main Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure permits the strike out of certain cases, including weak cases"—
I pause to say that Rule 15 does not say, "weak cases"; quite the opposite. I continue with the quotation. Although that is so,
"it is arguable that the current rules do not allow the strike out of weak cases at a pre-hearing review. At present the power to strike out is limited and rarely used".
And then it goes on:
"The objective"—
that is, the objective of this clause—
"is to limit the number of very weak cases reaching a full hearing by confirming the tribunals' power to strike cases out at this stage in the process".
There are two or three problems with very weak cases and weak cases. First, to know whether a case is weak, as opposed to disclosing no cause of action, you have to engage in some sort of assessment of the claim and the defence. It is absurd to suggest that weak cases should be the subject of a striking out at this stage, especially in a pre-hearing review. And our amendment states,
"that no application shall be struck out on the ground only that the tribunal considers"
—and, I interpose, considers at a pre-hearing review, because that is what the clause is about—
"only that the tribunal considers the claim to be based on weak grounds".
I am glad to see that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton has joined us because he will be, I am sure, the first to admit that sometimes cases which appear to be based on weak grounds succeed—if they have good enough counsel, that is. The suggestion made in the Explanatory Notes is quite wrong and that is why the amendment is being moved.
CWH 172
As a matter of fact, if it were not for the Explanatory Notes, I am not sure that we would have thought that the Government would dream of suggesting this. But they do and they go on to cite three cases where they think the strike out power should be available. I refer to page 18 of the Explanatory Notes. They say, first:
"Cases in which the facts have already been litigated and the applicant has no fresh or different evidence but insists on pursuing the case".
I would not object too much to that. Secondly, they state:
"Cases where the facts are not in dispute but the interpretation placed on those facts by one party is clearly wrong".
Perhaps I may interpose a comment: this is typical of the drafting of parts of the Bill and Explanatory Notes. They are written by people who seem to think that they can impose a formula and it will apply itself naturally to the facts.
Whether a case is clearly wrong is a matter of legal interpretation. If it means, of course, that there are no reasonable grounds for such a claim and it manifestly lacks a cause of action, that is within our amendment. But what the tribunal considers to be wrong about the interpretation in law of a set of facts in a claim can be the matter—and should be the matter if parties wish to argue it—of argument.
The third example which is given in the Explanatory Notes, is:
"Cases in which a party's application is not itself sufficient to lead to a successful outcome for him".
However, they then add,
"and the party has stated at pre-hearing review that no further evidence or witnesses will be called".
I appreciate that, if he is not going to give any evidence, it might be easy to say that he could not win, but once again the tribunal should not have power simply to strike out—I insist on italicising the words "strike out"—or to use the nuclear weapon against the claim simply because it thinks it is not sufficient to win.
Here it is of some importance to note what the Minister said in another place on 13th December because I believe that our amendment is in fact what the Minister appeared to intend. He says, speaking of a tribunal, and I quote:
"It should have the power to strike out the case at that stage"—
that is, at a pre-hearing review—
"if it believes there is so little chance of success that it is not appropriate even that a deposit should be paid"—
which of course does apply to weak cases—
"and the case heard. That it does not is an anomaly in the system. We are not making a radical change. We are tidying up employment tribunal procedures. It is questionable whether there was ever an intention to prevent employment tribunals from striking out cases at the pre-hearing stage".
Obviously there was because that is why the Bill would allow them to introduce that. The Minister continued:
"However, the reference in the Bill to preliminary consideration implies that there must be a full hearing, irrespective of how unreasonable and misconceived the case is.".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Cttee F, 13/12/01; cols. 114–115.]

CWH 173
Perhaps we do not have the words quite right; I am always willing to believe that. But we say that where the application manifestly discloses no reasonable grounds, the tribunal should have power to strike it out. That is, if you like, the High Court rule. I have put in the word "manifestly" for a very simple reason and that is that the Explanatory Notes have so muddied the water by talking about weak cases that it is very important that the Bill should be absolutely clear on this and that we should know what the Government intend. I believe that my honourable friend the Minister in another place meant that; I believe that that is what our amendment says. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I also would like to support the case that has been made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. Like most trades union officials, I have had some experience of taking cases to tribunals. The usual, very frequent experience, is that an individual who wants his case taken becomes totally obsessed with his case and refuses to accept that he has a weak case even though one may feel that he has. Therefore, often one has had the experience of taking what one may believe to be a weak case to a tribunal, but, nevertheless, when one gets there, one somehow manages to persuade the tribunal that there is a case there.
It seems to me that to have a situation in which the tribunal can strike out weak cases without them being heard is not a very good idea at all, and would certainly have a very deleterious effect upon individuals who otherwise might feel they had a case and would want their day in court. I hope that the Government will look with some favour upon the amendment.
Lord Rotherwiek: I briefly would like to say that we agree with the amendment as it substantially accords with our Amendment No. 90.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I find it rather difficult to substantiate the last point. It seems to me that Amendment No. 91 takes the opposite approach to Amendment No. 90 that we discussed earlier, in that it seeks to make it more difficult to strike out cases. As I said, we envisage that strike out will occur only very rarely.
What the clause does is to take out the implication that the preliminary hearing review is in some sense preliminary and must therefore be followed by a full hearing.
Rule 15, to which the amendment refers, provides power to strike out an originating application or notice of appearance at any stage of the proceedings on the grounds that it is scandalous, misconceived or vexatious, or that the proceedings are being conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious manner. As I have already said, we expect proceedings to be struck out only when cases are hopeless; that is to say, those at the extreme end of the spectrum covered by the terms "vexatious", "misconceived" and so on. I stress here the word "misconceived" because it is those cases to which the Explanatory Notes refer.
CWH 174
In the light of Clause 28, it will in due course be necessary to amend Rule 7 of the main employment tribunal rules of procedure to allow for strike out. The new rule will need to specify when the strike out power may be exercised, reflecting what I have said about it being used only in extreme cases that are scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious and not simply those that are weak in the terms that I think the amendment refers to.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the Committee will agree that this amendment is unnecessary and that my noble friend will withdraw it.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I appreciate what my noble friend said and I am grateful to him for trying to explain what the Government intend, but really, we have to take the Explanatory Notes as meaning what they say. There was a discussion recently in the Committee about plain English. The Explanatory Notes are absolutely plain: they want the tribunal— and this is important—at a pre-hearing review to have power to strike out weak cases.
My noble friend the Minister has taken his stand on quite different grounds; he says the measure applies to hopeless cases. In so far as hopeless cases are cases that do not disclose a cause of action or any reasonable grounds at all for the claim, that is what our amendment says. The amendment offers the Government something on all of this; it does not leave things in limbo and obscure.
I must say that I am surprised that my noble friend did not say explicitly that he would take away this amendment and think about it. He says it really applies to hopeless cases. Well, I suppose our amendment applies more or less to hopeless cases. He says he wants the power to apply the measure to the cases in Rule 15, but our amendment says it should apply to cases in Rule 15.
What else does he want? Does he want the measure, as the Explanatory Notes say, to apply to weak and very weak cases? If he does, we shall oppose it, and we shall oppose it on Report, because this is going far beyond what is proper not to allow. There are enough clauses in this Bill that do not allow workers their day in court and try to stop them arguing anything. The power to strike out is a nuclear weapon in the hands of the court or tribunal and it should not be exercised except within the compass of the traditional principles of the ordinary courts.
This is an attempt, it seems—at least, I thought it was an attempt—to give the tribunals a wider power. That is what the Explanatory Notes say. But if it is to apply only to hopeless cases or, as my honourable friend the Minister appeared to say in another place at columns 114 to 115 of Hansard on 13th December, the Government are just tidying up an anomaly and just want to give a power to strike out at pre-hearing review only where this is a hopeless or impossible case, that is what our amendment offers. I hope that my noble friend will reconsider this matter but, if he will not,

CWH 175
then we shall have no prospect except to come back to it on Report. All I can do is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 92:
Page 35, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) Section 9(3) of that Act shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to Section 9(3) of the Employment Tribunals Act. It is about deposits. There is a special rule in the tribunals which operates to the disadvantage of an employee who is ill-advised enough to bring a very weak case. If ICI brings a very weak case in the High Court, it is not asked to pay a special deposit, but if a worker brings a weak case in the tribunal he can be asked to pay a deposit. It can come back to him if he wins but he can lose it. I have no objection to this system, although at the time that it was introduced it was discussed whether it was desirable. I would like the Minister to say something about its operation in response to this amendment, because this amendment would strike out the Secretary of State's power to increase the deposit. Of course, it was recently increased to £500 from, I believe, £150. The question is whether the logic and experience of deposits should leave the Secretary of State the power by regulation—I stress that—simply to propose an increase. Regulations increasing the amounts of compensation, deposits or anything else frequently go through both Houses but they are rarely discussed and there is no chance of amendment. My noble friends and I see no reason at all why the power to increase deposits by regulation should continue, unless we have some news about what is happening.
How many deposits have there been? How many deposits have been forfeited? How many deposits have contributed, in the view of tribunals or the presidents of the tribunals, to the relaxation and diminution of very weak cases? What research has been done on the question of deposits? If this power to increase the deposit is retained, is there any intention of using it? If one does not want to use it, why does one want it? If it is not broke, do not fix it. That is a general principle and my noble friend Lord Gladwin was advancing it to the Government. This amendment raises the same point. Let us have some news about deposits and see whether there is any reasonable prospect of any kind that anyone will want to increase them. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Section 9 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 permits employment tribunal procedure regulations to include provision for pre-hearing reviews and they do include such provision. Pre-hearing reviews may be held where an application or a defence appears to be weak. If, having conducted such a review, the tribunal finds that a case has no reasonable prospect of success, it may require the payment of a deposit before the case can proceed to a merits hearing.
When this piece of legislation was made in 1989, the amount of the deposit was not to exceed £150. Last year that was increased to an amount not exceeding
CWH 176
£500. That increase was made under Section 9(3) of the 1996 Act, which says that the Secretary of State may, from time to time, by order substitute for the sum specified in Section 9(2)—that is, the £150 as it was originally and the £500 as it is currently—such other sum as may be specified in the order. An order made under that subsection is subject to the negative resolution procedure.
It seems to me that, even in these days when the Government have very largely dealt with the problem of inflation, on a Bill such as this there should be the ability to increase the sum if, because of inflation or other reasons, it is thought sensible to do so. I do not believe that there is any intention to do so at this stage and, in fact, the system seems to work reasonably well.
The number of pre-hearing reviews in the financial year 2000–01 was 299 and the number of deposits ordered was 234, of which 48 were paid—those 48 were all applicants. Of those 48 cases, 19 were subsequently withdrawn, four were struck out—for example, for want of prosecution—two were not yet decided, three were settled, 11 were lost and had to pay costs, eight were lost but no costs were awarded and one was won.
Strike-outs at a pre-hearing review will be exceptional and only when a case is so weak as to be hopeless. Going back to the two previous years, in the past two calendar years—1999 and 2000—there were two instances in which applicants won their cases after a deposit was ordered. However, in one of those cases, it was the employer and not the applicant who was ordered to pay the deposit although it was refunded to him after the full hearing. Those figures suggest that the system is working rather well. It seems perfectly reasonable to have the flexibility of such a power, which, after all, has been exercised just once in order to ensure that the maximum amount of deposit is adequate if circumstances change. I therefore do not see merit in the amendment, which would do away with the power, and accordingly cannot accept it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I begin by thanking the Minister for this unusual disclosure of the statistics on the matter. He has saved researchers a great deal of work and I shall read Hansard with interest. However, they relate to a very small number of cases out of 130,000: 234, of which 48 deposits were paid, two are not yet decided and four struck out. We are talking about a minute number. That does not suggest there will be a need to increase the deposit. I forget exactly what the figures for 1999–2000 proved—I am terribly sorry—but one case proved something. That is such a small sample that to have it as the basis for retaining a power to increase deposits with one small exception seems unreasonable. The exception, of course—and it is astonishing to hear this from the Government—is in case there is rather serious inflation. I have the greatest confidence in my noble friends and am sure that they will pursue policies that will not increase inflation. I am astonished to hear the Minister say that there is a serious risk that that course of events might require an increase in deposits. If that were so, this would be another case in which the matter should not be dealt with by regulation and the Secretary of State should

CWH 177
not have the power to secure an automatic increase in deposits. Deposits are a very serious matter for a worker. He may be told, "Yes, you can come to a tribunal. We think your case is weak; £500, please". If there is a little inflation, it seems that the sum could be £1,000. That is unreasonable. The Government must explain to parliament exactly why they are doing that and they must face amendments, conditions or qualifications, especially if they are the cause of the inflation because they failed in their policies. However, they would put the cost on the poor old worker who has what is thought to be a very weak case. That is not very reasonable and I hope the Government will reconsider this matter, because deposits are still a matter for discussion. I appreciate that they are relatively new. However, we have now got some figures for the past two years—they are down to one case and two cases, and we will think about the matter again. I hope the Government will also think about it again. It is not obvious that there should be a power by regulation to increase deposits. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 93:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
"DISMISSALS TN CONNECTION WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTION
In rule 9(2) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/1171) all the words after "delict;" shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: In this amendment, we come to the relationship between individual employment claims and collective issues. The Minister indicated to me very kindly that I mis-addressed at one point Amendment No. 91, and I apologise to the Committee for doing so. I now address Amendment No. 93.
Amendment No. 93 concerns the question of interlocutary injunctions. The interlocutory injunction is a device whereby an employer or a third party can obtain an order from the High Court, banning the organisation of industrial action, not where there is a clear case that he has the right to do so but where, on the authorities since the Ethicon case in 1975, there is what Lord Diplock called, and I quote,
"a serious question to be tried",
or, as others have put it, where there is the likelihood or a serious issue as to whether the defendants have not observed all the particularities of the law in this respect. Of course, in the organisation of industrial action, that now includes not merely pursuing a trade dispute but observing all the detailed requirements of the ballot and notices under the 1992 Act.
where there is a possibility and a serious issue, and where the balance of convenience, as the courts put it, is on the employer's side, the High Court may well, and probably will, issue an injunction. That jurisdiction interacts with the new provisions which were introduced in the Employment Protection Act 1999 in
Section 285A. We shall return to Section 285A in later amendments moved by noble friends and myself, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall.
Where the industrial action is protected, the new Act in 1999 introduced a new rule about individual employment law on unfair dismissal. It is usually summarised by saying that for six weeks an employer may not dismiss an employee by reason of the industrial action without fear, or without liability, of an unfair dismissal. As a matter of fact, that does not do justice to the section, because there are some other twiddly bits, as a student once said to me, in the section. However, it is a fair summary, I think my noble friend will accept, of what we begin with after the 1999 Act.
The question therefore arises: if the employer obtains, or indeed has grounds to obtain, an interlocutory injunction, and he is minded to dismiss an employee by reason of the strike action—it happened recently at a well known dispute in Carnarvon in Wales, where it has given rise to a great deal of difficulty—is the individual employee still protected during his six weeks?
This was confronted by the new Employment Tribunal Regulations 2001, Statutory Instrument 1171, by the introduction of Rule 9 in Schedule 1. Rule 9 says, and I summarise, that where this situation arises, the tribunal may adjourn the proceedings where specified civil proceedings have been brought until such time as the interlocutory proceedings—strictly, we no longer speak, I suppose, of interlocutory proceedings in the Rule of the Supreme Court, but I quote the phrase from the rule—arising out of the specified civil proceedings have been concluded.
So, while the interlocutory claim goes on to judgment, the worker may find that his claim for unfair dismissal is adjourned. In fact, my understanding is—my noble friends with experience in this matter will correct me if I am wrong—that most tribunals regard it as proper to adjourn the unfair dismissal proceedings until judgment is given in the interlocutory proceedings in the High Court for an injunction.
The amendment does not challenge that. Personally, I regard it as unfortunate that a worker should have to wait during proceedings, which may conclude merely on the basis of a serious question to be tried for his protection, to know whether he has protection under the 1999 Act in the six-week period of protection. The issue will arise in later amendments whether six weeks is adequate and whether it should be confronted.
What this amendment goes to is a later part of Rule 9 in the Employment Tribunal Regulations. It states:
"The interlocutory proceedings shall not be regarded as having concluded until all rights of appeal have been exhausted or the time for instituting any appeal in the course of the interlocutory proceedings has expired".
I fully appreciate that that would be the average lawyer's understanding of proceedings in the High Court for an interlocutory injunction. You have to wait for the appeals. But in this case the person who is

CWH 179
being made to wait, and the person who is being deprived of protection, is the employee who, by hypothesis, has been unfairly dismissed.
Interlocutory injunction cases can take some time. I know it is a long time ago, but in the leading case of Stratford v Lindley in 1964 the proceedings were begun on 3rd February 1964 and were concluded in the House of Lords on 28th July of that year. Other cases have taken much longer. In the Merkur case of 1982 they extended from 23rd July 1982 to 21st April 1983. It should not be thought that interlocutory proceedings are necessarily quick.
Even last year, one of the London Underground cases against the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers took over a month to reach a decision in the High Court itself. You may say that a month is not six weeks, but during that month the worker concerned did not know what his status was. Even if he has to wait for the first judgment, why on earth should he wait for the appeals? It was not clear in that case whether there would be an appeal or not, it was thought there probably would be. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to advise such an employee during the proceedings on appeal in interlocutory injunction cases.
Therefore, as regards the point of interaction—which comes up very centrally on the Bill, because the Bill is concerned with employment protection rights and especially unfair dismissal rights—will the Minister reassure us that the Government will think about this matter? We hope that they will think about it not merely in the review of collective issues which we are told is going to come, but think about it now. It concerns real people who are dismissed from their jobs, who do not take back a wage the next week and who are made to wait for the natural proceedings of our courts on appeal when there have been other proceedings launched in the High Court for injunctions against their trade union. Indeed, it may not be their trade union; it could be that they have joined the industrial action without being members.
My noble friends and I suggest that it is a matter of justice that this rule about appellate proceedings on interlocutory cases on industrial action injunctions should be reviewed, and we hope that the Minister can give us some assurance that it will be. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This amendment concerns the way that tribunals process claims of dismissal which result from industrial action. The Employment Relations Act 1999 makes it unfair to dismiss employees for taking part in "protected" industrial action unless it lasts for more than eight weeks. Industrial action is protected where an employee is induced to take it by his union and the union, in doing so, complies with the legal requirements governing the organisation of such action.
The employment tribunal rules provide that a tribunal may adjourn proceedings where civil proceedings have been brought challenging the legitimacy of the industrial action. The rule provides
CWH 180
that the period of adjournment extends until the interlocutory proceedings arising out of the civil proceedings have been concluded. In particular, Rule 9(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules specifies that interlocutory proceedings are not to he regarded as having been concluded until all rights of appeal have been exhausted or the time for bringing an appeal in the course of the interlocutory proceedings has expired.
The amendment would do away with that part of Rule 9(2). It would mean that tribunals could not adjourn claims while an appeal was heard in the civil courts or while an appeal might be brought. The effect of the amendment would be to introduce a considerable degree of uncertainty. It is futile for tribunal proceedings to continue, let alone conclude, when the courts may subsequently decide that the industrial action is legitimate or, as the case may be, is not legitimate after all. This would involve the tribunals and the parties to the claim in a pointless waste of time. If the courts were to decide on appeal that the industrial action was not legitimate, the applicant's claim for unfair dismissal would fall and the time the tribunal had spent on the claim would be wasted.
If, on the other hand, the court of first instance held the industrial action to be unprotected, but on appeal it was held to be protected, the amendment could result in a tribunal dismissing applications that should have been admitted and held to be unfair. I cannot believe that Members of the Committee would approve of that result.
We accept that there is an interaction here, and I believe that we accept that that can have an impact on the applicants. But it is difficult to see how one can resolve the issue until the final proceedings have taken place on whether or not the industrial action is legitimate.
Although I recognise that Members of the Committee may have tabled this new clause in order to ensure that tribunal cases are not unduly delayed because of actions in the courts, I cannot accept it because it seems to be a recipe for confusion for all the parties involved.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister for not pointing out the glaring inadequacy of my presentation of the amendment. I always used to say in seminars, "Never quote a section unless you've got it in front of you, especially after six o'clock at night". I should have referred not to six weeks but eight weeks, and I should have referred to Section 238A. I have a feeling that I referred to another section. I take the opportunity to apologise immediately to the Grand Committee. It obviously vitiates my presentation of the amendment.
The Minister says that my proposal would lead to confusion. It might be difficult to apply, but it would not lead to confusion for those who are unfairly dismissed; it would give them a remedy.
We meet these situations sometimes. The courts construct these rules of procedure, and the people who suffer—the Minister seemed satisfied with that—are

CWH 181
those who have been unfairly dismissed. The eight, not six, weeks will run out; the other conditions of Section 238A will not apply; a person will be unfairly dismissed; and the case will be adjourned. Now, under the new clauses in the Bill, especially Clause 33, people may find that they lose their ability to go to a tribunal.
The Bill hangs together. One cannot discuss this matter without looking at Clause 33, but the Minister made no reference to that. People will be prohibited from presenting a case to a tribunal if they have not done everything that Clause 33 requires. That is the reason why this becomes very important. I entirely appreciate the difficulties which the Minister very reasonably pointed out in relation to our amendment. I hope that he will look at the matter again; we certainly shall. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 94:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
"DRAFT OF REGULATIONS
Not less than 30 days before—

(a) making regulations, or

(b) prescribing or prescribing requirements in relation to any form or matter,

under this Part, the Secretary of State shall publish a draft of his proposals."
The noble Lord said: We must take in two amendments here—Amendments Nos. 94 and 200— because Amendment No. 94 does for Part 2 of the Bill what Amendment No. 200 does for Part 3; otherwise they are identical.
We are seeking to insert a new clause which concerns the publication of the draft regulations 30 days before,
"making [those] regulations, or … prescribing or prescribing requirements in relation to any form or matter",
connected with those regulations.
I have said several times thus far that what is meant by "publication" differs from one case to another. Who is supposed to be told about these matters and who is supposed to be consulted? In this case, we are suggesting that there should be the widest circulation possible because the regulations will be published and we are covering all the central controversial provisions in the Bill. My noble friends and I have tabled significant amendments only to Parts 2 and 3. We are going along with Parts 1 and 4. Therefore, we are asking that all 20 or so clauses, every single one of which depends upon regulations, should set the context or make a definition so that people know what they will be facing. We have already discussed much of that but we shall be discussing it again at great length, for example, when we reach Clause 33.
I turn to the regulations which the Minister will not be putting on to the face of the Bill—at least, thus far he will not do so. The Minister will not tell us a great deal about what will be in the regulations—at least, thus far he has not done so—and he will not let us see
CWH 182
them. We are saying that the Minister should at least allow everyone to see them 30 days before they are brought into force.
I do not want to continue with this matter further, although I may do so if the Minister does not accept the amendment. However, I should have thought that the issue was self-evident. Indeed, as he sometimes does, the Minister may well say to me, "Well, of course we are going to do that", and that is why I shall not continue further. The difficulty with the Bill—it has many difficulties—is that so often it appears to be terrifying but then ceases to be terrifying because the Minister says, "When you see the regulations, you will realise that it will not hurt". Sometimes he sounds like King Lear:
"I will do such things,—
What they are yet I know not,—but they shall be
The terrors of the earth".
At other times he says to us, "Not at all, not really; you'll hardly notice it". If the Minister will not amend the provision, perhaps it will be possible to see the regulations 30 days before he brings them in. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The employment procedure tribunal regulations which are intended to be covered by Amendment No. 94 are subject to the negative resolution procedure and must lie before both Houses of Parliament for 21 days before taking effect.
In addition to the statutory requirement to consult the Council on Tribunals, we normally consult the main bodies representing employees and employers, including small employers, lawyers and other representatives, well in advance of the employment tribunal procedure regulations being made so that we can take account of their views. We have already made clear our intention to conduct a full public consultation on the changes to the regulations which will result from the Bill.
Likewise, in producing forms which may be prescribed by the Secretary of State outside of the regulations, the Employment Tribunal Service will, on her behalf, consult the tribunal presidents as well as normally consulting tribunal users and other relevant bodies, including ACAS. Sometimes it may not be necessary to consult more widely than the presidents where, for example, a quick, minor tweaking of the form is required. Those most affected by changes of any significance will be aware of them and will have had the opportunity to comment on them long before they take effect. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 200, the Government also intend to conduct a wide public consultation on drafts of the regulations to be made under Part 3 of the Bill. These are the regulations to be made under Clause 31, which is concerned with adjustment of awards, under Clause 32, which is concerned with consequential adjustment of time limits, and under Clause 33, which is concerned with complaints about grievances. The consultation will ensure that the regulations achieve clarity and are comprehensive without being over-prescriptive. In

CWH 183
particular, there will be pre-consultation with such people as the tribunal judiciary, ACAS, employer and employee organisations and employment lawyers.
Therefore, those most affected by the regulations will be made aware of what we have in mind and will have ample opportunity to comment before the regulations take effect. They will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Accordingly, the amendment is unnecessary and I that it and Amendment No. 94 will be withdrawn. Even the threat of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, going on about this at some considerable length cannot persuade me to accept the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend the Minister is obdurate on this matter. My noble friend Lord McCarthy has been most modest—we all have—in agreeing to group Amendment No. 94, which is about Part 2 of the Bill, with the other amendment, which is about Part 3. There are points that could be made separately but the general point my noble friend made in moving this amendment is surely not answered by saying—the Minister will forgive me if I cannot quote his exact words—that the usual bodies will be consulted. They would include employers organisations; I take it that it will include the CBI, the TUC, the presidents of the tribunals, ACAS and employment lawyers, whoever they may be. There are various employment lawyers organisations, although there are many people who are not in those organisations. That really will not do.
The Bill and the regulations made under Part 2 and Part 3 in particular—I say that because we are allowed to take them together—affect more than 20 million contracts of employment. It implies terms into the 20 million contracts of employment, and we cannot know what the terms are until we see the regulations.
Members of the Committee may be surprised to hear me plead for individuals but I happen to believe that the individual is very important. Employees who have contracts of employment may or may not come to know of what filters down from these grand bodies who have the privilege of being told what is going to happen, but then again they may not. What is the objection to publishing drafts of these regulations widely? That could be done on the Internet, young people—many people—would say. What is the objection to putting them on the Web? Why not? I have only recently come to grips with this new electronic world and I am beginning to understand the advantages of it. I do not suggest that they be put on a chat line or something of that sort but what on earth is the objection to publishing the drafts of the regulations that apply to 20-odd million people? What bureaucratic nonsense is it to say that they will just be given to those grand bodies who may or may not tell Joe in Burnley what his new contract of employment is? I cannot understand the approach from a Government who I thought were in favour of freedom and disclosure of information to people on the legal and other obligations that will rest on them.
CWH 184
I ask the Minister to at least tell us that he will think again about this matter. There is a very strong case for publishing a draft. I know that the matter has to go through the procedures of this House and another place, but we all know that regulations can be put before another place and this House and people do not notice what happens. It may be that some Member of this House will take it upon himself or herself to notify all 20 million employees. If so, well and good, but what on earth is the objection to publishing a draft?
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for giving way. Surely, putting the regulations on the Net is fine. It is fine. There is nothing wrong with that. However, is this not the road of the trade unions; to talk to their members, to communicate everything to them and to inform them how to deal with the situation?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. But trade unions are not organs of the state; they are voluntary bodies. I am surprised that the noble Baroness thinks it the particular job of trade unions. I would have thought she would be glad that a lot of people did not belong to trade unions. I thought that was the Conservative position but never mind! They are not organs of the state and it is not their job in constitutional practice to be the organs whereby state law is transmitted to individual people. It may be that one can say that of ACAS; that they must to do their best to promote the position. However, what resources ACAS would then need, I do not know. I am saying that this involves 20 million-odd individuals. The law is going to say, "This is the new set of obligations that you are going to be subject to, supposedly under this Bill, in your 'contracts of employment'".
We shall come back to the use of the juridical device of the implied term in the contract of employment because it is a very important choice by the Government. Nothing is more important in this Bill than the choice of the implied term "by statute in the contract of employment" in the devices and machinery that they wish to impose, some of which are wholly admirable. But I cannot understand why people cannot be informed of the situation. I believe it is true to say that almost half the households in the land are on the Internet. The noble Baroness tells me that I am wrong. A lot of people are on the Internet and I am only just catching up with these things. What is wrong with giving them the opportunity to read a draft of what is going to apply to them in regulation so that they can write to their MPs and say, "I don't agree with that."?
Lord McCarthy: The answer to the noble Baroness—as she ought to know because it is in SETA 1998—is that only 20 per cent of people who get to tribunals get to trade unions. Eighty per cent of people who come before tribunals now are not trade unionists. Therefore, even if the trade unions made it their job that all their members knew about all these provisions, there would still be 80 per cent of people left outside.

CWH 185
I am not withdrawing the amendment yet; I merely wanted to make the point to the Minister. I would like to know the basis on which all these top people are going to be consulted. He said, for example, that the TUC will know months before. Those most affected will know. Presumably they will know because the regulations have been written. They exist; someone has them. These top people will not just be told at dinner parties or sherry parties or over glasses of weak white wine! They will have the actual regulations.
If they have the regulations, and if the regulations have been published months before, why can everybody else not have them? Why can they not be available on demand? Why could you not charge a small sum for them? Why could you not put them in what used to be called the Ministry of Labour Gazette, now called Labour Market Trends? Why can you not put them in a published form a month before they come to publication? The Government have them. They say they have them because they are telling all these top people what is in them.
Surely in that case, this is an exceptional set of circumstances. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn is quite right in saying that I should have made this point more forcefully in my speech. I am not sure that this is the first time, but it is not very frequently, that governments write things out and shove them into individual contracts of employment in this way. They are an employed term of contract. This is something most unusual. So we are not saying that we are creating a precedent here in which in future all regulations have to be published. We are talking about something most unusual that goes into everybody's contract of employment.
It affects not only people who go to tribunals. It affects how they raise grievances with the employer and what happens when they are disciplined. People who never fill in an ET1, who are just dealing with their grievances and with their disciplinary consequences of their actions, ought to know that these provisions are in their contracts of employment.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. This is a very important point, joking apart about sherry parties, which are very passé now anyway. The real point is that any employer who suddenly realises that this is so important that it must he put into a contract of employment has the responsibility—as my experience tells me—to ensure that every single employee knows about it and is written to about it.
Lord McCarthy: Yes, but that will happen when it is law. It will not happen before it is law. If the Government have nothing to worry about—if King Lear is not in the play and nothing dreadful is going to occur—they ought to want people to see the regulations before they are passed. These are draft regulations and one cannot expect employers to tell people things that might not be in there in the end. We are talking about the draft and we are asking for people to have some influence and we are saying that it should not just be top people.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: In the danger of introducing a little information into this debate and bringing it to a close, perhaps I may say that I am disappointed in the exploration of the Internet by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. If he had been exploring it thoroughly, the noble Lord would now know that it is established DTI policy to place all consultative documents on the department's website. In fact, it is DTI policy to paste practically everything on the website.
Lord McCarthy: How can it be placed on the Internet if it is not published?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Of course we can put things on the Internet and the document will be there for everyone when we have a consultation to see it. Even those who do not receive the document will be able to see it on the website and comment on it. The point has been taken.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: If my noble friend seeks to educate me in the ways of virtual reality—which I am very ready to learn about—this is not a funny amendment. The amendment affects over 20 million people. We are not talking about a consultative document. This is another mystification.
With great respect to my noble friend on the advice he has given, it is a little tiresome of the Government to take refuge in consultative documents. I am talking—and my noble friend has talked—about draft proposals of regulations. If they are to be consultative documents and put on the web, I take it that the amendment is accepted because they are going to be published. Publish a draft of his proposals including publishing on the web, so long as we can print the in off but not if we cannot. If they are going to be put in a form where we could have them printed, I do not see why we should be put to the expense of using our paper and our printers. If the Government are going to publish them on the web, why not make hard copies?
I take it that the Government intend to publish a draft of the proposed regulations not merely for the grand bodies, which is what we were told at first, and not merely for a select audience, but to the population at large. If that is what my noble friend means—and I am not asking him to accept the amendment formally, of course, I understand his hands are tied—in spirit, have we at least managed to transmit by osmosis, or some form other than argument, the spirit of the amendment to my noble friend? It seems we have.
Lord McCarthy: I am not so fond of osmosis. I want to ask the Minister a direct question. What he said previously and what he says now will appear in Hansard. Is he telling me that in not less than 30 days he will publish a draft of his proposals for the regulations in Part 2 and Part 3 of this Bill on the web?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The noble Lord could amend that; within 30 days we will publish it. Is he saying within 30 days before?
Lord McCarthy: Before, yes.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: What I can say is that all draft regulations are published, or put on the website, for everyone to see. I cannot give an assurance on the timing of that at this point. There is a minimum of six weeks for doing that.
Lord McCarthy: Therefore, six weeks before Parliament is asked to pass the regulations, they will all be put on the web?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I believe it is actually 12 weeks, but I can give the assurance that it will be six.
Lord McCarthy: So 12 weeks before Parliament is asked to pass them?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I believe it is 12 weeks, but I can certainly give the assurance on six.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I thought that we had dealt with that issue some time ago—at our previous sitting—when there was an exchange between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I do not have Hansard to hand but my perception is that when I asked him whether they be published, he said, "Yes, like we published Routes to Resolution". I said, "So it is 'Son of Routes to Resolution'," and he agreed.
There is some discussion about the way in which that document was published. Many people do not have access to the Web. My understanding was that the draft regulations would be published in the way that I understand the phrase, "being published". That does not involve sitting at a computer; I want it in my hand. Am I going to get it at least six weeks—maybe more—before they become law? I think I am getting a yes.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The answer is yes.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg the pardon of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn or Lord McCarthy, but I came in during the middle of that last amendment and I missed something. When I first came in they were talking continually about top people and they subsequently talked about grand bodies. Could I confirm that the top people they were referring to meant the grand bodies that were going to have sight of these things?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Baroness is very kind in asking us to repeat that point. She should never miss a moment of this exciting Grand Committee; one never knows what she might miss. The top people were mentioned in the Minister's explanation. We have passed a long way beyond that now, as the noble Baroness will appreciate. We now know that the drafts of regulations are going to be published for the populous at large to read weeks before they are put before Parliament—or at any rate weeks before they are made effective in any way.
I have to say—the comments of my noble friend Lord McCarthy were very important in this respect—that that is not a normal practice. I have tried to find
CWH 188
out on occasion; my noble friend, Lady Turner, mentioned social security. It is sometimes extremely difficult to find out what the department or the ministry intends to do with regulations that suddenly appear in a proposed form. This is particularly important because these regulations—entered into through the Bill—involve the contracts of employment of everyone in the land. That is why the drafts should be published, and I am very glad that we have assurance that it will. No doubt my noble friend will wish to withdraw the amendment in the light of the discussion that has taken part.
Lord McCarthy: Of course I shall read Hansard very carefully to see if all those wonderful things were really said. If there is any doubt about the matter I shall come back to it on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Statutory dispute resolution procedures]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 95:
Page 35, line 25, at end insert—
"(4) A minor and inconsequential breach by an employer or employee of the requirements of Schedule 2 shall not result in his suffering any discrimination in any proceedings before an employment tribunal and the employer shall not be deemed to have wrongly dismissed the employee."
The noble Baroness said: One of the many contributions made by English lawyers to jurisprudence was the system we call "equity", which more or less began to overcome the rules of the common law courts. They imposed a system of strict pleading whereby a perfectly valid case could be dismissed simply on account of some technical, and sometimes quite a minor, error in drafting the court documents.
The amendment proposes to introduce the centuries-old concept created by the courts of equity into the rules of the employment tribunals. I hope that the Minister—I am not sure which Minister will respond—will share my very laudable ambition.
Schedule 2 has introduced very extensive and complicated procedures for dispute resolution and for dealing with dismissal cases. The fact is, however, that in many cases the litigants on both sides will be unrepresented by lawyers, by a union or by another expert advisor, at least in the early stages of the dispute. It is conceivable—indeed, it is highly likely—that some technical error might occur in the processes laid down by the schedule. It would be an injustice if an otherwise valid claim or defence should be arbitrarily dismissed because of some minor technicality. The amendment is intended to do no more than to prevent that kind of injustice.
The amendment makes it absolutely clear that it is only minor and inconsequential breaches of the requirements of the schedule that will qualify to be overlooked with the case proceeding on its merits. The old established legal maxim is "De minimis non curat lex", which means that the law does not concern itself

CWH 189
with trifles. This principle is used by the civil courts, particularly the appellate court, to justify the refusal to countenance matters of small import.
There is no reason why the same principle, relying on the tribunal's common sense, should not be used to ensure that cases are not dismissed due to some pettifogging technicality, thus denying one of the parties justice. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): The amendment, which was clearly set out by the noble Baroness, seeks to ensure that neither the employer nor the employee will suffer detriment where failure to comply with the procedures is "minor and inconsequential". The amendment was put in a very legalistic way, if I may say so.
However, as presently drafted, the procedures are clear and uncluttered. Each action within them is simple to understand and apply. There are no convoluted twists and turns. We have resisted any attempts to introduce unnecessary intricacy. At Second Reading, the procedures were described as "skeletal". Therefore, I feel there is only limited scope for "minor and inconsequential" breaches to occur. The problem that the amendment seeks to address is more apparent than real.
The statutory procedures are drafted as a series of concrete actions. So far as possible, we have sought to avoid introducing anything that has a qualitative element into the procedures. By doing so, we have reduced the scope for uncertainty or disputes to arise. Parties should know where they stand.
The amendment would potentially confuse the picture, providing special treatment for "minor and inconsequential" breaches. It would lead to an issue arising as to whether or not a breach was "minor and inconsequential". What one party might think was "minor and inconsequential" could be a matter of considerable significance to somebody else. We are doubtful, therefore, whether the noble Baroness's proposal would improve the functioning of dispute resolution procedures or the operation of the proposals made. It would lead to uncertainty and dispute.
That said, we want to remove so far as possible any remaining scope for insignificant and inconsequential breaches to arise. Later, we are due to debate Amendment No. 118, which in our view identifies an area in which the text may inadvertently provide scope for such minor breaches to occur.
I should also point out that there are important regulation-making powers in Clauses 30, 31 and 33. This gives us scope to address some of the practical problems that may arise when requiring people to follow the statutory procedures to the letter. There will be occasions on which it will be simply impracticable to follow the procedures; that is a different issue from the "minor and inconsequential" issue that the noble Baroness raised. The impracticability situations arise, for example, where individuals may be hospitalised or seriously ill. The regulations will define the
CWH 190
circumstances in which employers or employees would not be required to follow the relevant procedure in each and every detail. In light of what I have said, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I have to say to the Minister that I am disappointed that my legalistic amendment did not find the same favour with him as it found with me. Members of the Committee may laugh but I thought that this was the one that might just do the trick. We are not getting very far. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, keeps talking about the measure being "set in stone", but I do not believe that this Minister heard all of that. However, no doubt the longer he stays with us, the more he will hear it.
I promised to be brief. I shall read very carefully what the Minister said. I am not sure that I agree with him, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Schedule 2 [Statutory dispute resolution procedures]:
Lord Lea of Crondallmoved Amendment No. 96:
Page 64, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) When a disciplinary matter arises the employer should first establish the facts promptly."
The noble Lord said: We are now addressing the quite novel procedures set out in Schedule 2. By ensuring a proper examination of the evidence, this amendment will enhance the degree of natural justice in the default procedure and, equally important, the confidence that we can embody in it a modest degree of what I might term "joint ownership" and credibility and acceptability.
Along with other amendments put down to Schedule 2, we are laying down on the face of the Bill benchmarks which Ministers may say are implied by the Schedule 2 procedure or which will be made more explicit in a regulation. If that is the case, we are of course in the same territory that we were in in relation to Part 2 of the Bill. In other words, the issue concerns what should be on the face of the Bill and the lack of any credible parliamentary procedure to scrutinise or amend such secondary legislation.
There is virtual unanimity right across the independent bodies of lawyers and organisations such as the Industrial Society that this part of the schedule will be seriously inadequate unless something along the lines of this and subsequent amendments is incorporated. We are not even talking about best practice but minimum practice which is not second nature to the firms which currently have no procedures and which have to be brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century straight out of the 19th.
An issue which also applies to all the other points which are to be debated under Schedule 2 is the need to put a floor of minimum practice not so far beneath

CWH 191
the ACAS code that it may appear to act otherwise as a nod and a wink from public policy to the effect that we are now content to see the ACAS code diluted.
To sum up what we seek to achieve in the amendment, assuming that the Government expect employers to behave in this way—in other words, that they expect them to investigate the facts in a transparent way; I use the word "expect" as in "England expects every man to do his duty"—then let us say so on the face of the Bill. After all, we do not want to wake up one morning to be told that we cannot achieve this in secondary legislation because the provision should have been written into primary legislation.
Perhaps I may also make a point at this juncture in order to avoid repeating it in relation to other amendments tabled in my name and that of my colleagues as regards the relationship of this new default procedure to the ACAS code. I have christened it a "default procedure" precisely because the ACAS one is the benchmark procedure. It would be very odd to have two benchmark procedures, both supported by Her Majesty's Government, which say different things. That is not to say that they should, in all respects, be identical on every point, either in length or substance. After all, the ACAS code was agreed by the ACAS council as a voluntary code. The TUC and the CBI were party to it on that basis. However, we are in the unique situation of there being the prospect of one benchmark procedure undermining another.
There must be an irreducible minimum on particularly significant points in the ACAS code where these contradictions would be undesirable, to say the least. Perhaps I may draw attention, for example, to paragraph 4 of the ACAS code, which refers specifically to the need for the rules to be accepted as reasonable, both by those covered by them and by those who operate them.
Finally, perhaps I may relate the amendment to the consideration which has been referred to on many occasions—namely, the expectation or intention that this new procedure, and the built in delay in going to a tribunal, will divert some cases into settlements within the procedures of the establishment. That is fine, or at any rate everyone hears what has been said about it. Let us note that if there is to be a settlement procedure; otherwise, we are relying on a theory of deterrence which has been adequately adumbrated on several previous amendments.
Let me conclude on a positive note. If we get Schedule 2 right, and encourage both parties—both sides as we used to say—to find procedures which are mutually acceptable—and we have a long way to go—that will provide in the medium term a step forward for many millions of workers in an adult and civilised employment relationship. However, that will only apply if there is a de facto acceptance that the ACAS code underpins the credibility of Schedule 2 as a means of securing acceptable settlements and complements the role of the tribunals. I beg to move.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I shall be very brief as I am conscious of the time. The problem here, as my noble friend has said, is that, as it reads, Schedule 2 is not fair. It is no good my noble friend shaking his head; it is just not fair. The amendment and subsequent amendments seek to remedy that. At the moment we are being told by personnel directors that it will be more difficult to persuade line managers to follow the correct procedure when they realise that "they can get away with it".
This skeleton needs changing. The best way to change it, and the way to deal with the perception that my noble friend the Minister was talking about earlier this afternoon, is to change it on the face of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will recognise the force of that argument and at least be prepared to take this measure away and come forward with amendments, or perhaps indicate on the face of the Bill regulations that they may be considering. As regards the bald statement about the four procedures, people should understand that there is more to that than they read on the face of the Bill. I go back to where I started—any reader of this schedule will recognise it as being unfair as it stands.
Lord Sharman: Amendments Nos. 100 and 112 are grouped with Amendment No. 96 and address the same issue in a different way. The purpose as we see it is to include both within the standard and the modified dismissal and disciplinary procedures a requirement that employers should conduct an investigation prior to dismissal. The purpose of this is to ensure that the minimum procedures have at least the capacity of the requirements for a fair dismissal.
As drafted the procedures are in our view unsatisfactory because they create an additional hurdle for employers without delivering any benefit in exchange. An employer who complies with the appropriate procedure will protect himself against a finding that the dismissal was automatically unfair, but because the statutory procedures are inadequate they will not do enough to assist the employer in demonstrating that the action taken to dismiss was not an unfair dismissal for any other reason. That is unsatisfactory for all parties.
A sensible procedure would as a minimum contain all the elements which could make a dismissal fair. In a case of dismissal for misconduct, for example, an employer will still have to show that he or she genuinely believed that the employee was guilty of misconduct and that that belief was based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation had occurred. Because this reasonable belief is a requirement for a fair dismissal, proof that it existed should be included in the statutory procedure after a reasonable investigation. Because this reasonable belief is a requirement for a fair dismissal, proof that it existed should be included in the statutory procedure.
The amendment requires employers to conduct an investigation prior to dismissal as they would be required to detail the evidence—that is, the proof—that they had conducted such an investigation to detail that evidence on which they would rely. With the

CWH 193
amendment, the procedure would, in our view, at least contain all the requirements that could make a dismissal fair and give additional legitimacy to the new hurdle employers will now have to overcome.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I appreciate what the noble Lord has just said, and the manner in which it impacts on quite a large number of amendments which are to come. I am not protesting about the groupings; I know only that we are still in Committee at nearly twenty minutes before eight when a guarantee was given at the earlier sittings that we would end at 7.30 p.m. Nevertheless, it is good that this matter should be aired first, albeit at this late hour. I hope that the Minister will not reply to the reasonable points put forward when the amendment was moved simply by saying that that would create uncertainty in Schedule 2. We shall come to that issue when we consider on subsequent amendments. I should have addressed them tonight, were it not so late, in relation to this amendment. I give notice that I will raise that, and I hope that my noble and learned friend will not open that question tonight. I also hope that he will not say that the law that exists is very clear and the matter will just go on in the future and will not be affected by his schedule. Such a prediction about what the courts would do would be regarded as most unwise, and I doubt if he would advise in an opinion that the present law will be unaffected by Schedule 2. However, that is a wider debate and to advance it at this stage of the night would be quite improper. We shall come to it the next time that we consider the matter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In different ways, these are very important amendments. Whatever the time that they have been reached, I am afraid that I have to set out what our argument is in relation to it, particularly as my noble friend was keen they should be dealt with now.
They deal with the need for the employer to investigate complaints before instigating disciplinary action against an employee. I have absolutely no difficulty with the underlying thrust of the amendments. Employers should investigate the facts of the situation before they take disciplinary action or dismiss an employee. That applies to virtually all cases, even where, on the face of it, the case seems clear-cut; we all know that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With the greatest respect, the amendment and that grouped with it do not deal with investigation; they talk about detailing the facts. Later amendments deal with investigation. Could my noble and learned friend deal with them then?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The first amendment says,
"When a disciplinary matter arises the employer should first establish the facts promptly".
I see it as difficult not to establish the facts without some form of investigation. It seems to me totally unreasonable to suggest that when one is talking about establishing the facts, one does not address the issue of
CWH 194
investigation. Indeed, that occurred in the speeches made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. That is a perfectly reasonable approach to take.
Often, investigations can reveal key facts that may have eluded the employer at first sight. The ACAS code rightly puts much emphasis on the need for employers to establish the facts before disciplining an individual. Tribunals take the ACAS code into account when assessing individual unfair dismissal cases. The Bill does not change that role for the code. Tribunals will still take the code into account, including its guidance on investigation.
We will be asking ACAS to revise the code in due course to ensure that it recognises the statutory procedures. The code will then give guidance on the totality of employers' obligations, both in respect of the obligations under the statutory procedures and the wider obligation to act reasonably when dismissing employees. That wider obligation can of course mean that the employer is obliged to take additional procedural actions outside the statutory procedures. It is worth stressing that we are not changing the existing obligation on the employer to act reasonably. We are not subtracting from existing employee rights, as some people appear to think.
Indeed, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn suggested that was what we were doing in his reference to predicting what the law might be. I can put no other construction than that on what he said. The issue for us is whether we should specifically mention these issues in the statutory procedures themselves.
I turn to Amendment No. 96 first. It obliges the employer to establish the facts promptly when a disciplinary matter arises. As far as possible, we have tried to draft the procedures as a series of discrete concrete actions. This achieves clarity and enables the parties easily to ascertain whether a step has been undertaken. We are concerned that this amendment undermines this approach. It would be unclear what the employer should precisely do in order to "establish the facts promptly" in accordance with Amendment No. 96. The amendment would therefore import a new uncertainty into the procedures. This will cause difficulties and give extra scope for disputes to arise as regards compliance with the procedures.
As Members of the Committee will know, disciplinary cases take many forms, they deal with a wide variety of workplace problems—persistent sickness, dangerous working, incapacity and alleged misuse of property. There is therefore no standard approach which an employer must follow when investigating an issue. Investigations can be simple or complex depending on the circumstances. It is often not clear how much physical or documentary evidence should be assembled. It is not always clear which employees or managers should be asked to provide evidence as witnesses. Indeed, it is often not clear whether experts should be called in to provide their views. For example, the involvement of medical experts in sickness cases may or may not be necessarily required, as the ACAS code recognises.

CWH 195
Certainty, or the lack of it, is a very important matter for employers. As my noble friend will appreciate, there is a close relationship between the schedule and Clause 34. He will know that it would be automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee without following in its entirety the statutory dismissal procedure. We therefore need to make the obligations on the employer crystal clear. I am afraid these amendments fail this test.
Amendments Nos. 100 and 112 spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, both require the step 1 letter in both the standard and modified procedures to detail the information on which the employer relies. Again, they are drafted in open-ended ways which make it unclear what information the letter must contain. Must it be all the information, however minor? We think that this is likely to inject uncertainty in the procedures and increase the number of disputes over whether they have been followed.
There is also a real danger that many employers would feel obliged to enlist the services of a lawyer when drafting this initial letter. The letter itself may need to be long and detailed. Indeed, the amendments specifically require the evidence to be detailed. The three-step procedure would become excessively bureaucratic if we went down this road.
We also need to be conscious that these procedures would apply to companies of all sizes, including very small businesses. Many small businesses make very limited use of written communication, some would not have access to word processors. The approach suggested in these four amendments would therefore be seen as particularly intrusive by many small employers. It would be counter-cultural.
In conclusion, we cannot accept these amendments. However, the Government note and understand the points which Members of the Committee and others have made. I know the strength of feeling on these issues from the many representations we have
CWH 196
received. The Government therefore intend to give further consideration to these matters with the aim of coming forward with amendments to the schedule at Report stage. This issue is by no means as simple as it looks. However, we will use our best endeavours to find a solution to it. In the light of these remarks, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: When the Government reconsider Schedule 2—it is very good news that they will do so, but they will still be pressed by amendments to direct their attention next time we meet—will they also consider the relationship of the matter we have been discussing to Section 92 of the 1996 Act, whereby the employee has a right to ask for reasons for his dismissal?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: When we are considering the amendments we will consider all aspects of the amendments.
Lord Lea of Crondall: The Minister has indicated that the Government will look very carefully at this whole area, and I trust that he will also be looking carefully at Hansard in order to look again at all the points that have been made. I am grateful that we were able to deal with the matter today. It is difficult for me to be here on Wednesday afternoon and I hope that other people are not too inconvenienced by it. I thought that the Committee was to rise between 7.30 and 8 p.m., but that is a misunderstanding.
I trust that on that basis we will be able to look at this afresh when the matter is debated further at the Report stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday.
The Committee adjourned at eleven minutes before eight o'clock.

  Senior Salaries Review Body
  Senior Salaries Review Body
  UK-China Human Rights Dialogues
  UK-China Human Rights Dialogues
  Algeria: Human Rights
  Algeria: Human Rights
  Human Rights Dialogues
  Human Rights Dialogues
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Angola
  Angola
  Royal Institute for International Affairs
  Royal Institute for International Affairs
  Foreign Policy Centre
  Foreign Policy Centre
  Prison Service Standard on Religion
  Prison Service Standard on Religion
  Imprisonment: Effect on Families
  Imprisonment: Effect on Families
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  HM Prison Wandsworth: Education
  HM Prison Wandsworth: Education
  Hand Gun Fatalities
  Hand Gun Fatalities
  European Arrest Warrant
  European Arrest Warrant
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Housing Benefit: Travellers
  Housing Benefit: Travellers
  Transport Services
  Transport Services
  Haemophilia
  Haemophilia
  Dentistry
  Dentistry
  Government Departments: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Government Departments: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plans
  Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plans
  Pyre Sites
  Pyre Sites
  Incinerators
  Incinerators