Sitting of 25 March 2002

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

    Tourism
    Mr. Peter Luff: If she will make a statement on her policies to promote tourism to England. [43142]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I am sure that the House will join me in recognising that the achievement of the British film industry at last night's oscar award ceremony is a great shot in the arm for tourism. Our congratulations therefore go to Julian Fellowes, for best original screenplay for "Gosford Park"; to Jim Broadbent for his supporting role in "Iris"; and to Peter Owen for the best make-up award for "The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring".
    On the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, we recognise the importance of tourism to the economy and the problems that it faced in 2001, so we are working closely with the industry on a programme to accelerate its recovery, which focuses in particular on raising quality, improving training and skills, strengthening data and marketing England's many wonderful tourism attractions.
    Mr. Luff: Notwithstanding Jim Broadbent's splendid performance in "Iris", I suspect that the oscars will be a rather bigger shot in the arm for the New Zealand tourism industry, bearing in mind the location of "The Lord of the Rings".
    The Heart of England tourist board represents my constituency. From a rather arbitrary glance at a group of other counties, it seems that it does not do a bad job representing that really difficult brand against the very stiff competition of Scotland and Wales, which are much more powerful brands. When will the Government give England equal footing in tourism promotion with Scotland and Wales?
    Tessa Jowell: There are two points to make. First, although England spends less than Wales or Scotland on marketing, the fact is that we do better in terms of the amount of money that visitors spend than they do, so what we spend represents good value for money. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point that we need to do more
    546
    beyond the short-term focus on marketing, and my Department is currently in discussion with the English Tourism Council to establish how that will be achieved.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend take on the plight of inland tourism for those constituencies, such as mine, that have had to deal with the problems of foot and mouth disease? The local authority is dependent on the millions of people who visit Chorley, so I wonder whether extra resources are available so that we can ensure that there is not a decrease in tourism this year, but a peak.
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend. Obviously, the million visitor campaign that I announced to the House last month, which is worth £40 million, will provide an enormous boost to help the United Kingdom tourism industry to get back the high numbers of visitors from abroad—particularly, from America—that have fallen sharply in the wake of the events of 11 September. However, the industry is optimistic, and we are working with it to deliver on that optimism.
    Mr. John Greenway: I am sure that the right hon. Lady would want to join me in expressing the hope that our tourism industry has a very successful Easter season over the weekend and the few days ahead, but is she aware of the widespread concern, in rural and urban areas alike, about the impact of any recurrence of foot and mouth disease? Can she tell us what strategy the Government have to deal with any new outbreak? Is she aware that it is strongly rumoured that the Government plan to merge the regional tourist boards into the regional development agencies? Will she take this opportunity to confirm that that is not the case and say when, at long last, she will announce a market function for the English Tourism Council?
    Tessa Jowell: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. The answer to his second question is that we are liaising very closely on the issue with our colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The answer to the third question is no.

    Digital Television
    John Robertson: What action she is taking to ensure equality of access to digital television. [43143]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): The digital action plan, which was drawn up with the involvement and agreement of major players, sets out the Government's proposals to encourage the take-up of digital television by making it more accessible and the equipment and technology more available and, of course, affordable. The plan was published last December, and so far more than 8 million households in the United Kingdom are connected to digital services on a fee-paying basis.
    John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that it is vital that we have three solid platforms for digital television in the United Kingdom, if only to supply a service and provide value for money for the consumer? In the light of ITV Digital's

    547
    problems, will he ensure that the communications Bill, when introduced, promotes healthy competition, thus ensuring consumer choice and value for money?
    Dr. Howells: Yes, I can confirm that the communications Bill will be designed to promote healthy competition. Hopefully, it will maintain a number of platforms for digital broadcasting because we believe that that is important.
    Nick Harvey: Will not the difficulties of ITV Digital and the impracticality of putting cable into rural areas leave BSkyB in a strong market position, which the competition authorities have already suggested it is abusing? Will the Minister use the forthcoming communications Bill to ensure that the platform provider and the service provider are regulated separately? Will he also ensure that everyone gets access to all forms of digital television for a one-off payment without subscribing to services that they often do not want?
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I say that the Bill is to be published in just a few weeks. If he can wait that long, he will, I hope, he pleased with its comprehensive nature. The Bill will be put out to full consultation, so he will have plenty of time to raise any specific points.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend will know that although it would be a delight to have universal access to all forms of digital television immediately, it will be difficult to achieve that without exalting every valley and laying low every mountain. Bearing in mind many people's worries about the future of ITV Digital, what plans do the Government have to ensure that some form of digital terrestrial television survives so that everyone has not only universal access to digital television, but universal choice?
    Dr. Howells: The Government have correctly maintained a platform-neutral position on digital broadcasting and services, and we aim to stick to that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that during the Ofcom debate the House became well acquainted with the problem posed by a large number of people living in hilly topography, and we are looking closely at that.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: If the Minister is not aware of the fact that the survival of ITV Digital can be only a matter of days, he should be. Talk about what the communications Bill, which will not become law until next year, may do is pie in the sky. The success of digital terrestrial television depends on a proper element of competition between at least three providers. Does the Minister have any immediate plans to achieve that in the next few weeks?
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to speculate on this subject. He knows how sensitive the issue can be for the value of shares in the relevant companies, for example. I have no more intention of speculating on the likely outcome of discussions involving ITV Digital than I have on the likely date of the next revival in Welsh rugby.
    Mr. Yeo: That certainly is a long way off, and the problem of ITV Digital is more serious and urgent. It is
    548
    not a matter of speculating about what will happen to ITV Digital. Everyone is aware of the acute problems that it faces, and the Minister has just told the House that the Government have no strategy to address them. Does he understand that the survival of ITV Digital has been made much more difficult by the Government's failure to set a clear timetable for digital switchover, to turn up the digital signal and to modernise the media ownership rules, as my ten-minute Bill would have done a couple of weeks ago? Does he agree that dithering by Ministers on all the issues is leading rapidly to a disaster for ITV Digital subscribers and for football, and is a huge setback for Britain, which had the chance to lead the world in digital television until Ministers set about squandering it?
    Dr. Howells: That rant serves only to undermine further the position of some important companies in this country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take such stupid speculation outside the Chamber.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: It is serious if the digital platform goes. Sky was originally going to be an investor in digital terrestrial television. Is that a possibility if the box itself is controlled by the new Ofcom status?
    Dr. Howells: We will present our plans for regulation when we publish our communications Bill, which, as I said, will be soon.

    King Edward VII Convalescent Home, Osborne
    Mr. Andrew Turner: What the intended use is of the former King Edward VII Convalescent Home for Officers, Osborne. [43144]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): We are currently considering a range of options with English Heritage. These include using the lower floors to enhance visitors' appreciation of the house and the estate, using the upper floors for holiday lets and conferences, and opening parts of the gardens previously restricted to convalescent home use.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for that answer. Since the Government took the decision, which is much regretted on the island, to close the convalescent home more than two years ago, nothing appears to have happened. How are the Government complying with the requirement of the Osborne Estates Acts 1902 and 1914, which state:
    "As a memorial to Her late Majesty"
    that is Queen Victoria—the Government
    "shall devote the rest of Osborne House and the grounds under their management to be used for the benefit of officers of His Majesty's naval and military forces or their wives, widows or family"?
    That was subsequently extended to include other branches of the public service. I have had many answers from the Government saying that they are considering the matter; when will they comply with the law on this matter?
    Dr. Howells: I do not believe that that is the law on the matter. English Heritage is undertaking external repairs to the property. That work has been delayed, and we estimate that it will be completed by December 2003.

    549
    We are talking about a facility on the Isle of Wight. Most people recovering from serious illnesses or operations want to be cared for near their home and their family, and that is where the provision is being made.

    Gambling
    Mr. Mark Hoban: When the Government plan to bring forward legislation on gambling. [43145]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): May I begin by expressing the shock and sadness felt, I believe, throughout the House on the tragic death of Ben Hollioake, the Surrey and England all-rounder? I would like, if I may, to send our sincere condolences to the family. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today written to the family. Many would say that this accident has robbed us of one of our brightest young talents.
    In answer to the question, we shall publish tomorrow a document setting out the Government's conclusions on the report of the gambling review body. It will include proposals for comprehensive modernisation of the law on gambling in Great Britain. We shall introduce a Bill when parliamentary time permits.
    Mr. Hoban: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, and I look forward to seeing him in the Chamber tomorrow when he makes an oral statement on the content of his proposals. The House will expect him to make that statement because of the enormous importance of the proposals to the gambling industry. Will he take this opportunity today to confirm to the House that his plans will safeguard the future of the jackpot machines on which so many members' clubs depend for their survival?
    Mr. Caborn: There will be a debate on the document and the Bill in Government time. It is right that the document is printed tomorrow and that Members have time to reflect on the proposals. As the hon. Gentleman said, the document is a comprehensive response to the Budd report, so it would be wrong to have that discussion tomorrow. We believe that there should be a full debate in Government time, and that will be arranged.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to jackpot machines. Many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), have campaigned very hard to retain jackpot machines in members' clubs. That has been considered very sympathetically, and we have decided to keep them because of the strong representations that have been made and because of the role that the clubs play in the social infrastructure in the areas where they operate.
    Syd Rapson: Will the Minister consider carefully the effects of the proposals on the mostly family-run seaside fairgrounds and arcades? These are places of wholesome entertainment, not gambling addiction.
    Mr. Caborn: That highlights the need to publish the document and let Members reflect on it. We shall have a
    550
    thorough debate on it in Government time, and I hope that what my hon. Friend hears tomorrow will be helpful to him.
    Mrs. Joan Humble: Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the proposals for resort casinos contained in the report, and recognise that while they offer enormous opportunities for a town like Blackpool, some sections of the community are genuinely concerned? Will he ensure that there is full consultation on those important proposals with local communities, especially in towns such as Blackpool?
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend knows that the issue was raised in the Budd report; the Government will state their position in their response. The gambling industry is extremely important: it employs 125,000 people, has a turnover of £7 billion, and contributes in excess of £1 billion to this country's tax revenues. It is therefore important that we get our policy right. When hon. Members have read the document published tomorrow, they will take a view and we will debate the matter in the House.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: It is good news that a full response to the Budd report is to be published tomorrow. Will the Minister confirm that as the Government's proposals develop from a response to the report and into a Bill, he will hold further consultation with the leaders of the reputable parts of that important industry, in particular the British Amusement Catering Trades Association?
    Mr. Caborn: Yes. We have consulted the industry, including BACTA and many others who have a vested interest, to make sure that we deal with the gambling industry in a way that enables its potential to be realised, while ensuring that we keep the controls and restraints that have given the UK gambling industry its international credibility. We shall maintain a close working relationship and consultation with those who have a vested interest.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If she will make a statement on the progress being made to ensure a fairer distribution of lottery funds following the introduction of the fair shares policy. [43146]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): Fair shares is a major initiative designed to target funding at the deprived areas that have benefited least from the lottery. The Government will continue to encourage lottery distributors to ensure that all parts of the country benefit from lottery funding.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. How many and what percentage of applications have been successful, and who decides?
    Tessa Jowell: Fair shares is a new programme that is to start at the beginning of April. I announced it to the House two or three weeks ago. It is designed to meet a specific problem—namely, deprived areas that have received less than the average share of lottery funding. I announced a further consultation on the future of lottery

    551
    distribution last week. I believe that we will go further and take steps through the distributors to ensure that every part of the country receives the entitlement to lottery funding that those throughout the country who play the lottery have the right to expect.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the cardinal principles stated in the 1997 White Paper on the lottery was hat it should be operated through an arm's-length procedure, free from Government interference. The lottery has now operated for several years with a surplus of several billion pounds, but that money has been tied up with red tape, with the result that worthy applicants cannot access the funds. That gives the lottery a thoroughly bad name. Will the right hon. Lady investigate and ensure that the bureaucracy and red tape binding the lottery are rapidly diminished so that applicants can get the money that they deserve?
    Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman confuses several points in his question. I assume that he is referring to lottery balances—the money held in the national lottery distribution fund on behalf of the distributors. Almost all this money is overcommitted: it awaits distribution to specific approved projects.
    There are delays in getting the money out. Two weeks ago I announced to the House the objective, agreed with the lottery distributors, of ensuring that current lottery balances—in excess of £3 billion—should be reduced by one half by 2004. The distributors are signed up to that objective. I believe that it will be an important way of maintaining public confidence in the lottery—confidence that the public's money is being well spent—and that people will continue to play.
    David Taylor: Is it not the case that the west midlands and east midlands have been poorly treated in relation to lottery distribution? If and when the Wembley project fails next month, as it deserves to, would not a way of bridging the gap be to reallocate the project immediately, preferably to Coventry or perhaps to Birmingham? Did my right hon. Friend see the comments in the Evening Standard next week about Wembley? The Standard said:
    "The transport links are dreadful, the surroundings grim, the whole area unequipped to handle major sporting events. It is nostalgia gone mad."
    Does my right hon. Friend agree with the comments of that London-based journalist?
    Tessa Jowell: Let me take issue with my hon. Friend on both parts of his question. First, it is not the case that the east midlands and west midlands have done badly from the lottery. Parts of the west midlands have certainly received less than their fair share; they are among the 51 areas that will benefit from the fair shares programme. On my hon. Friend's second point, the development of the Wembley stadium is a Football Association project, funded by the lottery. It is not for Government to intervene and pull the plug or anything else on a national stadium project that we hope will succeed.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Although I wish the fair shares initiative success, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to say that it will not
    552
    prejudice in any way the quality or worthiness of applications for lottery funding? Will she give an assurance, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was asking, that there is a strong case for making applications simpler? I was involved with one on behalf of a charitable trust; we experienced extraordinary difficulties in seeking to apply for funds for a particular project.
    Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is right; it is important to be vigilant about reducing bureaucracy. That was one of the points in the proposals that I set out last week, and includes lottery distributors being more collaborative and working together to enable local community groups and other organisations that wish to submit bids that do not fit clearly with one distributor to do so. The awards for all scheme is a good example of that kind of collaboration.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Given the dispute between English Members about the site of a new football stadium, does the Secretary of State agree that it would be better if money were saved and teams were invited to play in Glasgow or Cardiff, where they would be assured of a warm welcome? The money thus saved could be spent in areas like my own, where many constituents have particular difficulty with the complexity of the forms. Ordinary working-class volunteers find it immensely difficult to fill in all the forms and jump through all the hoops, which deters many of them from making an application. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be far better not to waste that money in England but to spend it in Glasgow instead?
    Tessa Jowell: I note my hon. Friend's observation. I only add that yes, of course much more can be done by the distributors to solicit applications from parts of the country that have not yet put in bids. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen), who has led a group of Members on both sides of the House in driving forward the determination to ensure that every part of the country and every community has the opportunity to benefit from the lottery.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: May I echo the sentiments of the Minister for Sport about the tragic loss of Ben Hollioake, a talented young cricketer whose potential will never be realised?
    Last week, at Southwark cathedral, the right hon. Lady made an announcement which, she stated, was extremely important; it is regrettable that a similar statement was not made to the House. In that announcement, she mentioned that lottery funds are £3.5 billion underspent. Precisely how will that be allocated? Will the fair shares policy mean that there will be fairer distribution of those funds? Can she guarantee that they will be distributed in an objective, non-partisan and apolitical way, and that a balance will be reached, as she promised the House, between urban and rural areas, as rural areas have lost out greatly in the distribution of lottery funds?
    Tessa Jowell: May I try to clear up some confusion that the hon. Lady clearly has, which she also had when she spoke on behalf of her Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), in the debate

    553
    two or three weeks ago? Money in the lottery balances is not underspent. It is money that has been committed to projects, but that has not yet been spent. It is not free and unallocated; it is waiting to be spent—on projects under the fair shares policy, in coalfield communities, and so forth.
    I have made absolutely clear the Government's determination to bring pressure to bear on the distributors to ensure that the level of lottery balance, which I believe to be unacceptably high, is halved over the next two years.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Hamilton receives one of the lowest amounts of lottery funding. Therefore, on behalf of my constituents, I thank her for including south Lanarkshire in the group that will be targeted under the fair shares policy. What kind of publicity will there be to ensure that local charitable organisations are given the opportunity to apply? If there is such a campaign, when will it run?
    Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend raises an important point. This is a matter for the lottery distributors, but he touches on an important gap. In deprived communities particularly, where there are not large numbers of voluntary organisations and active civic organisations, there is often simply not enough awareness of how the lottery works, how it can be accessed and what it can do. It is that information gap that we need to overcome. That will in turn ensure that our objective of every community benefiting from the lottery will be achieved.

    Ofcom
    Mr. Philip Hammond: What representations she has received from the existing regulators with regard to the shadow Ofcom. [43147]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): All the existing regulators have welcomed the proposal to establish the Office of Communications and have been working closely with my Department and the Department for Trade and Industry on setting up the new body.
    Mr. Hammond: I am sure that the Minister would agree with me that part of the point of setting up Ofcom is to have a genuinely new body that is focused on the converged world and is a product of that converged world. Does he share any of my concerns about the fact that the communications Bill is being developed with a large input from the existing regulators' staff, who are uncertain of their status and even of whether they will still be employed under the new regime? Is he entirely confident that that level of input from the old regime is the best way to develop a regulatory regime for the future?
    Dr. Howells: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it from me that we are not being overly influenced by existing regulators or by any influence that they care to bring to bear on the debate. We have tried to consult as widely as possible, and once we have published the Bill there will be a period of about three months for further consultation. I very much hope that everyone—existing regulators as well as everyone else involved in the industry—will contribute to that consultation, and I am
    554
    very confident that they will. We have very few opportunities in a generation to make a good job of regulation, as I am confident we will under the Bill.
    Ms Debra Shipley: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that when the chief executive of the regulatory body for the Independent Television Commission appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on which I serve, she was extremely weak? Very disappointingly, she knew very little about children and advertising—a subject on which more than 120 Members have supported a ban for the under-fives. Furthermore, does he accept that there is a clash between what the Department of Health is promoting for children and health, and what the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is allowing in terms of advertising aimed at children? As we have seriously obese children in this country, that is a very serious topic.
    Dr. Howells: I have read my hon. Friend's early-day motion on the subject. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met her to discuss the matter.

    National Lottery
    Sir Teddy Taylor: What the total sum of unclaimed lottery prizes was at the most recent date for which figures are available; and what is the largest single unclaimed amount. [43148]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The total of unclaimed national lottery prizes was £455.6 million as at 19 March, and the largest single unclaimed amount was just over £3 million.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: While we should all be grateful to the national lottery for raising about £3 million every day for worthy causes over the past eight years, do not the Government and Camelot think that an inquiry should be made into why so many people do not claim their lottery prizes? Is there a case for putting a public notice at the place where tickets are sold if there is an unclaimed prize of £1,000 or more? Does the Minister accept that his figures are startling and that we should do something about the matter?
    Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman has a point, and I will raise it with Camelot. No one wants to see prizes unclaimed. When I saw the figures, I thought that they were staggering. There is nearly £500 million of unclaimed prize money. However, the rules are in place. If the ticket is lost or has been stolen, a claim can he made within 30 days. A claim can be made within 180 days if the claimant has the ticket. There is accommodation for late claiming. If a ticket has been lost or burnt in a fire, for example, that is catered for by the rules.
    I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I will ask Camelot whether it can put notices in shops—
    Mr. Chris Bryant: Has the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) lost his ticket?
    Mr. Caborn: No, I do not think so, but I will raise that with Camelot.
    Andy Burnham: If there is unclaimed lottery money, amateur rugby league clubs—Leigh has some of the best in the country—would gladly take it off my right hon. Friend's hands and make use of it. To date, rugby league at the grass roots has received only £12 million from the £1 billion or more in the sports lottery fund—less than a third of the money given to rugby union. Does he agree that rugby league is owed more from the lottery? Does he further agree that giving money to amateur rugby league clubs would be one of the best ways of fulfilling the Government's objective—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about prizes, not distribution.

    Television Drama (Impartiality)
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If she will make a statement on the requirement of broadcasting legislation that television drama based on recent historical events should be treated with due impartiality. [43149]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): The BBC, under the BBC charter and agreement, and other broadcasters under the Broadcasting Act 1996, are required to preserve due impartiality as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or those relating to current public policy. Those general requirements would apply, if relevant, to drama based on recent historical events.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the Minister for that excellent reply, which is absolutely right. Will he join me in giving a pat on the back to the BBC for its decision, at last, to broadcast "The Falklands Play" by the distinguished playwright, Ian Curteis, on the 20th anniversary of the Falklands crisis, both on BBC Radio 4 and on the new BBC 4 digital television channel?
    Does the hon. Gentleman recall the contrast when 15 years ago the same play was shelved by the bosses at the BBC because it presented the then Prime Minister in what they regarded as too favourable a light? Does he agree that when the play is broadcast on the new digital channel, and if it is well received, it would make amends if it were at last to be broadcast on BBC 1?
    Dr. Howells: I believe that the right authorities for deciding what should be shown on television are the television companies and the owners. The House would be a very poor place in which to make decisions on what should or should not be on television.
    I am glad that the play is to be shown. I understand that a radio version is to be broadcast. I hope that there will be a good and fulsome debate on the play, which will provoke further discussion on that type of controversial drama. I am entirely in favour of it.
    Miss Anne Begg: I am glad that the Minister said that it is not the role of Government to
    556
    interfere in the creative process. They should be cautious about increasing any type of regulation, because it smacks of censorship. It must be up to the broadcasters to decide what is broadcast. It is important that we allow our playwrights to dramatise events that may have occurred in the recent past. We often get a greater understanding of motivations and events through dramatisation, which may be slightly fictionalised.
    Dr. Howells: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

    Music Industry
    Mike Gapes: If she will make a statement on her Department's support for the British music industry. [43151]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): We can be rightly proud of the quality of music produced in this country, and I fully recognise the enormous cultural and economic value that the industry represents. We are working closely with the industry to ensure its continued success at home and abroad.
    Mike Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is enormous diversity in music in this country, from folk music to jazz, from classical music to garage—[Laughter.] I had to mention garage for my daughter. Does he agree that it is important that we take account not only of the producers and publishers of music but of the interests of those that distribute music, including companies such as Britannia in my constituency, which plays a vital role in distributing every day the largest range of music as widely as possible, both in this country and abroad through exports?
    Dr. Howells: Britannia does an excellent job in distributing music. The music industry faces a great problem with distribution. A great part of society has a strange attitude towards what amounts to the stealing of intellectual property rights from musicians, composers, orchestras and so on through the internet. Napster was a classic example. It is important that we try to change those attitudes and that culture. The distributors have an important part to play in that. They must not only go about the business of distributing and selling music—and indeed of commissioning and promoting it—but move beyond that to try to convince young people that if we cut off its creative roots, music will not be available to buy in future.
    Pete Wishart: It will not have escaped the Minister's attention that EMI faces difficulties: it is to shed some 1,800 jobs. That seems symptomatic of the music business, whose situation can only be described as patchy. May I press the Minister further on what he and his Department intend to do about the vexed issue of music piracy? As he knows, the music industry has identified it as a very real and damaging issue.
    Dr. Howells: Over the past few years, we have worked to try to pull together all the enforcement agencies, from trading standards officers to the special police forces that the owners of intellectual property rights, especially the big recording companies, have set up, to try to track down the thieves who are rather romantically called pirates.

    557
    They are thieves. They are taking away the only source of revenue of one of our most important industries: it is worth perhaps £4.5 billion to this country and employs a lot of people. It is important that we do not lose impetus in taking these thieves on, tracking them down, punishing them and stopping their activities wherever they happen. That means that we must move across borders and continents.

    Golden Jubilee
    Mr. Mike Hall: What meetings she has held with officials at Buckingham palace regarding the celebrations for the Queen's golden jubilee. [43152]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I have had a number of meetings since taking over responsibility for the jubilee celebrations. My officials are in contact with the palace on a daily basis.
    Mr. Hall: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the international fun in athletics team event on 5 July in the millennium stadium in Cardiff, organised by UK Athletics under the leadership of my good friend. George Bunner? It will bring teams from the UK and South Africa together in a decathlon event that will have worldwide coverage and be a great way of celebrating the Queen's golden jubilee. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be a great vehicle to export the idea of the jubilee across the Commonwealth?
    Tessa Jowell: That is but one opportunity, and it chimes well with the themes of the jubilee that the Queen has set and that are very much shaping the planning of events over the jubilee weekend and throughout the rest of the year.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Voting Age
    Bob Spink: What recent discussions the Electoral Commission has had with the Government on the reduction of the minimum age for voting. [43172]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): The commission has been working closely with the Government's children and young people's unit on the "Y vote, Y not?" project, which is consulting young people about measures to encourage increased participation in elections. One suggestion is to reduce the minimum voting age. The commission has told the Government that it intends in due course to reconsider that as part of its programme of reviewing electoral law and practice.
    Bob Spink: I am delighted by that reply, which represents a sound way forward. The right hon. Gentleman will know of the public's disenchantment with
    558
    politics in general and of young people's disengagement in particular. It is right that we should consult widely with young people in considering that important issue.
    Mr. Beith: The commission will note with interest the hon. Gentleman's comments, which are somewhat in line with my own views.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If we are asking people to fight in Afghanistan at the age of 19, should not we think about allowing them to vote at 16?
    Mr. Beith: I cannot disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but the commission has to take into account a variety of views. Several different views are represented even within the Government.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman take in one of those views now? Although it is absolutely correct to encourage young people to take an interest and participate in voting, many people feel that it would not be sensible to reduce the minimum voting age.
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman's different point of view will have been noted by the commission.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Sex Discrimination Act
    Mr. Huw Edwards: What recent discussions the Church Commissioners have had to bring the Church of England within the jurisdiction of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. [43173]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Although there is no general exemption in the Sex Discrimination Act for the Church of England, the Act contains a limited exemption for cases where that is necessary to comply with a religious body's doctrines or to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its members.
    Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend will appreciate that in Wales the ordination of women happened even later than in England. Does he agree that if the Church is to be relevant to modern society, women and men should have access to all jobs regardless?
    Mr. Bell: The national Church institutions have a comprehensive equal opportunities policy that applies to all their employees and a rolling programme of diversity awareness training for staff. As regards the ordination of women priests, the Church aims to follow best practice in so far as the provisions of employment law apply.

    Church Maintenance
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to encourage individual parochial church councils to undertake maintenance of church buildings. [43175]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Parishes can draw upon the advice of the Council for the Care of Churches but need no encouragement, if money can be found, to maintain or repair our nation's churches, the general condition of which are a credit to the work that they carry out.
    Mr. Mitchell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but does he accept that the problem rests principally on rural churches, where there are particularly sparse congregations, and on some of our great inner-city churches, where the local congregations are not as wealthy as in other areas? Will he reflect, with me, on the joy and pleasure in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield that our town church, which needed to raise £70,000 for roof repairs, has been successful in raising that money by various means, not least the generosity and good sense of my constituents?
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. Demographic changes mean that there are churches where there is no population. A diminution in traditional building skills means that simple works cost disproportionately more than in the past. We welcome his statement about his church in Sutton Coldfield. He is right: by virtue of huge voluntary fund-raising efforts by churchgoers, friends associations, local communities and others, and to a lesser extent the welcome support of the state, such costs are being met in the manner to which he referred.

    Hunting
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: How many accidents involving hunting with dogs on Church lands have been notified to them since 1995. [43176]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): None.
    Mr. Prentice: Is there an obligation on the tenants of Church land to report accidents to the Church Commissioners and if not, why not? Is not it about time that the Church of England showed some moral leadership on the issue and banned hunting with dogs on its land? Finally—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put two supplementary questions. He is only entitled to one.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to you for your protection, Mr. Speaker. Two in a court of law is quite sufficient; three in the House of Commons is overwhelming.
    Any accidents on Church land would be referred to the Church Commissioners. In relation to foxhunting on Church land, existing tenancies may not be altered unilaterally but it may be possible to make provisions in
    560
    new tenancies. The enforcement of any ban on foxhunting by the commissioners as landlords would be difficult and could undermine our relationship with tenants.
    I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is in the Chamber. The Church Commissioners will support and follow any legislation that is passed in both Houses of Parliament.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what consultation has been held with tenants of Church land as to whether they are in favour of hunting with hounds?
    Mr. Bell: The position of the Church Commissioners is that our long-standing policy on foxhunting is to allow our tenants to follow their consciences in deciding whether to allow hunts on the land that we entrust to their care.
    Mr. Tony Banks: A number of clergy support hunting. Does my hon. Friend think it strange that so-called men of God should take pleasure from seeing one of God's creatures ripped to pieces for their fun?
    Mr. Bell: That was a short question. The Church recognises many differences on theological issues and many differences on foxhunting.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Voter Participation
    Kevin Brennan: What consideration the Electoral Commission has given to the use of incentives to encourage voter participation in elections. [43177]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): Consideration of the use of financial or other individual incentives to encourage voter participation is not currently part of the commission's planned review programme. However, I understand that the commission gave evidence to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions earlier this year on a proposal from Blackburn with Darwen council for a pilot scheme linked to the May 2002 local elections that would have involved entering all electors in a prize draw. The commission concluded that the proposed scheme did not fall within the legal framework for electoral pilot schemes set out in the Representation of the People Act 2000.
    Kevin Brennan: Rather than considering ideas such as compulsory voting, would not it be better to offer incentives for people to vote? Perhaps we could have a good citizens tax credit or a free lottery ticket—as in the suggestion described by the right hon. Gentleman—on the basis that, for citizenship, the carrot would be better than the stick.
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view but I believe that such proposals would face many legal and some ethical obstacles. Several other pieces of legislation might bear on them. As I said, the Electoral Commission has no current plans to conduct a review on the feasibility of introducing such proposals, but is considering a wide range of initiatives to encourage voter participation and to make the process of voting more accessible and user-friendly.
    Simon Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for those for whom financial incentives are beyond the pale, a cheap—indeed, free—incentive would be to allow voters to vote at any polling station? In this age of modern technology, it must be possible for lists to be available at any polling station. Would the commission look into that?
    Mr. Beith: The commission is looking into the possibility of voters being able to vote at more than one polling station.

    Political Parties (Donations)
    Martin Linton: Whether it has asked the Electoral Commission to report on the desirability of an upper limit on donations from private individuals to political parties. [43179]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): The Committee is not responsible for determining the Electoral Commission's work programme. Accordingly, we have made no request to the commission to report on the desirability of an upper limit on donations from private individuals to political parties, nor do we have any plans to do so. However, in its 2001 report on the general election, the commission stated its intention to look at the case for introducing a cap on party donations as part of a wider examination of state funding
    Martin Linton: In welcoming that reply, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the problems created by large donations, even when the motives of donor and recipient are pure? Such donations often create the perception that parties will feel beholden to donors. Will he ask the Electoral Commission to examine the early-day motion on that subject, through which many hon. Members have expressed support for a limit of £100,000? Indeed, some have amended the figure to £20,000. Will he also ask the commission to consider the experience of Quebec, which has had a donations limit of 3,000 dollars for many years?
    Mr. Beith: I shall certainly draw the commission's attention to that early-day motion and to that experience. Of course, measures have so far concentrated on transparency and disclosure and the regular reporting of donations by parties.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Clergy Poverty
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on poverty among clergy members. [43182]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): A survey of stipendiary clergy, which considered their financial circumstances, among other matters, was undertaken by the Archbishops Council in 1999. A copy of it and its results is available in the Commons Library.
    Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend is doubtless well aware of the poverty that affects the clergy throughout this country. A modern society ought to ensure that we pay the clergy, who should not be so dependent on the Church. Can we look forward to their being paid proper salaries with regular increases?
    Mr. Bell: About one third of clergy said that they had debts, excluding mortgages, car loans or interest-free credit arrangements. Very few clergy—about 5 per cent.—had applied for, or were intending to apply for, working families tax credit. Fewer than 4 per cent. received any other state benefits, excluding child allowance. However, we of course take on board my hon. Friend's point.

    Stipends and Pensions
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on the contribution made by the Church Commissioners to clergy stipends and pensions. [43184]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman is again present for Church Commissioners' questions.
    For the year ending 31 December 2001, the commissioners contributed £22 million to the stipends of parish clergy, and met bishops and cathedral clergy stipends totalling £7.1 million, of which £900,000 was pensions contributions.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the Second Church Estates Commissioner for that information, but could he also give that answer in percentages of the total? In any case, will he confirm that those figures underline the Church Commissioners' important contribution to clergy stipends and pensions, and that the real lesson is that—within ethical restraints—we should encourage the commissioners to maximise their assets, because they are doing a worthwhile job in a noble way?
    Mr. Bell: On percentages and the pensionable stipend, in line with actuarial advice, the contribution rate will rise from 21.9 per cent. to 29.1 per cent. with effect from 1 April, and to 29.5 per cent. from 1 January. The hon. Gentleman's other points are valuable and will certainly be heard in other quarters.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Voting Arrangements
    Simon Hughes: What reviews the Commission has undertaken into allowing electors to vote at any polling station. [43186]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): The Commission is examining the matter. It has not undertaken a formal review of the principle of allowing electors to choose any polling station at which to vote, but it has declared its intention to press forward an agenda for making voting easier and more user-friendly. As part of that agenda, it will evaluate several pilot schemes during the May 2002 local elections, including a scheme to allow voters to choose from among a number of polling station locations the one at which they want to vote.
    Simon Hughes: If I may link my right hon. Friend's answer to the issue of younger voters, will the commission
    564
    consider locating polling stations in schools with sixth forms and sixth form centres, and in colleges and universities? If we are to get young people to vote, it is much more likely that they will vote if the voting place is somewhere that they have to go during that day.
    Mr. Beith: I shall pass on my hon. Friend's interesting suggestions to the Commission.
    Mike Gapes: Will the commission also consider electoral abuse at polling stations, and study my Adjournment debate on 4 July last year about intimidation in polling stations in my constituency at the general election? Will it also consider other abuses, including introducing stricter requirements for enforcing the law on leaflets distributed without imprints and those that tell people not to vote for sitting MPs and that are distributed months before the election?
    Mr. Beith: The commission has studied the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate, as have I, and I believe that he has met or communicated with the chairman of the commission on those matters. Although the commission is not the prosecuting authority in such matters—it is a matter for the police if an offence has been committed—it reviews the effectiveness of the law and whether any changes are required. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's efforts are being carefully considered.

Consignia (Restructuring)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I should like to draw the attention of the House to my declaration of interests contained in the register.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the announcement that Consignia made this morning about its restructuring plan for Parcelforce and the outcome of its review of its distribution systems.
That announcement, although it comes as a blow to many hard-working employees and their families, is the first of several necessary steps that will lead to the renewal of postal services in Britain. As is well known, Consignia plc—the company running the post office network, the Royal Mail and Parcelforce—has been losing money. Its costs have risen at a time when the rate of growth in mail volumes has slowed, with competition from fax, e-mail and the internet affecting demand. The company is losing more than £1.5 million every day and Parcelforce Worldwide alone is losing £15 million a month.
In the 10 years of its existence, Parcelforce has never made a profit and has now amassed losses of close to £400 million. Parcelforce's business model has failed and repeated attempts to make it work over the past 10 years have not succeeded. The losses on parcels have drained investment from the rest of the Post Office. For the sake of the company as a whole, Parcelforce now needs to be restructured and restored to profitability.
It is important to consider how the company got into this position. The British Post Office used to be admired across Europe for its high standards of performance. But in the 1980s and 1990s—[interruption.] Hon. Members should just listen. During those years, other postal services across Europe began to modernise and invest so that they could deliver better services in a rapidly changing market. But successive Conservative Governments did not care about improving delivery. [Interruption.] They allowed the Post Office to stagnate and starved it of investment. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must allow the Secretary of State to be heard.
Ms Hewitt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It must be all that sea air in Harrogate. [Laughter.] Oh go away; they are pathetic. While new technologies and changing markets were transforming the communications sector, our postal services were allowed to drift and decline. [Interruption.] I meant bracing air, okay? It must have been the Conservative party leader's speech that over-excited them.
Since 1997, the Government have given the Post Office the greater commercial freedom to meet those challenges that management and unions had long called for. Greater freedom within the public sector has meant freedom for the company to make more commercial choices. But with freedom comes responsibility. The company will be responsible for controlling costs, organising itself to meet the needs of customers and modernising the way in which it works. The Government have a responsibility too—to ensure that the company has the best possible management and the resources needed for investment. In this way we ensure that public and business customers will get the best quality service.
566
We have already taken several steps to strengthen the management, and today I have announced that Allan Leighton has been appointed the new chair of Consignia, a role that he has been playing on an interim basis since January. He will be responsible for getting a grip on the situation that the company faces, and that involves stemming the losses, reforming the company's industrial relations and developing a new vision and strategy for the future.
Allan Leighton has a proven track record of success in business. I believe that he has the determination, drive and energy needed to transform the Post Office's performance. As the interim chair and as a non-executive director of the company, he has seen at first hand both the problems that exist in the company and the tremendous potential that it has. He has already spent considerable time in sorting offices, post offices and delivery offices around the country and he was out there again this morning, talking to some of the work force about the changes that the company announced today.
The changes are as follows. The first is the integration of the universal parcels service into the Royal Mail itself. Under the universal service obligation, which we have enshrined in legislation, the company is responsible for delivering parcels of up to 20 kg to every part of the country. By giving this responsibility to the Royal Mail, the company will create a more efficient service, safeguarding the 30 million parcels sent by the general public every year so that people will still be able to send parcels from their local post office just as they do now.
Secondly, there will be a radical reshaping of the remaining Parcelforce business, which will in future concentrate on high-value, time-guaranteed express services. Thirdly, there will be changes to the mail distribution system. The existing network of road, rail and air has developed on a piecemeal basis. It has been causing delays, imposing excessive costs and reducing the quality of service to customers. The necessary rationalisation will increase the volume of mail carried by rail. Although the practice of sorting mail on trains will be phased out, bulk mail will be carried by rail during the day. The total number of road journeys undertaken by Royal Mail will be reduced, as will the number of vehicles used, cutting pollution as well as costs. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not care about that, either. Fourthly, the company is stripping out layers of management and jobs in its operations and support services that are no longer needed as a result of the other changes.
The company expects that, together, these changes will mean the loss of 13,000 jobs over the next three years with a further 2,000 jobs going through natural wastage. The company has also made it clear that there will be further unavoidable job losses over the next three years. I will, of course, continue to inform the House as the restructuring of the company is taken forward.
As a contribution towards supporting the company as it restructures, I can also announce that the Government will forgo a dividend for this financial year, releasing an additional £64 million for the company.
I understand the very deep disappointment that postal workers will be feeling at this news today. This is not a decision that the company has taken easily or lightly, but it is unavoidable if we are to create a high-quality postal service that will offer good and secure jobs. I know that

567
the whole House will welcome the fact that the company will offer as many of those affected as possible the option of continued employment in a different part of the business or a voluntary redundancy package. The company is, of course, in discussion with the trade unions. We will do everything that we can through the Employment Service and other agencies to provide support, assistance and new opportunities to those who lose their jobs.
These are difficult times for the company as management and work force grapple with the legacy of underinvestment and poor industrial relations and undertake the changes that are necessary to face the competitive postal markets of the 21st century. I have made it clear to the new chairman that there needs to be a better partnership relationship between the management and the unions if they are to deliver this. That was recommended by Lord Sawyer in his report published last year, and he believes that there is a genuine commitment to change from all sides in the Post Office and Royal Mail to achieve this. The benefits of that relationship have already been demonstrated since his report was published. Compared with more than 43,000 days lost to unofficial action between April and June last year—that figure itself considerably lower than in the last year of the previous Conservative Government—only 1,352 days were lost to unofficial action in the three months from October to December. That is a tremendous improvement and the whole House will want to see it maintained.
I am confident that the path that we are pursuing is the right one. Greater commercial freedom; strengthened management; universal service enshrined in primary legislation—in other words, a delivery every working day to every address in every part of the country.
Today marks a turning point for the company. In the words of the new chairman, the measures announced today
"will ensure that real progress is made in the first year of a three-year strategy to restore profitability, deliver positive cash flow, improve services and make the business a better place in which to work."
Central to Allan Leighton and the company's task will be the relationship with the regulator. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, the postal regulator recently announced an extension of the consultation period; a welcome response, in no small part, to the concerns expressed in this House. In the coming weeks, Allan Leighton, the company and the regulator must have further talks and reach a shared analysis, both of the company's financial position and of the postal services market.
I know that today's news will come as a blow to many workers. But these changes, painful as they are, are unavoidable. Today must be the first step towards renewal, and towards creating a postal service that justifies the pride, and lives up to the expectations, of the millions of people in Britain who depend upon it every day.
Mr. John Whittingdale: May I first thank the Secretary of State for giving me an advance copy of her statement?
568
This afternoon's statement is a humiliation for the Government. Less than two years ago, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers)—who will have his own humiliation later this afternoon—said of the Postal Services Bill:
"It will ensure a strong Post Office that is better able to serve all its customers in all parts of the country."—[Official Report, 18 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 940.]
Since then, the business has gone from recording a profit of nearly £400 million to losses currently running at £1.5 million a day. It has seen 547 more sub-post offices close last year alone, and 63,000 days lost in industrial action. Its performance has deteriorated so that it is failing to meet its delivery targets, and estimates put the number of lost items of mail at 1 million every week; although that may be less surprising, having discovered that the Secretary of State thinks that Harrogate is by the sea.
The Secretary of State, incredibly, has tried to claim that somehow it is all the fault of the last Conservative Government, yet this devastating decline has happened in the last two years. Her statement has signally failed to offer any proper explanation for what went wrong in the time since her predecessor was predicting such a golden future for the business.
Is not the truth that the structure for the Post Office created by the Postal Services Act 2000 was, in the words of the Chancellor's then spin doctor, "a dog's breakfast"? Have not the Government failed to give Consignia the full commercial freedom it needed so that, as a result, it has been unable to take the action necessary to modernise due to the constant interference from Ministers, while at the same time, its competitors in Germany and Holland, having been given that freedom, have gone on to become global players? Is not the result that the restructuring and job losses announced this afternoon have been made worse by the Government's abdication of responsibility and failure to act before now?
Turning to Parcelforce, the Secretary of State has said that its business model has failed. Will she confirm that the business model was approved by the Government, who are the 100 per cent. owners of the business? Is it not the case that Parcelforce is operating in a market that is already open to competition? Is it not the case that while its competitors have built up very successful businesses, it has pursued a strategy consisting of a series of disastrous acquisitions costing nearly £750 million over the last five years, in each case approved by the Government at the time the necessary finance was obtained from the Treasury's national loans fund?
Consignia's announcement of 15,000 job losses represents, we are told, just the first phase of restructuring. In her statement, the Secretary of State referred to further unavoidable job losses over the next three years. Can she confirm the reports that the total number of job losses required under Consignia's plans will in fact number anything up to 40,000? Will she say whether any of those will be compulsory redundancies?
The right hon. Lady's statement devoted just three lines to the regulator's proposals to introduce competition into the delivery of postal services, yet that issue will be crucial to the future of the Post Office. It is simply not good enough for the Government to pretend that they have no responsibility for this matter.
Will the right hon. Lady say whether the Government support the introduction of competition? Does she believe that the timetable set out by the regulator is realistic?

569
Will she consider delaying the full opening up of the market to competition until the restructuring of Consignia has been completed? Will she confirm that whatever happens, the universal service obligation will remain the first requirement on the Post Office, with an affordable uniform tariff?
There have also been reports that the restructuring of Consignia will require the closure of up to 10,000 urban sub-post offices, yet that was not even mentioned by the Secretary of State. Will she say whether that figure is correct? She will also be aware that the majority of those businesses are privately owned small firms that are struggling to survive. Will compensation be paid to those who lose their franchise? How does she intend to deliver on the Prime Minister's pledge that all those who wish to continue to receive benefits in cash will be able to do so if more than half the sub-post office network is closed?
Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm the one bit of good news that has been reported—that the name Consignia is to be consigned to oblivion and that the business will revert to being called the Royal Mail? Is it not the case that the problems of the Post Office are summed up by the time and money that has been spent on rebranding the business with a name that is neither respected nor understood while the fundamental weaknesses have been left unaddressed? Is that not why the Secretary of State had to come to the House today and why 15,000 post office workers, with perhaps another 25,000 to come, are having to pay the price for her and her Government's incompetence?
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman has worked himself up into a great lather of synthetic fury. He fails to acknowledge that, precisely when the German, French, Dutch and Swedish Post Offices were getting commercial freedom, his Government refused to give the Post Office the commercial freedom in the public sector that the management and unions demanded and Labour Members supported. If the Post Office had been given commercial freedom in the public sector years ago, it would have been able to make the changes and investment that other European postal services were making, yet the Conservative Government refused to allow it to do so. That is the fundamental cause of the problems that have built up over years—years when the Conservative Government failed to invest and reform.
Parcelforce has lost money every year in its 10 years of existence. The Government enabled Parcelforce to make the investments that it needed to make, including the creation of the new distribution hub in Coventry and the track-and-trace technology that will form the basis for the renewed and strengthened company.
There is a great deal more work to be done to deal with the very deep-seated problems in other parts of the business and in our postal services. Allan Leighton has made it clear that, as chairman, he and the management will be taking forward those discussions with the unions and examining every part of the business to see what needs to be done to improve the service for the public, which is fundamentally what we all want. Future job losses will depend on the work that has to be done with the business.
Of course the Government believe first and foremost in the universal service obligation. As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) should
570
be aware, Postcomm's primary duty as the independent regulator is to maintain that obligation. Of course, we believe in competition too, and subject to the duty to maintain the universal service obligation, the regulator's job, as established in the Postal Services Act 2000, is to promote greater choice and competition. The Government support an independent regulator, as did the Communication Workers Union in its submission on the White Paper. It seems that only the Conservative party does not know whether it supports an independent regulator.
Today's statement has nothing whatever to do with the network of post offices, and I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has repeated some of the scaremongering that we have heard before from him and some of his colleagues. I again remind the House of what Colin Baker, the general secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters said:
"Talk of mass closures is scaremongering and wide of the mark. It is wrong to criticise the industry for being out of date and in decline and then create panic when we are doing something about it."
We are investing both in a compensation scheme for sub-postmasters and in schemes to improve local services.
On the hon. Gentleman's final—and least important—point, the name change was proposed and decided on by management, with the support of the unions, a couple of years ago. I entirely agree with the new chairman's view that the sooner the name goes, the better.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and agree that consideration of the future of Parcelforce is long overdue. It should have been sorted out a long time ago, perhaps being sold off and dealt with once and for all. I welcome the forgoing of the dividend, which will provide the Post Office with additional resources to secure the most flexible redundancy arrangements that can be achieved.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the extension by Postcomm of the review period is largely due to the inadequate and inaccurate advice and information provided by Consignia accountants about the nature of the savings that could be achieved, and that Allan Leighton really needs to come in and sort out the Post Office, because most of us are sick and tired of an inadequate and incompetent management that cannot even produce proper financial information to enable the regulator to act effectively?
Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree, especially about the need to sort out Parcelforce. The proposal that the regulator made for opening the market to bulk mails above a certain limit was indeed based on information provided by the company, which has now decided that the figures were wrong. The important issue is that the regulator must, above all, make proposals for market opening that secure the maintaining of the universal service obligation, which is the No. 1 duty under the Postal Services Act. I hope that Allan Leighton and his colleagues will quickly sit down with the regulator to ensure that there is an exchange of accurate information to enable the regulator to make sound and sensible decisions that will secure the universal service obligation.
Dr. Vincent Cable: I add my sympathy to that expressed about the 15,000 postmen and women

571
who will lose their jobs. In the Secretary of State's discussions with Mr. Leighton during the past few days, did he specifically tell her that 40,000 redundancies are now in prospect? Was that one of the conditions that he set for his appointment as chairman of Consignia?
I welcome the new dividend policy, which the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties have sought, but does the Secretary of State agree that £64 million, however welcome, is very small compared with the £2 billion that successive Governments have taken out of the Post Office in the past decade, undermining its ability to compete with the private sector?
Specifically on competition, I welcome the conversion of the Conservative spokesman to slowing the introduction of competition; it was the first statement to that effect that I have heard. Is the Secretary of State now part of that consensus, which seems to affect both sides of the industry and both sides of the House?
Finally, on the transfer of the universal parcel service as part of the universal service obligation, irrespective of whether that service makes a profit or a loss, is Parcelforce transferring a liability or an asset to the Royal Mail? Why is the private sector being introduced into not merely the parcel service, but the mail service, while making no contribution whatever through a levy to the maintenance of the universal service obligation?
Ms Hewitt: First, the conditions of Allan Leighton's appointment have nothing whatever to do with the job losses announced this morning or any that may be announced in future. Any question of future job losses has to do with the necessary modernisation and restructuring of the business. The point that Allan Leighton and I have discussed, which may be of interest to the House, is our agreement that we need to get away from detailed interference by Government and officials in the running of a company to which we have given commercial freedom. When the new strategic plan has been approved, it will be up to the company to deliver on that plan. It will report to us, and I, in turn, will report to the House at appropriate intervals.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the enormous dividends that were taken out of the company during the Conservative years, when the dividend was set at 90 per cent. Of course, one of the first steps that we took was to cut that dividend to 40 per cent. As I announced a few moments ago, we will waive that dividend for the current financial year. A decision on dividends for other years, during which we have been in power, will be taken in the context of the strategic plan.
We made our position on competition clear when the Postal Services Act 2000 was introduced. The first and primary policy goal is to sustain the universal service obligation. Competition is valuable, and I would expect the hon. Gentleman to support the introduction of greater choice and competition to benefit consumers.
As for Parcelforce's detailed accounts, as I have said, it has made losses every year since it was established. I do not know how those losses break down between different parts of the Parcelforce business, and I am not at all sure that the company knows.
Mr. Tony Clarke: I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend had to say, but
572
does she not consider it to be a matter of gross incompetence that Post Office managers announced the 15,000 redundancies at the same time as they announced that they had got it so badly wrong in wasting £2 million on changing the name to Consignia? Does she not feel that workers in the industry may ask why they should trust their judgment now if they got it so badly wrong then? Furthermore, considering the inevitable instability that there will be in the industry, why cannot the Government tell Postcomm that the unilateral liberalisation of mail at this time, outside that accepted by our European partners, could sound the death knell for the Post Office as we know it today?
Ms Hewitt: As I said, we have taken steps in government to strengthen the management of the Post Office. Even before the appointment of the new chairman, we had secured the appointment of a new finance director to the company, and my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness recently announced the appointment of a new chief executive for the post office network. The unions and hon. Members, at least on the Labour Benches, have welcomed that.
On Postcomm, I remind my hon. Friend that when we consulted on the new proposals and the creation of proper commercial freedom within the public sector, the Communication Workers Union said that it wanted a new regulator independent of the Government, on the same basis as Oftel, Ofwat and Ofgas, for instance. That is precisely what we have delivered within the framework of an Act that makes it clear that the No. 1 duty of the regulator—independent though he or she may be—is to secure the universal service. I know that the regulator takes that duty seriously.
Mr. Edward Leigh: As the Secretary of State knows, the National Audit Office has produced a full report on the subject. Will she say more about Postcomm's proposals for the immediate liberalisation of mail and for achieving full competition by 2006, because those proposals go to the heart of the matter? Consignia accepts the need for competition but is against the timetable laid down by Postcomm, which it says will endanger the company. What timetable does the Secretary of State consider would ensure the survival, growth and profitability of that company and the maintenance of the universal service? Does she accept Postcomm's rationale that it is only by increasing competition to the extent that we have a fully competitive market by 2006 that the company can be saved?
Ms Hewitt: The excellent report by the NAO, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, clearly identifies two risks inherent in the situation. The first is that of introducing too much competition too fast, which might damage and jeopardise the universal service obligation. The second is that of not introducing enough competition, thereby removing from the company an incentive to modernise and to improve its service to its customers.
It is important at this stage for the company and the regulator to sit down and talk to each other, which they have only just begun to do, and to arrive at an agreed view of the company's finances and the nature of the market. On the basis of that analysis, the regulator will arrive at a sensible view of the situation and make a decision about market opening that does not jeopardise

573
the universal service, but which delivers the benefits to the consumer that I would expect the hon. Gentleman to wish to see.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Can the Secretary of State say whether Allan Leighton has been given complete commercial freedom in relation to urban post offices ? Do the Government value urban post offices? How will they protect services to deprived communities in Liverpool and elsewhere, and value post offices and sub-post offices for the services that they provide, as well as for the jobs that they offer?
Ms Hewitt: As someone who represents a number of deprived urban communities, I entirely agree about the importance of the services that local post offices provide in low-income areas, both urban and rural. The fact is that about two thirds of people in urban areas live within half a mile of two or more sub-post offices, many of which are struggling to survive commercially, as we all know from our constituencies. It makes sense for the Post Office to sit down and talk to sub-postmasters, to consider the detailed market within local communities and to produce proposals to rationalise and improve the network of urban post offices. That is what it will do, and it will not make any decisions on closures of any urban sub-post offices until and unless those consultations have taken place.
Mr. Keith Simpson: The Minister will be aware from the course of the questions that she has been asked this afternoon that the House appears to be unhappy with Consignia's track record. Will she now answer the question put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and tell us whether Consignia's business plan, which seems to have failed, was signed off by her predecessor?
Ms Hewitt: I was referring to the business model for Parcelforce, which is the main subject of today's announcement. That model was put in place in 1986, and although it formed part of the previous year's strategic plan, this Government, and my predecessor specifically, noted concern about its viability. I have no doubt that the company is right to grasp this nettle and to recognise that we cannot carry on with a company that is publicly owned and has been given commercial freedom, but which has been losing money for the last 10 years. By integrating the universal parcel service in Royal Mail, which the unions, among others, have been arguing for, we will strengthen the universal service and stem the losses that Parcelforce has been making ever since its business model was established under the Conservative Government.
David Hamilton: Does the Minister understand several points? One is that the work force already accept that restructuring should take place. Parcelforce is an example, and a bad one, of what happens when cherry-picking is allowed to take place throughout an industry.
The Minister spoke about vehicle losses that would take place under restructuring. Is she aware that in urban and semi-rural areas, workers require those vehicles because they are the only vehicles that they have nowadays to get them from one place to another? That is due to the subsidies that were paid, and indeed every local authority
574
has to pay out millions of pounds because of that lot on the Conservative Benches. They sit there and cry crocodile tears over thousands of workers, but that is absolute rubbish. I can understand angry workers in the industry, but can the Minister understand why there will be great anger about what is happening under a Labour Government?
Ms Hewitt: The reorganisation of the transport system is something that the management and the unions have been discussing for some time. We are all familiar with the situation in urban and rural areas where a Royal Mail van that is collecting or delivering mail is rapidly followed by a Parcelforce van delivering parcels. That is not a sensible way to run a business, and by reintegrating the universal parcel service within Royal Mail, the company will be able to manage with fewer vehicles and deliver a better service to customers. Despite the fact that painful job losses will result from that, we should support the better service that will result.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Perhaps the only sympathy that one might have for the right hon. Lady stems from the fact that most of these problems have been dumped on her because of the incompetence of her hapless and hopeless predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers). What plans are there to increase the price of a first-class stamp?
Ms Hewitt: That is a matter for the company and the regulator, and the company may well wish to apply to the regulator for an increase in the price of the stamp. But I do not think, and I hope that this is not what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, that the problems faced by the loss-making Parcelforce or the inefficiencies inherent in an out-of-date transport system should be dealt with by increasing the price of the stamp paid by the customer.
John Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Post Office has for many years been run with a steadily and steeply declining work force and a management that is vindictive and bullying in the extreme? The job losses that have been announced today and those that will follow from the announcement in the coming years will hit some of the poorest and most vulnerable communities in Britain, including many of the people whom I represent in the London borough of Havering. Is not the only real answer to start to invest properly in the Post Office and even to allow the price of a stamp to rise, which it has not for some time? In addition, we should tell Postcomm and the European Commission, which seem desperately keen to break up the Post Office, to open it up to commercial competition and to end universal service, to get lost and stick their plans.
Ms Hewitt: I agree entirely, and I have said so before in the House, that part of the Post Office's problems are down to poor management and appalling industrial relations in some parts of the country. That situation, for which the union as well as the management bears some responsibility, was well described in Lord Sawyer's report last year. I am glad to say that many of those problems now appear to be behind us and that the union and the company are now committed to partnership working of the sort that is essential in any modern organisation that is to deliver decent customer service and be a good place to work.

575
However, I repeat, today's announcement of job losses, extremely regrettable though they are, has nothing to do with the proposals from the regulator. They are a direct result of a parcels company that has been losing money for 10 years, an out-of-date and inefficient transport system, and inefficiencies in the management and support services—all of which are now being dealt with by new management.
Hywel Williams: Mr. Allan Leighton, the new chairman of Consignia, is charged with reforming the company's industrial relations. That he begins with 15,000 redundancies is a kick in the teeth for the Communication Workers Union, which has worked hard to improve industrial relations over the past few months.
It is a kick in the teeth for the people of Wales that the depots at Wrexham and Pontypridd are to be closed, leaving only the Swansea depot working. Will the Secretary of State tell us what environmental or commercial sense it makes for parcels to be delivered to the far reaches of my constituency in the Llyn peninsula from Manchester or Liverpool?
Ms Hewitt: As Allan Leighton's announcement made clear, parcels that fall within the universal service will be integrated within the Royal Mail and will therefore use the logistics and delivery system of the Royal Mail as a whole. As for Parcelforce, the only way in which a sensible organisation can be created from the existing loss-making one is to rationalise the distribution system in the way that Allan Leighton proposes.
Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State says that the regulator Postcomm is independent, but surely the Secretary of State ultimately has overall responsibility for the Post Office. Surely now is the time to discuss with the regulator the nonsense of accelerating the process of opening up to competition, to say that because of the current situation we need more time, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) said, to tell the European Union that the process is not something that we can speed up?
Ms Hewitt: The proposals made by the regulator, on which the regulator is consulting, are clearly within the scope of the European directive and are not being imposed on us by the European Commission. However, the independence of the regulator, which was sought by, among others, the union itself, was enshrined in the Postal Services Act 2000, which Labour introduced and supported. Now, the company and the regulator need to sit down and discuss the restructuring needed in the company, of which today's announcement forms a part, and a sensible regulatory framework that will allow the company to go forward and, above all, continue to deliver its universal service obligation. I hope that the regulator and the company will achieve that rapidly.
Tim Loughton: I am sure all our constituents are greatly encouraged by the fact that the Minister responsible for mail delivery thinks that Harrogate has a coastline, and even more encouraged to learn that even more of our mail is to go by rail and thus be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for
576
Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Before she prays in aid the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which has its headquarters in my constituency, may I remind the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that that organisation co-ordinated the gathering of 3.5 million signatures in petition in response to her original proposals? She complacently reels off the fact that everybody lives within half a mile of two sub-post offices, but may I remind her that half a mile is well beyond the reach of pensioners in towns such as Worthing, and that many of those sub-post offices are the life-blood of parades of shops in village areas within urban areas, and without those sub-post offices whole communities will quickly fade and die?
Ms Hewitt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for sub-post offices, whether in urban or rural areas; thousands of them closed under the Conservative Government. We have responded to the deterioration in the post office network under the Conservatives with the comprehensive report of the performance and innovation unit, and we have already invested and committed £270 million to investing in the urban and rural networks. Of course, we put a requirement on the company to prevent avoidable closures—something that the hon. Gentleman's Government never did.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that this is a very sad day for the 15,000 people who are losing their jobs. As the representative of the shareholder—the Government—I hope that she will try to ensure that there are no compulsory job losses and that they will be voluntary. We ought to stop hiding behind the protection of Postcomm, which is not acting for the benefit of the business or the consumer. It needs to be dragged back and told that we ought not to change in advance of our European competitors, as we would face the danger of the same problems that we had with electricity market, where France has still not opened up its market. We keep saying that we will provide a universal service; however, we can do so only if one is profitable.
Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about the people who face the prospect of losing their jobs. As the company said, every effort will be made to find alternative employment in other parts of the business for people whose jobs will disappear as a result of the restructuring; the rest will be dealt with, as Allan Leighton said, through voluntary redundancies. When people lose their jobs and take voluntary redundancy, the Employment Service will be ready to help them get new jobs as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend is of course right that the company must restore its profitability, above all to secure the universal service and a better quality of service for customers. It is for that precise reason that these difficult and painful decisions have been made today; they are in the longer-term interests of the company and its customers.
Mr. John Redwood: What would the Secretary of State say to the postman in the Wokingham sorting office who told me that costs have got out of control on branding, imaging and an increasing number of managers—from three to eight in Wokingham alone—

577
in recent years? He forecast that the bill would be paid for in job losses and the abolition of the early morning delivery. Despite all that nonsense about the universal service provision, the truth is that the first delivery in the early morning will go. That is the price of failure in spending far too much on branding, logos and more management.
Ms Hewitt: It is pathetic of the right hon. Gentleman to try and suggest that the £2 million spent on the rebranding exercise is the cause of the problem. It turns out to have been a waste of time, but it is certainly not the cause of the enormous problems that the company faces. Much more serious is the fact that costs have not been adequately controlled at a time when the expected growth in mail volumes has simply not been achieved. Let me point out to him that of the redundancies that the company announced today, 4,500 will fall in management and administrative support services.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us who supported the introduction of a postal regulator did not anticipate that that would result in throwing post office services into a competition for which investment had not been made? Will she assure the House that there will be investment in the capacity to compete? Will she ensure that people who lose their jobs—most of them will be older workers who will come forward for voluntary redundancy—will be offered flexibility so that they do not face the choice of a slashed pension or income support? In particular, will she ensure that the urban post office network, without which neighbourhood shopping in working-class areas in this country will not survive, will be the target of sustained meaningful and determined Government support?
Ms Hewitt: I share my hon. Friend's concerns about the urban post office network. In addition to the investment that I announced last week and the support that we have already provided, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has established a fund to support sub-post offices in deprived urban areas, where they are particularly essential.
My hon. Friend is right that the company has suffered from underinvestment for a very long time. We are now supporting it in making the necessary investment in restructuring and modernisation. Of course, as part of the voluntary redundancy package, the company will be taking steps to enhance and support the pensions of those leaving the Post Office.
Mr. John Greenway: How can the Consignia business plan be taken seriously when, judging by the right hon. Lady's answers, she cannot tell us how many urban post offices will close, where the redundancies will fall or even whether the price of a first-class stamp will rise? How many postal workers in rural areas will lose their jobs? There is already a shortage of them, and the service is deteriorating. Is not the bottom
578
line of what she has told the House, as with everything else under this Government, that the price people pay will go up and the service that they receive will get worse?
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the idea of commercial freedom—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Secretary of State answer.
Ms Hewitt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The whole point about commercial freedom, which we have given the Post Office and which the hon. Gentleman's Government wholly failed to give it, is that those in management are responsible for managing the company. They must make the decisions about the necessary restructuring and modernisation of the company, and they will need to decide whether a price rise is justified and whether they can justify that to consumers by providing an improved quality of service.
I do not think that many of us in the House have been satisfied with the quality of service from the Post Office over some years. This morning's statement and the appointment of the new chairman of Consignia—the Post Office—are essential first steps in restoring the Post Office to health and in ensuring that consumers get a service on which they can rely and of which we can all be proud.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: May I ask my right hon. Friend about stamp prices? Are not stamps in Britain cheaper than in any other European Union country apart from Spain? A first-class stamp in Germany is the equivalent of 37p, as opposed to 27p here. Have we not had a Post Office on the cheap? Regardless of incompetent management—that is no doubt true—we have relatively low-paid postal workers and no blame should be attached to them for what has happened. Is not it as likely as day following night following day that, if the Post Office is opened up to competition and the private sector gets hold of some lucrative chunks, the first thing that will happen will be massive price rises to maximise profit?
Ms Hewitt: It is perfectly true that stamp prices here are lower than those in not all but most parts of the European Union. It is for the company to decide whether it wants to seek a price rise, and for the regulator, after consulting the consumer watchdog, to decide whether to grant it. However, we should be clear that stamp price rises, which may or may not follow, are not a way to get: round problems of inefficiency, poor management and bad industrial relations. Those problems must all be addressed in any case. This morning's announcement was the first step to sorting them out.
David Burnside: Will the Secretary of State explain why in the necessary rationalisation of Parcelforce depots, Great Britain has taken a 50 per cent. cut but Northern Ireland has taken a 75 per cent. cut, which includes the closure of Belfast North, Londonderry and Portadown? Why are we taking more of the pain than the rest of the United Kingdom? When the Secretary of State is in discussion with Allan Leighton on job losses and consigning Consignia to the dustbin of marketing

579
disasters of all time, will she see that the senior managers who are responsible lose their jobs first, rather than the ordinary people on the ground?
Ms Hewitt: I want particularly to pay tribute to the men and women working in the Post Office in Northern Ireland, who have continued to do their job with enormous courage in extremely difficult circumstances.
The specific proposals for rationalisation of the transport depots have been made by Consignia on the basis of a detailed examination of postal patterns in different parts of the country. I shall be happy to obtain further information on the specific point in relation to Northern Ireland, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman accordingly.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that Conservative Governments plundered billions of pounds from the profits of the Post Office, money that could have been used for investment purposes and restructuring? Is that not a further example of where we are inheriting the legacy of Thatcherism?
Will my right hon. Friend tell me—I have a large Parcelforce depot in West Ham—that there will be no compulsory redundancies? Will she tell us also to what extent there is still room for negotiation on which depots are due to be closed?
Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point that the Post Office has suffered from many years of drift and decline under the Conservatives. There was one review after another under the Conservative Government, and no decisions. There was a flat refusal to
580
give the company commercial freedom within the public sector. Ninety per cent. of its profits were taken in dividend, and there was no investment. That was at a time when every other postal service in Europe was modernising.
My hon. Friend is right to say that it is this Government who have seized the problem and have put in the management that is required to make the tough decisions that are needed to start turning the Post Office round.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. and geographically erroneous Lady confirm that on 25 March 1997 the Post Office was in profit? Will she tell us that she is confident that on 25 March 2007 the Post Office will be in profit again, that all the village post offices in my constituency will still be open and that we shall still have an early morning delivery?
Ms Hewitt: The profits that were being made in the Conservative years were artificially inflated to secure covert tax rises and the subsidy to the Treasury—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ms Hewitt: There was little point in having a profitable company when the Conservative Government were taking 90 per cent. in dividends and refusing to let the company make the necessary investment. I believe that we are putting in place a management capable of restoring the Post Office to health. This is the first in a series of restructuring measures that will restore the Post Office to profitability and ensure that we have postal services throughout the country that will deliver for customers, including our constituents.

Railtrack
4.28 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the bid for Railtrack plc made today by Network Rail.
As the House will be aware, Railtrack was taken into administration on 7 October as a result of a High Court order. As Mr. Justice Lightman said at the time:
"This is clearly a case where the making of a railway administration order is not only appropriate, but absolutely essential, and I shall therefore make that order immediately."
Railtrack was put into administration because it was, or was likely to be, unable to pay its debts. But let us remember also that it had failed to maintain the railway safely and properly. It had failed to gain a proper understanding of its assets. It had failed to manage modernisation projects such as the west coast main line. Let us not forget that Railtrack was at the heart of the flawed and failed privatisation carried out by the Tories.
The Government have always said that what we need is a successor to Railtrack that is focused on the public interest and on the needs of passengers. Railtrack has made some progress during administration under the management of John Armitt, and his appointment as chief executive has been widely welcomed in the industry, but I agree with the Transport Committee, which said in its latest report, the first for this Session:
"It is imperative that the process of administration be completed as soon as possible."
Because of the difficulties in putting together a business plan and the limited knowledge that Railtrack had of its own assets, the administrator has indicated that there will be further delays in launching his competitive process.
What we need is an end to administration, so that the improvements that we all want to see to the country's rail infrastructure can be delivered as soon as possible. There is therefore a value to the Government, the taxpayer and rail users in an earlier exit from administration. Network Rail's bid reflects that approach.
Network Rail says that its proposal could if accepted by the shareholders take Railtrack plc out of administration as early as the end of July this year. Network Rail would be a company limited by guarantee. It would not have shareholders, so it will not be paying out dividends. Unlike Railtrack, its operating surplus will be reinvested in the rail network. Its core focus will be the maintenance and renewal of Britain's railway. It will focus on the needs of the travelling public, not short-term profit for shareholders. It will be able to raise capital for investment more cheaply—a better deal all round for the travelling public.
The Government have always said that Railtrack shareholders should get the value in the company to which they are entitled. Railtrack Group has assets that could be used to provide value for its shareholders. My understanding is that Railtrack Group has over £350 million in cash deposits; it has an interest as owner in section one of the channel tunnel rail link; and it has some property interests.
The Government have indicated that a grant of £300 million will be made available to reflect the benefits of an early exit from administration. I must inform the
582
House that, if such an early exit is not achieved, the money will not be available. An earlier exit from administration, resulting in a more focused and efficient rail network operator, would lead to a quicker realisation of efficiency savings, reduce performance penalties, and allow 10-year plan projects to proceed more quickly.
Network Rail's proposal, based on the concept of a company limited by guarantee, is designed to be more efficient than Railtrack, with lower financing costs and no dividends to pay. That is why the Government are prepared to make this payment. For the Government, it will be self-financing from savings that will be made. It therefore follows that, if there is not an early exit, the savings will not be made, and in such circumstances the £300 million will not be made available.
Since Railtrack was taken into administration, the Government have said that every single penny of taxpayers' money must be used to improve the rail network. That is exactly what the grant of £300 million will do. It will benefit the travelling public, and that has to be our top priority.
The administrator has said that he is actively reviewing Network Rail's proposal in the context of the administration. If today's bid were successful, it would enable a company limited by guarantee to become the successor to Railtrack. As the House will know, the Government have said all along that they view a company limited by guarantee as an attractive successor body.
Network Rail is committed to engineering excellence. Its bid has the potential to bring the rail industry together and overcome the fragmentation that has all too often characterised it in the past.
It is now for the administrator to decide how he should conduct the process in the light of today's bid. He has confirmed that he will treat any further proposals that might be made on their merits. Getting Railtrack out of administration must be done on the basis that it will produce a viable, financially sound company—one that takes a long-term perspective, and that puts the emphasis first and foremost on operating a safe, efficient and reliable rail network.
Taking action on Railtrack has been criticised by some, including the Conservative party—[HON. MEMBERS: No."] Yes. But today's developments demonstrate what, can be achieved. As a result of today's bid by Network Rail, we can now see a railway system that is united and not fragmented; a railway industry with a shared strategic vision; a railway industry that values its employees and will invest in them; and a network provider that will answer to the interests of passengers and not private shareholders.
That is all now possible as a result of today's proposals. We are now in a position to lay Railtrack to rest and to put in its place a successor body that will deliver for the travelling public. On that basis, I commend today's developments to the House.
Mrs. Theresa May: And so the entertainment continues—as Fred Karno's army parade one by one this afternoon. Today's two statements have one thing in common: from the Post Office to Railtrack, the originator of the problems is the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

583
I refer hon. Members to the declaration that I made on 14 January, at column 33 of Hansard.
How many times since Railtrack was put into administration on 7 October last year has the Secretary of State come to the House clinging to his political life only to be saved by the support of the Members on the Benches behind him—support given because of statements such as the one he made last October when he told the House that
"the Government are not here to fund the shareholders of private companies."—[Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 959.],
or what he said to the Financial Times, also last October:
"I can say for certain that there will be no taxpayers money made available to support shareholders."
Indeed, in his statement today, the Secretary of State said:
"Since Railtrack was taken into administration the Government have said that every single penny of taxpayers' money must be used to improve the rail network."
That position was confirmed by the Prime Minister, who made it clear to the House in response to questions from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—I note that the Prime Minister is not in the Chamber to support his Secretary of State—in November and December last year and earlier this month, that money should go into improving the rail network and not to shareholders. But what do we see now? The Secretary of State has performed a 180-degree turnaround and there can be no weasel words about new money, extra money or money going to the company or, as the right hon. Gentleman put it earlier, "a grant to reflect the benefits of an early exit from administration". There is only one early exit that would benefit the railways and that is the Secretary of State's.
If the £300 million that will be used to fund the purchase of Railtrack is not new money, what work to improve the railways will be abandoned to pay for it? It is passengers who will pay the price for the Secretary of State's incompetence.
The Secretary of State repeated the point about an early exit: he said, "There is a value to the Government, the taxpayer and rail users in an earlier exit from administration." I wonder whether his indecent haste in trying to conclude the deal has anything to do with his desire to avoid legal action by Railtrack's shareholders. Of course, such action would have required him to explain, under oath, why he sought a court order to wind up Railtrack, given that funds from the rail regulator were available to keep it afloat. Some £300 million of taxpayers' money is being spent to save the Secretary of State's face—because we now know that a deal was on the table that would have compensated shareholders, sorted out Railtrack's finances and brought it out of administration early, and which would not have required money from the taxpayer.
I have this question for the Secretary of State: given his repeated assurances—in and outside this House—to Members, to journalists, to the public and to his own party that this Government would not use taxpayers' money to compensate shareholders; given the Prime Minister's assurance that taxpayers' money would not go to shareholders, but would be spent instead on improving the railways; and given that a deal was on the table to compensate shareholders without using taxpayers' money,
584
why has the Secretary of State broken his word yet again by spending taxpayers' money on compensating shareholders? That is one question—and I expect an answer.
Mr. Byers: I will answer in my own way. There was one element of the hon. Lady's question that I agree with—that there is a link between the two issues of the Post Office and Railtrack. On looking back, people will see that it is this Government who are tackling the Conservatives' failure in respect of the Post Office—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must allow the Secretary of State to reply to the hon. Lady.
Mr. Byers: The reality is that Railtrack was a Tory creation that was failing the travelling public, and I make no apology for taking action on it; it was part of the problem with our railway system, not part of the solution. The Conservatives would have thrown millions more into it, but it would not have delivered an improvement in our railway system.
The hon. Lady raises a number of important questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "One."] No, there were a number of questions, as I think the record will show. She said that the £300 million will be taken away from other transport projects, but as a result of changes being made that sum will be self-financing through savings elsewhere. The simple explanation is that Network Rail will be able to raise money more cheaply than Railtrack was ever able to do.
On the hon. Lady's specific question, if there was a precise deal on the table that involved spending no taxpayers' money, the Government would consider it. Indeed, as I pointed out in my statement, the administrator has made it clear that, if further proposals are put forward, he will consider them. It is right and proper that he should do so. That is the answer to the hon. Lady's question. If there is a deal on the table, it will be for the administrator to deal with it.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Why make the statement, then?
Mr. Byers: I am making the statement because I felt that it was appropriate that the House should be informed. The £300 million is money that the Government are prepared to make available because of the savings that we will make as a result of an early exit.
The hon. Lady raises the question of the winding up of Railtrack. No application was made to the regulator by Railtrack. It could have applied for an interim review, but it failed to do so. Railtrack attended the court, but it did not object to the administration order being made. That is the truth of the situation.
The hon. Lady asked about the statement that not a single penny would go to shareholders as opposed to the railway, but every single penny of the £300 million that we are committing will be used to improve the railway network. That is what will happen as a result of the deal that has been announced today. The difficulty the Conservatives have is that they cannot come to terms with the fact that their creation, Railtrack, is now being laid to rest and the alternative will put the travelling public first.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: No one doubts that the sooner we have a non-profit-making

585
company in charge of the infrastructure of the transport system the better for every passenger who uses the system. However, in a week in which the Secretary of State has issued letters of comfort to the private companies involved in the public-private partnership on the underground and an extension of the insurance to the aviation industry, I would be grateful if he could now clarify the Government's attitude to finance for transport. If this money is to be found, will the company be compensated from Government funds? If it is to be allowed to do the job that desperately needs doing—upgrading the west coast main line and modernising the other systems—it is essential that the cash is found. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that in future infrastructure projects will be wholly Government projects or they will be private deals, and that we will see far less of these monstrosities that leave the taxpayer with the ultimate burden but not with the advantages?
Mr. Byers: I know that I have a disagreement with my hon. Friend on the role that the private sector can play. Private finance has a legitimate role to play in some of our major public sector contracts. However, it has to be on clear terms of value for money and it has to be for a reason. The reason must be that it will drive up the standard of provision.
In relation to the 10-year transport plan, we have £180 billion that will make a significant difference to the quality of the transport infrastructure. In relation to the £300 million grant that might be made available if there is an early exit from administration, none of that sum will be cut from existing projects because it is money that will be saved because of the efficiencies that will come from a company limited by guarantee.
I shall remind the House of the situation. Railtrack plc came to the Government to ask for additional resources—for £1.5 billion to be brought forward into control period 2. At the same time it was paying £709 million in dividends to its shareholders. There is a clear contrast between the two. The company limited by guarantee will have the interests of the travelling public first, and savings will be made as a result. Indeed, savings will come from the fact that the company limited by guarantee will be able to obtain money more cheaply than was possible for Railtrack. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must be clear about the benefits when we involve the private sector in such arrangements. The greater clarity we have will also be so much to the good.
Mr. Don Foster: I am sure that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that although Liberal Democrats have been highly critical of the way in which he has handled the administration of Railtrack, we nevertheless gave full support to the principle of a not-for-profit public interest company to replace it. At the same time, we also fully supported the Secretary of State's earlier statement that no additional taxpayers' money should be used to bail out the shareholders of a company that has so badly let down the travelling public. He will be badly letting down taxpayers if he now uses more of their money to provide compensation for the shareholders—because however he seeks to wrap up the £300 million, that is exactly what it is.
Despite the confusion in the Secretary of State's statement, will he make it absolutely clear that only Railtrack plc is in administration, and that Network Rail
586
seeks to purchase the assets of that part of Railtrack Group only? If so, can we be absolutely assured that Network Rail will focus solely on activities that are directly related to improving the running of our railways, and that it will not be bidding to obtain further of Railtrack Group's assets and turn itself into the multi-headed monster that was the Railtrack Group?
Will the Secretary of State explain the basis on which Network Rail has made its bid? On what basis has he apparently given it his full support? As he admits in his statement, it is not the case that the administrators have not yet made available their analysis of the assets or liabilities of Railtrack plc or their method of sale. Can we therefore be absolutely sure that Network Rail has had no access to information that has not been available to other potential bidders? Given the latest revelations to which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred—that the Secretary of State has given written letters of comfort to potential London tube bidders to the effect that they will have to accept little or no liability for future problems—can we be absolutely assured that no such letter has been given to Network Rail by the Secretary of State?
Finally, given that the new chief executive of Railtrack plc has said that he is not yet in a position to judge the financial robustness of any replacement company, on what basis is the Secretary of State so confident, and on what basis can the public be confident? Given that the Secretary of State agrees that the Conservative party sold off Railtrack far too cheaply, is he not in danger of buying it back too expensively?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points. He is right that Railtrack plc is the body in administration. Railtrack Group is not in administration; it is the parent company and is still functioning. Network Rail has put in a bid for Railtrack plc and wants to operate the licence. I welcome that for the same reasons as the hon. Gentleman—it can be focused on the maintenance renewal of the network, which is crucial if we are to improve punctuality and reliability. I am sure that the administrator has treated everybody who is interested equally, as he would be bound to do. I am sure that he has provided all the appropriate information to any interested party and that he will have discharged his legal responsibilities. Network Rail has brought forward a robust business plan and it is on that basis that the Government have today been able to indicate this level of support. As I said, we believe that a company limited by guarantee would be a good successor body as far as the railway network is concerned.
The letters of comfort can hardly be described as a revelation—I know that not many people read Hansard, but I replied to a parliamentary question last week to make that point. The £300 million will be made available only if there is an early exit from administration. If that does not happen, the money will not be made available, and will therefore not be available to Railtrack Group. We are making that grant available on the basis that we and the travelling public would receive benefits as a result of administration coming to an end earlier than would otherwise be the case.
David Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we on the Back Benches deserve a rather fuller explanation of this volte face in

587
relation to the £300 million bail-out of shareholders than he has so far given? Is it not the case that it appears to many that the cosy relationship with the City seems to involve the development of a risk-free zone on transport projects? As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) suggested, such projects include the public-private partnership for the tube and the plans for National Air Traffic Services and Railtrack, but why should we cushion speculative investment on public projects from any form of risk whatever? Is that not a disgrace?
Mr. Byers: When my hon. Friend has had the opportunity of reading the detail of what I have said this afternoon, I think that he will recognise that that is simply not the case. The reality is that the shareholders wanted £3.60, and they will reflect on what now might be possible. They will look carefully at the basis on which we are prepared to make available the grant. It will be available only if there is an early exit, because we will receive savings as a result of that. No other transport project will be adversely affected.
I ask my hon. Friend to think of where we are today as a result of the action that was taken. Six months ago, the railway network was operated by Railtrack, a company with private shareholders as the paramount concern. We are now talking about our railways being operated by a company limited by guarantee, a body which has one overriding priority—the interests of the travelling public and not private shareholders. I happen to believe that we have come a long way in six months. The Conservatives do not accept that, but we do because we know that we now have in place potentially a successor body for the railway network that will make a real difference, turning away from Railtrack and embracing the interests of the travelling public.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Why is the £300 million not being made available as a grant to other bidders on an equal basis? Everything that the Secretary of State says increasingly suggests that the £300 million is effectively a bribe to a stooge company that is being organised by the Government and on which he will stand in judgment when the rival bids come in. If £300 million of taxpayers' money is available, should it not be made available to all the bidders?
Mr. Byers: The £300 million is being made available for the benefits of an early exit. If someone else or another proposal can deliver that early exit, that money will, of course, be available. We have been very clear that there is no favouritism. If another proposal offers an early exit, that sum of money could, of course, be made available provided that the benefits are achieved that we believe would be achieved from Network Rail.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. Friend refers to Network Rail aspiring to engineering excellence. Given that there is the real problem of a shortage of engineers, with poaching from one company to another taking place, what will be done to increase the total pool of rail engineers? They are crucial to any advance.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of skills in the industry. That is why I was
588
particularly pleased that one of the first acts of John Armitt as the new chief executive of Railtrack was to double the number in Railtrack's graduate intake. It has also increased the number of engineers, and it has set a target of having 1,000 engineers in Railtrack. I believe that, as we move away from the short-term approach to the industry to a more long-term one, the skills deficit will need to be addressed. One of the ways in which that will be done—this was stated in the strategic plan—is through the development of a national rail academy. That offers the opportunity of developing skills in the industry so that we do not have the problem that we face at the moment of not having the skilled engineers, the drivers and the people to make the network operate well. That will change not through the short-term approach that has handicapped the industry in the past, but through a longer-term approach that will deliver the skills that the industry needs for the future.
Mr. Gregory Barker: On 15 October, the Secretary of State, in respect of paying taxpayers' money to shareholders in Railtrack, said:
"We believe that it would be wrong to make new money available, and we will not do it."—[Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 955.]
Has not he completely shot any credibility that he had? Would it not be fair to the travelling public and taxpayers if he did the decent thing and resigned?
Mr. Byers: Once people have had an opportunity to see the context of what I said on 15 October—it was in relation to the £3.60 that was being claimed by the Railtrack group—they will see that we are not compensating shareholders. We are putting the interests of the travelling public first. When people have the opportunity of seeing the big change that we are making to the network, as a result of the prospect of a company limited by guarantee taking responsibility for the railways, they will be able to compare what happened with Railtrack with what will happen with the company limited by guarantee. When they can see that and compare the difference, they will know that today's developments are good news for the travelling public.
Hugh Bayley: As a representative of a great railway city that has hundreds of skilled engineers working for the train-operating companies and a wide range of infrastructure companies, may I say that what the railways need is a clear future for infrastructure, which this statement gives, and it will be widely welcomed in my constituency? [Interruption.] Conservative Members have forgotten that the failure to grant a long franchise extension for the east coast main line was a result of Railtrack's failure to bring forward its costed proposals for the infrastructure renewal. Railtrack was dragging the railways down—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
Hugh Bayley: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise the importance of Network Rail bringing forward costed proposals to use the great increase in investment that the Government are putting into the railways?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to point out the devastating consequences of rail privatisation for the

589
people and the city of York, where literally thousands of jobs were lost as a result of the programme implemented by the Conservatives when they were in government. My hon. Friend is also right that Railtrack failed as far as large infrastructure projects were concerned. The east coast main line was one example; the west coast main line is probably the other major example of that. That is why we want the successor body to concentrate on renewals and maintenance of the network and not to be involved in those large infrastructure projects, where we feel a different mechanism is needed. We are learning from the mistakes made by Railtrack to ensure that Network Rail concentrates on running the network for the benefit of the travelling public. That is what Network Rail wants to do and what we want to happen.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the very interested observers of his antics over the railways has been the rail regulator, in whom the Government used to say they had huge confidence. Can the Secretary of State explain why the rail regulator, speaking to the all-party railways group last week, said that he had severe concerns about a company limited by guarantee? Will the Secretary of State explain how his company limited by guarantee will improve on an equity model that would provide a buffer against poor performance, as the rail regulator has put it? While we are talking about the buffers, has not the Secretary of State hit the buffers in a terminal way?
Mr. Byers: The rail regulator will have his own views about the company limited by guarantee. I have not heard a report of his comments at the all-party group, but he has not raised with me any difficulties with the idea of a company limited by guarantee. As far as the equity model is concerned, it became clear that Railtrack's difficulty was that it had to put the interests of shareholders first; it had no choice, legally. There was a great conflict between the needs of the travelling public and the interests of shareholders. In the end, legally, Railtrack always had to put the interests of the shareholders first The Conservatives may still believe that that is the right model to pursue; we do not agree. We believe that a company limited by guarantee, which puts the interests of the travelling public first, is far better.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: What would the speedy setting up of Network Rail mean for west coast main line modernisation in contrast with the abject failure of Railtrack? How much taxpayers' money did the failed Railtrack cost the people of this country? How much would it cost to keep the administrators in being for every additional month after they are required, as that seems to be what the Opposition want?
Mr. Byers: The costs of administration are not borne by the Government. Ultimately, they are borne by the shareholders, so it is not in their interests for the situation to go on.
I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the delays and lack of progress on the west coast main line, which will go down as the most tangible illustration of Railtrack's failure to manage major upgrade projects. There are many meetings taking place to resolve the difficulties around the west coast main line. That is being pursued irrespective of the position on administration, so in a sense, the issues are
590
separate. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes an important point about learning the lessons of the difficulties surrounding the west coast main line and ensuring that the company limited by guarantee or any successor body to Railtrack do not repeat those mistakes.
Mr. Howard Flight: How can the Secretary of State say that the Government are entirely neutral towards the decision to be taken by the administrator when today's statement to the House is clearly intended to support and prejudice a decision in favour of Network Rail? Is that not yet another case of "Animal Farm" language, which we have seen throughout the Railtrack saga?
Mr. Byers: We have been consistent about saying that the model of a company limited by guarantee is attractive, and that is the point that I have been making today. Network Rail has put forward such a proposal, and I think that we should welcome it. However, the point that I made in my statement is that the administrator has made it clear that if there are other proposals, they will be considered. The administrator will look carefully at the proposals and will then make a recommendation to me if it is a transfer scheme. [Interruption.] For the benefit of the House, the Railways Act 1993 is not the basis on which Network Rail has made its approach to the Railtrack group. [Interruption.] No, the House needs to be aware of this. The proposals made by Network Rail are not under the 1993 Act. Its proposals will be voted on by Railtrack's shareholders; they are not for the administrator or the Secretary of State to determine.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend rightly received unanimous support on this side of the House when he put Railtrack into administration. We thought that that was the right thing to do as a significant step back towards public ownership. The whole railway industry is now in trouble—the train operating companies require extra money, the maintenance companies are in chaos and we know about Railtrack. Given that the railway industry is a natural monopoly, providing a vital public service, and that the ultimate risk is always taken by Government, is it not about time that we seriously considered bringing the industry back into public ownership?
Mr. Byers: That is a point of view, but it is not shared by the Government. We believe that the company limited by guarantee model, which has been put forward today and has the interests of the travelling public at its heart, is the best way forward. The benefits that we will get from a company limited by guarantee may not completely convince my hon. Friend but I hope that they might go some way towards convincing him that this is real progress and will benefit the railway industry.
Chris Grayling: Has the Secretary of State approached the European Commission to seek state aid approval for any of the support that he is giving to the company limited by guarantee, and if so, what was the response?
Mr. Byers: It would be premature to do that, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that any proposals would need state aid approval.
Mr. Jim Murphy: Like most people in our party and in the country, I welcomed the Secretary of

591
State's decision to take Railtrack into receivership. Can he confirm that his announcement represents the end of the line for public financing for the shareholders, notwithstanding the fact that the Tories are still demanding further handouts for them? In his discussions with Network Rail, will he ensure that on the agenda is not only the modernisation of the west coast main line but the integration of the rail network in the north-west of the United Kingdom, and in particular the link between Glasgow airport and the modernised west coast main line?
Mr. Byers: Ultimately, it will be for the Railtrack shareholders to decide whether to accept Network Rail's proposal. If they do, there will be a speedy exit from administration and Network Rail will operate the licence, which will bring real benefits. On integration, there is clearly an issue about the interface between wheel and track, and that is the subject of a Strategic Rail Authority inquiry. On the specifics of developing the rail network in Scotland, there are several major projects that would make a significant difference, one of which is developing the links with Glasgow airport. I know that the SRA is examining that closely, as a result of representations that have been made both by Labour Members and by the Scottish Executive.
Pete Wishart: We have paralysis on the tracks, a rail industry in Scotland that is riven by strikes, a Department that can only be described as bizarre and chaotic, and now we have this astonishing U-turn. Given that the Government were elected on the basis of the song "Things Can Only Get Better", can the Secretary of State think of a time when things were worse for the railways?
Mr. Byers: We were never going to improve significantly the quality of rail in the United Kingdom with Railtrack as the operator of the licence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that. We had to make big decisions about Railtrack and its successor body. Those big decisions are not easy and are bound to be criticised, but they are the only way in which we can secure real improvements. In the end, we will be judged on whether the punctuality and reliability of our rail network have improved. I believe that the changes in hand will produce real improvements in punctuality and reliability in Scotland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Ivan Henderson: Is it not a fact that the previous Government were warned several times that the privatisation of our railway infrastructure would be a disaster, and did not the Conservatives privatise it as an afterthought, because our country's finances were in such a mess that they were scratching around for extra cash? Is there any other country that privatised its railway infrastructure in the same way?
Mr. Byers: It is true to say that it was a pretty unique form of privatisation. On the £300 million that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is so excited about, hon. Members should read the excellent report published by the Public Accounts Committee when the current chairman of the Conservative party was its Chairman. The report shows very clearly that Railtrack was floated and
592
sold for less than £2 billion, and that within 18 months the value of the shares was up to about £8 billion—a £6 billion shortfall for the taxpayers of this country. Conservative privatisation brought a shortfall of £6 billion, as well as worse service on the railways. Our proposals will make a real difference and improve the quality of rail travel.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I remind the House of my interests in Railtrack, Eurotunnel and First Group.
I know that the Secretary of State does not drive, but he has performed a U-turn, and so has the Prime Minister. Why? Is it because he feels that he should not after all have put Railtrack into administration and that he should have taken the advice of the independent rail regulator and granted an interim review, or is it because he is frit of a legal action that would force him to give evidence on oath? This offer is time barred. What happens if Railtrack does not come out of administration, the offer fails and the shareholders get nothing? May I remind him that 90 per cent. of Railtrack employees hold shares? Why has he changed his mind?
Mr. Byers: Railtrack could have applied for the interim review; it had the power to do so, but it failed to do so. Its representatives sat in court and did not oppose the petition for administration. The £300 million is available only if there is an early exit from administration. If that does not happen, it will not be available to the shareholders. That is why it is not compensation; it is money that is being made available for the benefits that we, as a Government, will get from an early exit from administration. If the shareholders do not support the proposal, they will lose the benefits and we will not get the benefits, so the £300 million simply will not be available. We will then go through the competitive process, which the administrator will put in place. That will take time, so we will not get the savings of an early exit, which is why the £300 will not then be available.
Mr. Gary Streeter: In relation to transport, will the Secretary of State please tell the House what part of his job he thinks he has done well since he was appointed last year?
Mr. Byers: The taking of Railtrack into administration was absolutely right for the simple reason that Railtrack was at the heart of all that was wrong with our railway network and many of the problems. Conservative Members will disagree with the action that I took in relation to Railtrack—we can all understand why—but I firmly believe that that action was necessary. Railtrack was put into administration because it could not pay its debts or was unlikely to pay them. Most importantly, we are now putting in place a new structure for the railway industry that will provide us with the opportunity to bring the industry together, to get away from the fragmentation and to put the interests of the travelling public first. That is what a company limited by guarantee will do, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is concerned about transport to the south-west, will recognise that those real improvements will be delivered for the south-west as well as the rest of the country.
Bob Russell: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his impeccable timing? He chose to

593
make his statement on the very day when the problems on the Colchester to Liverpool Street line were so bad that my constituents took up to five hours to complete a one-hour journey. I was lucky; my journey took only three hours. Does he agree that, despite the fact that the previous Government caused the problem in the first place, after five years of Labour Government, the situation is worse now than it was in 1997? Who does he blame—himself or the former Transport Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister? Has he stopped digging, or is he going to fill himself in?
Mr. Byers: I have been very clear with the House in saying that we have to take responsibility, and I will take responsibility for the performance not being as good as it should be, which is unacceptable and we must move forward. However, we will never see the sort of improvements that the hon. Gentleman and I want by tinkering around at the edges and playing around at the margins. We have to take the big decisions that will make a difference to our railway industry, which we are now doing. Some people find that uncomfortable, but it has to be done if we are to achieve an improvement in the service from Colchester to Liverpool Street—a line that I know very well—as well as elsewhere in the country. I honestly believe that we can do that, and I think that the measures that are being taken and today's developments will lead us to a far better future for our railway industry.
Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Secretary of State tell us precisely from which part of his Department's vote will the £300 million come? Will he be more specific about the savings that he mentions? He says that the costs of administration will be borne by the shareholders, so there appears to be doubt about where the Government will get their savings from. Finally, will he agree to the National Audit Office making an early inquiry into his proposals to ensure that the taxpayer gets good value for money?
Mr. Byers: Of course we always co-operate with any National Audit Office inquiry. The savings will not come from the costs of administration to the Government. As with every other administration, those costs are borne by the shareholders, so it is not a call on the Government. The savings to the Government will come about because Network Rail's proposals are designed to be produce greater efficiency than Railtrack. It will have lower financial costs and no dividends to pay, so it will be easier and cheaper for it to raise money. There will be a quicker realisation of efficiency savings and a reduction in performance penalties, which will come about as a result of a company limited by guarantee and the fact that Railtrack is no longer responsible. Those are all benefits and savings that the Government will get, from which we will be able to fund the £300 million without that being a claim on another part of the railway budget.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Can the Secretary of State answer the questions repeatedly asked by a number of my hon. Friends? What has changed since his original statement that has led him to make a U-turn on compensation for shareholders?
Mr. Byers: I repeat that the £300 million is available only if there is an early exit. If that does not happen, it is not available, so it is not compensation for shareholders.
594
It is linked to an early exit from administration and the savings that the Government will obtain as a result. There is no change. It is absolutely consistent with the statements that I have made since 15 October last year.
Richard Ottaway: In response to a question on how the grant is self-financing, the Secretary of State replied that Network Rail will be able to get money more cheaply. Is not that the real reason why he introduced the package today, because if he had not, the City would have charged him higher penalising interest rates for future infrastructure projects?
Mr. Byers: No. If hon. Members look at the refinancing deal of some £4.1 billion announced by the administrator this afternoon, it is clear that no premium is being charged by the City. The City makes a clear distinction between the position of Railtrack, a company quoted on the stock market, with all the risks that arise from that, and the public-private partnership approach in which the Government enter into contractual obligations. That is the difference, and it is understood by the City. As a result, no premium has been charged.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Before conjuring up the £300 million that every newspaper describes as compensation for shareholders, what legal advice did the Secretary of State receive on the impending shareholders' action? Was he led to believe that he might easily lose a legal action? Was he told that he might be found to have acted illegally by taking Railtrack into administration without providing compensation and, indeed, to have acted in a manner akin to theft?
Mr. Byers: The proposals by Network Rail have been produced because it thinks that this is the right time for it to make this approach. It has nothing to do with any action or threat of action by Lovells on behalf of the shareholders of Railtrack.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Secretary of State has given an unclear and confused picture of who takes the decisions from hereon in. Can he clarify what he said? Who is going to take the decision to remove Railtrack from administration and go forward with the new company—is it the Secretary of State, the administrator or the shareholders, because he told the House that they, too, will take that decision?
Mr. Byers: There are two possible routes to get Railtrack plc out of administration. One is to use the Railways Act 1993, which allows the administrator to propose a transfer scheme to me as Secretary of State. Network Rail is pursuing a different approach, however. It involves a bid for Railtrack plc in which the shareholders decide the outcome. There are two separate routes, one under the 1993 Act and one that has been adopted by Network Rail, which is to make a straightforward bid for the shares of Railtrack plc.
Mr. Mark Francois: Is not the simple fact of the whole matter that the Government and the Secretary of State in particular forced Railtrack into administration prior to Christmas and that the same Government are now proposing to spend £300 million of taxpayers' money to bring it out of administration? Some trains in my

595
constituency were delayed by up to four hours coming into Liverpool Street this morning. My constituents are utterly sick and tired of the shambles over which the Secretary of State presides. They dearly hope that he will soon depart and that the problems are put right.
Mr. Byers: The problems that Conservative Members are referring to have come about because of Railtrack's failure to invest in its assets—that is the truth of the situation. We need to get Railtrack out of administration and get the benefits that will come from that. The Network Rail proposals will do precisely that. We will get benefits and the hon. Gentleman's constituents will get benefits from having a railway network that is far more efficient and effective than it is at the moment.
Mr. David Cameron: Will the Minister confirm that if an offer is made that does not involve spending £300 million of taxpayers' money, it will be accepted? If not, will he confirm that he will have to issue an instruction to his permanent secretary to accept a deal that does not represent good value for money for the taxpayer?
Mr. Byers: If that were done under the Railways Act, an approach would be made to the administrator, and it would be for him to consider it. Today, Network Rail has adopted a different approach, which goes to the shareholders, and I hope that that has clarified matters for hon. Members.
Sir Robert Smith: Following his earlier answers about who will make the final decision, will the Secretary of State provide clarification? If Network Rail's bid is successful, will not it still need a licence to operate? Is not the licence decision for him to make, and therefore does not he make the final decision?
Mr. Byers: I will need to go to the court to apply for the administrator to be discharged from his responsibilities. I will then have the responsibility of allocating the network licence.

Points of Order
Angus Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that I must draw your attention to one more case of Parliament being bypassed on a very serious matter. A press conference was held at 3 o'clock this afternoon at the Ministry of Defence at which massive job losses at the Clyde naval base and others in England were announced as part of the warship maintenance review. Journalists were also informed that thousands of other naval workers will have their jobs privatised.
Members of the House received only limited official notice of that devastating news by letter from the MOD half an hour after the media were briefed on the subject. This is not the first time that I and other colleagues have had to bring such matters to your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker. Under the powers available to you, can you do anything to bring home to the Government their responsibilities to Parliament and to make a full statement to the House?
Mr. Mike Hancock: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I point out that as a constituency MP, I still have not received any written confirmation from the Ministry of Defence of its action, but I have a copy of the planted question that was asked at 3.30 this afternoon? Although I can accept that the reason for us not having a statement is to shield the Minister from hostile Labour MPs, I find it deplorable that the House and I as a constituency MP have not been given the chance to question the Secretary of State about the 350 job losses in my constituency and the way in which the matter will be handled.
I would hope that, following the Speaker's pronouncement that he was against this sort of thing, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would seek advice as to whether the Secretary of State could be asked to come to the House tonight to explain his actions and to answer the questions put to him by Members on behalf of their constituents.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Mr. Speaker has made it clear on a number of occasions that he expects important announcements to be made in the House first. He has, however, also said that it is for Ministers to determine whether such announcements are made by oral statement or written answer. In view of the information that I have just received, I certainly think that this is a matter that the Speaker would want to look into.

Orders of the Day

  State Pension Credit Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant documents: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Work and Pensions Committee on Wednesday 27th February relating to the Pension Credit, HC 638-i.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  5.28 pm
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I want to set out the purpose of the Bill and how it fits with the wider pensions reforms that we have made. The pension credit marks the end of a fundamental unfairness in the social security system. Right from the early days of the modern welfare state, if people did what successive Governments asked them to do and made provision for themselves, the state could penalise them for their efforts. That was wrong.
  Every one of us has met pensioners living on modest incomes who often struggled to put aside money for their retirement and who feel that they were let down. They have found that they are little or no better off than those who had saved nothing. To oppose the Bill is to perpetuate that unfairness and to deny extra help to around half of all pensioners. When we vote tonight, we should remember that through the Bill, 5 million pensioners stand to gain an average of £400 a year, with some gaining up to £1,000 a year.
  Mr. Steve Webb: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the minimum income guarantee was introduced and the rates announced without the benefit of the State Pension Credit Bill, that the rates of the minimum income guarantee are therefore independent of the Bill, and that the only thing that the Bill introduces is a savings credit that will benefit nothing like the number of people he has just mentioned?
  Mr. Darling: The minimum income guarantee and, as I shall show later, the guarantee element of the pension credit are essential parts of the policy. The hon. Gentleman is right that we introduced the minimum income guarantee first; we did so because in 1997 we had to tackle the fact that the Conservatives had left a whole generation of vulnerable people and vulnerable pensioners living in poverty. However, the pension credit has two elements: the guarantee element and the reward for saving.
  The hon. Gentleman appears to have been seduced by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), and they have climbed into the same political bed—at least in terms of pensions. Just so that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is clear, let me repeat: if he gets his way when he votes against the Bill tonight, he will deny half the pensioners in this country an average of about £400 a year. That is the position that the professor has got the Liberal Democrats into, and good luck to him—and to the rest of us if that is what they want.
  598
  During tonight's debate, we will hear arguments that rather than individually assess people's income and ensure that we get help to those individuals who need the help most, it might be better to focus on groups. On that point, the Opposition should pay attention to what the Bill would achieve. Of those who will gain from the Bill, about two-thirds are women, half are over 75, and more than a quarter are over 80. Those who want to help older pensioners in general, as well as those who are less well off and those who have modest savings in particular, should realise that the Bill achieves both those objectives. The Bill will ensure that for the first time pensioners who have saved for their retirement are rewarded for their thrift and effort, which does not happen under the system that we inherited.
  We need to put the pension credit in the context of our wider policies on pensions. I will explain how it builds on the partnership between the state and the funded sector, and how it builds on the reforms that we have already made. I will then show why the Bill is necessary and why the reasoned amendment tabled by the Conservatives—and, it appears, their new friends—is wrong and unfair.
  With the pension credit, the poorest third of pensioners will gain on average an extra £8.20 a week. By contrast, the same money spent on increasing the basic state pension across the board, as proposed in the amendment, would result in a gain of only £3.20 a week—£5 a week less. That is the difference between our proposals, which will help those who need that help most, and the misconceived approach adopted by the new alliance of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. With the pension credit, the least well-off pensioners will gain more than two and a half times more than if the money were spread thinly by raising pensions across the piece.
  Critical to the long-term success of pensions in this country is the partnership between the public and private sectors—partnership between what the state will do for a person and what a person should do for himself. I do not believe, as some have suggested and may well repeat this evening, that relying wholly or mainly on the state would be right. Apart from anything else, the demographics are against us. Such a strategy would impose on our children and grandchildren a burden that they would not be able to pay. Furthermore, I believe that people must have the right to choose funded provision in addition to their state pension, if that is right for them. The fact that more people are retiring with good second pensions explains why over the past few years pensioner incomes have risen faster than incomes of those in work.
  On the other hand, it would be wrong to adopt the approach favoured by the Conservatives of moving to a private system in which one's entire pension depends on the uncertainty of the stock market.
  The problem with that plan is that, by the Conservatives' own admission, it creates an immediate funding gap of £5 billion, with a cumulative debt of £600 billion in 35 years' time. It places on one generation the burden of providing entirely for themselves and of supporting current pensioners.
  I expect that we will hear a great deal from the hon. Member for Havant about increasing the basic state pension. That argument will be advanced—and by the Conservatives of all people. We saw through that ruse when the hon. Gentleman made a similar proposal two years ago. He believed that the winter fuel payment was

  599
  an unnecessary complication and wanted to get rid of it, but he now wants to pay it to people in hot countries as well. Whatever he says, we should bear it in mind that, in effect, he still wants to privatise the basic state pension, as we saw from last week's newspapers. Strangely, the reasoned amendment is silent on that aspect of Government policy—perhaps to keep his new friends on board tonight.
  The pension credit builds on the partnership between what the state does and what the funded sector does; that partnership is absolutely right. The system that we inherited in 1997 had too many gaps in that partnership, and too many people were missing out. The necessary incentives in the Bill were not in existence. The first problem, as I have just explained to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, was that more than 2 million pensioners in the fourth largest economy in the world relied on inadequate levels of income support. The minimum income guarantee has increased the incomes of 2 million of the poorest pensioners by at least £15 a week over and above inflation. Clause 2 sets out the way in which the pension credit will build on that approach and lift pensioners out of poverty.
  The second problem that we had to tackle was that too many people were heading for poverty in retirement, either because they could not afford to save or because they did not have access to a good second pension. We therefore introduced the necessary long-term reforms to make saving possible, helping more people to build up a good second pension on top of their basic state pension. The Bill ensures that such additional saving pays. People on moderate and higher incomes tend to do better in the longer term in funded pensions. For those without access to company schemes—about half the work force—we wanted to increase choice in the funded sector, which is why we set up stakeholder pensions, nearly 700,000 of which have been sold.
  Clause 3 makes it clear that the pension credit will complement stakeholder pensions by rewarding people who save even modest amounts, which has been warmly welcomed by the pensions industry. People on lower incomes are generally better off in state provision. From 6 April this year, the new state second pension will enable 18 million people on low incomes to build up far better pensions than under the state earnings-related pension scheme. That figure includes 2 million carers and 2 million disabled people who will benefit for the first time.
  Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend said that his proposals have been warmly welcomed by the pensions industry. It welcomes the extra assistance for today's pensioners to reward them for their saving, but there is concern that the proposals do not send a clear message to pensioners of the future that it always pays to save. Is that not the major flaw in the Bill? It does not give a clear message or provide the certainty of a stable system for younger people. The system is so complicated that—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.
  Mr. Darling: As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) knows, I hate to
  600
  disagree with her but, however much it pains me, I must do so. When I said that the pensions industry welcomed the measure, I meant it. I had in mind the Association of British Insurers, which said:
  "The ABI welcomes the Government's proposals for a Pension Credit as an important step in addressing the issues which may currently discourage those on modest incomes from saving for their retirement".
  Scottish Widows, Legal and General and the National Association of Pension Funds have all said something similar.
  It is true that some people in the industry take the view that rather than have something like the pension credit, which rewards people for every pound they save, depressing the amount the state gives will force them to go and buy pension products. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not subscribe to that view; if she does, she has moved her ground substantially. I always thought that she took a dim view of the pensions industry; it will find it very odd indeed that she is attempting to gallop to its rescue.
  The important point is that the pension credit removes for the first time—this has been widely recognised—the disincentive in the present system whereby someone with moderate savings can find that they are no better off than somebody who has made no effort whatsoever. That is why I find it odd that perhaps not my hon. Friend but many Opposition Members are against the Bill.
  Linda Gilroy: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that one of the most powerful messages that young people hear comes from their family—from their grandparents, who tell them that it does not pay to save? As from October 2003, every grandparent who has been thrifty enough to save will be rewarded and will be able to tell their grandchildren that it definitely pays to save.
  Mr. Darling: That is an important message. Many people at the moment can find that, if they save only modest amounts, they get absolutely nothing for it. That cannot be right.
  I always hesitate to quote people who support the Conservative cause, but I was struck by the words of Lord Fowler, who was of course a Secretary of State for Social Security for—if I remember rightly—some six years. He said:
  "To be frank, I should have preferred it if my government had introduced the pension credit."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 2001; Vol. 630, c. 165.]
  He knows a thing or two about social security, and recognised something that most Secretaries of State in that Department have recognised: that there is something fundamentally wrong with a social security system if doing what the Government ask means a kick in the teeth. I find it odd that this generation of Conservatives seems to be reverting to type, especially since most of those who will gain from the pension credit are what one might call vulnerable people. The conversion in Harrogate to the cause of the dispossessed and poor does not appear to have lasted very long.
  Paul Flynn: My right hon. Friend prayed in aid the briefing supplied by the Association of British Insurers. Has he read page 3, which says:
  "Most importantly, under the current proposals it is not true to say 'the Pension Credit will make sure that it always pays to save'"?
  When the Bill is considered in Committee, will he address clause 3, which seems almost incomprehensible and does not guarantee that future pensions will be respected and of good value?
  Mr. Darling: If I remember rightly, one amendment that the ABI wants to be made in Committee concerns changes to disregards and capital. However, for somebody who receives the basic state pension but saves more than that, it will pay to save. That is a big leap forward. I am not saying that the Bill cannot be improved and that we cannot do even better. Indeed, a number of those who made representations, such as Age Concern, asked us to do a lot more. Age Concern is a bit like the Liberal party: whatever one does, one can never do enough.
  Mr. Webb indicated dissent.
  Mr. Darling: That is the case; the hon. Gentleman knows that, for reasons of which he is certainly aware. Although it is nice that Age Concern has welcomed the Bill, I hope that it recognises that we have done a lot for pensioners. A balance must be struck when deciding how much can be spent on any measure, but the general principle behind the pension credit is right. I find it odd that Opposition Members should be against a measure that removes what I regard as a fundamental unfairness of the social security system.
  Right on cue, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak intervened as I was about to talk about redistribution, which might cheer her up. I was talking about the state second pension, which is of course also creditable under the Bill. I was about to make the point that, when it is introduced, it will benefit some 18 million people on low incomes. I find it difficult to understand how people who claim to be concerned with helping low earners and those with broken work records can be against the state second pension. It is one of the most redistributive measures that any Government have introduced.
  Let us be clear about what the state second pension does. Somebody who, for example, takes five years out of the labour market to care for their children or an elderly relative can be credited with the state second pension as though they were earning £10,800 a year. That never happened in the past. People who take time out to do the right thing by their children or an aged relative will be assumed to be earning £10,800 a year—yet the Conservatives and Liberals are against that. People on low earnings who build up 40 years of state second pension will get at least double what they would have received under SERPS. That is a long overdue redistributive measure.
  We have implemented reforms to tackle poverty, we are making saving possible and we are building on the partnership between the state and the funded sector. We now need to ensure that it pays to save—and that is what the Bill does. As I said, the pension credit will address a fundamental unfairness in the system. For the first time,
  602
  we will be able to say to people that even if they save modest amounts above the basic state pension they will be rewarded for their efforts.
  I want to explain briefly how the pension credit will work. The detail is set out in the consultation paper that was published in November and, of course, in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. The Bill works in two ways. First, it replaces the minimum income guarantee as the means to provide a floor beneath which we believe pensioner incomes should not fall. The pension credit will bring pensioners' entitlement up to a guaranteed minimum next year of at least £100 a week, or £154 a week for couples. Clause 2 provides for a higher guarantee for carers and for pensioners with severe disabilities.
  Secondly and critically, the pension credit will provide an additional top-up to reward pensioners aged 65 or over who have saved for their retirement. Clause 3 will ensure that pensioners aged 65 or over who have a modest occupational pension or modest savings in the bank will get more as a result of their thrift. Those with income from paid work will also be rewarded for their efforts. The pension credit provides the incentives that are missing from the present system. Pensioners will generally qualify if their incomes are up to £135 a week for single people or £200 a week for couples. On any view, many pensioners are among the vulnerable and least well off in our society.
  Mr. David Kidney: I have no doubt that the new savings credit will be very popular with my constituents, but let us return to the comments of the Association of British Insurers and of the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners. Both have raised with me the assumption that the savings credit will cut in only once the full basic state pension has been reached, and that those with a lesser entitlement—often women—will lose the first bit of their savings in reaching that level. Is any change in prospect in Committee to address that criticism?
  Mr. Darling: We believe that it is right that people should first use their money to pay contributions to the basic state pension. It would be curious if somebody who had chosen not to pay all such contributions then asked us to apply those they had paid to a pension credit, rather than in the first instance to the basic state pension. The basic state pension is of course contributory, but that is the argument.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises that the main thrust of the Bill is to reward saving among very many older people, especially those whom he rightly identifies as likely otherwise to be poor in retirement. Let us remember that the majority of the beneficiaries under the Bill will be women, who particularly benefit from the minimum income guarantee. I suspect that many Members will have met women at their surgeries who have paid a half stamp, for example, and have found that their pensions are a lot lower than they expected. For such people, the minimum income guarantee is very helpful.
  Such people are vulnerable, so given everything that the hon. Member for Havant said on television yesterday to Sir David Frost, it is very odd that as soon as he gets

  603
  back from Harrogate he reverts to type. Liberals in my constituency will certainly find it odd that their party has jumped into bed with such a disreputable crew.
  Mr. Paul Goodman: Will the Secretary of State explain why he has not yet mentioned the take-up of pension credit? Will he confirm that up to 750,000 pensioners did not receive the minimum income guarantee? What firm evidence does he have that the take-up of pension credit will be higher?
  Mr. Darling: My speech has a beginning, a middle and an end, and I have not yet reached take-up. I shall do so shortly, when I will deal with the point. Suffice it to say that I have never regarded the figure of 750,000 pensioners as realistic. I note that the authors of these findings warn the reader to treat them with great caution. There is a huge variation in the findings on take-up. I shall deal with take-up and the important point that the hon. Gentleman has either deliberately or inadvertently stumbled upon.
  I shall deal with the criticisms that are made in the reasoned amendment. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Havant liked a debate. Did I not read in the newspapers last week his assertion that if he, the hon. Member for Northavon, who is the Liberal Democrat spokesman on these matters, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) were the first three speakers in the debate, the intellectual argument would be won. That is rough on the rest of us. I am sure that the rest of us have something to say. The hon. Gentleman is being touchy if he gets upset when we engage in a robust debate.
  James Purnell: My right hon. Friend mentioned events at Harrogate and the conversion of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) to the cause of poverty. Does he remember the hon. Gentleman saying only two years ago:
  "The tax guarantee goes to the heart of what we Conservatives believe… Cutting back the growth of social security must be at the heart of the agenda for the next Conservative Government"?
  Does that not show that the real agenda for the Conservatives is to cut benefits for pensioners?
  Mr. Darling: The Conservative spokesman is famous for having two brains. I think that the Conservative party speaks with two voices on pensions. It tells us that it wants to increase the basic state pension, yet we know that it is committed to privatising it. Look at what happened. [Interruption.] It always upsets Conservative Members when they are reminded of their true policy.
  Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: In one moment. I should like to make a wee bit more progress.
  I shall explain why the criticisms made in the reasoned amendment are wrong and why I believe that our approach is better and fairer than the Opposition alternative.
  604
  Let us remember that the pension credit gives the least well-off pensioners an average of £8.20 a week, whereas the amendment would give them about £5 less. The Conservatives and their new friends raise three main arguments. They say that the pension credit will extend means-testing, increase complexity and undermine saving. I shall deal with each of those matters briefly.
  First, let us confront the argument about means-testing head on. If we are serious about tackling individual pensioner poverty, we must undertake some form of income assessment. That is how we help vulnerable people. I turn again to Lord Fowler. He said:
  "In making policy on pensions … there are two broad choices that any Minister and any government can make. One can give general benefits to everyone irrespective of need. The disadvantage of that is that one obviously gives benefits to many people who by most—virtually all—definitions do not need them … Alternatively, one can try and target benefits to those who need them … we should get away from the emotiveness involved in describing that process as means testing."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 2001; Vol. 630, c. 164.]
  He went on to regret the fact that it was our Government rather than his who introduced the measure.
  I think that Lord Fowler has a point. If we want to tackle pensioner poverty and ensure that people who need help get it, we must have an individual assessment of that person's income. There is nothing new about that. The tax system does it, as does the benefit system. I do not believe that the argument stands up that we can more effectively tackle poverty by targeting extra help on the over-75s or the over-80s.
  It is true that on average pensioner incomes decline as people get older. However, as I have said, half of those who gain from the pension credit are older than 75, and a quarter are older than 80. It is a fact that there are poor 67-year-olds, just as there are better off 82-year-olds. The only way we can be sure that we help the people who need help is to have some form of assessment of somebody's income.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: Half the population of the Burnt Oak ward of my constituency are on means-tested benefits already. Within a mile, there are wards where there are more millionaires than anywhere else in Britain. I have often heard people in Burnt Oak complain that they worked all their lives, put some money aside and have nothing to show for it, compared with those who were on benefit. I have yet to hear that complaint from people who live in millionaires' row. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the pension credit will provide extra assistance for people who live in Burnt Oak, who need it, and that there is little point in helping the millionaires in Mill Hill?
  Mr. Darling: There is a fairly straightforward argument, and I expect that again my hon. Friend and I will part company. If there is a limited amount of money to spend, the question arises whether it is better to spread that money thinly regardless of whether people need help, or to do more to help people. This year, for example, the state pension will increase for everybody by £3 a week. It will increase by £6 a week for some pensioners on the lowest incomes. It is worth bearing it in mind that 80 per cent. of gains in pension credit will go to pensioners with incomes of less than £149 a week. These people are by no means well off.

  605
  That illustrates what a progressive measure the pension credit is. It is doing more for people. Those who are concerned about whether we should assess people's incomes are not squeamish when it comes to the tax system, and they should not be squeamish when it comes to the benefits system.
  Lynne Jones: Given what my right hon. Friend has said, have the Government abandoned their initial aim when they embarked on welfare reform, which was to reduce means-testing?
  Mr. Darling: Our objective, throughout the time that I have been responsible for this policy, is to get help to those who need help most. I say in the nicest possible way to my hon. Friend that that is one of the reasons why I joined the Labour party.
  Kevin Brennan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absurd to use the emotive imagery of the means test of the 1930s and the National Assistance Board poking into families' and pensioners' business after the second world war? We are talking about the pension credit, for which a pensioner will be assessed every five years.
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right.
  When Conservatives say that they are against means-testing, we must understand that they are against giving money to poor pensioners. Despite everything that we heard at Harrogate this weekend—I dare say that compassionate Conservatives will be among us for some time to come until there is a move to the next phase—we must bear it in mind that if the House is serious about doing something for pensioners on low incomes, it is necessary to identify those people in the first place, and then, critically, to ensure that we have the resources and the means to help them. The Conservative party is still committed to reducing the share of public spending to about 35 per cent. of gross domestic product. The two approaches do not square.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Darling: I seem to have struck a raw nerve. I shall try to give way to as many hon. Members as possible without abusing my position. I give way to Lord Fowler's successor, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), who I understand is working even as we speak on the half-baked policy to privatise the basic state pension.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying in his 1998 Green Paper:
  "People who have worked all their lives should not have to rely on means tested-benefits when they retire"?
  Does he think that the Bill takes him nearer or further from that goal?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will know, if he read the rest of the paragraph, that that statement was in the context that I believed—I still believe—that not enough people were saving enough towards their retirement because they did not have the means to do so.
  606
  That passage led to our doing two things—extending the basic state pension and introducing the state second pension.
  I understand that the hon. Gentleman will he going along to the next Conservative party team meeting. These meetings are held on Tuesdays at 10.30 pm. If anyone wants to go along, I should say that no doubt the professor—the hon. Member for Northavon—will be there, and maybe others. They will find out more. [Interruption.] They are all flocking in. It will be an extremely crowded telephone box.
  Surely it is the policy of all Governments to encourage people who can save for their retirement to do so. We should make sure that that happens. It should surely also be an objective of the Government to put in place incentives to encourage people to save. We do that through the tax system. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will know that there is tax relief for saving towards pensions. The Bill introduces a further incentive. If someone goes that extra mile and saves money, he or she will get an extra incentive for having done so. As the hon. Gentleman has taken over the seat formerly represented by Lord Fowler, perhaps he should have a word with the noble Lord, unless he thinks that his views are completely misplaced and misconceived. I would be surprised if he did.
  David Cairns:: My right hon. Friend is right that a five-year assessment is infinitely preferable to the weekly means-testing assessment that was carried out until recently, but can he guarantee that as people's circumstances change in the course of the five years, they will be entitled to a reassessment, which it is to be hoped will lead to their being given even more generous sums? Can he confirm that it will be offered to them not grudgingly but as part of the pension service after their initial assessment?
  Mr. Darling: Yes, I can. I shall shortly come to take-up and how we will deal with it. As hon. Members have said, five-year assessments will apply from the age of 65. People whose circumstances have changed and who are entitled to more will be able to come back, but as the vast majority of pensioners' circumstances do not change, I am reasonably confident that most people will not be troubled that often.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Member for Havant, who speaks for the Conservatives, has been urging me not to take any more interventions. I will therefore give way to perhaps two more hon. Members and then make some progress.
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: Is not the real issue about means-testing the fact that many pensioners find it demeaning to go through the process, and that there is a direct causal link between means-testing and a lack of take-up?
  Mr. Darling: With respect, that is complete rubbish. I do not find it demeaning, any more than I hope the hon. Gentleman does, to fill in a tax return once a year. A calculation is made of how much money we have and how much we are due to pay in tax. The new system,

  607
  which I shall set out shortly, will be very easy for pensioners. When they apply for the basic state pension, we will calculate their entitlement to pension credit at the same time.
  What is clear from this debate—it has been clear for some time—is that the Conservatives are not against means-testing per se. It has been about in the social security system ever since it was started. What they really object to is a measure such as this, which puts more money into the majority of pensioner households. They have made it clear that they and their friends, the Liberal Democrats, are against this measure. That is great from our point of view, but it is very unfortunate for pensioners.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: On the same topic, it is probably true that some pensioners have perceived the process of applying for benefits as intrusive and bureaucratic. They have believed that it is very difficult to get benefits and that there is a high risk of being turned down, but in future they will surely see that if they have a state pension and any amount of modest savings, it will be in their interests to make their circumstances known in order to claim their entitlement. Does my right hon. Friend look forward to the time when the pension credit can be paid automatically, based on income tax data?
  Mr. Darling: That would be a very happy situation, although given what I had to tell the House last Wednesday about information technology systems we may be further away from that than I would like. It appears that there is some common ground in the House because both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats accept that there is a correlation between age and people becoming poorer. They accept that something needs to be done to help pensioners on low or modest incomes. The difference between us is that I think we have to treat individuals as individuals. There are poor 67-year-olds and better off 82-year-olds. All of us know the difficulty that we would get into if we decided that people can be poor only once they reach the age of 80. What would we say to a poor person who was in their mid-70s—wait five years and it will be all right? That seems a nonsense position.
  Another argument that we will no doubt hear from the hon. Member for Havant relates to complexity. When someone claims to have a simple solution to pensions, people should watch their wallet. People lead complex lives. They may change jobs several times. They may take time out of the labour market to care for children and so on. Pension provision is necessarily complex to meet the complex individual circumstances of people's lives. Even the basic state pension, which some people think is a simple concept, is based on a complex set of rules and calculations.
  What is important is that there are choices and options. A one-size-fits-all policy to pensions would not work. Many of the people who claimed to have found a simple solution often found that it was neither workable nor affordable in the long term—two essential ingredients of any pension policy.
  Tonight, the Opposition position on the pension credit is ridiculous. They say that they would keep the pension credit for people who have already retired, but bring back the savings disincentives for people saving for their future. That is not just complex—it is absolute nonsense.
  608
  That brings me to another argument that the Opposition advance. The Conservatives, and their new friends, are setting themselves against the very reform that will make saving pay. Their approach would do nothing to remove the disincentives in the present system. Somebody with savings that took them above the basic state pension, but below an income of £100 a week, would be no better off than their neighbour who had not saved at all. That seems absolute nonsense.
  I want to say a brief word about the pension service because the question of entitlement has been raised on many occasions. The pension service will provide a better way of delivering services. As I have said, when people apply for their pensions, we will find out whether they are eligible for the pension credit. Once they reach the age of 65, when their incomes tend to be fairly stable, we will set the awards for up to five years. That is a real change, which will be widely welcomed.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Is there any way in which the pension service could be used to identify those who are on pensions at present and whether they would be due for pension credit? If not, they are going to escape through the net, which suggests that there will be a difficulty with take-up.
  Mr. Darling: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. People who are now retired will also be entitled to the pension credit. As he is aware, one of the improvements that we are making is to move to a system that is more telephone based, which appears to be more popular with pensioners, who can get in contact with people far more easily. We certainly do not want to have to force them to go to old DSS-style offices, which they would not particularly want to do.
  The final stage of the reforms is to strip away some of the regulation and red tape that has built up over the years. The House will know that we will have the Pickering and Sandler reviews in the summer. We plan to publish proposals later this year to make it easier for people to save.
  The pension credit is a substantial reform. As I have said, it will benefit around half of all pensioners. It complements the reforms that we have made to make saving possible, by rewarding people for their thrift. It puts right a long-standing grievance. The result is that it is fair and promotes saving.
  The House has a choice between our approach and that of the Conservatives, and their new friends. Our policies are workable and affordable. They build on the partnership between the state and funded sector. Be in no doubt that the Conservative policy is to privatise the basic state pension.
  Our policy is fair and tackles pensioner poverty, whereas the Opposition—all of them—will vote against a measure that helps vulnerable people. Our policies will remove once and for all the unfairness in the current system. The Tories and their new friends want to keep that unfairness.

  609
  This Bill is essential to tackle poverty and to reward thrift. It will benefit 5 million pensioners by an average of £400 a year. That is what Labour Members will vote for; that is what Opposition Members will vote against. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'this House declines to give a Second Reading to the State Pension Credit Bill [Lords] because it involves a further move towards the mass means-testing of the pensioner population; believes that it will greatly increase the complexity of the pension system both for today's pensioners and for future generations, will result in many pensioners missing out on their entitlements, and will serve to erode incentives to save; and believes that the additional expenditure would have been better directed towards the basic state pension, particularly for older pensioners.'
  The reasoned amendment is in my name and in the names of hon. Members from a range of other political parties.
  The purpose of the debate on our reasoned amendment is to try to get the House to address what I think is the historic significance of the proposals that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is bringing before us today. He is announcing the end of the basic state pension as a determinant of the income of pensioners. In future, the amount that a pensioner receives will be determined by the minimum income guarantee, now renamed the guarantee credit, and the formula for determining the savings credit above that.
  Throughout most of the 20th century, there was a belief in all parts of the House that the basic state pension would be an important part of provision for people in their retirement. The Secretary of State's measures today say farewell to that. I thought that his speech could have tackled that central issue with rather more seriousness than he was willing to demonstrate, especially given his party's history on the subject.
  Under the strategy proposed by the Secretary of State, more than half of all pensioners will find themselves facing marginal rates of benefit withdrawal of 40 per cent. or more. It is important that the House has the opportunity to take a view on that strategy and to consider whether there might be a better alternative that nevertheless tackles the needs of poor pensioners.
  Kevin Brennan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a far more significant date in the development of pensions was when his party broke the link between the basic state pension and earnings, which put us in the position that we are in today?
  Mr. Willetts: If the hon. Gentleman is so worried about the breaking of the earnings link, why does not his party reinstate it rather than move towards means-testing?
  Mr. Levitt: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can grasp the intellectual difference between an income
  610
  guarantee and a pension guarantee. The pension guarantee will remain universal to pensioners, but those who have as their income only the pension, or the pension and a very small amount, will be rewarded for the thrift that has produced a little bit extra. It represents an acceptance that the pension is not by itself sufficient for somebody to live on.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that both the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit will indeed be index-linked, so more and more people's pensions will be put back on to that basis.
  Mr. Willetts: I am afraid that I did not entirely grasp the hon. Gentleman's point. He seems to be trying to say that there is a big difference between the pension credit and the minimum income guarantee, but the figures given by the Secretary of State, which, he claimed, showed the marvellous effects of the pension credit, included the effects of the so-called guarantee credit, which is the old minimum income guarantee. Labour Members cannot have it both ways.
  James Purnell: Some Labour Members found the remarks that the hon. Gentleman made over the weekend difficult to stomach. He claimed to be on the side of the poor, yet from 1979 to 1992, when he advised Conservative Governments, the income of the bottom 10 per cent. fell by 17 per cent. in real terms—not a relative, but an absolute, fall. Will he apologise for that?
  Mr. Willetts: No, and I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes.
  I want to talk about the problem that has been created since 1997 as a result of the extension of means-testing under the minimum income guarantee. It has created a gap in that the value of means-tested benefits is now much higher than the value of the basic state pension. That is why the Secretary of State goes on about all the people who find themselves being penalised for having saved. It is a consequence of the increase in the value of the minimum income guarantee relative to the basic state pension. Now, apparently, the problem created by the extension of means-testing is to be solved by even more means-testing. I invite hon. Members to consider whether there is an alternative strategy that nevertheless targets help on poorer pensioners.
  Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: Yes, because the hon. Gentleman has a long record of concern about these issues.
  Paul Flynn: Indeed, and a long memory of the hon. Gentleman. He will not remember, but in 1948 the basic pension was 24 shillings and there was an occupational disregard of 10s 6d and an employment disregard of 20 shillings. The system continued in those terms for a long time, with some modifications, until the occupational pension disregard was abolished in 1980. That is the reason for the Bill. Does the hon. Gentleman recall who abolished it, and will he give us a mea culpa?
  Mr. Willetts: The reason for the Bill is the spread of means-testing that has taken place since 1997, and that is the point on which I want to focus. The consequences of

  611
  means-testing are clear from the evidence around us. Before we rush into yet more, let us consider the problems caused by that which already exists. I should like to consider first the impact of existing and proposed means-testing on present-day pensioners and then its impact on pensioners in the future.
  David Cairns: On the extension of means-testing, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is Conservative policy to keep the winter fuel payment as a universal benefit; or does he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) who, on 27 November, told the all-party disability group that it would be better to target fuel poverty by doing away with the payment and moving towards means-testing? Would not that be an extension of means-testing?
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who speaks powerfully on these issues, assures me that his comments were misinterpreted. When he speaks at the end of the debate, he will have an opportunity to make clear exactly where we stand.
  I accept, however, that means-testing will be part of the social security system—as it has always been. I do not pretend that we can suddenly get rid of it. I invite Labour Members to contemplate the implications of moving to a regime where almost 60 per cent. of pensioners will be on means tests. The question is whether we should embrace such a massive extension of means-testing. There will, of course, always be some means-testing.
  I should now like to make some progress with my speech and consider the implications of the Government's proposals for pensioners. One of the problems with means-testing is that it breeds complexity, and complexity means declining and low take-up. The Secretary of State dismissed the figures on take-up, but his Department produces them annually. I shall not go to extremes but simply take his estimates for the mid-point in the number of pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee but do not claim it. The number was 500,000 last year, while the latest statistics suggest that it has increased to almost 600,000. That is the mid-point in the range.
  The figures that we are given by Ministers always assume 100 per cent. take-up. In the real world, there is not 100 per cent. take-up, or anything like it. It is no good for the Government to try to sell us policies that assume 100 per cent. take-up. Every Member knows that that is simply not valid—that is not the situation for pensioners.
  Lynne Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that a problem of an over-complex system is that it would be easy for future Governments, who might be less generous to pensioners, to cut back on the benefits and pensions paid to elderly people? That is exactly what happened in the past.
  Mr. Willetts: I certainly accept that one of the problems of a complicated system is that it is difficult to ensure its long-term viability. For example—to re-enter the debate that went on before the last general election—there are questions about all the special payments introduced by the Government. I think that pensioners
  612
  would have been better off if those payments had been consolidated in the value of the basic state pension. That would have been a better way to help pensioners rather than creating a large number of special payments. Of course, those payments exist and we understand why pensioners do not want to lose them, but had I been in the Secretary of State's shoes, I would much rather have put the money into the basic state pension.
  One of the things I regret is that the Government could have achieved much more were they not so preoccupied with gimmicks, special schemes and extra new payments. That is not the best way to help pensioners. In a recent report on the consequences of the Government's proposals, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux states:
  "CAB evidence is that both the benefit and tax systems are complicated and intimidating to those lacking in financial literacy skills … The complexity of benefits and the claiming process is one reason why millions of pounds worth of benefits go unclaimed by people on low incomes … more needs to be done to ensure that all low income groups can claim the credits or benefits to which they are entitled."
  NACAB is telling us that the system is too complicated.
  Furthermore, the Pension Provision Group, in a long and thoughtful set of comments on the Government's proposals, states:
  "Ensuring take-up of Pension Credit is better than for existing means-tested benefits would be difficult."
  The group acknowledges that there will be a problem of low take-up of the pension credit—it is a pity that Ministers do not.
  We want the Government to address that problem. Charities for elderly people say the same thing: there is a problem of take-up of the minimum income guarantee, despite the millions of pounds that Ministers have spent on advertising it, and there will be similar problems in the take-up of the pension credit.
  Mr. Tynan: On take-up, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that stigmatising pensions by regarding them as a means-tested benefit rather than a right is off-putting to those who need them most?
  Mr. Willetts: I appreciate the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman makes that point, but in the attempt to tackle the problem, income support has been renamed the minimum income guarantee, which will now be renamed the guarantee credit, and with the savings credit it will form part of the pension credit. The frequent renaming and re-badging of benefits does not help pensioners, and it is one of the main reasons why take-up is, if anything, getting worse. It is another example of the way in which this Government's Blairite preoccupation with renaming and new initiatives is not in the best interests of the people whom they claim to want to help.
  I want to discuss the faith that Ministers put in the new pension service, which will be introduced shortly, and the five-year entitlement as a solution to the take-up problem. The Secretary of State briefly referred to the pension service, which I hope will prove to be a success. However, it will be concentrated in a relatively small number of centres, and we are told that pensioners will be supposed to communicate with it on the internet and by telephone. It will be difficult for pensioners physically to visit a local branch of their pension service, because there will be so

  613
  few of them. I doubt whether the pension service will be able effectively to increase benefit take-up, which is currently going down. I hope that it will succeed, but we need more evidence as to why it will succeed than the Secretary of State has so far provided.
  The five-year entitlement, which is guaranteed once a person has claimed it, will not help if people do not like the prospect of claiming the benefit. It is no good saying that pensioners will be able to claim it for five years, given that it is the very prospect of providing the necessary detailed information that puts pensioners off in the first place. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
  "There is little in the plans for the pension credit that suggest that less information will be needed to establish benefit entitlement than in the past."
  The Secretary of State says that the entitlement will be held constant for five years, but pensioners' circumstances will not remain constant for that time. They will change all the time, and interest rates will go up and down, so the income from their building society accounts will change. Moreover, their personal circumstances and the value of their savings may change.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that he will try to prevent changes in bureaucracy for five years, but he cannot prevent changes in pensioners' circumstances. If pensioners approach the pension service, detailed recalculations of entitlements to benefit will be necessary; if they do not, but their circumstances have deteriorated and their income is lower, they will get less credit than they are entitled to. I therefore fail to see how the five-year blanket fixed payment will solve the problem that the Secretary of State claims to understand. There is a problem with take-up now, and there will still be a problem under the pension credit.
  The problem relates not just to pensioners today but to incentives to save in the future. Again, Ministers' claims for the pension credit's effect on the incentive to save are far too optimistic. I would much rather believe the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which says:
  "Overall, the effect of the pension credit on the financial incentive to save is left unclear, for the relative magnitudes of the different effects we have disentangled are not known."
  In other words, there will he no improved incentive to save for some pensioners, but for others such an incentive will indeed exist. The IFS is not willing to commit itself on whether the number of pensioners with an incentive to save will, on balance, increase, and I am surprised that the Secretary of State is quite so confident in that regard.
  Mr. Chris Pond: On future savings and pensions, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can offer some independent financial advice to my nine-year-old daughter. In the event that there were to be a Conservative Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by the time she reached retirement age, and given the hon. Gentleman's current policy of replacing state provision with private provision, how much does he recommend that she start saving weekly now to ensure at least the equivalent of today's basic state pension by the time she reaches retirement age?
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman is straying into dangerous territory. He will know that one of the main groups of people taking out the stakeholder pension—which was supposed to tackle pensioner poverty—
  614
  is grandparents, who buy them for their nine-year-old grandchildren, for example. If he regards that as a serious contribution to the improvement of pensioner poverty, I suggest that he study the subject in rather more detail.
  The question whether the pension credit will reward pensioners who have saved is a subject on which the IFS is unsure, and on which the Financial Services Authority has given a clear warning. In the context of stakeholders—the point is relevant to pension credit as a whole—the FSA says:
  "The economics of stakeholder pensions are predicated on their sale without the need for personal investment advice."
  The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) is interested in encouraging us to give such advice, but we are not registered to do so. The FSA continues:
  "Whilst the introduction of Pension Credit does not of itself make these (simple) products more complex, it does have the effect of making the decision whether to buy more complex. This could mean more people needing to take advice before reaching a decision. But this advice has to be paid for and many who may need it may be disinclined to be prepared to do so."
  The FSA is warning that, because of the complexity of the pension credit's impact, it cannot be sure that people will be better off buying a stakeholder pension, and recommends that they seek advice. The IFS and the FSA offer the same warning: that matters are not necessarily as straightforward as Ministers like to claim, and that the pension credit will not necessarily provide all pensioners with an unambiguous incentive to save more.
  Mr. Levitt: If a pensioner has an income from investments or an occupational pension, it will surely be sufficiently high to take them above the pension credit level. If not, the pension credit will supplement that income. In both cases, there will be an incentive to save, and those whose income is below the pension credit level would also have an incentive, because they will qualify for extra help on reaching that level. Who has the disincentive?
  Mr. Willetts: The subject is not as simple as that, which is why the FSA is warning people to take advice. We hear about the 40 per cent. rate of pension credit withdrawal—the higher rate tax level—but once housing benefit and council tax benefit are included, pensioners could face marginal rates of up to 91 per cent. People might well think that a 91 per cent. rate of benefit withdrawal does not offer much of a reward for saving. Labour Members need to contemplate the impact of those measures, which would extend such marginal rates up the income scale.
  Miss Anne Begg: When the hon. Gentleman began his working life, did he decide that it would probably be in his best interests to save for his retirement, not knowing that he would reach the heady heights of Government office, earn lots of money and thereby be able to save? Like most of us, he probably decided at that early stage that it was probably sensible to save, not knowing whether he would be able to continue to do so, or to save as much as he anticipated. Most people in that situation would decide that it was better in the long term to save—either because they will be able to save a great deal for their retirement, or because they will be able to save a bit and therefore benefit from the pension credit.
  Mr. Willetts: Again, I wish that matters were as simple as that. The savings gap—the gap between the amount

  615
  people are actually saving and the amount that they need to save to enjoy a reasonable income on retirement—is estimated at a massive £27 billion a year. That is the problem that we have been debating—with the notable exception of the Secretary of State, who has remained silent as occupational pensions for new members have closed. We pressed Ministers on this issue for years, on the introduction of the stakeholder pension. For example, we asked how much money one needs to build up in a stakeholder fund to be confident that it will yield an income sufficient to get above the minimum income guarantee. That straightforward question—it is the $64,000 question—is one of the first that any independent financial adviser would want to consider, but we have never received a straight answer from Ministers.
  The answer could be $64,000. It could be even more. If means-testing spreads further up the income scale, it will affect the behaviour of the next generation. It is no good arguing that nobody will he affected and that people will carry on as if nothing has happened. Ministers cannot claim that this is a massive change in the way in which pensioners are helped without also recognising that it might have an effect—not always a desirable one—on the behaviour of the next generation of pensioners. That is what I ask Labour Members to consider.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to sweep away all the complexities and rely on the basic state pension, what relationship does he think that that pension should bear to average earnings, now and in the future?
  Mr. Willetts: Let me turn to that issue, because I now wish to set out a possible alternative approach. We would begin by acknowledging the most powerful point that the Secretary of State makes, although he did not put it especially succinctly today. He says that in the old days the basic state pension was well targeted on poverty because most pensioners were poor. However, he argues that pensioners now have a greater diversity of incomes, so the basic state pension is less well targeted on poverty. That is the kernel of the argument that the Secretary of State uses against those of his colleagues who wish to restore the earnings link and in favour of means tests. That point reflects the reality of greater diversity of income among pensioners and it is the challenge to us to think afresh about the problem.
  Beveridge's great insight was that if one could define categories of benefit recipient carefully enough, measures could be well targeted on poverty without means-testing. In his day, the basic state pension was well targeted, but now it is less so. The Secretary of State says that means-testing is the only alternative, but we know that, by and large, older pensioners tend to be poorer pensioners. The correlation is not perfect, I accept, but it is broadly true. The figures are striking. Couples who have recently retired have, on average, an income of £384, compared with the under-75s on £359 and the over-75s on £283. Similar figures apply to single pensioners—those who have recently retired are on £210; those aged under 75 are on £184 and those over 75 on £158.
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)—my new friend, as the Secretary of State described him—made the fair point, sotto voce, that those figures are the reason
  616
  why the Government introduced free television licences and restricted them to the over-75s. The Government argue that that provision was well targeted because older pensioners tend to be poorer. The reasoned amendment does not propose a precise age range, because that would need to be decided, but if we paid a higher rate—not to all pensioners, as the Secretary of State claimed, but to older pensioners—it would be reasonably well targeted on poverty without more means-testing.
  Despite the imperfections in that scheme, which I freely admit, we could at least be confident that all pensioners would receive the payment. I am not confident that all pensioners will get the pension credit. The Government cite a load of figures for the pension credit, but they all assume a 100 per cent. take-up. That is a bogus assumption.
  Mr. Cousins: That is interesting, but I am still waiting for an answer to my question. What should be the relationship between the basic state pension—if the hon. Gentleman wants to rely on that as a means of delivery—and average earnings? Should it be 25 per cent., 10 per cent., or perhaps 4 per cent.? That is what we need to know.
  Mr. Willetts: I do not propose that we bring back the earnings link. I propose a significant increase in the basic state pension when people reach an age at which we know they are likely to have a lower income. That is what Members on both sides of the House propose as a better way to tackle the problem than yet more means-testing, and it has much to recommend it.
  Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: No, I wish to make some progress. There is a logic to the reasoned amendment and I invite the House to consider that alternative strategy. I hope that it will win the day in the Division at 10 o'clock. However, if the pension credit is implemented despite our concerns, I would not take it away from pensioners—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): Ah.
  Mr. Willetts: I am pleased to get a hum of approval from the Minister. I would not take the pension credit away, but I wish that we had the alternative strategy that I have outlined.
  I would now like to consider three particular points on the proposal. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who is no longer in his place, made a valid point about incomplete contribution records. I asked the Secretary of State a parliamentary question on that point nearly a year ago and I was told that some 2.9 million pensioners were in receipt of a partial pension. Many of those are women. We should remember, when we hear the claims of how marvellous the pension credit will be for pensioners, that 2.9 million pensioners—nearly a third—do not get the full value of the basic state pension. For them, their savings will have to go towards increasing the basic state pension to the full value and they will not get the 60 per cent. top-up—or whatever Labour Members fondly hope that those pensioners will get.
  We have not yet discussed the interaction between the pension credit and nursing homes. One of my frustrations with the Secretary of State and his Department is that they

  617
  have a blind spot about nursing homes and their costs. That is why the Government got into a muddle over the winter fuel payment, which they wrongly claimed was being paid to all pensioners when it was not paid to pensioners in care homes. We need to know how pensioners in care homes will be affected by the pension credit. The Minister in the other place said that
  "people in residential care or care homes will enjoy both the savings element and the guarantee element"—
  of the pension credit. That was a good start. Unfortunately, she continued:
  "Whether local authorities go on to recover all or part of that in increased charging will be for them to determine in consultation with the Department of Health."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 2001; Vol. 1858, c. 191.]
  So the Bill is a device to enable local authorities to extract more money from pensioners in receipt of the pension credit. The Pension Provision Group made that point clearly when it said:
  "Unless changes are made to the existing Department of Health guidelines, the immediate beneficiaries of Pension Credit paid to pensioners in residential care could be local authorities."
  That could also include any pensioner who receives any assistance with care costs, including domiciliary care. Any income that they get from the pension credit will be taken into account by local authorities when deciding how much to charge those pensioners. The Secretary of State did not mention that point and I hope that the Minister will do so later, because it is very important.
  We are all waiting with bated breath to know what decision the Government will reach on another aspect of the pension credit—the treatment of earnings. Considerable confusion still exists on that point, even after days of debate in the House of Lords. We thought that the Government believed it to be important to encourage people to carry on in work, if at all possible, with new flexibility. However, let us consider the case of two pensioners, both aged 67, who live side by side in a block of flats. One has a £30 a week pension from Tesco to boost the basic state pension and the Secretary of State claims that that person will get help from the pension credit. The other pensioner has only the basic state pension and goes out to work at Tesco and earns £30 a week. Is the pensioner who works to earn £30 a week to be entitled to the same level of support as the pensioner with the occupational pension? That is a point on which we have regularly pressed Ministers in another place. We have not yet been told whether the calculation of the pension credit will treat earnings in the same way as it treats income from savings.
  Mr. Darling: That is an important point, and I specifically said that we propose to treat income from work in the same way as money from occupational pensions or savings. I mentioned that, although, clearly, the hon. Gentleman may have been distracted at the time.
  Mr. Willetts: I welcome that. We shall want to check the detail in Committee, but it seems that the only logical position is to treat earnings in the same way as one treats savings. I presume that that means that pensioners will not claim the working tax credit. There is no upper age limit on the working tax credit, and I am sure that the interaction of the working tax credit and the pension credit—one of the many credits that the Government regularly throw in front of us—will be considered by the Committee in great detail.
  618
  I want to return to the issue of whether the pension credit will tackle the pension crisis that confronts us as every day passes. That crisis is caused by a number of factors: the closure of occupational pension schemes to new members; a catastrophically low level of saving; a spread of means-testing; increasing complexity, which means that financial advisers are more and more reluctant unambiguously to advise people that it is in their interests to save; and stakeholder pensions not reaching their target group—sales are very low, and very few of them are to people in the £10,000 to £20,000 income range. The Government's advertising campaign to increase people's knowledge and awareness of the stakeholder pension might be thought of as a success. We know from research, however, that the only consequence of people knowing more about the stakeholder pension is that it leaves them even more confused and uncertain than they were before they started.
  We have a low level of saving, and the only solution from Ministers is more means-testing. I invite the House to consider whether means-testing is helping to get us into this mess, and therefore whether more means-testing is really the best way to get us out of it.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: I thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I am a little surprised to be called at this point.
  I am happy to support the Bill on the basis that it will add to security and increase fairness, particularly for the many pensioners—or, as I ought to say, for the many people over 60—who have now and will have in the future small savings and small pensions other than the basic state pension. They in particular have not benefited fully from the introduction of many of the Government's measures in the minimum income guarantee, because their small savings, earnings and work pensions take them above the limit. The fact that this state pension credit proposal will vastly extend the coverage and reach of the pension credit compared with the minimum income guarantee illustrates how many of those people there are.
  I am also encouraged to support the Bill on the basis of the failure of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) to answer my question. If the alternative to the state pension credit and the minimum income guarantee will be the basic rate of state pension, we need to know what will be the relationship between the basic state pension and average earnings. The fact that the hon. Member for Havant could not answer that point illustrates the need for the state pension credit proposals.
  Mr. Willetts: We do not know that about the pension credit either. We do not know what the long-term uprating formula will be for the pension credit.
  Mr. Cousins: That is a very interesting point, which I intend to try to address.
  My difficulty with the Bill relates to whether it forms a permanent part of the pension system. Is it something on which people can rely, that they can plan for, and that they can build in to their expectations, or is it a short-term fix to deal with the limitations of the minimum income guarantee that I have just set out? One of the most important aspects is the uprating system. The Government have made it clear that the guarantee element of credit

  619
  will be uprated in line with earnings for this Parliament. The crucial question, however, is the relationship between the savings credit and the guarantee credit. Because of the way in which savings credit is placed on top of the guarantee credit—if that were calculated as we currently understand it—there would rapidly be an enormous increase in the number of people who have an entitlement to pension credit. The reach of savings credit—because of the way in which it sits on top of the guarantee credit—would advance faster than the rate of increase in earnings. If that were sustained and built into the pension credit as a permanent feature, it could be an enormous strength, but it could also be a source of enormous weakness, as it is very vulnerable to future changes in assessment and eligibility.
  One of the objects that we ought to seek to achieve with the pension credit is to make sure that the relationship between the savings credit and the guarantee credit is in the form that is now proposed. Unless we can secure that, there is a danger that the benefits of the pension credit system would be rapidly changed by a future Government. Conceivably, it could rapidly change even if there were not a change of Government, because these schemes are vulnerable to changes in policy.
  The big protection against a change in the way in which the savings credit is assessed would be a scheme of such robustness and popular support that no future Government—whether of the Labour party or another party—could seek to change it. That is precisely what has happened to the winter heating allowance. It was introduced and it has now become embedded in our system. Pensioners understand it, it carries huge popular support, and it cannot now be changed. The official Opposition have given up on their attempts to change it.
  Lynne Jones: Is not the problem with the winter fuel allowance that there is no built-in annual increase in its value? Is there not a danger that the same thing will happen to the winter fuel allowance as happened to the pensioners' Christmas bonus if it is held at £200 or not increased every year?
  Mr. Cousins: My hon. Friend is right, but it is a matter of fact that it has gone up like a rocket. If we could achieve the same for the pension credit, I would be tremendously happy. Let us look at the some of the elements of the state pension credit proposal in the time that I have left.
  The state pension credit is a sort of third way proposal. People have argued for many years about means-tested benefits on the one hand and universal benefits on the other. The state pension credit is a huge breakthrough in thinking. It is an income-tested benefit that, from the start, will cover more than half the population, and if the relationship between the savings credit and the guarantee credit continues in the way that I have described, it will rapidly cover most of the pensioner population. It is a third way measure in that respect. It breaks through the arguments that we have had for many years in relation to universality and means-testing. However, it has some unfortunate deficiencies. The rate of the benefit is linked to 40 per cent. so these proposals will levy a withdrawal rate on relatively low-income pensioners that equates to
  620
  the higher rate of tax. That worries me, because it will cause problems and will reduce pensioners' enthusiasm for the credit.
  The maximum sum is capped in a way that many pensioners will find confusing. Unlike tax, the pension credit will continue the systems of attributed income. It will be a much better system of attributing income than the ones that we have had hitherto, but it will be a continuation of them. That fact will also undermine the credit's credibility and popularity. Most important, the minimum income guarantee attributes income even from small private sector pension plans of which there will be many in the future. The state pension credit will continue such attribution, so I see little point in the House having a huge argument about what age people should be able to keep their private pension funds without the need to draw down the pension if the lowest income pensioners with the smallest private pension funds are to have income from those pensions attributed to them from the outset.
  If the state pension credit could integrate tax and benefits in the way that many of us have hoped for for many years, that would be a huge step forward. Unfortunately, my noble Friend Baroness Hollis made it clear on Second Reading in the other place that that would not occur and that a crucial difference between tax and benefits was to be maintained. The pension credit will be subject to a household measure of income whereas tax is subject to an individual measure of income. That difference will particularly affect women who have smaller pensions both in their own right through the state and through work. I hope that we will be able to change that feature of the Bill. The issue of women who have incomplete contributions that bring them a pension that is smaller than the basic state pension has been mentioned already. I hope that it will be pursued.
  During the passage of the Bill, the Government could introduce a savings disregard to the pension credit. Such an important measure could lift people through some of the difficulties that I have described. If the Government were willing to conceive of the pension credit as free standing from the payment of pensions so that the savings credit could be paid from the age of 60 to both the men and women who are entitled to it, that again would be a huge breakthrough in establishing the pension credit as a permanent feature of our system.
  The Government must seek to embed their pension reforms so that future Governments cannot tamper with the benefits. The discussion on how that can be achieved goes far beyond this debate. However, I wish that the national insurance fund were a proper trust fund that was defended by trustees with a statutory responsibility to protect it from being raided in the way that it has been by successive Governments. We should do much the same for the state pension credit. It is an important and potentially powerful innovation, but it will be compromised if the benefits cannot be embedded in the system.
  People will support the pension credit if they understand it and know that the benefits are embedded in the system. For it to become popular, it must, as far as possible, be a tax-like benefit and not like a traditional means-tested benefit. The Government's proposals have not yet achieved that aim, which would be consistent with their plans. If we could go further and embed the benefits

  621
  in the system, the credit would become popular and enable the Government to secure their objectives in a way on which people could rely.
  There is little point in a constant stream of innovations for pension products and pension planning devices—whether devised by the state or the private sector—if people cannot rely on their being permanent features that will enable them to plan over 30 or 40 years. Our objective must be to make the state pension credit proposals in the Bill into something on which people can rely in the longer term as a permanent feature of pension planning. I hope that we will succeed and—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: It might be helpful to the House if I clarify what we shall vote on and describe what is and is not in the Bill. The State of State's speech might—I am sure inadvertently—have misled the House into thinking that certain provisions are in the Bill when they are not.
  The Secretary of State said that a typical pensioner would be £8 a week better off, and he seemed to imply—I may have misunderstood him—that that was because of the Bill. From April, the minimum income guarantee will be £98 and the promise is that—as a result of inflation or, possibly, earnings indexation—it will be £100 from April 2003. Even if one puts a charitable interpretation on the difference between the two figures and counts it as a gain, it involves an increase of £2 for pensioners on the minimum income guarantee. The Secretary of State said that the increase would be £8, so something does not quite add up. I think that he is counting things that have already happened, and including the increase in the minimum income guarantee from last April when it was £92—or possibly even the increase from the April before that.
  The minimum income guarantee has gone up significantly, but the Bill has had nothing to do with that. The £98 and the £100 for next year have already been announced. Whether we pass or ditch the Bill, the figure for next April will still be £100. None of the gains and none of the figures for the minimum income guarantee that the Secretary of State quoted are attributable to the Bill.
  I may be wrong but, as I understand it, the Bill does not contain the stuff about the capital limits. All that the capital limits stuff does is change the imputed rate of income on savings through the income support system, and that can be done by regulation anyway. That provision is not in the Bill. So if we got rid of the Bill or had never had it, what would we lose? The answer is the savings credit.
  I want to focus on whether the savings credit will achieve the two things that are claimed for it. Will it reward today's pensioners for having saved in the past and will it encourage tomorrow's pensioners to save for their old age? Both claims are fundamentally questionable.
  First, and most obviously, the savings credit will not reward those people who have been thrifty if they do not claim it. The Secretary of State poured scorn on his Department's figures for non-take-up of the minimum income guarantee. I accept that they are estimates, but Baroness Hollis told the other place that one in three pensioners entitled to the pension credit would not take it
  622
  up when it is introduced. If half of all pensioners—that is 5.5 million—are to receive the credit, 1.5 million or more will miss out on their entitlement in year one. What sort of scheme is it if it rewards people according to the lottery of whether they take it up? It will not be an entitlement like the pension. If we delivered the cash with the pension, we would guarantee that it reached the people who are entitled to it, but these proposals are a lottery, and one in three of those who have saved will not receive the credit.
  As the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) pointed out, women with incomplete contribution records will not receive the credit in full. Not only are they penalised for having brought up children by receiving a grotty pension, but they will be penalised again through receiving a grotty savings credit. The first part of any savings that they have been able to muster will be used to bring them up to the basic pension, and they will receive a reward only on what is left thereafter. The system will penalise not only the one in three who do not claim, but women who have taken care of children.
  The modern social security system provides benefits for having cared for children, but it did not begin to do so until the late 1970s. Women retiring now had their child-bearing years before such protections were introduced. When the hon. Member for Stafford intervened on the subject of women with incomplete contribution records, the Secretary of State gave a rather feeble response and asked, "What if they did not choose to contribute?" It is not a question of not choosing, because those women brought up their children when the social security system did not value child rearing. Not only are those women punished by receiving a grotty pension when they retire, but they will punished again by receiving a poor savings credit.
  James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman is doing a good job of trying to get his party off the hook as regards what will be a popular measure. What will he say when faced on the doorstep by a 67-year-old with a basic state pension who earns less than the minimum income guarantee, if he is going to oppose the pension credit? It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is supporting the MIG and the increases, but if he does not support the savings credit, those concerned will lose all their private income from a pension or earnings. Would he continue to take that away, pound for pound?
  Mr. Webb: We have never at any point opposed the MIG, or said that the additional support for low-income pensioners is not welcome. However, if we are to spend the £2 billion implied by the Bill and by related measures, is the best way to do so through a lottery—with a one-in-three chance that those who need it will get it—and by penalising women with incomplete contribution records, or is it better to guarantee the money to the people who need it most and who may, indeed, have saved as well: the older pensioners? It is a question of priorities. Who would be the better person to get it?
  Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Webb: I will in a moment, but I would like to make some progress.
  The proposed pension credit, or savings credit, is not a reward for saving at all. People who have not saved a penny voluntarily get the pension credit. How can that be,

  623
  if it is a reward for saving? The state second pension—as the Secretary of State has called it—is creditable. In other words, if people do not make any voluntary savings at all but accumulate a state second pension or SERPS pension, they get a top-up; not for voluntary or additional saving, but because they are automatically in the system.
  When the legislation was proposed, we said that the basic state pension and the state second pension were not adequate because they did not keep people clear of the basic means-tested poverty line. At the time, the Government said that that was nonsense and that the proposal was quite enough. However, before the pension had even been introduced, it was reformed. That has to be some sort of record; pension schemes normally last about 10 years before they are reformed. The Government said that a top-up was needed—in other words, "The second pension is not good enough; we need a third one." People will get a basic pension, a SERPS or a state second pension or perhaps a graduated pension. However, all of that is not enough and the Government will give them a pension credit on top.
  The sense that the Government's pensions policy is being made up on the back of a fag packet is irresistible. They make it up as they go along, spotting the blunders one year and trying to amend them for the next. The savings credit is a lottery for those who will not get it; it penalises women; and it gives people money who have not saved in just the same way as it does those who have. In what sense is that an incentive to save?
  Mr. Tynan: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that some people cannot afford to save money and that their full income is used to survive? The pension credit will mean that if they have a small occupational pension scheme, they will be given extra money so that they can improve their living standards.
  Mr. Webb: I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman has just said. The savings credit is not a significant reward for those who have saved; more fundamentally, it is not an effective incentive to those currently of working age.
  The House should consider the sort of person at whom the Bill is aimed. Let us suppose that someone has just turned 40. Life, perhaps, has just begun, but that person has also begun to panic about pensions. What effect will the scheme have on someone who is 40? He has 25 years—a relatively long time—to think about saving for a pension. He is on relatively small earnings but could, if he sacrificed something, put perhaps £50 a month into a pension—although as the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) says, a lot of people could not afford that.
  According to the Secretary of State, the 40-year-old is supposed to ask what he will get for £50 a month. First, he must assume the return on the fund. His adviser says that he will get 3 per cent. above inflation, through a mix of equities and gilts. In 25 years' time, he will have about £22,000. What sort of annuity or pension can he get with that? The second thing he must do is guess what the annuity rate will be in 25 years' time. It might well be lower than today, if one thinks that today's 65-year-olds will not live as long as those in 25 years' time. However, let us assume that the rate is the same; so he will receive 6 or 7 per cent on a £22,000 pot.
  624
  What sort of pension will that give? The answer is £1,400 a year, or £27 a week. The 40-year-old has done all these calculations, but then remembers that there is a pension credit or savings credit. He must guess what his pension will be, without knowing what the minimum income guarantee will be in the future or whether it will be price-indexed or earnings-indexed. We know the situation until the end of the Parliament, but the Government's own forecasts do not assume necessarily that the MIG will be earnings-linked or indexed beyond then. He must guess about indexation and work out the difference between the two things.
  For the sake of argument, let us assume that the provision is the same as at present; between £77 and £100. That is a gap of £23. Our 40-year-old has a £27 pension, the first £23 of which gets him 60p in the pound, or £13.80. However, the last £4 takes money off, at 40p in the pound. That is £1.60 off, so he will get a £12 pension credit.
  At the age of 40, this person is supposed to consider whether to save £50 a month in the hope of getting £12 a week above income support. How many people will do that calculation, make all those guesses and assumptions and sacrifice £50 a month? To give a concrete example, £50 a month could pay for a subscription to a nice sports club. For the next 25 years, that person could go swimming, or to the gym. He has a choice between doing that, and putting that £50 a month aside for 25 years in the hope of receiving £12. Does anybody seriously think for a minute that people will do those sums and, because of the Bill, save more? It is complete and unutterable nonsense to suggest that this Bill is an incentive to save.
  Mr. Cousins: Could I press the hon. Gentleman in the way that I pressed the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)? If the blue-yellow front amendment is carried tonight, what can that same 40-year-old assume about the relationship of the basic state pension to average earnings when he retires?
  Mr. Webb: I will come to that point; if the hon. Gentleman feels that I have not addressed it, I encourage him to intervene again and I will do so.
  All of this assumes, as the hon. Gentleman was hinting, that the scheme is still there in 25 years' time. Typically, second-tier pensions last about 10 years or so. The graduated pension lasted 10 or 15 years, while SERPS lasted about 10 years before the Conservatives cut it. The state second pension was reformed by the Government before it had even come in.
  What chance is there that the state pension credit will even be there in 25 years' time? What chance is there that any sane person in middle age will plan for their retirement on the basis of a scheme that is so complicated that they cannot work out what they will be entitled to? It is simply nonsense. [Interruption.] The heckling from Members sitting behind the Secretary of State shows that they have lost the substantive argument.
  The Secretary of State is fond of saying that the Bill proposes "a 60p in the pound reward for saving". It is a 60p in the pound reward for small saving, or for £23 a week of saving, to be precise: the gap between the pension and the means test. If people save more than £23, they will not get a 60p in the pound reward. Someone who saves £40—£2,000 a year of pension on top of the £3,500 basic pension, which is not much to live on—will not get 60p in the pound of pension credit; they will get 15p in the pound. That is the effect of this system.

  625
  Unless one is clever enough to calculate one's pension to match exactly the gap between the pension and the means test and get the maximum credit, one does not get 60p in the pound at all. It suits Ministers to imply to people that when they save, they will get a 60p in the pound top-up. But they will not; if they save £40, they will get a 15p in the pound top-up. As ever, the measure has been grotesquely oversold.
  Lynne Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only way to get complete security is to have the basic state pension set at the same level as the minimum income guarantee? In that way, people will know that they will keep everything that they have saved.
  Mr. Webb: I have a lot of sympathy with that point. Let me come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central about our proposals. At the last election, when we proposed the 50p income tax rate on those earning more than £100,000 a year, the Treasury estimated a yield of well in excess of £3 billion. From that, and with money to spare, we proposed raising the pension in tiers according to the age of the pensioner. For those over 75, we proposed putting £10 a week on the pension. The Government are spending £2 billion on the Bill and related measures, and have told me that they could have put £15 a week on the pension for every person over 75. If we add our proposed £10 to the Government's £15, that £25 would bring the pension for everybody over 75 up to the level of the minimum income guarantee. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) rightly says, that is the incentive to save. Every penny saved on top of the basic pension that brings people up to the minimum income guarantee is pure gain. It is not taxed at 40 per cent.—it is not taxed at all That is the incentive to save.
  Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Will my hon. Friend give way.
  Mr. Webb: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then to my hon. Friend.
  Kevin Brennan: I shall be grateful when the hon. Gentleman eventually answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) as to whether it is the policy of Liberal Democrats—the Tories' little helpers tonight—to link the pension to earnings over time.
  Mr. Webb: Earnings indexation of perhaps a couple of per cent. a year more than inflation—[Interruption.] Of course we do not know what it would be, but we have to make an assumption. If that figure were added to a pension of, say, £75 a week, that would be £1.50 a week in the first year. I am talking about a rise proposed in our manifesto not of £1.50 but of £10 a week, and the £2 billion that the Government are spending would be another £15 a week on top of that. That is vastly in excess of earnings indexation.
  We are not proposing across-the-board earnings indexation—we did not in our manifesto and we are not tonight. We are proposing something that goes much further, and would achieve what the hon. Member for
  626
  Birmingham, Selly Oak referred to for the over-75s. I freely admit that that would not apply to all pensioners. One reason why that is so difficult is the chasm that the Government have opened up between the basic pension and the means test. There is a huge and growing chasm, and our priority is to get the pension up, particularly for the over-75s, to the level of the means test. The critical advantage is that people's savings would not be taxed at 40 per cent., as the Bill proposes—it would not be taxed at all. They would get the full benefit, and that is the real incentive to save.
  There is one other incentive to save built into our proposals and the amendment.
  Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Webb: I did promise to give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) but let me first pursue this point.
  Suppose that, as the hon. Member for Hamilton, South said, someone cannot afford to save a lot, but can save a small amount. At the age of 65, if they convert that money into an annuity, it has to last the rest of their life. The insurance company has to cover itself against the possibility that that person will live to 90 or 95, so annuity rates are very poor at present. However, if that annuity had to last someone of 65 not for the rest of their life but until they were 75, at which point a decent basic pension at the rates we are talking about cut in, it would be worth double what could be bought under the present system. Instead of people saving and then buying an inadequate annuity that would not lift them clear of the means test—in which case they would not bother—they would have the opportunity to save for an annuity of twice the size. That is another savings incentive built into this scheme.
  Mr. Dismore rose—
  Mr. Webb: First I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole.
  Mrs. Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that the very best way to help pensioners is to have a system that is clear, easy to understand and sufficiently generous? Labour Members claim that if the Bill is not supported tonight, pensioners will suffer, but the Government are not proposing the best way in which to help our pensioners, particularly the most vulnerable.
  Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend is right. The sums that we are talking about, added to the basic pension for the over-75s, would make a real difference and would give thousands and thousands of pensioners the opportunity to be clear of means-testing altogether.
  Mr. Dismore rose—
  Mr. Webb: In a moment.
  I can guarantee Labour Members that, given the choice between tapers, thresholds and credits or a decent pension, I know which every one of my constituents would want.
  Mr. Darling: Some time I must find time to visit the academic institution from which the hon. Gentleman

  627
  comes—he seems to be making up his policy on the hoof. Can he explain one thing to me? He says that by taking the £2 billion from the pension credit and adding it to another £3 billion that has been conjured up from somewhere—we know not where—he would tell the over-75s, "Have another £15 a week." I understand that part of his argument, but what does he say to someone who is 67 and is poor?
  Mr. Webb: As the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, we all agree that there must be a continuing role for a safety net. There is no disputing that—there must be a continuing role for means-testing. I hesitate to use a new Labour phrase, but we are talking about whether means-testing should be for the few and not for the many. That is the difference between us.
  Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Webb: Yes, the hon. Gentleman has been very patient.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me at last. Under his theory, a millionaire in Mill Hill would get an extra £25 a week but someone on minimum income guarantee in Burnt Oak in my constituency, where half the people are on means-tested benefits, would not get one penny more—even though the paperwork might be clearer. How can the hon. Gentleman justify giving so much more money to people who do not need it while the people who really need it do not get a penny more because they are on minimum income guarantee?
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman has not been paying attention. The minimum income guarantee does not come under the Bill, so rejecting it will not take a penny off his pensioners who claim the minimum income guarantee. They would continue getting whatever they got under the previous arrangements. The millionaires in his constituency pay 40 per cent. tax so we would claw that back from the richest pensioners.
  Mr. Dismore rose—
  Mr. Webb: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would do me the honour of listening to my reply before he intervenes again.
  What does the hon. Gentleman have to say to the one in three pensioners in his constituency who have been promised largesse by the Government but will not claim it because the system is so complicated? That is the question that he has to answer.
  We have heard that this is means-testing with a human face. People aged between 60 and 65 will be subject to means-testing, as at present, every week. Any change in circumstances has to be reported, so for 60 to 64-year-olds, it is business as usual. However, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central referred to the over-60s. The savings credit does not apply to the over-60s. Hundreds of thousands of women will have heard the Secretary of State saying on television or on radio that the Government want to reward thrifty
  628
  pensioners. Some 62-year-old women might think of themselves as pensioners and they might think of themselves as thrifty, but the Secretary of State does not count them until they are 65. That is another group missing out on the Government's proposals.
  As for whether these measures are an incentive to save, the House does not have to take my word for it. The Pension Provision Group is an organisation set up by the Secretary of State's predecessor, consisting of the great and the good of the pension world, to provide independent expert advice on pensions. The group, to which the Government apparently listen, said of the pension credit:
  "The Government's wish to reward savers through the Pension Credit scheme could have the unintended effect of reducing … the amounts some people save."
  Help the Aged said:
  "In terms of promoting independence and dignity … a Pension Credit is no substitute for a decent state pension."
  The Minister was quite rude about Age Concern although he has representatives of the organisation on his taskforces. I do not know what they think about that. Age Concern says:
  "For future pensioners, we are not convinced that the Credit, as proposed, is likely to do a great deal in terms of encouraging people to save".
  That is what it is for—it is the only reason why it is in the Bill.
  The Government have been known to speak well of the IPPR, which said:
  "In theory, the Government strategy has some merit"—
  I love a good theory, and I bet the scheme looks very good on a whiteboard at the Department of Work and Pensions, but—
  "In practice, it falls short of eliminating pensioner poverty and providing an environment whereby people can understand their entitlements, save and be rewarded for doing so."
  The theory is lovely. The bar charts look great. The practice falls short.
  We have been told that people will be reassessed only every five years, so that is all right, but it is not all right if they get worse off in those five years. Let us suppose, hypothetically, that their Railtrack shares are worth less—or worthless. Their capital falls, so their imputed income falls and their entitlement rises. They have to make a fresh claim to get all the money that they are entitled to.
  The Secretary of State said that pensioners' circumstances do not change much—but if they have investments or the husband dies, they do. Earnings can fluctuate in retirement. The idea that people will be reassessed once every five years and be left alone between times is a myth.
  If the Secretary of State wants to intervene to tell us what estimate he has made of the proportion of people who will have to claim again within the five-year period, I will be delighted to give way, but of course the Government have made no such estimate. This will not work in practice.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman—or my hon. Friend—agree that it is a remarkable thing that until now the benefit system has been predicated on a weekly need to be and the tax system on an annual capacity, but now the Government are overleaping both by suggesting that five years is the

  629
  appropriate period? Not only will people whose income has fallen get less than they should, unless somebody flags it up for them—as is to be done on the internet, apparently—but people who have received a windfall will not have it taken off them unless they choose to disqualify themselves.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the anomalies in the Secretary of State's proposals.
  The Secretary of State touched on the new pensions service. I note that it is a pensions service, not a pensioners service, because it is driven by the Department's desire to save some money by doing as much as possible through call centres, although most pensioners would like to see a human being and do not want to talk about complex personal financial details down the phone or fill in a complicated form.
  We have had no joy in getting a response from the Department to a serious question. The Department wants everything to be done by phone as first preference. There are to be some house visits, presumably for the infirm, which is fair enough, but what if someone wants to talk to a real human, face to face? Will that be possible, without notice, and if so where? The suspicion is that face-to-face interviews in the local benefits office will no longer be possible. If there is a monthly surgery at the local Age Concern or citizens advice bureau, that is okay, but it is not the service that pensioners want.
  The Secretary of State had a bit of fun about my choice of bedfellows, but I could not help noticing that his bedfellow was Lord Fowler, who was Secretary of State for Social Security for many years under Mrs. Thatcher. The Labour party did not seem to have much time for his opinions then, and he is applauding the Government today only because they have adopted a mass means-testing, Thatcherite approach.
  The savings credit neither rewards those who save today nor encourages people to save for tomorrow, and I urge the House to reject it outright.
  7.24 pm
  Paul Flynn: Like all hon Members, I am familiar with the problems that the Bill is intended to solve. We have all had bewildered pensioners at our surgeries saying that they saved and made sacrifices to pay into a small works pension all their working lives, on low incomes, but find that in retirement their pension is not worth a penny to them because it is at a level that does not allow them to take an income from it but disentitles them to other benefits. There is clearly a problem, and the Government are to be congratulated on trying to solve it, but there are clear arguments against the Bill.
  I warmed to what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said about national insurance. It is one of the rewards of being in this place that if we keep saying the same thing year after year, eventually people will listen. It was heartwarming to see the IPPR report, "A New Contract for Retirement". To our astonishment—and its own—it advocates raising the basic pension to the level of the minimum income guarantee.
  The minimum income guarantee was a piece of branding. All Governments have indulged in that, as with national assistance changing to supplementary benefit and
  630
  then income support. They have always found new labels that they hope will be more acceptable. The minimum income guarantee is the old income support, topping up the basic pension, but it was a good presentational move. If we have a criticism of the Bill, it is that it errs on the side of presentation. I dread the future, when pensioners come to our surgeries because the presentation made them think that they would get the true benefit of all their pensions but they have found that the true position is very different.
  The head of the IPPR said:
  "An enhanced basic pension is the best way to tackle pensioner poverty and to provide an environment in which people can plan with confidence and he rewarded for saving."
  He also said:
  "These conclusions were as much a surprise to us as they will be to others who believe that as a centre left think tank we would support targeting of resources on those in most need."
  In general, we do support that, but targeting resources is an imprecise activity. The winter fuel payment is targeted on those of us of an appropriate age, as it arrives in royal palaces and elsewhere. It is difficult to get targeting right.
  We should consider the state of the national insurance fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central asked why on earth it is not a fund that is separately run, with managers who can invest and be paid according to the fund's profits. That would be far better. If the national insurance fund were a true fund, so that the pensioners who had paid in could get their reward, we would be in a very different situation. At present, people on low incomes are being defrauded of their money. The basic unfairness is that those on the lowest income pay the largest proportion in.
  Furthermore, there is another new wheeze. Although Conservative Members complain a great deal about the effect of green taxes, in fact £1 billion has been lost to the national insurance fund because of allowances made to industry by cutting their national insurance contributions to compensate them for those taxes.
  Let us consider the state of the national insurance fund. Is it on the rocks? Is it in trouble? In fact, it is in a very healthy state and has been for some time. The balance at the end of 2000 was equivalent to 41 per cent. of the benefits payments throughout the year. There is an in-built safety level of 16.7 per cent. of the contributions made, which has to he guaranteed in case there is a slump, with rising unemployment, but in 2000 the figure was 41 per cent. and things have improved steadily since then.
  The 2002 report shows an opening balance of £19 billion and an income for the year of £59 billion, or £2.4 billion more than the estimate, but the closing balance is expected to be 47.7 per cent. of benefits payments, or £24 billion—a huge surplus again. The 2002 report gives a forecast for next year and states that receipts are expected to exceed payments by almost £3.4 billion, producing a closing balance that would he 52 per cent. of benefit payments—a surplus of £27 billion. We are entitled to ask about that enormous unneeded surplus, which would be enough to make a substantial increase in the basic pension.
  Some of my hon. Friends have objected and said that the means test is okay, that it is a relic of the past that has no effect, but it has a profound effect. As has been said,

  631
  between 500,000 and 600,000 people are put off, presumably by the means test. That figure is robust and has not been denied. It has been around for a long time, and there is a very good reason for it. This is a generation thing that might not be easily understood, perhaps, by those of a different generation who have not experienced the ignominy of claiming benefits.
  A generation of people are proud to say that they have worked from the time that they left school at 14 and have never been on the dole or claimed any benefit. When they get to retirement age, they say, "I've paid my dues and done everything that I should", and they view claiming for income support as the act of a scrounger. In their view, those who claim it humiliate themselves. That view is deep-seated. They will not take such a step, having spent a lifetime of self-respect on their own earnings. A large group of people are in that position.
  I have heard no one deny that the Bill will result in an increase in the number of people who claim means-tested benefit to 5.4 million, which amounts to half the pensioners involved—a very high figure. We should not regard that as trivial or automatic. There will be great resistance to claiming the pension credit, however it is given.
  I have been impressed by the evidence from the various bodies. In particular the National Pensioners Convention has made a serious case. Although it supports many of the wishes expressed in the Bill, it wants the Bill to be simplified and changed in many ways. I hope that, in Committee, the Government will show a little humility about the Bill's deficiencies.
  It was heartening to hear tonight that earnings will be taken into account as a disregard. That is profoundly important because pensioners now aged 60 or 65 seem a great deal younger than those of their parents' generation and, to have a healthy time, the most beneficial and therapeutic thing that they can do is work, but there is an enormous disincentive in the scheme to stop that happening.
  The official Opposition are in a position of great weakness because of their atrocious period in government. I reminded them tonight that much happened in 1980. Lord Fowler, who has been mentioned, was the man who wanted to wreck the state earnings-related pension scheme, but could not do so because the insurance industry did not want the low earners to be landed on them. That Government encouraged people to leave very good-value occupational pension schemes and to enter the extremely poor-value private personal pension schemes.
  I vividly remember Baroness Thatcher telling me, when I asked her a question when she was in government, that I was against personal pensions because, as a socialist, I was against choice. Unfortunately, people had to make a choice under a bribe; they were told to leave the scheme and that they would have £5,000 if they remained in SERPS. They were told, "Don't be a SERP" and not to accept that amount. How many of those people now bitterly regret that they abandoned their good-value occupational schemes to enter money purchase schemes?
  Mr. Boswell: I thought that the hon. Gentleman started well, but was beginning to deteriorate. Even if he did not like everything that was done under the Conservative
  632
  Government, in view of what he said about the need for older people to work if they want to, I invite him to remember that we abolished the earnings rule, which was a major disincentive to their doing so.
  Paul Flynn: The Conservative party must have done some things right in its 18 years in power, but they were rare events. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I said in an intervention that the main reason for the Bill was the very generous disregard that applied from 1948, when the pension was 24s—this may date many hon. Members—and people could have l0s 6d in their pension while earning £1, which is a vast amount in today's money. That disregard was built into the pensions system and continued for a long time, until it was abolished by the Conservative Government in 1980. That had a profound affect on the attitude towards pensions and savings.
  I have grave doubts whether the Bill will have an effect on savings, as has been suggested. Clearly, there is a great argument for simplicity in our pension scheme, such as that found in France, where people seem to understand the point of their pension scheme. I find some clauses completely incomprehensible, and someone could earn a fee by translating the meaning of clause 3, which sounds like poor quality gobbledegook. I believe that, in trying to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 12 minutes.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: Hon. Members are aware that the reason for the Bill is, in truth, not suddenly to offer substantial incentives to people to save for their own pensions, but because the Government introduced the MIG and stakeholder pensions and suddenly realised that, for a lot of people, there was no point taking out stakeholder pensions because of the MIG. Indeed, people could be misadvised to take out a stakeholder pension if their earnings were very modest.
  The Bill provides that those modestly above the MIG level should have this benefit, and it is hoped that there will be no obvious disincentive to save for those at the lower end of the stakeholder market. As other hon. Members have said, the arrangements, in essence, involve a 40 per cent. tax charge, and its impact can be much greater if people save a lot. The arrangements will really only benefit those who save up to £23 a week.
  There then appear all the categories that the Bill does not address, where it will not help and where it leaves disincentives. It will not help those with less than the full basic state pension entitlement and, for the reasons that the Minister explained, this will particularly damage women because, in the past at least, many have not worked for part of their younger lives while bringing up children. As has been said, the Bill will not apply to women in the 60 to 64-year-old age range. It will not apply to the self-employed, who are often the least well provided for in old age; nor will it benefit those who have saved for a limited time—for example, up to 12 years—who will receive no benefit from the credit as a result.
  I am still not entirely clear what the earnings rule will be, but the point is that the Bill has been spun as a great pension credit and incentive to save, but it will do nothing

  633
  at all for many people and it may represent a major disincentive to save for many people. We need to dig deeper to solve many of the problems that have been unleashed by the principle of the MIG and its extension. Many people have pointed out not only that the credit will be too complex, but that the Government assume there will be only a 67 per cent. take-up.
  Miss Begg: The hon. Gentleman mentions the problems caused by the minimum income guarantee. On reflection, would he get rid of it?
  Mr. Flight: I hope to suggest the solution in the few minutes allotted to me.
  There is nothing about the cost of the credit. Hon. Members will be aware that estimates by the Department for Work and Pensions have put it as high as £20 billion by 2040 and £26 billion by 2050 if it continues and depending on the qualification rules.
  The approach makes a nonsense of the Government's target to change the 60:40 relationship. In addition, I find it disturbing that at a time w hen occupational final salary schemes are being abandoned and alternative money purchase pension provision is going to be less generous, the Government are laying down the principle that the state will make good the lack of provision in people's savings for their retirement. That runs the risk of taking us down the economic path that is damaging the economies of Europe so much, where inadequately funded pension provision has led to taxation on employment, which damages economic growth and, above all, employment.
  The Government should think again. A pensions crisis is engulfing the country and we should be cautious, albeit with the best of intentions Although we want to help those in need in retirement today, if the policy takes us down a wrong and irreversible path, it will not do future generations any good. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made the point that it is crucial to target those age groups that need assistance.
  People who are 75 today are fitter than those who were 65 some 40 years ago. Most people will want to work certainly to 65 and possibly, as far as I am concerned, to 75. It is the older people who are in the greatest need and a significant increase in the universal pension for those over 75, which would lift everyone off means-testing, would solve many problems. It would provide security for people when they really need it, such as when the nursing home bills start to arrive or an annuity is worth only half of what it was when purchased. It makes sense to address those problems. Although it leaves certain difficulties for those who are under 75, more of them will work in the future and they will be able to use their private sector pension savings in a more focused way during that time.
  Mr. Tynan: If someone is in poverty at 65 or 66, does the hon. Gentleman think that we should not apply a measure to take them out of that? Should they have to wait until they are 75 before the problem is tackled?
  Mr. Flight: My hon. Friend answered that. No one is denying that means-tested benefits will remain in the welfare system for such people, but we need a pension system that works. We do not want to give people the
  634
  wrong incentives. The system must be targeted on groups of people who are most in need. The problem with the proposed measures and the MIG is that they send the wrong signals on pension accumulation. They will end up costing more than will be deemed affordable and do not provide the pension saving incentives that the spin attached to the label implies. At worst, they lock us into a path that will cause us to have the same problems as continental Europe. We want to achieve an affordable and workable compromise. The Liberals and the Conservatives have joined together on this issue to offer a practical path that makes sense for a community in which people will live and work for longer.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: When this measure was first thought of, our constituents' views on their pensions and the pension promise were rather different from their current views on their pension prospects. It is beyond all doubt that when the Secretary of State rose to introduce the measure, he did so in support of a Government who have done more for poorer pensioners than any other Government in our history. However, I want to set out why I will not support the Bill in the Lobby tonight. There is a reasoned amendment, and I hope that we will vote on whether the Bill should receive its Second Reading. I believe that it should not.
  I agree with the Secretary of State that in speaking thus, one allies oneself with people with whom one would not normally agree. It is true that when I was on the Opposition Benches, I spent all my energy, as did other Labour Members, in opposing the Governments of 1979 to 1997, who extended means-testing. I will continue to vote that way tonight. Of course we must be careful with people who push one line of policy in office and another in opposition. However, if the Government can change their mind, presumably Oppositions can do so as well.
  Although there might be a dispute about whether anyone understands the Bill or what its likely effect might be, there is agreement on both sides of the Chamber that taxpayers need to spend more money on supporting retired people. We have not had that point of agreement for many days, and it is much more significant than divisions over the Bill itself.
  There are four reasons why I oppose the measure. First, it breaks a manifesto commitment. In 1997, our general election manifesto highlighted the rising number of pensioners on means-testing, which had increased to one in three under the Tories. We found that an appalling state of affairs and promised to reverse the trend. Early in the life of our Government, we set the aim that when all our pension reforms were complete, the number of means-tested pensioners would fall from one in three to one in five. As has been pointed out, we will not achieve that objective if the Bill becomes law. Instead, the objective will be to increase the number to two out of three of our retired constituents. So breaking a manifesto pledge is the first reason why I will reluctantly vote against the Bill on Second Reading.
  Secondly, we opposed means-testing not merely because we opposed the Tories; we had clear reasons for thinking that it was a damaging policy for the country as a whole. We did not oppose it only for the reasons that were given in the 1930s. In the last debate on this subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde

  635
  (James Purnell) quoted an essay, which I consulted, about people's fear of the means-test man, as he put it. That fear clearly operates in some instances, but that is not the only charge that one makes against means-testing. As the House has already been told, the Bill will design out of eligibility many of the pensioners whom we would like to gain benefit, so it will not even be an effective means test for targeting help on those in greatest need.
  There was another reason for our opposition to means-testing, apart from our simply being bloody-minded and wanting to oppose the Government of the day. We began to see that means-testing had an effect on how people behaved, and not simply on those who learn to work the system, although one can hardly blame them for that if we design and put in place mean-testing systems, which encourage it.
  As the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) explained to the House, people have a responsibility to try to calculate how they can make themselves and their families better off, and they change their conduct accordingly. Means tests undermine most of the attributes that we want from strong citizens, and that was one reason why we pledged ourselves in 1997 to reverse what seemed to be an ever-growing tide of pensioners on means-tested benefits. The Bill therefore goes against a manifesto pledge. We had specific reasons for thinking that means-testing was a bad policy.
  The third reason why I oppose the measure is that I do not believe that it will last. Before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were chairing our proceedings, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said that he was rather surprised to be called at that point in the debate. All I can say is that if surprise leads him to deliver a speech of the quality that he gave us tonight, I hope that he is surprised on many more occasions and engages the House as he did tonight.
  If my hon. Friend was right, and the Bill could last, there could he a case for it, but I do not believe for a moment that it will be on the statute book in 10 years, nor do I believe it should be, given the issues that people who are trying to save for their retirement currently face. The Government's own projections of the cost of the measure show that, when it is fully effective, in today's terms it will cost 8p on the standard rate of tax. Does anybody think that future Governments will see this system grow and prosper with a tax bill of 8p in the pound for every taxpayer? Perhaps some people think that is realistic; I do not think that it is.
  In a few weeks, in the Chancellor's Budget, we will cross a threshold when we debate with the electorate the need possibly to raise taxes to support the health service. That will be nowhere as easy to negotiate as some of my colleagues think, even though we will be fronting a tax rise on the service that this country cares most about—the national health service.
  The fourth reason why I oppose the Bill, therefore, is that whereas people planning for their retirement want as much certainty as possible in the regimes that they have to negotiate, the Bill will add to uncertainty. It will not last. One has only to look at the record of previous Governments, let alone the record of previous Oppositions in responding to Government measures, to realise the likely fate of the Bill, no matter how noble its objective.
  636
  Although we agree across the House about the voters' growing sense of unease about how pensions will be paid for and about how an increasing share of that will come from taxation, the Bill is not adequate.
  I shall end my speech by suggesting how I hope the Government, through their programme, will shape the next move. The real weakness of our system is that people can work for 48 years and not get a pension that takes them out of poverty. The inadequacy of the first tier is the stumbling block to longer-term successful reforms. I hope that, at some stage, the Government will recast the state second pension. Instead of being a safety net benefit, it should be one of which everybody has membership. Instead of operating as a pay-as-you-go system, it should be funded. It should be bound up with the existing national insurance pension. At the end of the day, people participating in both schemes would have an adequate first-tier pension. That would simplify the system and there would be no disincentive to save. People would be able to make their own provision as they thought fit.
  There would be a balance between risking the pension promise through investments and trying to deliver the crucial first-tier pension through a pay-as-you-go system. It does not take much to begin to reshape the Government's measures to give us the basis of long-term, sustainable and successful reform. The Government need soon to respond to people's increasing concern about whether there will be an adequate pension for them when they retire. I hope that they will do so not by throwing away all the measures that they have taken, but by recasting some of them, putting aside this measure and looking at the state second pension. They should realise the potential that it will have if it is funded, if everybody is included, if it is compulsory and if it is linked to the national insurance state pension.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I point out that there is a 12-minute limit on all Back Benchers' speeches, but an awful lot of Members are still trying to catch my eye. It would be extremely helpful if they could take slightly less than their allotted time, in which case fewer of them will be disappointed.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I start by drawing the attention of the House to my interests, which are laid down in the Register but which do not abut directly to the contents of the debate.
  This is turning into a most interesting occasion. It has always seemed to me that the House has a duty, in pensions legislation, both to address the needs of today's retired people and clearly to lay down long-term plans because the effects of legislation last such a long time. The comments made about that by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) were particularly important.
  I say to the Minister that although I shall certainly support the amendment, I have not yet decided whether, if the amendment is defeated, I shall support the Bill in the Lobby, so I will listen particularly carefully to her response to the debate.
  James Purnell: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's views and, in particular, for what he says in

  637
  meetings of the Select Committee on which we both sit. If I remember correctly, last week he said that he thought that the pension credit had a number of valuable qualities. Does that determine that he will support the Bill? I hear that he has been supporting the pension policy of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who seems to oppose the Bill.
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is attempting to lead me down a cul-de-sac, and if he listens he will learn why I am in some doubt about how I will vote on the Bill if the reasoned amendment, which I strongly support, is defeated.
  The Bill is certainly muddled and complex, and in many ways it is a waste. That is why I welcome the reasoned amendment, which makes it clear that the Bill has a number of serious faults. It proposes a tremendous increase in complexity and means-testing, and the erosion of the incentive to save. In addition, we have to ask whether better use might be made of the money by targeting it on those who need support.
  I shall deal first with the massive extension of complexity and confusion. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who knows a great deal about this subject, is confused, and I, who used to be a Social Security Minister, am pretty confused about the effects of the Bill. It does not begin to pass the doorstep test, nor to live up to the description offered by Baroness Hollis, who said that the Bill is the final piece of the Government's pensions strategy jigsaw. Personally, I prefer the judgment given by Sue Ward, of the Northern Pensions Resource Group, who said that it reduces the Government's strategy to incoherence.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) referred to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which says that it remains unclear how the credit fits in with the other parts of the Government's pensions strategy, notably stakeholder pensions and state second pensions. Andrew Dilnott said that he could not envisage the state second pension lasting much beyond the introduction of the pension credit. I shall pass over the interaction between the credit and housing benefit and community tax benefit. The Government say that no one will lose out, but the upper capital limits are still in place, so it is simply not clear how that would work. Gordon Lishman of Age Concern says that we constantly get into the position of saying, "We really don't want to start from here." On the ground of complexity, I have grave doubts about the measure.
  Secondly, the reasoned amendment mentions the massive increase in means-testing. The Government should heed the eloquent words of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. He is right: there will be great complexity and low take-up. Not one third, but two thirds of pensioners are to be drawn into the means-testing net. I cannot understand how anyone can argue that one targets through a means test that draws in two thirds of pensioners. Depending on what the Government choose to say about uprating, it is possible that more than two thirds of pensioners—up to 70 per cent.—will be drawn into that net before long. It is impossible to square that with the Government's commitment to a 60:40 funded pension policy.
  Thirdly, the measure erodes the incentive to save. The highly respected Institute of Actuaries says that the Government's strategy of pension credit, second state
  638
  pension and stakeholder pension means that it is impossible to provide savings advice to those on low to medium incomes. That point was well stated by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). How can serious pension advice relating to savings be given if we do not know by how much the pension credit will be uprated in future, nor whether there will be a consistent, long-term, sustainable result?
  The Secretary of State mentioned the Association of British Insurers, whose members deal with 97 per cent. of insurance business in the UK. The ABI is concerned that pension credit may not encourage three specific groups who have been mentioned to save: the self-employed, those with small savings, and those without full basic state pension. The complexity is itself a disincentive to save. The Bill makes it more difficult to tell people that they will always be better off if they save.
  I pass over the fourth point made in the amendment, which deals with whether the additional expenditure—of course we have no idea what that might be—might be better directed elsewhere.
  The Government are getting into a terrible muddle with their pensions policy. There was some merit in the IPPR scheme in that it was clear, concise and would have put the money into the basic state pension, the advantages of which have been made clear by several hon. Members. I do not support the IPPR approach, but it is with a deep and growing sense of unease that I watch the way in which pensions policy is developing. I believe that we should to an increasing extent have funded basic state pensions for everyone. I want my party to commit to that, and I want the Government to do so as well.
  Recently, the Secretary of State said that he thought that it was impossible to get young people to focus on providing for themselves—I think that he told the Select Committee on Work and Pensions that young people prefer to go clubbing. He may be right, but it is wrong and a conceit of politicians to believe that young people expect the state to look after them in their old age. They do not believe that now.
  Some time ago at Cumberland lodge, I had the opportunity to speak to some Oxford PPE graduates about social security. They had had the pleasure of a visit from a new Labour Minister to talk about new Labour's approach to social security, and they invited me to talk about the old Tory approach. I discussed several aspects of social security, including pensions. For 45 minutes, every question asked by those young people, who were of an age at which I would have regarded anyone interested in pensions as a bit of an anorak, centred on pensions.
  Young people today know that they cannot rely on the state to provide for their old age. It is right that, on as consensual a basis as possible across the House, we seriously reconsider the possibility of providing funded basic state pensions for everyone who is now entering the labour market.
  Mr. Dismore: I have a straightforward question: is the hon. Gentleman advocating compulsory contributions to pension schemes?
  Mr. Mitchell: I have not yet made up my mind finally on whether that is essential, but my instincts are that it should be compulsory.

  639
  I would not say it was a blueprint, but for all its faults the scheme launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was a significant contribution to the debate. Unfortunately, it was launched during the run-up to the 1997 general election and so did not receive the cool and calm scrutiny it merited. The timing was not good and there were specific problems owing to the industry not believing statements about the tax position of the scheme, but it was a step in the right direction.
  The scheme, worked up and refined, was also mentioned in the Conservative manifesto at the last general election, but I would like the debate to extend far beyond the Conservative party. Serious consideration should be given to the opportunities that would accrue were we to start funded pension provision for all those now entering the labour market.
  Conscious of your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall draw my remarks to a close.
  Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mitchell: No, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.
  It would be in the finest traditions of spreading power and ownership widely throughout society—traditions that enthused my party to create a property-owning democracy and to sell council houses—to ensure that there were funded basic state pensions for everyone in future. I urge my Front-Bench colleagues to give serious consideration to a "pension plus mark 3" approach, which would ensure that considerable advantages are available to those who start work now and in future—advantages that have not been available to the present generation.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) because my starting point is the same as his. I should say first that I welcome the Bill, because it makes important provision for pensioners, especially the sort of people whom I encounter all the time in my constituency, who tell me that they have a small occupational pension or savings and feel that they have missed out on all the additional help that we have given to pensioners so far.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke first about complexity—an issue that I think is greatly overstated. In the Chamber tonight are a few pensions nerds who are extremely interested in the minutiae of pension schemes. They sit on both sides of the House and include the professor who leads for the Liberal Democrats. To be frank, when I speak to pensioners' groups in my constituency, I find that they are interested not in the algebraic formulae, but in how much money they will get at the end of the day. When speaking to such groups, I give them a copy of the ready reckoner that appeared at the back of the White Paper and which is now found in the policy statement. They know how much money they have put away, or how much their pension income is, so they should be able to work out for themselves how much money they will get. Most are able to do so.
  All the pensioners in my constituency who will be affected by the pension credit are not like those who are represented by some Conservative Members. They do not
  640
  have enormous share portfolios or complicated trust arrangements. They have small occupational pensions, perhaps derived from the public services, or they have been able to put away the odd thousand pounds or two. They know how much money they have—they do not have great complicated problems. They are the people we are trying to help. People with great complicated problems are not those who will come within the pension credit regime.
  Sandra Osborne: I agree with my hon. Friend. Does he agree that those are the pensioners who are most aggrieved about the current position and who feel most strongly that they are missing out, and that they will warmly welcome the pension credit?
  Mr. Dismore: I very much agree. One criticism of the alternative proposal advanced by the IPPR, the Liberal Democrats and now, I presume, the Conservatives, is that the position would be even worse for people who have paid national insurance; they would not benefit from having done so because those contributions would be equalised at the MIG level, whether the basic pension or the MIG is paid.
  Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dismore: We have a limited amount of time, and I should like to make some progress.
  There is also the question of the great evil monster that we are creating by extending the means test to more people. Frankly, if more people get involved in means-testing, the stigma will be reduced and greater numbers of people will claim. In Australia, the entire pension system is means-tested, but that is not a disincentive for people wishing to make a claim.
  The Government's proposals are much simpler than present arrangements; we are not talking about weekly assessments and intrusive 40-page application forms which, I am pleased to say, have now been reduced. I can understand why people get concerned if, for example, they are asked whether they are pregnant; that question was on one of the old forms. We sensibly envisage a broad-brush approach with a five-yearly assessment and a pension stock-take with the first claim when someone reaches pensionable age. Most pensioners will find that much easier and more straightforward. The complications ascribed to the proposals are erroneous.
  Claiming through a pensions agency will be easier than claiming under current arrangements. However, when replying to the debate, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the position of pensioners in the south-east. There is no pensions agency office in the south-east at the moment, which could create particular problems for ethnic minority pensioners. In London, 300 different languages are already spoken; if call centres are spread around the world and a call is re-routed to, say, Newcastle it may be difficult for Cockneys to understand the Geordie accent, never mind Geordies trying to understand the more obscure dialects and languages spoken in London. I hope that we can address that. I should also be grateful for confirmation that telephone calls will be charged at local rate; I hope that one day, it will be possible for calls to be free.
  I am pleased that face-to-face interviews will still be possible for pensioners who prefer to deal with their pension arrangements that way. I am pleased that we are

  641
  adopting an outreach approach by going to libraries and pensioners' groups. However, how long will it take to arrange a personal interview if a pensioner applies for one? I am pleased that the Secretary of State, in introducing the debate, dealt with the question of part-time earnings, about which I am very concerned. If we take a more flexible approach to retirement and ask people to continue to work later in life, we must make sure that people are not penalised for working the odd day or two and can gradually ease into full-time retirement, if one can put it that way. I am a great believer in flexibility, but there could be problems with the means test if someone's employment patterns swing from one extreme to the other.
  I am pleased that the Government have accepted the point about downrating for hospital stays to 13 weeks; it is important to adjust calculations in relation to that. We have been assured that housing benefit and council tax benefit claimants will continue to receive their full benefits, but I am concerned about the way in which the mechanics will operate. The Opposition spokesman made an important point about local authority care charges, whether for social services support at home or residential care. I urge Ministers to talk soon to the Department of Health to make sure that we can give clear guidance to people who say, "Well, you've put my pension up, but the council just claim it all back it back again through a council tax rise." They should not be left in that position. If they are in residential care or in receipt of personal social services for which a charge is levied, they should not be penalised through local authority means-testing. As has been said, that would simply mean that we would be transferring a penalty to local authority benefits, which should rightly go into the pensioners' pockets.
  I heed your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to draw my remarks to a close. The one outstanding question to which I would like an answer is that of uprating. In the Select Committee, the Secretary of State was pressed hard on uprating; it is important that the Government say whether they regard uprating as the way to proceed.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Paul Goodman: All Governments face the dilemma of trying to solve the trade-off between poverty and saving. This Government find themselves wrestling with that dilemma now. Obviously one could, if one concentrated exclusively on relieving poverty, create disincentives to saving; or one could, if one wanted solely to create incentives to save, end up with growing numbers of pensioners in poverty.
  The Government's central claim for the Bill is that it will reduce poverty and increase saving; it is on those two claims that the Bill should primarily be judged. The most effective way to begin to make that judgment is to look at the main way in which the pension credit will be delivered—in other words, means-testing. I shall give the House a few simple figures. In 1979, approximately 57 per cent. of all pensioners were means-tested; by 1995, the figure had come down to 38 per cent. The Library estimates that by next year the figure will have returned to 57 per cent; by 2050, up to 70 per cent. of all pensioners could be on pension credit, if it lasts until then. I want to make an important concession to the Government, who contend that means-testing is the best way to help poorer people; their main argument is that that method targets people individually. That is right, and it is a strength of their position.
  642
  However, there is a difficulty. How do the Government's argument and all the abstract arguments flung around the Chamber this evening relate to the experience of the people in, say, my Wycombe constituency which, in places, is not particularly rich; people do not always have, to quote the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) "enormous share portfolios". Some of the people who come to see me find the forms that they have to fill in complex; they find the relationship between one benefit and another extremely complex and do not fully grasp it. Indeed, I am not sure that I or many other Members in the Chamber fully grasp those complexities either. People often do not have a family member close at hand to advise them and are entirely reliant on professional advice. They are therefore experiencing genuine problems in dealing with increased means-testing.
  Moving on to the link between increased means-testing and take-up, I want to quote some of the Government's own figures. The Secretary of State, if I understood him correctly, did not seem to have great confidence in all his figures, although the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) shrewdly pointed out that in the House of Lords Baroness Hollis appeared to have great confidence in the same figures. I am therefore curious to know whether the Government's approach is consistent. The key figures for the minimum income guarantee are as follows. In 2001, about 1.7 million pensioners took up the MIG; the highest estimate is that 750,000 pensioners did not take it up. I want to make another concession to the Government for the moment and assume that that figure was in fact not 750,000, but about 500,000. By my figures—perhaps I am wrong—that is almost a third of those who took up the minimum income guarantee. So we are not talking about a small number or a small proportion. To nick, if I may, a phrase from Baroness Thatcher and apply it to Labour Members, we are talking about people who the Labour party likes to think of as its own—yet up to a third and certainly more than a quarter are not benefiting from the MIG.
  The key point is that there is no hard evidence that a larger proportion of those entitled to the pension credit will take it up. The Government estimate—this is their aim—that 67 per cent. of those eligible will take up the pension credit by 2004, but even they admit that that target is "ambitious". Even if they reach the target, by definition, at least 33 per cent. will not take up the pension credit and therefore not benefit at all.
  If I correctly understand the Government's approach from what the Secretary of State said earlier, their basic argument is that they do not want to consider the alternative of targeting by age because that would create anomalies—I agree; it certainly would—and that they are content to carry on means-testing and means-testing, regardless of the proportion of pensioners who do not take up pension credit. That is a huge hole in the Government's argument, and it is where the pension credit fails the first of its two tests—whether it will relieve poverty. For those who take it up, it surely will, but what about the third or quarter of those entitled who will not do so? I do not believe that the Government can or will carry on like this.

  643
  The evidence on saving is ambiguous. Many figures have been bandied around the Chamber during this debate, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), I am content to rest on those from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It says:
  "Overall, the effect of the pension credit on the financial incentive to save is left unclear, for the relative magnitudes of the different effects we have disentangled are not known. So whether the pension credit will encourage or discourage saving is an empirical question on which future research may be enlightening."
  In other words, the IFS simply does not know. I tend to think that if it does not know, the Government cannot say with certainty that the pension credit overall will boost savings. It is therefore perfectly clear that the Government's pension credit has failed one of the two tests, as we have no reason to think that the quarter or third of pensioners who do not take up the MIG will take up the pension credit. It is also clear that the Government have not really hit their target on saving.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant made a series of telling points about the increasing crisis in pensions, with which the Government will now have to deal. Watching the Secretary of State, I got the feeling that he was digging himself deeper and deeper into the pension credit and more means-testing without being able to guarantee that that approach would stand up in the medium term, let alone the long term. The Government have put all their eggs in the pension credit basket.
  The Government like to say that the pension credit is the final brick in the architecture and that, once it has been introduced, the whole Government pensions building will be secure and will stand. However, Conservative Members have very good reason to vote for the amendment, and will do so, as will the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Northavon.
  As the hon. Member for Northavon said, the pension credit has been rushed in even though the Government are not yet clear about the consequences of the minimum income guarantee. Therefore, it is hard to see the pension credit as completing a perfect whole. It is far easier to see it as a sign of a Government whose pension strategy is in deep confusion. I urge the Government to think again about going down this road before they find themselves in a hole from which they cannot get out. That is why I, my hon. Friends and others will support the amendment.
  8.23 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: I am delighted to be called in this debate and I am aware that many Members still wish to speak.
  I was interested in the comment of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) that the pension credit had been introduced with such high speed. Four years is hardly very quick. I say four years because I spent the summer recess of 1999 not swanning off on some foreign holiday, as the popular press seem often to paint Members of Parliament doing, but going round most of the sheltered housing complexes in my constituency, holding a large number of pensioner meetings—I held about 20 in total—and speaking to pensioners about how they felt about the Government's pensions policy.
  644
  The summer of 1999 saw the height of pensioners' unhappiness about this Government's pensions policy. The 75p rise had just been announced, but pensioners had not yet received it. Going to speak to large groups of pensioners—they turned out in some force—was like entering the lion's den. However, there were some things about the Government's pension policy that they liked. The first was, of course, the introduction of the minimum income guarantee.
  It was important that the new Labour Government, having come to power in 1997, tackled pensioner poverty, especially poverty among women pensioners, who were losing out because the pension system was based predominantly on a contributory principle. These women had not paid any contributions, or only very few, or had broken work records. Many working women had paid only the small stamp and therefore did not have full pension contributions.
  The MIG was crucial. The Government should not make any apology for dealing with pensioner poverty by introducing it. It was a good measure that was extremely well liked. People still come up to me to thank the Government for what they have managed to do, although they often do that on the quiet. It is rare at a large meeting of pensioners to find pensioners who have benefited to the tune of sometimes £20 or £30 a week as a result of the MIG. That is not admitted at such gatherings, but pensioners will come up quietly afterwards to admit that they have benefited greatly from the measure.
  There is also the winter fuel allowance, a free television licence for the over-75s and increases in the basic state pension. Obviously pensioners are slightly happier now than they were during the summer when I was talking to so many of them.
  One major problem was identified. There was huge resentment among pensioners whose income was just over the MIG, those who had worked very hard all their lives and perhaps had a small occupational pension or a small income from some savings. They felt—resentment is not too strong a word—aggrieved that their hard work and thrift was not getting any reward.
  In some instances, these pensioners did not understand why the Government should give money to people who had not saved and who had not invested in the future. I was keen to emphasise that that was the right thing for a Labour Government to do and that it was right that we should tackle pensioner poverty. The fact that they felt that somehow they were losing out was not a reason why the Government should not act, and the MIG was absolutely the right approach.
  Obviously there was a problem that needed to be addressed. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) talked constantly about the problem caused by the MIG. I think that all Labour Members accept that there are problems caused by it, namely the resentment that many pensioners have felt. I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman's solution is. He said that he would tell the House what it is, but I do not think that he did, or else it was so confused that I could not follow it.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's solution was that we should still give means-tested benefit to some people, but I am not sure whether it was to the level of the MIG. He suggested that the Conservatives would give lots of

  645
  money to the over-75s. That is not an answer. It is not a reply to those pensioners who felt that they were being let down and left out because their income was just above the basic MIG levels.
  The Bill is the solution to the problems caused by the MIG. It answers the questions that many pensioners in my constituency were putting to me. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), I feel that it passes the doorstep test. An Opposition Member claimed that it failed to do so, but it is easy to explain on the doorstep to those who have saved a little and who feel that they are being let down because they are not getting anything back that, with the pension credit, there will be some reward for their saving.
  The real challenge and the big problem with the Bill will be whether there is proper take-up of the pension credit once the Bill is enacted. It will be an incredible challenge to the Government to persuade people that the credit is something for which they qualify and not something of which they should be ashamed, and is something that they will get as of right. It will be doubly difficult if the Opposition continue to harp on, as they have tonight, about how complex it is. If pensioners are told, "This is such a complex measure", of course, they are not going to apply.
  David Cairns: My hon. Friend is being harsh on the Opposition. At least they have turned up and made a contribution. When she is on the doorstep in Aberdeen talking to voters in her constituency, will she undertake to point out to them that not one member of the Scottish National party bothered to turn up to take part in this incredibly important debate, or even sought to intervene
  Miss Begg: I will be interested not only in how the Scottish National party votes tonight, but in how the Liberals vote, because the Liberals are the main opposition in my constituency. Liberals who fight elections for a Scottish Government in Aberdeen next year will have a hard job on the doorstep explaining exactly why their party has voted against the pension credit. I have no doubt that that in itself will undermine their case. If they continue to support the Tories in saying that this is a means test, and it is demeaning to claim the credit, obviously it will be harder and harder to persuade people that they should be claiming it and that it is not like the 1930s means test.
  I support many of the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon has already said. The credit can be sold on the doorstep. It can be sold to today's pensioners on the basis of the fact that it is their reward for saving. That is easy to understand. It is also easy for them to understand that they are getting something back. That is where the resentment came in: they felt that other people were getting something for nothing. They will feel that they are getting something back from the Government, but not in the form of a handout or of a demeaning means test. They will qualify because of their thrift.
  If, as is projected, 70 per cent. of pensioners qualify for the pension credit, the stigma that the Liberals say will be attached to it will not exist. They have said, however, that there must still be some means-tested benefit. If a very small number receive means-tested benefit, there is a huge stigma attached to that—only the very poor get the means-tested benefit. However, if 70 per cent. of pensioners qualify for the credit, that stigma will not exist.
  646
  Another thing that will, I hope, help take-up of the pension credit—again, it is a challenge for the Government—is the new pension service, an agency dedicated to looking after pensioners and their needs, and ensuring that those who reach pension age are properly catered for and have their needs looked into. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said that the pension is the easy option because everyone gets it, and the means test is difficult because not everyone is subject to it. I do not know what he would say to my constituent who told me that she had found that she did not get a pension because she had not realised that she had to fill in forms that were sent to her—she thought the pension came automatically. It is simply not true that people get the basic state pension as an automatic right. They do not if they have not made contributions or filled in forms as they approach their 60th birthday. Therefore, I believe that the pension credit can be sold to today's pensioners.
  There has been much talk about whether the measure will give pensioners of the future an incentive to save. People I know do not behave in the way described by the hon. Member for Northavon. I do not know of anyone aged 40 who sits down and calculates to the nearest penny how much they will get in 20 years' time. Most people do not make those kinds of complicated calculations. They work on the principle that they hope—as did today's pensioners when they were younger—that it always pays to save. The introduction of the minimum income guarantee provided an incentive to save, but the introduction of the pension credit means that it will always pay to do so. It will pay to save a little, because people will qualify for the pension credit; it will pay to save a lot, because people will he so much better off than if they had not done so at all.
  We cannot know at age 40, 18 or 22, when I started work, what wages we will have for the rest of our lives—or, indeed, whether we will work for the rest of our lives. A person may be hit by a bus and end up paraplegic or have a broken work record owing to continual ill-health or family commitments. We should remember that the pension credit is not the only thing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  8.36 pm
  Andrew Selous: I welcome the Government's desire to tackle pensioner poverty, but, like many of my hon. Friends and, indeed, some Labour Members, I must put on record the fact that I do not believe that the Bill is the best way to do so. I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who said that if the Bill is introduced, Conservative Members will ensure that there are no losers through any alternative proposals that we make.
  The Bill introduces a significant increase in means-testing for our pensioner population, and we are entitled to fuller answers from the Government about why that is so. In 1993, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never been achieved. The end of the means test for our elderly people".
  Only four years ago, the Prime Minister said that
  "there are problems if you move to too much means-testing, as you can see with pensioners who do riot take up income support".

  647
  So there has clearly been a seismic shift of opinion on the part of the Government about whether it is worthwhile to means-test, and they have not adequately explained the reasons for that.
  Help the Aged estimates that 2.5 million people are entitled to the minimum income guarantee, but only about 1.7 million of those are receiving it. That is a take-up rate of only 68 per cent., which equates to about 800,000 pensioners. Due to the complexity of our benefits system, last year around 500,000 people did not receive the income support to which they were entitled; that has increased to 580,000. Similarly, 150,000 did not receive housing benefit—that has now increased to 210,000—and 1.07 million did not receive council tax benefit; that has increased to more than 1.2 million. Help the Aged drew attention to the Department for Work and Pensions' own research showing that some of the most newly qualified pensioners are some of the most reluctant to take up the minimum income guarantee.
  We have heard about the problem of what is to happen to the poor 67-year-old pensioner. That is a valid question, and Labour Members are entitled to ask it. However, surely the bigger picture is that if large numbers of pensioners—perhaps hundreds of thousands—do not take up benefits as a result of the proposals, more pensioners overall will be worse off than would be the case if the needs of that 67-year-old pensioner were precisely met by this massive extension of means-testing.
  The current figures are all the more disappointing, given that the Government have recently spent £15 million on an advertising campaign. I do not begrudge spending that money, but it is depressing to note that the results appear to be going in the wrong direction. In respect of certain benefits, take-up is falling rather than rising.
  The Prudential Assurance Company estimates that some 3 million pensioners fail to claim about £1.2 billion worth of benefits each year—a situation that the Bill will make even worse. In May 2000, the then Social Security Committee—I am a member of its successor body, the Work and Pensions Committee—said that urgent steps should be taken to address pensioner poverty through non-means-tested methods, and called for the Government to take that route.
  The Bill will vastly extend means-testing up the income scale, which will blunt the incentive to save for certain sections of our community. It is not true that people will be better off saving in all cases. About one third of pensioners will indeed be better off, but for a further third, the anticipated results are ambiguous; the final third will have a slightly reduced incentive to save. The National Federation of Post Office and British Telecom Pensioners—the headquarters of which is in my own, South-West Bedfordshire constituency—has pointed out that those who make less than a full contribution to the basic state pension will not benefit in any way from the savings credit. Women aged between 60 and 65 will not benefit, and because the self-employed are not eligible for the state second pension, they, too, will not benefit.
  James Purnell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that such people will benefit through the minimum income guarantee and the guaranteed element included in the Bill.
  Andrew Selous: Indeed, but I was referring to the savings credit, not the minimum income guarantee.
  There is a savings crisis in this country. There is a £27 billion gap between what we as a country should be saving, and what we are saving at the moment. Indeed, it is a tragedy that, in many cases, today's generation of workers will retire on less than do current pensioners, who were lucky enough to enjoy a defined benefit contribution scheme. To fill that gap, today's generation will have to save significant extra sums.
  We have heard today about younger people's attitudes to pensions. It is my personal belief that young people want a real sense of ownership of their pension assets. They want to feel that they own their pension in the same way that they own a house or a car—if they are lucky enough to do so—and that includes inheritability.
  On pensions advisers, even Help the Aged has said that advice for the current generation of workers on saving for the future will be about as reliable as that given by horse racing tipsters, such is the complexity of the landscape at the moment. We salute the Government's intention to do something about pensioner poverty, but our proposals are simpler and clearer, would lead to far greater take-up and would be much more easily understood.
  8.44 pm
  Sandra Osborne: I shall curtail my comments as much as possible, to let other hon. Members speak.
  I believe that this legislation represents a promise kept to a very important group of people—those pensioners who have missed out because of modest pensions or savings. All of us should be aware of how aggrieved they feel—and rightly so—not because of selfishness or greed, but as a simple matter of fairness. However, it was right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said, to tackle the needs of the poorest pensioners first—the 2 million who were living on or below the poverty line in 1998. That was an absolute disgrace, with a major gap between the richest and the poorest pensioners.
  It was essential first to ensure that pensioners did not have to choose between eating and heating. My parents, who worked in low-paid jobs all their lives, often had to make that choice when bringing up five children. My mother, who is now a widow, has benefited greatly under this Labour Government, and that is as I would have expected. I would have been extremely angry if she had not been able to have that security in her retirement in the time of a Labour Government. It is also right to tackle the problem of the large group of pensioners who are by no means well off, but who deserve a reward for their efforts in saving on what was often a very tight budget.
  I intend to dwell on the issue of fairness, because I felt a sense of déjà vu when my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South was speaking. She talked about the doorstep test. I remember that test during the Ayr Scottish parliamentary by-election, when the pensioners of my constituency gave the Government a clear message about their feelings on the 75p increase. A simmering discontent boiled up into anger about the fact that that group of pensioners above the level of the minimum income guarantee felt that they had missed out on the benefits that they deserved under successive Governments.

  649
  Many hon. Members have mentioned take-up. I see advantages in the pension service, but I wonder how the link will be made between the national service and the local services. For example, the IPPR has referred to an "advice vacuum". What arrangements will be made to ensure that, for example, welfare rights advice will still be available at a local level?
  I share the frustration of other hon. Members at the position of the large group of women who will miss out on the savings credit. A woman over 65 and one under may have exactly the same income but will end up with different benefits, even if they have the same savings. The same problem applies to those who have not acquired rights to a full basic pension but who have savings. There are 1.4 million people in that category, 1.1 million of whom are women.
  The Government have introduced the state second pension for people with broken work records, and women will now have an entitlement to a pension in their own right. The important role of carers has also been recognised, as has the need for a work-life balance. That is a major breakthrough for women in this society. However, how does the Minister reconcile that recognition of a broken work record in relation to the state second pension, which is completely valid and most welcome, with the fact that so many women of this generation of pensioners who are in exactly that position will lose out under the savings credit?
  I turn to the issue of public confidence in the market to provide an income in old age, because that confidence is rapidly being eroded. I have raised in Westminster Hall the plight of former United Engineering Forgings workers in my constituency who will not receive the returns from their final salary scheme because the company has gone into administration with an underfunded scheme. Those workers will now get nothing like the pension that they were expecting. They took the advice, as many others have done, of successive Governments and invested in provision for their old age. However, that has been ruined by the vagaries of the stock market. It has been said tonight that people do not feel that they can rely on the state for their benefits in the future, but many people are very worried about the ability of the private sector to deliver.
  In the overall context of pension provision, the state pension credit is a big step forward. However, I worry about the overall context, especially in the private sector, and I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on that issue when she winds up.
  8.49 pm
  Hywel Williams: The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) broke the duopoly that has existed so far in support of this reasoned amendment. I add the support of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, and I note from the names on the reasoned amendment that there are supporters from Northern Ireland as well. There is broad support for this reasoned amendment.
  Plaid Cymru and SNP Members will support the reasoned amendment because the Government's proposals will involve extensive means-testing of the incomes of older people. That means-testing will become a long-term feature of our pensions system, which will lead to complexity in an already complex pension system. If we
  650
  want more targeting on the basis of income, we must have a more complex testing system. After all, that was the argument in relation to the 1986 Act. The Secretary of State has referred to the noble Lord Fowler, and I seem to remember that when Lord Fowler introduced the 1986 Act one of the arguments that he deployed was that the means-testing system would be simplified by introducing premiums. I do not want to rehearse those arguments again, but that is the point—to be more sophisticated, we must be more complicated.
  Means-testing will continue to have severe disincentive effects on take-up. Pensioners will therefore miss out on their entitlement, as many hon. Members have argued. The Government claim that the means test will take place every five years or up to every five years, and that, in some way, that negates the disincentive effect. Pensioners know better, however. They know that the hurdle of the test is the demeaning effect of the means test at the start of the five years. The Secretary of State might disagree with that, but pensioners know that that is the case.
  David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman said eloquently that he does not like means-testing. If he rules out means-testing, what is the impact on the mythical 67-year-old—who has reappeared time after time in this debate—who is poor, who will gain under this system, and who, as the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has said clearly, will not gain under the reasoned amendment? What is his answer to the 67-year-old in Greenock who will benefit under our system but lose out under his?
  Hywel Williams: No one has said that means-testing will disappear. After all, the current system combines a pension that is a universal right and a certain amount of means-testing. There is no way out of that.
  One of the effects that is claimed for these proposals is that they will help young people to realise that they should be saving. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg)—who is sadly no longer in her place—seemed to be confident that a large number of younger people were considering saving or were already saving. I have no confidence about that. Younger people will see that it is not clear what the value of saving will be to them decades down the line. All that they will see is that the system is changing, that it is complicated, and that means-testing is increasing.
  There are better ways to target help where it is most needed, to which the hon. Member for Northavon and other hon. Members have referred—targeting money on older pensioners. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) mentioned that he had no qualms about 100 per cent. means-testing. The Government contend that this extension of means-testing is the best way to target help on those most in need, and they appeal for support to their friends in the pension industry. I refer, however, to my constituent, Mr. W. H. Evans, of Clwt y Bont, who is a veteran of the D-day landings and a tireless campaigner for the rights of older people and for a recognition that older people need to have a proper income. He called to see me at my surgery last week, and was outraged yet again by the miserly 25p increase in his pension as an older person. As he says, it is not enough to buy the first-class stamp needed to send a complaint to the Government. He was outraged, and he knows what

  651
  many hon. Members recognise. It is possible to target help effectively at some of the poorest pensioners by targeting money at older pensioners, many of whom are poor.
  There will be more poorer pensioners in the future. In 2000, there were 584,200 people over retirement age in Wales—20 per cent. of the population. By 2016, the percentage is expected to rise to 23.5 per cent. and the most significant increase will be among the 80-plus age group who are often the poorest pensioners.
  It is particularly apt that I should speak on this issue for Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party given that I represent the constituency once held by David Lloyd George, the politician who introduced the retirement pension which has been hugely popular, successful and long lived. It is sad but hardly surprising that the recent Age Concern MORI poll shows that the majority of people have no confidence in the Government's strategy to tackle pensioner poverty. That contrasts with the opinion that they hold of the pension introduced by Lloyd George.
  The Government say that their new system of means-testing does not involve means-testing as such. Perhaps it is soft testing or even third-way testing—I do not know what they would like to call it. At every turn these days, we are told that this is the age of the consumer. The customer is king, so what do the potential consumers of this new system say about it?
  The Secretary of State told us a great deal about what the pension industry and Lord Fowler think, but I have a document launched for Welsh political parties at Plaid Cymru's spring conference in Swansea on 16 March. It is entitled "A Pensioners Manifesto for Wales" and it was produced by the Pensioners Forum Wales, which includes representatives of organisations such as the MSF retired members section, the Transport and General Workers Union retired members section, Unison retired members Wales and many other trade unions.
  What do those consumers say of the Government's plans? In point 5 of the manifesto, they call on the National Assembly for Wales—not this august institution—to
  "recognise the financial plight of many pensioners and press the Westminster government to address the provision of adequate guaranteed non-means tested basic income as a matter of urgency".
  That is the opinion of the TGWU, the MSF and many other pensioner groups in Wales.
  The Government's proposals take us further and further from a system intended to provide a universal basic pension and a safety net for those not covered to one in which means-testing is to become the norm. The gap between the minimum income guarantee and the basic pension is widening and it will widen further. The Secretary of State's answer to that is even more means-testing, but Plaid Cymru and SNP Members agree with Age Concern and the Pensioners Forum Wales.
  8.58 pm
  Kevin Brennan: One likes to support the institutions to which one belongs—whether it is one's team, one's alma mater or one's political party. Unfortunately, in my case, over the past weekend, the first two have taken a bit of a knocking, first with what happened at Twickenham and then with the revelation that
  652
  my old college and that of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), had sold places for £300,000. I assure the House that neither of us read law at that institution.
  I am pleased that my party is honouring its manifesto pledge. On this, I part company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), because we pledged at the last election that we would introduce this measure, which is intended to meet the twin objectives of continuing to help the poorest pensioners while properly rewarding thrift. Tomorrow when I meet the healthy, wealthy and wise project—the grey power project—in Ely in Cardiff, West, I shall be delighted to stand before its members and outline the Government's record on helping pensioners, including the state pension credit proposed in the Bill. I shall also inform them—I am sure that they will be interested—of the new Opposition coalition against the introduction of the pension credit.
  The Bill addresses an issue that all of us will have encountered on the doorstep, as I did while canvassing at the general election: the complaint that it is simply not worth having a modest occupational pension, because it leaves one no better off than someone who has not contributed to a pension at all, and that there is no incentive to save because of the limits on capital. As a candidate for Parliament for the first time, I was pleased to be able to say that we would be doing something about that if re-elected and that I would do all that I could to support that. I gave that pledge on the doorstep and it is in fulfilment of that personal pledge to voters in Cardiff, West that I stand here in support of the Bill on Second Reading, despite the traumatic blows at the weekend that I described earlier.
  I support this Bill, even though I have traditionally taken the view that the best way to deal with the state pension is to link it to earnings and to eradicate the stigma of the means test, because all pensioners should automatically share in economic prosperity. After all, most of today's generation of pensioners believed that the state pension would provide adequate support without recourse to the indignity of the old-fashioned means test. They were, after all, a generation that sacrificed so much so that we could benefit from peace and democracy today.
  I am thinking here of people such as my father—I know some hon. Members have similar backgrounds—an Irish immigrant to this country, who worked as a navvy and helped to build the physical infrastructure on which our current prosperity is based. Elsewhere, that generation has been called "the greatest generation", appropriately. But they are also the generation that remembers the dreaded means test. I think, too of my mother, a miner's daughter from Nantyglo in south Wales, and her stories of the harshness of the means test at the depth of the great depression of the 1930s. I am still attached, emotionally and philosophically, to the earnings-related argument.
  One must give credit to the Government for the ingenious way in which they are approaching this problem and the ingenious mechanism that the Bill represents. In a way, it echoes many of the reforms that the Government are bringing in, which aim to reward work and thrift. The Government have gone some way to meeting an accusation levelled by the Opposition today by ensuring that once a pensioner's position has been established at retirement, there is not the need for a weekly means test, as with income support. Instead, there is a five-yearly

  653
  review of circumstances, with the minimum circumstances for pensioners in keeping with what is necessary for the protection of public finance.
  Any comparison of that with the means test of the 1930s—or even with the post-war National Assistance Board, which poked its nose daily into every detail of a pensioner's personal circumstances—is an insult to those people who had to suffer the heartless indignity of that era. I hope—it may be a forlorn hope—that those who, properly, wish to oppose the Bill will not engage in scaremongering of that kind to try to sabotage the working of the pension credit. There is a case for considering whether, in practice, the name "pension credit" is the best way to describe the change. Pensioners' groups have expressed concern about this, as the word "credit" is associated by many pensioners with debt. That matter should be considered in Committee. I can understand the Government's desire to retain the term as it now applies to several flagship initiatives, but there may be a case for providing another term for use in publicity; perhaps "enhanced pension" to make it clear that it is not a loan that has to be paid back. That would help to change the culture of fear that some people are trying to build up about the credit being a new means test.
  The Bill will bring real and direct benefits to people. An elderly widow with a monthly £100 pension—perhaps half the pension of her deceased husband—currently receives no benefit from that occupational pension. Under the Bill, she will be able to keep 60 per cent. of it. That is in addition to the other benefits that she will already have gained since Labour came to power, including the free television licence for the over-75s and the £200 winter fuel allowance—the Tories wanted to take that away—which is the equivalent of £15 a month tax free. If she lives in Wales, from next week she will have free local bus travel as a result of the policies of the Labour-led National Assembly for Wales.
  Let us contrast all that with the approach of the last Tory Government. They halved the value of SERPS, abandoned the earnings link with the state pension and deliberately forced pensioners on to real means-tested benefits as a result of that decline in value of the state pension. To top it all, they generated the pensions mis-selling scandals of the 1980s. I was teaching at the time and can remember salesmen—they were no better than con men, really—coming into school staff rooms and telling young teachers that it was in their best interests to pull out of teachers' occupational schemes and take out a private pension.
  Instead of responsibility and social conscience, which the Tories are trying to convince us they now have, they ushered in the era of the pensions spiv. For Beveridge, Jim Griffiths and Barbara Castle, they substituted Flash Harry. It is to the Government's continuing credit that they have tried to restore some fairness and sustainability to pension provision. This measure is a major step forward in that mission.
  I look forward to telling the people at tomorrow's grey power meeting in Cardiff, West about today's debate. Some say the pensions credit is complicated, but I do not think that they will find the concept of 5 million pensioners benefiting by, on average, £400 a year a difficult concept to appreciate. The measure will be widely welcomed by pensioners, and I commend it to the House.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: I represent a constituency that contains many less affluent pensioners in urban and, in particular, rural areas. I did not appreciate the comment of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that most Conservative Members represent people with large share portfolios. That is absolute nonsense.
  I warmly welcome any proposals that attempt to eradicate pensioner poverty. I have no objection to ending the current iniquitous paradox of the minimum income guarantee system that penalises thrift and saving. Indeed, I should like to see a system that encourages people to put money aside and rewards financial responsibility. I strongly believe in the independence of the individual and a reduction in the reliance on the state, enabling and facilitating people to make choices and take responsibility for their own life.
  The current system, which requires ever-larger numbers of pensioners to claim moneys through means-testing, is considered, not just by hon. Members on this side of the House, but by the very pensioners whom it affects, to be demeaning and degrading. It carries a stigma for many pensioners. Many are frightened by the process. That is borne out by the figures that were discussed earlier. There is a tremendous variance, but if between a third and a fifth of those who are entitled to claim minimum income guarantee fail to do so, there must be something wrong with the system.
  As always with the Government, there is a great divergence between rhetoric and action. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), said, both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that they wish to reduce means-testing for pensioners, if not eradicate it altogether. However, not only does the Bill fail to reduce means-testing or to make an attempt to reduce it, it vastly increases the propensity to means-test.
  Between 1979 and 1995, the proportion of pensioners on means-testing fell significantly, from 57 per cent. to 38 per cent. Since 1997, it has increased significantly. According to the House of Commons Library, up to 60 per cent. of pensioners will be means-tested by 2003.
  The two component parts of the pensions credit—the guarantee credit and the savings credit—extend the reliance on the state into the future, which will further act as a disincentive for pensioners to save.
  It is my view that the endless and pervasive intrusion into and manipulation of people's lives by the state is a deliberate attempt by the Government further to weaken the individual's responsibility and enhance reliance on a centrally controlled state. Pensioners, like so many other responsible groups in our country, want to be self-reliant and to be treated with dignity. Extensive means-testing does not fit comfortably with that ambition.
  The uniform criticism of the Bill, among everyone except Labour Members, is of its overriding complexity, which will deter claimants and lower take-up rates. I was astonished when the Secretary of State dismissed as nonsense the fact that there is a causal link between complexity and take-up rates. That is staggering, especially when one bears it in mind that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has said:
  "The complexity of benefits and the claiming process is one reason why millions of pounds worth of benefits go unclaimed by people on low incomes."

  655
  If the House is to attempt to help those on low incomes, we must surely be honest and look at why people who are entitled to claim benefits—whether the minimum income guarantee or the new credit—are not doing so. Just as the critical test of a successful tax is collectability, for benefits the measure of success must be simplicity and therefore take-up. The Government must take responsibility for increasing the complexity and exacerbating the problem via the contents of the Bill
  I have four specific points that I want the Minister to address. First, I understand that the guaranteed credit will subsume the premium paid to carers and severely disabled people. Will she take this opportunity to make it clear that these very hard-working and vulnerable people will not be made worse off?
  Secondly, in the Bill it is proposed to set up a pensions service, and I believe that there will be only 26 offices. To my mind, that will eradicate the personal contact that has been mentioned, with home visits allowed only in exceptional circumstances. I see the Minister shaking her head, and I hope that she will be able to tell me that I am wrong. Many people who currently have contact with pensions professionals believe that they will not be able to do so under the proposals.
  Thirdly, the Bill contains a change in the analysis to a five-yearly rather than a weekly assessment. That may not eradicate bureaucracy but may make it easier for people to abuse the system. What safeguards and structures will be put in place to ensure that abuse of the kind that happened with individual learning accounts cannot take place?
  Fourthly, what will the pension credit do to close the savings gap?
  The Government's pensions strategy is at best confused. To be more blunt, it is in a mess, from the perfidious and pernicious tax on people's pension funds to the shambles of the stakeholder pensions and the Government's opposition to annuity reform. The Bill further complicates an already over-complex area and increases means-testing for the section of society that least wants it. The solution surely lies in increasing the basic state pension for the specific targets of harder-up pensioners.
  9.14 pm
  David Cairns: I shall endeavour to be brief. I welcome the Bill, and I believe that in my constituency, which is in the top third in the United Kingdom in terms of pensioner numbers, it will be welcomed for the reasons outlined by many of my hon. Friends, such as the sheer sense of iniquity that people have felt about saving all their lives and losing out under the current arrangements, which has been the perception. Those complaints are always accompanied by detailed descriptions of pensioners who live three doors down who have smoked and drank all their lives, but who seem to be better off than our constituents. However, our constituents will welcome the Bill, and so they should.
  Much of this evening's debate, which I should like to respond to briefly, has focused on the role and nature of means-testing. I accept the Government's argument that the type of means-testing outlined in the Bill is
  656
  quantitatively different to the means-testing that has gone before, as well as qualitatively different, given that it will not involve a weekly means test, but an assessment every five years or so.
  I agree entirely with my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) that extending means-testing to the extent that proposed in the Bill will dilute the stigma—if a stigma can be diluted—so that it becomes less of an onerous burden on people. However, it has become abundantly clear during the debate that, far from abolishing means-testing, the Conservative party would maintain it and increase the stigma of the means test.
  I make no apology for reintroducing our 68-year-old poor friend, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) and by the Secretary of State himself. Such people are not entirely invented; they exist in all our constituencies. Confronted with the reasoned amendment that suggests that people over the age of 75 should be given extra help, we have repeatedly asked what we should say to our 68-year-old poor pensioner. The answer is that he or she would be means-tested, so the poorer people who need the extra help would be means-tested. How on earth would that remove the stigma of means-testing? How would that progress beyond a time when reliance on means-testing was seen as a bad thing, when the very poorest people were told that they would have to put up with means-testing?
  Under the new scheme, those who are not poor, but who are by no means rich, will be brought into a system that is akin to one that the Borne report, on which the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was an esteemed specialist adviser, referred to as the partial affluence test. I never liked that expression; it would not kid anybody about what is involved in reality, but the proposal is qualitatively different to the old means-testing, which involved rooting around people's houses looking for valuables to offset any income that they might have received.
  I want to focus my remaining remarks on the pension service. Uptake is not just an issue used to scaremonger; it is a genuine concern, and Labour Members are as concerned about it as anyone else. It is important that the system has adequate take-up, and the key to that must be a pro active pension service, which goes out of its way to ensure that people get what they are entitled to. It has to allow people to interact with it in a broad range of ways by telephone, on the internet and by post. We know that the telephone is the Government's preferred route because they tell us that pensioners prefer it. I accept that, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, who said that if a freephone number were used, so much the better. The number of silver surfers on the Internet will grow in years to come. Although I appreciate that there will not be a network of local offices, the opportunity to interact face to face is important. I would welcome the Minister's reassurance that face-to-face interviews will still be allowed to play a part.
  The pension service must act as a gateway, allowing people to get quicker housing benefit assessments. As we know from the operation of the working families credit, particularly in the new Jobcentre Plus scheme, things all wander along absolutely marvellously until they hit the

  657
  brick wall of housing benefit assessments, when people are not any further forward. Although I welcome what has happened, such things have to be improved in future.
  There was some confusion about the role of the call centres. There will be 26 call centres throughout the country, and it has been said that confusion might arise in understanding cockneys and geordies, so there is a good argument for locating all the call centres in Scotland because everyone understands a Scottish accent. I had hoped that Mr. Speaker would be in the Chair when I made that comment. In my constituency, there are two excellent call centres—those of One to One and the Royal Bank of Scotland—which shows that people are used to interacting with call centres and to the professional service that they receive from them, and there is no reason why they cannot work in the public sector as well.
  I welcome the Bill. It makes an important contribution to those people who feel aggrieved. I hope that we reject the reasoned amendment and stick with the Government's proposals.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Bill Tynan: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and will be quick because other hon. Members want to speak.
  I believe that life's experiences shape our character. People where I came from would find it difficult to compare their lives with people's experiences in the House of Commons. As a youngster, I was brought up in a tenement close. We had two rooms and a kitchen. There were five in the family. My mother waited for my elder sister to come in to get the tips so that she could feed us the next day. I experienced poverty at first hand. I was fortunate because I was the youngest in the family, which meant that I was able to serve my time as an apprentice toolmaker. That gave me a skilled trade, but I could achieve that only because of my family background and the fact that people were willing to support the family unit.
  Hon. Members have expressed a very negative view of the proposition. It is possible to look at something and see it as being either half full or half empty. If two thirds of the people who will benefit from the pension credit manage to improve their standard of living, that is substantial progress. Like everyone else, I am concerned about the take-up, but the best way to deal with that problem is to stop talking about means-testing. Means-testing was used in the 1930s to ensure that people stayed poor. The new test will ensure that they qualify for additional benefit. That is an important distinction.
  The Bill is part of the crusade on which the Government have embarked. There have been some interesting comments on what direction we should take and what we should do. The Leader of the Opposition said:
  "A nation that leaves its vulnerable behind diminishes us all."
  I agree, but we must remember that selfish individualism over 20 years helped to create a society in which our most vulnerable were left behind. The Opposition have reverted to type on this issue. If we support the reasoned amendment, the Bill will fall and those two thirds whose standard of living would improve will fail to benefit from it. That is an important consideration.
  Poverty is not an academic debate; it is a reality for many of my constituents. During the election campaign, an elderly lady called my office. She had been targeted
  658
  by South Lanarkshire council for arrears that she had accrued on her community charge. Those people who think that the proposals are complex should sit down with such individuals and talk about what is on offer because they would readily understand the position. I spoke to that lady that day. As she was on the old-age pension and had no other means of support, she qualified for the minimum income guarantee, which meant that she no longer paid community charge and went on housing benefit. That boosted that woman and her standard of living.
  We must remember the beneficiaries when we discuss in a forum such as the House of Commons whether the academic debate is too complex or how a proposal can be implemented. It is important to support the Bill. It is a step forward. I ask hon. Members to recognise that there is poverty in this nation and that the Bill will improve the standard of living for more than 5 million people. If we achieve that, Parliament will have done its job.
  9.24 pm
  James Purnell: There are two points on which I should like the Committee to scrutinise the Bill. The first concerns foster carers who, as we know, provide a vital service for children in this country, many of whom have faced the worst that life can throw at a child today—sexual abuse, dysfunctional families, poverty and abandonment. However, foster carers do not get credit towards their basic state pension as they would if they were looking after their own children. If they take time off work to fulfil their fostering duties, they do not receive home responsibilities protection as they would if they were caring for their own children. I urge Ministers to look at that anomaly because it is unfair to an important sector of society.
  Secondly, although I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said about the treatment of earnings, at the moment the amount of earnings that will be entirely disregarded is just £5. If we want to encourage people to have an active retirement, it is at least worth considering whether we should disregard a slightly higher level of income so that people could work for, say, a day a week after age 65 and keep all that income.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has returned to the Chamber because I am slightly mystified by his reasoned amendment and I am trying to understand the motivation behind it. I have noticed over the past few weeks that he is trying to position the Conservative party on the side of the poor. Of course the Opposition would say that they are on the side of the poor, but we have to ask ourselves what they would do if they were in government. To establish that, it is worth trying to remember what they did when they were in government.
  Between 1979 and 1983 the Conservatives ended the link between earnings and the basic state pension and viciously cut benefits, while their monetary policy unnecessarily forced 3 million people on to the dole. Where was the hon. Gentleman when all that was happening? In the run-up to the 1979 election, he was advising Nigel Lawson, who was centrally involved in taking those decisions even though the policies were not mentioned in the manifesto. During that first term, the hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury, where he was private secretary to Nigel Lawson and an official advising on monetary policy, so he bears a direct responsibility for those policies.

  659
  After that first term, SERI'S was cut, benefits for widows were halved, £10 billion was taken out of overall pension income and housing benefit was slashed by nearly 50 per cent. The result of all that was that on estates such as Easterhouse people could not afford to take jobs because they were trapped on benefit rates that meant that they would be worse off if they were employed. Where was the hon. Gentleman when all that was happening? First, he was in Mrs. Thatcher's policy unit, advising her on social security policy, and after that he was running her favourite think-tank, the Centre for Policy Studies, and acting as a part-time adviser to her.
  It is worth remembering all that because although I welcome the Damascene conversion of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Havant after their visit to Easterhouse, the rest of us know estates such as that and have been working on them for years. While the hon. Gentleman was driving past those estates on the motorway on the way to seminars with the hard right during the 1980s, the people there were being thrown into poverty and out of jobs by the monetary policy that he advised on and having their benefits cut by the Ministers whom he advised.
  Those estates did not magically appear in 2001; they were the direct result of the unnecessary viciousness of Conservative economic policy and of the housing policy that turned them into sink estates. The poor on our estates have been suffering from those policies for the past 20 years. Where was the hon. Gentleman? At every single stage from 1979 to 1992, a time during which the income of the bottom 10 per cent. fell by nearly a fifth, he was advising on and constructing those policies—he was in the vanguard of those policies. Indeed, if one believes the biographies, the policies would have been even more severe if his views had been completely heeded.
  I welcome the Bill because it will help the poor pensioners in my constituency. If the Opposition had any self-respect, they would apologise for what they did in those years before espousing the cause of the poor.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Chris Pond: I support the Bill. I do not want to be as unkind to Opposition Members as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), but I am a bit disappointed that they will not be joining us in the Lobby tonight. We heard over the weekend about their new-found concern for the vulnerable—no doubt that is why they have taken the Liberal Democrats under their wing tonight. Like Victor Meldrew discovering the delights of skateboarding, the Tory party has discovered a passion for helping the poor.
  I had therefore assumed not only that the Tories would support the Bill, but that they would utter a few words of apology for the £10 billion that they lifted from pensioner incomes during their 18 years in government. One reason why they might want to support the Bill is that it provides an opportunity to give back at least a fifth of the amount that they took away. Much of the remainder has been returned through other measures that the Labour Government have introduced—measures that even this evening the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) again described as "gimmicks".
  660
  The reasoned amendment suggests that the resources given to the Bill would be
  "better directed towards the basic state pension".
  I asked the House of Commons Library to tell me what would have happened had the basic state pension been indexed in line with earnings. The answer is that it would have resulted in a sum similar to the basic state pension today—but of course the pension credit and the other measures we have taken will result in a substantially higher level of non-means-tested income for pensioners on the basic state pension.
  Earlier I asked the hon. Gentleman whether he could give financial advice to my nine-year-old on how much she would have to invest each year between now and her retirement to achieve what the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) described as a funded basic state pension, but he did not have the answer to hand. In fact, she would have to start now investing £10 a week until her retirement to achieve such a pension.
  Many hon. Members spoke about means-testing. I am not enthusiastic about means-testing, not least because of its traditional impact in terms of stigma and loss of dignity. However, I have never been against targeting to ensure that those who are most in need receive the help they deserve. The proposals in the Bill provide an effective targeting mechanism, minimising stigma and maximising take-up wherever possible. They include the five-year assessment, simpler claim forms, help through the pension service to complete the application, and making use of information already available to make an assessment without requiring new forms to be filled out. All those measures mean that we will be able to target resources without imposing the traditional stigma associated with means-testing. For that reason, I support the proposals.
  The decisions we make tonight are about long-term pensions policy. We have to make sure that the policies that we put in place can last the test of time. I am extremely disappointed to hear that the Opposition parties will not join us in a consensus to ensure not only that today's pensioners have a decent income, but that we provide some security for future pensioners.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: In spite of its delayed start, or perhaps because of it, the debate has proceeded at a cracking pace. I have recorded 20 speeches, all of which—even the Secretary of State's—have added something to the discussion. We do not always hear much of substance from the right hon. Gentleman, but today he made the welcome announcement that earnings will be treated broadly like savings under the legislation. We look forward to hearing the details of that and to discussing other points in Committee. Even those other Labour contributors who might be regarded as trusties all had something of interest to say. My hon. Friends and our newly acquired associates in the reasoned amendment also made telling contributions.
  There is a degree of mutual understanding of the fact that there are some problems, even if only of complexity. I suppose that in his daily life the average, not very well off, older person has quite enough to deal with in terms of difficulties with transport, hospital appointments, local law and order and so on, without worrying too much about the theology of pensions—whether the pension he

  661
  receives, or hopes to receive if he has not yet retired, is sourced primarily from the state and the taxpayer or from private provision. As has been said this evening, what people want is an adequate income. The signs are that they are not getting it now and the position of those who will retire in future may be worse rather than better, which nobody in the House wants.
  I am surprised that the Government have not claimed any credit for the 4.1 per cent. increase in the basic retirement pension this year, or claimed it as absolution from the error of the 75p increase in the past. They are committed to a minimum annual increase, even if it is above the inflation rate. While the increase seems substantial, it is interesting how quickly it is absorbed in my county where, for example, council tax is to rise by about 12 per cent. It is well known that the number of pensioners who fail to claim the council tax benefit for which they are eligible is even higher than those who do not claim the MIG. Those examples put the state pension increase in context.
  I am not sure how often Ministers are let out to talk to ordinary people, but I could not help but be struck when I attended a meeting last week in the House with the Greater London Pensioners Association—not my natural soul mate—by the intensity of its members' feelings about their situation. Words like "betrayal" were bandied about, and were not being applied to the Opposition. One lady gave a trenchant summary:
  "If the Government can give us this pension credit, it can afford to pay us a decent basic pension."
  That was said some time before we tabled our reasoned amendment.
  Let me say, almost at the outset, that we have no problem with the Government's objectives or motives. They have a good stated objective of reversing the proportions of 60 per cent. state provision for retirement and 40 per cent. private provision, although we have doubts about whether they will succeed. We recognise that the Bill would provide additional resources for pensioners of at least £2 billion in the first full year, no doubt mounting to an astronomic figure if the measure lasts the course. The essence of our amendment, however, is that the money could have been spent to better effect; it is being frittered away and is going in the wrong direction.
  Ministers need to come to terms with the fact that not all is well on the pensions front. I happened to pick up the money section of The Sunday Telegraph yesterday. It is stuffed with problems; one article on the front page says that the Government's annuity reforms are "unworkable", and the main headline concerns a row about auditing stakeholder pensions. Turning the page, the personal finance editor on page 2 describes stakeholder pensions as
  "about as useful to future generations of pensioners as a soluble bikini to a keen swimmer."
  Then there is the implosion of final salary schemes under the searchlight of FRS17 and the general current advice that the level of contracting-out rebates on offer makes it sensible for many holders of personal pensions to opt back into the state second scheme. That is all the more reason for the Government to come clean about the function and purpose of the state second pension, created inadvertently through mistaken analogy with SERPS, which was set up for a different purpose, without crucial details about its future course, for example the date at
  662
  which it becomes flat rate. Whatever we say about who is the friend of the pensioner, we can be sure that the Government are friends of a broadly friendless second pension system.
  Of course, we do not mind Labour giving more money to any pensioner, but we do not accept the tangled and complicated way in which it is doing so. No doubt the Secretary of State rather prides himself on being an intellectual—he is not the only one in this place, of course—and no doubt he can understand how his new system works. I might be able to claim that my single brain drifts in and out of understanding of the system, but in terms of the system's basic intelligibility to the electorate on the doorstep, it is an absolute no-go area. The less intelligible the system, the less likely people are to make well-informed choices about their retirement planning, and the greater the shock that they may encounter, as the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said.
  The Government may well find that the costs of the system will escalate and become unsustainable. It is a very heavy price to pay for a temporary fix to the incomes of some but not all poorer current pensioners—those who manage to take up the benefit and/or who suffer no natural downturn in their income while enjoying the pension credit.
  The operation of the pension service is of growing concern, which has been echoed not just on the Conservative Benches. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), has any experience of fighting bush fires, but she now has a second one breaking out with the Public and Commercial Services union. In addition to the concern that it has expressed on security matters in relation to Jobcentre Plus, it has recently circularised members expressing concerns about the local accessibility of the pension service.
  I note that the Trades Union Congress in its evidence to the House of Commons inquiry on pension credit emphasised specifically that the Government should take particular care to communicate the way in which the credit will work to all pensioners. With the greatest respect to Ministers, one cannot do that on the internet when only 10 per cent. of pensioners are silver surfers—although we hope that that number will increase. Pensioners need to be able to get through on the telephone, although they also need the opportunity of seeing a person who can give them advice and, indeed, reassurance on what is to happen.
  Behind all this is a much more substantial fact. The spectre of the means test is being fattened up by the Government's new approach to it. Whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have said in opposition, when means-testing was anathema, it has become the centre of Government pension policy. It spreads its tentacles: two thirds of pensioners very soon and perhaps three quarters in due course will be caught up in the system.
  Mr. Levitt: If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is right to attack poverty by providing more means to those who are most in need, how would he go about identifying those who need the greatest help?
  Mr. Boswell: I think that we have already discussed the fact that there will need to be a means-tested safety

  663
  net, as there is provided by the minimum income guarantee already. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is unreasonable to expect a detailed prescription in the three or four minutes remaining to me, but I can tell him and the House that we are convinced because of one simple fact that the Government are not going about this in the right way. If, even on the minimalist estimates, one in five of those who are entitled to the MIG are not claiming it, how much less likely is it, particularly when income changes, that pensioners will claim pension credit? Nearly everything in policy seems to be going the opposite way from the Government.
  I find it striking that the recent IPPR report concluded after 18 months, though it was rubbished by the Secretary of State in 10 minutes, that
  "a policy framework which relies heavily on means-testing retirement benefits is flawed."
  It also indicated that it had not started with the assumption but that it would be recommending an increase in the basic pension.
  I find it remarkable that so many Members of Parliament from different parties have associated themselves with our reasoned amendment. I cannot remember when that has happened before. I believe that it reflects a number of genuine concerns across the House. First, there is a pensions crisis. It is already apparent but has not come to a head. Secondly, means-testing is not the way to solve that crisis because it involves disincentives to save, and complexity is the greatest disincentive of all. Beyond that, there is the current pressure on funded pension provision: the reduction, for example, of employer contributions; the erosion of income by the Chancellor's pensions tax, and the decline in final salary schemes. The Government may end up with a huge and unsustainable contingent liability to support pensioners' incomes. There is also the issue of whether moneys could have been better spent.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, Beveridge understood that universal benefit, given careful targeting, can meet most specific needs. There is a real problem, especially for older pensioners, many of them female, in achieving adequate income. Help could be given to them without creating a cat's-cradle of means-tested incentive.
  The final drivers to the amendment are perhaps more general. Pension provision, above all aspects of social policy, is long term. I think sometimes of my new granddaughter, who has not yet reached the age of one year. It might be sensible for me to take out a stakeholder pension for her. The signs are that she will have to work up to the age of 70 to provide herself with an adequate pension.
  As politicians, we cannot allow our ego or our own pet nostrums, or political positions, to get in the way of agreed decisions that will affect the quality of life for the next few generations. We need to get on side people of good will, even including, if possible, the Government. We need to get them behind a programme of, preferably, agreed and well-targeted reforms. The Bill does not provide those reforms.
  There is perhaps even one wider consideration that is worth mentioning briefly. The Opposition amendment, which has the support of other parties, is a reasoned
  664
  amendment, and a reasonable amendment too. I have supported the Conservative party throughout my adult life because I believe strongly, as I always have, that the party of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and Disraeli has had something worth saying on social policy. It has real achievements to its name in this as in other areas.
  I am pleased that this side of Toryism is reawakening. I say to everyone in the House that when we reach out in the spirit of consensus to help disadvantaged people, I hope that they in turn will respond.
  9.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I agree with the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) about one thing, and that is that we have had an interesting debate that has illustrated, among many other things, a massive gulf between our own aims as a Government and the views of the ragbag of opposing parties that are supporting the reasoned amendment. In contrast to them, we are determined to provide all pensioners with a decent and secure income in retirement, by concentrating on promoting fairness, rewarding thrift and targeting the most help on those who need it most, the poorer pensioners. The widening income gap which was our inheritance from 18 years of Tory pension policy makes that the right thing to do.
  Meanwhile the Tories—we have heard this again this evening—are committed to privatising the basic state pension and washing their hands of any obligation to ensure fair and adequate pensions for everybody in retirement. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) called it pension plus mark 3. He is writing the policy, so he should know.
  We have had the usual demonstration of rank opportunism from Liberal Democrat Members. That is familiar to all of us who encounter the cynical campaigning methods of Liberal Democrats at a local level. I am sure that Conservative Opposition Members will agree with me about that. They steal some Labour policies and add a dash of uncosted aspiration while agreeing with Tory criticisms. Yet again they are trying to appeal to everyone by claiming that they can conjure better outcomes out of the air with the same amount of money. That is the usual sleight of hand that we expect from them.
  We had the most incredible flight of incomprehensible mathematical fantasy from the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). Perhaps that is why the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) says that the Lib Dems are positioning themselves to the right of Labour while Lord Ashdown bemoans them being stranded to the left of Labour. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) says that they are not left of Labour and not right of Labour. It will take all of the higher degrees of the professor, the hon. Member for Northavon, to sort that one out. Of course, the confusion is part of the trick. We still do not know whether they are committed to cutting tax or increasing it. How can anyone believe a word that they say?
  Our approach is the correct one. We want to keep the basic state pension as the foundation of security in retirement but we want everyone who can save towards a second pension to do so. The pension credit assists us in achieving that aim by rewarding those who have saved,

  665
  instead of penalising them for saving. It is targeted on pensioners at the poorer end of the income distribution, but will none the less help up to 5.3 million pensioners by an average of £400 extra a year. It enables as to continue to redistribute resources to those who need them most. In short, it is fair.
  That is in contrast with the Tories, who spent 18 years targeting billions of pounds to induce people to opt out of state provision, only to stimulate massive mis-selling of private pensions. It is not what I call looking after the vulnerable; it is more like looking after the wide boys.
  I shall answer some of the points raised in the debate in a minute, but before I do I want to look at why we need to help poorer pensioners most; it goes to the heart of the points about the means test, and we have heard a lot about that. It is due to the record of the Tory party after its 18 years in charge of pension policy. We are still trying to right the wrongs that it created. Labour Members are not going to forget that it is an appalling legacy.
  Over those 18 years, the newly styled party of the vulnerable over on the Conservative Benches deliberately, and as a result of their smash-and-grab ideology, dismantled vast swathes of state support for pensioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) set it out excellently. The Tories impoverished one in three of our pensioner population—that was 3.5 million people.
  That was not the accidental result of impersonal market forces and global economics. It was the deliberate choice of the Conservative party. It expected a pensioner to live on £69 a week. It cut the value of the basic state pension by £20 a week in real terms and offered no compensating measures. It slashed the value of SERPS not once but twice, while spending billions of pounds bribing peogle out of it and rewarding the mis-selling of inappropriate private pensions to almost 3 million people. It was responsible for slashing the value of inherited SERPS in half and then not bothering to tell anyone, a debacle that it has left us to put right. It left 10 million women who were without proper provision with no alternative but poverty in old age—not much help for the vulnerable there. It introduced VAT on fuel at 8 per cent. and tried to increase it to 17.5 per cent. As a result—
  Mr. Goodman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister will be so good as to tell the House when she will respond to the debate that we have had?
  Mr. Speaker: The Minister is in order. Had she been out of order, I would have let her know.
  Maria Eagle: By 1997, there was an ever-widening gap in pensioner incomes, with the bottom fifth of pensioners—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear this, but Labour Members are not going to forget. The bottom fifth of pensioners saw their income rise by only 20 per cent. in 18 years, while the top fifth had a 70 per cent. boost, and they were better off to start with. The richest 10 per cent. of pensioners had five and a half times more income than the poorest 10 per cent.
  Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Maria Eagle: No. I do not have time.
  666
  It was not just pensioners who were impoverished by the last Tory Government. The number of people living in poverty trebled: it went from one in 14 of the population to one in four. The number of children living in poverty increased from one in 10 to one in three. It was the worst and most shameful record in the industrialised world, and I am not surprised that the Conservative party does not want to hear about it tonight. That was its record.
  It is that disgraceful disparity that we are tackling. The pension credit is an essential part of how we do that for pensioners. That is why we make no apology for targeting help at the poorest end of the income scale. After the Tory years, it is the right thing to do. It is the only thing to do to help the vulnerable.
  By next month, we will be spending an extra £6 billion a year in real terms to boost pensioner incomes and to narrow the income gap between pensioners. We are targeting £2.5 billion of that money directly towards the poorest third of pensioners.
  As a result of our policies between 1997 and 2001, policies that the Tories opposed vehemently, the average pensioner household is now £840 a year better off. Those at the poor end of the income scale have benefited by even more.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has suggested doing things differently. He has tried taking money from pensioners before. During the last Parliament he condemned the winter fuel payment and the free television licence as gimmicks—just as he called the pension credit a gimmick tonight—and pledged to abolish them and consolidate the savings into the basic state pension. That was deeply unpopular with pensioners and within weeks he scuttled back to the drawing board, ending up with a complete hash of a policy. That was the policy on which the Conservatives fought the last general election—to keep the winter fuel payment and the free TV licence or to add them to the basic state pension, with each pensioner having to say which they preferred.
  Having developed that policy, the hon. Gentleman complains about the complexity of our proposals. Maybe having two brains, as he is reported to have, simply means that he has to learn every lesson twice. Labour Members are more than willing to teach him the same lesson again. Going into the next election promising to take an average of £400 in pension credits from pensioners is unlikely to be popular with them. I was going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you should watch out for the U-turn, but I think that we have already heard it during the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  I want to deal with some of the points raised in the debate. [Interruption.] At least I listened to the whole debate, unlike some hon. Members. On means-testing, what Conservative Members call means-testing I call making sure that people who lost out when they were in power get a decent pension. A five-yearly simplified assessment is hardly comparable to a complex weekly means test designed to cover all the variable circumstances of people of working age. The pension credit will abolish the intrusive weekly means test for pensioners. The Tory and Liberal Democrat proposals would not: that assessment would stay if their policy were to be implemented. The assessment that we propose is a decisive move away from treating pensioners in the same way as those of working age.

  667
  We heard a lot about complexity, but the system will be simpler, not more complex. For example, 85 per cent. of pensioners will not need to report the level of their savings or capital at all, because there is a £6,000 disregard and no upper limit. Pensioners will have to report only some income changes, and even then, in most cases, only once every five years. Housing benefit and council tax benefit will be ignored when working out pension credit and some of the smaller, sillier income rules in the MIG will go—for example, the remunerative work rules. Charitable and voluntary payments will be ignored, as will student loans and grants.
  Many hon. Members talked about targeting. Opposition Members of both parties suggested that targeting by age is a proxy for poverty, but if we spent the £2 billion increasing the basic state pension for those aged over 75, only 32 per cent. of it would go to the poorest third. Paying £2 billion to the over-75s would still leave three quarters of them short of the current MIG level.
  Hon. Members said that the pension credit does not benefit women and the very elderly, but it does. Two thirds of the gainers are women, half are over 75 and more than a quarter are over 80. So I do not accept that argument either. Hon. Members from both Opposition parties suggested that we should spend the £2 billion on the basic state pension, but the poorest third of pensioners will gain two and a half times more with the pension credit than with the equivalent spending in basic state pension.
  Now we see that the Tories are trying to reinvent themselves as the party of the vulnerable, but the Leader of the Opposition opposed both the winter fuel payment and the minimum income guarantee. He described the winter fuel payment as "cock-eyed" and the minimum income guarantee as
  "a huge rise in spending … I can think of nothing to recommend it."—[Official Report, 15 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 740–41.]
  The Tories' record clearly shows that they did not care about the vulnerable when they were last in office, and they do not care about them now.
  After the wrecking job that they did on pensioners' incomes between 1979 and 1997, they went into the 1997 election campaign pledged to their pièce de résistance—to privatise the basic state pension. They suffered their worst electoral defeat since 1832. Having condemned all our measures to alleviate pensioner poverty and to put right the mess that they had left us in during the previous Parliament, they went into the 2001 election pledged to privatise the basic state pension. They made a net gain of one seat. They are still in favour of privatising the basic state pension—the leaked letter from the hon. Member for Havant to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield shows that they are working on that now. Their big new idea to help the vulnerable is to privatise the basic state pension. Can a leopard change its spots? Can the Tories stand up for the vulnerable? I think not.
  The Bill is the right way forward, and any party that truly wants to help the vulnerable would support it. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 299.

  Division No. 202]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Greenway, John

  Allan, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Amess, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hancock, Mike

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Bacon, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Baker, Norman

  Hawkins, Nick

  Baldry, Tony

  Hayes, John

  Barker, Gregory

  Heald, Oliver

  Baron, John

  Heath, David

  Barrett, John

  Hendry, Charles

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hoban, Mark

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Horam, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brady, Graham

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brake, Tom

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Breed, Colin

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Keetch, Paul

  Burnett, John

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Burns, Simon

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Burnside, David

  Key, Robert

  Burstow, Paul

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burt, Alistair

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cameron, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Lamb, Norman

  (NE Fife)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Laws, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Leigh, Edward

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clappison, James

  Liddell—Grainger, Ian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Lidington, David

  (Rushcliffe)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Loughton, Tim

  Collins, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Conway, Derek

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cotter, Brian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Mercer, Patrick

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Moore, Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Doughty, Sue

  Öpik, Lembit

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Paice, James

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Paterson, Owen

  Flight, Howard

  Pickles, Eric

  Flook, Adrian

  Price, Adam

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Prisk, Mark

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Francois, Mark

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Gale, Roger

  Rendel, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gibb, Nick

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Goodman, Paul

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gray, James

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Grayling, Chris

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Ruffley, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  669

  Salmond, Alex

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tredinnick, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Trend, Michael

  Selous, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Tyler, Paul

  Simmonds, Mark

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Viggers, Peter

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

  Waterson, Nigel

  Soames, Nicholas

  Watkinson, Angela

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Webb, Steve

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Spink Bob

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spring, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Willetts, David

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Streeter,Gary

  Willis, Phil

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wilshire David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Swire, Hugo

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Syms, Robert

  Wishart, Pete

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Younger—Ross, Richard

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mr. John Randall and

  Thurso, John

  Mr. Julian Brazier.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clelland, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clwyd, Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Coaker, Vernon

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Coleman, Iain

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Connarty, Michael

  Austin, John

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Banks, Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Cranston, Ross

  Bayley, Hugh

  Crausby, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Cruddas, Jon

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Berry, Roger

  (Copeland)

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blizzard, Bob

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Borrow, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  David, Wayne

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davidson, Ian

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bryant, Chris

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Burden, Richard

  Dobbin, Jim

  Burnham, Andy

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Cairns, David

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Drew, David

  Caplin, Ivor

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Casale, Roger

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Challen, Colin

  Edwards, Huw

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Clapham, Michael

  Etherington, Bill

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Flynn, Paul

  670

  Follett, Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCabe, Stephen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gapes, Mike

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  MacDougall, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McFall, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Godsiff, Roger

  McIsaac, Shona

  Goggins, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWalter, Tony

  Grogan, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mann, John

  Hanson, David

  Marris, Rob

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Havard, Dai

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Healey, John

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hendrick, Mark

  Meale, Alan

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Heppell, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Miliband, David

  Heyes, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hill, Keith

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mole, Chris

  Hoey, Kate

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Moran, Margaret

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Morley, Elliot

  Hope, Phil

  Mullin, Chris

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Hurst, Alan

  Pearson, Ian

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Perham, Linda

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Picking, Anne

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Plaskitt, James

  Irranca—Davies, Huw

  Pond, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Purnell, James

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rapson, Syd

  Kidney, David

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Robertson, John

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ross, Ernie

  Laxton, Bob

  Roy, Frank

  Lepper, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Ryan, Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Salter, Martin

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Linton, Martin

  Sawford, Phil

  Love, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Luke, Iain

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lyons, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  671

  Sheridan, Jim

  Tipping, Paddy

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Todd, Mark

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Touhig, Don

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Trickett, Jon

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Soley, Clive

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Squire, Rachel

  Watson Tom

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Watts, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  White, Brian

  Stevenson, George

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stringer, Graham

  Woolas, Phil

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Worthington, Tony

  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:

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Dan Norris and

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Jim Fitzpatrick.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the State Pension Credit Bill [Lords]

  State Pension Credit Bill [Lords]
    Committal
    (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    Programming of proceedings
    (2) All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any other messages from the Lords) shall be programmed.

    Proceedings in Standing Committee
    (3) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 30th April 2002.
    (4) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    (5) Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
    (6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
    (7) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.—[Mr. Kemp.]
    The House divided: Ayes 354, Noes 134.

    Division No. 203]

    [10.15 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Coleman, Iain

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Connarty, Michael

    Ainger, Nick

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Alexander, Douglas

    Cotter, Brian

    Allan Richard

    Cousins, Jim

    Allen Graham

    Cranston, Ross

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Crausby, David

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Cruddas, Jon

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Austin, John

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bail, Adrian

    Cummings, John

    Bai Vera

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

    Bak Norman

    (Copeland)

    Ban, Tony

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov"try S)

    Ban tt, John

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Ban, Kevin

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ba y, Hugh

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Be, Nigel

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Be ett Rt Hon Margaret

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Be, Miss Anne

    David, Wayne

    Bei, Rt Hon A J

    Davidson, Ian

    Be ett, Andrew

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Ber n, Joe

    Dawson, Hilton

    Ber, Roger

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Bet, Clive

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Bla man, Liz

    Dismore, Andrew

    Ble s, Ms Hazel

    Dobbin, Jim

    Bliz ard, Bob

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Bo w, David

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Bra ley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Doran, Frank

    Bra ley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Doughty, Sue

    Bra shaw, Ben

    Dowd, Jim

    Bra e, Tom

    Drew, David

    Bre d, Colin

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Brennan, Kevin

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Edwards, Huw

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Bryant, Chris

    Etherington, Bill

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Farrelly, Paul

    Burden, Richard

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Burnham, Andy

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Burstow, Paul

    Flynn, Paul

    Cabe, Dr Vincent

    Follett, Barbara

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Cairns, David

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    (NE Fife)

    Gapes, Mike

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Caplin, Ivor

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Casale, Roger

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Challen, Colin

    Gidley, Sandra

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Clapham, Michael

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Goggins, Paul

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Grogan, John

    Clelland, David

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hancock, Mike

    673

    Hanson, David

    McFall, John

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McKechin, Ann

    Harvey, Nick

    McNulty, Tony

    Havard, Dai

    MacShane, Denis

    Healey, John

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Heath, David

    McWalter, Tony

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mann, John

    Heppell, John

    Marris, Rob

    Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Heyes, David

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hill, Keith

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Hoey, Kate

    Martlew, Eric

    Hood, Jimmy

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Meale, Alan

    Hope, Phil

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Milburn Rt Hon Alan

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Miliband, David

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Mole, Chris

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Moore, Michael

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moran, Margaret

    Hurst, Alan

    Morley, Elliot

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Mullin, Chris

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Illsley, Eric

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Irranca—Davies, Huw

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jamieson, David

    O'Hara, Edward

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Neill, Martin

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Pearson, Ian

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Perham, Linda

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Picking, Anne

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Keetch, Paul

    Plaskitt, James

    Kemp, Fraser

    Pond, Chris

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

    Pound, Stephen

    (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Kidney, David

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Price, Adam

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Pugh, Dr John

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Purnell, James

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Lamb, Norman

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Rapson, Syd

    Laws, David

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Laxton, Bob

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Lepper, David

    Rendel, David

    Leslie, Christopher

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Levitt, Tom

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Linton, Martin

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Love, Andrew

    Rooney, Terry

    Luke, Iain

    Ross, Ernie

    Lyons, John

    Roy, Frank

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ruddock, Joan

    McCabe, Stephen

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    McCafferty, Chris

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Ryan, Joan

    MacDonald, Calum

    Salmond, Alex

    McDonnell, John

    Salter, Martin

    MacDougall, John

    Sanders, Adrian

    674

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Thurso, John

    Sawford, Phil

    Tipping, Paddy

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Todd, Mark

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Sheerman, Barry

    Touhig, Don

    Sheridan, Jim

    Trickett, Jon

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Tyler, Paul

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Tynan, Bill

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Ward, Ms Claire

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

    Wareing, Robert N

    Soley, Clive

    Watson, Tom

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    Watts, David

    Squire, Rachel

    Webb, Steve

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    White, Brian

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Stevenson, George

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    (Swansea W)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Willis, Phil

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Wilson, Brian

    Stringer, Graham

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Wishart, Pete

    Stunell, Andrew

    Woodward, Shaun

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Woolas, Phil

    Tami, Mark

    Worthington, Tony

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Younger—Ross, Richard

    Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Dan Norris and

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Jim Fitzpatrick.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M

    Amess, David

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Evans, Nigel

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Bacon, Richard

    Flight, Howard

    Baldry, Tony

    Flook, Adrian

    Barker, Gregory

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Baron, John

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Francois, Mark

    Blunt, Crispin

    Gale, Roger

    Boswell, Tim

    Gibb, Nick

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Brady, Graham

    Goodman, Paul

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gray, James

    Burns, Simon

    Grayling, Chris

    Burnside, David

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Burt, Alistair

    Greenway, John

    Cameron, David

    Grieve, Dominic

    Cash, William

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Hammond, Philip

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Chope, Christopher

    Hayes, John

    Clappison, James

    Heald, Oliver

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Hendry, Charles

    (Rushcliffe)

    Hoban, Mark

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Horam, John

    Collins, Tim

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Conway, Derek

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cran, James

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Key, Robert

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    675

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Selous, Andrew

    Lansley, Andrew

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Leigh, Edward

    Simmonds, Mark

    Letwin, Oliver

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Liddell—Grainger, Ian

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Lidington, David

    Spink, Bob

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spring, Richard

    Loughton, Tim

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Luff, Peter

    Streeter, Gary

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Swire, Hugo

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Syms, Robert

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Tredinnick, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Trend, Michael

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Viggers, Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Page, Richard

    Watkinson, Angela

    Paice, James

    Whittingdale, John

    Paterson, Owen

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Pickles, Eric

    Wilkinson, John

    Prisk, Mark

    Willetts, David

    Randall, John

    Wilshire, David

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Yeo, Tim

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Ruffley, David

    Mr. Julian Brazier and

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Mr. Desmond Swayne.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    STATE PENSION CREDIT BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the State Pension Credit Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

    (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (a) any sums payable by way of state pension credit;

    (b) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State or other government department under or by virtue of the Act; and

    (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act; and

    (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable into that Fund.—[Mr. Kemp.]

    Question agreed to.

    WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That—

    (1) the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;

    676

    (2) the Committee shall meet on Wednesday 24th April at half-past Ten o'clock and between Four o'clock and Six o'clock at Westminster to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales, under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)).—[Mr. Kemp.]

PETITIONS

  Fireworks
  10.29 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by more than 2,000 residents of north Kent, most of them pet owners, expressing concern about the recent increase in private firework displays throughout the year. They feel that the suffering that their animals are forced to endure from night after night of fireworks is wholly unacceptable and unnecessary and want legislation to be introduced as soon as possible to restrict the sale of fireworks to the general public to traditional festivals such as 5 November, new year's eve and Diwali.
  The petition states:
  The Humble Petition of the residents of North Kent sheweth
  That the significant recent increase in private firework displays throughout the calendar year is causing considerable unnecessary distress to domestic animals and livestock and undue nuisance to residents.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take such measures as lie within its power to restrict the use of fireworks by the general public to New Year's Eve, religious festivals during which fireworks are traditionally used, such as Diwali, and the 14-day period around 5 November, and further request that the sale of fireworks by retail outlets be restricted to the same 14-day period around 5 November and religious festivals and to the five-day period up to and including New Year's Eve.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Bolton Magistrates Court
  10.32 pm
  Mr. David Crausby: I present a petition organised by my local newspaper the Bolton Evening News, and supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly) and myself.
  The petition states:
  The petition of residents of Bolton declares
  That they deplore the recommendation of the Greater Manchester Magistrates Court Committee to close Bolton Magistrates Court; that closing the court would be a travesty of justice and prevent them from gaining full access to the law.
  The petition also expresses concern that magistrates from other towns will hear cases involving Bolton issues that they may not understand. It says:
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Lord Chancellor to intervene on the Petitioners' behalf and block the planned closure of Bolton Magistrates Court.
  To lie upon the Table.

Gerard Morgan
10.33 pm
Mr. David Cameron: I present a petition with 342 signatures on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Morgan of 53 Queens road in Carterton.
The petition states:
The Petition of Mr. and Mrs. L. S. Morgan
Declares that on 14 December their son Gerard Morgan was convicted of rape at Oxford Crown court; that he was subsequently sentenced to four years' imprisonment: and that he has maintained throughout that he is innocent of the crime for which he has been convicted.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons take note of the fact that Gerard Morgan believes that he has been convicted of a crime which he did not commit.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Farming (Somerset)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
10.34 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am delighted to have secured this debate and even more delighted that four Somerset Members are here and that the fifth has sent his apologies—he could not make it.
Why the need for this debate? Last year farming almost stopped in Somerset. It was the year of foot and mouth, and it was a complete and utter disaster. Across Somerset, the whole fabric of rural life fell apart. Cattle could not be moved, tourists could not come to the area and the markets could not open. Nothing happened. Where are we going now?
Just before I came here to speak, I picked up a copy of the latest "Working for the Essentials of Life", which contains some interesting paragraphs, one of which states:
"Our task is now to carry forward those ideas in partnership with everyone who has a stake in farming and the food industries to ensure that English food and farming succeed. Together, we will define a lasting strategy".
It continues:
"The EU must determine its own negotiating stance by 2003",
so that, when we go to the World Trade Organisation, we make absolutely sure that British farming is at the forefront of our thinking. I wonder how we can do that, however, because one of our problems especially in Somerset, is brand awareness.
Somerset has an enormous amount to be proud of there is obviously our cider, and we make our own jam and we have our own apples and meat, including lamb. We have an enormous breadth of goods, but we cannot put brand awareness properly across because our co-operatives are not large enough. I ask the Minister whether the European Union co-operative money can now be made available to create co-operatives to develop brand awareness across Somerset, the United Kingdom and the world. As we have a winner, let us try to push it.
I want to talk about some of the issues facing farming that are causing problems for farmers, now and in future. The first is the tractor vibration directive. People may ask what on earth is a tractor vibration directive, but it states that tractors cannot be driven for more than seven hours because the vibration may cause damage to people's fingers. I checked with the National Farmers Union, which is also an insurance company, and it has not encountered that problem in 25 years. I wonder how people on Exmoor and the levels and throughout Somerset will deal with the harvest, seed time and lambing.
I was told that there is no way around the problem because of a lack of staff. Will farmers seriously be told to put tachographs into their tractors? Will they be told that they have to get off their tractors after seven hours? Who will police the directive? Moreover, why should vibration be a problem with new tractors? Before the directive becomes a law in the eyes of the British and something to be ignored in the eyes of the French, I urge the Minister to stop it as quickly as possible. If it reaches the statute book, I can see nothing but trouble from start to finish, as well as challenges from farmers and the NFU.

679
The second issue, which has affected Somerset massively, is the collapse in the price of organic milk. Organic produce was the great hope for the future. After two years, farmers could take organic produce to the heights of farming. They would receive a premium for their goods, enjoy a continuity of supply and be guaranteed a good income. They knew that they had a saleable asset at the end of the day. What has happened? Milk prices are now 3p below the national average. People cannot continue to farm with those prices; they certainly cannot do so as organic producers.
Yeo Valley, which has sites in all Somerset constituencies, is the biggest producer of organic yoghurt, milk and cream. It is now buying milk at a price that suits it, but which is crucifying the industry. I am always happy to support the Soil Association, but purists in a cut-throat market will find that their throats are cut by the others involved. The supermarkets are now importing an immense amount of supposedly organic goods, and the Soil Association says, "That's fine; we'll okay it." Even though the produce is not organic in the eyes of the Soil Association in the United Kingdom, it is organic outside it. If we go down that line, we could find that the organic industry grinds to a halt because we are determined to remains purists and not to allow ourselves to keep pace with the French, Germans and others, who do certainly do not do as we do.
I want to move on to a somewhat contentious issue—badgers. Everyone understands why the Krebs testing had to stop because of foot and mouth disease. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) because a lot of that testing took place in his constituency, and it was at the forefront of helping us to understand whether badgers carry tuberculosis. We do not know whether they do, and unless the testing starts again, the problem will be that people will start to take the law into their own hands, as has happened before. We want to prevent that from happening again.
The problem is that we know that something carries TB, but we do not know what it is. Regardless of what some people may say, if the testing is begun again, farmers will be given the hope that a resolution will be found to the problem.
We know that there is a major problem when the largest farms on Exmoor are shut down because of tuberculosis and cannot move their cattle. Tuberculosis is travelling in some form and I urge the Minister to consider that problem carefully. Unless he does that, the future on the levels, Exmoor and throughout Somerset could be bleak indeed. We know what it is like not to be able to move our cattle—nearly 3,500 cattle were stuck on Exmoor. The fact that we could not get the cattle off the land in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) caused enormous damage to the welfare of many animals. I urge the Minister to reinstate testing.
Flooding affects all our constituencies in Somerset. None of us is in any doubt that last year was a disaster for farming in the county. Not only did we suffer the problem of foot and mouth but we lost a huge amount of land because of flooding. The Tone and the Parret burst their banks and an enormous amount of land disappeared under water.
Mr. Adrian Flook: My hon. Friend is right to mention flooding and the Parret catchment area, which
680
covers well over half of Somerset. I am sure he is aware of plans finally to do something about flooding in the catchment area, especially around the River Tone and the vale of Taunton Deane. Is he hopeful that the Government will put the money in to back those plans for the Parret catchment area?
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I thank my hon. Friend for that complicated question. I agree that the money needs to come from central Government. It is interesting to note that the Parret catchment project proposes to create inland lakes. It is possible that we will have a 15,000 m storage lake that will cover parts of the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and will cost in the region of £75,000 to create.
I have two worries about that. The creation of deep flood-storage reservoirs off the flood plain by intercepting run-off, which is what the project will try to achieve, will affect all our constituencies in Somerset. The retention of shallow flood water in the flood plain through the construction of bunds will have the same effect. Although those are noble ideals, according to the document, the landowners have not agreed to those measures. They have said that they like the idea in principle, but who will fund the landowners? The £75,000 is for the work. At the moment the landowners get subsidies to farm the land in the levels. Who is going to tell them that we want to flood their land not just for a few weeks, but for months, especially in the case of last year, and that the barrage is not built and is unlikely to be completed in the next few years? Farmers in our constituencies will be unable to farm because of water. It is great for ducks—I know that the Minister is an ornithologist—but it is not so good for farmers who want to grow hay and put their cattle and sheep out to graze. That cannot happen if their land is covered in water.
We saw a prime example of that last year and the levels have still not dried out although we have had a good winter and spring. I am worried that although the catchment project is a marvellous ideal, in practice I cannot understand how it will take up the slack in the levels in the long term. The idea is to be eco-friendly. I am sure that the purpose of the project is not to destroy habitat. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is concerned that if the water level fluctuates too much, the project could damage wildlife rather than help it. I hope that the Minister will also take on board the fact that this has been a good year for foxes and badgers, which are not exactly kind to nesting birds, especially ones on the edges of lakes that recede. I want him to think about that carefully.
On imports, there has been an enormous restocking of cattle and sheep, for obvious reasons to do with events last year. This week, however, there have been problems. According to the NFU's "Farmer's Facts", which I believe all the farmers of Somerset receive, France has been helping with restocking, and we now have positive tests for tuberculosis. One animal was found to be positive in a routine test, and other results have been inconclusive. The problem is that animals being imported live to take up the slack have diseases that they are bringing into the UK. Surely after conquering and eradicating the frightful disease last year, with the enormous cost not only to the Treasury but to the industry and farmers themselves, we do not want any repeat of the outbreak as a result of people being able to bring animals into the country.

681
Cannot animals be tested in European countries before they are brought into the UK? Would it be possible for those tests to be made available to farmers and to the Department, so that there is no repeat of what happened last year? The scare is that we are now importing 10,000 tonnes of beef from Argentina to Europe, and we all know precisely what has been going on in Argentina. It is all very well to help a country that is bankrupt, but we should not bring in meat that may well be contaminated.
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He is ranging wide, and is correct to do so. Does he agree that there are two essential factors that the Government should consider in the interests of Somerset farmers? The first is biosecurity at our borders for live animals and meat, which he is addressing at the moment, and the second is the need to ensure the sustainability of the dairy industry by achieving an increase in the farmgate price of milk, which is crucial to the future of dairy farmers.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely useful point as usual, and I agree that our borders are this country's last bastion. Countries in Europe cannot guard their borders; we can guard ours. His marvellous intervention illustrates that the future will be very difficult unless we can control what is coming into the country.
I was sent a Meat and Livestock Commission briefing, although I did not flick through it until I came down to the Chamber. The MLC is looking to increase the share of the domestic market, which is laudable, to ensure that the competitiveness of the industry improves and to develop the market at home and overseas because we still have problems exporting. It also wants to signal to the industry the possible developments and implications beyond the medium term and to work with the Government in lifting constraints on British beef being exported.
That sums up the feeling in Somerset. We need those markets back. We need the Government's help in securing markets for the future. Somerset has always been a net exporter and it always will be. If we cannot secure markets, we will not be in a position to help ourselves to get out of this mess. I am asking the Minister to consider how the Government can help specific areas such as Somerset.
The Minister for Rural Affairs came to address the turning point conference in Minehead. I was interested to note that promotion for the conference and surrounding events to advertise food and other goods from the south-west cost £450,000. In Scotland and Wales such promotion is paid for centrally. Will the Minister consider making available finance from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to help the south-west to publicise our goods, rather than the funding coming out of our pockets?
The Minister should remember that agriculture in the south-west is bigger than that in Wales and Scotland. Agriculture in Somerset has increased enormously. The presence of four of the county's MPs, and the apologies of the fifth, who could not attend because of other duties, shows the strength of feeling about the fact that Somerset farming is recovering, but without the Government's help, it will not do so fully. The Minister must remember that if we cannot sell our goods, we will not have an industry.
10.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on the way in which he made his case. He has covered a wide range of issues, which I recognise are important to Somerset, its agricultural community, local people and the local economy. I shall try to deal with some of the points that he made.
I should say first that foot and mouth disease had a devastating effect in Somerset, as it did in many other parts of the country and in the country as a whole. The impact and consequences were far-reaching indeed.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's attention to "Working for the Essentials of Life". It sets out clearly in the prospectus, the aims and objectives of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in which I am proud to be a Minister, and it is an important vehicle in helping us to deliver improvements in rural life and the rural economy.
I strongly support the hon. Gentleman's comments about local brand awareness. There are some wonderful brands in Somerset, as there are in other parts of the country. We should celebrate and market those brands, and emphasise the quality of our regional foods. I hope to say more about that shortly.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned co-ops. In its report, the policy commission on the future of farming and food identified the need to encourage co-ops in this country. We lag behind Europe in co-ops in terms of their nature, sophistication and number, and how common they are in food marketing and agriculture. The commission also called for a food chain initiative—a call that the Government welcome. It provides an opportunity to give farmers more of the added value, bring them closer to the market, and give them a better share overall. More work is clearly needed on issues such as milk.
The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the vibration directive. I understand his arguments and I have followed the debate in the farming press. The directive is not yet law, but it is likely to be adopted by the Agriculture Council. However, it might reassure him to know that farmers will have a 12-year transition period before the full application of the directive.
Furthermore, although the current directive refers to seven hours a day continuous use of a tractor, my understanding is that that is not an absolute figure and that hours can be aggregated over the course of a week. More important, the seven hours a day restriction might apply to some tractors in use now, but will not apply to more modern tractors.
Tractor design has improved enormously—I have always been especially impressed by the JCB Fasttrac design. That might sound like an advertisement, but I know that it is a superb design that has produced a tremendous market leader in the form of a tractor that has suspension and a high-speed gearbox and offers tremendous in-cab comfort. Perhaps I should put on record the fact that I was driven around in one at the JCB factory not long ago.
I recognise the problems surrounding organic milk production. I recently held discussions with OMSCO, the Organic Milk Suppliers Co-operative Ltd., which does an excellent job and which the Government are keen to

683
support. We appreciate that when there is overproduction of a commodity, a fall in price occurs. We should take note of the lessons that the example of organic milk offers about how far and how fast to expand production of an organic commodity.
We are discussing with OMSCO ways in which we might assist through the range of support available through DEFRA. I shall talk with my officials to see how we might provide further help, especially on the marketing side. It may well be that the market will stabilise itself in due course, but I certainly appreciate that the current situation is a problem for organic milk producers.
Badgers and TB constitute a difficult subject. It is difficult for the Government because we are lobbied on the one hand by people who believe that the case against badgers is indisputable, and on the other hand by people who argue equally vociferously that the case against badgers is totally unproved; and both groups ask us why are we wasting our time with the Krebs trial.
However, I believe that it is a proper, sound and scientific way of examining the epidemiology of bovine TB. We need that experiment, as it will answer many of the unresolved questions that have been debated for more than 20 years. We cannot go on like that, which is why the scheme has been restarted. The survey is under way—it is the closed season for the culling of badgers—and we recognise that we need to get the scheme back on track. Professor Bourne of the independent scientific group is confident that the disruption of the foot and mouth epidemic will not knock the trial off course.
Mr. John Burnett: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) for raising that matter, as tuberculosis is deeply frustrating for the farming community. The Minister and I have debated the matter on a number of occasions. The trials will take some time; can he tell us whether there is any progress at all on licences to move unaffected cattle from affected herds to collection areas or centres?
Mr. Morley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am sympathetic to that problem. As I understand it, work is in hand to facilitate the provision of collection centres. I can certainly update him after tonight's debate.
The TB testing programme was knocked off course by the foot and mouth epidemic. It is now being restarted and priority is being given to hot-spot areas. We are confident that we will be able to eliminate the backlog in due course; that will take a bit of time, but we are putting our vets and staff back on to the task.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater spoke about flooding in the Somerset levels, an issue with which I am familiar and in which I take an interest. I have been closely involved in discussions, and welcome the production of the Parret catchment water management strategy action plan for 2002. I have recently received those plans and am reading them with great interest. Of course, the feasibility of the suggestions and their long-term implications have to be examined; that is a prerequisite for any action plan, and my Department will make such an examination. Our engineers will do so, as will the
684
Environment Agency, and we will talk to the various people involved. I want to put on record my appreciation of all the groups that have come together to try to address the issue; they have tried to work together co-operatively by recognising problems rather than taking a polarised position, which is a great step forward.
The Somerset levels are a flood plain, and for generations people farmed there sustainably in recognition of the area's characteristics. In recent years, with the influence of the common agricultural policy and subsidies, some of that farming has become less sustainable. We must look at our agri-environment programmes and things such as the action plan; we must talk to the communities, people and farmers who are involved and look at how we can address the issue in a mutually beneficial way. We must consider the management of conservation and biodiversity and the needs of local farmers and communities to see if we can find a strategy and a way through. The report assists with that.
On animals being imported for restocking, I again reassure the hon. Gentleman that every single live animal currently imported is checked for disease by DEFRA staff. We recently identified brucellosis in one creature because every single animal is blood-tested. I recognise that biosecurity, both on our borders and our farms, is important; that issue was addressed at a recent meeting that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State held in the Department. To put the record straight, meat from countries like Argentina is not imported from regions with an active disease outbreak. It has to go through onerous procedures of deboning and hanging; if beef is hung for a certain time, the changes in pH will destroy any virus that it might contain. There is therefore no risk to this country from legal imports of beef from countries like Argentina which comply with the regulations. It is not complacent to say that; it makes it clear that there are procedures in place to ensure disease control.
I recognise the point about the need to re-establish markets. We shall help in promoting them. Taste of the West recently received £200,000 of FMD recovery money to help, through marketing support and promotion, speciality foods in Somerset and other areas of the south-west recover from the effects of the disease. I am sure that there are other ways that we can assist. We are happy to talk to organisations such as Taste of the West—which does an excellent job in promoting local foods—and we have constant and regular meetings with farming and rural organisations.
Certainly, there are problems in agriculture. The hon. Gentleman identified a number of them. I believe that we can overcome those problems. Some of the problems in the comprehensive list that he gave will be easier and quicker to resolve than others, but we are committed to doing so. We want a partnership approach to dealing with the problems, and we are making progress in the aftermath of foot and mouth on returning normality and stability to the agriculture sector.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Trade
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether fair trade products are sold in his Department. [39832]

  Dr. John Reid
  No fair trade products are sold in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Community Integration
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures the Government have taken in Northern Ireland to assist in the integration of the Catholic and Protestant communities. [41588]

  Mr. Browne
  Section 75(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that"… a public authority shall, in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland, have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group."

  As an example of this the Government are committed to the implementation of the Patten recommendations, which are designed to make the police service more widely accepted throughout the community and more representative of the whole community.

  A cross-community Policing Board has been established; recruitment to the new Police Service of Northern Ireland is now taking place on the basis of 50 per cent. Catholic and 50 per cent. non-Catholic. A new badge for the police service has been agreed, containing symbols which show parity of esteem for both sides of the community.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were employed in a press or public relations function in his Department on 1 January in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [39943]

  Dr. John Reid
  Information is not held in the format requested.

  The number of people employed in the Information Service Division of the Northern Ireland Office between 1997 and 2002 is as follows:

  Number

  1 April 1997

  37

  1 April 1998

  40

  1 April 1999

  52

  1 April 2000

  52

  1 April 2001

  36

  1 January 2002

  35

  VIP Police Protection
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland receive VIP police protection; how many officers are involved in providing this service; and what the annual cost of providing this service is. [22920]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has advised me that 91 persons receive some level of police protection. This involves approximately 400 police officers whose duties range from escorting, close protection, to static security at private homes.

  The annual cost of providing this level of protection is approximately £21 million. This figure comprises basic police pay and allowances, overtime and vehicle costs as applicable.

  Decommissioning
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent progress has been made towards decommissioning. [43845]

  Jane Kennedy
  IICD reported, on 23 October 2001, that it had witnessed an event, which it regarded as significant, in which the IRA had put a quantity of arms completely beyond use. It also confirmed that the weapons decommissioned included arms, ammunition and explosives.

  We now want to see further decommissioning by the IRA, and decommissioning by all other terrorist groups.

  Northern Ireland Prison Service
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the NI Prison Service will publish its 2002–05 Corporate and Business Plan; and what performance targets have been set for 2002–03. [46331]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service's Corporate and Business Plan for 2002–05 was published today and I have placed copies in the Library of the House. The following key performance targets have been set for the 2002–03 year:

  100 per cent. security for top and high risk prisoners.

  99.7 per cent. security for medium and low-risk prisoners.

  The number of staff assaulted by prisoners is less than a ratio of six per 100 prisoners.

  The number of prisoners assaulted by prisoners is less than a ratio of 8.8 per 100 prisoners.

  An average of at least 18 hours constructive activity per week for each sentenced prisoner.

  An average of at least 9.5 hours constructive activity per week for each remand prisoner.

  To ensure an average minimum of 70 per cent. of prisoners serving six months or more, including 90 per cent. of life sentence prisoners, is working to a sentence plan.

  Deliver at least 85 per cent. of the planned training days associated with the agreed corporate training priorities.

  Achieve an average minimum of five days development and training per member of staff.

  Expenditure is within the budget allocated.

  Lay the Annual Report and Audited Accounts before Parliament prior to the summer recess.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price for the five largest PFI contracts let by her Department in each of the last four years; and if she will make a statement. [45599]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 224W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price for PPP contracts let by her Department in each of the last four years; and if she will make a statement. [45614]

  Clare Short
  DFID has not offered any public-private partnerships in the last four years. The public-private partnership for CDC has not yet been launched or bids invited.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the names of the unpaid advisers appointed by her since she took office, stating in each case(a) the date of their appointment, (b) the duration of their appointment and (c) the project or projects on which they have been engaged. [43389]

  Clare Short
  No unpaid advisers have been appointed by me since taking office.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list non-governmental organisations operating in the south-west region that receive public funds from her Department; and what amount of annual funding they received in the most recent year for which figures are available. [39183]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, and the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, namely, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office, do not provide funding for non-governmental organisations in the south-west region.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General 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. [42429]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: In my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, there is currently no job sharing, term working or staff engaged in any other form of flexible working.
  540W
  In the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The numbers and proportion of Crown Prosecution staff currently engaged in job sharing, term working and other forms of flexible working are as follows:

  Job sharing—14 staff (0.2 per cent.)

  Term working—24 staff (0.4 per cent.)

  Part-time—1,292 staff (20 percent.).

  The Crown Prosecution Service recognises the need for all staff, particularly those with care responsibilities, to try to find the right balance between work and domestic commitments.

  Job sharing and term time working are just a couple of the alternative and flexible working patterns that employees are welcome to take up.

  The Department operates a flexible working hours scheme that is open to both full and part-time members of staff. The scheme allows staff to vary their times of arrival and departure, subject to management needs.

  The Department also considers applications for term time working by members of staff. In addition, although not recorded as term time working, the Department considers sympathetically any requests for unpaid special leave and/or change in working pattern during school holidays.

  In addition to part-time working, job sharing and term time working, the Department will shortly be issuing policies on working compressed hours and home working. Although these policies have yet to be formally promulgated, a number of staff already practise these forms of flexible working.

  When advertising vacancies, Crown Prosecution Service area branches are encouraged to welcome applications from people working different patterns. However, there are some instances where this is not possible due to the nature of the work.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The numbers and proportion of Treasury Solicitor's Department staff currently engaged in job sharing, term working and other forms of flexible working are as follows:

  Job sharing—2 staff (0.4 per cent.)

  Term working—1 person (0.2 per cent.)

  Part-time—37 staff (7 per cent.)

  Flexi-timers—46 staff (8.8 per cent.).

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department recognises the need for all staff, particularly those with care responsibilities, to try to find the right balance between work and domestic commitments.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office does not currently have any staff working on a job share or term basis, although these options are available. However, the Department currently has four members of staff working compressed hours (ie five days in four, or ten days in nine). Three of the Department's members of staff work part-time and six work on a part home/part office basis. The Serious Fraud Office also operates a flexi-time system which enables the majority of staff to structure their working day to suit their own circumstances.
  541W
  The Serious Fraud Office recognises the need for all staff, particularly those with care responsibilities, to try to find the right balance between work and domestic commitments.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list for 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year the amount spent by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies in respect of hotel and other similar privately-provided accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) other persons; if she will list the proportion of this cost incurred in respect of (x) food and (y) alcohol in each case; and if she will list the average cost per hotel room or similar unit of accommodation provided in each case. [34385]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: In my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the following sums were spent on hotels and other similar privately provided accommodation in 1997–98 and subsequent financial years.

  Subsistence UK

  £11,791 in 1997–98—of which sum £9,192 arose from the additional costs created by the review of the CPS carried out by Sir Iain Glidewell.

  £3,641 in 1998–99

  £2,843.04 in 1999–2000

  £5,107 in 2000–01

  £3,975.63 in 2001/02.

  Subsistence abroad

  £1,043.82 in 1997–98

  £610.32 in 1998–99

  £2,037.55 in 1999–2000

  £996.62 in 2000–01

  £260.80 in 2001–02.

  The accounting system used by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers does not divide these costs to show the amounts spent on hotels, food and alcohol. It would not be possible to provide details on the cost of hotels without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Crown Prosecution Service

  In the financial year 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year the Crown Prosecution Service has spent the following amounts on hotels and other similar privately provided accommodation:

  £261,000 in 1997–98

  £290,000 in 1998–99

  £395,000 in 1999–2000

  £623,000 in 2000–01.

  This expenditure relates only to CPS staff.

  The CPS also reimburses prosecution witnesses who have to stay overnight in order to give evidence at court. The rates applied to such reimbursement are the same as the rates applied to staff expenditure. Expenditure since 1997–98 has been as follows:

  £294,000 in 1997–98

  £344,000 in 1998–99

  £324,000 in 1999–2000

  £354,000 in 2000–01.

  542W
  The Department does not maintain separate records for expenses incurred in the UK and abroad. It would not be possible to identify the cost of food without incurring disproportionate cost. Staff may claim a meal and incidental travel cost allowance of £25 and a personal incidental expenditure allowance of £5 per night, while away from home on official business.

  The Department does not pay for alcohol for members of staff who travel on official business.

  It is not possible to list the average cost per hotel room. From November 1999 new maximum rates were applied to the cost of bed and breakfast of up to £95 per night in London and other metropolitan areas and £65 per night elsewhere.

  The marked increase in staff expenditure in 2000–01 compared with the previous years was a result of the aftermath of the Hatfield rail crash and the consequent disruption to public transport. Because of the extended journey times, particularly between the two headquarters' sites in London and York, officers were required to stay overnight more frequently.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The total amounts spent on both travel and subsistence by the Treasury Solicitor's Department, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (since April 2001) and the Government Property Lawyers' Agency in the last four years were as follows:

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  £308,000 in 1997–98

  £327,000 in 1998–99

  £202,000 in 1999–2000

  £396,000 in 2000–01

  £318,000 in 2001–02 (to 31 December)

  Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  £130,000 in 2001–02 (to 31 December)

  Government Property Lawyers' Agency

  £13,000 in 1997–98

  £10,000 in 1998–99

  £37,000 in 1999–2000

  £1,000 in 2000–01

  None in 2001–02.

  The contract management and financial analysis systems currently in place at the Treasury Solicitor's Department mean that the Department could not provide the detailed information requested without incurring disproportionate cost. These systems are being upgraded as part of the improvement in financial management on which the Department has embarked. Most of the improvements should be concluded in the course of the financial year 2002–03.

  Serious Fraud Office
  In the financial year 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year the Serious Fraud Office has spent the following amounts on hotel and other similar privately provided accommodation:

  Staff UK

  £81,454.47 in 1997–98

  £72,168.63 in 1998–99

  £62,899.98 in 1999–2000

  £91,391.53 in 2000–01

  113,500.55 in 2001–02 (to date)

  543W
  Staff abroad

  £48,252.72 in 1997–98

  £20,459.23 in 1998–99

  £34,664.19 in 1999–2000

  £67,487.77 in 2000–01

  50,528.58 in 2001–02 (to date)

  Witnesses UK

  £21,607.48 in 1997–98

  £93,015.87 in 1998–99

  £11,880.96 in 1999–2000

  53,725.28 in 2000–01

  £5,879.36 in 2001–02 (to date).

  The Serious Fraud Office does not have either agencies or non-departmental public bodies and does not provide financial support to Ministers.

  The Department does not pay for alcohol for members of staff who travel on official business.

  Details of the breakdown between expenditure on food and accommodation and the average cost of such accommodation could not be made available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the appointments she has made since 7 June 2001. [46171]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have made no appointments as Solicitor-General during the period in question.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Solicitor-General, pursuant to her answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 878W, 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. [41512]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: In relation to my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, I am not aware of any equipment having been stolen from the Department since 1 May 1997.

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

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Since May 1997 no criminal proceedings have been brought by the Crown Prosecution Service in connection with the stolen equipment listed in reply to Mr. Menzies Campbell's question. No items have been recovered.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  No criminal proceedings were undertaken in any of the cases of theft against the Department detailed in response to Mr. Menzies Campbell's question, and no items were recovered. Three of the thefts were reported to the police, and the remainder were investigated internally. The internal investigations did not identify any individuals against whom proceedings could be taken, and the stolen items could not be traced.
  544W
  Serious Fraud Office

  No criminal proceedings were undertaken in relation to any of the cases of theft against the Serious Fraud Office listed in response to Mr. Menzies Campbell's question, and no items were recovered.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what estimate she has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to her Department of the Parental Leave Directive. [42492]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: In my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers all staff are on secondment from other Departments. Matters relating to parental leave are dealt with by their parent Departments.

  In the Departments for the which the Attorney-General has responsibility, details are as follows.

  Crown Prosecution Service

  With effect from 1 April 1998, the Crown Prosecution Service's policy on special leave was amended to allow three months parental leave on the grounds of the birth or adoption of a child to all staff who have been employed by the Department for 12 months or longer. This entitlement is available for each child, and can be taken before the child's 8th birthday. In relation to adoption, the leave can ben taken up to eight years after the child is first placed with the family for adoption, or until the child's 18th birthday if that is sooner.

  In relation to a child with a disability, parental leave may be taken up to the child's 18th birthday.

  At present, the Department does not retain data relating specifically to parental leave and is therefore unable to quantify the financial costs of the Parental Leave Directive.

  It is known that during the period from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001, 11 members of staff took paternity leave, which amounted to approximately 120 days absence. However, the grades of the staff taking paternity leave were not recorded and therefore the Department cannot give an estimated cost for that period.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department estimate that there will not be a material financial cost to the Department as a result of the Parental Leave Directive. The cost to the Treasury Solicitor's Department since December 1999 has been £3,083.85.

  The benefits of parental leave to the Department have been to reinforce the Department's policy of assisting staff in maintaining a balance between work and home life.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office has yet to receive an application for parental leave from any of its staff. However, the Department considers the financial implication of granting parental leave to be minimal, as the leave is unpaid.

  The Serious Fraud Office sees the benefits of parental leave as being (i) to offer staff more family friendly options and thus improve morale and motivation within

  545W
  the Department, (ii) to improve recruitment and retention, (iii) to promote Government policies and (iv) to comply with legislation.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what her Department's policy is towards age discrimination. [42564]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, is a small department of fewer than 35 staff. Staff are seconded to LSLO from other Government Departments and so the age range from which LSLO draws its staff depends upon the age policy of other Departments. Within that limitation, LSLO does not discriminate on grounds of age and there is no age bar in relation to recruitment. Currently the ages of staff at LSLO ranges from under 25 to over 60.

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

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service is currently in the process of a complete review of Departmental policy on age, with a view to issuing revised policy later this year. The revised policy will take into account the current need for all employers to adopt a flexible approach to the recruitment and retention of older workers.

  Historically the CPS has welcomed all job applications regardless of age, but has maintained a less flexible policy on age retirement. Guidance issued by the Cabinet Office (based on the non-statutory Code of Practice published by the former DfEE) encouraged the review of current policies on recruitment, conditions of service based on age or length of service, and retirement. The CPS review aims to bring all age-related policies in line with the code of practice.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department does not discriminate on grounds of age and there is no age bar in relation to recruitment.

  The minimum age at which staff can retire and receive an immediate pension payout is 60. The Treasury Solicitor's Department includes age equality in its diversity programme and allows staff to stay on at work to the age of 65, subject to satisfactory performance and the business needs of the agency.

  Serious Fraud Office

  There are no age restrictions placed upon applicants for Serious Fraud Office positions. However, applicants are asked to note that the Department's normal retirement age for staff at all grades is currently 60.

DEFENCE

  Correspondence
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was, for each year since 1995, the total number of(a) letters from hon. Members, (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by his
  546W
  Department; what percentage took (A) more than one month and (B) more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and if he will make a statement; [7029]

  (2) what was, for each year since 1995, the average response time for providing a substantive answer to (a) hon. Members' correspondence, (b) correspondence from members of the public and (c) written parliamentary questions in the (i) Commons and (ii) Lords. [7028]

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

  General information on the volumes of correspondence received across Whitehall and on overall performance is published by the Cabinet Office. Figures for 2000 were published on 6 April 2001, Official Report, columns 324–28W and on 19 July 2001, Official Report, columns 454–56W.

  The Ministry of Defence aims to answer all ordinary written parliamentary questions within five working days, and named day written parliamentary questions on the day named.

  Staff Retirement
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff left the service of his Department and its agencies in the year ended 31 March 2001; how many left before attaining the formal retirement age of 60 years; and in respect of how many his Department and its agencies assumed responsibilities for making payments until retirement age. [37555]

  Dr. Moonie
  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 1071W.

  During the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001, 798 employees left the Ministry of Defence on grounds of either early retirement or early severance for which benefits were paid under the civil service compensation scheme.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the official visits within the UK outside London made by each Minister in his Department in 2001, giving for each(a) the origin and destination and (b) the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in his Department on choice of mode of travel for official visits; [38183]

  (2) if he will list the official visits to (a) Paris and (b) Brussels made by each Minister in his Department in 2001 and the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in his Department on the choice of mode of travel for such visits. [38147]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Leslie) on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 421W.

  International Security Assistance Force
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what programme he has made for identifying the
  547W
  successor lead nation for the international security assistance force for Kabul and its surrounding area under the terms of Annex 1 to the Bonn agreement; and if he will make a statement. [41896]

  Mr. Hoon
  We continue to negotiate with Turkey for the handover of the International Security Assistance Force lead nation.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to his Department of the Parental Leave Directive. [42474]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is the Ministry of Defence's policy to encourage civilian staff, at all levels, to take full advantage of family-friendly and work-life provisions such as the Parental Leave Directive. Records on the grant of special leave under the Parental Leave Directive are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, since this category of special leave is unpaid, then, administrative costs aside, there are no direct financial consequences to the MOD.

  External Advisers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much he has spent on external advisers in connection with the transfer of parts of DERA to the private sector. [42340]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 March 2002, Official Report, column 577W, to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).

  Celebrations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department has made to celebrate(a) St. Patrick's Day, (b) St. George's Day, (c) St. Andrew's Day and (d) Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and how his Department celebrated St. David's Day. [42302]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The Ministry of Defence does not make any formal arrangements for National Saints' Days except for the flying of flags from certain Government buildings where the facility to do so exists. On such occasions the Union flag is hoisted, and where there are two suitable masts the National flag may be flown together with the Union flag on buildings located in England, Scotland and Wales on the appropriate "named day". St. Patrick's Day is not a "named day". The armed forces have similar arrangements, though in addition certain units may unofficially acknowledge a particular Saint's Day for historical or traditional reasons.

  With regard to the arrangements for the Queen's Golden Jubilee I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport gave on 11 February 2002, Official Report, columns 58–59W, to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo).

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members his Department employs in its regulatory impact unit; and if he will make a statement. [42920]

  Dr. Moonie
  As a non-regulatory Department, the Ministry of Defence does not have a dedicated regulatory impact unit. However, issues relating to regulatory impact are addressed by two civilian members of staff as part of their wider remit to assess the potential impacts of EU legislation on the MOD.

  Defence Agency Staff (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many people work for the Central Data Management Authority; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are; [27824]

  (2) how many people work for the Central Data Management Authority; how many are employed in Scotland; and what the personnel costs of the agency are. [27821]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Central Data Management Authority is not an agency, but a branch within the Director General Information organisation, which is itself part of the Ministry of Defence headquarters.

  The CDMA branch has a complement of 14 staff.

  The annual personnel budget is £0.528 million (financial year 2002–03), calculated using current MOD capitation rates.

  None of the CDMA branch staff are employed in Scotland.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [43247]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's service agreement remains as published in the 2000 Spending Review White Paper (Cm 4808, July 2000).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which public service agreement targets scheduled to be met in 2002 will not be achieved by the due date. [44823]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information about progress on PSA targets was published in the Ministry of Defence Performance Report 2000–01 (Cm 5290, November 2001). A summary of progress made since then will be included in the Government's Expenditure Plans 2002–03 to 2003–04 for the MOD, due to be published in the spring.

  Nuclear Tests
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has made of the number of cancer cases caused by radioactivity released from nuclear bombs in testing in the 1950s and 1960s. [43402]
  549W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has commissioned epidemiological studies into the health of those British personnel who participated in British atmospheric nuclear tests which took place in the 1950s and 1960s.

  The National Radiological Protection Board carries out studies into the exposure to radiation of the population of the United Kingdom as a whole, including fallout from weapons testing, and publishes reports on this subject. This does not include estimation of the rates of cancer that might arise.

  Aviation Repairs
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the competition process for deep aviation repair work within his Department. [43805]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am satisfied that our acquisition strategy for aviation repair work is coherent, provides best value for money for the British taxpayer and ensures fair treatment for all competitors in this field. I therefore have no plans at present to review the competition process.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reason the Defence Aviation Repair Agency was not awarded the contract for Tornado rudder, air intake, windscreen and wing nibs under the Tornado Tiger Team; [43804]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the process by which BAE Systems was selected to undertake Tornado rudder, air intake, windscreen and wing nibs within the Tornado Tiger Team. [43802]

  Mr. Ingram
  The intended support solution for the Tornado rudder, air intake, windscreen and wing nibs work, a prime contract with BAE Systems with the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA) acting as repair sub-contractor, was developed by a joint team that included representation from the Defence Logistics Organisation, BAE Systems, HQ Strike Command and DARA. The process was fair and fully transparent to all those involved but in the event, DARA was unable to agree acceptable prices. The eventual prime contract, which was awarded to BAE Systems, represents best value-for-money and incentivises BAE Systems to manage sub-contract arrangements accordingly.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the ability of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency to achieve its targets for the financial years(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [44575]

  Mr. Ingram
  For 2001–02, end of year performance against the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA) Key Targets will be independently audited and reported in the Agency Annual Report and Accounts. While DARA will continue to strive to meet its targets, at this stage it is too early to give an accurate forecast.

  For 2002–03 the Key Performance Indicators are still being developed, and will be announced in the House shortly.

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many films made by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down had been transferred to the Imperial War Museum as of 14 February. [43455]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 9 May 2001,Official Report, column 196W. No further films have been transferred since that date.

  Senior Armed Forces
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion(a) now, (b) five years ago and (c) 10 years ago of senior officers in each of the armed forces attended (i) independent and (ii) state schools; and if he will make a statement. [43855]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of keeping HMS Sheffield(a) in reserve and (b) in mothballs; when its Royal Navy service will end; how many personnel are involved in keeping it in service and at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [43924]

  Mr. Ingram
  The estimated costs of holding HMS Sheffield at extended readiness from November 2002 until September 2004 is £3.3 million. This figures includes £0.8 million for the costs of the 13 RN personnel directly involved in maintaining her in service. On current plans HMS Sheffield will be withdrawn from service towards the end of this decade.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many answers to parliamentary questions are more than(a) two weeks and (b) three months outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [43927]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Approximately 3,200 parliamentary questions have been tabled to the Ministry of Defence during the current session. Ministers aim to answer ordinary written parliamentary questions within five working days and named day parliamentary questions on the day requested.

  Fighter Jets
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Royal Air Force's total inventory is of(a) Harrier GR7s, (b) Tornado GR1s and (c) Jaguar GR1s; and how many of each are operationally available. [43635]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: On 13 March 2002 there were 74 Harrier GR7 aircraft in the departmental fleet (the total number of aircraft owned by the Ministry of Defence), of which 55 were assigned to the Actual Operating Fleet (the total number of aircraft allocated to meet the fleet task); 23 Tornado GR1 aircraft in the departmental fleet, of which 14 were assigned to

  551W
  the Actual Operating Fleet, and 51 Jaguar GR1 aircraft in the departmental fleet, of which none were assigned to the Actual Operating Fleet.

  Overseas Territories/Sovereign Bases
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the military presence is on each(a) British Overseas Territory and (b) Sovereign Base; and what plans there are to change that presence in each case. [44033]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no permanent military presence on Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, or the Turks and Caicos Islands.

  The military presence on the Falkland Islands comprises: Joint Headquarters and support elements; offshore patrol vessel; Roulement Infantry Company; one Tornado F3 flight; one VC10 tanker; one C-130 Hercules; Rapier Squadron; one helicopter squadron (Sea King and Chinook); air support services.

  The military presence on Gibraltar comprises: Joint Headquarters and support elements; two coastal patrol vessels; RAF Gibraltar; Royal Gibraltar Regiment.

  The British Indian Ocean Territory has a naval party of approximately 40 personnel. There are approximately 25 service personnel on Ascension Island, with support provided by a civilian Multi-Activity Contract. A small number of service personnel are on loan or secondment in Bermuda and British Antarctic Territory.

  The military presence on the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus comprises: Joint Headquarters; signals units and Cyprus Joint Support Unit; two Sovereign Base Area HQs; two Resident Infantry Battalions; one Engineer Squadron; one Gazelle helicopter Flight; Port and Maritime elements; RAF Regiment personnel; one Wessex Squadron; RAF Akrotiri.

  Helicopter operations on Cyprus will be transferred to a Commercially Owned, Military Registered arrangement next year.

  There are no current plans to make significant changes to the military presence in other areas, but all commitments are subject to periodic review to meet changing requirements.

  Snagge Report
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 655W, on the Snagge report, if the report was produced using his Department's facilities; to whom it was submitted; when he took a decision on its publication; and if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the publishing of unsolicited reports which he regards as (a) misleading and (b) accurate. [44257]

  Mr. Ingram
  The report written by Colonel C. E. M. Snagge, although unsolicited from the then 2 Division based in York, was an official, internal document submitted to Headquarters Land Command. As such it was taken into account when the future location of the divisional headquarters was being considered. As I said in my answer on 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 655W, however, the report contained partial opinion. A
  552W
  balanced view, setting out the rationale for the decision, was set out in the Consultation Document "Land Command Restructuring of Divisions/Districts" which was issued to trade union representatives on 30 October 1998. A copy of this report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ministry of Defence policy on the release of information follows the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The decision to withhold Colonel Snagge's report was taken in accordance with Exemption 2 of the Code, which relates to internal discussion and advice, when I answered the hon. Member's question on 28 February 2002, Official Report, column 146W.

  Irish Sea (Submarines)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what investigations his Department has carried out following the two fishing boat accidents in the Irish Sea on 31 January and 14 February; what the result of those investigations has been; and what further action will be taken to ensure that action plans are in place in fishing ports to address similar accidents in the future; [44466]

  (2) what investigations have been carried out into submarine activity in the Irish Sea, with particular reference to the area between St. John's Point at Killough, County Down and Dundalk, County Louth; and what the result of those investigations has been. [44467]

  Mr. Ingram
  Royal naval submarines operating in waters frequented by UK fishing vessels are governed by a code of practice, mutually agreed by the Royal Navy and the UK fishing industry, which is designed to ensure the safety of fishing vessels. Additionally, it is mandatory for royal naval and allied submarines to report their position once a fishing vessel incident is reported. I can confirm that, following internal investigations, no submarines were operating in the vicinity of either of the two incidents referred to. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch have confirmed that they are satisfied with this conclusion.

  The Royal Navy will, in general, respond to such incidents if requests for assistance are received from the Coastguard or the Marine Accident Investigation Branch.

  Apache Helicopters
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the integration of the Hellfire missile on to the Army's Apache helicopters. [44659]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: Trials of the helicopter and its weapons systems are progressing satisfactorily. We expect the Hellfire missile to be integrated on the helicopter and cleared for training by the end of this year.

  Development Expenditure
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the net book value of development expenditure at the end of each year in the period 1997–98 to 2002–03; and if he will show the development expenditure made in each year. [44662]
  553W
  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  £ billion

  Year

  Net book value of development expenditure1

  Development expenditure made this year

  1997–98

  2—

  2—

  1998–99

  318.6

  2—

  1999–2000

  319.3

  31.3

  2000–01

  319.9

  31.0

  2001–02

  420.6

  41.3

  2002–03

  n/a

  n/a

  1 As at 31 March of each year.

  2 Reliable data on development expenditure are unavailable in Resource terms for this period.

  3 These data are taken from the Departmental Resource Accounts for 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  4 Estimate.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are expressed in billions and are rounded to the nearest decimal place.

  2. n/a = data not yet available

  Logistics
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the net book value was of(a) capital spares and (b) raw materials and consumables at the end of each month since April 2000. [44661]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: The net book value of capital spares and raw materials and consumables held by the Ministry of Defence at the end of each month since April 2000 was as follows:

  £000

  Financial month and year

  Capital spares

  RMC

  2000

  April

  8,560,947

  7,057,584

  May

  8,839,946

  8,978,671

  June

  9,525,113

  7,311,941

  July

  9,146,243

  7,256,798

  August

  8,872,549

  7,430,376

  September

  8,738,573

  7,454,189

  October

  8,761,439

  7,202,662

  November

  8,737,894

  7,185,215

  December

  8,812,215

  7,662,679

  2001

  January

  8,690,831

  7,613,195

  February

  8,611,383

  7,508,409

  March

  8,509,752

  7,394,542

  April

  7,809,878

  6,099,338

  May

  7,445,061

  6,061,659

  June

  7,312,296

  6,116,666

  July

  7,412,866

  6,322,058

  August

  7,302,155

  6,383,351

  September

  7,010,435

  6,202,675

  October

  7,078,693

  6,250,770

  November

  7,034,986

  6,407,108

  December

  7,130,288

  6,414,625

  2002

  January1

  7,034,578

  6,212,182

  1 This is the last month for which figures are currently available.

  The figures provided from April 2000 to March 2001 were consolidated within the Departmental Resource Accounts (DRAc) for that financial year, but the figures for stock were qualified by the Comptroller and Auditor
  554W
  General when the accounts were audited. The figures from April 2001 onwards will be consolidated within the next DRAc, which will be audited later this year.

  Fleet Support Limited Company
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Fleet Support Limited company has(a) met all contractual performance indicators and (b) delivered on time and to cost for all work on Fleet Maintenance and Repair in Portsmouth. [44757]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Since its formation in 1998, Fleet Support Ltd. (FSL) has undertaken an extensive programme of work on RN and RFA vessels in Portsmouth, during which period not every project has been delivered to time and cost. The reasons for this are complex, vary considerably across the projects concerned and are not necessarily the sole responsibility of the company in each instance. However, the company's performance overall in the last 12 months has been well within the performance indicators which the Warship Support Agency (WSA), as the provider of maritime logistics support, is tasked to achieve.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what injuries were sustained by members of the RAF in the threats and attacks on coalition planes in Iraq in 2001; and if he will make a statement. [44741]

  Mr. Ingram
  RAF aircraft patrolling as part of the international coalition's enforcement of the no-fly zones over Iraq are regularly attacked by Iraqi air defences, including anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles. Owing to the skill of RAF aircrew, their training, equipment, tactics and support, none were hit in 2001, and no aircrew were injured. This record has been maintained this year to date.

  Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average wait is by service personnel for accommodation in the private sector when DHE housing is unavailable has been in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [44970]

  Dr. Moonie
  When service family accommodation is not available, the Defence Housing Executive authorises substitute service family accommodation. A Ministry of Defence accommodation agency contractor is then tasked to provide appropriate accommodation from the commercial rental market to meet the service applicant's required date.

  From 1 January 2001 to 28 February 2002, there were 434 applications for SSFA. Of these, some 42 per cent. of applicants were housed, on average, eight days before their required date. The remaining 58 per cent. were housed, on average, 20 days after their required date.

  MOD Housing
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the system is of upkeep for empty MOD housing; and if he will make a statement. [44968]
  555W
  Dr. Moonie
  Empty Ministry of Defence housing is maintained under the same contractual arrangements which MOD, through the Defence Housing Executive (DHE), employs to maintain all its housing stock in mainland United Kingdom. A contracted Works Services Manager provides a response repair service and, working with the DHE Property Manager, undertakes a programme of regular planned maintenance which is fulfilled according to available funds. A temporarily empty property required for service family occupation in the longer term would normally have priority over a property intended for disposal.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the fraud detection system for MoD housing; and if he will make a statement. [45439]

  Dr. Moonie
  The effectiveness of fraud detection, in the context of Ministry of Defence housing and related works, is kept under constant review. Line management is responsible for ensuring that appropriate procedures are followed and controls operated effectively. In addition, there is a rolling programme of compliance and risk based audits carried out independently of line management. Consultants are also employed to carry out additional audits of property management and to undertake initial investigations of suspected fraud or impropriety. Furthermore, the central Defence Finance Audit Unit is notified of all suspected cases of fraud and they may then call in the MOD Police.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much money was spent on(a) single living accommodation and (b) married quarters in each year between 1992 and 1997; and if he will make a statement; [45441]

  (2) how many complaints were made about (a) single living accommodation and (b) married quarters in each year between 1992 and 1997; and if he will make a statement. [45433]

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

  Créche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what créche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [44870]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence provides the following child care support for its civilian and military employees:

  42 work place nurseries offering 1,700 full day care places for children aged three months to five years.

  36 créches (benefiting 700 children) providing occasional care and 70 pre-schools (benefiting over 2,000 children) providing education on a sessional basis, primarily for service families.

  14 wrap around care schemes for five to 12-year-olds (benefiting 350 children) providing before and after school care to match the working day.

  12 holiday play schemes providing full day care for five to 12-year-olds during school holidays (three are shared with other Government Departments) benefiting 500 children.

  a child care voucher scheme for civilian employees in Glasgow benefiting about 80 parents.

  556W
  The capital and running costs of child care schemes are funded by a variety of means including: money raised by parents, benevolent funds, local authorities, the civil service modernisation fund and the defence budget. However, no figures for the total costs are readily available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the MOD; and if he will make a statement. [44737]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence and armed forces are, with the exception of the Special Forces, subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Work is under way to ensure that we are ready for implementation of the rights and obligations it creates. A pilot version of MOD's publication scheme was released in February and this is now being reviewed in light of comments from users and guidance which has recently been issued by the information commissioner under s.47(2) of the Act. More widely, the preparatory work will involve education of all relevant personnel about the key provisions; establishing or modifying procedures in order to support compliance; and ensuring that the status under the Act of all types of information held by MOD is understood both within the Department and, where appropriate, by external bodies. In addition, it is recognised that successful implementation will be dependent on developing a more open outlook and that achieving this culture change must also be an integral part of the agenda. In a Department as large and wide-ranging as MOD this represents a significant programme which, we assess, will require the full lead time provided by the implementation timetable which my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor announced on 13 November 2001.

  UN Peacekeeping
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training and education the UK provides to service personnel from other countries engaged in UN peacekeeping and conflict resolution initiatives. [44745]

  Mr. Ingram
  Training and education are provided to service personnel from other countries engaged in UN peacekeeping and conflict resolution initiatives by the United Kingdom in various ways. A one-year post-graduate course in global security and a seven-week diploma course in managing defence in a democracy are offered at the Royal College of Military Science, Shrivenham and have been developed for foreign military and civilian students as part of the Ministry of Defence's Defence Diplomacy Mission. The Army has recently commenced a series of 10-day International Peace Supporting Briefing programmes with students attending from many parts of the world. The programme includes briefing on the structure and role of the British Army, the role of Government Departments and non-governmental organisations in peace support operations (PSO), PSO doctrine, civil/military co-operation, the role of the police and equipment and training issues. However, the Royal College of Defence Studies course and the Advanced Command and Staff course syllabi also contain elements relevant to UN peacekeeping and conflict resolution and
  557W
  selected countries are invited to send students each year. Additionally, spare capacity on UK military training courses is offered to other countries as part of the UK MOD's Defence Diplomacy Mission. Examples of such training are as follows:

  Initial Officer Training.

  English Language Training.

  First Aid and Combat Casualty Care (Royal Navy).

  Anti-piracy—Board and Search Course (Royal Navy).

  Combat Medical Technician (Army).

  Regimental Medical Assistant (Army).

  Helicopter Tactics Training (prior to Bosnia/Kosovo deployment) (Royal Air Force).

  In addition to training conducted in the UK, overseas training is carried out by established British military advisory and training teams (BMATT). Most of this training is directly relevant to UN peacekeeping and conflict resolution initiatives and BMATTs are currently established in seven countries worldwide. The MOD also provides short term training teams (STTT) to supplement the training given by BMATTs or is provided for immediate local training needs in other areas of the world. Numerous STTTs are in place at any given time on deployments typically lasting for between two and six weeks.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answers of 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 557W and of 28 January 2002, Official Report, column 23W, on Colchester garrison, how many representations he has received about the temporary portakabin type single living accommodation for soldiers; and if he will make a statement. [45379]

  Dr. Moonie
  Other than the hon. Member's question of 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 23W, I have received no representations about the temporary portakabin type, single living accommodation for soldiers at Colchester garrison.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the last 20 years depleted uranium shells have been fired at the Foulness ranges in Shoeburyness; and if he will make a statement. [44797]

  Dr. Moonie
  No depleted uranium (DU) shells have been fired at Foulness.

  However, during the 1980s, approximately 200 rounds of small experimental DU projectiles, of up to 30 mm calibre, were fired in a purpose-built indoor facility at Foulness.

  Experimental firings between 1982 and 1983 are confirmed by range records. Further to this, in his response of 9 March 2001, Official Report, column 358W, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence stated that DU firings may have continued at Foulness until 1986.
  558W
  The building in which firing took place was designed to prevent any escape of particulate DU into the atmosphere. It was closed in the early 1990s and was decontaminated in 1997.

  Colchester Corrective Training Centre
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians are employed at the Military Corrective Training Centre in Colchester; and how many are in receipt of the prison environmental allowance. [45291]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently 30 civilians employed permanently at the Military Corrective Training Centre (MCTC) in Colchester, and all receive the prison environmental allowance. Two Ministry of Defence Guards Service staff are also provided to the MCTC on a rotational basis, but these staff do not qualify for the prison environmental allowance.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when(a) HMS Ark Royal, (b) HMS Invincible and (c) HMS Illustrious are to be decommissioned. [45488]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 125W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle).

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the last Sea Harrier and RAF Harrier are to be taken out of service. [45490]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 28 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1451–52W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). Under the revised investment strategy for Joint Force Harrier, the Sea Harrier fleet will be withdrawn from service by 2006. The withdrawal of RAF Harriers from service will occur as they are replaced by the Future Joint Combat Aircraft and, on current plans, will be completed in 2015.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to convert one of the three aircraft carriers into a helicopter carrier after its decommissioning date. [45489]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no plans to convert an aircraft carrier into a helicopter carrier after decommissioning. All three of our aircraft carriers have the capability to operate as a Landing Platform Helicopter as a secondary role.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if C130Js have flown into Afghanistan; and if the C130J Hercules deployed in Afghanistan have a full defensive aids suite. [45457]

  Mr. Hoon
  No C130Js have been flown into Afghanistan. All C130s operating into Afghanistan are provided with defensive aids. Details vary from air-frame to air-frame but we are confident that for all flights into Afghanistan self protection measures are adequate against the perceived threat.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what psychiatric and mental health service staff are employed in the Defence Medical Services. [45935]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 January 2002, there were 11 Consultant Psychiatrists and 81 Registered Nurses (Mental Health) serving in the Defence Medical Services (DMS). In addition, there were 11 medical officers undergoing Consultant Psychiatrist training, and 20 mental health nurse trainees. Civilian mental health staff are also employed in the United Kingdom and overseas in support of the DMS, some of whom are filling vacant military posts.

  Deployment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the mean percentage is of the British Army which has been deployed on operations in each year since 1998. [45697]

  Mr. Ingram
  The mean percentage of the British Army deployed on operations in each year since 1998 is shown in the following table.

  Calendar year

  Mean percentage of Army deployed on operations 1

  1998

  25

  1999

  24

  2000

  24

  2001

  21

  20022

  20

  1 The mean percentage of the British Army deployed on operations for years 1998, 1999 and 2000 includes personnel from the Royal Irish (Home Service) and Mobilised Reserves.

  2 As at 1 March.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings were arranged for Defence Ministers to meet the US Assistant Secretary for Defence during his recent visit to London; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meetings. [45696]

  Mr. Ingram
  A meeting was arranged for 18 March 2002 between myself and the United States Assistant Secretary of Defence but because of business in the House, it did not take place. The Assistant Secretary did have discussions with officials.

  Injuries
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims have been made for compensation from the MOD for muscular-skeletal injuries during Army training in each year since 1995 from(a) men and (b) women. [46261]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not record separately cases brought against the MOD for muscular-skeletal injuries during Army training. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Warships
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for modernising warship repair and maintenance. [46336]
  560W
  Mr. Hoon
  The Government have decided on arrangements which will secure better value for money for warship repair and maintenance for the Royal Navy.

  The Ministry of Defence has considered a number of options, including internal proposals to improve efficiency, proposals for further improvements from the MOD trade unions, and proposals from the existing dockyard companies. All options offered significant benefits compared with the current cost of undertaking warship repair and maintenance, but the company proposals offered the best overall value for money.

  I have therefore decided to proceed with partnering arrangements with the companies. Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations, contracts will be placed later this year with Devonport Management Ltd., Fleet Support Ltd. and Babcock Naval Services Ltd. (a newly formed subsidiary of BRDL) for the provision of engineering support and related services at the naval bases at Devonport, Portsmouth and the Clyde. The Ministry of Defence has also agreed with the dockyard companies that a larger proportion of the surface ship refit and repair programme will be opened up for competition, with corresponding improvements in value for money. Taken together, these approaches will deliver efficiency improvements of over £300 million over the next five years.

  These arrangements will involve the transfer of nearly 3,000 posts to the partnering. The Ministry of Defence will work closely with trade unions to ensure this transfer can be achieved as smoothly as possible.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work programme of DERA. [45368]

  Dr. Moonie
  DERA was disestablished on 1 July 2001 as part of the DERA PPP and two new organisations, Dstl and QinetiQ plc, were formed. The split of DERA, and thus the work programme, was done on the basis of capabilities; the principle being that the work that could not easily be transferred to the private sector remained within the Ministry of Defence, the rest became part of QinetiQ's business.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the representations he has received from defence manufacturers on the transfer of parts of DERA to the private sector. [45685]

  Dr. Moonie
  On completion of formal consultation on the DERA PPP process in June 2000, 19 written responses had been received from industry, including defence manufacturers. An industry forum was subsequently held to provide an opportunity for a detailed discussion of the PPP proposals before decisions were made on the way ahead. Rather than publish the individual representations, which would require the approval of the relevant organisations, the key points have been summarised in the Ministry of Defence responses about consultation to the Defence Select Committee and trade unions. The summary was published by the Defence Select Committee in its fifth report of session 2000–01 titled "The Draft Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Trading Fund Order 2001 at Appendix 3". In general, industry
  561W
  regarded the PPP proposals as workable and indicated a willingness to liaise with MOD to ensure that they were implemented in a way that best meets defence interests.

  Consultation with industry has been a regular feature of the PPP process and has taken the form of informal workshops, meetings, briefings and seminars. Contact has generally been focused through the trade associations or other relevant professional bodies such as the Defence Industries Council, Defence Manufacturers Association and Association of Independent Research and Technology Organisations. Officials managing the PPP process are also in regular contact with the National Defence Industry Council's appointed industry liaison officer.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the national lottery has raised to date; and how much has been spent in Bedfordshire. [43150]

  Mr. Caborn
  The national lottery has raised £12.19 billion at the end of December 2001 with £34,087,878 awarded to Bedfordshire to date.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the distribution of New Opportunities Fund national lottery money, with specific reference to demographic area. [43160]

  Tessa Jowell
  The New Opportunity Fund's programmes are designed to ensure a fair geographic spread of lottery money. For some of its programmes, the fund targets particular areas in order to ensure that funding reaches those in the greatest need.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the total value of national lottery ticket sales to date. [43169]

  Mr. Caborn
  The total value of national lottery tickets sold from the launch in November 1994 up to and including the draw for the main online game on 9 March 2002 was £36,494,475,733.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will give details of the outcome of her Department's discussions with national lottery distributors regarding increasing the efficiency of the distribution of lottery funding. [45716]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has agreed with distributors a series of measures with a view to halving the overall National Lottery Distribution Fund balance by 2004. We propose to identify any elements in the Statement of Financial Requirements or policy directions which hinder faster payment and a bolder forward commitment policy and make amendments where this is consistent with good financial management; and to review whether more discretionary powers need to be introduced into the financial directions to enable distributors to assess applications in a way more commensurate with the risk involved.
  562W
  In addition, distributors have identified a range of methods which they may be able to use to reduce balances more quickly. These include adopting a bolder approach to commitment, leading to extra awards; improving systems for cash management; and reducing the time between an in-principle commitment being made and the first draw-down of funds. We will share best practice on measures employed by different distributors to reduce balances.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria will be used for choosing which authorities are eligible to receive lottery money through the National Lottery Fair Share initiative; and if she will make a statement. [45901]

  Mr. Caborn
  Those local authority districts which will benefit from Fair Share have already been chosen according to whether they are deprived and are receiving less than the median per capita amount of lottery funding.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she will take to help disadvantaged areas which do not receive a proportionate share of National Lottery awards and who have not been placed on the list of disadvantaged areas eligible for the National Lottery Fair Share initiative. [45900]

  Mr. Caborn
  Fair Share is one of several targeted initiatives operated by the lottery distributors. The Government are committed to ensuring that all areas benefit from lottery funding. We have challenged other lottery distributors to draw up their own lists of areas not receiving their fair share of lottery funding and target their resources on these.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how she will ensure that disadvantaged areas receive a proportionate level of lottery funding after the completion of the National Lottery Fair Share initiative in 2005. [45899]

  Mr. Caborn
  We will consider what further steps might be taken once we have begun to evaluate the effectiveness of Fair Share.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost is of setting up the National Lottery's joint community fund and New Opportunities Fund Fair Share project; if she will give a breakdown of these costs; and from which budget the costs will be taken. [45346]

  Mr. Caborn
  The New Opportunities Fund and the community fund are required to meet their running costs from their share of the National Lottery Distribution Fund. It is not possible at this stage to disaggregate the running costs that will accrue to the two distributors from administering Fair Share.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 45W, what consideration she gave to including Tewkesbury in the list of areas under the targeted lottery initiative. [46132]

  Mr. Caborn
  The selection of Fair Share areas was a matter for the community fund and the new opportunities fund, based on broad criteria set by the Government.
  563W
  Tewkesbury was not selected as a Fair Share area because it is not one of the 100 most deprived local authority districts in England.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 45W, how much each of the 51 areas listed under the targeted lottery initiatives has received in National Lottery funding. [46131]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following table gives the value of lottery awards made in the 51 English Fair Share areas.

  £

  English local authorities

  Lottery award totals

  Ashfield

  4,969,982

  Barking and Dagenham

  12,878,997

  Barnsley

  20,531,215

  Basildon

  2,615,620

  Blackpool

  8,346,303

  Blyth Valley

  4,150,301

  Bolsover

  7,637,701

  Bolton

  33,727,019

  Bournemouth

  9,244,798

  Brent

  138,228,766

  Burnley

  8,150,550

  Darlington

  6,843,302

  Derby

  23,905,119

  Doncaster

  60,909,039

  Dudley

  21,902,069

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  5,795,148

  Enfield

  19,688,961

  Great Yarmouth

  6,803,257

  Hyndburn

  4,306,746

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  41,257,139

  Kirklees

  35,868,837

  Knowsley

  14,368,675

  Luton

  11,508,015

  North East Lincolnshire

  7,109,709

  North Somerset

  11,905,771

  Oldham

  16,837,828

  Pendle

  5,077,803

  Peterborough

  19,032,272

  Portsmouth

  63,524,605

  Rochdale

  17,343,934

  Rotherham

  36,696,975

  Salford

  86,495,731

  Sandwell

  33,400,102

  Sefton

  18,576,783

  Solihull

  6,531,320

  St. Helens

  18,166,887

  Stockton-on-Tees

  18,566,799

  Swindon

  21,726,787

  Tameside

  11,754,532

  Telford and Wrekin

  19,684,276

  Tendring

  5,343,771

  Thanet

  10,434,744

  Trafford

  13,662,061

  Wakefield

  31,383,468

  Walsall

  34,700,659

  Waltham Forest

  16,941,245

  Wansbeck

  4,342,966

  Waveney

  4,595,907

  West Lancashire

  4,861,777

  Wigan

  23,675,368

  Wirral

  18,108,749

  BBC
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans her Department has for BBC finances. [43153]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have no plans to change the current financing arrangements for the BBC, but funding will be looked at as part of the process of reviewing the BBC's Charter, which expires in 2006.

  International Year of Mountains
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support the Department is giving to Cumbria for celebrations during the international year of the mountains. [43154]

  Dr. Howells
  I intend to visit the National Mountaineering Exhibition at the Rheged Discovery Centre in June to celebrate the Cumbrian Mountain Festival that is being held in association with the United Nations International Year of Mountains to boost sustainable tourism in the county.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she plans to take in respect of museums in Cambridge following the museums and galleries task force. [43155]

  Tessa Jowell
  Resource: the Council for Museums, Libraries and Archives published on 7 March application forms and criteria for the selection of museums as regional hubs. Museum consortia in each region are invited to submit applications to Resource by 19 April. My Department is currently working with Resource to start implementing the Task Force recommendations with £10 million per annum which was allocated to Resource in the last spending review.

  We will take the Task Force's recommendations into account in the current spending review, alongside other priorities.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether she commissions independent assessments of how successfully the national museums and galleries meet their key performance indicators. [40332]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 6 March 2002]: My Department recognises its role in ensuring that the national museums and galleries which it sponsors provide reliable performance indicator data. The funding agreements which are in place with all of our sponsored museums and galleries now incorporate information on the process to be adopted in validating reports on performance against targets. In addition, we expect the internal auditors of our sponsored museums and galleries to provide independent assurance that the methods of data collection are in accordance with agreed definitions and that they allow credible performance reporting.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on Government support for local sports clubs. [43157]
  565W
  Mr. Caborn
  Local amateur sports clubs make valuable contributions to improved health, the local economy and social inclusion. In order to help clubs attain the financial stability to develop these roles, my Department has been working with the Charity Commission and sports bodies on a possible tax exemption package that would extend charitable status to clubs on the grounds that they provide healthy recreation.

  Healthy Living
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what work her Department will carry out to support the Government's public health objective of promoting healthy living in 2002–03. [43158]

  Tessa Jowell
  My Department continues to support and emphasise the significant contribution sport, the arts and children's play provision can make to promoting a healthier society. Through our close involvement in the Cross-Cutting Review on Health Inequalities, we are also examining the ways in which our sectors can help to tackle the problems posed by health inequalities in this country.

  Rugby League
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on support for grassroots rugby league from the national lottery. [43159]

  Mr. Caborn
  Total funding received from the National Lottery in England for grassroots rugby league is £8,717,584. The responsibility for lottery awards rests with the independent distributing bodies, such as Sport England, who make their funding decisions independently of the Government.

  Arts Education
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the progress being made by the arts education pilot projects under the creative partnership scheme. [43161]

  Tessa Jowell
  Creative Partnerships is on course to begin in April when funding comes on stream. This new fund will offer school children in some of the most deprived areas in the country the opportunity to work with artists and other creative practitioners on sustained projects.

  Football Grounds
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations the Government have made to the Football Association and other football bodies about the sale of club grounds without making alternative provision for training and games. [43163]

  Mr. Caborn
  Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made representations to the Football Association or the other football authorities about the sale of club grounds.

  These are primarily commercial issues for clubs' managements. However, the Government fully appreciate that clubs' grounds are important parts of the communities
  566W
  they serve. That is why Supporters Direct was set up by the Government last year to advise and assist football supporters wishing to get involved in the responsible running of their football clubs.

  Supporters Direct has recently been involved in setting up successful rescue packages for clubs whose primary assets, including their grounds, have been threatened.

  Euro
  Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether she has met the English Tourist Council to discuss the acceptance of euro notes and coins. [43165]

  Dr. Howells
  No, I have not. The British Tourist Authority have, in consultation with the UK's tourism industry and HM Treasury, issued guidance entitled "The Euro—A guide for small tourism businesses" to assist tourism firms. I have arranged for copies to be deposited in the Libraries of the House.

  Film School, Newport
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will visit the Film School at Newport, Gwent. [43166]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has no current plans to visit the school.

  Exercise
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will introduce an advertising campaign to encourage people to take up exercise and sport and to make the most of local council sporting facilities. [43167]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have no plans to introduce an advertising campaign to encourage people to take up exercise and sport and to make the most of local council sporting facilities.

  Sport England's well publicised Active Sports initiative is a national programme designed to give eight to sixteen-year-olds the opportunity to enjoy their sport throughout the country. In addition Sport England's Active Communities initiative is seeking to encourage all sports providers to reach communities and individuals who have traditionally been excluded from sport or physical activity, and to encourage delivery within communities that do not have a strong sport and recreation infrastructure.

  Regional Theatres
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps the Government are taking to support regional theatres in Lancashire and the north-west. [43168]

  Tessa Jowell
  This is a matter for the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards. As a result of last year's Theatre Review an extra £2.8 million was allocated to theatre throughout the north-west arts region. By 2003–04 over £7.5 million will be spent in revenue funding for theatre, representing an increase of 77 per cent. over 2000–01.

  Portable Antiquities
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on future funding for the portable antiquities scheme. [43170]

  Tessa Jowell
  I can confirm that my Department has agreed to fund all the present 14 posts for a further full year, pending the outcome of Resource's lottery bid.

  Sports Coaching
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the contribution of volunteers to sports coaching, with special reference to schools. [43162]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department and the Home Office will shortly launch our joint Volunteering in Sport project. This project will make available £7 million of funding over the next two years to provide training and volunteering opportunities for people both young and old. The project will focus on existing School Sport Coordinator Partnerships where they exist. The trained volunteers are part of the Volunteer Investment Strategy and will form an additional resource to deliver the Government's commitment to an entitlement of a minimum of two hours per week high quality PE and sport to every pupil, by helping teachers run school sports clubs, festivals and competitions and supporting local primary school sport. Many of the volunteers will also be deployed in community sports clubs.

  £

  Sponsor

  Sponsorship

  Project

  Date

  Total cost

  Lloyds TSB

  10,000

  Creative Industries Finance Conference: connecting creativity with capital

  November 1999

  18,982

  Imagination Gallery

  2,000

  British Trade International

  11,750.00

  Launch of Creative Industries Export Advisory Group Strategy Document—Exports: Our Hidden Agenda

  November 1999

  36,234

  Granada Group plc

  2,350.00

  Cameron Mackintosh Ltd.

  587.50

  BBC Worldwide

  176.25

  Publishers Association

  176.25

  PACT

  176.25

  Channel 5

  176.25

  Commercial Companies Radio Association

  176.25

  Database and Directory PA

  176.25

  Design Council

  587.50

  British Art Market Federation

  587.50

  British Phonographic Industry

  176.25

  British Music Rights

  587.50

  ELSPA

  587.50

  DBA

  470.00

  Vivienne Westwood

  470.00

  Institute of Practitioners in Advertising

  470.00

  The Newspaper Society

  176.25

  Deepend

  484.69

  British Phonographic Industry

  2,500.00

  Creative Industries Finance Conference: Good Practice in Financing Creative Industries

  October 2001

  5,637.22

  Advantage West Midland

  2,405.23

  University of Central England

  731.99

  World Tourism Organisation
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has for UK membership of the World Tourism Organisation. [44612]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government do not believe that there would be value for money in joining the World Tourism Organisation, membership of which would cost around £200,000 a year. However, DCMS does take an interest in the work of the World Tourism Organisation and offers
  568W
  My Department and the Coaching Task Force are also currently exploring the opportunities for encouraging more parents and grandparents to become involved in coaching, particularly in relation to school sport.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will set out for each civil service grade within her(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies the (i) total number of staff employed, (ii) number aged (A) 16 to 25, (B) 26 to 35, (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. [39174]

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

  Sponsorship
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which of her Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [40825]

  Dr. Howells
  Details of the Department's projects which have benefited from sponsorship since 1997 are detailed in the table:

  co-operation in areas such as statistics and best practice in environmentally sustainable development.

  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the cost to the UK of membership of the World Tourism Organisation. [44613]

  Dr. Howells
  Membership of the Worlds Tourism Organisation is calculated by the WTO according to the level of economic development and the importance of tourism in each country. In 2000 the estimated cost to the UK of membership was around £200,000.

  Historic Sites
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the sites of historic interest in Buckinghamshire which have received grant aid in the

  Grants awarded to properties in Buckinghamshire 1 April 1996 to 31 March 2001

  Property

  Location

  Date

  £

  St. Mary

  Ashendon

  3 May 1996

  20,061

  St. Lawrence

  Winslow

  10 May 1996

  59,309

  Stowe House phase IV

  Buckingham

  9 June 1996

  89,092

  Freeman Mausoleum

  Fawley

  12 June 1996

  8,707

  Stowe Landscape Gardens

  Buckingham

  17 March 1997

  274,000

  Chapel at Widmere Farm

  Marlow

  26 March 1997

  2,122

  St. Mary the Virgin

  Ivinghoe

  27 March 1997

  29,314

  All Saints Church

  Middle Clayton

  27 March 1997

  18,186

  Taplow Cross

  Taplow

  25 June 1997

  2,301

  Holy Trinity

  Drayton Parslow

  24 July 1997

  37,367

  All Saints

  Marsworth

  28 July 1997

  51,929

  St. Martin

  Dunton

  8 August 1997

  10,450

  All Saints

  Soulbury

  3 November 1997

  60,000

  Stowe School

  Buckingham

  18 November 1997

  51,865

  St. Mary

  Hardwick

  8 January 1998

  39,000

  Boarstall Tower

  Boarstall

  10 March 1998

  50,650

  Temple of Concord

  Buckingham

  27 March 1998

  90,000

  Stowe Landscape Gardens

  St. Mary the Virgin

  Drayton Beauchamp

  8 July 1998

  32,088

  Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

  Leckhampstead

  9 July 1998

  16,313

  Chapel at Widmere Farm

  Marlow

  16 July 1998

  13,680

  St. Cecilia

  Adstock

  17 July 1998

  23,100

  St. Peter and St. Paul

  Dinton

  18 September 1998

  20,000

  Rotunda and Dido's Cave

  Buckingham

  23 November 1998

  163,000

  Stowe School

  Stowe School—North Collonade phase I

  Buckingham

  27 November 1998

  400,000

  Dropmore House, phase I

  Burnham

  31 March 1999

  3,200

  St. Mary

  Mentmore

  1 April 1999

  21,400

  St. John the Baptist

  Preston Bissett

  1 April 1999

  32,962

  St. Nicholas

  Great Kimble

  1 April 1999

  132,800

  St. Mary the Virgin

  Aylesbury

  27 April 1999

  51,236

  Lord Cobham's Monument

  Buckingham

  12 July 1999

  84,000

  Stowe Landscape Gardens

  Fane of Pastoral Poetry

  Buckingham

  12 July 1999

  56,002

  Stowe Landscape Gardens

  Holy Trinity

  Bledlow

  12 July 1999

  18,330

  All Saints

  Wing

  12 November 1999

  85,331

  Stowe School—North Collonade phase II

  Buckingham

  15 March 2000

  260,000

  St. Mary Magdelene

  Great Hampden

  22 February 2000

  80,196

  Old Nursery, Chenies Manor

  Chenies

  1 March 2000

  35,562

  Blenheim Pavilion, Clivedon

  Taplow

  29 March 2000

  30,160

  The Hermitage

  Buckingham

  29 March 2000

  20,560

  Stowe Landscape Gardens

  Hall Barn

  Beaconsfield

  12 April 2000

  1,410

  St. Edmond's Church

  Maids Moreton

  10 May 2000

  20,269

  St. Edward the Confessor

  Shalstone

  29 June 2000

  15,900

  St. Mary and St. Nicholas

  Saunderton

  30 June 2000

  10,874

  Repton Bridge, Stoke Park

  Stoke Poges

  13 October 2000

  4,406

  Dropmore House, phase II

  Burnham

  29 June 2000

  5,600

  St. John the Evangalist

  Whitchurch

  10 November 2000

  113,268

  St. Mary, North Marston

  North Marston

  10 November 2000

  115,198

  Lord Cobham's Monument

  Buckingham

  3 January 2001

  98,400

  Stowe Landscape Gardens

  The Grotto

  Buckingham

  28 March 2001

  19,808

  Stowe Landscape Gardens

  Captain Cooke's Monument

  Buckingham

  28 March 2001

  15,200

  Stowe Landscape Gardens

  Total

  2,894,606

  570W
  last five years, indicating (a) the date and (b) the amount awarded in each case. [43294]

  Dr. Howells
  The following table shows the grants which English Heritage has allocated to sites of historic interest in Buckinghamshire in the last five years.

  Tourism Satellite Account
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to establish a tourism satellite account in line with the recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. [44611]

  Dr. Howells
  We are actively considering developing at least some of the components of a Tourism Satellite Account, but it will be costly and will have to be considered alongside the other priorities as part of the current spending review.

  Golden Jubilee
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many meetings the ministerial group for the Queen's Golden Jubilee has had; what the group discussed during meetings; how many members the group is comprised of; and if she will make a statement. [44585]

  Tessa Jowell
  There has been one meeting of the ministerial group for the Queen's Golden Jubilee, which took place on 12 April 2000 to consider the planning of the celebrations. Since then a number of other issues have been considered by the group. In the interests of speedy resolution, these issues were dealt with and cleared through correspondence. They are also kept informed of all major developments in this way. There are 23 members of the group.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Department will pay for the Queen's Golden Jubilee medals; how much of the cost will be met by the public; and if she will make a statement. [44588]

  Tessa Jowell
  Responsible Government Departments and the devolved Administrations will bear the costs of their respective services' medals.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if commemorative coins will be minted to celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and if she will make a statement. [44563]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Royal Mint announced details of the design for the Golden Jubilee commemorative crown on 12 September 2001. The commemorative coin has been available for purchase since January and has a face value of £5.00.

  Ofcom
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what relationship Ofcom will have with the devolved assemblies. [44486]

  Dr. Howells
  The Communications White Paper stated that Ofcom would be expected to develop good links with the relevant policy committees and executives of the devolved assemblies and with representatives of the English regions. We will expect Ofcom to consult closely with the devolved assemblies on how best to establish the most meaningful relationships with them and to build on some of the arrangements which some of the existing regulators have already established, such as holding 572W
  regular meetings with assembly officials and establishing regular links between senior Ofcom representatives and the assemblies themselves.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the relationship will be between Ofcom and the OFT; and in the event of a dispute on jurisdiction who will decide. [44487]

  Dr. Howells
  As the White Paper made clear, Ofcom will be able to exercise powers under the Competition Act 1998 and the Fair Trading Act 1973 concurrently with the Director General of Fair Trading, in respect of communications matters. The Government are confident that Ofcom and the OFT will be able to work closely and constructively together in the exercise of these powers. This would reflect the existing relationship between regulators with concurrent powers and the OFT. The Competition Act moreover makes provision for formal co-ordination between the OFT and those regulators who have concurrent powers under that Act, including co-ordination of case handling under the Competition Act 1998 (Concurrency) Regulations 2000. The regulations provide that in the event of a dispute between the Director General of Fair Trading and any regulator as to which should handle a particular case, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will decide. To date my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not been required to be involved in this way. The OFT and regulators have always been able to agree on who is best placed to deal with each case and therefore its allocation. The provisions for formal co-ordination will be applied to Ofcom in the same way as to other regulators having concurrent powers.

  Communications White Paper
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what provision she plans to make for those(a) with disabilities, (b) with imperfect sight and (c) hard of hearing in implementing the White Paper on Communications. [44485]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government fully recognise the importance of access to communications services for people with disabilities.

  As proposed in the White Paper, the forthcoming Communications Bill will extend to digital cable and digital satellite broadcasters the current requirements for broadcasters on digital terrestrial television to provide subtitling, sign language and audio description services on their channels.

  More generally, Ofcom will be placed under a duty, wherever relevant, to have regard to the needs of persons with disabilities.

  National Stadium
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether EU directives for the administration of public projects apply to the building of the national stadium at Wembley; and if she will make a statement on the national stadium. [44445]

  Mr. Caborn
  Responsibility for the development of the National Stadium project lies with the Football Association and their wholly owned subsidiary company Wembley National Stadium Ltd. (WNSL). The FA are
  573W
  committed to making a significant equity investment in the project and to raising debt financing to fund the majority of construction and other related costs.

  WNSL are required, under the terms of the lottery funding agreement concluded with Sport England, to fully comply with EU procurement legislation unless WNSL has been properly advised that EU procurement legislation does not apply. In such circumstances, the lottery funding agreement requires WNSL to adopt commercial competitive tendering procedures unless it can demonstrate to the satisfaction of Sport England that there is some overriding reason why that is not appropriate. I understand that WNSL's legal advisers advised WNSL in 1998 that EU procurement legislation does not apply to the national stadium project.

  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps have been taken to ensure that an independent assessment is made of any future contract between Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and Multiplex to ensure value for money and conformity to best practice in corporate governance and procurement practice. [46246]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the Government's position on the national stadium project to the House on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 292. One of the conditions of Government support was that the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. should commission an independent value for money assessment of the proposed contracts with Multiplex. That assessment is currently under way following the appointment by WNSL of Cyril Sweet Ltd. to carry out this study. A copy of Cyrill Sweet Ltd.'s terms of reference were placed in the Library on 12 March.

  Another of the Government conditions laid out on 19 December relates to corporate governance changes required of the Football Association and WNSL to produce a management structure capable of delivering a complex project within procedures acceptable to the public sector. The FA and WNSL are currently engaged in producing proposals to meet the Government's conditions and we expect the FA's work to be completed in April. The FA/WNSL proposals will be subject to scrutiny by Patrick Carter's review team and Sport England as well as by the Government.

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost has been of criminal damage to her Department's buildings in each of the last four years. [44827]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has no reported incidents of criminal damage at any building on the Departmental estate.

  Créche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what créche facilities are provided by her Department; and at what cost. [44860]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department offers holiday places at four Central London sites. The scheme operates during all main school holidays for children aged between five and 12 years. The cost per day is £26.00 of which the Department subsidises 50 per cent.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the target time will be in 2002–03 for(a) Ministers to reply to letters from hon. Members and (b) officials in her Department to reply to letters received directly from members of the public. [44958]

  Mr. Caborn
  In 2002–03 we will continue to aim to answer all correspondence, whether it be from hon. Members or the general public, within 18 working days.

  Landmark Projects
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the progress of each Landmark project supported by the Millennium Commission as part of the Millennium Celebration has been; which Landmark projects supported by the Millennium Commission have exceeded projected time and cost to be brought into operation; and if she will make a statement. [44734]

  Tessa Jowell
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chair of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many, and which, Landmark projects depend on local authority money; how much money local authorities have provided; and if she will make a statement. [44744]

  Tessa Jowell
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chair of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Landmark projects have failed to match the Millennium Commission funding with private finance; how much the shortfall is in each case; what has been done to fill the gap; and if she will make a statement. [44740]

  Tessa Jowell
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chair of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Landmark projects(a) her Department and (b) the Millennium Commission have encouraged local authorities to support with council tax funds or their capital funding; how much money was provided; and if she will make a statement. [44742]

  Tessa Jowell
  I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chair of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Millennium Tower, Portsmouth
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much public money, excluding that provided by the Millennium Commission, has been spent on the Millennium Tower in Portsmouth; and if she will make a statement. [44743]

  Tessa Jowell
  I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chair of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many old age pensioners in the Harwich constituency have benefited from the introduction of free television licences. [45117]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers the free television licence scheme for the BBC as Licensing Authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 12,900 people aged 75 or over in the Harwich constituency.

  Register of Sports Facilities
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects the register of sports facilities will be published; how this will be funded; and if she will make a statement. [45167]

  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. We will then be in a position to draw up a realistic timetable for the project.

  Millennium Bridge
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what public funds have been expended in rectifying the defects in the Millennium bridge. [45136]

  Tessa Jowell
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chair of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Bisham Abbey
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the bodies consulted by(a) Sport England and (b) her Department prior to the agreement of proposals to redevelop Bisham Abbey National Sports Centre. [45427]

  Mr. Caborn
  Given the historic nature of Bisham Abbey, Sport England have undertaken extensive consultation on the redevelopment of the National Sports Centre. Among the organisations consulted have been national governing bodies of sport, local sports clubs and other interest groups. The governing bodies and local sports clubs include: English Cricket Board, English Hockey Association, British Judo Association, Amateur Rowing Association, Rugby Football Union, Lawn Tennis Association, BAWLA, Football Association, Bisham

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Right hon. Roger Freeman MP

  2

  100

  February 1997

  May 1997

  Right hon. Chris Smith MP

  2

  100

  May 1997

  June 1997

  Right hon. Peter Mandelson MP

  2

  100

  June 1997

  December 1998

  Right hon. Chris Smith MP

  2

  100

  December 1998

  January 1999

  Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC

  2

  100

  January 1999

  —

  576W
  Abbey Squash Club and Bisham Abbey Golf Club. In addition the interest groups consulted include Windsor and Maidenhead District Council, Bisham Parish Council, Environment Agency, English Heritage, the Council for Protection of Rural England, Bisham Abbey User Committee and local residents.

  Officials from my Department hold regular meetings with members of Sport England to discuss issues relating to the English Institute of Sport and the National Sports Centres, including Bisham Abbey.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with Sport England on the re-development of Bisham Abbey National Sports Centre. [45446]

  Mr. Caborn
  Officials from my Department hold regular meetings with members of Sport England to discuss issues relating to the English Institute of Sport and the National Sports Centres, including Bisham Abbey.

  Digital Heritage
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the preservation of the digital heritage of the United Kingdom. [45198]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: Digital publications are continuing to increase in number and importance. The present system of legal deposit requires printed publications to be deposited in the British Library. In July 1998 the Working Party on the Legal Deposit of Non-print Publications chaired by Sir Anthony Kenny reported to the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library. The report makes a convincing case for moving towards legislation for the legal deposit of non-print material. My Department continues to seek a legislative slot in which to bring the matter before the House. In the meantime a voluntary code of practice is in operation.

  The national archive of the records of central Government and the courts of law for the United Kingdom is the Public Record Office, for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible. It has already instituted an electronic records programme for selection and preservation of the records of central Government.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list those individuals who have held shares in the New Millennium Experience Company since it became a non-departmental public body, and for each individual to state(a) the number of shares they held, (b) the percentage of the total shares in the company they held, (c) the date on which they became shareholders and (d) the date on which they ceased to be shareholders. [45199]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The information is as follows:

  Scottish Land Fund
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the grants made to date by the New Opportunities Fund through the Scottish Land Fund, the date of award and the amount awarded. [46233]

  Scottish Land Fund grants to date

  Local authority

  Applicant

  Grant type

  Amount (£)

  April 2001

  Highland

  Kinlochleven Land Development Trust

  Development

  90,000

  Highland

  Laggan Forest Trust Co. Ltd.

  Development

  73,172

  April total

  163,172

  May 2001

  Moray

  Deskford Community Association

  Acquisition

  12,000

  Highland

  Fernaig Community Trust

  Development

  57,796

  Perth and Kinross

  Comrie Millennium Footpath Association

  Technical assistance

  4,381

  Aberdeenshire

  Windyhills Community Group

  Technical assistance

  9,415

  May total

  83,592

  July 2001

  Argyll and Bute

  Ross of Mull Historical Centre

  Acquisition

  52,907

  Argyll and Bute

  Mull and Iona Community Trust

  Acquisition

  33,268

  Eilean Siar

  Port of Ness Harbour Ltd.

  Acquisition

  4,168

  Moray

  Burghead Amenities Project

  Acquisition

  19,108

  July total

  109,451

  August 2001

  Highland

  Abriachian Forest Trust

  Development

  94,000

  Highland

  Durness Development Group

  Acquisition

  15,670

  Argyll and Bute

  Tiree Rural Development Company

  Development

  50,000

  Aberdeenshire

  Woodhead and Windyhills Community Group

  Acquisition

  90,000

  Highland

  Glen Beag Woodland Steering Group

  Technical assistance

  300

  Highland

  Balmacara Square Management Committee

  Technical assistance

  964

  Scottish Borders

  Gordon Community Woodland Association

  Technical assistance

  720

  Argyll and Bute

  Kilchoman Community Group

  Technical assistance

  1,536

  August total

  253,190

  September 2001

  Highland

  Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust

  Technical assistance

  3,375

  Highland

  Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust

  Development

  20,310

  South Ayrshire

  Ballantrae Rural Initiative Care in the Community

  Acquisition

  26,690

  Argyll and Bute

  Gigha Land Steering Community Group

  Technical assistance

  2,974

  September total

  53,349

  October 2001

  Highland

  Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust

  Development

  62,519

  Highland

  Kells Croft Steering Group

  Acquisition

  12,475

  Argyll and Bute

  Gigha Land Steering Community Group

  Acquisition

  3,525,000

  Highland

  Fernaig Community Trust

  Acquisition

  11,873

  October total

  3,611,867

  November 2001

  Highland

  Acharacle Community Company

  Acquisition

  96,420

  Renfrewshire

  Howwood Community Woodland Group

  Acquisition

  13,870

  Argyll and Bute

  Iomairt Chille-Choman

  Acquisition

  30,358

  Aberdeenshire

  Mid Deeside Ltd.

  Technical assistance

  3,665

  Aberdeenshire

  Mid Deeside Ltd.

  Technical assistance

  4,350

  Stirling

  Trossachs Community Trust

  Acquisition

  20,000

  Highland

  North Sutherland Community Woodland Trust

  Technical assistance

  1,491

  Renfrewshire

  Howwood Community Woodland Group

  Technical assistance

  485

  Highland

  Strathnairn Community Woodland Project

  Technical assistance

  1,151

  November total

  171,790

  January 2002

  Highland

  Distillery Wood Association

  Technical assistance

  940

  Perth and Kinross

  Highland Perthshire Communities Land Trust

  Technical assistance

  2,910

  Aberdeenshire

  Strichen Community Park

  Technical assistance

  176

  Scottish Borders

  Gordon Community Woodland Association

  Acquisition

  69,971

  Orkney

  North Ronaldsay Trust

  Acquisition

  50,835

  Argyll and Bute

  Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust

  Development

  90,000

  January total

  214,832

  578W
  Mr. Caborn
  In just under a year of operation, 47 grants worth a total of £4,838,472 have been made by the Scottish Land Fund using New Opportunities Fund funds. The table gives further details of all awards made to date.
  579W

  Scottish Land Fund grants to date

  Local authority

  Applicant

  Grant type

  Amount (£)

  February 2002

  Highland

  Anagach Woods Steering Group

  Technical assistance

  399

  Highland

  Anagach Woods Steering Group

  Technical assistance

  799

  Highland

  Laggan Forest Trust Forestry Co. Ltd.

  Technical assistance

  1,000

  Shetland

  Sandwick Social and Economic Development Co.

  Acquisition

  25,265

  Highland

  Kingsburgh Forest Trust

  Acquisition

  148,805

  Stirling

  Loch Katrine Community Trust

  Technical assistance

  961

  February total

  177,229

  Overall total

  4,838,472

  Tourism
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many inbound tourists to the United Kingdom there have been in(a) each of the last six months and (b) the last 12 months. [44269]

  Dr. Howells
  The latest available numbers of visits to the UK by overseas residents are given in the table.

  Overseas residents visits to the UK

  2001

  Million

  (a)

  July

  2.6

  August

  2.6

  September

  2.0

  October

  1.8

  November

  1.8

  December

  1.5

  (b)

  January–December

  23.4

  Source:

  International Passenger Survey, Office for National Statistics

  Swimming
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Government will respond to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport report "Testing the Waters: The Sport of Swimming". [46424]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government's response to the report is being laid in the House today.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

  Electoral Commission Plan (2002–07)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what the outcome was of the committee's consideration of the commission's plan for 2002–03 to 2006–07. [46333]

  Mr. Beith
  At its meeting on 13 February, the Speaker's Committee approved the Electoral Commission's Corporate Plan 2002–03 to 2006–07. The plan, which gives details of the commission's aims and objectives, was laid before the House today. Copies will be available in the Vote Office and it will be possible to view the plan on the commission's website: www.electoralcommission.org.uk.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement on the resources made available to the National Audit Office for its inquiries into the individual learning account scheme. [43180]

  Mr. Alan Williams
  The Public Accounts Commission has provided funding for the National Audit Office which is consistent with the completion of some 50 major reports a year. During the course of each year the balance of the programme of reports is adjusted to reflect emerging issues, such as the Individual Learning Account scheme to which the hon. Member refers.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Contracts of Employment
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on clergy contracts of employment. [43183]

  Mr. Bell
  In general, clergy in the Church of England serving in parishes, cathedrals and dioceses are office holders and do not have contracts of employment. However, some clergy serving as chaplains do so under contacts of employment, and the same applies to some clergy who are on the staff of diocesan bodies, the Church's national institutions, or other bodies connected with the Church.

  Final Salary Scheme
  42. David Taylor
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent submissions relating to the future of the final salary scheme for retired clergy have been made to the Commissioners; and if he will make a statement. [43185]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church of England is undertaking wide-ranging consultation on this subject. As yet it is unclear whether or not there is any desire for a move away from the current defined benefit pension arrangements.

  Funding (Diocesan Resources)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners,
  581W
  what estimate he has made of the increase in funding within diocesan resources required in 2002–03 to replace Church Commissioners' funding. [43181]

  Mr. Bell
  Following the Commissioners' good investment performance in recent years, they plan to distribute an extra £10 million for parish ministry over 2002–04 and will increase their transitional relief to assist dioceses and parishes in meeting contributions for clergy pension by the same amount. They continue to meet the full cost of clergy pensions for service prior to 1998.

  The relationship between the Church's funding partners remains fluid and it is not particularly meaningful to express part of diocesan expenditure as a replacement for Commissioners' funding. I refer the hon. Member to the Commissioners' annual report and to our correspondence for a fuller account of these matters.

  Church Repairs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss the administration of grants to churches to cover the VAT element of the cost of repairs. [43847]

  Mr. Bell
  I have had no discussions recently about the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, which is managed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. However, I understand that a number of successful applications have already received moneys from the scheme.

  Discussions with the Treasury continue on the wider question of a reduction of VAT payable on the repair and maintenance of listed church buildings. I understand the European Commission has indicated that it will consider this matter as part of its general review of reduced rates in 2003.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes he plans to(a) make and (b) discuss with his ministerial colleagues on the funding for local authorities in relation to their enhanced civil defence responsibilities. [44978]

  Mr. Leslie
  There have been no recent changes in the civil defence and emergency planning responsibilities of local authorities. The Government have decided to allocate a total of £18.97 million to local authorities in civil defence grant for 2002–03. Figures for subsequent years will be settled as part of this year's spending review.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his Department's policy is towards age discrimination. [42575]

  Mr. Leslie
  The cabinet Office is an equal opportunities employer and is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all.
  582W
  It is the Department's policy that everyone should have equality of opportunity for employment and advancement on the basis of their ability, qualifications and suitability for work. There must be no discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, race, colour, nationality, ethnic origin or national origin.

  The Cabinet Office's age retirement policy for grades below the senior civil service supports the recommendations of "Winning the Generation Game". Our normal age for retirement is 60 years but retention beyond this age up to age 70 is possible subject to departmental needs and continuing health and efficiency for most grades.

  Yarl's Wood Fire
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that Bedfordshire does not suffer a reduction in its civil defence grant following the Yarl's Wood fire. [45007]

  Mr. Leslie
  In accordance with the Civil Defence (Grant) Act 2002, grant will be allocated in accordance with a nationwide formula designed to be fair to all authorities. An announcement on the formula and the allocations to individual authorities will be made shortly.

  Regulatory Impact Assessment
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 557W, for what reason the Government do not publish information on the relative performance of Government Departments with respect to regulatory impact assessment. [45494]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government do not hold centrally information on the relative performance of Government Departments with respect to regulatory impact assessments.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Cabinet Office policy is on the publishing of individual secondees' names; and if he will make a statement. [43668]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department does not disclose names, under the Code of Practice on access to Government Information, exemption 12 "Privacy of Individuals".

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to his Department of the Parental Leave Directive. [42480]

  Mr. Leslie
  The cost of the Department of the Parental Leave Directive is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Cabinet Office currently has a number of policies and practices, including statutory entitlement to Parental Leave, that are designed to help staff strike a balance between their working and home responsibilities.

  We believe that by offering such opportunities we are helping to aid recruitment and retention, improving morale and motivation, and decreasing staff absenteeism.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many cases have been brought against his Department under the Human Rights Act 1998; and what has been the cost in(a) legal fees to defend cases and (b) compensation payments. [45071]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department does not collect central records of cases in which the Human Rights Act 1998 is relied on. Human rights are now integrated in the general law and are rarely the sole basis for a challenge.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price for PPP contracts let by his Department in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [45609]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him earlier today.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 253–54W, on stolen equipment, whether the computer equipment stolen from his Department was (a) new and unused and (b) used; and what was the nature of the data stored on such items in each case. [42647]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  Of the PCs and laptops stolen, 12 were new and unused. With regard to the used equipment, the data stored on the PCs would be limited to software, as files were stored on network servers. Laptops held software data and files; however, none of the files were of a sensitive nature.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, columns 253–54W, 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. [41499]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  Internal investigations of each reported case are carried out; however, to date no criminal proceedings have been undertaken in relation to any of the thefts recorded. None of the items has been recovered.

  Celebrations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what arrangements his Department has made to celebrate(a) St. Patrick's Day, (b) St. George's Day, (c) St. Andrew's Day and (d) Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and how his Department celebrated St. David's Day. [42297]
  584W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office has no specific plans to celebrate St. Patrick's Day, St. George's Day or St. Andrew's Day. The Union flag will, however, be flown from the Department's buildings on the latter two days. Together with St. David's Day, these are named days on which the flag must be flown from all Government buildings.

  On arrangements for Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 11 February 2002, Official Report, columns 58–59W. Consideration is being given to flying the Union flag for the Jubilee, but in any event it will be flown on Coronation Day, 2 June, since this is a named day.

  Other than by flying the Union flag, the Department has made no special arrangements for celebrating St. David's Day.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if there is an age limit for(a) men and (b) women, for appointments to a public body in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [43940]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Code of Practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments states that all public appointments should be governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit, and that care must be taken, at every stage, not to discriminate on a number of grounds including age and gender.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the appointments made by his Department since 1 May 1997 of chairmen of(a) non-departmental public bodies, (b) commissions, (c) inquiries, (d) agencies and (e) task forces; and if he will list their (i) term of office, (ii) salary and (iii) known political affiliation (A) past and (B) present. [33880]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The following table includes information on appointments made to public bodies sponsored by Cabinet Office and appointments made by Ministers in Cabinet Office. The table does not include appointments to the Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside, made by my noble Friend, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston and his predecessors as Minister for the Cabinet Office in the capacity of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  There were no such appointments to commissions, inquiries or agencies.
  585W

  Term of office

  Appointee

  Body to which appointed

  Minister who made the appointment

  Date appointed1

  Period

  Salary

  Lord Haskins

  Better Regulation Task Force

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  September 1997 and September 20001

  3 years and 1 year (subsequently extended to March 2002)

  Nil

  Mr. David Arculus

  Better Regulation Task Force

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  March 2002

  3 years

  Nil

  Miss Patricia Downs

  Civil Service Appeal Board

  Parliamentary Secretary

  January 19981

  12 months

  £260 per day

  Mr. John Davies

  Civil Service Appeal Board

  Parliamentary Secretary

  May 1999

  3 years

  £310 per day, plus an extra half-day's fee for every full day in attendance for hearings

  Mr. Derek Dear

  Advisory Committee on Advertising

  Parliamentary Secretary

  March 1998

  3–6 years

  Nil

  Ms Julie Mellor

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  February 1999 and February 20021

  3 years and 3 years

  £62,500 per annum on appointment; £64,313 per annum wef 1 April 2000; £66,242 per annum wef 1 April 2001

  Baroness Christine Crawley

  Women's National Commission

  Minister for Women

  September 1999

  3 years

  £10,000 per annum plus expenses

  The Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield GCMG

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Prime Minister

  February 1999

  3 years

  Unpaid

  The right honourable the Lord Mayhew of Twysden QC

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Prime Minister

  June 1999

  3 years

  Unpaid

  Lord Neill of Bladen QC

  Committee on Standards in Public Life

  Prime Minister

  November 1997

  3 years

  £500 per day

  Sir Nigel Wicks GCB CVO CBE

  Committee on Standards in Public Life

  Prime Minister

  March 2001

  3 years

  £380 per day

  Lord Stevenson of Coddenham CBE

  House of Lords Appointments Commission

  Prime Minister

  May 2000

  3 years

  £5,000 per annum (waived)

  Lord Thomson of Monifieth Kt

  Honours Scrutiny Committee

  Prime Minister

  April 1999

  No fixed term

  Unpaid

  Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss

  Security Commission

  Prime Minister

  December 1999

  3 years

  Unpaid

  Dame Janet Smith

  Security Vetting Appeals Panel

  Prime Minister

  October 2000

  3 years

  Unpaid

  Sir Michael Perry

  Senior Salaries Review Body

  Prime Minister

  November 1998

  2 years

  Unpaid

  Mr. John Baker

  Senior Salaries Review Body

  Prime Minister

  February 2002

  3 years

  Unpaid

  1 Reappointed

  For completeness, the following table details appointments made by the Prime Minister to public bodies sponsored by other Departments.

  Term of office

  Appointee

  Body to which appointed

  Sponsor Department

  Date appointed

  Period

  Salary

  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Flyde

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body

  Ministry of Defence

  April 1999

  3 years

  Unpaid

  Mr. Rupert Hambro

  Museum of London

  Department of Culture, Media and Sport

  April 2001

  5 years

  Unpaid

  Mr. Peter Scott

  National Gallery

  Department of Culture, Media and Sport

  August 1999

  5 years

  Unpaid

  Admiral Sir Jock Slater GCB

  Imperial War Museum

  Department of Culture, Media and Sport

  September 2001

  3 years

  Unpaid

  Ms Liz Forgan OBE

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Department of Culture, Media and Sport

  April 2001

  3 years

  £32,130 per annum

  Sir David Hardy

  National Maritime Museum

  Department of Culture, Media and Sport

  October 2000

  5 years

  Unpaid

  Sir Peter Williams

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  Department of Culture, Media and Sport

  January 2001

  18 months

  Unpaid

  Ms Paula Ridley OBE

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  Department of Culture, Media and Sport

  November 1998

  5 years

  £227 per day

  Mr. John Lewis

  Wallace Collection

  Department of Culture, Media and Sport

  May 1998

  5 years

  Unpaid

  Michael Blair QC

  Doctors' and Dentists' Pay Review Body

  Department of Health

  March 2001

  3 years

  Unpaid

  Professor Clive Booth

  Nurses, Midwives and NHS Professions' Review Body

  Department for Health

  March 2001

  3 years

  Unpaid

  Professor Jon Clark

  Police Negotiating Board

  Home Office

  February 2000

  4 years

  Unpaid

  Mr. Anthony Vineall

  Schoolteachers' Review Body

  Department for Education and Skills

  February 2000

  4 years

  Unpaid

  586W 587W
  Information on political affiliation is not collected.

  Information on the number, remit and membership of task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews has been published by the Cabinet Office on a regular basis. The first report was published on 11 January 2000 and gives information for the period between 1 May 1997 and 31 October 1999. A second report was published on 27 July 2000, and covered the period 1 November 1999 to 30 April 2000. A third report was published on 13 December 2000 covering the period 1 May 2000 to 31 October 2000. The most recent report, "Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews", was issued in October 2001, and covers the period of the financial year 2000–01. Copies of these reports have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [39097]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  For details of advertising expenditure over the last four years I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him today (PQ ref. 36166).

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the total real terms expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity in each of the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total

  Vehicles

  10,089

  14,064

  51,397

  40,949

  116,499

  Reprographic equipment1

  160,000

  414,155

  215,514

  514,867

  1,304,536

  Other equipment2

  8,148

  48,073

  21,160

  94,248

  171,629

  IT3

  2,835

  167,606

  5,732

  29,763

  205,936

  181,072

  643,898

  293,803

  679,827

  1,798,600

  1 Reprographic equipment includes photocopiers and multi-function devices.

  2 Other equipment includes post room equipment, franking machines and fax machines.

  3 IT includes PCs and data tracking equipment.

  Notes:

  Women's Unit, Women's National Commission, PIU and CMPS joined Cabinet Office.

  Office of e-envoy established.

  All figures provided are for the full leasing term. They have been entered under the financial year in which the leasing arrangement was awarded.

  Equipment should be leased when it offers better value for money than direct purchase bearing in mind the products whole life costs and quality to meet (but not exceed) the requirement. These costs include maintenance, running and disposal costs, not simply initial costs.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the annual budget for communications 588W
  and (e) 2001–02 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (A) advertising and (B) press and public relations. [36166]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Details of departmental expenditure for advertising over the last four years and to date is as follows:

  £000

  1997–98

  144

  1998–99

  138

  1999–2000

  262

  2000–01

  464

  2001-to date1

  163

  1 This includes financial information from 1 April 2001 to 28 February 2002.

  The increase in expenditure from 1998–99 to 2000–01 from £138,000 to £464,000 is due to expenditure on recruitment advertising for posts within the Department. These posts range from administration and junior management level through to the senior civil service. Also included is recruitment advertising expenditure for specialist placements within the Government Information and Development Centre.

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost is to public funds in each case. [39077]

  Mr. Leslie
  The following leasing arrangements have been entered into by my Department and its agencies in each of the last four financial years.

  activities, including press, public relations, marketing and internal communications, was for his Department for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02. [39925]

  Mr. Leslie
  The majority of the Cabinet Office's press office and internal communications activity, as well as management of its official website, is dealt with by the Department's Communication Group. Where appropriate the group also handles public relations.
  589W
  The Group's annual budget, net of receipts, for each of the financial years since 1997–98 is as follows:

  £

  Annual budget net of receipts

  1997–98

  1,629,000.00

  1998–99

  1,568,000.00

  1999–2000

  1,918,000.00

  2000–01

  2,400,000.00

  2001–02

  2,558,000.00

  The increase in the budget, particularly between 1998 and 2001, is largely due to an increase in Cabinet Office activity and responsibilities relating to establishing new Units, increases in ministerial posts and the resultant additional communication activity.

  For expenditure on marketing and external public relations, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 29 January 2002, Official Report, column 252W.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the contracts agreed by his Department with the five largest accountancy firms since May 1997; and what was the total value of contracts with each. [42111]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 563W.

  Workplace Smoking
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to announce the outcome of the consultation by the panel for regulatory accountability in respect of the approved code of practice on workplace smoking. [45205]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Panel for Regulatory Accountability did not undertake any public consultation in respect of the approved code of practice on workplace smoking.

  However, the Health and Safety Commission completed a consultation exercise on whether to introduce an Approved Code of Practice, and announced, in September 2000, that it favoured the introduction of an Approved Code of Practice.

  The Government is giving careful consideration to the Commission's proposals. As part of this process, the Health and Safety Commission has been asked to consider further both the implications of an Approved Code of Practice on the hospitality sector and small businesses generally, and the role the Public Places Charter could play.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the value of fairly traded(a) tea and (b) coffee used in his Department in each of the last five years. [17562]
  590W
  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office has not awarded any central contracts to purchase fairly traded products over the past five years. However each individual directorate and unit within the Department can purchase fairly traded tea and coffee from those companies that supply fair trade products.

  The Department fully supports ethical trading in mainstream business and fair trade products will be purchased when they meet the criteria on procurement of goods and services.

  The Home Office will be publishing an article on fair trade in the next edition of "Purchasing Matters", an internal periodical for all procurement staff. In addition the Home Office will be holding a purchasing symposium on the issue of fair trade in April. Both these initiatives will encourage fair trade purchasing in the Department.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration his Department gave to the capacity to gain rapid planning permission when identifying sites for the proposed asylum accommodation centres. [35640]

  Angela Eagle
  In identifying potential sites for accommodation centres, consideration has been given to a wide range of issues including planning considerations.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which site in the Bicester area has been identified as a potential location for an accommodation centre for asylum seekers. [37078]

  Angela Eagle
  The prospective accommodation centre site in Bicester is on the land vacated by Ministry of Defence Logistics.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 160W, on facilities at accommodation centres, what assessment has been made of the costs of providing transport for asylum seekers housed in accommodation centres to ensure they receive needed services which are not provided in-house at accommodation centres. [43024]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: We have said we will provide for transport where necessary. We are considering the costs, which will depend on the location of the sites and the exact range of facilities on-site.

  Yarl's Wood
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement on the fire at Yarl's Wood removal centre, 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 441, what representations he has received on access to the site by Bedfordshire fire and police services; and if he will make a statement. [41243]

  Angela Eagle
  In the immediate aftermath of the events at Yarl's Wood on 14–15 February 2002 a number of anecdotal claims were made in the media and elsewhere that the emergency services could not gain immediate access to the site. To date, these claims have not been
  591W
  substantiated. It is likely that they arise from the fact that, on arrival at the scene, the first priority for the police was to establish perimeter security and also that firefighters could not be deployed within the site until a degree of order had been re-established. These issues will, of course, be considered by the separate inquiries being conducted by the Home Office, Bedfordshire Police, Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, and Group 4.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the asylum seekers who were detained at Yarl's Wood removal centre on 14 February by(a) nationality, (b) gender, (c) length of detention, (d) the stage of application and immigration status at the time of application and (e) those aged under 18; and if he will make a statement. [41148]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only by examination of individual case files.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will ensure that the on-going policing requirements at the National Detention Centre of Yarl's Wood will not fall exclusively upon the Bedfordshire constabulary; [40851]

  (2) if he will ensure that the (a) additional police costs and (b) costs incurred by retained firemen who have assisted with the Yarl's Wood fire will not be borne by the local authorities in Bedfordshire. [40853]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department is in discussion with Bedfordshire Police Authority about the policing costs of Yarl's Wood. The Government's position on this is clear. We will take whatever advice is necessary, and we will work with the police authority to protect their interests and those of the people they serve in Bedfordshire.

  Policy responsibility for the funding of the fire service rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Byers).

  Ministerial Design Champion
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings the Ministerial Design Champion for his Department has attended in her capacity as Design Champion in the last month; and if he will make a statement. [41960]

  Angela Eagle
  Ministerial Design Champions meet at approximately four-month intervals. I, as Ministerial Design Champion for the Home Office, attended the most recent meeting on 17 January 2002. The next meeting will take place on 22 May 2002. The Design Champions Officials Group, which works to the Ministerial Champions Group, meets at regular intervals to support the work of Ministers.

  I fully support the measures to underline the Government's commitment to the Better Public Buildings Initiative. My officials are working to deliver the Home Office action plan and I am pleased to have received a presentation from representatives of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), who outlined ways in which they can work with my officials on future design and construction across the Home Office estate. I have encouraged regular dialogue, both with
  592W
  CABE and other Government Departments, to address the common goals and to promote the sharing of best practice wherever possible.

  Superintendent Ali Dizaei
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers are allocated to the investigation into the affairs of Superintendent Ali Dizaei. [42745]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that 12 officers are currently allocated to the investigation of the affairs of Superintendent Ali Dizaei.

  Metropolitan Police Service
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which(a) members of the Metropolitan Police Independent Advisory Group, (b) business associates of those members and (c) companies related to them have been in paid employment of the Metropolitan Police service. [42741]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the operating protocols of the Independent Advisory Group require members to declare any relevant pecuniary interest. Two members of the Independent Advisory Group are directors of Ionann Management Consultants Ltd., the company under contract to the Home Office to provide specialist support to the police service on community and race relations training. The other detailed information requested by the hon. Member is not collected by the Metropolitan Police Service.

  Metropolitan Police (Internal Investigation)
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will conduct an independent inquiry into the manner in which the Metropolitan police's Internal Investigation Command (CIB3) investigates black police officers. [42743]

  Mr. Denham
  We are currently considering representations on this issue from the National Black Police Association.

  Experience Corps
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives are being undertaken by the experience corps volunteering in the constituency of Buckingham. [43287]

  Angela Eagle
  The Experience Corps Company began the implementation of this initiative in November 2001. This is across the nine English Government regions, five of which have operations under way. I understand that the experience corps company will launch in the south-east region, which includes Buckingham, during the spring.

  It will be for the company to decide what initiatives it develops in this area in line with its targets and objectives agreed with the Home Office.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the experience corps that have been set up in the constituency of Buckingham; and what total funding each corps has received. [43288]
  593W
  Angela Eagle
  The experience corps is a single initiative, which began its operations in England in November 2001. The experience corps will be launched in the south-east region, which includes Buckingham, during the spring.

  The level of funding for the initiative in Buckinghamshire is a matter for the experience corps company to decide in line with objectives and targets agreed with the Home Office.

  Metropolitan Police (Ethnic Officers)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Black and Asian police officers are serving in each of the Metropolitan police divisions covering the Greater London area. [43013]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and reflects the position on 14 March 2002.

  London borough division

  Number of Black officers 1

  Number of Asian officers 1

  Barking and Dagenham

  3

  3

  Barnet

  3

  5

  Bexley

  5

  4

  Brent

  13

  20

  Bromley

  6.6

  4

  Camden

  13.3

  10

  City of Westminster

  45

  46.4

  Croydon

  21

  9.4

  Ealing

  8

  30

  Enfield

  10

  7

  Greenwich

  3

  8

  Hackney

  12.8

  18

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  12.5

  6.4

  Haringey

  11

  14

  Harrow

  3

  11.8

  Havering

  2.8

  2

  Hillingdon

  3

  8

  Hounslow

  8

  10

  Islington

  26

  10

  Kensington and Chelsea

  17

  19

  Kingston upon Thames

  4

  3

  Lambeth

  24

  18.6

  Lewisham

  13

  7

  Merton

  3

  4

  Newham

  14

  14

  Redbridge

  6

  9

  Richmond upon Thames

  2

  6

  Southwark

  15

  13.8

  Sutton

  2

  2

  Tower Hamlets

  10.6

  13.7

  Waltham Forest

  10.6

  6

  Wandsworth

  4

  10

  Total

  335.2

  353.1

  Heathrow airport

  1

  4

  Non-borough units

  29

  14

  Headquarters units

  99.4

  53.9

  Total

  464.5

  425

  1 Full-time equivalents

  Armed Robberies
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many armed robberies have been committed in(a) England and Wales and (b) Greater London in each of the last three years. [43018]
  594W
  Mr. Denham
  The number of robberies using firearms is given in the table:

  Number of robberies using firearms (including air weapons)

  Year (ending March)

  England and Wales

  Greater London1

  1998–99

  2,973

  1,138

  1999–2000

  3,922

  1,695

  2000–01

  4,081

  1,424

  1 Metropolitan Police and City of London police force areas. There was a boundary change on 1 April 2000 in which parts of the Metropolitan Police area were transferred to Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey, so that these police force areas followed county boundaries thereafter.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been detained at Oakington since its opening; and of these how many have(a) left Oakington for accommodation provided by NASS, (b) left Oakington for other accommodation and (c) been detained in other establishments immediately after leaving Oakington. [42948]

  Angela Eagle
  11,895 principal asylum applicants were accepted at Oakington between 20 March 2000 and 31 December 2001. Provisional data, which is subject to revision, show that approximately 20 per cent. of these were detained in other establishments immediately after leaving Oakington. Corresponding information about the destination of those released on temporary admission on leaving Oakington is not presently available.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are awaiting decisions as to whether their application for asylum has been accepted. [43017]

  Angela Eagle
  There were 39,400 asylum applications awaiting an initial decision on 31 December 2001, less than half the 87,800 on 31 December 2000. This figure relates to the number of cases ie the number of principal applicants.

  Information on the number of cases awaiting an initial decision (including work in progress) is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ rds/immigration1.htm.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial support in vouchers and cash is provided by NASS to support asylum seekers. [43239]

  Angela Eagle
  Column A of the table sets out current levels of financial support. This is provided in vouchers and includes one for £10 which can be exchanged for cash. Column B of the table sets out the level of support which will be provided with effect from 8 April 2002. This support will be provided wholly in cash.
  595W

  £

  Column A

  Column B

  Qualifying couple

  57.37

  59.26

  Lone parent aged 18 or over

  36.54

  37.77

  Single person aged 25 or over

  36.54

  37.77

  Single person aged at least 18 but under 25

  28.95

  29.89

  Person aged at least 16 but under 181

  31.75

  32.50

  Person aged under 16

  30.95

  33.50

  1 Except a member of a qualifying couple.

  Asylum seekers in receipt of the full support package (accommodation and subsistence) receive fully furnished accommodation including cooking utensils. Council tax and utilities are paid for centrally.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are resident in(a) the Gainsborough constituency and (b) Lincolnshire. [44643]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. We currently only have statistics on the number of asylum seekers supported directly by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS).

  The only cluster area to which NASS disperses asylum seekers in Lincolnshire is Lincoln. As at the end of December 2001, 70 asylum seekers (including dependants) were being supported in NASS accommodation in Lincoln. Some asylum seekers supported by NASS find their own accommodation and receive subsistence only support (vouchers) from NASS. From available information, as at the end of December 2001, there were 500 asylum seekers (including dependants) in receipt of subsistence only support (vouchers) in the East Midlands Region (which includes Lincolnshire). Figures are not currently available by constituency for those asylum seekers supported by the NASS.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers whose applications have been refused have been removed from the United Kingdom during the last year for which figures are available. [44642]

  Angela Eagle
  Provisionally, there were 9,285 principal asylum applicants (to the nearest five) removed from the United Kingdom in 2001. Further information is given in the table.

  Asylum removals in 20011,2

  Principal applicants removed

  Dependants removed3

  Total asylum seekers removed

  Q1

  2,070

  n/a

  n/a

  Q2

  2,375

  215

  2,590

  Q3

  2,385

  355

  2,745

  Q4

  2,450

  485

  2,935

  1 Provisional figures, rounded to the nearest five. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2 Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).

  3 Data on dependants of asylum seekers removed have only been collected since April 2001.

  Information on the number of asylum removals is published on a quarterly basis. Information for the first quarter (January to March) of 2002 will be published
  596W
  on 31 May 2002 on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last received a letter from the chief constable of Merseyside concerning the future housing of asylum seekers in Landmark and Inn on the Park in Everton, Liverpool; and if he will make a statement. [44105]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: A letter from the chief constable of Merseyside police concerning the future housing of asylum seekers in Landmark and Inn on the Park in Everton, Liverpool was received on 12 March 2002. We are reviewing the situation in the light of his comments.

  Metropolitan Police (Racism)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints of allegations of racism have been made against officers serving in the Metropolitan police in the last 12 months. [43015]

  Mr. Denham
  Data are collected centrally on a financial year basis for racial discrimination. In the 12 months from April 2000 to March 2001, the Metropolitan police recorded 352 complaints of racial discrimination.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to introduce legislation on wheel clamping. [43012]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 anyone engaged in wheel clamping by way of business or employment or for monetary gain (as well as other designated groups) will need to obtain a licence from the Security Industry Authority. The authority will begin operations in 2003 and will have wheel clamping as one of its priority areas.

  Charity Commission
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Charity Commission investigation into organisations that operate within charitable rules promoting Islamic fundamentalism and raising funds for proscribed organisations. [43480]

  Angela Eagle
  This is a matter for the Charity Commission as the Government Department responsible for charities in England and Wales. The Director of Operations at the Charity Commission wrote to my hon. Friend on 11 March 2002.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walthamstow will receive a reply to his letters regarding Mr. M. Amin (A466239), sent on 12 October 2000 and 14 November 2001. [43774]

  Angela Eagle
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 22 March 2002. I am sorry I did not send an earlier reply.

  Animal Experiments
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to set up a royal commission inquiry into animal experiments. [43969]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government have not ruled out a Royal Commission but strongly believe that resources can best be used to make immediate improvements to the operation of the 1986 Act and to promote the fullest application of the 3Rs—replacing the use of animals with alternative methods; reducing the number of animals needed for a particular purpose and refining the procedures to minimise suffering.

  In this context, the Animal Procedures Committee is currently considering the responses to a public consultation paper as part of its review of the cost/benefit assessment of applications for authority to use animals in scientific procedures. As part of this work, the committee plans to produce a statement on the validity of animal experiments. I expect to receive its report in the next few months.

  The House of Lords has also established a Select Committee on the use of animals in scientific procedures and is currently gathering evidence.

  Foster Carers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to allow non-working foster carers the opportunity to earn credits for national insurance purposes. [34630]

  Mr. McCartney
  I have been asked to reply.

  Foster carers whose allowance contains a reward element are liable to pay national insurance contributions. Those who have no liability may choose to pay voluntary contributions. We will keep these arrangements under review as we do with all rules relating to benefits.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what events(a) he is and (b) other Ministers in his Department are planning to attend as part of the Golden Jubilee celebrations; and what events his Department is planning to arrange to celebrate the Golden Jubilee. [33247]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell), on 11 February 2002, Official Report, column 58W.

  Passport Service
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the United Kingdom Passport Service intends to publish its corporate and business plan 2002 to 2007. [46320]

  Angela Eagle
  The United Kingdom Passport Service corporate and business plan has been published today and I am pleased to say that copies of the plan have been placed in the Library.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Criminal Records Bureau intends to publish its corporate and business plan 2002 to 2007. [46321]

  Angela Eagle
  The Criminal Records Bureau corporate and business plan has been published today and I am pleased to say that copies of the plan have been placed in the Library.

  Diabetes (Guidelines)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change his guidelines to the police on diabetes. [44489]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: The guidelines on diabetes are currently under review by independent medical experts as part of the Home Office's National Recruitment Standards project. This work aims to ensure that occupational medical standards for police recruitment are evidence-based, job-related and not unfairly discriminatory. The new standards are expected to be applied consistently by the 43 forces of England and Wales.

  The medical review will also take into account the implications of the proposed extension of the employment related provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act to the police.

  Recommendations on proposed new medical standards should be available for consultation by July/August 2002.

  Seafarer's Work Permit
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the extension of the work permit regime to include seafarers serving on one-port voyages. [43595]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 20 March 2002]: In June 2000, the work permit arrangements in place for non-European economic areas seafarers engaged in domestic ferry services and dredging operations were extended to include those engaged on scheduled domestic freight services. This has been enforced with effect from 1 April 2001, following a period of flexibility to allow shipping companies to adjust their staffing patterns to take account of the revised arrangements.

  Consideration of whether to extend the work permit arrangements to cover one-port voyages is continuing. A decision will be made in due course in the light of all the available information, including legal advice received and consultations with officials in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Entitlement Cards
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Her Majesty's Government are investigating(a) privacy-enhancing technologies and (b) secret-key certificates in its work on developing entitlement cards. [40864]
  599W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: My officials have engaged in wide discussion in their work on entitlement cards. In particular, they have worked closely with the Office of the e-Envoy where relevant work on privacy enhancing technologies and secret-key certificates is being undertaken in the context of the development of electronic Government services.

  Family Visit Visas
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown by nationality of(a) acceptances and (b) refusals for family visit visa applications in the last six months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [44443]

  Family visit applications

  Applications issued

  September 2001

  October 2001

  November 2001

  December 2001

  January 2002

  February 2002

  1 Abijan

  21

  16

  11

  26

  10

  19

  2 Abu Dhabi

  36

  15

  35

  21

  28

  36

  3 Abuja

  20

  15

  15

  18

  0

  0

  4 Accra

  473

  246

  238

  691

  851

  210

  5 Addis Ababa

  10

  6

  15

  5

  13

  —

  6 Algiers

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7 Aimaly

  25

  12

  31

  22

  0

  7

  8 Amman

  62

  69

  46

  9

  67

  56

  9 Amsterdam

  49

  58

  34

  8

  36

  34

  10 Ankara

  9

  5

  26

  8

  26

  17

  11 Bahrain

  38

  19

  18

  29

  34

  25

  12 Baku

  11

  15

  24

  41

  19

  19

  13 Bangkok

  45

  34

  32

  20

  38

  77

  14 Banjul

  57

  58

  41

  49

  42

  44

  15 Beirut

  108

  64

  63

  90

  33

  59

  16 Belgrade

  118

  167

  254

  446

  209

  229

  17 Bogota

  80

  124

  99

  95

  21

  —

  18 Bombay

  557

  528

  433

  380

  489

  665

  19 Bratislava

  92

  112

  153

  116

  74

  134

  20 Brussels

  8

  12

  4

  22

  9

  7

  21 Bucharest

  105

  92

  121

  73

  51

  59

  22 Budapest

  1

  7

  2

  0

  6

  8

  23 Cairo

  147

  109

  124

  142

  135

  96

  24 Calcutta

  163

  109

  85

  74

  109

  143

  25 Canberra

  7

  14

  16

  15

  20

  12

  26 Casablanca

  83

  77

  84

  99

  126

  126

  27 Chicago

  142

  186

  234

  259

  100

  177

  28 Colombo

  82

  61

  48

  65

  66

  63

  29 Copenhagen

  44

  59

  62

  82

  39

  62

  30 Dakar

  0

  3

  2

  2

  1

  0

  31 Damascus

  32

  21

  21

  34

  41

  31

  32 Dar Es Salaam

  114

  16

  59

  30

  27

  126

  33 Dhaka

  251

  222

  233

  123

  212

  175

  34 Doha

  24

  22

  28

  24

  21

  30

  35 Dubai

  91

  55

  56

  31

  24

  27

  36 Dublin

  18

  27

  54

  33

  26

  31

  37 Dusseldorf

  189

  303

  322

  496

  207

  230

  38 Ekaterinburg

  10

  11

  23

  17

  11

  19

  39 Freetown1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  40

  40 Geneva

  105

  49

  49

  78

  73

  —

  41 Georgetown

  47

  35

  36

  43

  73

  —

  42 Guangzhou

  105

  68

  134

  128

  94

  108

  43 Hanoi

  20

  7

  13

  6

  —

  —

  44 Harare

  7

  4

  2

  4

  5

  —

  45 Havana

  4

  5

  4

  5

  1

  11

  46 Hong Kong

  34

  28

  45

  40

  38

  —

  47 Islamabad

  999

  399

  604

  774

  1,037

  1,176

  48 Istanbul

  223

  233

  205

  205

  210

  247

  49 Jakarta

  47

  52

  69

  63

  39

  25

  50 Jedda

  18

  19

  12

  8

  21

  33

  51 Jerusalem

  25

  14

  42

  36

  32

  20

  52 Kampala

  249

  73

  72

  101

  59

  —

  53 Karachi

  292

  169

  188

  127

  —

  —

  54 Kathmandu

  16

  57

  26

  56

  13

  24

  600W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  We do not collect statistics on the nationalities of applicants.

  Statistical information on the number of family visit applications issued and refused on a monthly basis is only available, from those posts which provide monthly statistical information (110 largest posts in 2001 and 111 in 2002). These figures are in the tables.

  The remaining posts submit information on an annual basis; this is not broken down into months. The annual return will be issued later this month, with replies from missions expected at the end of April 2002.
  601W

  Family visit applications

  Applications issued

  September 2001

  October 2001

  November 2001

  December 2001

  January 2002

  February 2002

  55 Khartoum

  27

  25

  7

  24

  20

  14

  56 Kiev

  107

  93

  145

  121

  73

  93

  57 Kingston

  66

  75

  76

  67

  61

  62

  58 Kuala Lumpur

  11

  7

  3

  7

  7

  6

  59 Kuwait

  7

  5

  12

  11

  8

  12

  60 Lagos

  2,727

  723

  1,267

  165

  138

  691

  61 Lahore

  139

  223

  299

  214

  317

  —

  62 Lima

  26

  23

  40

  32

  23

  39

  63 Los Angeles

  126

  125

  206

  97

  174

  149

  64 Luanda

  3

  8

  6

  2

  0

  —

  65 Lusaka

  64

  51

  70

  83

  33

  58

  66 Madras

  180

  206

  181

  199

  275

  359

  67 Madrid

  51

  30

  48

  54

  45

  —

  68 Manila

  26

  42

  26

  5

  27

  —

  69 Mexico City

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  70 Minsk

  26

  25

  25

  29

  16

  20

  71 Moscow

  227

  405

  321

  292

  229

  258

  72 Muscat

  85

  70

  62

  113

  96

  78

  73 Nairobi

  388

  252

  279

  234

  301

  183

  74 New Delhi

  1,027

  416

  309

  353

  601

  665

  75 New York

  361

  464

  632

  766

  548

  —

  76 Nicosia

  220

  178

  192

  241

  240

  195

  77 Oslo

  40

  58

  74

  73

  44

  —

  78 Ottawa

  211

  247

  287

  187

  137

  136

  79 Paris

  345

  358

  75

  288

  135

  173

  80 Peking

  136

  182

  343

  276

  341

  341

  81 Port Louis

  113

  101

  142

  144

  79

  173

  82 Port of Spain

  3

  8

  3

  4

  5

  —

  83 Prague

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  84 Pretoria

  1

  3

  7

  3

  8

  9

  85 Quito

  18

  14

  6

  12

  20

  22

  86 Riga

  3

  6

  16

  14

  7

  —

  87 Riyadh

  18

  6

  10

  0

  0

  —

  88 Rome

  72

  102

  143

  252

  114

  72

  89 Sana'a

  4

  5

  1

  5

  8

  —

  90 Santo Domingo

  1

  1

  1

  1

  67

  51

  91 Sarajevo

  105

  68

  75

  64

  79

  86

  92 Shanghai

  54

  48

  73

  84

  14

  12

  93 Singapore

  10

  17

  32

  16

  49

  83

  94 Skopje

  38

  52

  96

  102

  91

  110

  95 Sofia

  87

  124

  211

  162

  69

  63

  96 St. Petersburg

  54

  0

  93

  94

  0

  —

  97 Stockholm

  91

  116

  106

  89

  81

  114

  98 Taipei

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  99 Tashkent

  22

  4

  7

  11

  6

  6

  100 Tbilisi

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  —

  101 Tehran

  381

  344

  381

  378

  0

  0

  102 Tirana

  33

  39

  70

  41

  21

  28

  103 Tokyo

  6

  9

  10

  15

  3

  12

  104 Tripoli

  163

  119

  28

  34

  67

  —

  105 Tunis

  98

  63

  60

  77

  76

  64

  106 Vienna

  43

  54

  58

  80

  26

  26

  107 Warsaw

  0

  0

  3

  2

  1

  —

  108 Washington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  109 Wellington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  110 Yaounde

  22

  24

  44

  21

  13

  13

  111 Zagreb

  54

  113

  168

  195

  81

  104

  Total

  13,633

  9,912

  11,476

  11,203

  9,826

  9,317

  Applications refused

  September 2001

  October 2001

  November 2001

  December 2001

  January 2002

  February 2002

  1 Abijan

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2 Abu Dhabi

  13

  6

  1

  3

  8

  4

  3 Abuja

  66

  62

  56

  57

  0

  0

  4 Accra

  960

  1,039

  1,634

  926

  769

  726

  5 Addis Ababa

  5

  5

  8

  3

  17

  —

  6 Algiers

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7 Aimaly

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  602W

  603W

  Applications refused

  September 2001

  October 2001

  November 2001

  December 2001

  January 2002

  February 2002

  8 Amman

  2

  4

  1

  1

  3

  3

  9 Amsterdam

  1

  3

  2

  3

  2

  0

  10 Ankara

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  6

  11 Bahrain

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  0

  12 Baku

  0

  1

  4

  1

  0

  4

  13 Bangkok

  40

  40

  27

  9

  21

  27

  14 Banjul

  9

  24

  12

  7

  3

  10

  15 Beirut

  2

  2

  1

  2

  1

  0

  16 Belgrade

  4

  5

  3

  0

  1

  4

  17 Bogota

  11

  21

  19

  4

  12

  —

  18 Bombay

  235

  161

  156

  103

  152

  158

  19 Bratislava

  3

  4

  3

  2

  2

  2

  20 Brussels

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21 Bucharest

  5

  0

  18

  7

  10

  15

  22 Budapest

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  23 Cairo

  19

  6

  10

  1

  15

  22

  24 Calcutta

  3

  7

  2

  0

  1

  0

  25 Canberra

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  26 Casablanca

  20

  5

  3

  4

  6

  4

  27 Chicago

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  28 Colombo

  67

  69

  67

  51

  29

  28

  29 Copenhagen

  12

  5

  3

  0

  4

  3

  30 Dakar

  1

  1

  3

  3

  0

  4

  31 Damascus

  3

  4

  6

  2

  1

  7

  32 Dar Es Salaam

  10

  10

  0

  0

  0

  27

  33 Dhaka

  278

  327

  383

  248

  227

  123

  34 Doha

  4

  5

  6

  6

  1

  2

  35 Dubai

  31

  51

  38

  19

  28

  18

  36 Dublin

  0

  0

  10

  1

  3

  8

  37 Dusseldorf

  1

  10

  4

  6

  9

  15

  38 Ekaterinburg

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  0

  39 Freetown1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  32

  40 Geneva

  4

  8

  5

  5

  4

  —

  41 Georgetown

  10

  5

  14

  18

  4

  —

  42 Guangzhou

  25

  15

  13

  12

  23

  21

  43 Hanoi

  2

  5

  3

  3

  —

  —

  44 Harare

  1

  1

  0

  0

  4

  —

  45 Havana

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  46 Hong Kong

  2

  4

  5

  4

  5

  —

  47 Islamabad

  902

  40

  253

  95

  382

  832

  48 Istanbul

  44

  38

  50

  52

  99

  111

  49 Jakarta

  2

  4

  2

  1

  10

  8

  50 Jedda

  1

  24

  5

  2

  1

  7

  51 Jerusalem

  2

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  52 Kampala

  28

  9

  28

  20

  28

  —

  53 Karachi

  39

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  54 Kathmandu

  7

  8

  24

  17

  22

  26

  55 Khartoum

  14

  15

  6

  9

  13

  9

  56 Kiev

  19

  12

  12

  7

  4

  10

  57 Kingston

  16

  8

  18

  21

  16

  12

  58 Kuala Lumpur

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  3

  59 Kuwait

  15

  5

  5

  8

  6

  6

  60 Lagos

  273

  291

  324

  155

  182

  311

  61 Lahore

  89

  98

  109

  49

  90

  —

  62 Lima

  1

  0

  1

  6

  3

  1

  63 Los Angeles

  2

  5

  2

  2

  2

  1

  64 Luanda

  2

  3

  0

  1

  1

  —

  65 Lusaka

  10

  28

  25

  39

  27

  3

  66 Madras

  25

  30

  14

  26

  22

  17

  67 Madrid

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  —

  68 Manila

  42

  70

  81

  49

  52

  —

  69 Mexico City

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  70 Minsk

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  71 Moscow

  11

  11

  4

  6

  8

  2

  72 Muscat

  5

  6

  1

  3

  0

  5

  73 Nairobi

  35

  41

  57

  53

  38

  21

  74 New Delhi

  522

  460

  382

  394

  372

  396

  75 New York

  1

  3

  3

  4

  11

  —

  76 Nicosia

  2

  14

  6

  4

  2

  0

  77 Oslo

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  —

  78 Ottawa

  1

  3

  5

  0

  5

  4

  79 Paris

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  604W

  605W

  Applications refused

  September 2001

  October 2001

  November 2001

  December 2001

  January 2002

  February 2002

  80 Peking

  19

  14

  17

  16

  23

  29

  81 Port Louis

  24

  27

  10

  11

  9

  8

  82 Port of Spain

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  —

  83 Prague

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  84 Pretoria

  2

  9

  5

  10

  7

  0

  85 Quito

  1

  2

  4

  1

  5

  1

  86 Riga

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  —

  87 Riyadh

  9

  4

  9

  0

  0

  —

  88 Rome

  4

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  89 Sana'a

  4

  1

  13

  6

  14

  —

  90 Santo Domingo

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  91 Sarajevo

  3

  3

  3

  0

  6

  6

  92 Shanghai

  7

  2

  6

  2

  0

  0

  93 Singapore

  0

  0

  0

  0

  28

  19

  94 Skopje

  5

  4

  8

  2

  28

  11

  95 Sofia

  15

  22

  17

  10

  6

  4

  96 St. Petersburg

  0

  0

  7

  8

  0

  —

  97 Stockholm

  0

  6

  0

  2

  3

  0

  98 Taipei

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  99 Tashkent

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  100 Tbilisi

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  —

  101 Tehran

  56

  42

  29

  43

  0

  0

  102 Tirana

  1

  8

  3

  2

  0

  1

  103 Tokyo

  1

  0

  2

  5

  1

  2

  104 Tripoli

  38

  13

  16

  15

  30

  —

  105 Tunis

  50

  31

  22

  13

  24

  27

  106 Vienna

  1

  0

  0

  2

  26

  26

  107 Warsaw

  0

  1

  1

  3

  3

  —

  108 Washington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  109 Wellington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  110 Yaounde

  4

  2

  1

  1

  4

  4

  111 Zagreb

  10

  3

  6

  6

  5

  5

  Total

  4,225

  3,344

  4,136

  2,706

  3,037

  3,209

  1 From January 2002

  Note:

  "—"indicate information not yet received from posts

  Children's Rights
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the United Kingdom will ratify the European Convention on the exercise of children's rights. [43939]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Of the 43 member states of the Council of Europe only Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Poland and Slovenia have ratified the Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights. A new Council of Europe Convention on Contact with Children is expected to be adopted shortly. Both of these conventions include provisions for children who may wish to be heard or represented as a party to the proceedings so the Government intend to look at both of them together.

  Public Transport (Assaults)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults there have been on(a) crew and (b) passengers while travelling on public services in Staffordshire in the last 12 months. [43958]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  In returns to the Department, bus operators in Staffordshire reported 12 assaults on bus crew in the year 2000; data are not yet available for 2001. Information concerning assaults on bus passengers in Staffordshire is not available. The British Transport police have advised
  606W
  that in the last 12 months five assaults on staff and seven on passengers were reported on the railways in Staffordshire.

  Dog Ownership
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government plans to introduce licensing for dog ownership. [43966]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government do not plan to introduce licensing for dog ownership—the previous dog licensing system ceased in 1988 because it cost more to administer than the revenue it produced. DEFRA promotes responsible dog ownership through byelaws, education and publicity.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Global Crossing
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates of meetings that(a) special advisers and (b) Ministers in his Department have had since 1 January 1999 with representatives of Global Crossing; and if he will make a statement. [34058]
  607W
  Mr. MacShane
  No Ministers of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, or their special advisers, have had meetings with representatives of Global Crossing since 1 January 1999.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which consultant was used to advise on the installation of air conditioning during the recent refurbishment of GCHQ. [41163]

  Mr. Straw
  The most recent refurbishment work at a GCHQ premises, involving the provision of air-conditioning, engaged the services of W. S. Atkins as consultant.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether an installer capable of installing not-in-kind air conditioning was invited to quote for the recent refurbishment contract for GCHQ; and if he will make a statement. [41165]

  Mr. Straw
  In line with Government policy, contracts for GCHQ are let on the basis of a main contractor providing goods and services via sub-contractors, (including in this case the provision of air conditioning). It is for those specialists to determine solutions which may, or may not, be on a like for like basis.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures were taken to ensure that the consultant advising on the installation of air conditioning during the recent refurbishment of GCHQ was aware of the Government's policy on the use of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants in air conditioning; and if he will make a statement on the measures taken by the consultant to source practical and safe alternatives to hydrofluorocarbon-based air conditioning. [41164]

  Mr. Straw
  GCHQ ensured that the consultant complied fully with Government policy on refrigerants, which supports the phase-out timetable for ozone-depleting agents—including hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)—as agreed in the Montreal Protocol of 1987, and the subsequent revisions laid down by European Commission Regulation 594–91. The refrigerant chosen for the air conditioning plant used in the refurbishment was R407C (which is HFC-based and is therefore not ozone-depleting) and all other materials were CFC-free. This is acceptable under the relevant legislation.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff have been employed by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42467]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 296W.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have weapons of mass destruction. [43089]
  608W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Under the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the United Kingdom, the United States, France, China and Russia are legally entitled to possess nuclear weapons.

  Additionally, India and Pakistan have tested nuclear devices. We continue to encourage Israel to resolve international concerns about its nuclear status by acceding to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state. We also know that Iraq possesses significant biological and chemical weapons capabilities and, were UN sanctions to be lifted, we believe it could develop a nuclear weapon within five years.

  There are four States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (The US, Russia, India and another State Party) that have declared possession of chemical weapons. They are currently in the process of destroying them in accordance with their obligations under the convention.

  We are also aware of, and very concerned by, persistent reports that Iran, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Libya and Syria are pursuing programmes to develop WMD and the means for their delivery.

  Israel
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Israel concerning the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1322 with respect to adhering to the Fourth Geneva Convention. [43485]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK along with our EU partners reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem at the reconvened conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention in Geneva on 5 December 2001, and, in both the Conference Declaration and in the EU statement, condemned the indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force to contain violence, in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1322.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations he has made into Israeli forces' detention, since 12 March, of the British citizen Patricia Rantisi and their occupation of her Ramallah apartment; and what representations he is making to the Government of Israel on the subject. [44672]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our embassy in Tel Aviv have raised concerns with the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) about the plight of all British nationals in the occupied territories. Consular officials in Jerusalem kept in regular contact with British nationals trapped in Ramallah between 12 and 15 March, including speaking by telephone to Mrs. Rantisi.

  On 14 March, the Permanent Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office delivered a demarche in the name of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the Israeli ambassador to London calling for IDF co-operation over the plight of British nationals in Ramallah. The embassy in Tel Aviv has also raised Mrs. Rantisi's plight with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

  Contracts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by his Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [43674]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Peter Wishart) on 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 385–86W.

  Civil Servants (Education)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion(a) in the last year for which figures are available, (b) five years ago and (c) 10 years ago of senior civil servants in his Department attended (i) independent and (ii) state schools; and if he will make a statement. [43856]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information requested cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's manpower system does hold data on education details but information on the schools and type of school that staff attended is incomplete. In its recruitment policy, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office aims to reflect the diversity of British society.

  British Detainees (Guantanamo Bay)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received clarification from the detaining power as to the legal status of British detainees at Camp X-Ray; and if British detainees at Camp X-Ray may be removed to other jurisdictions without his knowledge and approval. [44476]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to ask the US authorities for clarification of the position of British detainees in Guantanamo Bay, including their status and the legal procedure to which they might be subject.

  In response to our approaches, the US Government has given us the assurance that they will treat all of the detainees humanely and consistently within the principles of the Geneva Convention.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether(a) the UK Government and (b) its agencies has been offered access to evidence gathered from British detainees at Camp X-Ray by the detaining power. [44457]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 867W.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 691 W, on drug trafficking, what anti-drugs assistance has been given to countries in
  610W
  south-west and central Asia; and what assistance has been given for border security and surveillance in those countries. [44711]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have allocated approximately £4.5 million for counter-narcotics projects in central and south-east Asia in financial year 2002–03.

  This region has already benefited significantly from FCO funding. The main recipients for the financial years 1998–2002 have been Iran (approximately £2.9 million, mostly via UNDCP) and the five Central Asian Republics (approximately £500,000).

  FCO overseas anti-drugs assistance is targeted at improving law enforcement capacities in the main producing and trafficking countries which pose a direct drugs treat to the UK through the provision of equipment and training.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what creche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [44866]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The FCO opened its first workplace nursery on 3 September 2001. It can take up to 36 children. Capital costs were in the region of £450,000 (£375,000 for construction costs, £50,000 for professional fees and £25,000 for furniture and equipment). The Cabinet Office provided £150,000 towards these costs from the Modernising Government Fund. Parents pay between £100–£120 per week, depending on their grade and the age of the child. It is envisaged that an initial subsidy towards running costs of up to £85,000 per annum, reducing gradually over a 2–3 year period, will be needed while the nursery builds up to full capacity. The objective of setting up the nursery was to demonstrate a long-term commitment to helping staff combine work and family.

  The FCO is also an employer partner in the Buffer Bear network of nurseries, with access to 10 priority places. The cost of a place varies depending on, among other things, the location of the nursery and staff are offered a subsidy of £15–£35 per week depending on their grade. These nurseries are based at key commuter points and offer choice for parents who do not wish to bring their children into London.

  The FCO currently has two under-two places at the First Steps nursery in Marsham street. These are being phased out, before the FCO withdraws from the contract in December 2002. The cost of a place for an under-two is £223.14 per week. As with our in-house nursery, parents pay between £100–£120 per week, depending on their grade. The FCO subsidy for the coming year will be in the region of £14,000.

  Staff are also eligible to use the Westminster Holiday Playscheme, which caters for 5 to 12-year-olds during school holidays, at three sites in central London. The cost is £26 per day, which is split equally between the FCO and the parent. The subsidy for FY 2001–02 will be in the region of £4,000. Places are offered on a first come, first served basis, which means the number of users varies each year.

  The FCO is currently conducting a review of child care support that is offered to staff.

  Nigeria
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Nigerian Government in support of Safiyatu Hussaini's appeal against the sentence of death by stoning for the crime of adultery. [43972]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have repeatedly made clear our concerns about the case of Safiyatu Hussaini. Our high commission in Abuja is monitoring the situation closely and is in contact with local organisations involved in the case. Ms Hussaini has the support of a strong defence team, supported by the Nigerian Human Rights Commission and local non-governmental organisations.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Nigeria regarding the woman due to be stoned to death; and if he will make a statement. [45004]

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Nigeria about the decision by Sharia law to stone to death Safiyati Husseini. [44896]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Nigerian Government are well aware of the Government's concerns over the sentence of death by stoning passed on Safiyatu Husseini.

  Ms Husseini's case is currently before Sokoto State Sharia Court of Appeal, which has said it will give its decision on the appeal on 25 March. If the sentence is confirmed, there is scope for further appeals. Ms Husseini is supported by a strong legal team and the Nigerian Human Rights Commission.

  The British high commission in Abuja is monitoring the situation closely, and has made the Government's concerns over the case known at a number of levels to the Nigerian authorities.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what estimate he has made of the numbers of British passport holders who may need to be rescued in the event of a major humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe; [44934]

  (2) what contingency plans the Government have made to rescue British passport holders by air in the event of a major humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. [44933]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are approximately 26,000 British nationals registered with the British high commission in Harare. We have a civil contingency plan for Zimbabwe, as we do for many other countries. Any evacuation would be a last resort and by whatever means available at the time.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to demonstrate the Government's position on recognising the result of the Zimbabwean elections, with particular reference to(a) diplomatic relations and (b) other protocols with Zimbabwe. [45789]
  612W
  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to my statements to the House of 14 and 21 March. We do not recognise the result of the presidential election in Zimbabwe as being a true reflection of the will of the Zimbabwean people. As a signal of our conviction that the election was neither free nor fair, the British high commissioner in Harare did not attend the inauguration ceremony for Mr. Mugabe on 17 March.

  India (Peter Bleach)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations at ministerial level have been made to the Government of India regarding Peter Bleach; what the response of the Indian Government were; and if he will make a statement. [45411]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Indian Home Minister, L. K. Advani, about Mr. Bleach's case on 13 December 2001. The Prime Minister also raised it with Mr. Advani during his visit to India in January 2002.

  I discussed Mr. Bleach's case with the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, on 22 February 2002. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reiterated our concern about Mr. Bleach's continued detention and poor health with Mr. Advani on 27 February 2002.

  Since December 2000 we have requested that Peter Bleach be released on grounds of fair and equal treatment with the five Russians convicted with him for the same offences, and who were released in July 2000. The Government of India's response has been that the nature of Mr. Bleach's offences was different: we do not accept this. We have asked the Government of India to reconsider Mr. Bleach's case and to take into account the deterioration in his health since he has been diagnosed with tuberculosis and bronco-pneumonia.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment was made of precedents for the EU's conditional offer to the citizens of Gibraltar agreed to at Barcelona. [44977]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 21 March. 2002]: At Barcelona EU Heads of State and Government welcomed the relaunch of the Brussels Process, underlined their support for the efforts of the British and Spanish Governments to conclude a comprehensive agreement before the summer; and invited the European Commission to explore ways in which the EU could underpin any agreement reached. It is for the Commission to consider how best to carry this remit forward.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for Gibraltar of the Barcelona Summit. [45577]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Nigel Dodds) on 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 389W.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit Gibraltar. [46224]
  613W
  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) on 14 January 2002,Official Report, column 29.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to present the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European communities and FYR Macedonia to Parliament. [45241]

  Peter Hain
  A Command Paper and an explanatory memorandum for the Macedonian Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union was deposited in Parliament on 1 March.

  United States
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings were arranged for the Department to meet the US Assistant Secretary for Defence during his recent visit to London this week; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meetings. [45695]

  Mr. Straw
  On 18 March the Assistant Secretary of Defence attended two separate meetings with senior officials from the FCO. These were part of a series of discussions in Whitehall.

  Iraq
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to the offer of the Iraqi Government to allow British weapon inspectors into Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [43912]

  Mr. Straw
  The UK Government have received no direct approach from the Government of Iraq, although we are aware that an Iraqi spokesman announced such an offer through the state-controlled Iraqi media. The demand of the international community is for UN weapons inspectors to be allowed into Iraq. They have built up a vast amount of knowledge about Iraq's weapons and know where to look. United Nations Security Council resolutions also require Iraq to allow the weapons inspectors full, unconditional access at any time. If Iraq truly has nothing to hide it will let them in on this basis. I note from the Iraqi spokesman's announcement that the British team would be allowed to visit only sites named in advance. We are looking for Iraqi disarmament, not yet more propaganda stunts.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to obtain(a) UN and (b) NATO authorisation to allow a United Kingdom military attack on Iraq. [45159]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq, and so the question of whether authorisation is needed does not arise.

WALES

  Press Releases
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press releases were issued by his Department(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40041]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  A monthly breakdown of Welsh Office press releases in 1997 is no longer available. In that year as a whole, the Welsh Office issued 650 press releases. The Welsh Office issued 774 press releases in 1998 and 776 in 1999. Since its creation in July 1999, the Wales Office has issued 30 press releases in 1999, 100 press releases in 2000 and 86 press releases in 2001.

  Coalfields Regeneration Trust
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on the work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust with particular reference to(a) the Cynon Valley and (b) Wales. [44790]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Secretary on a range of issues affecting Wales.

  The National Assembly funds the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and it has established itself as a leading funder and partner in coalfield regeneration in Wales. All of the £3.46 million available for Wales during the first three years has been committed to nearly 60 projects.

  I understand that in the Cynon Valley the Trust has funded many projects, including assistance with the refurbishment of the Cwmaman Public Hall and building alterations to Hirwaun YMCA.

  Ministerial Visit (Czech Republic)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what modes of transport he used to travel to the Czech Republic in the week beginning 11 March; what the total cost was of his travel expenditure; how many officials accompanied him; what the total cost of the visit was; and how long he took to travel there and to return. [45280]

  Mr. Touhig
  None: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made no official visit to the Czech Republic.

  However, I undertook a visit to the Czech Republic from 11 to 13 March. The main objective of my visit was to meet and to support a trade mission organised by Wales Trade International. The trade mission comprised seven Welsh companies, drawn from throughout Wales, each of which was establishing first contacts in the Czech Republic. In supporting the trade mission, I highlighted the benefits—for individuals and for firms—of a wider Europe, both for the applicant countries and for the UK as a whole, and for Wales in particular.

  The further objectives of my visit included confirming the United Kingdom's support for the enlargement of the EU and the sharing of experience of regenerating a former coal-mining and steel-making region.

  I travelled to the Czech Republic by train at a cost of £816.60. I was accompanied by my private secretary and by one senior policy official. The total cost of the visit

  615W
  was £3,174.99. The outward journey took 18 and a half hours and the return journey took 19 and a half hours. My outward journey was made on a Sunday; both journeys entailed travelling overnight.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council 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. [42420]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham on 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 631W, about job sharing in my Department. Currently three members of my staff are engaged in flexible working although none are term working.

  Staff in my Department regularly work from home subject to operational requirements and based on individual circumstances.

  Modernisation
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the President of the Council if, in his proposals for modernisation of the House, he will consider(a) the House providing information about the work of the Scottish Parliament and devolved assemblies within the UK and (b) requesting the same bodies to provide information about the work of the House on a reciprocal basis in their own information centres. [46273]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  These are valuable suggestions which will be kept in mind as work on improving the facilities for visitors progresses.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what estimate he has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to his Department of the Parental Leave Directive. [42479]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Thus far, no member of staff in my Department has sought parental leave. No estimate of the financial costs has been made as these would differ according to individual circumstances.

  The potential benefits to the Privy Council Office of the Parental Leave Directive are considered to be: experienced staff can be retained by offering extra time away from work to care for their children; improved staff morale and performance through a better work and life balance; and improved planning of staff absences.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Pensions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent discussions she has had with Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions on pension rights for women. [43807]
  616W
  Ms Hewitt
  Last week I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions highlighting the work that his Department has carried out in ensuring that pension reforms had improved women's rights.

  Currently over 1.1 million female pensioners are in receipt of the minimum income guarantee and the new pension credit will benefit lower income pensioners, of whom two-thirds are women.

  I also asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to ensure that his officials continue to liaise with officials from the Women and Equality Unit so that they can remain informed of the progress on pensions reforms as they affect women and that the development and implementation of pensions policy is analysed by gender so that potential benefits for women can be identified.

PRIME MINISTER

  Select Committees
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has been invited to appear before a Select Committee since 1997. [37692]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1997, I have received four formal invitations to appear before a Select Committee.

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by his Office in each of the last four years; and what the cost is to public funds in each case. [39085]

  The Prime Minister
  Equipment should be leased when it offers better value for money than direct purchase bearing in mind the products whole life costs and quality to meet (but not exceed) the requirement. These costs include maintenance, running and disposal costs, not simply initial costs.

  Leasing costs for office equipment incurred in each of the last four years are as follows:

  £

  2 May 1997 to 31 March 1998

  107,892

  1998–99

  81,885

  1999–2000

  136,204

  2000–01

  142,138

  Lord Levy
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Prime Minister which ministers of foreign Governments Lord Levy has met at his request in the last six months. [41864]

  The Prime Minister
  In his capacity as the Prime Minister's envoy, Lord Levy meets a range of contacts, including Ministers of foreign Governments. In the last six months, Lord Levy has discussed the Middle East peace process with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, the Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, Palestinian Authority Minister for Planning and International Co-operation Nabil Sha'ath, King Abdullah of Jordan, Former
  617W
  Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdul Illah Khatib, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher, French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Moroccan foreign Minister Mohammed Benaissa, Omani Foreign Minister Yusuf Bin Alawi, and Tunisian Foreign Minister Habib Bin Yahia.

  He also met President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and the Venezuelan Vice President and Foreign Minister to discuss bilateral relations.

  Lord Levy has also met a number of more junior Ministers in his role as the Prime Minister's envoy.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to his Office of the Parental Leave Directive. [42483]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office today.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what his Office's policy is towards age discrimination. [42583]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office today.

  Safiyatu Hussaini
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he raised the case of Safiyatu Hussaini during his meetings with representatives of the Nigerian Government in February. [44895]

  The Prime Minister
  The case was not raised during my meetings, which focused on other issues.

  The Nigerian Government is well aware of the Government's concerns over the sentence of death by stoning passed on Safiyatu Hussaini. We have made our concerns over the case known at a number of levels within the Nigerian federal system.

  Ms Hussaini's case is currently before Sokoto State Sharia Court of Appeal, which has said it will give its decision on the appeal on 25 March. If the sentence is confirmed, there is scope for further appeals thereafter. Ms Hussaini is supported by a strong legal team and the Nigerian Human Rights Commission.

  The British High Commission in Abuja is continuing to monitor the situation closely.

  Phase Three Implementation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the implications for Government policy of the implementation of Phase Three. [45890]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policy agenda focuses on sustaining a strong economy and making improvements in productivity and enterprise, continuing welfare reform and increasing social justice, driving through public service reform particularly in education,618W
  health, crime and transport, and taking a leading place at the centre of Europe and the wider international community.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names of the unpaid advisers appointed by him since June 1997, stating in each case(a) the date of their appointment, (b) the duration of their appointment and (c) the project or projects on which they have been engaged. [43373]

  The Prime Minister
  At 25 March, I had appointed the following unpaid advisers to work with the new Forward Strategy Unit (FSU):

  Arnab Banerji, Chief Investment Officer of F& C Management Ltd.;

  Nick Lovegrove, Partner at McKinsey's;

  Penny Hughes, formerly President of Coca Cola Great Britain and Ireland, currently non-executive director of Vodafone plc and Trinity Mirror plc;

  Adair Turner, Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch.

  Lord Birt, my unpaid strategy adviser, has an over-arching role on a number of projects supported by the FSU.

  Previous unpaid advisers who have been appointed by me and the issues on which they advised are Lord Stevenson (education), Lord Simon (the civil service), and Lord Birt (crime).

  Rehabilitation International's Charter
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to representations on the Government's support for Rehabilitation International's Charter for the Third Millennium, presented to him on 5 July 2000 and the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the Charter's call for a UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People; and if he will(a) publish the response in the Official Report and (b) place copies in the Library. [45511]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received representations on this matter.

  I welcomed Rehabilitation International's Charter for the Third Millennium in July 2000. In doing so, I said that I believed that it would form the basis of a global consensus on priorities for at least the next decade. This absolutely remains the Government's view.

  At the UN General Assembly in November a resolution calling for an international convention on disability, as envisaged in the charter, was adopted. The resolution has now established an ad hoc committee to consider proposals for an international convention on the rights and dignities of disabled people. It is likely that the committee will meet this summer. We will want to work closely with other on the committee to ensure that the convention is clearly focused and its aims and objectives are consistent with member states' national interests and responsibilities.
  619W
  In addition, there have been two further important international developments.
  The Irish Resolution at the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in 2000 has led to a study on the adequacy of existing international standards to protect the rights of people with disabilities. Its findings are due soon and are expected to inform the Irish draft at this year's CHR.
  We also await the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Social Development for Disability, Mr. Bengt Lindquist, who is monitoring the implementation of the UN Standard Rules as well as looking at the question of an international convention. The Government support the activities of the Special Rapporteur and have contributed £20,000 to further his important work.

  In the meantime, the Government continue to focus here on action to take forward our commitment to comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people in the UK. This policy presently ensures that the UK is ahead of many other countries in legislating for and promoting civil rights for disabled people.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions his Policy Unit has had with the SRA on the development of the SRA's Capacity Utilisation Strategy. [45709]

  The Prime Minister
  Officials have meetings with a range of people in the course of their work. It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of such meetings or discussions.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on departmental responsibility for 620W
  (a) preventing illegal meat imports entering the United Kingdom and (b) detecting meat imports which have entered the United Kingdom illegally. [46105]

  The Prime Minister
  DEFRA has lead responsibility for animal health controls on imports of meat working with the Food Standards Agency, HM Customs, the devolved Administrations, and local and port health authorities.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to visit Gibraltar. [46185]

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

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last spoke to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. [46184]

  The Prime Minister
  I have not spoken to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe met the Chief Minister of Gibraltar most recently on 25 January and are in regular contact with him in writing and through the Governor of Gibraltar.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what his target time will be in 2002–03 for(a) Ministers to reply to letters from hon. Members and (b) officials in his office to reply to letters received directly from members of the public. [44949]

  The Prime Minister
  The effective handling of correspondence is an issue to which I, and ministerial colleagues, attach great importance. My office takes action on all letter received within 15 working days.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  McKenzie Friends
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department under what circumstances a McKenzie Friend(a) can and (b) cannot be used in court; and in which type of courts they are used. [44804]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The judgment in the 1999 Court of Appeal case of R.v. Bow County Court, ex parte Pelling confirms that litigants in person should be allowed the help of a McKenzie Friend in public proceedings, held in open court or in chambers, unless the judge is satisfied that fairness and the interests of justice do not require it.

  In an open court hearing there usually must be some justification established if a person is not to have the benefit of a McKenzie Friend, or some evidence that the McKenzie Friend has acted or is acting inappropriately at the hearing which makes it reasonable to deprive the litigant of the assistance which would otherwise be permitted.

  Where the proceedings are held in private then the nature of those proceedings (which make it appropriate for the hearing to be in private) may make it undesirable in the interests of justice for a McKenzie Friend to assist.

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the children's guardians who work for CAFCASS have been allowed to access the CAFCASS IT system; and if she will make a statement. [46011]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The CAFCASS IT system is available to all office-based employed guardians but not yet to newly employed home-based guardians who accepted an offer of employment last summer.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the estimated date is for CAFCASS to be 'e' ready in line with targets set for public bodies; and if she will make a statement. [46013]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The CAFCASS Corporate Plan states that CAFCASS is contributing to the 'e' Government agenda through increased capacity, where appropriate, for services to be delivered by electronic means by 2005. CAFCASS is developing an IT infrastructure which facilitates efficient and effective exchange of information between agencies in the family justice system.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what frequency of board meetings the CAFCASS Support Infrastructure Project Initiation document specifies; and on how many occasions the board met between July 2001 and January 2002. [46009]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Support Infrastructure Project Initiation document did not specifically state a frequency of meeting, nor is a specific frequency mandated in the PRINCE2 manual. The Support Infrastructure Project did not meet after July 2001 as the project was put on hold.
  622W
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the CAFCASS IT system has database facilities installed; and if she will make a statement. [46012]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  CAFCASS inherited systems with database facilities. The CAFCASS IT system continues to support and extend these databases. The recent Magistrates Courts Service Inspectorate (MCSI) report said that IT investment across CAFCASS was, in general, a success story once initial teething problems had been addressed.

  Disputes Resolution
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what(a) action she has taken and (b) results have been achieved, pursuant to her pledge that Government legal disputes will be settled by mediation or arbitration whenever possible. [44959]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 15 October 2001 in response to his question on how my Department will report to Parliament on progress with the Government's commitment to use alternative dispute resolutions where possible in resolving its own disputes. On that occasion I explained that the Lord Chancellor intends to make an announcement at the beginning of the next financial year, and has asked all Government Departments to collect the relevant figures.

  Court Proceedings Pilot
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the pilot for extended courts in Manchester and London will commence; when the courts will start and close business; and for how long the pilots will run. [42793]

  Mr. Wills
  The two pilot schemes are due to commence in spring 2002. The proposed plans for Manchester and London are different. They are:

  (i) The pilot at Manchester city magistrates court is planned to support the key criminal justice objectives of access to justice, reducing delay and improving services to victims and witnesses. The pilot courts will have an earlier start from 9am for three adult remand courts from Monday to Friday. Additional sittings for trials will take place in two court rooms from 4pm until 8pm on two evenings per week (Tuesday and Thursday).

  (ii) In London the plan is for Bow Street magistrates court to support the objective of arrest and straight to court by dealing immediately with evening arrests and to evaluate if this will deter criminals and provide reassurance to the public. One court will sit from 6pm until midnight on Friday and Saturday nights.

  Both pilots will run for approximately six months. The actual start dates and full details of the schemes will be given in a press notice which will be released when all of the aspects for the working protocols are agreed and finalised with the agencies involved.

  Persistent Offenders
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidelines he has issued to courts about detaining persistent offenders under 16 years who are(a) charged with and (b) guilty of non-violent offences; and if he will make a statement. [42246]
  623W
  Mr. Wills
  The decision whether to grant bail or not is a judicial decision taken within the statutory framework provided by the Bail Act 1976. Judges and magistrates carry out their duties independently of the Government. It would be wrong for Ministers to seek to direct judges or magistrates in the way they exercise their discretion. Accordingly, no guidelines have been issued on the use of bail or the related powers in section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. For the same reasons, my Department does not issue guidelines on sentencing. Magistrates and judges are helped by decisions of the higher courts and, particularly, by the guideline judgments of the Court of Appeal. In R.v. Howells and others (1998) the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, in a reserved judgment, considered, at length, the factors which courts should weigh when considering whether an offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence is justified.

  Litigation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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 her Department of litigation was in each year. [41108]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In each year since 1997 the Lord Chancellor's Department (including the Court Service) has defended the following number of (new) cases:

  (a) 1997–98:

  12 employment tribunal cases

  77 court cases.

  (b) 1998–99:

  13 employment tribunal cases

  94 court cases.

  (c) 1999–2000:

  26 employment tribunal cases

  81 court cases.

  (d) 2000–01:

  26 employment tribunal cases

  80 court cases.

  (e) 2001 to date:

  21 employment tribunal cases

  108 court cases.

  Of the employment tribunal cases, only one case was concluded against the Department/Court Service which was in the year 2000 (the case having been issued in 1998). All the other cases (which are not on-going) were either successfully defended at trial (or on appeal), or withdrawn beforehand. Of those employment tribunal cases withdrawn, agreed compensation was paid in the following number of cases:

  (a) 1997–98: one

  (b) 1998–99: three

  (c) 1999–2000: three

  (d) 2000–01: one

  (e) 2001 to date: two.

  Of the other court cases, the vast majority of these were either struck out, disposed of summarily by the court, or settled on favourable terms. On the information readily
  624W
  available in the Department, in the last year there has been only one case in which the court has given judgment against the Department/Court Service.

  In each year since 1997 the Public Guardianship Office (formerly the Public Trust Office) has defended the following number of (new) cases:

  (a) 1997–98:

  0 employment tribunal cases

  0 court cases.

  (b) 1998–99:

  one employment tribunal case

  five court cases.

  (c) 1999–2000:

  0 employment tribunal cases

  one court case.

  (d) 2000–01:

  three employment tribunal cases

  0 court cases.

  (e) 2001 to date:

  one employment tribunal case

  0 court cases.

  Of the employment tribunal cases, none of these were concluded against the Public Trust/Guardianship Office and of the cases which were withdrawn, in only one case was agreed compensation paid (in 2000–01).

  Of the other cases, in only one case was agreed compensation paid (in 2001).

  Treasury Solicitor's costs (which includes Counsel's fees) for each year for cases1 involving the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Court Service and the PGO (formerly PTO) were:

  (a) 1997–98: £384,202

  (b) 1998–99: £512,568

  (c) 1999–2000: £589,242

  (d) 2000–01: £627,862

  (e) 2001 to date: £766,961.

  1 These figures may include a small amount in relation to "non-litigious" work. It has not been possible in the time available to exclude any such amounts.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  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 her Department to local education authorities since 7 June 2001; and how many pages each document contained. [44079]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: We have sent 274 documents to local education authorities between 7 June 2001 and 18 March 2002. The full list of titles and page numbers has been placed in the Library.

  Child Care
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many child care places in day nurseries, with childminders and in pre-school and
  625W
  playgroups were available for every 100 children aged under eight years in each region in England in (a) 1997 and (b) 2002; [43506]

  (2) if she will list, for each region of England and for each London borough, how many places at (a) day nurseries, (b) childminders. (c) play groups and play schools, (d) out of school clubs and (e) holiday play schemes there were in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2001; [43505]

  Number of places in children's day care provision1, England, 1997 and 2001 (position at 31 March each year)

  1997

  2001

  Places

  Places/100 children

  Places

  Places/100 children

  Provision for children aged under 8

  Day nurseries

  193,800

  26

  285,100

  210

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  383,700

  212

  330,200

  211

  Childminders

  365,200

  37

  304,600

  36

  Provision for children aged 5–7

  Out-of-school clubs

  78,700

  44

  152,800

  48

  Holiday schemes5,6

  209,000

  411

  598,000

  432

  1 Rounded to the nearest 100.

  2 Places/100 children aged 0 to 4.

  3 Places/100 children aged under 8.

  4 Places/100 children aged 5 to 7.

  5 Holiday schemes have been counted once for each holiday period in which they operate.

  6 Additional guidance was given to data providers in 1999.

  Number of places in children's day care provision1, England, Government office regions and London boroughs 1997 (position at 31 March)

  Day nurseries

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  Childminders

  Out-of-school clubs

  Holiday schemes

  England

  193,800

  383,700

  365,200

  78,700

  209,000

  North East

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North West

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  East Midlands

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  West Midlands

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  East of England

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Inner London

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Outer London

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  South East

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  South West

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Camden

  1,396

  563

  843

  n/a

  n/a

  City of London

  78

  2,209

  4

  70

  72

  Hackney

  1,950

  538

  911

  1,110

  2,329

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,192

  n/a

  254

  n/a

  n/a

  Haringey

  775

  593

  1,355

  208

  1,250

  Islington

  1,868

  716

  1,084

  1,084

  1,543

  Kensington and Chelsea

  926

  337

  305

  730

  3,060

  Lambeth

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Lewisham

  1,436

  478

  1,109

  951

  960

  Newham

  798

  283

  1,367

  196

  1,231

  Southwark

  1,650

  578

  1,048

  2,077

  2,305

  Tower Hamlets

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Wandsworth

  1,894

  1,429

  2,537

  1,027

  3,496

  Westminster

  1,089

  834

  379

  727

  2,964

  626W
  (3) how many places in (a) after-school clubs and (b) holiday play-schemes were available per 100 children of primary school age in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2001. [43507]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information is not available in the form requested. The available information is shown in the tables.

  Latest figures on day care facilities in England were published by my Department in the Statistical Bulletin "Children's Day Care facilities at 31 March 2001 (08/01)" in October 2001, a copy of which is available from the Library. An electronic copy of this publication is also available on my Department's website www.dfes.gov.uk/ statistics.
  627W

  Number of places in children's day care provision1, England, Government office regions and London boroughs 1997 (position at 31 March)

  Day nurseries

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  Childminders

  Out-of-school clubs

  Holiday schemes

  Barking and Dagenham

  355

  707

  615

  168

  1,214

  Barnet

  566

  931

  1,110

  337

  2,946

  Bexley

  448

  1,222

  1,764

  184

  534

  Brent

  1,786

  546

  1,721

  310

  n/a

  Bromley

  n/a

  2,498

  2,353

  320

  1,082

  Croydon

  1,088

  1,176

  3,006

  714

  709

  Ealing

  1,309

  454

  3,220

  532

  414

  Enfield

  850

  986

  1,955

  294

  708

  Greenwich

  895

  666

  1,413

  182

  248

  Harrow

  155

  1,237

  1,321

  198

  1,118

  Havering

  572

  1,736

  1,630

  275

  363

  Hillingdon

  151

  934

  2,765

  112

  1,072

  Hounslow

  876

  735

  593

  633

  2,155

  Kingston upon Thames

  715

  1,159

  1,213

  277

  2,302

  Merton

  585

  627

  927

  311

  3,534

  Redbridge

  106

  1,392

  1,490

  175

  2,288

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,106

  1,516

  1,380

  407

  4,922

  Sutton

  845

  1,047

  1,257

  407

  4,922

  Waltham Forest

  280

  587

  1,919

  122

  n/a

  n/a = Not available

  1 Figures for England and Government office regions rounded to the nearest 100.

  Number of places in children's day care provision1, England, Government office regions and London boroughs 2001 (position at 31 March)

  Day nurseries

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  Childminders

  Out-of-school clubs

  Holiday schemes

  England

  285,100

  330,200

  304,600

  152,800

  598,000

  North East

  9,200

  10,100

  15,300

  8,400

  24,700

  North West

  50,900

  41,500

  36,100

  24,800

  67,200

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  25,300

  25,500

  29,500

  14,300

  58,500

  East Midlands

  21,400

  25,800

  19,200

  13,000

  63,700

  West Midlands

  37,200

  30,700

  32,200

  15,700

  35,800

  East of England

  22,400

  45,300

  32,200

  11,800

  43,400

  Inner London

  22,800

  8,400

  10,600

  23,200

  63,200

  Outer London

  22,100

  25,700

  27,700

  11,800

  77,100

  South East

  47,900

  71,800

  64,400

  17,400

  109,100

  South West

  25,900

  45,300

  36,000

  13,100

  55,400

  Camden

  1,350

  432

  807

  1,068

  7,180

  City of London

  81

  49

  6

  220

  792

  Hackney

  2,310

  653

  961

  1,800

  560

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,152

  713

  510

  220

  2,105

  Haringey

  1,218

  618

  1,008

  1,382

  9,686

  Islington

  2,102

  460

  823

  3,815

  3,580

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,592

  726

  206

  940

  1,085

  Lambeth

  1,980

  629

  939

  1,462

  6,972

  Lewisham

  2,061

  906

  1,179

  1,694

  1,736

  Newham

  1,885

  579

  1,027

  1,167

  15,126

  Southwark

  1,906

  904

  1,081

  3,113

  4,940

  Tower Hamlets

  1,133

  400

  376

  1,147

  1,342

  Wandsworth

  2,876

  1,072

  1,378

  1,227

  6,282

  Westminster

  1,105

  264

  338

  2,861

  1,794

  Barking and Dagenham

  448

  1,110

  684

  338

  5,292

  Barnet

  1,791

  1,142

  1,885

  690

  4,856

  Bexley

  550

  1,414

  1,699

  223

  1,921

  Brent

  2,304

  479

  1,343

  748

  2,395

  Bromley

  1,102

  3,534

  2,532

  568

  4,336

  Croydon

  1,438

  1,999

  2,139

  1,191

  8,719

  Ealing

  2,457

  1,105

  2,716

  974

  2,702

  Enfield

  937

  1,928

  1,571

  1,550

  7,532

  Greenwich

  741

  866

  1,189

  255

  581

  Harrow

  293

  1,620

  1,059

  446

  2,752

  Havering

  607

  1,681

  1,068

  226

  2,358

  Hillingdon

  1,833

  1,139

  2,424

  280

  1,904

  Hounslow

  911

  854

  737

  910

  5,154

  Kingston upon Thames

  685

  1,024

  1,208

  953

  3,900

  Merton

  949

  664

  1,058

  330

  2,793

  628W

  629W

  Number of places in children's day care provision1, England, Government office regions and London boroughs 2001 (position at 31 March)

  Day nurseries

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  Childminders

  Out-of-school clubs

  Holiday schemes

  Redbridge

  1,092

  1,600

  1,315

  490

  3,171

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,320

  1,619

  1,146

  625

  3,910

  Sutton

  928

  996

  1,216

  412

  1,975

  Waltham Forest

  1,697

  932

  696

  576

  10,830

  1 Figures for England and Government office regions rounded to the nearest 100.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much money was spent by Cambridgeshire in 2000–01 in creating child care places; [44017]

  (2) how much money has been allocated to Cambridgeshire to achieve its child care targets in (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [44016]

  Margaret Hodge
  For 2000–01, Cambridgeshire Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (EYDCP) was allocated a total of £642,570, including £100,500 from the European Social Fund (ESF) for child care. For 2001–02, their allocation is £2,149,873, including £375,835 from the ESF.

  In 2000–01 Cambridgeshire spent £604,113 towards the creation of child care places.

  In addition, money from the New Opportunities Fund is available to support the creation of out of school hours care and neighbourhood nurseries.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the targets are for Cambridgeshire for the creation of new child care places in 2001–02; [44014]

  (2) what the latest figures are for the creation of child care places in Cambridgeshire in 2001–02. [44015]

  Margaret Hodge
  Cambridgeshire EYDCP has targets to create 1,577 child care places in 2001–02 by April 2002. By the end of December 2001 Cambridgeshire EYDCP had reported the creation of 1,401 child care places.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will review the OfSTED application pack for day care registration. [44901]

  Margaret Hodge
  The content of application packs is a matter for OFSTED. I understand that OFSTED is reviewing the content currently and that revised packs will be available later in the year.

  Nursing Diploma
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the student funding review is examining funding arrangements for nurses on diploma courses. [43333]

  Margaret Hodge
  No. Funding for nurses on diploma courses does not form part of the student finance review being undertaken by my Department, as it is the responsibility of the Department of Health.

  School Conditions
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many schools were(a) rebuilt and (b) substantially remodelled in 2001–02; [46115]

  (2) if she will list by LEA building works in schools exceeding £1 million undertaken in each year since 1997, stating (a) when the decision was made to go ahead with the project, (b) the political control of the LEA, (c) the cost of the works and (d) the constituency within which the school is located; [45870]

  (3) if she will list by LEA the newly constructed schools opened in each year since 1997, stating (a) when the decision was made to construct the school, (b) the political control of the local education authority, (c) the cost of the buildings and (d) the constituency in which the school is located. [45869]

  John Healey
  We do not hold information in the form requested. Much capital support is allocated to local education authorities and schools on a formulaic basis. Records of how it is utilised for specific projects are held locally.

  Demountable Classrooms
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many demountable classrooms there are in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and where they are. [44296]

  John Healey
  As part of the data collected through the appraisal of Asset Management Plans, the Department has some information on the overall area of temporary buildings at schools, but it is not possible from these data to identify with any precision the number of demountable classrooms within individual authorities.

  The data we have on temporary buildings will be appraised with a view to publishing analysis to support benchmarking later this year.

  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of pupils in receipt of education maintenance allowances attend(a) selective and (b) non-selective schools in each authority where they are paid. [45868]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We do not require local education authorities, who administer the pilot EMA schemes, to collect this information. EMA is targeted at eligible young people irrespective of what type of school or college they attend.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price for PPP contracts let by her Department in each of the last four years; and if she will make a statement. [45616]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The final contract price for Capita to deliver the Connexions Card project was £109.7 million over seven years. The details of the various bidding stages during contractual negotiations are commercial in confidence.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her latest estimate is of the number of schools providing two hours of sport and PE during the school day each week. [45109]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The national curriculum for PE includes an aspiration that all schools should offer two hours physical activity a week. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's PE and School Sport Project has found that with imaginative and flexible timetabling schools can and do provide two hours of high quality PE and school sport per week. All of the schools involved in the project are doing this. Our White Paper "Schools: achieving success" gives a commitment that all children will be entitled to two hours of high quality PE and school sport a week, within and outside the curriculum.

  14 to 19 Education
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how she plans to involve young people in the consultation on the Government's plans for the education of those aged 14 to 19; and if she will make a statement. [44773]

  Mr. Timms
  We recognise the need to take full account of the views of young people on the 14 to 19 reforms and, for the first time ever, we have produced a version of the Green Paper specifically for them.

  Copies of this have been distributed to members of the UK Youth Parliament and, through the British Youth Council, to Youth Councils around the country. Sample copies will also be distributed to schools, FE sector colleges and LEAs with encouragement for teachers to engage young people in the consultation process in guided PSHE and citizenship sessions or through student councils.

  Events will also be organised for a wide cross-section of young people through local Connexions Partnerships. We are also inviting the UK Youth Parliament and the British Youth Council to consider the proposals and respond and Ministers are discussing the proposals with groups of young people during ministerial visits.

  We have also placed the Green Paper online on the DIES young people's gateway at www.dfes.gov.uk/ youngpeople and advertised on websites popular with young people.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures her Department has taken to prevent the selling of school playing fields. [44444]

  John Healey
  Before October 1998, there was nothing to prevent a local authority selling a school playing field if it wanted to. As a result of widespread public concern, section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was introduced in October 1998 to stop the indiscriminate sale of school playing fields. Local authorities and governing bodies of all maintained schools are now required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before they can sell any part of a playing field.

  Applications to sell school playing fields are assessed against the following criteria:

  a. schools' needs: that playing field provision and curriculum requirements at the school selling the playing field, and at other schools in the local area, will be met;

  b. community needs: that community use of a school's playing fields is taken into account, with alternative facilities made available if necessary;

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

  The criteria are set out in the Department's Guidance 0580/2001: "The Protection of School Playing Fields and Land for City Academies". Only those applications that meet the criteria are approved. Furthermore, since July 2001, all applications have been scrutinised by the independent School Playing Fields Advisory Panel to make sure that they conform to the published criteria. The Panel comprises representatives from the National Playing Fields Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the education organisation Learning through Landscapes, the National Association of Head Teachers and the Local Government Association.

  Teachers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time equivalent teachers there were in maintained(a) nursery, (b) primary and (c) secondary schools in January 2001; and how many there were in 1984. [46008]

  Mr. Timms
  The numbers of regular full-time equivalent teachers in the maintained sector in England were as follows:

  January 1984

  January 2001

  Nursery

  1,600

  1,600

  Primary

  171,200

  193,400

  Secondary

  224,200

  196,700

  Notes:

  1. 1984 secondary numbers exclude estimated sixth form college numbers.

  2. Part-time teachers have been converted to an estimate of their full-time equivalence and added to full-time numbers.

  3. Excludes occasional teachers.

  4. Teachers whose service is divided between primary and secondary schools have been apportioned pro-rata to the nursery/primary or secondary phase.
  633W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers left the profession in the latest period for which figures are available. [454081

  Mr. Timms
  In the year to 31 March 2000, the latest for which data are available. 34,900 qualified teachers left full-time or part-time regular service in the maintained schools sector in England for reasons including retirement. Over the same period, there were 36,300 new entrants or re-entrants to the maintained schools sector in England. These data are provisional.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the teaching work force in schools in England supply teachers comprise. [45270]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested. Occasional teachers employed on contracts of less than one month and who worked for the whole of the survey date, comprised 4.6 per cent. of the total full-time equivalent number of teachers working in maintained schools in England on 18 January 2001.

  School Governors
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to encourage people to become school governors. [45253]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department continues to support and provide guidance to local education authorities (LEAs) in England and we are devising a programme to support school-led governor recruitment. We fund the School Governors' One-Stop Shop to recruit governors with business and management skills in areas covered by the Excellence in Cities programme. As part of our commitment to encourage recruitment of school governors from minority ethnic backgrounds, the Department supports the activities of the Collective of Bangladeshi School Governors that promotes governorship to minority ethnic communities in Newham, Tower Hamlets and Hackney.

  Science and Engineering Courses
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she plans to provide incentives for colleges and universities to provide science and engineering courses; [45564]

  (2) if she plans to provide incentives for students studying science and engineering at Higher National and degree level. [45563]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England takes into account the higher cost of teaching science and engineering subjects in making grant allocations to higher education institutions, but the Government have no plans to introduce incentives for institutions to provide science and engineering courses, nor for students to take them.

  University Funding
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the submission to SR 2002 on university funding by Universities UK. [45204]
  634W
  Margaret Hodge
  The Government have carefully considered the representations on the financial needs of higher education from Universities UK, and from a number of other bodies. The outcome of the 2002 spending review will be announced in the summer.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which public service agreement targets that are scheduled to be met in 2002 will not be achieved by the due date. [44838]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Department's 2002 departmental report, which is due to be published in May.

  Airline and Aerospace Industries
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in respect of retraining needs in the airline and aerospace industries; what budgets she has made available to assist with such retraining; and if she will make a statement. [27547]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The airline and aerospace industries have been affected by a number of closures and job losses in recent months. The Government have been proactive in working, in regional and local partnerships, to support those people affected by providing the most appropriate service to help them back into work and to retrain them where necessary.

  Retraining opportunities are offered to people who have been made redundant through Work Based Learning for Adults. In addition, Rapid Response Funding has recently been approved to retrain individuals made redundant from BAe Systems in the north-west and Gill Aviation in the north-east. The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) are also offering support—for example, at Gatwick and Heathrow LSC funding has been provided for one to one advice sessions for clients facing particular employment problems, and to support their training needs.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, columns 764–70W, to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), if she will break down the figures for Blackpool (a) by part-time and full-time students and (b) by age of student. [44698]

  Margaret Hodge
  The previous figures shown for Blackpool in the answer of 11 March were all full-time, apart from two students on part-time initial teacher training courses; the level of fee support received by these two students is unknown.

  Data on age breakdown as requested are not available.

  Medical Schools
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students in medical schools in the UK there were who had been educated at(a) state schools and (b) independent schools in each of the last five years. [428411]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The latest available information is shown in the table.

  Accepted applicants to pre-clinical medical courses in the UK by previous educational establishment—UK domiciled students

  Year of entry

  Previous school type

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Maintained1

  1,787

  1,937

  2,023

  2,078

  2,308

  Independent

  1,777

  1,720

  1,747

  1,796

  1,759

  FE/HE institutions

  588

  585

  594

  691

  771

  Other

  82

  9

  14

  22

  19

  Not known

  343

  432

  493

  642

  818

  Total

  4,577

  4,683

  4,871

  5,229

  5,675

  1 Including former grant maintained schools.

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS).

  Language Statistics
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the proportion of people in England who speak a second language; and what recent research she has commissioned on comparisons with other EU states. [43806]

  Margaret Hodge
  As part of its support for the European Year of Languages, the European Commission carried out a survey of the languages spoken in the 15 member states of the European Union in April 2001. The survey, "Eurobarometer 54", indicated that 34 per cent. of the UK sample is able to speak another EU language.

  Our long-term language strategy, which we plan to publish in the autumn, will outline our proposals to widen the opportunities for language learning in this country. In particular, it is our ambition that all primary school children will be entitled to study languages by 2012.

  Illiteracy
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the level of illiteracy is(a) in coalfield areas and (b) of citizens born in the United Kingdom. [41799]

  John Healey
  The table shows estimated literacy levels in the main coalfield districts (those districts with more than three 'coalfield wards').

  District name

  Literacy levels1

  District name

  Literacy levels1

  Dover

  23.9

  Selby

  22.3

  Cannock Chase

  25.6

  Barnsley

  28.3

  Lichfield

  21.0

  Doncaster

  27.2

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  25.1

  Rotherham

  27.5

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  23.0

  Sheffield

  25.8

  Stoke-on-Trent

  27.6

  Calderdale

  26.3

  Tamworth

  26.7

  Salford

  27.6

  North Warwickshire

  23.2

  Wakefield

  26.8

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  26.0

  Wigan

  25.9

  Amber Valley

  25.0

  St. Helens

  26.4

  636W

  District name

  Literacy levels1

  District name

  Literacy levels1

  Bolsover

  27.6

  Middlesborough

  28.9

  Chesterfield

  26.2

  Chester-le-Street

  25.3

  Erewash

  24.3

  Derwentside

  27.4

  North East Derbyshire

  23.7

  Durham

  27.4

  South Derbyshire

  22.1

  Easington

  30.4

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  22.3

  Alnwick

  26.2

  North West Leicestershire

  24.1

  Blyth Valley

  26.6

  Ashfield

  27.0

  Castle Morpeth

  21.3

  Bassetlaw

  24.4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  25.8

  Broxtowe

  22.3

  Wansbeck

  29.1

  Gedling

  22.2

  South Tyneside

  29.0

  Mansfield

  26.6

  Sunderland

  28.8

  Newark and Sherwood

  24.0

  —

  —

  1 Percentage of population with 'low', 'lower' or 'very low' literacy.

  Note:

  National average equals 24 per cent.

  Data at ward level is available as a searchable database on the Basic Skills Agency website at "www.basic-skills.co.uk/datasite/", which also contains data by Parliamentary Constituency and by local Learning and Skills Council area.

  The most detailed survey of basic skills in Britain is "Adult Literacy in Britain", published in 1997. This reported that 23 per cent. of the population had low levels of literacy. 15 per cent. of those with low levels of literacy did not speak English as a first language and may not have been born in the UK. This equates to around 1 million of the 7 million adults in England with poor literacy skills.

  Higher Education
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many higher education institutions are situated in coalfield constituencies. [41823]

  Margaret Hodge
  The higher education institutions located in constituencies containing coalfield areas are listed in the table.

  HE institution

  Constituency

  University of Kent

  Canterbury

  Christ Church College

  Canterbury

  University of Durham

  City of Durham

  University of Teesside

  Middlesbrough

  University of Newcastle

  Newcastle upon Tyne, Central

  University of Northumbria

  Newcastle upon Tyne, Central

  University of Keele

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  University of Salford

  Salford

  University of York

  Selby

  Sheffield Hallam University

  Sheffield, Central

  University of Sunderland

  Sunderland, South

  University of Leeds (Bretton Hall)

  Wakefield

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on energy costs incurred by her Department in each of the last 10 years. [42438]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Rural Affairs on 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 268W.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Literacy
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the literacy levels are of longterm unemployed people in(a) coalfield areas and (b) England. [41821]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Statistics relating to the literacy levels of the long-term unemployed in England are not available. However, we estimate that around one third of unemployed people have literacy and/or numeracy skills below Level 1 (the level expected of an 11-year-old) in England)1.

  No separate information is available for literacy levels among long-term unemployed people in coalfield areas, although we do have information on overall literacy levels in these areas.

  We are committed to improving the literacy and numeracy of unemployed people so they have the skills they need to find and stay in work. In September 2001 we began piloting alternative ways of encouraging people claiming jobseeker's allowance to take up offers of help with their literacy and numeracy skills. One of these pilots is in my hon. Friend's constituency.

  1Source—"Skills for Life: the National Strategy for Improving Adult Literacy and Numeracy Skills" (March 2000).

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total area in square feet of all empty properties owned by(a) his Department, (b) his agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility was in each year since May 1997. [37809]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 from the former Department for Social Security and parts of the Department for Education and Employment.

  Statistics relating to empty properties owned by the new Department are not yet available for the current financial year (2001–02).

  Health and Safety (Computers)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employees in his Department who regularly use computers have taken up the provision of a free eye test; and how this service is advertised to(a) current and (b) new staff. [36691]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Currently different arrangements for testing eye health apply to staff employed in the former Department of Social Security and those employed in the Employment Service.

  In May 2001 the Department of Social Security contracted with a company of ophthalmic opticians to provide staff with free eye tests at intervals of not less than two years. Between 1 May 2001 and 31 January 2002 (which is the latest month for which statistics are available) a total of 13,888 staff had their eyes tested under this contract. We estimate that by the end of the first year of the contract, on 30 April 2002, around 18,500 staff would have benefited from the service.
  638W
  The availability of free eye tests in the former Department of Social Security is publicised on the Department's "Intranet" computer system and was brought to the attention of staff through a circular which was distributed widely. New staff are provided with information about the service as part of the standard induction programme. In addition, local managers are required to nominate an eye care liaison officer whose responsibility is to publicise the availability of the service, using posters and leaflets, prior to an optician visiting an office of the Department.

  The Employment Service (which was up to July 2001 part of the former Department for Education and Employment) does not have a contract with an external eye care specialist. Instead staff are able to arrange their own eye tests with an optician of their choice and to have the cost reimbursed. Between 1 April 2001 and 31 January 2002 a total of 2,030 staff had their eyes tested at the Agency's expense.

  The Employment Service provides new staff with a "Workstation Guide" leaflet and a video entitled "In Your Own Interests" is shown to all staff. Both of these highlight the provision of eye tests. In addition, eye tests are covered in the Health and Safety Guide which is available on the Employment Service's computerised communication system. Work station assessment forms are also completed by staff at six monthly intervals or following a work station change. These too highlight the provision of eye tests.

  We intend to gradually extend the provisions of the former Department of Social Security's contract to all staff in the Department for Work and Pensions from April 2002. This will mean that in future all staff should have the opportunity to have their eyes tested free of charge in their places of work.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow>
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to his Department of the parental leave directive. [42473]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Parental leave is unpaid and therefore incurs no direct financial cost. We do not keep records of the opportunity or indirect cost of staff taking parental leave. Information obtained from our payroll systems shows that during the period 1 March 2001 to 28 February 2001, staff in DWP took a total of 2,075 days parental leave.

  We cannot quantify the specific benefits to the Department provided by the parental leave directive because it is only one part of a wide range of family-friendly policies provided by the Department. Benefits to the Department include increased labour supply, reduced turnover and a higher commitment from staff while enabling them to achieve a better balance between their home and working lives.

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefits claimants have moved to a system of automated credit transfer in each year since the service has been available. [43343]
  639W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the number of customers moving to automated credit transfer (ACT) each year since ACT became a method of payment is not available in the precise format requested. However, we do collect information on the number of benefit recipients being paid by ACT and this is given in the table.

  As the table shows, the number of customers paid by ACT increased by 800,000 in 2001. This shows that the status quo is not an option, because people are already voting with their feet.

  Number of benefit recipients receiving their benefit by ACT

  1993

  5,166,000

  1994

  5,852,000

  1995

  7,084,000

  19961

  7,508,000

  1997

  8,005,000

  19982

  8,691,000

  1999

  9,180.000

  20003

  10,213,000

  2001

  11,015,000

  1 Includes industrial injuries disablement benefit from June 1996

  2 Includes invalid care allowance from June 1998

  3 Includes guardian's allowance from June 2000

  Information is available from 1993 on the number of customers being paid by ACT with the exception of customers in receipt of jobseeker's allowance (for which data is not available). The table reflects the number of benefit recipients being paid by ACT. The figures include customers receiving payment by ACT for the first time as well as those moving from paper based methods of payment to ACT.

  Universal Bank
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what funding the Government have secured from the main lending banks in order to finance the Universal Bank project. [43345]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The main UK high street banks and the Nationwide Building Society have together agreed to contribute a total of £180 million over five years towards the costs of the new Post Office Card Account. They have also agreed to make their basic bank accounts accessible through post offices.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many discussions he has had with the Post Office on the Universal bank; [43338]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of the Universal bank project. [43342]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Officials from the Department, together with Inland Revenue and Northern Ireland social security agency officials, meet with the Post Office on a regular basis. Contracts have now been signed between these Departments and the Post Office for the provision of the new post office card account.

  Council Tax (Mentally Impaired People)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will extend the arrangement for a non-dependent deduction, relating to those who are severely mentally impaired, to council tax. [41782]
  640W
  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Regulations already provide that deductions are not made from a person's council tax benefit where a non-dependant member of the household is severely mentally impaired as defined in schedule 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

  Foster Carers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has received on the extension of home responsibilities protection to whole-time foster carers. [37304]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: We regularly receive representations on all aspects of state retirement pension entitlement from a variety of organisations and interested individuals.

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if home responsibilities protection will be given to foster carers. [37186]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: Foster carers whose allowance contains a reward element may be liable for national insurance contributions on a self-employed basis. Where there is no liability, they may choose to pay voluntary contributions to assist in qualifying for state retirement pension. Foster carers who receive child benefit for their own children under aged 16 will be eligible for home responsibilities protection. We will keep these arrangements under review as we do with all rules relating to benefits.

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what pension arrangement foster carers are entitled to; and if he will make a statement on support for those who give up work to care for foster children. [37187]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: Foster carers whose allowance contains a reward element may be liable to pay national insurance contributions as a self-employed person. Those who have no liability may choose to pay voluntary contributions to assist them to qualify for basic state retirement pension. Where a foster carer receives child benefit for a child of their own aged under 16, they will be eligible for home responsibilities protection. We will keep these arrangements under review as we do with all rules relating to benefits. Married women of pensionable age will be entitled to a retirement pension of 60 per cent. of their husband's entitlement when he reaches state pension age and makes a claim.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to reform nondependent deductions for housing benefit and council tax benefits. [42257]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 787W.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the specific measures were of the
  641W
  direction issued to Hackney Council for the improvement of its administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit. [44304]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The housing benefit direction issued on 12 October 2001 to the London borough of Hackney, under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999, required the authority to achieve the following:

  (a) clear its backlog of benefits work by 31 December 2001;

  (b) in completing this action, satisfy itself on an on-going basis that it was acting lawfully and properly by carrying out appropriate checks;

  (c) clear the backlog of work without adversely affecting the speed and accuracy of non-backlog housing benefit and council tax benefit work.

  A copy of the direction is available in the Library.

  Home Responsibilities Protection
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are entitled to home responsibilities protection; and at what annual cost. [37305]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: Such information as is available is in the table. We cannot calculate an annual cost as this is dependent upon the individual's circumstances at pension age.

  Numbers of people of working age entitled to home responsibilities protection

  Thousand

  Tax year

  Men

  Women

  Total

  1990–91

  116

  5,142

  5,257

  1991–92

  127

  5,253

  5,380

  1992–93

  139

  5,368

  5,507

  1993–94

  155

  5,446

  5,600

  1994–95

  166

  5,478

  5,644

  1995–96

  181

  5,484

  5,665

  1996–97

  196

  5,467

  5,662

  Notes:

  1. Figures are subject to sampling error.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and are shown in thousands.

  3. These figures are the number of individuals entitled to HRP. They include those who have not used it to reduce the number of years needed for a full basic state retirement pension.

  4. 1996–97 figures are the latest available.

  Source:

  Figures are taken from the Lifetime Labour Market Database (LLMDB), which is a 1 per cent. sample from the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS).

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people were(a) unemployed and (b) claiming incapacity benefit in April in each of the last five years; [44259]

  (2) what proportion of incapacity benefit claimants have returned to full-time employment in each of the last five years. [44260]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 20 March 2002]: We are undertaking a fundamental overhaul of the welfare system, transforming it from a passive organisation paying out benefits to an active system that fights poverty, creates opportunity and helps people become self-sufficient and independent.
  642W
  Our new Jobcentre Plus service ensures that people making new or repeat claims to incapacity benefit have the opportunity of work-focused advice and support from a personal adviser so they can be helped to move into work when they are ready to do so.

  The available information is in the table.

  Number of people unemployed

  Number of people claiming incapacity benefit

  May 1997

  1,556,000

  2,370,500

  May 1998

  1,293,000

  2,316,900

  May 1999

  1,221,100

  2,277,500

  May 2000

  1,063,700

  2,263,200

  May 2001

  935,700

  2,327,000

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest hundred. Incapacity benefit data are collected quarterly in May, August, November and February of each year.

  2. Incapacity benefit figures include national insurance credits only cases.

  3. From 13 April 1995 people of pension age were no longer able to claim incapacity benefit. Incapacity benefit recipients already over pension age could continue to receive incapacity benefit for up to five years after state pension age.

  4. Unemployment figures have been seasonally adjusted.

  5. Figures are for Great Britain.

  Sources:

  1. Office for National Statistics: count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits from Benefits Agency computer systems.

  2. Incapacity benefit figures are taken from 5 per cent. samples of the incapacity benefit computer system and exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  Information on the number of people who have returned to full-time employment following a claim to incapacity benefit is not available.

  Social Fund
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what gross budget will be set for the discretionary Social Fund in 2002–03. [46332]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The discretionary Social Fund budget for 2002–03 will be £627 million. This represents an increase of £6.4 million over the total gross budget allocated in April 2001.

  As part of this allocation, the Community Care Grant budget will be increased by £5 million to £108 million. The loans budget will be £518 million, an increase of £1.4 million over that allocated in April 2001.

  £1 million will be retained centrally as a contingency reserve. For example, to provide additional help to Districts facing unexpected and unplanned expenditure.

  Further details of individual District budget allocations, and the basis on which these were made, have been placed in the Library.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in(a) Stoke-on-Trent, North, (b) Staffordshire and (c) England he expects to have a guaranteed income of £98 per week from next April; and if he will make a statement. [25526]
  643W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The forecast number of claimants of the minimum income guarantee from April 2002 in England is 1,485,000.

  Nationally there are over 1.7 million pensioners claiming the MIG. By April 2002 a single pensioner will be at least £15 a week better off in real terms than in 1997 from the MIG rises. A pensioner couple will be well over £23 a week better off.

  New Deal
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets he sets for(a) enrolment, (b) programme completion and (c) permanent employment for the New Deal for Disabled People; and if he will make a statement on the extent to which such targets have been achieved. [44261]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 20 March 2002]: The New Deal for Disabled People is testing new and innovative ways of helping people on incapacity benefits into work. Although Job Brokers have provided indications of planned take-up, these are commercial in confidence. No targets have been set for enrolment, programme completion or permanent employment.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost per permanent job achieved by the New Deal for Disabled People has been since its full initiation. [44262]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 20 March 2002]: Under the New Deal for Disabled People, sustained employment is defined as employment lasting six months or more. As the programme only became available nationally from July 2001, it is not yet possible to provide a meaningful figure for job placements resulting in sustained employment nor therefore a figure for the cost per sustained job achieved.

  Older People
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what initiatives his Department has in place to encourage(a) organisations, (b) companies and (c) the civil service to employ people who are aged 50 years and over. [42400]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since 1997, this Government have consistently shown its commitment to employment opportunities for all regardless of age. For those over 50 there is a comprehensive range of back to work help including New Deal 50 plus. Government support has ensured that the employment rate for the over-50s has increased each year for the last four years. Through New Deal 50 plus alone, over 61,000 people so far have been helped back to work.

  We are vigorously promoting the benefits of recruiting, training and retaining older workers as part of our Age Positive campaign. We have already spoken to employers, employer organisations, employees and voluntary sector organisations about ways in which the message can be spread further. The Age Positive campaign is going from
  644W
  strength to strength, working to challenge ageist employment practices between now and the implementation of age legislation in 2006. The newest feature of the campaign is the Age Positive website (www.agepositive.gov.uk). It features guidance and good practice case studies for employers including our recent publication 'Good Practice in the Recruitment and Retention of Older Workers' which is also available in the Library.

  For small and medium sized employers, we have developed a model programme on the business benefits of age diversity and recruiting the over-50s. To date 20 workshops have been delivered across the country and we are looking to increase this in the coming months, extending to Scotland and Wales.

  The Department's Diversity and Equality statement makes an explicit commitment to non-discrimination on age grounds. We do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their age when recruiting or promoting staff. We have also been working closely with the Cabinet Office to promote this approach across the civil service and have done so since the introduction of the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment, which we published in June 1999. The departmental retirement age for all staff below senior civil service was increased from 60 to 65 with effect from 1 April 2000. Staff have the choice to retire at any time between these ages.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the number of(a) people receiving and (b) pension providers issuing combined pension forecasts; [43359]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of (a) employers and (b) pension providers who are providing information for the combined pension forecast. [43358]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: To date, 33,662 customers have received a combined pension statement issued in partnership with four employers and three pension providers.

  Since its launch at the annual Pensions Show on 17 October 2001, the new service has received expressions of interest from 91 private or occupational pension providers who wish to take advantage of this new, voluntary service.

  These providers are progressing through the various stages involved in introducing the service to their customers, including the formal registration process, obtaining the required customer consent to exchange personal information with the Department and developing their IT systems to share data electronically.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate what proportion of(a) occupational pensions defined by benefit, (b) occupational pensions defined by contribution and (c) personal pensions provided for survivor benefits or joint life annuities; and what proportion of such pensions provide for indexation of pensions. [37040]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  645W

  Numbers of active members of defined benefit schemes according to benefits payable on death after retirement

  Thousands

  Benefit payable

  As of right under scheme rules

  Private sector At trustees' discretion

  As of right under scheme rules

  Public sector At turstees' discretion

  Total

  Pension to surviving spouse

  4,810

  220

  4,100

  —

  9,130

  Pension to surviving children

  3,090

  600

  4,100

  —

  7,790

  Pension to a divorced ex-spouse

  200

  1,680

  600

  160

  2,640

  Pension to any nominated person

  320

  2,560

  600

  340

  3,820

  Total active members of defined benefit schemes

  5,140

  —

  4,100

  —

  9,240

  Notes:

  1. Schemes may be included under more than one category in the above table.

  2. The GAD survey did not include information on the number of defined contribution and personal pension in payment that provide for a survivor's pension as most of these schemes provide a lump sum on retirement with which the member buys a pension. It is then up to the member to choose whether or not the pension will provide for a survivor's pension. In a defined contribution scheme used to contract out of the state earnings related pension scheme (SERPS), that part of the pension deriving from the national insurance contribution rebate (the protected rights) must be used to purchase a pension providing for a survivor's pension where the member is married at the time the pension is purchased.

  3. The same rules apply to personal pensions. It is entirely a matter for the member to decide whether or not the pension provides for survivor's benefits except where the personal pension has been used to contract out of (SERPS). In these circumstances, that part of the pension fund comprising the protected rights, must be used to purchase a pension providing for a survivor's pension where the member is married at the time that the pension is purchased.

  4. All occupational pension schemes (both defined benefit and defined contribution) are subject to indexation. That part of the pension in payment that derives from pension rights built up from 6 April 1997 must be increased by the percentage increase in the retail price index, or 5 per cent, whichever is the lesser.

  5. With personal pensions only that part of the pension deriving from the protected rights is subject to indexation. It is up to the scheme member to decide whether or int the pension deriving from the excess of these rights is to be indexed.

  Source:

  Table 10.9 of the GAD Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes 1995

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in each of the past 30 calendar years what was the(a) percentage ratio of current average earnings to the state basic retirement pension, (b) same percentage ratio to average state pension paid to individuals (excluding dependent spouses) and (c) same percentage ratio to mean income from state and occupational pension schemes. [40112]

  Maloclm Wicks
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The niformation requested is in the tables.

  Average earnings as a percentage of full basic pension

  Percentage

  September 1971

  435

  October 1972

  425

  October 1973

  413

  July 1974

  364

  April 1975

  359

  November 1975

  406

  November 1976

  420

  November 1977

  401

  November 1978

  406

  November 1979

  385

  November 1980

  406

  November 1981

  422

  November 1982

  416

  November 1983

  433

  November 1984

  445

  November 1985

  446

  July 1986

  477

  April 1987

  504

  April 1988

  531

  April 1989

  550

  April 1990

  561

  April 1991

  548

  April 1992

  563

  April 1993

  565

  April 1994

  565

  April 1995

  571

  646W

  Average earnings as a percentage of full basic pension

  Percentage

  April 1996

  575

  April 1997

  589

  April 1998

  594

  April 1999

  599

  April 2000

  608

  April 2001

  —

  Notes:

  1. Average earnings figure not yet available for April 2001.

  2. Figures for GB

  Average earnings as a percentage of average category A/AB pension paid

  Percentage

  April 1995

  608

  April 1996

  612

  April 1997

  626

  April 1998

  633

  April 1999

  638

  April 2000

  648

  April 2001

  —

  Notes:

  1. Average earnings figure not yet available for April 2001.

  2. Information on average amount of Category A pension paid is not available prior to April 1995.

  3. Taken from administrative data.

  4. Figures are for GB.

  Average earnings as a percentage of state and occupational pension schemes for pensioner units

  Percentage

  April 1994

  262.7

  April 1995

  264.8

  April 1996

  258.6

  April 1997

  258.9

  April 1998

  258.1

  647W

  Average earnings as a percentage of state and occupational pension schemes for pensioner units

  percentage

  April 1999

  256.5

  April 2000

  —

  April 2001

  —

  Notes:

  1. The figures are based statistics published in the Pensioner Income Series 1999–00.

  2. The definition of a pensioner unit is a single person over state pension age or a couple where the man is over state pension age.

  3. Data for years prior to 1994–5 would only be possible using the Family Expenditure Survey but this analysis is not readily available.

  4. Since parts (a) and (b) of this question are based on DWP administrative data on benefit receipt, part (c) is not directly comparable.

  5. Figures are for GB.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employees in each of the last ten years were(a) participants in contracted-out funded pension schemes, (b) participants in contracted-in payments to the national insurance system and (c) outside either category. [40111]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The information requested is not available. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Thousand

  Total number contractede-out

  Total number belonging to SERPS1

  Total number of workers not contracted-out or belonging to SERPS

  1991–92

  14,931

  6,471

  2,356

  1992–93

  14,849

  6,327

  2,064

  1993–94

  14,659

  6,555

  2,816

  1994–95

  14,566

  7,115

  1,357

  1995–96

  14,817

  7,496

  922

  1 These include employees who are members of contracted-in occupational pension schemes. In his publication titled "Occupational Pension Schemes-1995", the Government Actuary estimated that in 1995, there were 1.3 million members of such schemes.

  Source:

  "Second Tier Pension Provision 1995–96" and "Labour Force Survey"—Department for Work and Pensions' Analytical Services Division

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will change the practice of starting a pension from the Monday following a person's 60 or 65 birthday. [37423]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Entitlement to Retirement Pension begins with the pay-day on or following the pensioner's 60 or 65 birthday. Changes in entitlement, for example a decrease because of a prolonged stay in hospital, also takes effect from the pay-day following the change in circumstances. The same rule applies with the termination of the award. The principle of paying Retirement Pension in whole weeks stems from the fact that the benefit is traditionally paid in advance.

  There are no plans to change the present arrangements for paying Retirement Pension.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason medical checks in respect of mobility allowance are carried out on a person who has a medically confirmed condition that will not improve; and what plans there are to change this system. [45893]

  Maria Eagle
  Entitlement to the mobility component of disability living allowance is based on the effects of a disabling condition and not the condition itself. Even where a condition remains unchanged, the effect on a person's ability to walk, or the help they need from other people when out and about, can change over time for a number of reasons, including medical treatment, therapy, or how the person adapts to their disability.

  When considering entitlement to either care or mobility components of disability living allowance, the decision maker may request a report based on an examination by a specially trained Medical Services doctor. This is not primarily about diagnosis, but is intended to obtain an expert view of the disabling effects of the condition. The decision maker will consider this, along with any other evidence about their needs supplied by the disabled person, their medical attendants, carers or others with relevant information, to decide whether the relevant statutory provisions relating to entitlement are satisfied.

  There is a substantial programme of work to modernise the administration of disability living allowance. This includes work to ensure that medical evidence is utilised as efficiently as possible.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on eligibility for mobility allowance. [45891]

  Maria Eagle
  Mobility allowance was replaced by the mobility component of disability living allowance in 1992. The mobility component, which comprises a lower rate and a higher rate, is primarily to help people who are severely disabled early in life.

  To qualify for the lower rate claimants must be aged five or over, and must be so severely disabled physically or mentally that they cannot take advantage of the faculty of walking out of doors without guidance or supervision from another person most of the time. To qualify for the higher rate claimants must be aged three or over, and must be so severely physically disabled that they are unable to walk or virtually unable to walk.

  Approximately 1.5 million severely disabled people currently receive the higher rate and some 0.5 million receive the lower rate of the mobility component.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how often medical checks are carried out to ensure a person is still eligible for the mobility allowance. [45892]

  Maria Eagle
  The former mobility allowance is now the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance (DLA). Assessment of a DLA claimant's medical condition occurs at the time of the initial claim, and at any subsequent review of entitlement. A review normally occurs when a decision is being made on a renewal of benefit in the case of limited-period awards;
  649W
  or where the recipient themselves requests a review; or under the rolling programme of periodic review of long awards.

  Jobcentre-Plus Offices
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many incidents of verbal abuse or damage to office equipment occurred in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 in branches of the Employment Service; [45506]

  (2) how many incidents of verbal abuse or damage to office equipment occurred in (a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 in branches of the Benefits Agency. [45505]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1118W.

  Pension Service
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what advice on pensioner benefits will be available in Jobcentre Plus offices following the introduction of the Pension Service; [45694]

  (2) if he will estimate the (a) number and (b) percentage of inquiries received by pension centres which will be outsou reed; [45688]

  (3) what plans he has to outsource (a) telephone, (b) e-mail and (c) postal inquiries made to pension centres; [45689]

  (4) if he will estimate the average number of Pension Service staff in each local authority area who will offer (a) face-to-face non-home visits, (b) administrative support and (c) home visits; and if pensioners will have an entitlement to a home visit from Pension Service staff; [45692]

  (5) if he will list the benefits and credits on which Pension Service staff will be trained to advise in (a) pension centres and (b) face-to-face contact sessions; [45693]

  (6) what progress he has made in establishing partnership agreements with voluntary organisations that will deliver face-to-face advice on pensioner benefits; [45690]

  (7) if he will estimate the average number of Pension Service staff who will offer face-to-face advice in each local authority area; [45691]

  (8) pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002, Official Report, column 15W, if pensioners will retain the right to face-to-face advice on pensions matters following the introduction of the proposed Pensions Service; and how such a right will be exercisable. [45197]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The Pension Service will offer an improved service for both today's and future pensioners. There are no plans to outsource customer inquiries.

  The new organisation, and in particular the local service will take time to build. In the mean time all of our current arrangements for face-to-face contact will continue to apply.
  650W
  In terms of the staff who will provide face-to-face advice, we are still determining precise numbers and the ratio of contact centre staff to local service staff. Final decisions have yet to be taken on where local service staff will be located. However numbers will reflect the needs of local communities and will not be assigned by local authority area.

  Staff will be trained to identify potential entitlement to other benefits and will refer customers on as appropriate.

  Retirement Ages
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the distinction between working and retirement ages constitutes the watershed between the respectivee responsibilities of the new Jobcentre Plus and Pensions Agency services; and what arrangements are being made to ensure that officers of either agency can handle client queries which do not fully match the division of administrative responsibilities. [44265]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 20 March 2002]: The Pension Service and Jobcentre Plus will operate within a single Department.

  The Pension Service will offer an improved service for pensioners. It will be customer focused and will give pensioners a modern, personalised, efficient service designed to meet their needs. It will also provide information for future pensioners to help them make decisions about their future pension arrangements.

  Jobcentre Plus will provide work-focused benefit and other services to people of working age, and services such as New Deal 50 plus to people above retirement age who are looking for work.

  Arrangements will be in place between the agencies to cover specific cross-cutting issues, such as access to the social fund by people above retirement age, and access to the minimum income guarantee by men aged between 60 and 64. To ensure that levels of service are maintained, officials will be provided with contact details across both agencies, and in the Department's other businesses, to ensure that customers are dealing with the right part of the Department for the service they require regardless of the route by which they first approached it.

  Accounting Standards
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the implementation, time scale and content of accounting standard FRS 17 and its effects on standard and final salary pension schemes. [45264]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Accounting standards are a matter for the Accounting Standards Board which is independent of Government. There are many factors affecting occupational pension provision including longer life expectancy and falling stockmarkets. It is not possible to isolate the effects of FRS 17 from these other factors.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for the re-introduction of legal aid in respect of civil claims for personal injuries and disease cases. [44992]
  651W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Access to Justice Act 1999 excludes most personal injury claims from the scope of Community Legal Service funding. However funding is still available for personal injury claims against public authorities which allege serious wrongdoing, such as child abuse claims and actions against the police. A personal injury claim may also be funded if it has a significant wider public interest. Support funding remains available for exceptionally expensive cases. Public funding is also available for clinical negligence cases, as we recognise that costly investigative work is necessary for these cases to be brought.

  We believe that conditional fee agreements provide a suitable alternative to public funding for those personal injury cases excluded from the scope of the Community Legal Service scheme, and we have no plans to re-introduce public funding for those cases.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list additional statutory obligations placed upon local authorities by the Government in each of the past five years. [40215]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information for all Departments is not held centrally. The main new duties placed on local authorities by my Department in the last five years include:

  Local Government Act 1999
  Duty of best value to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which they exercise their functions, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

  Greater London Authority Act 1999
  Duty on London borough councils and the common council of the City of London to have regard to the Mayor's transport strategy, municipal waste management strategy and London air quality strategy; and to consult the Mayor on their unitary development plan to ensure it is in general conformity with the Mayor's spatial development strategy.

  Local Government Act 2000
  Duty to consult, draw up proposals and implement new executive arrangements.
  Duty to hold a referendum on a directly elected mayor if their proposals involve a form of executive which includes a directly elected mayor, where a valid petition is submitted or the Secretary of State directs the authority.
  Duty to appoint an overview and scrutiny committee.
  Duty to prepare a community strategy.
  Duty to adopt a code of conduct within six months of the new model code coming into force.
  Duty to establish a standards committee.
  Duty to set up an independent remuneration panel to advise on their allowance scheme.
  652W
  Transport Act 2000
  Duty to prepare and keep under review a local transport plan, which includes a bus strategy, for their area.
  Duty to offer disabled residents and elderly people of state pension age a free pass entitling them to half fares on local bus services.

  Representation of the People Act 2001 and Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
  Various duties, or changes to duties, in relation to local, parliamentary, and European parliamentary elections, including the registration of electors and the conduct of elections in their areas.

  Homelessness Act 2002>
  Stronger duties to accommodate and assist homeless people.
  Duty on housing authorities to adopt a homelessness strategy every five years based on a homelessness review, and a duty on social services to co-operate in this on request.
  Duty on housing departments to co-operate with social services when dealing with homeless families with children.

  Spring Supply Estimates
  MChris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on item(a) lxxxvi and (b) lxxxv on page 9 of the Spring Supply Estimates. [40234]

  Dr. Whitehea
  Item(a) lxxxvi on page 9 of the Spring Supply Estimates provided for payments to and receipts from Railtrack plc (in administration) in accordance with the Loan Agreement and indemnities given under section 63 of the Railways Act 1993. Item (b) lxxxv on the same page of the Spring Supply Estimates relates to the heavy goods vehicle (HGV) transitional rebate scheme, which covered the period 1 December 2000 to 30 November 2001.

  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people were employed in a press or public relations function in his Department and its predecessor on 1 January in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c)(d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f)2002. [39946]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff in his Department's press office have received(a) termination and (b) redundancy payments in each of the last four years. [41082]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 220W.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what involvement Ian Jones had in drafting the Department's press release of 15 February entitled Stephen Byers' statement on the resignations of Martin Sixsmith and Jo Moore. [41996]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Under Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information it is not the practice to disclose details of internal discussions and advice.

  Leak Inquiries
  Mrs. May Answers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many leak inquiries have been held in his Department and its predecessor in each of the last five years; and how many led to action against a member of staff. [41993]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Four inquiries were undertaken in my Department and its predecessor in 1997–98, two in 1998–99, one in 1999–2000, three in 2000–01. None of these inquiries led to action against a member of staff. Two inquiries have been carried out this financial year. No action has been taken against any member of staff as a result of the first inquiry. Consideration is being given to whether action against any member of staff is appropriate as a result of the second inquiry.

  Railways
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the total public and private investment, not including public resource expenditure allocated for the railways to be spent over the period 2001 to 2011, at today's prices as at(a) 1 April 2001, (b) 2 April 2001, (c) 13 January 2002, (d) 14 January 2002, (e) 29 January 2002 and (f) the latest available date. [45706]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the updated version of table A3 from the Ten-Year Plan for Transport, copies of which were placed in the Libraries of the House on 25 February.

  Total capital investment in rail over the ten years to 31 March 2011 is estimated to be £52.9 billion (£18.6 billion public plus £34.3 billion private). This figure has increased from £49 billion in the original Ten-Year Plan to reflect the public sector funding increases since then. These figures are in cash prices, standard HM Treasury deflators should be used to translate into current prices

  Rail funding over the period also includes £14.9 billion of public resource funding, of which £3 billion is estimated to be used as direct revenue support for the private investment. This £3 billion should be deducted when calculating the total level of public and private funding for rail to avoid double counting.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 21W, how many meetings he has had with the Rail Regulator since 11 December 2001. [46119]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Jamieson), to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on Tuesday 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 789W.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the route specific capacity utilisation strategies being developed by the SRA. [45462]

  Mr. Byers
  The SRA is currently developing one route specific capacity utilisation strategy in relation to the West Coast Main Line.
  654W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations he has received from(a) the Strategic Rail Authority, (b) the Association of Train Operating Companies, (c) train operating companies, (d) the Rail Passenger Committee and (e) other passenger representatives regarding (i) rail fares and fare regulation and (ii) network railcards. [45415]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Association of Train Operating Companies informed Ministers and local MPs of their proposals for the network railcard. No other recent representations have been received on these subjects from industry organisations or passenger representatives.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 373W, on railway policy, what the changes in demand were to which his Department responded; and who within his Department was responsible for (a) assessing these changes and (b) reallocation of resources. [45495]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answers of 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 373W and 18 March 2002, Official Report, column 22W.

  Rail Fares
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent changes(a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority have made to (i) rail fare regulation and (ii) the regulation of network railcards; and what changes are planned. [45414]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No recent changes have been made to rail fare regulation. Network railcards are not regulated. The issue of rail fares and fare regulation will be dealt with through the Strategic Rail Authority's review of fares policy.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 370W, on Railtrack, if he will list the variety of other organisations referred to. [45498]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport on 8 February 2002,Official Report, column 1188W.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many meetings he has had with Ernst and Young as administrators of Railtrack since 1 January. [45451]

  Mr. Byers
  It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when Railtrack in administration will repay the money lent to it since going into administration. [44232]
  655W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) [ref. 45966].

  Chris Graylin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date the Railtrack administrator is expected to repay the moneys advanced under the commercial loan agreement. [45298]

  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the current position of Railtrack plc in administration. [45966]

  Mr. Byers
  Following the European Commission's decision of 13 February 2002 to clear the package of financial assistance to Railtrack plc (in administration), the administrator has secured up to £4.4 billion of commercial banking facilities, backed by a Government guarantee. This is a clear demonstration of the willingness of the private sector to invest in the UK railway sector. It has enabled the administrator to repay, with interest, the £1.9 billion he has drawn down from the £2.1 billion short-term commercial loan that Government provided on 7 October 2001.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Treasury on the tax treatment of share holdings in Railtrack. [45448]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department and the Treasury have had numerous discussions at a variety of levels in relation to Railtrack.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money has been(a) granted to, (b) lent to and (c) guaranteed for Railtrack since going into administration. [44233]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: I refer the right hon. Member to my answer of 12 March 2002, Official Report, column 917W.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much the administration of Railtrack has cost the Government to date; and how much the Government have spent on(a) railway consultancy, (b) accountancy and (c) legal advice in the last five months.[44240]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The total fees for the Administrator and his advisers were about £17.5million to the end of February 2002, which will be repaid when Railtrack comes out of administration. With regard to how much the Government have spent on railway consultancy, accountancy and legal advice, I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 12 March 2002, Official Report, column 916W.

  Tinsley Viaduct
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what analysis has been carried out of alternative routes for traffic using the Tinsley viaduct; [44670]
  656W
  (2) how many (a) cars, motorbikes and vans, (b) lorries and (c) camper-vans and caravans used the Tinsley Viaduct each day in the last 12 months; [44669]

  (3) if he will list the work carried out on the Tinsley Viaduct on the MI in the last 30 years, in each case giving (a) the aim and nature of the works, (b) details of the Government body responsible, (c) the length of time the works took and (d) the costs of the works; [44667]

  (4) what his estimate is of the change in the level of traffic on the Tinsley Viaduct on the MI following the planned return to three lanes of traffic; [44671]

  (5) what works are planned on the Tinsley Viaduct on the MI. [44668]

  Mr. Byers
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 25 March 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Stephen Byers, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about Tinsley Viaduct on the M1. The Highways Agency has the responsibility for this structure.
  In addition to routine maintenance of the structure, major works were carried out between 1976 and 1980 to strengthen the structure following the report of the Merrison Committee into box girder bridges. The Viaduct has also been rewaterproofed and repainted during the 30 year period. Records are no longer available to enable me to provide details of the duration and costs of these works.
  The Highways Agency has recently awarded (a contract) to Edmund Nuttall to assess the extent of strengthening works needed to allow the viaduct to carry 3-lanes of traffic in each direction. This investigation started on 25 February and will take up to four months to complete. Decisions on what works are necessary, will be taken in the light of this investigation.
  Traffic data for the viaduct is not available in the form you requested. However we do have total vehicle numbers for the year 2000, the last twelve month period for which figures are available:

  These are:

  Cars, motorbikes and vans including camper vans and caravans–31,486,086

  Lorries–9,897,218

  These figures equate to Average Annual Daily Traffic flows of 86,263 (cars, motorbikes and vans) and 27,115 (lorries).

  Reinstating three traffic lanes in each direction is not expected to have any material effect on the volume of traffic using this section of the M1. The main benefit of restoring capacity will be the reduction of congestion at peak times. This will improve journey-time reliability and reduce accident risks associated with traffic queues on motorways.
  Several plans exist for diverting traffic onto alternative routes. They are applied in consultation with the police and depend upon the nature of the incident requiring a diversion. For example, local diversions from the top level of the Viaduct to the lower level, the A631, are used during periods of high winds and when accidents occur on the Viaduct. Wider diversions to direct traffic off the motorway at junctions in advance of the Viaduct are also available.
  When the Viaduct needs to be closed for roadworks, alternative traffic routes are agreed with the Local Highway Authorities. It is rarely necessary to close the Viaduct completely. Planned closures take place when traffic flows are reduced, usually at night.
  If you require any further infonnation, our Group Leader Phil Stanton, will be happy to assist you. He can be contacted at the Agency's offices at Sunley Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester M14BE or by telephone on 0161 930 5688.

  Heathrow
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with interested parties following the publication of the Inspector's report on Heathrow terminals on the development of rail links from Heathrow to the West. [45425]

  Mr. Byers
  I have made clear that I expect BAA to comply with their commitments to encourage the introduction and use of additional public transport services to Heathrow. The conditions of the Terminal 5 planning permission provide safeguarding measures for future rail links to and from the west of Heathrow. The SRA is continuing discussions with BAA on all options for improved rail links, including those west of Heathrow.

  Rail Lines (Kent)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the SRA will announce the tender document for commuter trains on the new CTLR railway lines; and if he will make a statement. [46146]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA are currently working to a provisional timetable which envisages that the letting process would start in the summer with the publication of an OJEC notice inviting expressions of interest in delivering the domestic services, including the required rolling stock. This would he followed by the issue of an invitation to negotiate [ITN] in the autumn.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when the SRA will publish the required electricity supply needs and costs for the London to Sittingbourne trains for the new 12 carriage 375 rolling stock with particular reference to requirements during the rush hour;[46147]

  (2) what discussions Railtrack has had with Connex SE management since 1997 on increasing the power supply for the new class 375 rolling stock for the London to Sittingbourne line; and if he will make a statement. [46148]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is working with the industry, including Connex and Railtrack to ensure all matters connected with the replacement of slam door rolling stock are carried out effectively. Their remit covers the London-Sittingbourne route and the enhancement to the power supply system will take into account the need to operate 12 car trains on this route.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the SRA's review of capacity utilisation on the West Coast Main Line will be published for consultation. [45460]

  Mr. Byers
  The Strategic Rail Authority began a review of the project's outputs last year. The outputs will be subject to approval by the Rail Regulator.

  East London Line Extension
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of incorporating the 658W
  Braithwaite viaduct in the East London Line extension; and when he expects to make an announcement on this matter. [44750]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Braithwaite viaduct is outside the limits of deviation established for the northern extension of the East London Line under its Transport and Works Order. London Underground Ltd. have no plans, or powers, to construct a railway on that alignment.

  Consequently, there is no possibility of the Braithwaite viaduct being incorporated in the East London Line project. LUL have not sought the removal of the Braithwaite viaduct, which is now listed as a Schedule II building, as it does not form part of the East London Line works at the Bishopsgate Goodsyard. London Underground will need to obtain Listed Building consent to demolish the structures adjacent to the Braithwaite.

  Rail Freight
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what studies have been undertaken by his Department on the impact of rail freight terminals on local communities. [45130]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Rail freight facilities are subject to approval under normal planning procedures, which take into account, among other things, the impact on the local environment.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the rail freight terminals located in the UK. [45129]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A rail freight terminal may be any interface between rail freight services, other modes and storage facilities. They vary enormously in size and scope from a simple siding to a multi-user distribution park. Railtrack's 2001 Network Management Statement gives the number of freight facilities connected to its network, including closed sites and maintenance depots. Railtrack's website, www.freightcommercial.co.uk, contains a list of these facilities. I understand the information is also available from a commercial website, www.railfreightonline.com.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the level of freight transported by(a) road and (b) rail each year in the UK. [45128]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Estimates are not made on an UK basis for both road and rail freight. The latest available comparative figures are for Great Britain in 2000:

  (a) road: 1,689 million tonnes lifted and 158 billion tonne-kilometres moved.

  (b) rail: 93 million tonnes lifted and 18 billion tonne-kilometres moved.

  Central Railway Freight Line
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has received from the SRA regarding the(a) financial and (b) technical case for the proposed Central Railway freight line. [45005]
  659W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Last year the Strategic Rail Authority provided Ministers with a high level financial and technical review of Central Railway's proposals. With the help of consultants and with the co-operation of Central Railway, the SRA are to carry out a further detailed assessment in order to further test key areas of the proposals. This is an essential piece of work if the Government are to be able to take an informed decision about Central Railway's request for a hybrid Bill. The SRA anticipates that the work will be completed by September.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Freight
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what recent discussions he has had with(a) the EU Transport Commissioner and (b) the French Transport Minister on the closure of the channel tunnel rail freight facilities; [43978]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on his rail freight target of the closure of the Channel Tunnel rail freight facilities; and if he will make a statement. [44011]

  Mr. Spellar
  The channel tunnel rail freight facilities have not closed.

  West Somerset Railway Link
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will give financial help to the West Somerset Railway Link to the main line at Taunton. [43401]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are at present no plans to do so, although it is understood that proposals are being considered by Somerset county council in the context of its Local Transport Plan.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority regarding the funding of multi-modal schemes; [45419]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the proposed future funding of multi-modal schemes through the Strategic Rail Authority. [45420]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is working with my Department on the processes by which the study outcomes will be taken forward.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the SRA's capacity utilisation strategy will be published for consultation. [45461]

  Mr. Byers
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is planning to publish a draft Capacity Utilisation Strategy consultation document later this year.

  British Transport Police
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the(a) operational and (b) target strength of the British Transport police in each BTP area was (i) in April 1997 and (ii) at the latest available date. [43950]
  660W
  Mr. Byers
  The British Transport police have provided me with the following information regarding operational and target strength in 1997 and 2002. In 1997 the force recorded target numbers according to rank rather than location.

  British Transport staff numbers

  April 1997

  March 2002

  Operational

  Target

  Operational

  Target

  Force HQ

  114.00

  —

  109.00

  112.00

  London North

  323.50

  —

  308.00

  315.00

  London South

  296.00

  —

  308.05

  315.00

  Midlands

  164.75

  —

  168.00

  177.00

  North East

  203.00

  —

  189.10

  195.10

  North West

  285.75

  —

  258.30

  267.00

  scotland

  195.00

  —

  203.40

  202.40

  south West

  135.00

  —

  128.08

  135.28

  London Underground

  415.35

  —

  430.00

  420.00

  2,132.35

  2,177

  2,101.93

  2,138.78

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what new arrangements the British Transport police are implementing to ensure that no individual case is acted on on the basis of an out-of-date arrest warrant; and if he will make a statement. [45182]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The British Transport police (BTP) have advised that after completing their initial 15 weeks at a regional training centre recruits return to the BTP's Force Training Centre where they receive specialist training that includes the execution of arrest warrants. Further guidelines on warrants are also available internally to all BTP staff. A specialist eight-day course is also run for the BTP's Police National Computer (PNC) operators. This provides detailed knowledge on the PNC and includes procedures relating to arrest warrants.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many Transport police were employed in each of the last five years. [45309]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The British Transport police have provided me with the following information:

  Number of officers (full time equivalents)

  1997

  2,132

  1998

  2,095

  1999

  2,106

  2000

  2,073

  2001

  2,101

  Passenger Transport
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he intends to establish value for money criteria for allowances paid to PTA members. [44377]

  Ms Keeble
  Remuneration for PTA members under the Local Government Act 1972 and Local Government and Housing Act 1989 are entirely a matter for local determination.

  Transport Delays
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent(a) assessment he has made and (b) research he has commissioned into the cost, in terms of customer and business time and financial impact, of transport delays. [45428]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 10-year Plan for Transport made estimates of the amount of time lost on English roads as a result of delays due to congestion in 2000. The Plan made forecasts for 2010 of the increase in congestion and of the extent to which the policies in the Plan would reduce this rise in congestion.

  A number of external estimates have also been made of the value road users might place on the elimination of congestion. These use different methods and therefore produce different results, but they all agree that this value runs to billions of pounds per annum.

  Neither these external estimates, nor those undertaken by my Department, can be translated directly into assessments of the cost of congestion to business or more widely. This is because they relate only to the amount of time road users lose to congestion and the value of this time to them. They take no account of the costs of implementing the policies or schemes needed to reduce the amount of time lost. The true costs of congestion are therefore the economic and other benefits forgone if we do not tackle it.

  We shall be doing further work in this area, the lessons from which we will take into account as part of our Review of the 10 year-Plan which we intend to publish in July.

  Transport Costs
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been made of(a) past and (b) likely future scenarios of changes in the cost of different modes of transport in the UK to (i) individuals and (ii) households. [45421]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The most recent published data on past trends in transport costs can be found in "Transport Statistics Great Britain 2001" (tables 1.15 and 1.25) and "Transport Trends 2001" (pages 23 and 41).

  Chapter 9 of "Transport 2010", the Government's 10-year plan for transport, contains some general analysis of future transport costs, including illustrative scenarios and their potential impacts. More detail on these scenarios and on the assumptions underlying the 10-year plan is contained in the companion "Background Analysis" document.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to reply to the letter of 19 November 2001 from the hon. Member for Leominster, concerning airport and baggage security. [45332]

  Mr. Spellar
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter on 18 December 2001.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) local authority dwellings and (b) dwellings owned by registered social landlords (i) were not of a decent standard on 1 April 2001, (ii) will have been brought up to a decent standard by 1 April 2002, and (iii) will not meet the decent standard on 1 April 2002. [43435]

  Ms Keeble
  We estimate that 1.7 million social homes did not meet the decent home standard at April 2001–about 1.2 million homes local authority homes and 500,000 homes owned by housing associations. These estimates will be updated later this year when the 2001 English House Condition Survey results are available.

  Local authorities have plans to reduce their non-decent stock by 12 per cent. between April 2001 and March 2002. This is through a combination of investment in the housing they own and through transfer to housing associations. We do not yet have equivalent figures for dwellings owned by housing associations. The Housing Corporation is working with associations to ensure the 2004 target is met.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the cost of(a) reducing the number of social dwellings that are not up to a decent standard by one third in the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2004 and (b) reducing the number of social dwellings that are not up to a decent standard by 50 per cent. in the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2006. [43436]

  Ms Keeble
  At present we only have estimates for the costs associated with local authority stock. The estimated costs of tackling the capital works outlined above are about £9.5 billion by 2004.

  The cost of reducing the number of non-decent homes by one third by 2004 depends on three factors:

  (a) the cost of dealing with those dwellings identified as non-decent at April 2001

  (b) the cost of making homes decent that fall below this standard between 2001 and 2004

  (c) the cost of preventing homes becoming non-decent during the period.

  The reduction of non-decent homes in the local authority sector will be achieved through a combination of investment in the local authority stock (through retention, transfer to Arms Length Management Organisations and via resources secured through Private Finance Initiative) and transfer of stock to housing associations.

  Currently, no target has been set for the improvement required by 2006. A reduction of 50 per cent. in the number of non-decent LA homes would require investment of about £15 billion, through a combination of investment by local authorities and transfer.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy to require local authority housing investment programme returns to record the number of homes which(a) are and (b) are not of a decent standard on the same criteria as set out in the comprehensive spending review. [46109]
  663W
  Ms Keeble
  Local authorities are already required to provide information on their stock in their Housing Revenue Account business plans, which is part of the Housing Investment Programme.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many local authority properties released for letting as a result of the cash incentive scheme in each Government office region in England in each of the past four years were(a) bedsits, (b) one-bedroomed, (c) two-bedroomed, (d) three-bedroomed, (e) four-bedroomed and (f) fivebedroomed or more; [44470]

  (2) how many local authority tenants in each Government office in England have applied for a cash incentive scheme grant in each year since 1997–98; and how many of those (a) were offered a grant and (b) used a grant to purchase a property on the open market; [44469]

  (3) what was the total value of cash incentive scheme grants made to local authority tenants in each Government office region in England in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [44468]

  Ms Keeble
  Information on the numbers and amounts of Cash Incentive Scheme grants made is given in the table. Data are not collected centrally on grant offers made or the types of properties released.

  Cash incentive scheme grants made 1997–98 to 2000–01

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total number of grants made

  North East

  72

  17

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and Humber

  98

  90

  18

  6

  East Midlands

  280

  278

  177

  12

  East of England

  311

  287

  120

  89

  London

  2,138

  1,374

  630

  403

  South East

  614

  420

  195

  95

  SouthWest

  332

  256

  94

  61

  West Midlands

  372

  174

  52

  35

  NorthWest

  480

  224

  15

  5

  England

  4,697

  3,120

  1,301

  706

  Total amounts paid (£ million)

  North East

  0.4

  0.1

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and Humber

  0.5

  0.5

  0.1

  —

  East Midlands

  1.6

  1.6

  0.3

  —

  East of England

  4.7

  3.0

  0.9

  0.6

  London

  35.7

  23.4

  8.4

  8.4

  South East

  7.6

  5.2

  2.6

  1.4

  South West

  2.7

  2.1

  0.6

  0.4

  West Midlands

  3.1

  1.5

  0.1

  0.1

  North West

  3.0

  1.7

  0.1

  —

  England

  59.3

  39.1

  13.2

  11.0

  Soursces:

  1997–98 and 1998–99—CIE monitoring returns

  1999–2000 and 2000–01—Houaing Investment Programme returns

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many non-decent social dwellings there are in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [46220]

  Ms Keeble
  We estimate that 1.7 million households lived in non-decent social sector dwellings in 2001. This estimate will be updated later this year when the 2001 English House Condition Survey results are available.

  The decent home standard applies to housing in England—different standards are used in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  664W
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) of 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 871W, on rents, if he will provide similar estimates for the real terms percentage changes in each year he predicts for formula rents for council tenants in each local council in England until 2011. [43851]

  Ms Keeble
  As I said in my earlier answer to the hon. Member,Official Report, column 1004W, the underlying increase in 'formula' rents will be the same for all local authorities.

  It is possible to make estimates of how average 'actual' rents might change in real terms between 2001–02 and 2011–12 if the national average local authority formula rent were to increase by an average of about 1.5 per cent. per year, and each local authority were to move its actual average rent to its average formula rent over that period (ignoring the impact of rent caps and the limit on annual rent changes for individual tenants). This was the basis of the figures given to the hon. Member for Hendon on 12 December. I am placing in the Libraries a table giving equivalent figures for all authorities on the same basis.

  I must, however, emphasise once more that these figures are only estimates based on a number of assumptions. Ultimately the level of 'actual' local authority rents over the next ten years will depend, among other things, on the outcomes of future spending reviews and the decisions taken by individual local authorities.

  Right to Buy
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of increasing the maximum cash incentive scheme grant available in London to a level(a) equal to the maximum right to buy discount available in London and (b) 25 per cent. higher than the maximum right to buy discount in London. [44465]

  Ms Keeble
  No recent assessment has been made of the impact of increasing the limits on maximum Cash Incentive Scheme grants.

  Rate Relief Scheme
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how increased charges to those businesses that will not qualify for assistance under the proposed rate relief scheme in the Government's Strong Local Leadership-Quality Public Services White Paper, will be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [46193]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The White Paper proposed a rate relief scheme for small businesses, funded through a small supplement of no more than 2.5 per cent. on the bills of ratepayers not receiving the relief. The scheme will require primary legislation to allow for the relief and to allow for the small upward adjustment in the national rate poundage that will apply to those not receiving relief. The timing of this legislation depends on the availability of parliamentary time.

  Homelessness
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many families were living in bed and breakfast accommodation, broken down by(a) constituency and (b) local authority. [44715]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: Available information reported by local authorities in England on the number of households accommodated in bed and breakfast hotels under statutory homelessness provisions on 31 December 2001, has been placed in the Libraries of the House. Information is collected at local authority level only.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced a new commitment to ensure that by March 2004 no family with children will be placed in bed and breakfast other than in an emergency. This was accompanied by changes in housing benefit subsidies to make leasing self-contained temporary accommodation more cost effective, and an additional £35 million from DTLR to help local authorities find alternatives to bed and breakfast.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the number of rough sleepers in(a) Leeds and (b) West Yorkshire at the latest available date. [45371]

  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 House Libraries on I 1 December 2001,Official Report, columns 797–98W. Local authorities not listed in the tables for those years submitted either an estimate of 0–10 or no estimate in their HIP returns.

  Queen's Jubilee
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much the Department has spent on the Queen's Jubilee in each of the past three years; how the money was allocated; and if he will make a statement. [44602]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Over the past year the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has been fully involved in the preparations for the Golden Jubilee. As these costs have been absorbed in the general running of the Department, it is not possible to state what these costs have been.

  Staff (Locally Elected Representatives)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many members of staff at his Department are locally elected democratic representatives; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become locally elected democratic representatives. [44560]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The DTLR does not keep a centralised record of those members of staff who are locally elected democratic representatives.
  666W
  My Department supports members of staff who wish to take part in all local democratic processes, although some staff are precluded from certain activities due to the nature of their positions.

  Abandoned Cars
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to make a statement on the outcome of the consultation on abandoned cars. [45189]

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

  Neighbourhood Management Programme
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Government plans to announce a further round of funding under the Neighbourhood Management Programme; and if he will make a statement. [44791]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government do intend to announce a further round of funding under the Neighbourhood Management programme. We are keen to learn early lessons from the first round of Pathfinders to help shape our approach in a second round. My Department is developing options for taking this forward, and I hope to be able to announce details of a further round by late spring/early summer.

  Marine and Port Safety
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on changes to the safety bodies responsible for(a) marine and (b) port safety issues since June 2001. [45650]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been no such changes.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with(a) Humber pilots and (b) Associated British Ports since 12 December 2001 regarding pilotage on the River Humber. [45647]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Officials have maintained regular contact with ABP in order to confirm the assurances which they have given us that the safe operation of the Humber ports will not be affected by a dispute with their former pilots. Officials last met representatives of the former pilots at the end of January when the former Chairman and Secretary of Humber Pilots Ltd. called shortly before giving up these positions. The Department has since had two exchanges of correspondence with the acting Chairman.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by what mechanism his Department(a) implements and (b) monitors marine organisations and companies against the Port Marine Safety Code. [45649]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Port Marine Safety Code applies to statutory harbour authorities, some of which are companies—others are trusts and local authorities. The code required participating authorities to complete
  667W
  implementation by the end of 2001, and the Department has commenced a review of this work which will run to the end of 2002.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of changes to the nature of pilotage since 12 December 2001. [45648]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A new pilotage service was introduced on the Humber on 12 December when the former pilots went on strike. My Department has closely monitored the new arrangements and I hope to be in a position to place in the Library a copy of a report of that work.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received since 12 December 2001 from(a) Humber pilots and (b) Associated British Ports regarding (i) pilotage on the River Humber and (ii) other issues. [45646]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Associated British Ports have provided regular reports to confirm the assurances which they have given us that the safe operation of the Humber ports will not be affected by a dispute with their former pilots. Former Humber pilots and others—mainly pilots in other ports—have made various representations.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what role his Department has played in negotiations between the Humber pilots and the Associated British Ports regarding the Humber pilots dispute. [45645]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Research
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether reports published by his Department from research conducted for his Department may be(a) materially altered and (b) edited from the original documentation supplied to the Department before publication. [45658]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Amendments may be made to the format and content of draft reports in so far as these relate to the presentation of the results of the research and interpretation of relevant policy. Once final draft reports are agreed, they are published, or otherwise made available, without alteration.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 915W, on research documents, if he will place in the Library a copy of the Department's research management policies and practices and the handling of research and/or contractor information as referred to in Annex A of the DTLR(c) Reseach Overview. [45672]

  Mr. Jamieso
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House. It should be noted that this is internal guidance and subject to regular update and revision.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 915W, on research documents, who is preparing the specification for further work to present the
  668W
  information in a form suitable for access through the DTLR website; what timetable has been agreed for this specification to be completed; what form this specification is likely to take; and what timetable for completion of work to enable access to be available is expected. [45674]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My officials are developing the specification to provide a basis for further work within the Department (to ensure consistency of information and compatability with other information available on the website) and for commissioning further software development (to facilitate access to the data). No firm timetable has yet been agreed.

  Air Traffic Control
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made towards the development of a new air traffic control centre at Prestwick; and if he will make a statement. [45705]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 862–63W.

  Urban Regeneration
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the potential for private finance initiatives within urban regeneration. [41387]

  Ms Keeble
  The Secretary of State has asked English Partnerships to carry out a feasibility study into the use of private finance initiatives within urban regeneration

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the local government finance assistance schemes available through Leeds City Council to tackle urban poverty. [45373]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department's main programmes such as the Housing Investment Programmes (HIP) and Revenue Support Grant all contribute to the alleviation of urban poverty. In addition, my Department runs the following programme which specifically addresses this:Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF), which is paid as part of Rate Support Grant, amounts to:

  2001–02: £4.1 million

  2002–03: £6.2 million

  2003–04: £8.3 million.

  NRF is specifically targeted at deprived communities.

  The HIP allocation for 2002–03 is £12.8 million. The Major Repairs Allowance allocation is £35.05 million.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the inner city budget schemes initiated to tackle urban poverty since June 1997. [45372]

  Ms Keeble
  Since June 1997, my Department and its predecessor Department have initiated the following programmes which aim to tackle poverty and address social exclusion, particularly in the most deprived local authority areas, including those in inner cities:
  669W

  Year

  Name of scheme

  1998

  Single Regeneration Budget round 4

  1999

  Single Regeneration Budget round 5

  1999

  New Deal for Communities

  2000

  Single Regeneration Budget round 6

  2000

  Government's share of the European Regional Development Fund

  2001

  Single Regeneration Budget transitional arrangements for the RDA single programme

  2001

  Community Chest

  2001

  Community Empowerment Fund

  2001

  Neighbourhood Management Programme

  2001

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  2001

  Neighbourhood Skills and Knowledge Programme

  2001

  Neighbourhood Wardens Programme

  2001

  Starter Homes Initiative

  2001

  Street Wardens Programme

  Ms Oona KingAnswers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of EU state aid rules on the use of private sector partnerships to deliver urban regeneration in the UK. [41385]

  Ms Keeble
  The closure of the PIP programme has restricted the use of regeneration PPPs. We are currently working on ways of removing these restrictions. However, provided public and private involvement in the regeneration PPP acts on the same terms it should not be affected by the state aid rules. The existing gap funding schemes allow PPPs to provide state aid within defined limits. The Single Regeneration Budget, one of the Government's major regeneration programmes, is delivered through local regeneration partnerships and the private sector continues to be an important member of a large number of these.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his most recent estimate is of the quantity of previously developed urban land available for development in the London Region; and what estimate has been made of the number of new dwellings that may be accommodated on that land. [45651]

  Ms Keeble
  Estimates from the National Land Use Database show that, within London in 1998, there were some 2,820 hectares of previously developed land that were unused or may have been available for redevelopment. Estimates from the boroughs suggested that some 1,720 hectares of this were suitable for housing and could accommodate some 82,000 dwellings. The figures provide a snapshot of the land available in 1998. The estimated dwelling capacity reflects the development plan policies applying at the time and were made prior to the publication of revised national planning policy guidance on Housing (PPG3). The figures do not make allowance for new brownfield sites emerging in future, or other sources of additional capacity, not involving greenfield land, such as sub-division of existing housing, flats over shops and empty homes.

  In September 2000, the GLA published a report entitled "London's Housing Capacity". The capacity study, undertaken in 1999, estimated that there was potential for 381,000 net additional dwellings in London in the period 1997–2016. If vacancies and non self-contained accommodation are included the capacity is 458,000 household spaces. The study found that of the large identified
  670W
  housing sites (which comprised nearly 30 per cent. of the total capacity and where detailed information about former use was available), 97 per cent. were brownfield sites

  The National Land Use Database is currently being updated to 2001.

  Play Areas (Children With Disabilities)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will meet representatives from interested organisations to discuss the Government's proposed best practice guidance on accessible play areas for children with disabilities; and if she will make a statement. [41297]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government are committed to producing new guidance on play areas for disabled children. I welcome the valuable contribution that outside expertise would bring and I would be pleased to meet relevant organisations.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the awards made by the Arson Control Forum, stating(a) the recipient, (b) the amount and (c) the purpose in each case. [42922]

  Dr. Whitehea
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the then Minister for the Home Department (Mike O'Brien) on 8 May 2001,Official Report, column 78W about the Arson Control Forum's new projects bidding exercise for 2001–02.

  I shall be writing to the hon. Member about the outcome of the Arson Control Forum new projects bidding exercise for 2002–03 in due course.

  Roads
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many road schemes the South West Regional Assembly has recommended to the Department for approval. [45279]

  Mr. Jamieson
  To date, the South West Regional Assembly (SWRA) has recommended three road schemes for inclusion in the Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI). These are:

  A38 Dobwalls Bypass

  A417 Cowley to Air Balloon Improvement

  A30 Merrymeet roundabout, near Okehampton.

  In March 2001, the Dobwalls Bypass was added to the TPI while the two other schemes are currently the subject of further studies being undertaken by the Highways Agency.

  Gas Explosion, Newton Heath
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Health and Safety Executive's investigation into the gas explosion in Newton Heath, Manchester on 17 November 2001. [43653]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: A report by Transco plc on the gas explosion at Newton Heath was received by the Health and Safety Executive

  671W
  on 4 March 2002. HSE is discussing with Transco what action the company should take to implement the recommendations. I understand that a copy of the Transco investigation report has been sent to the hon. Member by HSE and that both they and Transco have offered to meet him to discuss the report.

  Stadiums
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set out the criteria used in deciding whether to call in the planning application for(a) redevelopment of Odsal Stadium and (b) a new stadium for Arsenal Football Club. [45477]

  Mr. Byers
  My general approach, like that of previous Secretaries of State, is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. Parliament has entrusted them with responsibility for day-to-day planning control in their areas. Local planning authorities are normally best placed to make decisions relating to their areas and it is right that, in general, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference.

  There will be occasions, however, when I may consider it necessary to call in a planning application to determine myself instead of leaving it to the local planning authority. My policy is to be very selective about calling in planning applications. I will, in general, only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved and if those issues need to be decided by me rather than at a local level. Such cases may include, for example, those which, in my opinion:

  may conflict with national policies on important matters;

  could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality;

  give rise to substantial regional or national controversy;

  raise significant architectural and urban design issues; or

  may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments.

  Each case is, however, considered on its own facts.

  Copies of the letters to call in (a) and not to call in (b) are on the Department's website.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on the redevelopment of Odsal Stadium, Bradford. [45491]

  Mr. Byers
  I have had no discussions with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on the redevelopment of Odsal Stadium.

  Secondments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many BP employees are on secondment to his Department; for what purposes; on what terms; and how many BP employees have been on secondment to his Department since January 2000. [45888]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There have been no BP employees on secondment to this Department since January 2000.

  Multi-modal Studies
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to make an announcement about the South-East Manchester Multi Modal Study. [45768]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Spellar) to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons) on 21 March 2002,Official Report, columns 492W-493W.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what consultation there has been between the consultants undertaking the London to south and south-west multi-modal study and the Thames Valley multi-modal study on recommendations regarding the M4 from London to Reading. [45452]

  Mr. Byers
  There have been frequent meetings between the two sets of consultants undertaking these two multi modal studies, and between the Government Offices for the south-east and south-west who are chairing the steering groups for the studies.

  Congestion
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the level of inter-urban congestion is on roads in England. [46194]

  Mr. Jamieson
  To provide a baseline against which to monitor progress towards the congestion target in the 10-year Plan for Transport, we will publish estimates of congestion in 2000 later in the year.

  Signposting
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to improve signposting on roads and motorways; and if he will make a statement. [45957]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The responsibility for placing and maintaining signs lies with the relevant traffic authority. We have published good practice guidance on the design and use of signs, which is available from the Stationery Office, in the Traffic Signs Manual and Local Transport Notes, and the Highways Agency has recently updated its standard on sign maintenance. We are currently consulting on updated guidance for the provision of white and brown direction signs to tourist attractions and facilities in England, and we will be publishing updated guidance on warning signs and road markings when revised Traffic Signs Regulations are introduced later this year.

  Local Authority Contracts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy to remove the tight for local authorities to charge successful tenders a percentage of the total tender price. [45974]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I am not aware that local authorities do charge successful tenderers a percentage of the total tender price. If the hon. Member would like to provide me with more information, I will consider further.

  East of England Development Agency
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the annual salary costs are of(a) the chairman and (b) the chief executive of the East of England Development Agency in 2001–02. [45510]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In 2001–02 the salary costs for the chairman of the East of England Development Agency are £46,634, and the salary costs for the chief executive are £100,590 plus a bonus yet to be determined.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Ms Dad Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what performance target he plans to set the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency for 2002–03. [46482]

  Ms Keeble
  The Planning Inspectorate has a key role to play in delivering quality services to all users of the planning system.

  This year, for the first time, we are setting targets for the handling of enforcement appeals. The Planning Green Paper underlines that better enforcement is a key factor in raising public confidence in the planning system. Improved handling of enforcement appeals will support delivery of that objective.

  We are also setting a new target for the handling of called-in planning applications and recovered appeals by the inspectorate. This is part of our Green Paper drive to deliver essential improvements in the decision-making times in these cases.

  We will be working with the inspectorate to consider ways in which performance on planning appeals might be improved further in later years without compromising quality.

  The targets for 2002–03 are as follows:

  Timeliness

  (a) Planning appeals

  80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by written representation to be decided within 16 weeks;

  80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by hearing to be decided within 22 weeks;

  80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by inquiry to be decided within 30 weeks;

  (b) Enforcement appeals

  80 per cent. of all enforcement appeals decided by written representation to be decided within 32 weeks;

  80 per cent. of all enforcement appeals decided by hearing to be decided within 33 weeks;

  80 per cent. of all enforcement appeals decided by inquiry to be decided within 43 weeks;

  (c) Called-in and recovered appeals

  to process 80 per cent. of all called-in and recovered appeal cases within 12 weeks from close of the inquiry to delivery of the inspector's report to the Secretary of State.

  (d) Development plan inquiries

  to provide an inspector for a development plan inquiry in at least 90 per cent. of cases on the date requested by the local authority, provided that the objection period has ended and at least six month's notice has been given;

  to deliver 90 per cent. of inspector's reports on development plan inquiries to local authorities according to time scales agreed under service agreements.

  674W
  Quality

  To satisfy the Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate, and thus the Secretary of State and the first Minister of the National Assembly for Wales, annually and following rigorous monitoring, that the quality of all the inspectorate's work is being maintained at a high standard, with 99 per cent. of its case work free from justified complaint.

  Information and guidance

  To survey customer satisfaction with the inspectorate's performance and to act upon the results.

  Wembley Stadium (Transport Links)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the redevelopment of Wembley Park underground station to facilitate transit to and from a national stadium at Wembley. [45202]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on 12 March 2002, and which I understand appeared in the Official Report, on 19 March 2002, column 237W.

  Driver and Vechicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many complaints were received by(a) the DVLA, (b) his Department and (c) other bodies with reference to the process by which licence applications are processed by the DVLA, broken down by the nature of each complaint, in each year since 1997. [45426]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Available information about the number of formal complaints received about the DVLA driving licence application process is shown as follows.

  Table 1 shows the number of formal customer complaints received by DVLA broken down by the nature of the complaint.

  Table 2 shows the number of official correspondence cases received by DVLA, which may include complaints, but detailed analysis figures are not available. Of these, private secretary office cases are received via the Department. Further analysis of Table 2 data is not available without a special exercise at disproportionate cost. DVLA receive 5.4 million driving licence applications every year.

  The Department and DVLA have no information on complaints received by other bodies.
  675W

  Table 1: DVLA formal customer complaints

  Complaint category

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Driving licence applications

  Non receipt of a driving licence

  48

  59

  130

  92

  Other driving licence complaints

  153

  227

  551

  139

  Drivers medical complaint

  25

  75

  149

  174

  Documents lost at DVLA

  6

  7

  46

  154

  Processing time/procedures1

  5

  6

  18

  322

  DVLA forms

  5

  4

  36

  28

  Total

  242

  378

  930

  909

  1 1997–98 to 1999–2000 data are for both driver and vehicle complaints.

  Table 2: Official correspondence (which may be complaints)

  Case type

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Private secretary office

  232

  253

  510

  905

  MP direct

  356

  441

  996

  1,101

  Note:

  The figures are shown in financial years.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent changes there have been in the(a) management, (b) computerisation and (c) other aspects of the DVLA related to the process by which licence applications are processed; and if he will make a statement. [45413]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The second EC directive on driver licensing resulted in significant changes to the management, computerisation and other aspects of DVLA's processes relating to the issue of driving licences. Prior to July 1998 drivers received paper licences. From this point photocard licences were introduced on a phased basis. All licences issued by DVLA are now in this form.

  The changes have meant that photographs and signatures are captured electronically for reproduction on the new style licence. As it now contains a photograph identity checking procedures have been tightened up considerably, compared with those in place for the issue of paper licences. Ministers decided that from April 1999 identity documentation should be accepted to support identity.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the process by which licence applications are processed by the DVLA; what steps his Department(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to make this process more effective; and if he will make a statement. [45412]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The process associated with the issue of driving licences has been the subject of continuous review and improvement since photocards were introduced in July 1998. Holders of UK passports and those in receipt of state retirement pensions can now have their applications checked at some 750 post offices with the documents returned immediately, thereby reducing the need to send their documents direct to Swansea.

  The introduction of electronic interchange of information about identity between DVLA and UK Passport Services is being actively explored. New versions of forms and leaflets are introduced regularly taking customers views into account, which has reduced the rate of return of applications significantly.

  MOT
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes have taken place to the MOT test since 1997; what plans there are to make further changes to the test; and if he will make a statement. [45430]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been no significant changes to the scope of the MOT test since 1997 and there are none planned. However, detailed testing standards and methods are constantly updated to keep pace with changing vehicle technology and legislation.

  The introduction of the MOT computerised database from January 2003 will improve the availability of standards information for testers and enable much more information on the results of tests to be gathered. It will also alter administrative procedures for recording a test and the issue of test certificates.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many cars(a) initially failed, (b) passed on completion of necessary work and (c) passed without additional work the MOT test in each year since 1990. [45432]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Vehicle Inspectorate collects returns from all 18,869 MOT testing stations on a monthly basis which contain details of the vehicles tested, failures and passes. A 2 per cent. sample of the returns is used as the basis for calculating an annual fail rate and details are shown in the table. The inspectorate does not hold details of the numbers of vehicles passed on completion of necessary work or passed without additional work. More information about failure rates and defect categories can be found in the Vehicle Inspectorate Effectiveness report 2000–01, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  year1

  Number of vehicles2 tested

  Fail rate (percentage)

  1994–95

  22,562,000

  37.2

  1995–96

  22,468,000

  37.3

  1996–97

  21,669,000

  36.1

  1997–98

  21,482,000

  36.1

  1998–99

  22,174,000

  35.7

  1999–2000

  22,035,000

  33.6

  2000–01

  22,775,000

  31.7

  1Figures not available in a comparable format prior to 1994–95

  2Cars, vans and passenger vehicles with up to 12 seats

  The introduction of the computerised MOT database from January 2003 will provide the inspectorate with the facility to improve the reporting of pass and fail rates.
  677W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps(a) his Department and (b) the Vehicle Inspector (i) have taken and (ii) plan to take to monitor the work of MOT testing stations and the effectiveness of the MOT test. [45431]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Checks of the standard of MOT test procedures and authorised premises are carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) by means of regular visits during which premises are inspected and tests observed; observed tests of vehicles submitted by "incognito" vehicle examiners; checks carried out in response to appeals against the test result from members of the public; and special investigations in cases where the inspectorate believes that there might be significant breaches of the regulations. The Vehicle Inspectorate has the power to take enforcement action when evidence of sub-standard testing is found. Sanctions can range from the issue of warning letters to withdrawal of authorisation.

  VI trialled a new check of testing effectiveness in 2000–01 which has been introduced fully this year. Examiners carry out random re-inspections of recently tested vehicles and the results give VI a measure of how well garages are applying test standards.

  The introduction of the computerised MOT database from January 2003 will enable the inspectorate to analyse detailed statistics on the performance of test stations, testers and the outcome of individual tests. This will enable VI to increase its effectiveness through improved targeting of enforcement checks, training and advice.

  Road Safety
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many local authority(a) road safety officers and (b) school crossing patrol coordinators there are in the UK; [45663]

  (2) how many (a) schools and (b) companies ran road safety activities with their local authority road safety officers in 2001. [45665]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the guidance issued by his Department on the location and visibility of speed cameras. [45707]

  Mr. Byers
  New visibility rules for those areas participating in the safety camera netting off scheme were announced on 3 December and have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Digital Tachographs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the intended date for the introduction of digital tachographs; how many representations he has received about the need to protect data from fraudulent manipulation; how many times drivers will be able to lose their smartcard and remain within the law; and what information he has made available to the freight industry. [44936]
  678W
  Mr. Spellar
  The fitting of digital tachographs to new vehicles will become compulsory two years after the publication by the European Commission of the technical specification for digital tachographs. I understand that publication should take place in May this year. On this basis, digital tachographs will need to be fitted to new vehicles from May 2004.

  To date, no representations have been received about the vulnerability of data to fraudulent manipulation. The regulation lays down strict security requirements and provides that type approval may not be granted until the whole system has demonstrated its capacity to resist attempts to tamper with or alter the data.

  A driver may hold one valid driver card only. If the driver card is damaged, malfunctions or is lost or stolen, the issuing authority—in the UK the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVLA)—will issue a replacement card. The issue of a replacement card will be shown on DVLA's database and the original card recorded as withdrawn. Multiple losses of cards by drivers will be reported by DVLA to the Vehicle Inspectorate who may investigate.

  We have kept the industry informed about developments through the Road Haulage Forum and other on-going contacts. Now that the Commission is shortly to publish the technical specification, starting the countdown to implementation of the regulation, we will be consulting the industry on various detailed aspects of the implementation process.

  TV Cables (Electrocution)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many cases of electrocution there were from 1995 arising from the seepage of water through aerial and satellite cables into television and set top boxes; and if he will make a statement. [43236]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department knows of no such cases.

  Aggregates
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what resources he makes available for treatment of Mundic aggregate. [43421]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Over the past eight years Government have provided funding for the work of the Building Research Establishment programme that looks at problems in concrete materials. This work has included an investigation into mundic treatment processes and testing procedures.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made in developing methods of testing and assessment to enable the maximum number of homes built using mundic aggregate to be accepted by mortgage lenders. [43438]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, Mundic Working Group published "Stage Three Expansion Testing" on 29 January 2002. The test has been accepted

  679W
  by the Council of Mortgage Lenders and will allow some further houses to be removed from the mortgage black list.

  Civil Defence
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what requirements there are for local authorities to produce a civil defence plan. [45353]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1993 require county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan districts and London Boroughs to prepare and review plans for civil defence purposes, to exercise and train for those plans and to consult other local authorities and fire authorities affected by those plans. They require district councils to train their staff, to provide information to county councils and to assist county councils in making and revising plans.

  Since the introduction of these regulations local authorities have been encouraged to prepare flexible plans for responding to a wide variety of peacetime hazards.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who within local authorities is the officer held accountable for civil defence matters. [45354]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Chief Executive, or equivalent, of a local authority is accountable for matters relating to civil defence.

SCOTLAND

  Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of her Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32830]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The normal retirement practice age in the Scotland Office for staff outside the senior civil service is age 60. Retirement age policy is currently under review with colleagues in the Scottish Executive, from where most Scotland Office staff have been loaned. Pending the outcome of the review, staff may be retained beyond age 60 on a yearly basis, provided there is a post available and performance, conduct and attendance are satisfactory.

  The Cabinet Office is responsible for setting the retirement age for all members of the senior civil service. This is age 60. However, Heads of Departments and Agency Chief Executives have flexibility to retain members of the senior civil service beyond age 60 if they judge it in the public interest and they are satisfied about the fitness and efficiency of the individual to carry out his or her duties.

  Fair Trade
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether fair trade products are sold in her Department. [39833]
  680W
  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has no facilities which would enable us to sell fair trade products.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she plans to (1) meet the Scottish Ambulance Service; and on how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40591]

  (2) meet Link Scotland; and on how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40588]

  (3) meet the Scottish NFU; and on how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40589]

  (4) meet Friends of the Earth Scotland; and on how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40593]

  (5) meet the Scottish Society for the Protection of Animals; and on how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40590]

  (6) meet the WWF Scotland; and on how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40592]

  (7) meet Scottish Care; and on how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40597]

  (8) meet the Scottish Council for Development of Industry; and on how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40598]

  (9) meet the Centre for Scottish Public Policy; and on how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40599]

  (10) meet the Education Institute of Scotland; and on how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40594]

  (11) meet Universities Scotland; and on how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40596]

  (12) meet the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations; and on how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40601]

  (13) meet the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society; and on how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland; [40600]

  (14) meet the Scottish Parent Teacher Council; and on how many times she has met them since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland. [40595]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I meet representatives of a wide range of public and private sector bodies in a variety of circumstances, both formal and informal, and I shall continue to do so.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Advocate-General, pursuant to her oral answer of 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 157, (a) what discussions she has had with the Minister of State, Scotland Office in the last two months on the issue of planning consent for new nuclear

  681W
  power stations in Scotland and (b) what account she took of section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989; and if she will make a statement. [45766]

  The Advocate-General
  I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues concerning a variety of issues. As I have explained to the House on several occasions it is a long-standing convention, adhered to by successive Governments, that neither the fact nor content of opinions or advice given by the Law Officers is disclosed outside Government (even in Parliament).

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price for PPP contracts let by her Department in each of the last four years; and if she will make a statement; [45612]

  (2) what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price for the five largest PFI contracts let by her Department in each of the last four years; and if she will make a statement. [45597]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. No PPP or PFI contracts have been let by my Department since that date.

  Reserved Matters
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the functions which she exercises in relation to Scotland in reserved matters. [46104]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I exercise certain statutory and other functions in relation to reserved matters, including under the Scotland Act 1998 in relation to the devolution settlement itself; in relation to elections in Scotland under the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended; in relation to the Boundary Commission for Scotland under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended; in relation to the Crown Estate Commissioners under the Crown Estate Act 1961, and under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the statutory instruments issued by her Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [36221]

  Ms Hewitt
  In the period, my Department made and issued 142 statutory instruments. During this time 33 Regulatory Impact Assessments were issued in connection with SIs.

  The further information requested by the hon. Member could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements she will put in place to ensure that in filling vacancies on the Gas and Electricity 682W
  Markets Authority, account is taken of the Government's commitments to sustainable development and reduction of UK greenhouse gas emissions. [39382]

  Mr. Wilson
  When making appointments to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority we seek to create a body with a range of skills and attributes which are relevant to the various duties and objectives of the authority.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on energy costs incurred by her Department in each of the last 10 years. [42436]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs on 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 268W.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list for 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year the amount spent by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies in respect of hotel and other similar privately-provided accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) other persons; if she will list the proportion of this cost incurred in respect of (x) food and (y) alcohol in each case; and if she will list the average cost per hotel room or similar unit of accommodation provided in each case. [34389]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 560W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, including the current year to date, the amount spent by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on (i) food and (ii) alcohol, indicating how much was spent on guests, and how much in respect of (A) Ministers and (B) staff, broken down to show how much was provided directly by her Department and how much reclaimed. [34464]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested for the Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will list the official visits to(a) Paris and (b) Brussels made by each Minister in her Department in 2001 and the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in her Department on the choice of mode of travel for such visits; [38145]

  (2) if she will list the official visits within the UK outside London made by each Minister in her Department in 2001, giving for each (a) the origin and destination and (b) the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in her Department on choice of mode of travel for official visits. [38181]
  683W
  Ms Hewitt
  Since 1999 this Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken since 1 March 2001 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The additional detailed information requested in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Celebrations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [42293]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport gave to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) in response to his round robin question of 30 January, 11 February 2002, Official Report, columns 58–59W.

  The DTI, along with other Government Departments, flies the Union flag from its buildings on 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 and St. George's Day, but not St. Patrick's Day.

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

  An additional bank holiday will take place on Monday 3 June 2002 to mark the Queen's Golden Jubilee and, to create a two-day holiday period, the spring bank holiday, which would normally take place on 27 May, has been moved to Tuesday 4 June.

  East of England Development Agency
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the projected underspend by EEDA for the year to 31 March, indicating the reason for the underspend in each case. [35464]

  Alan Johnson
  EEDA's total projected underspend for the 2001–02 financial year is £5,864,000.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total annual budget is of the East of England Development Agency in 2001–02; and what sum within that total is allocated to publicity and marketing. [45509]

  Alan Johnson
  EEDA's total annual budget for 2001–02 is £62.596 million. This figure includes £3.7 million potential end of year flexibility from 2000–01 684W
  which as at 20 March is still awaiting parliamentary approval. EEDA has allocated £200,000 for publicity and marketing in 200–02.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures the Government are taking to uphold specification standards for the refurbishments of Departments. [36830]

  Ms Hewitt
  Individual Departments are responsible for the refurbishments of their own Departments.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the budget for the Insolvency Service was for each year from 1997. [42070]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Plans for the Insolvency Service are published in the Government's Expenditure Plans for the DTI, a copy of which can be found in the Libraries of the House. Insolvency Service expenditure is reported in the service's annual accounts which are laid before Parliament and placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what controls are in place to ensure that the Insolvency Service hotline meets the needs of its customers. [42077]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In August and September 1998 the National Audit Office undertook a follow up review of directors disqualification, including the hotline, and contacted a sample of complainants, 78 per cent. of whom stated that they would use the service again. The NAO's recommendations as regards the hotline were fully implemented, and included a simplified complaints questionnaire which is also available on the service's website and by link from Companies House.

  The service also operates a formal complaints procedure, and since January 1998, six complaints have been received in connection with the hotline of which only two proved to have been justified.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to make insolvency laws more(a) efficient, (b) user friendly and (c) effective in obtaining prosecutions. [42061]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Insolvency Act 2000 introduced an optional moratorium into voluntary arrangement proceedings to make procedures more responsive to the needs of those facing financial difficulties.

  The White Paper "Opportunity for All in a World of Change: Insolvency—A Second Chance" outlined the Government's proposals for reforms to the law of personal insolvency.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average cost in(a) sterling and (b) man hours has been to prosecute a rogue director, by the undertaking of an investigation and prosecution by the Insolvency Service, over the last year. [42074]
  685W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Insolvency Service is not a prosecuting authority. In cases where the Insolvency Service considers that there is prima facie evidence of a prosecutable offence the official receiver refers the results of his/her investigation to the Legal Services Directorate of the Department of Trade and Industry for further investigation and prosecution where appropriate.

  Cost for prosecutions are not available.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect of the Insolvency (Amendment) Regulations 2000 on the Insolvency Service, including(a) cost savings, (b) efficiency savings and (c) changes in service levels between the Service and its customers. [42067]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Insolvency (Amendment) regulations 2000, which came into force on 31 March 2000 make provision for payments into and out of the Insolvency Services Account to be transmitted by electronic means. This has had the following effect on the Insolvency Service and its customers:

  (a) Cost savings: the Insolvency Service estimates that a BACS payment costs 50p less than a payment by cheque. In the period from 1 April 2000 to 28 February 2002, 7,770 payments out of the Insolvency Services Account were made by BACS producing total estimated savings for the Insolvency Service of £3,885. Insolvency practitioners who have a BACS payments facility should be able to achieve the same order of cost savings when remitting funds to the Insolvency Services Account by this method. Currently the Insolvency Service does not levy a fee for making a BACS payment, whereas a fee of 65p per cheque is charged against the estate upon which it is drawn. In respect of the 7,770 BACS payments in the period from 1 April 2000 to 28 February 2002, the cost saving to estates was £5,050.50.

  (b) Efficiency savings: the resource efficiencies of electronic payments have, with other process efficiency gains, enabled the Insolvency Service to process a 15 per cent. higher volume of payments in the period from 1 April 2000 to 28 February 2002 without increasing the number of staff engaged in this area of work.

  (c) Changes in service levels between the Insolvency Service and its customer: a BACS payment request is processed on the day of receipt (day one) by the Insolvency Service and credited to the payee's bank account on day three. By comparison, a cheque requisition received on day one is despatched to the payee on day four; the transit time and bank clearing process mean that the cheque will generally be credited to the payee's account on day seven—four days later than by BACS.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many convictions as a result of investigations by the Insolvency Service there were in each year since 1997. [42072]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of prosecutions as a result of investigation by the Insolvency Service each year since 1997 is as follows:

  Number

  1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997

  406

  1 January 1998 to 31 December 1998

  394

  1 January 1999 to 31 December 1999

  334

  I January 2000 to 31 December 2000

  339

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  373

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedure is in place within the 686W
  Insolvency Service to track the progress of individual cases being investigated; and what plans she has to review this procedure. [42075]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Official receivers have worked to a centrally defined investigation process since 1999. The progress of the investigation is recorded on case files and on a computerised case management system. Performance is monitored at an office level, at regional level and at national level. The investigation process was reviewed and reissued in 2001 and will be subject to further review in 2003.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets her Department has set the Insolvency Service in each of the years since 1997; and how successful the agency was in achieving these targets. [42064]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The targets and outturn for the Insolvency Service are published in the Insolvency Service annual report, a copy of which can be found in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Insolvency Service's quinquennial review. [42080]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Insolvency Service (INSS) has responded positively to the recommendations of the quinquennial review.

  All recommendation are being actioned by INSS under the supervision of its steering board. Action includes steps to build on its existing performance, to provide a basis to respond to fluctuations in work loads and to modernise existing delivery frameworks. All action is aimed at enhancing service delivery.

  The Insolvency Service steering board will continue to oversee progress on implementation.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets she has set the Insolvency Service for 2002–03. [42063]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The targets for 2002–03 have not yet been approved.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) representations she has received and (b) research she has commissioned into the effectiveness of the Insolvency Act 2000; and if she will make a statement. [42059]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have not received any representations about, or commissioned research into, the effectiveness of the Insolvency Act 2000.

  The Insolvency Service monitors those of the Act's measures that came into force by 2 April 2001.

  Insolvencies
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many insolvencies by(a) creditors voluntary liquidation, (b) receivership, (c) compulsory liquidation, (d) administration and (e) company voluntary

  687W
  arrangement there were in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000 and (v) 2001 in (A) St. Helens, South, (B) St. Helens, MBC area, (C) Merseyside, (D) Manchester, (E) the north-west regional development area, (F) other regional development areas and (G) England. [44491]

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  (a) Creditors voluntary liquidations

  7,875

  7,987

  9,071

  9,392

  10,297

  (b) Receivership

  1,837

  1,713

  1,618

  1,595

  1,914

  (c) Compulsory liquidation

  4,735

  5,216

  5,209

  4,925

  4,675

  (d) Administrations

  196

  338

  440

  438

  698

  (e) Company voluntary arrangements

  629

  470

  475

  557

  597

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's policy is regarding bankruptcy; and what her policy is on measures to deter individuals and companies from seeking bankruptcy terms. [42055]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department's policy on bankruptcy is set out in the White Paper "Insolvency A Second Chance" (Cm 5234), which is available in the Libraries of the House. There are no plans to deter individuals or companies from entering into insolvency proceedings, which still have an important role to play in the resolution of financial difficulties.

  Business Mergers
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the takeover panel in respect of the merger between P&O Princess and Royal Caribbean Cruises. [45361]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will take action in respect of the proposed merger between KPMG and Andersen's non-US businesses. [45363]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Any proposed merger which meets the qualifying threshold would be considered by the European Commission under European Community Merger Regulation.

  The parties concerned have not yet made a formal notification to the Commission.

  US Steel Tariffs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on(a) the decision by the US Government to impose tariffs on steel imports and (b) the impact on the UK steel industry of the decision; and what assistance she will provide to the UK steel industry. [41863]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made to the House on 6 March 2002,Official Report, columns 307–19.

  The direct impact on the UK steel industry of the additional US tariffs on their steel imports is likely to be a marked reduction in the approximately 300,000 tonnes
  688W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: Information on the regional basis requested is not available. The table shows the different types of insolvency for each year from 1997 to 2001 for England and Wales.

  of UK steel exports to the United States. The indirect impact of US imports being deflected to the EU is of potentially greater significance.

  The Department works closely with the UK steel industry to provide support to improve the sector's competitiveness, for example through the Metals Industry Competitiveness Enterprise and the National Metals Technology Centre.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of US tariffs on the import of steel on the steel industry in south-east Wales; and what action she intends to take. [41866]

  Mr. Wilson
  The direct impact on the UK steel industry of the additional US tariffs on their steel imports is likely to be a marked reduction in the approximately 300,000 tonnes of UK steel exports to the United States. The indirect impact of US imports being deflected to the EU is of potentially greater significance.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, set out the Government's reaction to the US measure in her statement to the House on 6 March 2002, Official Report, column 307–19.

  Bioenergy Capital Grants
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will ensure that the bioenergy capital grants scheme is sufficiently flexible to support small and medium sized enterprises, [44052]

  Mr. Wilson
  After considerable consultation with the industry conducted by my Department and the New Opportunities Fund (NOF), we have recently put forward the initial details of the bioenergy capital grants scheme on our website. The initial design takes into account the policy directions which accompany the NOF funding and the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit which accompany the DTI funding. There is no limit to the size of organisation which can be involved, but we envisage setting minimum project sizes to ensure appropriate economies of scale, appropriate electrical efficiency and sufficient supply chain development.

  There may also be scope for support for smaller-scale biomass projects within our forthcoming community and household grants scheme which we are currently developing under the Sustainable Energy Research and Development Programme.

  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate she has made of the cost to the British economy of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive using the methodology set out in the draft document; [42591]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the economic cost of the methods of disposing of waste electrical and electronic equipment in the United Kingdom. [42593]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: An updated partial regulatory impact assessment (RIA) will be placed in the Libraries of the House this month. Based on the latest draft of the directive, the RIA suggests the annual compliance costs of implementing the directive will lie in the range £191 million to £391 million.

  Industry estimates suggest that, by weight, around half of the total UK electrical goods waste arisings currently enter a recycling/recovery process on an economic basis. There will be a cost associated with disposal of the remainder. This will primarily relate to landfilling costs.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from greetings card manufacturers and retailers about the inclusion of musical greeting cards within the scope of the proposed waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. [42592]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: I am not aware of any representations.

  Fuel Poverty
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Government will ensure that sustainable energy and realistic pricing proposals do not increase fuel poverty. [45177]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government will continue with actions to put downward pressure on prices. The Government's Fuel Poverty Strategy also sets out a range of programmes to improve the energy efficiency of homes of the fuel poor. This will help households in fuel poverty and minimise the impact of any possible increases in energy prices. The Government are committed to monitor and report on progress in tackling fuel poverty.

  Energy Research
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Government have spent on energy research and development in each year since 1997. [45175]

  Mr. Wilson
  Government expenditure on energy research and development since 1997 has been in the fields of sustainable energy and nuclear fusion and is set out in the table.

  £ million

  Sustainable energy research:

  DTI programme

  Research councils

  Fusion research

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  13.0

  2.9

  16.6

  1998–99

  11.3

  3.1

  12.6

  690W

  £ million

  Sustainable energy research:

  DTI programme

  Research councils

  Fusion research

  1999–2000

  12.5

  2.4

  14.3

  2000–01

  13.1

  2.8

  14.3

  Provision

  2001–02

  18.5

  5.5

  14.3

  2002–03

  19.0

  7.0

  14.3

  Publicly funded research into nuclear fission reactors stopped in 1994. The Health and Safety Executive co-ordinates a nuclear safety research programme funded by the relevant nuclear licensees.

  Trading Scheme Exemptions
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 520W, on the single tier exemption, what representations were made to her Department for an additional exemption from the relevant provisions of the trading schemes legislation for trading schemes with more than a single master franchise in the UK during (a) the consultation in 1996 and (b) lobbying for the amending SI 1997 No. 1887; and if she will place in the Library the description of Government policy on multi-level trading provided to those requesting additional exemptions during the lobbying for SI No. 1887; and if she will make a statement. [39319]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: At the time of the Trading Schemes Act 1996 and the introduction of supporting subordinate legislation in 1997, parts of the franchise industry proposed exclusion of schemes with more than one master franchiser in the UK.

  In response to some of the representations made, the subordinate legislation was amended to reflect more accurately the policy of excluding from regulatory control master franchise operations in which only the UK master franchiser would benefit from the recruitment of others to the scheme. However, it was decided that schemes with more than one master franchiser could leave a loophole allowing illegitimate schemes to avoid regulatory controls.

  Government policy for legislation in this area has always been:
  to provide a degree of protection to a party who is vulnerable in relation to another, in terms of their financial position and level of business acumen, but
  not to burden legitimate business, particularly the franchise sector, with unnecessary regulation.

  Galileo Project
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with representatives of the German and Dutch Governments on the commercial viability of the Galileo project. [43046]

  Ms Hewitt
  My officials, together with those of other Departments, have held a number of discussions with officials in the German and Dutch Governments about commercial viability and other issues relating to the Galileo project. We share with them and others the view
  691W
  that we support Galileo in principle, subject to satisfying certain conditions on finance, management and civil use. EU level discussions continue in advance of Transport Council.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government will give financial assistance to the Galileo project. [43045]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are already providing funding to the European Space Agency for the first phase of the Galileo programme. I am currently in discussion with my ministerial colleagues about subscribing to the development and validation phase. We expect the EU Transport Council to decide on 26 March whether or not to proceed with Galileo. If the decision is positive, a UK announcement on funding will follow.

  Respiratory Compensation
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been paid in(a) respiratory compensation and (b) legal costs to solicitors. [43965]

  Mr. Wilson
  To date, over £276 million has been paid in compensation and £49 million has been paid to claimants' solicitors in relation to respiratory disease.

  Territorial Forces
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many members of staff of her Department are members of the Territorial forces; and if she has a strategy to encourage members of staff in her Department to become members of the Territorial forces. [44067]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department does not currently keep records of staff who are members of the Territorial forces. While there is no specific strategy to encourage staff to become members of the Territorial forces, my Department does grant special leave with pay of up to eight days a year (plus additional special leave without pay) for normal training. In the event of mobilisation of reserve forces, my Department would respond sympathetically to requests for staff to serve actively. Such absence would be unpaid but count as reckonable for pensions purposes.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government have taken to help the aerospace industry since 1997; and if she will make a statement on her plans for further support. [43920]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government continue to support the aerospace industry through various programmes. For example, since 1997 we have committed nearly £1 billion in Launch Investment to Rolls-Royce and Airbus UK towards developing engines and wings for new aircraft. The Government have also funded over £100 million of research under their civil aeronautics research programme since 1997. The programme, which was renewed last year for a further five years until 2006, will continue to encourage both research and technology demonstration in civil aeronautics. There are also programmes to encourage cross-sectoral activity, for example, business process improvements, e-business and supply chain activity, from which the aerospace industry benefits. The Government 692W
  are also making significant investment in the science base with the Research Council funding of research in a wide range of basic technologies of potential application in aeronautics.

  The Government are undertaking a study with the SBAC to review the future of support to the sector. The Government have also supported retention of a major aeronautics research programme as part of the forthcoming 6'h European Framework programme from which UK companies should gain significant benefit.

  Ian Stillman
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Businesses held concerning the case of Ian Stillman during his visit to India on 3 to 6 February. [43906]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: I understand that Mr. Stillman's case has been raised by ministerial colleagues in the Foreign Office.

  Trade Partners UK
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what public funding Trade Partners UK has had in each year since 1981 in(a) actual and (b) real terms. [45008]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Trade Partners UK was launched in May 2000 and is the trade promotion and development arm of British Trade International. Programme funding of the Government's trade promotion and development activities from 1999, the year British Trade International was established, is as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000 outturn

  56.6

  2000–01 outturn

  70.5

  2001–02 budget

  68.0

  I have placed in the Libraries of the House a more detailed breakdown of current Government support for trade development and promotion, in the expenditure plans reports of British Trade International (Cm 5123), the Department of Trade and Industry (Cm 5112), the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Cm 5110) and British Trade International's resource accounts for 2000–01 (HC 526).

  I have placed in the Libraries of the House information about Government support for trade development and promotion in earlier years, in the expenditure plans reports of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date Trade Partners UK received a request for advice on the attempted acquisition of Sidex by LNM/Ispat; and on what date it replied. [44473]

  Ms Hewitt
  In accordance with previous Administrations, it is not our practice to disclose internal advice to Ministers which is exempt under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services Negotiations
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress her Department has made in consulting universities and colleges of higher education on the inclusion of higher education services in the GATS negotiations at the World Trade Organisation. [44483]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 528–29W. The consultations to which I referred are continuing.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many members of staff at her Department are justices of the peace; and if she has a strategy for her Department to encourage members of staff to become justices of the peace. [44555]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department does not keep records of staff who are justices of the peace. While there is no specific strategy to encourage members of staff to become justices of the peace, my Department does grant special leave with pay of up to 18 days a year (plus reasonable time for travelling to permit up to 26 attendances).

  Compensation Applications
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications have been made for compensation for vibration white finger/carpal tunnel syndrome, broken down by year of application. [44380]

  Mr. Wilson
  Carpal tunnel syndrome, CTS, was not originally included in the Handling Agreement and therefore claimants cannot directly apply for compensation for this disability under the present scheme. However, it was agreed last year between the Department and the claimants' solicitors that CTS is a compensatable condition and these claims would be dealt with alongside vibration white finger, VWF, claims. Where claimants have been diagnosed as suffering from CTS following medical assessment, the Department will make an additional payment. The Department cannot therefore state the numbers of CTS claimants until all valid claimants are assessed.

  The number of claims registered for VWF by year is as follows:

  Number of claims

  1991

  1

  1994

  1

  1995

  1,201

  1996

  8,537

  1997

  9,309

  1998

  12,079

  1999

  23,666

  2000

  60,417

  2001

  18,474

  2002

  4,114

  Total

  137,799

  Nuclear Electricity
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much nuclear electricity general capacity is expected to be decommissioned, in each year of decommissioning. [44339]

  Mr. Wilson
  As with other electricity generation options, decisions on nuclear station lifetimes are a commercial matter for the generating companies. Latest information published by the nuclear generating companies is as follows:

  British Energy stations

  Declared net capability (MW)

  Current expected operational lifetime

  Hinkley Point B

  1,220

  2011

  Hunterston B

  1,190

  2011

  Dungeness B

  1,110

  2008

  Hartlepool

  1,210

  2014

  Heysham I

  1,150

  2014

  Heysham II

  1,250

  2023

  Torness

  1,250

  2023

  Sizewell B PWR

  1,200

  2035+

  Magnox stations

  Capacity (MW)

  Expected lifetime

  Calder Hall

  194

  2006–08

  Chapelcross

  196

  2008–10

  Bradwell

  246

  2002

  Sizewell A

  420

  2006

  Dungeness A

  450

  2006

  Oldbury

  434

  2008

  Wylfa

  980

  2009

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department received prior to the lifting of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations. [44665]

  Mr. Wilson
  Representations were made to the Department throughout the period of the stricter consents policy on the value of the policy and its application to particular projects. It is not realistic to detail all these. However the ministerial decisions of particular cases are a matter of public record.

  Construction Skills Certification Scheme
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much public funding, including EU funding has been made available to the Construction Skills Certification Scheme in each year since its inception. [44224]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: CSCS Ltd. is an independent company limited by guarantee. The Department has not provided any public funding to CSCS. Overall funding is a matter for them.

  The inquiry has been passed to CSCS with the request that they respond directly.

  Women Engineers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to encourage women engineers back to work who have taken time off to raise families; [43576]
  695W
  (2) what plans she has to promote an increase in the number of women entering the engineering profession. [43577]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: The DTI Promoting SET for Women unit works closely with the WISE campaign on a number of projects designed to attract more girls into engineering. We are funding a pilot mentoring scheme by WES/AWISE which will encourage and support both entrants and returners to science and engineering careers.

  Export Licence Requirements
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether export licence requirements extend to the production in countries outside the EU of weapons, vehicles and equipment otherwise licensable in the military list as part of offset deals on the sale of services and intellectual property involving UK firms. [44710]

  Nigel Griffiths
  An export licence is not required from the Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation to manufacture items outside the UK. However, where the product to be manufactured under commercial licence has a potential military use, the UK exporter might require an export licence before the goods and technology necessary for the establishment and operation of the licensed production facility can be supplied from the UK.

  The Government have made it clear that an export licence will not be issued where to do so would be in contravention of the Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, including where there is a clear risk that the finished products could be used for internal repression, international aggression, or diverted to an undesirable end-user.

  Company Law Review
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made with regard to the company law review; and if she will make a statement. [44778]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for State for Competition, consumers and Markets to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 982W.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the British percentage was of inward investment into the EU from(a) the USA, (b) the G7 countries and (c) Japan in each of the last 20 years. [44781]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is in the following table:

  UK share of G7 foreign direct investment into the EU 1994–99 Percentage of stock level at year end

  USA

  G7 total1

  Japan

  1994

  37.1

  20.6

  23.2

  1995

  34.6

  19.3

  23.2

  1996

  36.0

  20.7

  25.0

  1997

  40.1

  24.4

  27.9

  1998

  34.5

  21.1

  25.9

  696W

  UK share of G7 foreign direct investment into the EU 1994–99 Percentage of stock level at year end

  USA

  G7 total1

  Japan

  1999

  33.0

  21.5

  14.9

  1G7 comprises of UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada and USA.

  Note:

  Eurostat Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) statistics have been quoted to ensure consistent comparison between countries and are based on inward FDI stock figures as reported by individual EU member states. Outward FDI stocks in the EU published by other non-EU country statistical offices may differ from those published by Eurostat. For example, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis statistics reported than in 1999 the UK received 41 per cent. of US outward FDI stocks. There are a number of widely recognised technical reasons why such apparent discrepancies arise.

  Source:

  Eurostat New Cronos database.

  EU Tariffs
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the cost to(a) EU countries and (b) the UK economy of tariffs applied by the EU in the last year for which figures are available. [44764]

  Ms Hewitt
  In 2000, the latest full year for which figures are available, on total UK imports of £222.6 billion the customs duty charged was £1.8 billion.

  In the same year on total EU imports, including UK imports, of £1,525 billion, the customs duty charged was £8.9 billion.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many tariffs the EU has applied to goods from outside the EU in each of the last 20 years. [44780]

  Ms Hewitt
  The European Union's 2002 Common Customs Tariff has 10,400 lines. A positive "most favoured nation" "full" rate of duty is payable on 8,270 of these lines, although in most cases one or more "preferential" (i.e. lower) rates of duty is payable on imports from a range of countries. On the remaining 2,130 lines, no duty is payable.

  Equivalent information for earlier years is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Broadband Access
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the(a) total number and (b) percentage of (i) homes and (ii) businesses in the UK that have broadband access. [44784]

  Ms Hewitt
  A map showing availability of broadband services in the UK was contained in the UK Online annual report 2001. The report states that 60–65 per cent. of the population (equating to around 15 million households) is now covered by at least one affordable broadband technology.

  Oftel have reported that there were some 350,000 subscribers to ADSL and cable modem services as at 25 January 2002.
  697W
  DTI's Business in the Information Age International Benchmarking Report 2001 provides information on the information and communication technologies used by businesses.

  Copies of these documents have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress made in establishing the universal bank. [44789]

  Ms Hewitt
  Progress continues to be made on universal banking services.

  Union membership in Great Britain, 1990 to 2001

  Workers1 in employment

  Workers1 in private sector

  Workers1 in public sector

  Year

  Members (Thousand)

  Union density

  Members (Thousand)

  Union density

  Members (Thousand)

  Union density

  1990

  8,835

  33.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  8,602

  33.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  7,956

  32.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  7,767

  31.5

  3,920

  23.7

  3,847

  64.4

  1994

  7,530

  30.1

  3,825

  22.5

  3,705

  63.6

  1995

  7,309

  28.8

  3,651

  21.3

  3,658

  61.4

  1996

  7,244

  28.2

  3,629

  20.6

  3,615

  60.9

  1997

  7,154

  27.3

  3,605

  19.7

  3,548

  60.8

  1998

  7,152

  26.9

  3,590

  19.2

  3,561

  60.7

  1999

  7,257

  27.0

  3,649

  19.2

  3,609

  59.8

  2000

  7,321

  27.0

  3,600

  18.7

  3,720

  60.0

  2001

  7,270

  26.5

  3,606

  18.4

  3,664

  58.1

  1Includes all those in employment, excluding members of the armed forces, unpaid family workers, and those on college based schemes.

  European Trade Mark Law
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 13 December 2001,Official Report, column 944W, what progress has been made towards liberalising European trade mark law. [44787]

  Ms Hewitt
  The European Parliament has called on the Commission to report on the implications for industry, consumers and employment of liberalisation of European trade mark law and to submit detailed proposals by the end of this year.

  In the meantime, we continue to work bilaterally with our European partners to build the necessary consensus for change. Unanimity is needed for change to the Community Trade Mark Regulation. Although some member states support change, a number remain unconvinced.

  Low Carbon Vehicles
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Government have spent on the research and development of low carbon vehicles since 1997. [45176]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DTI's Foresight Vehicle Programme is supporting 20 "low carbon vehicles" projects valued at £25.5 million of which Government's contribution is £9.7 million. The projects include work on advanced lightweight materials, alternative systems for powertrain such as hybridisation and improved conventional internal combustion engines. The Foresight Vehicle Programme is

  Trade Union Membership
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of workers belonged to trade unions in each of the last 20 years; and what the figures were broken down into(a) public and (b) private sector workers. [44765]

  Ms Hewitt
  The number of workers who are members of a trade union can be estimated annually from the results of the autumn Labour Force Survey. The number and percentage of workers in Great Britain is given in the table. Data are available for union membership from 1990 and can be sub-divided for the private and public sector from 1993.

  carrying out technology road mapping which will identify R&D priorities for future phases of Foresight Vehicle and inform requirements such as those outlined in the Government's draft "Powering Future Vehicles" strategy. The strategy seeks to accelerate the transition in the UK to a low carbon transport systems.

  Since 1992, the DTI's Advanced Fuel Cells Programme has supported industrial R&D in the fuel cells area including stack development, fuel processing and systems development for both transport and stationary power generation applications. Some of the work is generic so it is not possible to be precise regarding the expenditure specifically relating to vehicles. It is estimated that since 1997 work which is wholly or primarily relevant to vehicle applications of fuel cells has amounted to £2.4 million.

  The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council supports research into transport operations, manufacture and management. Areas covered include improving engine efficiencies, road management, environmental impacts, social inclusion and safety. The £10 million EPSRC research portfolio covering transport operations and management consists of 97 active grants, of which an estimated £500,000 per year relates to low carbon vehicles. EPSRC also supports fuel cell research. The research portfolio is shared between engineering, chemistry and materials programmes of the EPSRC which estimates overall support of around £2 million a year for fuel cell research across all programmes.

  Renewable Energy
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if the proposed renewables obligations fund over three years includes research into the nuclear option; [45178]

  (2) what proportion of the renewables obligation fund is earmarked for (a) solar voltaics, (b) offshore wind and (c) tidal and/or sea powered power generation. [45179]

  Mr. Wilson
  The renewables obligation will require licensed electricity suppliers to demonstrate through a system of renewables obligation certificates (ROCs) that they have bought a specified proportion of their electricity from renewable sources. Alternatively, suppliers may meet their obligation through the independent market purchase of ROCs. The renewables obligation will thus provide a substantial market incentive for the UK renewable energy industry as a whole. Electricity suppliers will be free to choose the sources of renewable electricity that enable them to meet their obligation most cost-effectively.

  Suppliers who do not present the required number of ROCs will be required to make a buy-out payment corresponding to the extent that their purchases of renewable electricity fall short of the specified amount. The buy-out price will be set initially at 3 pence per kilowatt hour. The proceeds from the buy-out payments will be recycled to suppliers in proportion to the number of ROCs presented. The recycling of the buy-out payments will thus provide an extra incentive to suppliers to meet their obligation.

  Separately from the operation of the renewables obligation, the Government are providing over £260 million over the three-year period to March 2004 for the direct support of renewable energy initiatives, including capital grants for early demonstration schemes, and research grants.

  Of this direct support money, £20 million has been specifically allocated to solar photovoltaics (PV), £74 million to offshore wind, and £5 million to wave and tidal energy; in addition, finance for research and development projects in these areas will be available through the DTI's Sustainable Energy Programme and through the Research Councils.

  The Government do not currently fund nuclear fission research and development, but are currently active participants in a range of international forums that cover nuclear fission including the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the EU's Euratom Framework Programme and the Generation IV initiative.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on plans to utilise renewable energy sources within Wales. [44042]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government's role in the promotion of renewable energy is to set the framework but leave the market to decide on the type and location of projects to be pursued.

  The Renewables Obligation will apply to Wales and England (with a corresponding arrangement in Scotland), providing an assured market for renewables until 2027.
  700W
  Subject to parliamentary approval, we anticipate that the Renewables Obligation will come into effect on 1 April 2002.

  Consent for projects under 50 MW, except offshore wind, is normally a matter for local determination. For larger projects in Wales as in England, I have the appropriate consent powers, which are exercised after extensive consultation with all interested parties, including the Welsh Assembly Government.

  Wales has much potential for renewable energy projects. The regional assessment conducted for Wales indicated that Wales could deliver between 4 per cent. and 13 per cent. of the UK Renewables Obligation target. It also said:
  "Whether the higher end of the target range is reached will depend almost entirely on the deployment of wind energy and biomass schemes".

  Nuclear Reactor Design
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluations her Department has made of new nuclear reactor and nuclear power plant design and operation in(a) South Africa, (b) America and (c) Canada. [44808]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK is involved in international nuclear systems work including the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), started by the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) to promote and develop better longer-term nuclear reactor designs. South Africa, America and Canada are all among the 10 countries that participate in the forum.

  The evaluation of specific new reactor designs is a matter for UK generating companies and the market, as with all generation options.

  UK Arms Sales
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list arms sales from UK companies to India and Pakistan approved since 1997. [44761]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation does not record arms sales. 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 a sale.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people have been employed by her Department in each of the last three years under(a) the New Deal for Young People, (b) the New Deal for the Over 50s and (c) the New Deal for Lone Parents; and at what cost, listed by category, to public funds. [44911]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:
  701W

  Scheme

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Young People

  4

  1

  8

  Over 50s

  0

  0

  1

  Lone Parents

  0

  0

  2

  In addition to the above, my Department has appointed 10 New Deal participants from the 25+scheme during the same period.

  New Deal recruits are appointed to existing vacancies so extra costs to public funds are limited to the subsidy, where appropriate, and any additional training and development which may be needed. The cost of the latter cannot be readily identified.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people employed by her Department under the new deal for young people in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseekers' allowance or other benefits. [45090]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has appointed 26 new dealers during the period in question, 24 of whom are, or have been, employed by the Department on an unsubsidised basis. Of those new deal participants appointed under the scheme, four have been successful in securing permanent employment with the Department, while six others have departed, Of the latter, it is not possible to identify how many remained in alternative unsubsidised employment, or returned to jobseeker's allowance or other benefits.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what creche facilities are provided by her Department; and at what cost. [44853]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following are DTI's child care provisions for its staff.

  Holiday Playscheme

  Departmental staff in central London have access to a 32-place holiday playscheme for a minimum of 54 days each year. Staff contribute £14.00 per place towards the £31.00 daily fee. DTI HQ staff in Cardiff have access to a local Easter and summer holiday playscheme for a contribution of £8.00 per place towards the £16.00 daily fee.

  Nursery Places

  Departmental staff in central London have access to six nursery places (divided equally between under 2s and over 2-year-olds) at the inter-departmental nursery. The weekly cost to the Department for a full-time place for an under 2-year-old is £200.50 and £169.00 fo0r 2-year-olds and over. Staff contribution is levied at a flat rate of £103 per week for a full-time place, irrespective of the age of the child. Children attending the nursery on a part-time basis are charged a pro rata rate.

  DTI's total expenditure on child care for this financial year is £43,995.00.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed. [44888]
  702W
  Ms Hewitt
  The following projects have been delayed:

  Private finance initiative: The redevelopment of the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington.

  Public private partnerships: British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price for PPP contracts let by her Department in each of the last four years; and if she will make a statement. [45617]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has not let any PPP contracts in the last four years.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases have been brought against her Department under the Human Rights Act 1998; and what has been the cost in(a) legal fees to defend cases and (b) compensation payments. [45061]

  Ms Hewitt
  We do not collect central records of all cases in which the Human Rights Act 1998 is relied on. Human rights are now integrated in the general law and are rarely the sole basis for a challenge. We do monitor centrally those cases which we consider may be of particular significance to this Department.

  We do not collect separate information centrally about the costs to public funds, legal fees or compensation payments in cases which include a human rights issue. In most cases it will be difficult to single out associated costs relating to the human rights element.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which public service agreement targets that are scheduled to be met in 2002 will not be achieved by the due date. [44839]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information abut progress on public service agreement targets will be published in the DTI's 2002 departmental report.

  FYR Macedonia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements are in place to encourage trade between the UK and FYR Macedonia. [45242]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In June 2001, Trade Partners UK organised representation of 12 UK companies at the Skopje International Fair. Trade Partners UK also arranged a programme for representatives of two major Macedonian food importers visiting the International Food Exhibition in London.

  A similar programme of events is planed for 2002–03.

  In addition, Trade Partners UK offers a full range of services to exporters by way of inquiry handling, briefing, and general advice and support for market entry.

  Pollution (Irish Sea)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list pollution incidents involving discharges above 0.01 tonnes in the Irish sea from 9 July
  703W
  2001 to the latest available date, stating the (a) date,
  (b) size of incident, (c) name of company reporting the spill and (d) name of the company responsible in each case. [44002]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The information relating to oil spill incidents in the Irish sea basin, reported to the Department of Trade and Industry, from 9 July 2001 to the present date is as follows.

  Date

  Amount

  Reported by

  Responsible company

  14 September 2001

  0.1

  BHP

  BHP

  DTI only receives reports for oil spills reported from or attributed to offshore installations.

  Greenwich Mean Time
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will confine GMT to the period between the last Sunday in November and the last Sunday in January. [45345]

  Alan Johnson
  There are no plans to reduce the period of GMT. The start and end dates of summer time are harmonised across EC member states through a European directive.

  India
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what joint programmes her Department has to promote bilateral trade with India. [43596]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The full range of services of British Trade International—both for trade and investment—are available to British companies seeking to do business with India which is a very important market for the United Kingdom. Trade Partners UK is responsible for helping UK exporters and outward investment, while Invest UK seeks to attract Indian investors, who are coming to the UK in growing numbers.

  The Indo-British Partnership (IBP) was created in 1993 to encourage trade and investment between our two countries. Since the inception of the IBP UK-India trade has grown by 45 per cent. and, including invisibles, is now worth £5 billion a year.

  The Enterprise Initiative: India is a current Trade Partners UK programme designed to help small and medium sized UK companies to enter the Indian market. The initiative offers a variety of services to British exporters.

  Rail Lines (Kent)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many meetings the South East England Development Agency has had since its inception with(a) Railtrack, (b) the Strategic Rail Authority and (c) Connex SE to discuss the issue of power shortages and infrastructure planning on the (i) London Victoria to Sittingbourne, (ii) London Bridge to Sittingbourne and (iii) Cannon Street to Sittingbourne railway lines. [46183]

  Alan Johnson
  None.

  Fenestration (Self-assessment)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action her Department is taking to enable small traders to join the fenestration self-assessment scheme. [42720]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  I recently made regulations which allow a person registered with the Fenestration Self-Assessment Scheme (FENSA) to certify to local authorities that replacement glazing they undertake complies with the Building Regulations. FENSA has been developed by the Glass and Glazing Federation (GGF) in consultation with, among others, key industry representative bodies, local authorities, and my Department.

  From the start it was the Department's requirement that the scheme should be open, fair and cost-effective. Any business of any size is able to join the scheme. All firms are required to pay a standard registration fee of £100, in addition to a vetting fee of £200. The vetting fee is not required however, if the firm has already been vetted by another body which has standards comparable to FENSA. Currently 19 such bodies are recognised. Therefore the majority of firms applying to FENSA do not need to pay the vetting fee. On top of the vetting fee there is an annual fee of £50, and a transaction charge of under £1 per certificate issued to local authorities—£2 if not undertaken electronically. All these costs are exclusive of VAT. Inspection will be undertaken on 1 per cent. of installations, subject to a minimum of two and a maximum of 100. These will cost around £100 per inspection. The firm is also required to purchase Approved Documents L1 and N.

  I do not consider these costs to be punitive. FENSA represents a cost-effective mechanism for companies to ensure compliance with the Building Regulations, while at the same time, providing the necessary safeguards to ensure consumer confidence. Fees set below this level would not allow the necessary number of checks to be undertaken, or the development and maintenance of a satisfactory database which eases the certification process for the installer. I consider that no special measures are required for small traders.

  Business Links
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many calls have been received by the Business Links national call centres since April 2001; and what proportion of these were re-directed to each of the local business link providers. [46191]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Business Link National Contact Centre (BLNCC) has received 52,450 calls between 2 April 2001 and 17 March 2002. Of these calls, 11,560 were referred to Business Link operators, while 26,187 calls were fulfilled by the BLNCC (for example arranging mailing of small business literature). The remaining calls were fulfilled by referral to other sources of expertise (such as Farm Business Advisory Service or the Small Business Service equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). A full breakdown of the number of calls passed on to the local Business Link operators is as follows:
  705W

  Local business link provider

  Number of calls

  Bedfordshire

  105

  Birmingham

  193

  Black Country

  180

  Cambridgeshire

  191

  Cheshire and Warrington

  206

  County Durham

  114

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  142

  Cumbria

  810

  Derbyshire

  167

  Devon and Cornwall

  556

  East Lancashire

  156

  Essex

  268

  Gloucestershire

  162

  Greater Manchester and Wigan

  349

  Hereford and Worcester

  190

  Hertfordshire

  184

  Humberside

  90

  Kent

  218

  Leicestershire

  210

  Lincolnshire

  168

  London

  2,742

  Merseyside

  144

  Milton Keynes, Oxford and Berkshire

  295

  North and West Lancashire

  211

  Norfolk

  132

  North Manchester Chambers Business Services Ltd.

  119

  North Yorkshire

  218

  Northamptonshire

  94

  Northumberland

  124

  Nottinghamshire

  152

  Shropshire

  119

  Somerset

  136

  South Yorkshire

  143

  Staffordshire

  140

  Suffolk

  140

  Surrey

  236

  Sussex

  250

  Tees Valley

  65

  Tyne and Wear

  112

  West

  147

  Wessex (formally Hampshire, Dorset and IOW)

  544

  West Yorkshire

  335

  Wiltshire, Swindon and Berkshire

  303

  Carbon Emissions
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress her Department has made in cutting carbon emissions; and if she will make a statement on the likelihood of the UK achieving its emissions targets set by the Kyoto protocol. [44416]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK's Third National Communication on Climate Change, published last October, reports progress with implementing our climate change programme. We have made excellent progress so far in cutting greenhouse emissions which we estimate have fallen by about 13 per cent. between 1990 and 2000. The Climate Change Programme, published in November 2000, outlines a range of policies that we estimate could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 23 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. This is well in excess of our 12.5 per cent. Kyoto target.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many days were lost due to industrial action (a) in the public sector and (b) in total in each of the last 20 years. [44783]
  706W
  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. John Whittingdale, dated 25 March 2002
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of days lost due to industrial action in the last 20 years. I am replying in his absence. (44783)
  There are no statistics specifically for the public sector but figures on the public administration, education and health industries provide most of the information on the public sector as it is today. The figures are arranged according to the Standard Industrial Classifications of 1968, 1980 and 1992. Because of differences in Standard Industrial Classification coverage and the exclusion of certain industries (e.g. coal and steel) that have dropped out of the public sector since the 1980's, caution needs to be exercised in making comparisons.
  Information is given in the attached table. The way the information is presented reflects the changes in Standard Industrial Classification.

  Working days lost due to UK labour disputes

  £000

  SIC 1968

  Professional and scientific services; public administration and defence

  Whole economy

  1981

  1,165

  4,266

  1982

  1,201

  5,313

  Working days lost due to UK labour disputes

  £000

  SIC 1980

  Public administration, sanitary services, education, medical and health sercices

  Whole economy

  1983

  121

  3,754

  1984

  786

  27,135

  1985

  990

  6,402

  1986

  460

  1,920

  1987

  945

  3,546

  1988

  290

  3,702

  1989

  2,388

  4,128

  1990

  520

  1,903

  1991

  363

  761

  1992

  329

  528

  1993

  341

  649

  Working days lost due to UK labour disputes

  £000

  SIC 1992

  Public administration, education and health and social work

  Whole economy

  1994

  86

  278

  1995

  178

  415

  1996

  295

  1,303

  1997

  65

  235

  1998

  50

  282

  1999

  66

  242

  2000

  221

  499

  2001P1

  327

  518

  1 'P' equals provisional

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  GM Crops
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many GM crop trials there were in each constituency in each year since 1990. [34873]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: Since the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations (1993) came into force in the UK, a total of 193 consents have been issued to release GM crops to the environment for research purposes. These include the farm scale evaluations, national list trials and a number of other research trials. Releases have taken place at about 1,000 different locations as most consents permit trials at more than one release site. We do not have the figures available in the form requested. However, the DEFRA website contains extracts from the public register, which list the locations by grid reference of all releases as part of experimental trials since 1993 and all sites in the farm scale evaluation programme.

  Waste
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with officers from the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority regarding their soil improver product. [38403]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no such discussions. However, I met the authority on 11 March and the issue of composting and the soil improver was raised.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what work her Department has undertaken to determine final storage quality for the treatment of hazardous waste before acceptance into a hazardous landfill site; [43616]

  (2) what representations she has received against requiring hazardous waste from 2004 to be treated to final storage quality before acceptance into a landfill site; [43617]

  (3) what risk assessment her Department has undertaken on the impact on the environment and on public health of not requiring hazardous waste from 2004 to be pre-tested to final storage quality before acceptance into a landfill site. [43619]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government do not consider that there is as yet a clear or accepted understanding of what is meant by the term "final storage quality". We have therefore not undertaken work to determine what treatment such a standard would require before hazardous waste could be sent to landfill or conducted a risk assessment on the impact of not applying such a standard after July 2004.

  The Environment Agency has produced draft guidance on standards for treatment of hazardous waste going to landfill following implementation of the directive. The guidance is based on a determination of the best practicable environmental option for individual waste streams and, where processes are regulated under the PPC, the obligation to employ best available techniques with regard to the production of wastes and their
  708W
  treatment. The Government consulted on this approach in the Second Consultation paper on Implementation of the Landfill Directive. A wide range of responses were received from consultees including a number arguing against the treatment of hazardous waste to "final storage quality" though interpretation of what was meant by the term varied.

  The standards to which hazardous waste will have to be treated to go to landfill will ultimately be determined by the waste acceptance criteria for hazardous waste landfills which are still under negotiation in Europe.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department made of the quantities of hazardous waste that will require treatment in(a) 2005, (b) 2006, (c) 2007, (d) 2008, (e) 2009 and (f) 2010. [43618]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has made no estimates of the amount of hazardous waste that will require treatment from 2005 to 2010.

  At present approximately 53 per cent. of hazardous waste arisings are landfilled. It is estimated that approximately 41 per cent. of current arisings will continue to be able to be landfilled following the implementation of the bans in July 2002. The amount of hazardous waste that will continue to be landfilled beyond July 2004 and will hence need to be pre-treated will depend on a range of factors. These include general trends in hazardous waste arisings, changes to the definition of hazardous waste, the availability of hazardous waste landfill capacity, the availability of alternative disposal routes such as incineration, and implementation of the waste acceptance criteria currently under negotiation in Brussels which will set out what hazardous wastes can go to hazardous waste sites or to separate cells in non-hazardous landfill sites.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 217W, on waste disposal, (1) what steps her Department has taken to meet the target of banning the landfilling of hazardous liquid wastes from July; and for what reason her Department does not hold information on the locations of individual treatment facilities for liquid waste; [43428]

  (2) how many treatment facilities there are in the UK for liquid waste; what assessment her Department has made of the availability of treatment facilities; and what assessment her Department has made of whether the target of banning the landfilling of hazardous liquid wastes from July will be met. [44363]

  Mr. Meacher
  The forthcoming Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations will impose the ban on the landfilling of hazardous liquid wastes by making it an offence for landfill site operators to accept such wastes for disposal beyond July 2002.

  The regulation of individual waste treatment facilities is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. The agency holds details of the location of all licensed waste treatment facilities on their central licensing and charging databases but these records do not identify which individual sites are permitted to accept liquid wastes. This information is not held centrally because, for the purposes of regulating the sites, the physical nature of the waste is only

  709W
  significant at the individual site level. Control over the type of waste that can be accepted at any given site and over specific problems associated with handling liquids, is exercised through the conditions of individual licences, details of which are held at local area offices and which could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department, in conjunction with the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly, has undertaken an assessment of the landfill directive for the future management of wastes banned from landfill.

  The aims and objectives of the study were:
  to identify and evaluate the potential impact of the landfill directive on the management of hazardous wastes and liquid wastes in the UK, and
  to identify and assess the alternative waste management options that may be available to ensure the continued safe management of wastes for which landfilling will be banned under the landfill directive.

  The study found that there was sufficient alternative disposal systems (in use or planned) to cope with the large volume of organic process waste streams requiring diversion from landfill. It also suggested that additional facilities might be required for oily wastes, contaminated soils, and inorganic chemical wastes. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Landfill Directive
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of the number of new treatment facilities that will be required to achieve compliance with the United Kingdom's obligations under the landfill directive. [43620]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department, in conjunction with the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly, has undertaken an assessment of the implications of the landfill directive for the future management of wastes banned from landfill.

  The aims and objectives of the study were:
  to identify and evaluate the potential impact of the landfill directive on the management of hazardous wastes and liquid wastes in the UK, and
  to identify and assess the alternative waste management options that may be available to ensure the continued safe management of wastes for which landfilling will be banned under the landfill directive.

  The study found that there was sufficient alternative disposal systems (in use or planned) to cope with the large volume of organic process waste streams requiring diversion from landfill. It also suggested that additional facilities might be required for oily wastes, contaminated soils, and inorganic chemical wastes. Copies of the study have been disseminated widely.

  Further work is currently under way to assess the availability of pre-treatment facilities for those hazardous waste streams that can continue to go to landfill after July 2002.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the landfill directive regulations will he laid before Parliament. [43621]
  710W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Government aim to lay the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations before the Easter recess.

  Sewers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the timetable is for developing and applying criteria for determining long-term investment in sewers. [39481]

  Mr. Meacher
  The 10 water and sewerage companies in England and Wales are responsible for managing investment in their sewerage systems, both in capital maintenance and in new provision.

  This Department, the Office of Water Services (Ofwat), Environment Agency, Drinking Water Inspectorate and water companies have worked closely together on a water industry capital maintenance framework, covering sewerage systems as well as other asset systems. A jointly commissioned study will be published in May.

  Ofwat will shortly hold a preliminary consultation on its approach to capital maintenance at the forthcoming review of price limits. Ofwat with the Environment Agency have consulted on enhancements to the serviceability indicators for assets against which companies report to Ofwat. The new indicators will be used for the first time in companies' returns to be made in June 2002 and so provide better information for draft and final business plans.

  Ofwat also issued, on 13 March 2002, "Flooding from sewers—A way forward" which consults on how companies should bring forward investment proposals to address sewer flooding both in the short term before 2005 and in the longer term for the period 2005–10. The consultation ends on 15 June.

  The steps and timetable leading up to setting price limits in 2004 for the period 2005–10 are set out in "Ofwat Forward Programme 2002–03 to 2004–05" which was published on 21 March 2002. This year Ofwat will consult on its approach to the periodic review in October and in December the Government will issue guidance on the policies and programmes requiring investment in sewerage services.

  Kirkby Stephen (Sheep)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the sheep at Kirkby Stephen were tested for the foot and mouth(a) virus and (b) antibody before restocking; and if she will make a statement. [39509]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: All animals used for controlled restocking must come from farms which have been inspected and found free from foot and mouth disease (FMD).

  The sheep used to restock at Kirkby Stephen came from two sources. One source was tested for antibodies in September and in November with negative results on both occasions. The second source was also tested for antibodies in August and November, with negative results on both occasions. Neither flock was tested for virus.

  Ofgem
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she has
  711W
  taken to ensure that Ofgem abides by the content and spirit of the Government's departmental guidelines on the integration of environmental policies. [39979]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Utilities Act 2000 provided for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority about the making by the authority of a contribution towards the attainment of social or environmental policies set out in the guidance.

  The Department has consulted on drafts of the guidance, and is now looking afresh at the guidance in the light of the Energy Review report published on 14 February by the Performance and Innovation Unit, which has implications for the guidance.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to question 31593 tabled for answer on 29 January regarding a breakdown of the total costs of the foot and mouth epidemic. [40368]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 25 February 2002, Official Report, 916W.

  Milk Prices
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much dairy farmers received per litre of milk in each of the past 10 years. [40768]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows the annual average farm-gate milk prices, including bonuses, paid to farmers between 1992 and 2001, for raw milk in the UK.

  Annual average UK farm-gate milk prices1

  Pence per litre

  1992

  20.95

  1993

  21.97

  1994

  22.43

  1995

  24.94

  1996

  25.02

  1997

  22.12

  1998

  19.37

  1999

  18.35

  2000

  16.93

  20012

  19.26

  1Actual fat content

  2Provisional

  Source:

  1992–94 Milk Marketing Boards; 1995 onwards DEFRA

  Scottish Executive
  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 Environment European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 4 March; and what information is being provided by her Department to guarantee effective pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [40319]
  712W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: A Scottish Executive Minister was not part of the UK delegation at the Environmental Council on 4 March. On the second point, it is the responsibility of the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise Scottish Executive involvement in preparations for EU Council meetings. The Department provides information to Scottish Executive officials as part of that process.

  Airports
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 918W, on airport runway capacity, when she will place a copy of the exchange of letters between the Permanent Secretaries in her Department and the DTLR in the Library. [41770]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 8 March 2002]: This was deposited in the Library of the House on 11 March.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to notify(a) consultants and (b) producers involved in advising on the installation of air conditioning during refurbishment of Government buildings of the Government's view on hydrofluorocarbons as a non-sustainable technology; and if she will make a statement. [41182]

  Mr. Meacher
  The position of HFCs was made clear in the UK climate change programme that was produced in November 2000. It recognised that HFCs are not sustainable in the long-term and that technological developments may eventually make it possible to replace them in applications where they are used. The programme also stated that HFC emission reduction strategies should not undermine commitments to phase out ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal protocol while making it clear they should only be used where other safe, technically feasible, cost-effective and more environmentally acceptable alternatives do not exist. This position is reflected in the advice make available on the Greening Government website for managers on the Government estate, consultants and manufacturers of air conditioning systems. However, there may be scope under the EC procurement rules for Government Departments to work more closely with their suppliers and this is one of the issues that is being considered by the cross-Government Sustainable Procurement Group recently established by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Green Classification
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to refuse the classification of green to a Government building if the latter procures refrigerants and air conditioners in a manner that conflicts with the Government's objectives on climate change. [41177]

  Mr. Meacher
  There is already a requirement on Government Departments to contribute to our climate change objectives by achieving high ratings on new buildings and major refurbishments under the Building
  713W
  Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM). BREEAM seeks to discourage the unnecessary use of cooling in buildings through a range of credits relating to emissions of CO2. There are also specific credits for use of non-ozone depleting refrigerants and leakage prevention systems. The method does not at the moment discourage refrigerants with a high global warming potential as the alternatives that are currently available are not always appropriate. However, the issue is being monitored as part of the annual review of BREEAM.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of(a) organic and (b) non-organic (i) dairy products, (ii) meat, (iii) fruit, (iv) vegetables, (v) cereals and (vi) eggs sold in the UK in the last 12 months were imported; what assessment she has made of the proportion of these products that could be grown in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [42168]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Official figures are not available on the proportion of organic sales that are imported. The following table provides estimates produced by the Soil Association in their Organic Food and Farming Report 2001.

  Percentage of organic sales imported

  Dairy products

  35

  Meat

  45

  Fruit and vegetables

  85

  Cereals (and baked products)

  80

  Eggs

  10

  Rural Work Force
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the rural work force were employed in(a) agriculture, (b) rural tourism, (c) rural public sector and (d) rural private sector jobs by category in each year since 1990; and if she will make a statement. [42912]

  Alun Michael
  The table identifies the proportion of the rural work force employed in agriculture, tourism, public sector and private sector in England between 1995 and 2000. Data are not available for other years.

  (a) Agriculture

  (b) Tourism

  (c) Public sector

  (d) Private sector

  1995

  —

  25

  26

  49

  1996

  —

  24

  26

  49

  1997

  5

  23

  25

  48

  1998

  3

  23

  26

  48

  1999

  3

  22

  26

  49

  2000

  3

  24

  26

  48

  Notes:

  1. Agriculture—agriculture and fishing from SIC 1992 broad industrial groups. Data for 1995 and 1996 are not available on a comparable basis.

  2. Tourism—distribution, hotels and restaurants from SIC 1992 broad industrial groups (best proxy measure). There are no data specifically on rural tourism.

  3. Public sector—public administration, education and health from SIC 1992 broad industrial groups.

  4. Private sector—other six categories within SIC 1992.
  714W
  5. Rural areas are defined as the rural local authority districts and unitary authorities as classified by the Rural Development Commission and currently used by the Countryside Agency.

  Sources:

  1995–97 data from Annual Employment Survey via NOMIS.

  1998–2000 data from Annual Business Inquiry via NOMIS.

  Kyoto Agreement
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress towards implementation of the Kyoto agreement. [40125]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 March 2002]: Agreement at the climate change talks in Bonn and Marrakesh in 2001 on the detailed rules for implementation of the Kyoto protocol opened the way for ratification and entry into force of the protocol. In order for the Kyoto protocol to enter into force, it must be ratified by at least 55 countries, including countries accounting for at least 55 per cent. of industrialised countries' emissions in 1990. Without US participation, it is essential for both Russia and Japan to ratify as well as the EU.

  A European Community decision to ratify Kyoto was adopted on 4 March. This paved the way for the UK and the other EU member states to complete their own ratification procedures. On 7 March, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a statement to the House setting in motion the process of UK ratification. Once the protocol has been before Parliament for 21 sitting days, the Foreign Secretary will be in a position to sign the ratification instrument and will do so on or shortly after 19 April. For legal and presentational reasons, the European Community and each of its member states have agreed to deposit their instruments of ratification with the UN Depository simultaneously. Since entry into force of the protocol will occur only 90 days after the prescribed number of ratification instruments have been deposited, the aim is to do this by early June at the latest to allow entry into force by the World Summit on Sustainable Development. We are encouraging other countries to work to this deadline.

  The UK is making strong progress with implementing its climate change programme which we estimate could reduce our emissions by 23 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. This is significantly over and above our 12.5 per cent. Kyoto target.

  The UK has set a domestic goal to exceed this target through the measures set out in the Government's Climate Change Programme, published in November 2000. This aims to cut CO2 emissions alone by 20 per cent.—we are well on course to achieve this and shall continue to evaluate our progress regularly. Measures set out in the UK Climate Change Programme aim to drive emission reductions over the next decade and into the future. Some examples include: the climate change levy, a new Energy Efficiency Commitment, an obligation to increase the production of energy from renewable sources by 10 per cent. by 2020 and an emissions trading scheme which is due to go live in April.

  Canals
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make
  715W
  a statement on the use of canals by industry; and what plans there are to improve the canal infrastructure to encourage industry to use them. [43527]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Freight Study Group was set up by the Government in November 2000 to examine the scope for increasing freight traffic on the inland waterways of England and Wales. My noble Friend the Lord Whitty is considering the Group's report with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Jamieson), and will make an announcement in due course.

  Air Pollution
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will indicate, in respect of the new risk-based regulation methodology being developed for air pollution, who is carrying out the work; when this process began; when it will end; and if she will place a copy of related documentation in the Library. [43423]

  Mr. Meacher
  Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd. were commissioned by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions in June 2000 to develop a methodology for risk-based regulation in relation to the Local Air Pollution Control system. Their report was published in November 2000 and was placed on the DETR website and is now to be found on the DEFRA website. The same firm was commissioned in May last year to undertake trials of the methodology recommended out of the four drawn up by the first stage of their work. The report is currently being finalised and will be placed on the DEFRA website in due course. I will decide the next steps on receipt of the report.

  EU Policy Reform
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her objectives are regarding reform of the(a) Common Agricultural Policy and (b) Common Fisheries Policy. [43083]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: On the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, our goal is to reduce the overall burden of the CAP, delivering better value for money to taxpayers and consumers; greater reflection of animal welfare concerns; a better deal for the environment; and a better deal for farmers.

  We want to see market price support and production controls phased out, with transitional support payments to help farmers to adjust. This should be complemented by a shift towards the "second pillar" of the CAP, thus expanding the resources available for targeted support for rural development and agri-environment schemes.

  Our primary objective for the Common Fisheries Policy must be for a policy which is both economically and environmentally sustainable and one which involves stakeholders more closely in management decisions affecting them. Only in that way will the CFP attract support and credibility from fishermen, ensure responsible stock management and give the promise of a viable future. I strongly agree with the Commission's conclusions in their Green Paper on the operation of the CFP that it is not meeting its objectives. It is failing to provide an adequate living for many fishermen and is failing to conserve fish stocks. The forthcoming review of the CFP
  716W
  will give the opportunity not only to put right what has gone wrong but also to consider how the CFP should develop over the coming years.

  EU Water Framework Directive
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has received concerning the projected costs of implementing the EU Water Framework Directive in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [43602]

  Mr. Meacher
  A preliminary assessment of the costs and benefits of implementing the directive was set out in the first consultation paper issued jointly by the then Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the National Assembly for Wales. The study estimated total costs for England and Wales in the range of £2 billion to £9.2 billion; benefits in the range of £1.6 billion to £6.2 billion. A copy of the paper is in the House Library.

  A number of respondents to the consultation paper indicated that they had concerns about the cost to their industries of implementing the directive. A large majority of those raising concerns were from the farming industry.

  A summary report of responses to the first consultation paper will be published as part of a second consultation paper on implementation of the directive later this year. Individual responses will also be available for inspection.

  Implementation of the directive in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and with respect to the devolved functions in Wales, are matters for the Scottish Executive, the Northern Ireland Executive and the National Assembly for Wales. The Government and the National Assembly for Wales are working jointly to implement the directive in England and Wales. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, implementation of the directive is being managed wholly by the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Executive.

  Nitrates
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the average annual percentage change in the area of land required to spread a one tonne load of manure on farmland designated as being located in a nitrate vulnerable zone in the last five years. [44059]

  Mr. Meacher
  There have been controls of applying organic manures in nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZs) since December 1998.

  Since then, there have been no changes in the area of land required to spread manure in a NVZ. The controls require farmers to remain within annual whole-farm limits for applying organic manure, allowing maximum nitrogen loadings of 250 kg/ha of total N on grassland and 210 kg/ha of total N on arable land.

  From 19 December 2002 the maximum loading for arable land in existing NVZs (but not in new NVZs) will be reduced from 210 kg/ha to 170 kg/ha. At the maximum spreading rate permitted in a NVZ, any given amount of manure will then match the capacity of 24 per cent. more arable land than at present.
  717W
  The N content of livestock manures depends on the number and type of livestock on individual farms. Farmers in existing NVZs make use of "Manure Planning in NVZs", available through DEFRA publications (08459 556000) or the internet (via a web link at http:// www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/nitrate). This document contains simple calculations to identify the amount of manure delivering a particular nitrogen loading.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to announce her Department's decision on the amount of farmland to be designated as nitrate vulnerable zones; and when she expects to implement the nitrate vulnerable zone directive. [44060]

  Mr. Meacher
  The responses to the public consultation on options for implementing the nitrates directive are currently being analysed and we expect to publish the results, together with our decisions, by May 2002.

  I anticipate that measures to implement the directive in new areas, to comply with a European Court Judgment, will come into force from 19 December 2002. Measures to implement the directive have been in force in existing nitrate vulnerable zones since December 1998.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms have been found to have exceeded acceptable nitrate levels in the United Kingdom for each of the last five years; and where they are. [44297]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency's water quality monitoring data, aggregated from the years 1996–2000 inclusive, indicate that farmers across about 80 per cent. of England contribute to the greatest nitrate pollution problems. There is no information available about nitrate levels on individual farms.

  An indicative map of these areas was included in the DEFRA consultation document "How Should England Implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive" published in December 2001.

  Farmers' Markets
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to begin the certification of farmers' markets; if she will make a statement on the links established with regulatory authorities to ensure maintenance of standards; and what powers are vested in the regulatory authorities to restrict unauthorised traders from trading at farmers' markets. [44058]

  Mr. Morley
  The certification of farmers' markets is a private initiative by the National Association of Farmers' Markets (NAFM). The Department has, however, provided grant under the Agriculture Development Scheme to help fund the development and implementation of the scheme. We understand that the Local Authority Co-ordinating body on food and Trading Standards were involved in the drawing up of the certification handbook produced by NAFM.
  718W
  The regulatory authorities have no specific powers to restrict traders from trading at farmers' markets. However, there may be scope for action to be taken under the general provisions of the Trade Description Act and the Food Safety Act.

  Beef
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations the Government have made to the EC on relaxing EU rules on the export of beef. [43968]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have made a number of recent representations to the European Commission, in particular concerning a relaxation of the dedication requirement of the Date-based Export Scheme so that establishments could be dedicated to export on certain days, rather than full time. A detailed paper was submitted on 5 March and we expect to discuss it with the Commission tomorrow 26 March.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if imports of beef from animals over 30-months-old at the time of slaughter are banned; and if she will make a statement. [44225]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: Beef from cattle aged over 30 months at slaughter may be imported from any country, but I understand from the Food Standards Agency that it may only be sold for human consumption if it comes from animals that were born, reared and slaughtered in a prescribed list of countries that have historically supplied the UK and in which there is no history of BSE. The list is kept under review, for example in the light of on-going European Union assessments of geographical risk.

  Territorial Forces
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many members of staff in her Department are members of the territorial forces; and if she has a strategy to encourage members of staff to become members of the territorial forces. [44074]

  Mr. Morley
  Available records show that four members of staff are members of the territorial forces.

  The Department actively supports its staff in giving more time to their communities and is keen to raise the profile of volunteering. Staff are allowed varying amounts of paid time off for voluntary public duties and for service in the territorial forces.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if the United Kingdom has met the requirements of the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive; and if she will make a statement;[43511]

  (2) when she will publish the recovery and recycling targets, under the Packaging Waste Regulations, for the current calendar year. [43512]
  719W
  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste—94/62/EC—was implemented in Great Britain by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended).

  In order to comply with the requirements in the directive, recovery and recycling targets for 2001 under the packaging regulations were 56 per cent. for recovery and 18 per cent. for material-specific recycling of packaging waste. Data received to date suggest that, if obligated parties meet their obligations, these targets should be met.

  I will be announcing the recovery and recycling targets for 2002 very soon.

  Recycling
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the criteria for local authority bids will be announced with regard to the allocation of the £140 million recycling funds for 2002–03 and 2003–04. [44306]

  Mr. Meacher
  Final decisions on how we will distribute the fund have been made, following the results of the consultation. Officials have been working on the details of putting in place arrangements for distributing the funds.

  Results of the consultation, and information on how the fund will be administered, will be published by the end of March. When this information is published, it will also be posted on the DEFRA website.

  Compost
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidelines she has set for the disposal and use of lower grade compost that will be unfit for agricultural use. [44345]

  Mr. Meacher
  The recovery or disposal of waste, including lower grade composted waste, must be carried out in compliance with the controls in place to fulfil the requirements of the waste framework directive. The main controls are set out in Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations (the 1994 Regulations). We have issued guidance on these controls in DOE Circular 11/94; and statutory guidance to the Environment Agency on waste management licensing in Waste Management Paper Number 4.

  Waste compost may be spread on land for agricultural benefit or ecological improvement under the terms of the licensing exemption provided in paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the 1994 Regulations and registered with the Environment Agency. The spreading of waste compost in these circumstances is classified as a waste recovery operation. The disposal of waste compost must be carried out under the terms of a licence issued by the Environment Agency.

  The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) has commissioned research investigating the markets for composts fit for restricted use, which will include those unsuitable for use in agriculture. The work will assess
  720W
  how much material could potentially be applied to various land use types and identify key issues associated with establishing quality standards for these materials.

  Hemswell Cliff
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultation took place between the Intervention Board, her Department and the Home Office before the announcement that the Hemswell Cliff site was a possible site for an asylum seekers' accommodation centre. [44624]

  Mr. Morley
  No consultations took place between DEFRA and these bodies prior to the Home Office announcement of the potential sites for trial accommodation centres. The Home Office will take a wide range of factors, including environmental, health and safety issues, into account at every site before final decisions are made.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total tonnage is that can be stored in refrigerated stores available to the Intervention Board. [44626]

  Mr. Morley
  The Rural Payments Agency currently has two Government owned stores, Hemswell Cliff and Locharbriggs near Dumfries the combined capacity of these is 15,000 tonnes. In addition commercial storage is acquired as necessary.

  Staff (Local Elected Representatives)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many members of staff at her Department are locally elected democratic representatives; and if she has a strategy for her Department to encourage members of staff to become locally elected democratic representatives. [44541]

  Mr. Morley
  Available records show that one member of staff is a locally elected representative.

  The Department actively supports its staff in giving more time to their communities. Staff are allowed varying amounts of paid time off for voluntary public duties, including service as locally elected representatives.

  Welfare of Laying Hens Directive
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what extra welfare standards(a) have been implemented and (b) are planned to be introduced by the Government over and above the EU Directive 1999/74/EC on the welfare of laying hens. [44629]

  Mr. Morley
  It is intended that the Welfare of Laying Hens Directive 1999/74/EC 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.

  A new welfare code for laying hens will accompany the regulations.
  721W
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Directive 1999/74/EC on the welfare of laying hens will be fully implemented. [44628]

  Mr. Morley
  An implementing statutory instrument in respect of English legislation is being prepared and will shortly be presented to Parliament. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are following a similar timetable.

  Rio Earth Summit (Implementation)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to re-affirm the Rio Declaration. [44361]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government, in common with the rest of the international community, is working on the basis that the Johannesburg Summit is about implementing Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration rather than renegotiating them. The Johannesburg intergovernmental political declaration should therefore reaffirm and reinforce the Rio Declaration.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps have been taken by the Government since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 to(a) set goals on environmental protection and (b) improve eco-efficiency and resource productivity relating to fresh water issues; and what these (i) goals and (ii) improvements have been. [44364]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 1999 the Government published its strategy for sustainable development for the UK, "A Better Quality of Life". This strategy is supported by a core set of around 150 indicators of sustainable development. A subset of 15 headline indicators focuses on specific issues and reflects targets against which progress is measured and reported annually. River water quality is one of the headline indicators. Over the last decade, general river quality in the UK has either improved or remained high.

  In 1995 the Environment Act amended the Water Industry Act 1991 to place water companies under a statutory duty to promote the efficient use of water by their customers. Ofwat enforces this duty and requires companies to produce five-year water efficiency plans on which progress is reported annually. Following the Water Summit in 1997, Ofwat set annual leakage targets for water companies, which have resulted in a reduction of about 30 per cent. Further details are contained in the Ofwat report 'Leakage and the efficient use of water 2000–01', a copy of which is in the Library of the House. In addition, the Government runs the Envirowise programme, which promotes resource productivity—including water use—by industry. This resulted in over 29 million m3 of water being saved last year.

  Sustainable Development
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government have taken since the United Nations General Assembly Special Session in 1997 towards the objectives of(a) poverty eradication and (b) sustainable production and consumption patterns; and what steps are planned towards further progress on these objectives. [44353]
  722W
  Mr. Meacher
  The issues of poverty eradication and sustainable production and consumption have been addressed by a number of key strategies published since 1997. In particular, the UK Government's Sustainable Development Strategy, 'A Better Quality of Life' sets out an overarching strategy for achieving sustainable development through social progress which recognises the needs of everyone, effective protection of the environment, prudent use of natural resources, and maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. It includes a set of indicators to measure progress. The 2001 Annual Report on progress with the strategy was published last week.

  Related strategies include: the Government's poverty and social exclusion strategy, set out and monitored in the annual 'Opportunity for All' reports; the Climate Change Programme; the Waste Strategy for England; and the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, which sets out the framework for addressing the problem of households who cannot afford to keep warm.

  In the future, the Government's work will include taking forward the recommendations in the reports to Government from the Performance and Innovation Unit covering Resource Productivity, Energy, and the forthcoming one on Waste.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what preparations her Department is making for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. [44362]

  Mr. Meacher
  DEFRA, working closely with other Departments, is leading on the UK's domestic and international preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). The Department is represented on MISC 18, the Cabinet Committee set up to co-ordinate, develop and deliver the Government's strategy for WSSD. DEFRA also chairs two official level groups which co-ordinate preparations for the summit and will be attending the third preparatory meeting in New York starting on 25 March.

  DEFRA has also led on the development of a cross-Whitehall communications strategy to raise awareness of the summit. We are working closely with local authorities, NGOs, business and other organisations to ensure that we engage a wide range of stakeholders in the summit. DEFRA has also developed the Government sustainable development website (www.sustainabledevelopment.gov.uk) to include information on the WSSD.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 936W, PQ4610, when she will publish her organic action plan. [44227]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: An announcement about the Organic Food and Farming action plan will be made soon.

  Timber
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to curb the importing of illegally cut timber. [44706]
  723W
  Mr. Meacher
  Combating illegal logging requires effort from both timber producing and consuming countries. Timber producing countries are responsible for defining and enforcing the national legislative and regulatory frameworks that define legality.

  The Department for International Development (DFID) is working with a number of timber exporting countries to help them improve governance and strengthen forest law enforcement. We are also working to develop capacity for the implementation of timber certification schemes in some producing countries.

  Domestically, the UK is working to ensure that the import of endangered timber species is in full compliance with CITES, the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species. We are also implementing a new Government timber procurement policy that seeks to procure forest products only from legal and sustainable sources.

  The UK has shown leadership under the G8 Action Programme on Forests in promoting bilateral arrangements with timber producing countries whereby countries work together to tackle illegal logging and associated trade. We are currently negotiating the first of these with Indonesia. We hope that bilateral agreements will lead to regional and, eventually, an international agreement that will have a big impact on illegal trade.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the success of the Greening Government scheme in encouraging Government Departments to purchase timber from independently certified sustainable sources; and if she will make a statement. [44704]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has commissioned a report on the scale of timber procurement activities undertaken by central Government Departments and the improved guidance required to help buyers purchase timber and wood products from sustainable and legal sources. The final report is not due to be published until the summer of 2002. The timber trade, non-governmental organisations and other interested stakeholders are being consulted on the options for assessing product supplier claims on the sustainability of the source of the wood in their products. A consultation paper has been published on the website of the Tropical Forest Forum in advance of an open discussion on 25 March 2002. Written comments have been invited too. Following completion of the report it is intended that Departments will be given clearer guidelines including how to monitor and report on the evidence presented by suppliers. Departments will be asked to include information on wood product procurement in their returns for the annual reports on Sustainable Development in Government. This should enable their success in purchasing timber from independently certified sources to be evaluated.

  Flood Defences
  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. [44932]
  724W
  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.

  Tidal Defences, Hullbridge
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department expects to provide consent for the tidal defence works planned for Hullbridge, Essex; and if she will make a statement. [44982]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: I understand that the Environment Agency is seeking to obtain planning permission and to purchase the land necessary to compensate for the loss of internationally important habitats which would result from the construction of tidal defences at Hullbridge. These issues need to be resolved before the agency can submit an application for grant aid to this Department. When an application is received it will be considered against the normal economic, technical and environmental criteria and priority score arrangements for funding flood and coastal works.

  Soil Surveys
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will supply data from the National Soil Inventory, using the average figure of all arable sites measured, on the change in(a) soil depth, (b) pH level, (c) nutrient level and (d) heavy metals between the 1978 to 1981 survey and 1994 to 1996 soil survey. [44728]

  Mr. Morley
  The National Soil Inventory can supply no data on changes in soil depth. Data on the other variables requested are not available at "arable sites" level, but data on arable/ley grassland sites are given in the following table.

  Arablie/ley grassland sites

  Variable

  1978–81

  1994–96

  Change

  (b) pH

  6.76

  7.12

  +0.36

  (c) nutrient level

  (i) organic carbon (percentage)

  3.27

  2.79

  -0.48

  (ii) available phosphorus (mg/1)

  31.81

  41.45

  +9.64

  (iii) available potassium (mg/1)

  199.19

  236.01

  +36.82

  (iv) available magnesium (mg/1)

  141.78

  143.80

  1—

  (d) heavy metals

  total zinc (mg/kg)

  88.64

  68.30

  -20.34

  total copper (mg/kg)

  20.24

  18.27

  -1.97

  total nickel (mg/kg)

  27.05

  24.45

  -2.60

  total cadmium (mg/kg)

  0.80

  0.32

  -0.48

  total lead (mg/kg)

  41.46

  36.21

  -5.25

  total cobalt (mg/kg)

  11.58

  10.94

  -0.64

  total chromium (mg/kg)

  43.82

  35.08

  -8.74

  total arsenic (mg/kg)

  4.22

  5.36

  +1.14

  total mercury (mg/kg)

  0.06

  0.12

  +0.06

  total selenium (mg/kg)

  0.43

  0.40

  1—

  total molybdenum (mg/kg)

  0.94

  0.69

  -0.25

  total vanadium (mg/kg)

  47.77

  44.05

  1—

  1 The change is not regarded as significant in statistical terms.

  Note:

  "Available" means concentration in extractant.

  Source:

  SSLRC (2000)—Comparison of original and resampled national soil inventory data. DEFRA R&D Project SP0506, Final Report.

  Flooding
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 8 March 2002,Official Report, column 642W, on flooding, what plans she has to review groundwater flooding matters. [45195]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no such plans. While groundwater flooding was recognised as a significant factor in the flooding of autumn 2000, its causes are varied and often complex.

  The current legal situation is that, as with land subsidence, responsibility for taking remedial action generally falls to the individual householder or landowner. Only where groundwater problems are directly related to a defined watercourse do flood defence operating authorities have permissive powers to act. In deciding whether to do so they would need to consider the technical, economic and environmental effects of such action.

  However, the Environment Agency routinely monitor major groundwater aquifers for water resource purposes. This information, and data on long-term accumulations of rainfall, may be used to provide general warnings for certain vulnerable areas at times of increased risk on a best endeavours basis. It is not technically feasible to provide specific warnings to particular properties though in most cases there are simple steps that individuals can take to monitor their own situation.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what creche facilities are provided by her Department; and at what cost. [44855]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) provide 145 full-time subsidised nursery places for departmental and agency staff at six sites. The actual number of children using the nurseries is higher than this figure due to many of the places being allocated on a part-time basis. The cost of nursery places and the amount of subsidy varies for each location.

  School holiday playscheme places are also available to departmental and agency staff working at eight sites. The number of users varies at each site and for each school holiday period.

  The overall cost of this provision for the HQ offices (York and London) during the 2001–02 financial year is estimated to be £60,000, which works out at approximately £17.86 per head of staff at those sites. In actual terms, the benefit per parent is higher as not all staff require child care support. Child care facilities at other sites are funded from local budgets and up to date figures are not available at short notice.

  DEFRA keeps its child care provision arrangements under review.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people employed by her Department under the new deal for 726W
  young people in each of the last four years have subsequently (a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseekers' allowance or other benefits. [45088]

  Mr. Morley
  Information is not held centrally on the number of new dealers who have found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks or who have returned to jobseeker's allowance or other benefits.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people have been employed by her Department in each of the last three years under(a) the new deal for young people, (b) the new deal for the over 50s and (c) the new deal for lone parents; and at what cost, listed by category, to public funds. [44910]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of people who have been employed by the Department and its agencies under the new deal programmes for the last three financial years is as follows:

  (a) Young people (18 to 24-year-olds)

  Number

  1998–99

  5

  1999–2000

  6

  2000–01

  31

  The Department does not hold information on the number of new dealers employed on either the (b) over 50s or (c) lone parents programmes.

  The figures for young people include both subsidised and unsubsidised starts. New deal recruits take up existing vacancies so extra costs to public funds are limited to the subsidy, where appropriate, and any additional training and development which may be needed. The cost of the latter cannot be readily identified.

  Pollution (Irish Sea)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the impact of nutrients discharged from land-based sources into the Irish Sea. [44004]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The Urban Waste Water Treatment and Nitrates Directives require member states to undertake periodic reviews of estuaries and near-shore marine areas to establish whether they are adversely affected (or have the potential to become so) by nutrient inputs from rivers and direct discharges. The latest reviews were undertaken by the discharge regulators during 2001 and the results should be available later this year.

  Within the work programme of OSPAR, the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic, Contracting Parties including the UK are currently assessing the eutrophication status of the various parts of the OSPAR maritime area. An initial stage, to identify the more obvious non-problem areas, found that the wider parts of the Irish Sea fell into the "non-problem" category. The area of the Irish Sea to the east of a line from Anglesey to the Solway Firth is being subject to a more detailed evaluation as it is recognised that this area may be at greater risk of being

  727W
  adversely affected by nutrients from land based sources. The UK is due to present the findings of this more detailed evaluation at the end of 2002.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research the Government have recently conducted into pollution of the Irish Sea. [44003]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The UK Government have supported an extensive programme of research into pollution in the Irish Sea in recent years.

  The Department, working in conjunction with the Scottish and Northern Irish Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER), made a substantial contribution to the body of evidence from which the co-ordinated UK-Irish assessment of the Celtic Seas was produced in 2000. This Quality Status Report (QSR) for the Celtic Seas, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House of Commons, provides a list of references which includes items of research sponsored by the UK Government.

  Since 2000 we have continued to build our evidence base on pollution of the Irish Sea with a view to assessing the status of the North East Irish Sea in relation to nutrient inputs and identifying the key processes determining the potential impact and transport of pollutants. This is a part of our ongoing co-ordinated marine environment research programme which continues to contribute to regional co-operation on research and monitoring through OSPAR (the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic) and its Assessment and Monitoring Committee.

  In respect of pollution by radioactive substances, the results of a joint research project between the Environment Agency and SNIFFER, entitled Past, Current and Future Radiological Impacts of Radioactive Marine Discharges on Coastal Communities Surrounding the Irish Sea, was published in 1999. A copy of this report is available in the Library.

  Home Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether a householder who has received a grant under Warm Front or Warm Front Plus can receive further assistance under the scheme for measures in addition to those originally installed; and whether a householder who has received a Warm Front grant is eligible, on reaching the age of 60, for assistance under Warm Front Plus. [44000]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: Paragraph 7(3)(e) of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (England) Regulations 2000, as amended, requires applications for assistance under the scheme to contain "a statement that neither the applicant, nor to his knowledge any other person, has received or applied for grant under these Regulations in respect of the dwelling which is the subject of the application". The effect of this paragraph is to limit to one the number of grants under the scheme for any household, whether the occupant is under or over 60 years of age.

  Whaling
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which countries engage in whaling. [45254]

  Mr. Morley
  The following members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) engage in whaling activities:

  Denmark (Greenland and the Fame Islands)

  Japan

  Norway

  Russia

  St. Vincent and the Grenadines

  United States of America.

  We have no information on whaling carried out by non-IWC members.

  Pig Farms
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list(a) the occasions when and (b) the reasons why (i) Oldlands Pig Unit in Wiltshire and (ii) Shoddesden Pig Unit in Hampshire were (A) not accepted onto and (B) suspended from Farm Assurance schemes in the past five years; [45153]

  (2) if Farm Assurance scheme inspectors have visited pig units at (a) Oldlands Farm, Wiltshire and (b) Shoddesden, Hampshire; and what assessments have been made; [45150]

  (3) on what grounds pig units of (a) Oldlands Farm, Wiltshire and (b) Shoddesden, Hampshire were suspended from the Farm Assurance scheme in (i) July 2000, (ii) February 2001, (iii) June 2001 and (iv) other times in the last four years. [45152]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The main pig assurance scheme was originally established by the Government. However, it was taken over by the industry in September 1996 and has since been run as a private initiative by Assured British Pigs (APB). Membership of the scheme is voluntary.

  Following the privatisation of the scheme, the State Veterinary Service (SVS) continued to provide inspection services until September 1999 when its contract with ABP ended. Since then inspections have been carried out by a private independent inspection body and the Government have had no role in the operation of the scheme.

  Prior to the ending of the contract the Shoddesden pig unit was inspected by a State Veterinary Service veterinary officer in connection with an application for it to be registered under the ABP scheme. The veterinary officer advised the applicant of action that would need to be taken in order to meet the scheme's requirements. We understand from ABP that the Shoddesden pig unit was subsequently registered under the scheme in March 1999 after the work requested by the veterinary officer had been confirmed as complete.

  The SVS was not involved in subsequent APB inspections of the unit.

  We are not aware of any application for the Oldlands pig unit to be registered under the APB scheme.

  Mink Farming
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will announce a scheme of compensation to farmers following the ban on the farming of mink. [45389]

  Mr. Morley
  A scheme of compensation was set out in SI 2001/3853, the Fur Farming (Compensation Scheme) (England) Order 2001, which was made and laid before Parliament on 3 December 2001 and came into force on 1 January 2002. Following comments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, this SI was revoked and replaced by SI 2002/221, the Fur Farming (Compensation Scheme)(England) Order 2002, which was made on 5 February 2002, laid before Parliament on 7 February 2002 and came into force on 1 March 2002. However, the scheme in the latter SI is identical to the previous one in all material respects and also contains a transitional provision for applications made under the 2001 order to be treated as if they had been made under the 2002 order.

  Brucellosis
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's contingency plans for an outbreak of brucellosis. [45840]

  Mr. Morley
  The emphasis of the Department's approach to controlling outbreaks of brucellosis is the regular statutory testing of both dairy and beef herds to ensure that Great Britain maintains its brucellosis free status.

  All dairy herds are tested monthly using the bulk milk tank test. If there is a positive result, blood samples are taken from all cattle in the herd and tested. Blood samples are taken from all adult breeding cattle in 50 per cent. of the national beef herd every year. This far exceeds the requirements of EC Directive 64/432. Under the Brucellosis (England) Order 2000, and equivalent legislation in Scotland and Wales, there is a statutory requirement for farmers to report abortions and premature calvings to the Local Animal Health Office of DEFRA. Investigative tests are then carried out.

  To lessen the risk that brucellosis might be imported during the controlled restocking of farms following the foot and mouth disease epidemic, my Department has issued instructions to introduce even tighter surveillance and control for brucellosis under the cattle tracing system. All imported female cattle will be targeted for testing at strategic points. Reports are generated in the event of calving, absence of notified calving when a female reaches 30 months and when no calving has been registered for females over 30 months within 12 months of import. These reports are then followed up and testing carried out accordingly.

  If an animal tests positive, it will be slaughtered with compensation and the rest of the herd will be placed under movement restrictions while further confirmatory testing is carried out. A veterinary investigation into the cause of the positive blood test result will be initiated immediately and movements on to and off the affected premises will be traced. It usually takes up to three weeks to confirm whether or not the animal was infected. In the event that brucellosis is confirmed contact herds will be tested. If
  730W
  the veterinary investigation reveals that some contact animals are at risk, these will also be slaughtered. This may involve the slaughter of all the affected herd. This strategy worked when one case of imported brucellosis was confirmed in Great Britain in 1993.

  Livestock Movements
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government plan to remove the restrictions for hauliers on the collection of livestock from more than one farm for transport to market. [46199]

  Mr. Morley
  Multiple pick-ups are permitted for livestock movements subject to conditions. They are limited to five farms per trip and may only take place at premises which have prior approval to operate as a pick-up site. Further details of the conditions that apply to multiple pick-ups and drop-offs are available at www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/movements/transport/index.htm.

  Noxious Smells
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice and guidance she has issued to local authorities concerning the exercise of their powers to control remissions into the atmosphere of noxious smells. [46204]

  Mr. Meacher
  Local authorities have powers to control smells which are a statutory nuisance under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. No guidance has been issued to authorities in relation to these powers.

  Local authorities also regulate smells as part of their responsibilities under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to control air pollution from a range of industrial processes (Local Air Pollution Control). The Government issue a series of statutory guidance notes for local authorities on what constitute the Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost for minimising air emissions from a range of industrial processes. Odour is addressed in these guidance notes where appropriate. The notes are all published and are listed on my Department's website http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/lapc/default.htm. A programme to review all the guidance notes is under way, and draft revisions can be found either on the DEFRA website or on the Environment Agency's website (www.environment-agency.gov.uldbusiness/lapc/ ?version=l), depending on the stage of progress.

  An additional guidance note was issued to local authorities by my Department in January this year reminding them that their responsibilities under Part I of the 1990 Act included the control of air emissions which may not cause a local nuisance.

  Foot and Mouth
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the sheep at Hawnby were tested for the foot and mouth(a) virus and (b) antibody before restocking; and if she will make a statement. [40701]
  731W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: All animals used for controlled restocking must come from farms which have been inspected and found free from foot and mouth disease (FMD).

  Two of the three farms which restocked the Hawnby premises had on previous occasions tested antibody negative for foot and mouth disease in November 2001 and October 2001. Testing for virus did not take place.

  At the time of restocking in 2002, there was no requirement for pre-movement testing to be carried out as all counties had achieved FMD-free status.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where the Hawnby sheep originally came from; and what steps she is taking to test the original flock for foot and mouth. [40700]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Three farms provided sheep to restock the Hawnby premises. They were in the Bosall. Helmsley and Hawnby areas of North Yorkshire. At the time the Hawnby sheep came under suspicion on 26 February, the source farms were immediately placed under Form D restrictions and a Veterinary Clinical Inspection was carried out on the stock.

  No signs of foot and mouth disease were found.

  Restrictions remained in place until after the restrictions on the Hawnby flock were lifted following negative results. There was no basis for further testing on the farms of sheep origin.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the value is of outstanding claims for foot and mouth disease compensation from Scotland. [44367]

  Mr. Morley
  All claims from Scottish farmers for compensation for compulsorily slaughtered livestock have been paid amounting to £161.5 million. 136 valuations, on which compensation has been paid totalling around £32 million, are the subject of disputes lodged by the farmer. Two disputed claims to the value of £360,599 have been settled.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) shire districts, (b) metropolitan districts, (c) unitary authorities and (d) London boroughs which lie, wholly or in part, (i) more than 50 miles from and (ii) more than 90 minutes' journey time from a licensed abattoir or slaughterhouse. [40974]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Food Standards Agency does not hold information on the siting of licensed abattoirs in the format requested. However, I have arranged for lists of licensed red and white meat abattoirs, arranged by county and local authority respectively, to be placed in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  VAT
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were sentenced to imprisonment in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 to date following the completion of VAT criminal prosecutions; what was the sum total of custodial sentences imposed in each year; and if he will make a statement. [12216]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 6 March 2002]: The number of people sentenced to imprisonment in the year 1999–2000 following—the completion of VAT criminal prosecution was 83 and custodial sentences totalling 213 years were imposed.

  The number of people sentenced to imprisonment in the year 2000–01 following the completion of VAT criminal prosecutions was 61 and custodial sentences totalling 116 years were imposed.

  The figures for the number of people sentenced and the custodial sentences imposed for the current year 2001–02 will not be available before the end of the financial year.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether small businesses which make appropriate arrangements with the VAT Office to spread their VAT payments are liable to a surcharge in addition to their original VAT bill; and whether firms are advised of this surcharge at the time of renegotiation. [44749]

  Mr. Boateng
  A business which has incurred a surcharge because of a failure to meet VAT obligations, may include that surcharge in any subsequent arrangements made with Customs and Excise to clear their VAT arrears by instalments. Any business which enters into an agreement will remain subject to the default surcharge provisions if subsequent VAT returns or payments of tax due are received late. This is made clear in correspondence issued by customs when they confirm such payment arrangements.

  However, following changes announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement when small businesses start to have difficulties in meeting VAT obligations, they are first offered advice and support, rather than incurring automatic surcharges.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that VAT on hot take-away food is charged in a uniform way across different types of retail outlets. [45137]

  Mr. Boateng
  There have been no changes to the VAT treatment of hot take-away food. Customs and Excise plan to issue further advice to confirm that hot take-away food is VAT standard rated, regardless of the type of retail outlet that supplies it.

  Benefits in Kind
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of individuals in his(a) Department, (b) related agencies and (c) related non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000 and (ii) £200,000 in each of the last four years. [26323]
  733W
  Dawn Primarolo
  (a) The number of individuals in the Chancellor's Departments whose annual remuneration exceeded £100,000 in each of the last four years is as follows:

  1 April 1998: 11

  1 April 1999: 12

  1 April 2000: 15

  1 April 2001: 21.

  (b) The number of individuals in Related Agencies whose annual remuneration exceeded £100,000 in each of the last four years is as follows:

  1 April 1998:2

  1 April 1999:3

  1 April 2000:6

  1 April 2001:7.

  There were no individuals in either Departments or Agencies in any of the four years whose remuneration exceeded £200,000.

  (c) I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him on 29 January 2002, Official Report, column 253W.

  Treasury Website
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the items of material which have been removed from the Treasury website in each of the last four years. [36799]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The Treasury's website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk currently contains more than 3,000 pages. Pages are frequently updated with certain sections of the site, such as the economic data and careers areas, being changed on a weekly basis.

  The website was relaunched in November 2001 to provide the Treasury with a more robust, better organised and searchable platform for its website. At that time, the opportunity was taken to remove a number of older documents, including files relating to the previous administration. Material removed at that time included expenditure reviews, press releases from 1994 to 1996 and older budget and spending review information. However, as a consequence of the relaunch, the site is significantly more robust and, with its search engine and simple navigational structure, documents are now easier to access and read.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [35022]

  Ruth Kelly
  The costs to HM Treasury for external consultants were as follows:

  Year

  1996–97

  1,032,250

  1997–98

  1,159,530

  1998–99

  1,788,706

  1999–2000

  1,489,024

  2000–01

  1,666,799

  2001–02

  1,160,099

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions since 1 May 1997(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; and if he will list the total cost, including (i) travel, (ii) accommodation and (iii) subsistence allowance, for each occasion. [37981]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: Between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001, special advisers in the Treasury travelled abroad on 31 occasions, at an average cost of £1,431 per trip. All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code, and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Smaller Quoted Companies
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps have been taken by the Inland Revenue to define the smaller quoted companies for tax purposes. [40251]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no areas of tax legislation that refer to small or smaller quoted companies, so no definition is needed.

  Small Landlords
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the net cost to the Treasury of bringing small landlords within the same tax regime as other small businesses. [41669]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All landlords, irrespective of size, and others with assets giving rise to rental income or other receipts from land and buildings (taxable under Schedule A) are taxed in the same way on that income. There is no separate definition of "small".

  If the hon. Member has in mind treating all assets giving rise to Schedule A income as qualifying for reliefs available to trading assets, the full-year cost is tentatively estimated to be £400 million.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) buildings and (b) works of art are covered under the conditional exemption scheme for inheritance tax; how many visitors there have been to each in each of the last 10 years, including an estimate for the current year; and if he will make a statement. [42561]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are currently 288 cases of conditionally exempt land and/or buildings. Available figures for 65 conditionally exempt properties where visitors are admitted by ticket show an average of about 24,000 visitors per property per year.

  86,000 chattels (including works of art) are currently conditionally exempt. Visitor numbers to conditionally exempt chattels are not available.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much inheritance tax has been deferred under the conditional exemption scheme in each year since 1984. [42560]
  735W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated cost to the Exchequer of conditional exemption from inheritance tax (and its predecessor, capital transfer tax) is as follows:

  Amount of relief (£ million)

  1984–85

  45

  1985–86

  30

  1986–87

  25

  1987–88

  55

  1988–89

  50

  1989–90

  100

  1990–91

  170

  1991–92

  20

  1992–93

  45

  1993–94

  40

  1994–95

  60

  1995–96

  30

  1996–97

  35

  1997–98

  40

  1998–99

  35

  1999–2000

  10

  2000–01

  20

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to his Department of the parental leave directive. [42484]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury staff are eligible for unpaid parental leave under the parental leave directive. Central records are not kept on the amounts of unpaid parental leave taken. The Treasury also has a number of other family friendly policies in place, for example alternative working practices, paid special leave, career breaks, to help staff strike a balance between home life and work.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's policy is towards age discrimination. [42571]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has taken steps to integrate age into its equal opportunity policies and the Department has a commitment that there should be no unfair discrimination on the basis of age. Action on diversity has and will continue to tackle any negative attitudes towards older staff particularly through the training and development of managers and through the monitoring of recruitment, selection and appraisal statistics.

  Celebrations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements his Department has made to celebrate(a) St. Patrick's Day, (b) St. George's Day, (c) St. Andrew's Day and (d) Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and how his Department celebrated St. David's Day. [42296]

  Ruth Kelly
  [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.
  736W
  The Union flag will be flown on the Treasury building on Coronation Day (2 June) as this is a named day. Whether the Treasury will further celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee will depend on the outcome of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport's current consideration of the Union flag flying protocol procedure for the Jubilee.

  I would also refer the hon. Member to the answer the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport gave to the hon. Member for Suffolk South (Mr. Yeo) on II February 2002 Official Report, columns 58–59W. In the Treasury, all staff will he given an additional public holiday on 4 June 2002 to celebrate Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee.

  Minimum Wage (Paisley, North)
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employers within Paisley, North have been found to be breaching the minimum wage legislation. [43916]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not available. For Scotland, over 1,600 investigations have been completed since the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999 with non-compliance being discovered in 27 per cent. of cases. During this period wages arrears of £550.000 have been identified.

  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employers within Paisley North, having advertised with the Employment Service, have subsequently been found to have breached the minimum wage legislation. [43918]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is not available.

  The Employment Service (ES) will not accept for display any vacancy that does not meet the requirements of the National Minimum Wage (NMW) Act 1998. ES has in place a robust and ongoing monitoring system to ensure it meets its commitment to display only NMW compliant vacancies. However, with over two million vacancies handled every year there is always a risk that a "rogue vacancy" will slip through the net. Where ES is made aware of this, services to the employer may be suspended while the complaint is investigated. All complainants in these circumstances are advised to contact the Inland Revenue, as the NMW enforcement agency, to allow further investigation.

  Staff (Local Elected Representation)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many members of staff at his Department are locally elected democratic representatives; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become locally elected democratic representatives. [44539]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information on whether staff are locally elected democratic representatives is not held centrally. Staff who are representatives of bodies covered by Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 are allowed 10 days paid special leave to undertake their duties.

  Inland Revenue Customer Call Centres
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets are in place at Inland Revenue contact centres in respect of the time taken to answer to customer telephone inquiries; and if he will make a statement. [44702]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Inland Revenue contact centres work to the following targets for call handling:

  No more than 5 per cent. of attempted calls to reach an engaged tone.

  No more than 5 per cent. of attempted calls to be abandoned.

  Of the calls not engaged or abandoned, 90 per cent. to be answered within 20 seconds.

  An attempted call is counted each time a customer dials the contact centre number.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the policy of the Inland Revenue is with respect to providing customers with direct line numbers for inquiries to customer call centres; and if he will make a statement. [44699]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Ten million PAYE taxpayers have new Inland Revenue contact centres as their first point of telephone contact. By July 2002 this number will have grown to 15 million (50 per cent. of PAYE taxpayers).

  For these taxpayers, where there is ongoing correspondence with an individual tax officer or inspector, a direct dial number will be provided so that the customer can make contact with the individual concerned. Unsolicited calls are handled by the contact centre, which provides a local rate number to customers.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanisms exist to establish whether sufficient telephone lines are in place at Inland Revenue customer call centres to handle the volume of customer telephone inquiries. [44700]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Staffing levels of the first five of Inland Revenue taxpayer contact centres were based on analysis of an experimental IR contact centre opened in 1998 in East Kilbride. Statistical analysis of call volumes there was used to inform the rollout programme.

  The number of advisers is intended to allow the centres to meet targets on all but 15 days each year using a mixture of full and part time staff. Resource teams in each office match staff resources to the predicted call volumes.

  On the 15 days where excess volumes are anticipated, calls are overflowed to customer service units in local offices.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets exist at Inland Revenue contact centres for the time taken returning customer calls; and if he will make a statement. [44701]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Where a customer has raised a query that cannot be handled by the Inland Revenue contact centre they have contacted, the call will be passed to an officer in the service office to resolve the inquiry. Where that is not possible, or where further research is required, the target is to return to the customer within one working day. This will be extended if

  another time would be more convenient to the customer, or

  research will take longer than one working day.

  738W
  In these situations a different time scale would be agreed with the customer.

  Business Regulation
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from groups representing business and commerce regarding the burden of regulation and taxation on businesses. [44690]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As is normal in the run up to the Budget, the Government have received a number of representations from business organisations.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is a goal of his policies to improve United Kingdom productivity that the burden of regulation on business should fall. [44724]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are committed to ensuring that regulations are fair and effective, so that they protect the vulnerable but do not stifle enterprise or productivity.

  The Government have significantly strengthened the systems that control the regulatory burden. In February the Cabinet Office announced the "Government's Action Plan for Regulatory Reform" which included 260 reforms, with over 60 expected to make use of the Regulatory Reform Act.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the number of people who would pay more in national insurance contributions if the ceiling on Class 1 contributions were aligned with the higher rate tax threshold. [44687]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Around3¾ million people would pay more in national insurance contributions on an average weekly basis during 2002–03 if the Class 1 ceiling were aligned with the income tax higher rate threshold. This estimate was provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the revenue implications of removing the upper earnings limit on employee national insurance contributions. [44688]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 1 March 2002,Official Report, column 1573W.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been(a) the maximum and (b) the average underpayment to pensioners adversely affected by NIRS2 since its introduction. [42516]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  The maximum underpayment of retirement pension caused by the NIRS2 problems is not known. The average underpayment to the small percentage of pension claims that have been affected by NIRS2 problems since June 1998 is £339. The arrears have been paid in nearly all the affected cases along with compensation, where appropriate. The NIRS2 computer is now stable and the difficulties caused to pensioners and other benefit claimants by the delayed implementation of some of the functions are now almost resolved.

  Annuities
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to reform the requirement to purchase an annuity at the age of 75 years. [44723]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 9W.

  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further developments there have been as a result of the Tax Law Rewrite Project. [46550]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Tax Law Rewrite Project continues to make good progress. At the end of this month it will be publishing its thirteenth Exposure Draft, containing draft clauses on foreign income and property income.

  The project is also currently working on an Income Tax Bill rewriting the provisions on employment income, pension income and taxable social security benefits. In preparation for that Bill, this year's Finance Bill will included some small amendments to the tax legislation on employment income. Copies of this draft Finance Bill legislation will shortly be published on the project's website.

  Copies of the Exposure Draft and the draft Finance Bill legislation will be placed in the Library as soon as they are available.

  Preston Case
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the tax treatment of settlements between employers and employees to implement the House of Lords decision in the Preston case. [46642]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Preston judgment means that many employers must give all their part-time employees and certain of their ex-employees, retrospective access to membership of their occupational pension schemes from April 1976 or in some cases later. The employers concerned have a responsibility to settle with their employees and ex-employees how this should be achieved in each case. There are outstanding cases before Employment Tribunals which are designed to determine how employers and employees should meet their liabilities.

  Where employees are entitled to membership rights in an occupational scheme in respect of past periods of employment, the normal rules about tax relief on contributions continue to apply. That is:
  all employers' contributions to occupational pension schemes, including any for past service, qualify for corporation tax relief;
  employees' contributions up to 15 per cent. of their salary from the employer concerned in the year the contributions are paid qualify for income tax, irrespective of whether any part of the contribution is in respect of previous years' service:
  employees may make contributions to their schemes above 15 per cent. of salary in any tax year but any such contributions do not benefit from tax relief.

  In some cases, employers and employees may prefer to agree on lump sum settlements rather than additional membership rights in occupational schemes. In these
  740W
  cases, the lump sums are not taxable as income under schedule E but will be liable to capital gains tax subject to the normal annual exemption.

  Government Debt and Asset Management
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future organisational arrangements for government debt and asset management. [46643]

  Ruth Kelly
  Following a detailed review of the current arrangements and future requirements for government debt and asset management, the National Debt Office (NDO) and the Public Works Loans Board (PWLB) will be integrated with the UK Debt Management Office (DMO) with effect from 1 July. Both the NDO and the PWLB are part of the National Investment and Loans Office (NILO) and the relevant staff will be relocated to the DMO's offices. This reorganisation, while maintaining provision of existing services, is designed to deliver improved management of the central Government balance sheet, and to offer a more robust, flexible and innovative service to public sector clients.

  At the same time the remaining part of NILO, the Office of HM Paymaster General (OPG), will be merged with the Treasury, while also maintaining the provision of its existing services. NILO will thereafter cease to exist.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many disabled people have benefited from the fast track to disabled person's tax credit since this provision was introduced. [44459]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: The number of recipients of the disabled person's tax credit (DPTC) entering via the fast-track is shown in table 2.3 of each DPTC Quarterly Enquiry, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the new working families tax credit unit in Livingston to be operational. [45311]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Livingston Contact Centre, which will handle telephone inquiries about tax credits, is expected to be operational from 1 August 2002.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the number of people living on below 60 per cent. of median income who have an entitlement to the working families tax credit and are not in receipt of any payment; [45286]

  (2) how many families living on below 60 per cent. of median income are in receipt of the working families tax credit; and what percentage of the total working families tax credit case load this represents. [45289]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such estimates for working families tax credit will be available until the Family Resources Survey data for 2000–01 have been analysed.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason(a) a widow receiving a widowed mother's allowance is not eligible for working

  741W
  families tax credit and (b) a mother receiving maintenance payments from a living ex-partner is eligible for the credit. [45858]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A widow in receipt of widowed mother's allowance and a mother in receipt of maintenance payments may both be eligible for the working families tax credit.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the compliance statistics for working families tax credit were in the nine months to 31 December 2001; and what the comparable statistics were in the previous year. [46644]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Compliance statistics for the nine months to 31 December 2001 show an increased effectiveness in the Inland Revenue's compliance programme. Of the 16,016 inquiries completed in this period, 5,427 cases (34 per cent.) were found to contain discrepancies and these produced a compliance yield of £10.4 million.

  I very much regret having to report that the Inland Revenue have advised me that some previous statistics relating to tax credit compliance have proved to be incorrect or incomplete. The correct equivalent figures for the year ended 31 March 2001 are that, of the 31,211 inquiries completed in that year, 5,573 cases (18 per cent.) were found to contain discrepancies producing a compliance yield of £7.7 million.

  These errors in the Inland Revenue's tax credit statistics have also resulted in incorrect information being given in responses to some written parliamentary questions, in letters to hon. Members and during debates. I am writing to the Members concerned correcting errors and I will place a copy of the letters in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families living on below 60 per cent. of median income are in receipt of the children's tax credit; and what percentage of the total children's tax credit caseload this represents. [45284]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not available.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to introduce incentives for tax credit towards training personnel employed in small and medium sized enterprises. [45561]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keeps all taxes under review and any changes will be announced in the Budget report.

  The Government is taking forward its Budget 2001 commitment to consider policies, possibly including a tax credit, to encourage low skilled workers to train. The PBR announced pilot schemes to start this year which will test a range of policy options to support and encourage training.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what creche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [44861]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury offers staff access to subsidised places on a holiday playscheme and pays £15.60 towards the cost of each place, which represents 742W
  60 per cent. of the total cost. Around eight staff take up places for their children. Staff can also reclaim additional child care costs incurred, including the tax liability, if they have to work longer or later than normal.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason officials in his Department draw up background briefing notes concerning the reason that an hon. Member is asking a parliamentary question; and if he will make a statement. [45119]

  Ruth Kelly
  Ministers would be advised of Members' reasons for tabling particular questions to facilitate the provision of appropriate replies.

  Sport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many responses to the Treasury Consultation Document, "Promoting Sport in the Community",(a) agreed and (b) disagreed with the need to proceed with a separate Inland Revenue-administered tax package; [45170]

  (2) how many responses to the Treasury Consultation Document, "Promoting Sport in the Community", (a) agreed and (b) disagreed with the assessment that the charitable route offered clubs better prospects than the Inland Revenue administered tax package. [45169]

  Mr. Boateng
  A range of responses have been received. Decisions on the best way forward will be made with regard to these responses and in the context of subsequent meetings with sports' representative bodies and the Charity Commission. A summary of responses will be made publicly available at the time of any announcement.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many responses to the Treasury Consultation Document, "Promoting Sport in the Community", called for the Inland Revenue-administered tax package to include mandatory rate relief. [45172]

  Mr. Boateng
  Ministers are considering responses to the questions for consultation contained in the "Promoting Sport in the Community" document. A summary of responses will be made publicly available at the time of any announcement. The separate Inland Revenue administered tax package that the Government consulted on did not include business rate relief. However, CASCs gaining charitable status—for which they are able to apply immediately—are eligible for 80 per cent. mandatory business rate relief.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many responses have been received to the Treasury Consultation Document, "Promoting Sport in the Community". [45168]

  Mr. Boateng
  The "Promoting Sport in the Community" consultation document attracted over 2,400 responses, for which we are grateful. Ministers are considering responses and decisions will be made as part of the normal Budget process. A summary of responses will be made public at the time of any announcement.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the target time will be in 2002–03 for(a) Ministers to reply to letters from hon. Members and (b) officials in his Department to reply to letters received directly from members of the public. [44945]

  Mr. Boateng
  The target time for replying to all correspondence will be 15 working days from receipt.

  EU Economic and Finance Council
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Barcelona on 14 March; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [45951]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended ECOFIN on 14 March.

  Following previous discussions at the March ECOFIN and at the General Affairs Council, ECOFIN discussed further the draft EU position for the UN Financing for Development Conference in Monterrey. This was subsequently endorsed by heads of government at the Barcelona European Council. This position commits EU member states to increasing overseas development assistance as a proportion of Gross National Product to an EU average of 0.39 per cent. by 2006. This is a significant step forward for global social justice, that will provide around $7 billion a year in additional aid.

  ECOFIN also considered proposals for strengthening EU development assistance to the Mediterranean region. It was agreed that a European Investment Bank Facility should be set up, and that this would be evaluated after a year and a decision then taken on whether it should be developed into a subsidiary involving other shareholders. This agreement was endorsed by the Barcelona European Council.

  New Deal

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Young People

  Other

  Young People

  Other

  Young People

  Other

  Inland Revenue1

  0

  0

  46

  10

  30

  10

  Office for National Statistics

  0

  0

  4

  0

  1

  1

  Royal Mint

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1Including Valuation Office Agency

  HM Treasury specially recruited three people under the New Deal in 1999, four in 2000 and four in 2001, but does not differentiate between individual New Deal schemes. (None of these recruits was subsidised).

  Customs and Excise have employed a total of 129 people under the New Deal for Young People since its inception, but by year figures are not available. They have employed no-one under the New Deal for Over 50s or Lone Parents.

  No further classification of New Deal recruits is available.These recruits took up existing vacancies so extra costs are limited to the subsidy, where appropriate, and any additional training and development which may have been needed.
  744W
  The implications of the Enron affair for corporate governance were discussed. It was agreed that ECOFIN would look again at this issue in light of work being undertaken by the Finance Stability Forum.

  ECOFIN discussed whether Government-backed airline insurance schemes for covering third party war and terrorism risks should be extended beyond the end of March. It was agreed that further analysis should be provided before the discussion at the Transport Council on 26 March.

  No votes were taken at the meeting.

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost has been of criminal damage to his Department's buildings in each of the last four years. [44826]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people employed by his Department under the New Deal for Young People in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseekers' allowance or other benefits. [45082]

  Ruth Kelly
  We do not have this information.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been employed by his Department in each of the last three years under(a) the New Deal for Young People, (b) the New Deal for the Over 50s and (c) the New Deal for Lone Parents; and at what cost, listed by category, to public funds. [44918]

  Ruth Kelly
  The latest complete years for which we have figures for people specially recruited under the New Deal arrangements are as follows:

  Running Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 808W, if he will provide a full breakdown of the main items comprising the increase in the running cost between April 1997 and April 2001 of (a) his private office and (b) his Department; and if he will break down the increase in the cost of staff in his private office over the same period. [45120]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Bus Fleets
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of(a) how many

  745W
  insurance companies offer fleet insurance for bus fleets in the UK and (b) what level of competition this represents; and whether buses will be able to operate without fleet insurance in the event of the remaining insurance for bus fleets being withdrawn. [45122]

  Ruth Kelly
  Further to my answer on 25 February 2002,Official Report, columns 830–31W, we have a long standing agreement with the insurance industry that cover will always be provided for anyone legally entitled to drive.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a disaggregated analysis of how Her Majesty's Customs and Excise plans to spend its supplementary estimate for the purposes listed on page 54 of HC 636. [44084]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 20 March 2002]: The purpose of the HM Customs and Excise spring supplementary is set out on page 1 of Cm 5380. The additional net cash requirement is required to pay for the provision of serviced accommodation under an estates PFI contract. These charges replace non-cash charges for the opportunity cost of utilising civil estate freehold assets. There is no increase to departmental expenditure limits as a result of the supplementary. The estates costs will cover all activities and purposes listed in HC636.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the annual report of HM Customs and Excise for 2000–01 has not yet been published. [45745]

  Mr. Boateng
  Publication has been delayed because finalisation of the Trust Statement for Customs and Excise, which must be included in the report, took longer than expected. The Trust Statement now has an audit certificate, and the annual report for Customs and Excise has been laid before Parliament today.

  Plant and Machinery (Investment)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what incentives are in place for small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises to invest in plant and machinery. [45562]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax system gives incentives for investment through capital allowances. Small and medium-sized enterprises qualify for 40 per cent. first year capital allowances for all investment in plant and machinery, in place of the usual 25 per cent. The rate is increased to 100 per cent. for businesses of all sizes if the plant or machinery is energy efficient, or is used for research and development purposes.

  Secondments
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many members of staff were employed by the Treasury on secondment from non-governmental organisations in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [45222]
  746W
  Ruth Kelly
  The numbers of people seconded to the Treasury from non-governmental organisations were as follows:

  1999–6

  2000–11

  2001–16.

  Details of current secondees from all sectors outside central Government can be found on the Treasury website.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many members of staff were employed by the Treasury on secondment from the private sector in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [45257]

  Ruth Kelly
  The numbers of Treasury staff on secondment from the private sector in 1999 was two, in 2000 was four and in 2001 was eight.

  Details of current secondees from all sectors outside central Government can be found on the Treasury website.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many BP employees are on secondment to his Department; for what purposes; on what terms; and how many BP employees have been on secondment to his Department since January 2000. [45887]

  Ruth Kelly
  There are no BP employees currently on secondment to HM Treasury. There have been no BP employees on secondment to HM Treasury since January 2000.

  Details of current secondees from outside central Government can be found on the Treasury's website.

  Construction Industry (False Self-Employment)
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent of false self-employment in the construction industry; and if he will make a statement. [45758]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax and national insurance rules, which distinguish the employed from the self-employed, are intended to apply to all workers. The Inland Revenue policies compliance with those rules in all industries, including the construction industry, to ensure that people are paying their tax and national insurance contributions on the correct basis.

  Insurance Guidance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the insurance guidance that went to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury at the end of November 1998. [46219]

  Ruth Kelly
  Insurance guidance on reserving for guaranteed annuities was issued by HM Treasury in December 1998 and is included as an appendix to the FSA's report into the regulation of Equitable Life. This was published on 16 October 2001 and a copy placed in the Library.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Treasury Ministers have been shown the documentation covering the period in 1998 when the Treasury was directly responsible for regulating Equitable Life. [46107]
  747W
  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury Ministers are aware of the sequence of events in 1998 and have had access to all relevant documentation.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the Treasury's written evidence to the Penrose Inquiry. [46106]

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence the Government have been requested to provide the Penrose Inquiry into Equitable Life other than the Baird Report. [45884]

  Ruth Kelly
  Lord Penrose has been given access to all available information. The Treasury provided evidence to the Treasury Select Committee and arranged for publication of the FSA's report into the regulation of Equitable Life, copies of both of which have already been placed in the Library.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury has responded to the formal notice from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of his intention to inquire into the regulation of Equitable Life. [45736]

  Ruth Kelly
  Yes. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 66W.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings have taken place since September 2001 between Lord Penrose and Treasury ministers. [46014]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

  Pensioners (Communication)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the(a) number and (b) percentage of pensioner households that do not have (i) a telephone, (ii) e-mail and (iii) internet facilities. [45687]

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

  Letter from Mr. Webb to Mr. Len Cook, dated 25 March 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the number and percentage of pensioner households that do not have (I) a telephone, (ii) e-mail and (iii) internet facilities. (45687).
  The General Household Survey classifies pensioner households as those which contain a man aged 65 or over, or a woman aged 60 or over. Other non-pension age persons may also be in the household.
  Unpublished data from the General Household Survey show that in Great Britain in 2000 (the most recent year available):

  161,000 pensioner households did not have a telephone

  6,688,000 pensioner households did not have internet facilities

  These figures have been weighted and grossed to population values from the survey sample.

  2% of pensioner households did not have a telephone

  89% of pensioner households did not have internet facilities

  These percentages are based on a weighted figure of 7,528,000 pensioner households in Great Britain (2649 in the survey sample).
  The survey does not have information on e-mail.

  Aggregates Levy
  David Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when the regulations dealing with the Aggregates Levy will be laid before Parliament; and when they will come into force; [46212]

  (2) if he will delay the introduction of the Aggregates Levy to allow the publication of the regulations necessary to implement it in draft form; and if he will allow three months consultation on them before the levy commences; [46214]

  (3) what factors he will take into account in deciding the date for the implementation of the Aggregates Levy. [46213]

  Mr. Boateng
  The levy will be implemented on 1 April 2002.

  The draft regulations have been the subject of extensive consultation with the aggregates industry since November 2001.

  The regulations were laid on 21 March and enter into force on 1 April 2002.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make draft regulations for the implementation of the Aggregates Levy before 26 March. [45390]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Aggregates Levy (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2001 were made on 19 December 2001 and the Aggregates Levy (General) Regulations 2002 were made on 21 March 2002.

  Whisky
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been received from the Scottish Executive regarding the proposals for a strip tax on whisky. [45817]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have received a number of representations about the consultation by Customs and Excise on the costs, benefits and practicalities of a tax stamps system for spirits, including representations from the Scottish Executive.

  Oil Prices
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the impact on the United Kingdom economy and(a) domestic and (b) business consumers of oil prices of (i) $30 a barrel, (ii) $35 a barrel and (iii) $38 a barrel for over 12 months' duration; and if he will make a statement on the implications for the economy of higher prices for oil produced on the UK Continental Shelf. [45158]

  Ruth Kelly
  As detailed in the Pre-Budget Report 2000 (Cm 4917, Box A3, page 153) higher oil prices would, all else equal, tend to reduce GDP growth and increase inflation. However, the UK differs from most other major industrialised economies in that it is a small net exporter of oil, so potential GDP losses may be partly offset by increased North Sea production.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what risk assessment he has made of the effect on the(a) price of oil, (b) availability of oil and (c) UK economy of UK military action in Iraq. [45160]
  749W
  Ruth Kelly
  As the Prime Minister has made clear, most recently on 11 March, no decision has been made on whether to take military action against Iraq. Iraq currently contributes supplies of oil equivalent to about three per cent. of world production. Spare oil production capacity worldwide is currently several times this amount. Moreover, there are also International Energy Agency and international agreements on holding stocks of oil, and procedures to deal with any oil supply disruptions. Oil markets are, however, volatile and to some extent driven by expectations, as well as responding to the near-term actual balance of supply and demand. It is therefore difficult to predict the impact on oil prices from any supply disruptions, and the question of military action against Iraq is only one of a wide range of influences. The Government will publish an updated forecast for the UK economy in the Budget on April 17, taking account of all relevant economic factors.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the service delivery agreement to reduce sickness absence by 0.5 days by April 2001 was met; [46103]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target for the increase in net public investment and improvement of the public capital stock in 2002 will be met; [46000]

  (3) when he estimates the PSA target for the publication of the whole of Government accounts for 2001–02 will be met; [46003]

  (4) if the PSA target for the achievement of investors in people accreditation was achieved on time; [46004]

  (5) if the PSA target for the completion of the information strategy review was met on time; [45982]

  (6) what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target for achieving a declining trend in excessive hours worked will be met on time; [46005]

  (7) what recent assessment he has made of progress with the public service agreement target for securing an increase in the number of successful high growth business start-ups; [46001]

  (8) if he estimates that the PSA target for 2002 for increasing the proportion of business undertaken electronically will be achieved on time; [46006]

  (9) if he estimates the PSA target for moving to electronic publishing of material hitherto published on paper will be met on time; [45983]

  (10) if the PSA target for the reduction of unfilled vacancies was achieved on time; [45984]

  (11) what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target for reducing the number of households facing marginal deduction rates over 70 per cent. will be achieved on time; [46002]

  (12) if he estimates that the PSA targets for correspondence and parliamentary response times will be met on time. [45981]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Treasury's 2002 departmental report.

  European Single Currency
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research is being carried out in his Department concerning the benefits of the single currency to the United Kingdom. [46174]

  Ruth Kelly
  As the Chancellor said in his October 1997 statement, the five economic tests will define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made for UK membership of the single currency. The assessment of the five tests has not yet started, but the necessary preliminary analysis—technical work necessary to allow us to undertake the assessment within two years as promised—is under way.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 224W, to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), for what reason he is unable to specify the Treasury management units which are contributing to the evaluation of the five economic tests for membership of the euro; and if he will make a statement. [44931]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the comments I made during the adjournment debate on the preliminary and technical work held on the floor of the House on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 268.

  Pre-Budget Report
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on measures for business in relation to the pre-Budget report in November 2001. [46549]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  As announced in the pre-Budget report in November 2001 and following consultation with business:the new corporation tax regime for substantial shareholdings will apply for disposals on or after 1 April 2002;
  the new corporation tax regime for intangible assets will also apply with effect from 1 April 2002.

  In addition the Government are also proceeding with the new tax credit to encourage research and development by large companies which will apply from 1 April 2002. The credit will follow a simple volume based approach, final details of which will be announced in the Budget.

  Technical details of these measures will be published tomorrow and will be available to Members from the Vote Office.

  PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his counterparts in other European Union member states about the use of public-private partnerships in the delivery of public services. [43123]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government discusses PPPs in a variety of fora. In this context, Treasury Ministers share information on existing UK policy on PPPs with a range of European colleagues.

  Current Receipts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cash-terms change in current receipts has been since 1997. [44685]
  751W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Estimates of Government receipts are published quarterly by the ONS and HM Treasury in "Public sector finances".

  Taxation
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the tax burden was as a proportion of national income in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2001–02. [44686]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Estimates of net taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of GDP are contained in table B22 and table B10 of the November 2001 pre-Budget report.

  Wanless Report
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met Derek Wanless to discuss the contents of the final Wanless report. [44689]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Chancellor has held no meetings with Derek Wanless to discuss the contents of his final report.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health to discuss value for money in health expenditure. [44692]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Chancellor meets with ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health to discuss a variety of issues on a regular basis.

  Infrastructure Investment
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the percentage of gross domestic product and expenditure per capita represented by public infrastructure investment in(a) the UK and (b) other EU member states. [45977]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Table B23 of the pre-Budget report sets out public investment as a proportion of GDP in the UK and the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, published in April 2001, include information about public expenditure on a per capita basis. Chart 6.2 in the Treasury publication "Realising Europe's potential", published in February 2002, compares general Government net investment across all member states.

HEALTH

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in investigating his Department's performance in answering parliamentary questions. [46407]

  Mr. Milburn
  As indicated in my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W, a full investigation has now been carried out into the circumstances which led to delays in dealing with parliamentary questions in the Department of Health, including apparent falsification in recording the
  752W
  handling of parliamentary questions in the Department's parliamentary section. The aim of the investigation was to establish the facts and to ensure that the necessary remedial action is taken.

  An audit of outstanding questions was carried out immediately after the apparent falsification of the electronic database used in the parliamentary section to track the handling of parliamentary questions in the Department was discovered. This identified 411 outstanding questions due for reply before 14 February, with 214 of those questions having been recorded as answered when no reply had been given. This information formed the basis for my reply on 5 March and for replies to subsequent questions to hon. Members. Further more detailed investigation of the information derived from this audit reduced the number of outstanding questions due for reply before 14 February to 354, with 202 questions recorded as having been answered when no reply had been given. The balance was accounted for by questions which further investigation showed had in fact been answered where this had not been clear previously or which were due for reply after 14 February, questions transferred to other Departments for answer, duplicate entries on the database and incorrect entries on the database. Of these 354 questions, 348 received replies by 12 March, the remaining 6 on 13 March.

  In addition this more detailed investigation identified a further 11 outstanding questions due for reply before 14 February. Six of these were recorded as having been completed and given a false Hansard reference on the database; two previously unidentified questions were found which had been recorded as having received replies when they had not; and three outstanding questions were discovered which had not been recorded on the database at all. All these questions have now been answered.

  Of the total of 365 questions finally identified as due for reply before 14 February which had not received replies when I reported the situation on 5 March, 33 received an answer within one month of the due date for reply and 95 were answered within two months. The remaining 237 had been awaiting replies for more than two months; and 77 of these were asked before the summer recess in 2001.

  The overall number of cases where the database had been falsified to show questions as having been answered when they had not was 210, broken down by party as follows:

  Conservative 88

  Labour 69

  Liberal Democrats 42

  Scottish Nationalist 9

  Plaid Cymru 2.

  The investigation has also established that according to the Library of the House there are a number of outstanding questions from previous Sessions. Regrettably, because the Department had not been following the normal practice of sending all questions answered by letter to the Library of the House, we are unable to confirm how many of these questions were not in fact answered. All of the questions answered by letter during the last summer recess have now been placed in the Library; and this practice will he followed assiduously in future. There are, however, some indications that falsification of the database may have taken

  753W
  place during previous Sessions; and this will be pursued in the context of the disciplinary process which is taking place.

  The main conclusions of the investigation were as follows:

  (i) There is clear evidence of the systematic falsification of records on the database which tracks the parliamentary questions received in the Department of Health. Questions were recorded as having been answered when no replies had been passed to the Member of Parliament or the Official Report; incorrect information appears to have been entered on the whereabouts of parliamentary questions within the system and in a number of cases a false Hansard reference was entered to indicate that the process was complete and had been externally validated. There have been three cases where questions that appeared on the Order Paper were not entered on to the database, thus preventing their being processed at all.

  (ii) Examination of the questions in the backlog revealed no consistent pattern either by party or subject matter.

  (iii) All the indications are that previously unidentified delays in handling cases in the parliamentary section were the overwhelming contributory factor, leading to the backlog of outstanding questions that developed, and that these delays were not identified through routine monitoring systems because of deliberate falsification of the database.

  (iv) The number of parliamentary questions listed for answer by the Department of Health has increased significantly during this Session. During the 2000–01 Session (December 2000–May 2001) 1,754 questions were asked in 83 sitting days. For the current Session to date (June 2001–20 March 2002) 5,748 questions have been asked in 120 sitting days. This increase has tested the resources of the parliamentary section, particularly in the timely and diligent follow up of ministerial queries on draft answers. Pressure of work cannot, however, explain the failure to answer all the parliamentary questions in an appropriate and timely manner.

  (v) Although some concerns were raised both within the Department and by MPs about delays in responding to questions and these concerns were followed up by Ministers and managers, suspicion was successfully deflected to others within the organisation. This was possible because the management information provided by the database had been corrupted by the false entries and because the increased volume of parliamentary questions made it increasingly difficult to track the physical progress of parliamentary questions folders in a small and cramped office. The falsification of the database also prevented the size of the backlog emerging in routine monitoring of progress on answering questions. Currently there is no external system against which the Department can validate its performance. From April the Leader of the House will make available to all Departments regular lists of the parliamentary questions the Library's records show are outstanding, so that such a check can be made.

  (vi) An official in the parliamentary section has been suspended and is awaiting disciplinary action, in accordance with departmental disciplinary procedures. The detailed evidence found by the investigation will be used in this process. There is no evidence to suggest that any other member of staff was improperly involved.

  Line managers had already put in hand action to manage the increased volume of parliamentary questions, to speed up their processing, and to share the tasks more widely within the unit. The database was in the process of being modified to provide more accessible and timely management information on the handling of parliamentary questions to enable improved tracking, early intervention and a clear audit trail. The staffing complement of the unit had been increased from seven to eight.
  754W
  A summary of the process for dealing with parliamentary questions in the Department of Health prior to this investigation is being placed in the Library of the House. The following further remedial action was identified as necessary by the investigation and is being put in hand immediately:

  (i) New arrangements will be established within the parliamentary section to ensure that the process for tracking parliamentary questions cannot be manipulated by any one individual. This will include a clear separation of tasks and building in a greater degree of external checking and validation, including regular checks against information held by the Library of the House.

  (ii) The electronic database will be modified and shared across the Department and Ministers' Private Offices to allow for a more transparent system of tracking the handling of parliamentary questions.

  (iii) Questions are already handled electronically between the parliamentary section and officials. This will be extended to include Ministers' Private Office to simplify and speed the process.

  (iv) Ministers' Private Secretaries will be responsible for dealing with outstanding queries on draft parliamentary questions before they are returned to the parliamentary section.

  (v) The parliamentary section will be moved to more suitable accommodation as a matter of urgency.

  (vi) In addition to the extra capacity already introduced, there will be an immediate review of the staffing complement within the parliamentary section to reflect the increase in work load and to ensure proper controls mechanisms are in place, using other Departments' parliamentary sections with similar volumes of work as comparators.

  I expect that these changes will prevent any recurrence of the lapse in my Department's standards of accountability to the House, which I deeply regret and for which I apologise.

  Inter-country Adoptions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with Romanian authorities about inter-country adoption. [26494]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Department of Health officials have had regular contact with the National Authority for the Protection of Children and Adoption (formally the Romanian Committee for Adoption) concerning individual inter-country adoption applications.

  An informal Co-operation Agreement between the Department of Health and the Romanian Committee for Adoptions was signed on 17 February 1998. A copy of the Co-operation Agreement has been placed in the Library for information. The Agreement was drawn up in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, following the introduction of new adoption legislation in Romania in 1997. The Co-operation Agreement embodies the principles of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption 1993.
  755W
  A one-year moratorium on international adoptions from Romania was announced by the Romanian National Authority for Child Protection and Adoption, formerly the Romanian Committee for Adoptions, on 13 July, following a recommendation from the European Parliament. The United Kingdom Government have expressed their support for the one-year moratorium, which will allow the Romanian authorities time to redraft legislation on adoption and get the necessary framework in place to support it.

  Overseas Treatment
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he collated on the relative pay scales of(a) general practitioners and (b) publicly funded hospital consultants in the UK and France. [31176]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Department does not collate information on the pay scales of general practitioners and publicly funded hospital consultants in France.

  For 2000–01 the Intended Average Net Income (IANI) for a full time GP for delivering General Medical Services (GMS) is £60,655.

  For 2000–01 the salary scale for NHS consultants ranges from £50,810 to £66,120. The discretionary points scheme extends consultants' salary scale range by eight steps of roughly £2,645 each, up to a maximum of £87,280. Distinction awards may be paid in addition to consultants' basic salaries but subsume the value of any discretionary points previously held.

  West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Chairman of the West Midlands South Strategic health authority was consulted about the appointment of the Chief Executive of the authority; and if he will make a statement. [28194]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on Tuesday 22 January at column 766W.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress with, and the cost to public funds of, the policy of enabling patients whose operations are cancelled on the day they are due to take place either to choose another date within 28 days at the hospital or to have it carried out at another hospital. [16248]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the 756W
  Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March (at column 192W).

  The patients' guarantee will come into force in April 2002. When a patient's operation is cancelled by the hospital on the day of surgery for non-clinical reasons, the hospital will have to offer another binding date within a maximum of the next 28 days or fund the patient's treatment at the time and the hospital of the patient's choice. Patients may choose NHS or private treatment and the NHS will fund the operation. Trusts will meet the cost from their existing budgets.

  By reducing overall cancelled operations and ensuring that where patients are cancelled, they are offered another binding date within a maximum of the next 28 days, NHS Trusts will not incur any additional costs.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the waiting time for joint replacements at(a) the Southampton University Hospital NHS Trust, (b) the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust and (c) the Poole Hospital NHS Trust. [41690]

  Ms Blears
  Action has been taken to improve waiting times for Orthopaedics waits in Southampton. This included additional consultants, two new operating theatres and 10 additional beds for orthopaedics. An area wide steering group has also been established.

  The information collected centrally on joint replacement operations at Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust and the Royal Bournemouth & Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust is as follows:

  Waiting times for waiting list and booked admissions by main operation and selected NHS trusts, 2000–01. Total joint replacement operations

  Waiting times

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust

  0 to 3 months

  34

  411

  3 to 6 months

  33

  542

  6 months to 1 year

  65

  281

  1 to 2 years

  387

  11

  Over 2 years

  23

  1

  Not known

  2

  129

  Total

  544

  1375

  Mean days

  458

  132

  Median days

  516

  135

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Notes

  1. Waiting time statistics from HES are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and waiting times for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment at a given point in time and how long they have been on the waiting list.

  2. HES calculates the waiting time as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-referrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  3. The main operation is the first of four operation fields in the HES data set and is usually the most resource intensive procedure performed during the episode.

  4. Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.
  757W
  There are no waiting list or booked admissions recorded for the Poole Hospital NHS Trust for these operations.

  Waiting Lists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 January, 2002.Official Report, column 1121W, on waiting lists, when the review by the regional offices of the 13 trusts will be made (a) public and (b) available to Ministers. [40076]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 7 March 2002,Official Report, column 544W.

  Autism
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much is being spent by the Government into research on autism; [41462]

  (2) what research the Department is conducting into autism which has an impact on policies on (a) respite care from the social services and (b) specialist speech therapy. [41464]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC spend on autism research for 2000–01 was approximately £1.2 million. The MRC funds a large amount of work on the causes and treatment of autism, and to increase the knowledge base of issues surrounding autism. As part of this ongoing work the MRC has recently published a review of the current state of knowledge about the causes and epidemiology of autism. The MRC has also recently been given an extra £2.5 million by the Department to do further research into autism.

  The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care. The Department also provides national health service support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities that takes place in the NHS. Management of much of the research supported by NHS Research and Development Funding is devolved and expenditure at project level is not held centrally by the Department.

  There are a number of research projects on autism for which the Department provides support costs. Details of these individual projects are available on the National Research Register (NRR), which can be accessed via the internet: http://www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm. The NRR shows that the Department supports a number of research projects on speech therapy and respite care although not specifically relating to autism.

  NHS Professionals
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures he is taking to ensure that nurses working through NHS Professionals are paid on time and in full; [30774]

  (2) whether nurses working through NHS Professionals will be paid weekly. [30772]
  758W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the length of time is within which he expects NHS Professionals to pay its temporary staff; [39683]

  (2) if the payroll costs in respect of NHS Professionals staff are charged out to its clients; [39681]

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that the costs of (a) time sheet processing and (b) payroll functions of NHS Professionals are identified and reported. [41728]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answers 1 March 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Members for the delay in responding to these questions. I refer them to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March, 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  HSC 2001/002 and guidance "NHS Professionals—A co-ordinated, NHS-led approach to temporary staffing" sets out NHS Professionals national standards for good employment practice, including provision for weekly payment upon submission of completed and authorised time sheets.

  Local, regional and national project boards are in place to monitor the implementation of NHS Professionals to meet the required standards.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how an NHS employee will become entitled to extra(a) maternity and (b) sickness pay in return for working additional hours for NHS Professionals; and what is the nature of the extra entitlement; [41724]

  (2) whether a permanent NHS employee will be entitled to be paid at their substantive grade and substantive scale point, when working additional hours for NHS Professionals; [41720]

  (3) how an NHS employee will accrue additional pension entitlement in return for working additional hours for NHS Professionals; and what is the nature of the enhancement; [41722]

  (4) whether NHS Professionals nurses will be entitled to full Whitley council terms and conditions as for permanent staff; and if he will make a statement; [41718]

  (5) how an NHS employee will become entitled to additional holiday pay in return for additional hours worked for NHS Professionals; and what the nature is of the addition; [41723]

  (6) whether a permanent NHS employee will be entitled to overtime, if additional hours are worked for NHS Professionals over and above a normal full-time working week. [41719]

  Mr. Hutton
  NHS Professionals "A co-ordinated, NHS-led approach to temporary staffing" published in November 2001 highlights guidance on pay and conditions for NHS Professionals staff including maternity, sickness, pension and annual leave entitlement.

  For maternity and sickness leave statutory provisions apply. Staff have the opportunity to join the NHS Pension Scheme and accrue benefits under the terms of that scheme. The number of days annual leave entitlement is as per the Working Time Regulations and the payments are pro rata to hours worked within a reference period, with staff taking the leave within their NHS Professionals

  759W
  shifts. Salary and grade levels are agreed at the recruitment stage with the understanding that staff have the opportunity to complete shifts below their substantive grade but not over. There is no provision for overtime payments.

  Non-consultant Doctors
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure non-consultant career grade doctors can be appointed to NHS specialist posts; and if he will make a statement. [40967]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have proposed amendments to the European Specialist Medical Qualifications Order 1995. The amendments will increase the number of doctors in non-consultant career grades eligible to apply for consultant posts in the national health service subject, where appropriate, to the successful completion of a period of further training. It is not possible to extend this to all doctors in non-consultant career grades as they will not all have the required qualifications and training.

  Nurse Recruitment
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation was made by his Department of the Sharing Ideas nurse recruitment project. [40883]

  Mr. Hutton
  The "Sharing Ideas" resource pack was published in March 1998, supported by the "Working Lives" published in March 1999. "Sharing Ideas", "Working Together", "Making a Difference" and "Working Lives" were the building blocks of the current successful returner, recruitment and retention and improving working lives programmes aimed at delivering the NHS Plan.

  Speech Therapists
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to increase the number of speech and language therapists for children. [38438]

  Jacqui Smith
  Speech and language therapists working in the national health service have a broad range of responsibilities and children are one of the many

  General medical practitioners in England by age and sex, 2001

  Total

  Under 30

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  65 and over

  All practitioners

  31,835

  1,325

  3,578

  5,590

  6,254

  5,221

  4,680

  3,244

  1,396

  546

  All UPEs

  27,843

  270

  2,466

  4,844

  5,777

  5,012

  4,564

  3,154

  1,325

  431

  Male—all practitioners

  19,743

  445

  1,535

  2,885

  3,765

  3,510

  3,463

  2,545

  1,139

  456

  Male-UPEs

  18,574

  114

  1,222

  2,740

  3,673

  3,451

  3,419

  2,494

  1,093

  368

  Female—all practitioners

  12,092

  880

  2,043

  2,706

  2,489

  1,711

  1,217

  699

  257

  90

  Female-UPEs

  9,269

  156

  1,244

  2,104

  2,104

  1,561

  1,145

  660

  232

  63

  Notes:

  All practitioners include Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors, PMS Other and GP Retainers.

  UPEs (Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents) include GMS Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  Information for Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs in England and Wales work part-time; and how many worked part-time in 1997. [39207]
  760W
  important groups they help. Since 1997, the number of qualified speech and language therapists has increased by 17 per cent. (from 4,870 to 5,680 in 2001). We are also committed in the NHS plan to increasing the number of training places for therapists (including speech and language therapists) and other professional staff by 4,450 by 2004. The number of speech and language therapy training commissions increased by 101 between 1999 and 2000 and 2000 and 2001, 11 in 2001–02 and further increases are planned for 2002–03.

  Health Authority Appointments
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women from an ethnic minority background have been appointed to a health authority covering the Greater London Area since May 1997. [40519]

  Mr. Hutton
  The appointments made of people from an ethnic minority background to health authorities serving the London region since 1 May 1977 and at 5 March 2002 are given in the table.

  Appointment made since 1 May 1997

  Appointments as at 5 March 2002

  Ethnic origin

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Asian Bangladeshi

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Asian Indian

  5

  6

  4

  3

  Black African

  2

  3

  1

  3

  Black Caribbean

  7

  6

  5

  0

  Black other

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Other

  6

  2

  4

  1

  White

  49

  68

  31

  29

  Sub-total

  71

  85

  46

  36

  Total

  156

  82

  General Practitioners
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a profile of practising GPs in England and Wales, based on age and sex. [39208]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Part-time working among general practitioners (GPs) is growing as the numbers and proportion of women GPs increase. Many of these prefer more flexible working arrangements than are offered by traditional General Medical Services principal posts. One of the strengths of

  761W
  the Personal Medical Services arrangements which were first piloted in 1998 is that it readily offers such flexibility. In 1997 4,823 GPs worked part time in England. By 2001 (latest available data) this had increased to 6,252. The equivalent data for Wales are a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Agency Nurses
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he intends to exempt existing agency nurses from the requirement to obtain a GP health report; [41714]

  (2) what his policy is on commercial nurses' agencies (a) providing both nursing and domiciliary services to customers, (b) maintaining combined records in respect of both services and (c) both services being managed in one business; and if he will make a statement. [41726]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government have recently consulted on the "Nurses Agency National Minimum Standards and Regulations" under the Care Standards Act 2000. The consultation document is available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/ncsc.

  We will be considering any revisions to the standards and regulations in the light of responses to the consultation.

  Consultant Vacancies
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant vacancies there were by specialty in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [41716]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS vacancy survey has been conducted in March each year since 1999 and information is not available for 1997. Information for 2001 is shown in the table.

  Three month vacancy rates1,2 for consultants3. Three month vacancy numbers and staff in past employed within trusts, by specified specialty in England

  3 month vacancy

  rates

  numbers (wte)

  Staff in post (wte)

  Total consultants

  3.0

  670

  21,630

  Specific specialties

  Accident and emergency

  7.9

  40

  440

  Anaesthetics (including intensive care)

  1.7

  60

  3,170

  General surgery

  1.7

  20

  1,260

  Obstetrics and gynaecology

  1.5

  20

  1,050

  Ophthalmology

  0.8

  10

  610

  Oral and Maxillo Facial Surgery

  5.6

  10

  210

  Otolaryngology

  2.9

  10

  420

  Paediatric surgery

  5.7

  10

  100

  Plastic surgery

  2.9

  10

  170

  Trauma and orthopaedic surgery

  2.2

  30

  1,150

  Urology

  2.7

  10

  370

  Cardiology

  2.6

  10

  480

  Cardiothoracic surgery

  1.6

  0

  180

  Clinical oncology

  3.8

  10

  280

  Clinical radiology

  4.6

  70

  1,460

  Haematology

  2.1

  10

  430

  Histopathology

  6.0

  50

  780

  Medical oncology

  3.8

  0

  100

  Palliative medicine

  7.4

  10

  90

  Forensic psychiatry

  5.2

  10

  150

  General psychiatry

  7.8

  130

  1,490

  Learning Disabilities

  13.3

  30

  170

  Geriatric medicine

  3.0

  20

  730

  Old Age Psychiatry

  9.3

  30

  310

  Diabetes medicine

  2.7

  10

  360

  762W
  1 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  2 Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the September 2000 medical and dental workforce census (whole time equivalent)

  3 Excludes staff working within HA

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are ruonded to the nearest ten

  2. Percentages rounded to one decimal place

  *=figures where staff in post and number of vacancies are less than 10

  4. England totals include staff from special health authorities

  5. Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding.

  6. Staff in post figures as at 30 September 2000

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2001

  Department of Health 2000 medical and dental workforce census

  Women GPs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs in England and Wales are women. [39206]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: At 30 September 2001 there were 12,092 women general practitioners (GPs) in England. The number of women GPs in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  St. Bartholomew's
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the possible re-opening of the accident and emergency department at St Bartholomew's hospital; and what response he has given. [36614]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: Since 1997 there have been approximately 250 pieces of correspondence concerning the accident and emergency department at St Bartholomew's hospital and ten parliamentary questions.

  My right hon. Friend, the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), was presented with an 8, 000 signature petition by the Islington Gazette in March 2001. I met with the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster on 23 October 2001.

  The Tomlinson and the Turnberg reports confirmed that there was insufficient demand to justify supporting two full service A and E departments at both the St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London sites. There are currently no plans to return A and E services to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. St. Bartholomew's does however, run a minor injuries unit.

  Podiatric Care
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent changes in the level of podiatric care there have been in the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority area. [31853]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.
  763W
  Increasing demand for podiatry care has placed intense pressure on the local chiropody service. As a result service provision was reviewed in order to ensure that care was provided safely and within available resources. Clearer admissions criteria have been introduced, designed to address the needs of those patients with high and medium clinical need across the current caseload of approximately 35,000 patients.

  NHS (East Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of re-configuring the structure of the NHS in East Lancashire; and if he will make a statement. [27148]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  A number of simultaneous reconfigurations are taking place, both across and beyond East Lancashire. The cost of these reconfigurations will be met from within NHS allocations and is intended to result in a higher share of resources reaching frontline patient care.

  Transplant Centres
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether reducing the number of transplant centres in the United Kingdom is expected to lead to a reduction in the number of retrieval teams available; [4516]

  (2) what financial savings would be made by reducing the number of heart and lung transplant centres to (a) four and (b) five; [4517]

  (3) what policies are being put in place to increase the level of transplants and organ donation, per head of population; [4519]

  (4) if the study relating to the number of transplant units undertaken by Finnamore management consultants for the national specialist commissioning advisory group will be made available for public study. [4518]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Our long term goal for the cardiothoracic service is to increase the number of patients who receive successful heart and lung transplants, to ensure that today's high quality service is sustained in the future and to improve the working lives of the professionals who provide this crucial service.

  To meet this goal, we issued a discussion document on 21 September 2001. It announces that all six cardiothoracic transplant units will continue to provide a service to NHS patients. To do so, they will need to meet the clear and explicit requirements set out in the new monitoring framework proposed in the discussion document. These requirements include staffing levels and
  764W
  qualifications, arrangements for retrieval of organs, the number of transplants carried out or the number of patients seen in follow-up clinics and survival and rejection rates. All six units will be inspected against these requirements.

  The new service standards and effective monitoring will help ensure continued improvement to the quality of cardiothoracic transplant services, and provide patients with a national service of the highest possible quality. A copy of the discussion document, which invites comments on the standards and specification for the service, is in the Library.

  Hospital Stays (Children)
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children stayed in hospital for four weeks or more in(a) Blackpool Victoria Hospital and (b) hospitals nationwide in the last 12 months. [39526]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table below shows a count of episodes of care where the length of stay was longer than four weeks.

  Finished provider spells for 0–18 year olds where length of stay was over 4 weeks—Blackpool Victoria NHS Trust and all other

  Trusts in England, 2000–01

  Age Total (0–18)

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  55

  Other NHS trusts

  15,292

  England

  15,347

  Notes:

  A finished provider spell is defined as a period of in-patient care within one health care provider that commences with the patients' admission and ends on the date of discharge. It may comprise one or more FCEs (finished consultant episodes).

  Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Genito-Urinary Consultants
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take to increase genito-urinary consultant numbers in line with Royal College of Physicians, Consultant Physicians Working for Patients, recommendations. [40871]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan sets a target of 7,500 additional consultants by 2004 (England), over the 1999 baseline, needed to deliver the service targets set out in the Plan. There are currently around 275 consultants in genito-urinary medicine in England. We anticipate that by 2004 there will be an increase of around 35 trained specialists in genito-urinary medicine, and a further 25 by 2009. We have also agreed an increase in specialist registrar numbers of up to 16 by 2004.

  We continually review future requirements for trained specialists as part of the NHS's new multi-disciplinary workforce planning processes. These will look at the requirements for doctors alongside other staff focusing on the potential for new ways of working and developing new roles. As part of this process we discuss with the Royal College of Physicians their view of workforce needs in genito-urinary medicine.
  765W
  Projections of need will change as modernisation of the workforce progresses. Supply projections will also change as numbers in training are varied in response to identified need.

  Blood Donations
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many 17 year-olds have given blood in each of the past five years. [40875]

  Yvette Cooper
  In April 1998 donor selection criteria were altered to enable 17-year-olds to donate. The table shows the number of donors making their first donation aged 17 by financial year since this change was made.

  Financial Year

  17-year-old donor count

  1998–99

  13,777

  1999–2000

  19,133

  2000–01

  19,718

  2001–021

  16,109

  1 Data for 2001–02 taken period ending 3 March 2002. Forecast total as at end of 2001–02: 17,420

  NHS Equality Awards
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the winners of the NHS equality awards in each year since 1998. [40882]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  1998 Award Winners

  Rotherham Alcohol Advisory service

  North Staffordshire health authority

  Lewisham and Guys mental health NHS trust

  Newham community healthcare services NHS trust

  West End health resource centre, Newcastle

  University hospital Birmingham NHS trust

  Bay community NHS trust, Barrow in Furness

  City hospitals Sunderland NHS trust

  North West Lancashire health authority

  Warrington community healthcare NHS trust

  Barnet healthcare NHS trust

  Manchester health promotion service

  East Cheshire NHS trust

  Shropshire Disability Consortium

  Asian health development project, Ashton

  Southampton university hospitals NHS trust

  North Manchester healthcare NHS trust

  1999–2000 Award Winners

  Northern Birmingham mental health trust

  Southern Birmingham community health NHS trust

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority

  Tameside and Glossop community and priority services NHS trust

  North West Lancashire health promotion unit

  Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust

  Bradford community health NHS trust

  Partners Advocacy Services, Blackberry Hill hospital, Bristol

  South London and Maudsley NHS trust

  Berwick family centre

  Northern Birmingham community NHS trust

  Southampton and south-west Hampshire health authority.

  766W
  The national health service Equality Awards ran for two years with the focus on greater equality for all service users. Since the launch of the NHS Plan, the NHS Equality Awards have been combined with other national award schemes—the Nye Bevan Awards and Social Care Awards—to form the Health and Social Care Awards. This single set of awards recognises and rewards the excellence of staff working in vital services across both health and social care departments.

  Abattoirs/Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the abattoirs and slaughterhouses which are licensed by the Food Standards Agency, stating in each case their maximum weekly throughput. [40972]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Food Standards Agency is responsible for the licensing of abattoirs in the United Kingdom. I have arranged for lists of all licensed red meat and white meat abattoirs in the UK to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Licensed abattoirs are classified as either full or low throughput. Low throughput red meat abattoirs are limited to slaughtering no more than 1,000 livestock units per year at a rate not exceeding 20 livestock units per week. Low throughput white meat abattoirs are limited to slaughtering no more than 150,000 birds or 300,000 rabbits per year.

  I am unable to provide the hon. Member with details of the throughput of individual abattoirs as this information is commercially confidential.

  Hearing Aids
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision will be made to Hull and East Yorkshire NHS trust for the replacement of analogue hearing aids with digital ones. [41308]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Hull and East Yorkshire hospitals national health service trust has submitted a bid to the Department for second wave funding for the provision of digital hearing aids. The closing date for the submission of bids was 8 March 2002 and the bids are currently being evaluated.

  Care Homes
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications the National Care Standards Commission has received from care providers wishing to register as a care home, under the Care Standards Act 2000, which are not existing residential care homes or existing nursing care homes; and if he will make a statement. [41606]

  Jacqui Smith
  Under the Care Standards Act 2000, the National Care Standards Commission takes over its responsibility for the regulation of social care and independent health care services on 1 April. Care providers who are not existing providers, in other words either they are not registered (the home is not operating) or exempt from registration under current legislation, may not apply to the Commission before the 1 April. On that basis the Commission has not received any applications for registration from such potential providers. The
  767W
  Commission is receiving applications under transitional arrangements from existing providers and managers of care services who must be registered from the 1 April.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications the National Care Standards Commission has received from(a) existing nursing homes, (b) existing residential homes and (c) bed and breakfast accommodation under pilot schemes wishing to register as a care home under the Care Standards Act 2000. [41605]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Care Standards Commission is now receiving applications for registration from providers and managers of care homes previously exempt from the requirement to register under current legislation. This is part of a planned transitional process but the full number of applications will not be known until 31 March 2002, which is the cut of date for applications under the transition. The Commission has to date received no applications from bed and breakfast accommodation under pilot schemes wishing to register under the Care Standards Act. Such provision, which will be regulated under the Act if it provides accommodation with personal care, cannot make applications to the Commission until 1 April 2002.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacant places there are in residential homes in the Barrow and Furness parliamentary constituency. [45262]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many over 60-year-olds suffering from chronic myeloid leukaemia have received bone marrow transplants in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [41600]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information is detailed in the table. Bone marrow transplants are usually more suitable for younger patients. A range of other treatments is available for older patients with the disease.

  Losses for health authorities

  Health authority area

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Barking and Havering

  0

  0

  46

  12

  Barnet

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  6

  0

  10

  0

  Bexley and Greenwich

  17

  9

  1

  16

  Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bradford

  2

  1

  1

  2

  Brent and Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bromley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Bury and Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  0

  2

  7

  4

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  0

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  Cambridgeshire

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  6

  Camden and Islington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  3

  County Durham and Darlington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  768W

  Finished consultant episodes for patients aged over 60 where the main diagnosis was myeloid leukaemia and a bone marrow graft was performed. NHS Hospitals, England 1998–99 to 2000–01

  Number of episodes

  1998–99

  3

  1999–2000

  8

  2000–01

  9

  Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Respiratory Syncytial Virus
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of RSV requiring hospital admission there have been in the last three years for which figures are available, broken down by age. [41477]

  Yvette Cooper
  Figures for all admissions to NHS hospitals in England for respiratory diseases with a subsidiary classification of respiratory syncytial virus, are shown in the table.

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Age

  0–4

  523

  300

  182

  5–19

  5

  2

  4

  20–64

  6

  4

  6

  65 and over

  6

  4

  3

  Total

  540

  310

  195

  Notes:

  These figures do not represent the number of patients as a person may be admitted more than once during the year.

  Figures in this table have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. they are ungrossed)

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Health Authority Debts
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the bad debts and moneys written off by each health authority in each year since 1997. [41711]

  Mr. Hutton
  Losses due to bad debts and claims abandoned for each English health authority since 1997 are shown in the table.
  769W

  Losses for health authorities

  £000

  Health authority area

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Coventry

  0

  3

  0

  32

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dudley

  0

  2

  3

  0

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East and North Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Kent

  0

  0

  1

  0

  East Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East London and the City

  0

  1

  3

  0

  East Norfolk

  0

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  East Riding and Hull

  2

  0

  0

  0

  East Surrey

  0

  9

  0

  0

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  2

  2

  2

  0

  Enfield and Haringey

  15

  2

  1

  16

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  9

  3

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Herefordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  26

  0

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  0

  0

  95

  41

  Kingston and Richmond

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  20

  59

  0

  0

  Leeds

  0

  0

  4

  0

  Leicestershire1

  1

  0

  525

  0

  Lincolnshire

  3

  8

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  6

  0

  0

  Manchester

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Morecambe Bay

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  112

  0

  1

  0

  Norfolk

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0

  North and East Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North and Mid Hampshire

  40

  27

  24

  0

  North Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Cumbria

  0

  1

  0

  0

  North Derbyshire

  0

  0

  0

  12

  North Essex

  6

  1

  0

  0

  North Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Staffordshire

  4

  0

  2

  1

  North West Anglia

  0

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  North West Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Northumberland

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  18

  5

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  5

  0

  2

  1

  Salford and Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Sefton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  281

  63

  0

  2

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  23

  0

  Solihull

  131

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  1

  0

  2

  South and West Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Humber

  0

  0

  0

  1

  South Lancashire

  0

  0

  45

  37

  South Staffordshire

  0

  2

  0

  4

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Southern Derbyshire

  1

  0

  7

  0

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Stockport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  13

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  0

  9

  0

  7

  Tees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Walsall

  2

  0

  0

  5

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Kent

  0

  0

  0

  3

  770W

  771W

  Losses for health authorities

  Health authority area

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  West Pennine

  0

  0

  5

  3

  West Surrey

  1

  1

  1

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  10

  Wigan and Bolton

  0

  4

  2

  0

  Wiltshire

  1

  3

  2

  11

  Wirral

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Wolverhampton

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Worcestershire

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1 Although the loss shown for Leicestershire health authority was recorded in 2000–01, it relates to events which occurred between 1992 and 1994 and involved overpayments to a company which went into receivership

  Note:

  Data for 2000–01 is the last period available.

  Source:

  Health authority audited accounts 1997–98 and 1998–99.

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

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the risk of abuse of elderly people with mental health problems in different care environments. [41710]

  Jacqui Smith
  Older people with mental health problems are as potentially susceptible to abuse as any other group of vulnerable adults. The Department takes the protection of vulnerable adults extremely seriously and is determined to stamp out abuse wherever it occurs. We are actively seeking to tackle the problem through a variety of initiatives. These include the launch of guidance titled 'No Secrets' and the planned implementation of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been allocated to the treatment of(a) psychosis and (b) other mental health problems in adults in financial year 2001–02. [45942]

  Jacqui Smith
  The majority of funding for the treatment of psychosis and other mental health problems is allocated as part of health authority allocations and

  Estimated mental health expenditure 2001–02

  HCHS1

  PSS2

  Total

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  CAMHS

  289

  8

  269

  20

  558

  11

  Adult MH

  3,171

  87

  678

  51

  3,849

  77

  Elderly

  194

  5

  376

  28

  570

  12

  Total

  3,654

  100

  1,323

  100

  4,977

  100

  1Hospital and community health services (HCHS) costs exclude the costs of primary care and drugs.

  2Personal social services (PSS) costs include children's social services (CSS) costs where appropriate.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on mental health in each health authority as a percentage of total expenditure in each year since 1997. [41707]

  Jacqui Smith
  Figures showing how much was spent on mental health in each health authority as a percentage of total expenditure in each year since 1997–98 are shown in the table.
  772W
  separate figures on allocations for psychosis or other mental health problems are not available.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) amount and (b) proportion of mental health expenditure has been on child and adolescent services in financial year 2001–02; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of the adequacy of the (i) amount and (ii) proportion of expenditure devoted to child and adolescent services. [45941]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information requested is not readily available. However our estimate for likely mental health expenditure in 2001–02 and the proportion spent on child and adolescent services is shown in the table, with the personal social services (PSS) expenditure particularly difficult to estimate.

  We recognise that much still needs to be done to improve child and adolescent mental health. The work currently ongoing on the child and adolescent mental health module of the Children's National Service Framework will do much to inform our future expenditure.

  The figures in the answer are not comparable to those provided previously on a national basis, which cannot be analysed by health authority. The total expenditure used in this answer includes all the expenditure accounted for by the health authority whereas previous answers have provided spend on mental health as a proportion of total Health and Community Health Service expenditure. This excluded expenditure on primary care and authority administration.
  773W

  Expenditure on mental illness by health authorities and primary care trusts as a percentage of total expenditure in each health authority area

  Health authority area

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  England

  9.24

  8.99

  9.10

  9.63

  QD8

  Avon

  8.86

  7.99

  8.62

  7.99

  QAP

  Barking and Havering

  9.93

  10.30

  9.20

  10.55

  QAQ

  Barnet

  8.65

  9.99

  10.89

  8.26

  QCG

  Barnsley

  8.14

  8.22

  7.12

  7.02

  QA6

  Bedfordshire

  8.16

  7.73

  7.87

  7.66

  QA7

  Berkshire

  7.94

  8.53

  8.61

  9.32

  QAA

  Bexley and Greenwich

  5.76

  10.14

  10.73

  11.36

  QD9

  Birmingham

  9.11

  8.37

  9.51

  10.59

  QDD

  Bradford

  8.55

  8.19

  7.69

  8.41

  QAR

  Brent and Harrow

  12.11

  11.96

  10.25

  9.22

  QAC

  Bromley

  9.99

  8.30

  7.76

  8.92

  QA8

  Buckinghamshire

  8.36

  8.14

  4.25

  9.52

  QCT

  Bury and Rochdale

  6.24

  6.28

  6.66

  7.34

  QDT

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  8.19

  7.62

  11.08

  12.23

  QA9

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  10.37

  9.86

  n/a

  n/a

  QER

  Cambridgeshire

  n/a

  n/a

  8.41

  9.57

  QAT

  Camden and Islington

  16.20

  15.01

  15.21

  14.49

  QDV

  Cornwall and Isles Of Scilly

  8.48

  8.87

  7.11

  8.65

  QDE

  County Durham

  9.30

  8.46

  8.37

  9.30

  QEA

  Coventry

  9.34

  8.19

  7.98

  9.39

  QAD

  Croydon

  9.28

  10.20

  9.52

  9.55

  QCK

  Doncaster

  7.65

  6.54

  7.58

  8.94

  QDW

  Dorset

  7.53

  7.14

  8.00

  7.67

  QEC

  Dudley

  8.50

  8.15

  7.79

  8.18

  QAV

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  13.68

  12.54

  12.37

  12.58

  QEP

  East and North Hertfordshire

  8.96

  8.86

  8.37

  8.48

  QAE

  East Kent

  7.61

  8.98

  7.14

  7.11

  QCX

  East Lancashire

  8.20

  8.18

  8.00

  8.69

  QAW

  East London and The City

  12.43

  11.20

  10.92

  12.11

  QCA

  East Norfolk

  9.47

  8.09

  n/a

  n/a

  QDF

  East Riding

  6.55

  6.35

  5.55

  7.07

  QAK

  East Surrey

  11.91

  11.19

  10.68

  10.45

  QAM

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  9.47

  8.25

  7.83

  8.64

  QA4

  Enfield and Haringey

  13.37

  10.98

  11.63

  13.30

  QDG

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  10.74

  10.69

  10.36

  9.93

  QDY

  Gloucestershire

  7.39

  7.83

  8.19

  8.77

  QED

  Herefordshire

  6.99

  6.88

  7.14

  5.53

  QA2

  Hillingdon

  7.32

  6.45

  5.65

  8.70

  QD4

  Isle Of Wight

  7.89

  7.33

  7.52

  7.97

  QA3

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  16.60

  16.04

  14.67

  12.49

  QAG

  Kingston and Richmond

  10.20

  8.82

  11.82

  11.53

  QAH

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  17.54

  17.09

  16.82

  18.38

  QDH

  Leeds

  8.98

  7.72

  8.87

  9.69

  QCL

  Leicestershire

  9.32

  9.86

  9.89

  10.17

  QCM

  Lincolnshire

  7.43

  5.54

  7.52

  6.98

  QC2

  Liverpool

  10.37

  10.53

  9.40

  9.42

  QC3

  Manchester

  11.17

  10.89

  10.04

  9.58

  QAJ

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  11.25

  11.16

  10.27

  11.27

  QC4

  Morecambe Bay

  11.25

  9.10

  7.65

  6.63

  QDJ

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  8.55

  8.14

  7.49

  8.41

  QET

  Norfolk

  n/a

  n/a

  10.09

  10.13

  QDX

  North and East Devon

  8.01

  7.88

  8.42

  8.32

  QD1

  North and Mid Hampshire

  8.29

  8.66

  9.25

  8.83

  QCV

  North Cheshire

  12.02

  12.25

  10.80

  8.87

  QDK

  North Cumbria

  8.83

  9.54

  8.82

  9.95

  QCH

  North Derbyshire

  7.95

  7.79

  8.27

  5.68

  QAX

  North Essex

  8.66

  8.64

  9.66

  8.80

  QCN

  North Nottinghamshire

  6.65

  6.13

  6.47

  6.82

  QEH

  North Staffordshire

  9.82

  7.79

  8.27

  7.70

  QCD

  North West Anglia

  9.02

  8.92

  n/a

  n/a

  QCY

  North West Lancashire

  9.38

  9.38

  9.87

  10.47

  QDR

  North Yorkshire

  8.26

  8.40

  7.50

  9.13

  QCC

  Northamptonshire

  8.79

  9.10

  10.09

  11.46

  QDM

  Northumberland

  9.11

  8.43

  7.97

  9.50

  QCP

  Nottingham

  11.26

  10.06

  9.78

  10.42

  QCE

  Oxfordshire

  9.24

  9.22

  9.34

  11.35

  QD2

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  11.34

  10.07

  9.96

  10.49

  QA5

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  12.08

  11.96

  11.66

  10.51

  QCQ

  Rotherham

  7.00

  7.10

  7.63

  7.03

  QC6

  Salford and Trafford

  9.47

  8.67

  8.76

  8.75

  QEE

  Sandwell

  6.98

  7.14

  7.86

  7.96

  774W

  775W

  Expenditure on mental illness by health authorities and primary care trusts as a percentage of total expenditure in each health authority area

  Health authority area

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  QC7

  Sefton

  6.59

  6.60

  7.85

  24.13

  QCR

  Sheffield

  7.68

  7.57

  8.01

  8.30

  QEF

  Shropshire

  8.04

  8.02

  7.63

  7.35

  QEG

  Solihull

  5.71

  5.09

  7.87

  7.74

  QD5

  Somerset

  8.40

  8.63

  8.63

  8.40

  QD6

  South and West Devon

  7.30

  8.66

  9.10

  8.91

  QCW

  South Cheshire

  9.88

  9.63

  10.87

  9.77

  QCJ

  South Derbyshire

  7.82

  8.05

  9.82

  10.54

  QAY

  South Essex

  9.95

  9.95

  10.32

  11.37

  QDL

  South Humber

  5.21

  5.41

  6.10

  6.39

  QC1

  South Lancashire

  5.56

  6.67

  7.23

  7.22

  QEJ

  South Staffordshire

  7.03

  6.95

  6.94

  8.55

  QD3

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  9.43

  9.34

  9.68

  9.02

  QC5

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  8.29

  8.89

  8.32

  8.52

  QC8

  Stockport

  7.21

  7.31

  6.71

  7.40

  QCF

  Suffolk

  10.08

  9.74

  9.47

  10.75

  QDN

  Sunderland

  10.64

  9.64

  9.62

  9.12

  QDP

  Tees

  8.15

  7.93

  7.28

  11.58

  QDQ

  Wakefield

  7.62

  7.69

  9.26

  8.95

  QEK

  Walsall

  7.03

  6.56

  7.09

  7.57

  QEL

  Warwickshire

  7.43

  7.47

  7.60

  8.17

  QEQ

  West Hertfordshire

  8.20

  8.08

  9.32

  9.42

  QAF

  West Kent

  7.99

  8.31

  8.10

  8.43

  QC9

  West Pennine

  9.39

  9.15

  7.77

  8.27

  QAL

  West Surrey

  9.84

  9.26

  9.65

  10.27

  QAN

  West Sussex

  9.54

  8.92

  9.38

  9.70

  QDA

  Wigan and Bolton

  8.18

  7.83

  8.44

  8.79

  QD7

  Wiltshire

  8.79

  8.30

  8.07

  7.29

  QDC

  Wirral

  5.77

  5.85

  6.10

  6.95

  QEM

  Wolverhampton

  6.52

  7.10

  7.95

  8.22

  QEN

  Worcestershire

  4.29

  5.01

  8.85

  8.03

  Source:

  1. Health authority annual accounts 1997–98 and 1998–99.

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

  Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01.

  2. Cambridge and Huntingdon, East Norfolk and North West Anglia merged on 1 April 1999 to form Cambridgeshire and Norfolk health authorities.

  3. 2000–01 is the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients with learning disabilities have been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 in each year since 1997. [41708]

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

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities have put out to tender the(a) arrangement and (b) provision of mental health services. [41699]

  Jacqui Smith
  Following 'Shifting the Balance of Power' primary care trusts will secure delivery of the majority of services, including mental health services, to meet their population needs. Their local health improvement plan will indicate the extent of that clinical need and services will be commissioned from a range of appropriate providers accordingly.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is on the benefits of locating maternity services within general hospitals. [41403]
  776W
  Yvette Cooper
  The national health service provides care for women during pregnancy and childbirth in various types, sizes and locations of maternity units, including units within general hospitals or stand alone units. The Department expects this choice to continue. It is for local health authorities, Trusts and communities to decide on the pattern of service provision, taking into account the needs of local people, evidence of effectiveness and available resources.

  The Department has set up a maternity and neonatal workforce Group to make recommendations through the children's taskforce on workforce issues and various models for configuration of maternity services. This will feed into the children's national service framework to set national standards of care.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government have taken to inform people of ways to avoid contracting diabetes. [41326]

  Jacqui Smith
  The risk factors for diabetes include poor diet, physical inactivity and obesity. We are taking forward a wide range of work across Government to reduce obesity, to increase physical activity and improve diet, especially among children. Prevention of diabetes is one of the key areas covered by the diabetes national
  777W
  service framework standards, published in December 2001. Local strategies on promoting healthy eating and physical activity, and reducing overweight and obesity, are also being developed as part of the implementation of the national service framework for coronary heart disease.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money the Department has spent on research into diabetes since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [41322]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has consistently supported research into diabetes but has not in the past collected information on its total expenditure in this field. The greater part of the funding has gone to the clinical service support costs of research funded by other agencies such as the Medical Research Council and Diabetes UK. The landmark "UK Prospective Diabetes Study", a randomised multi-centre trial in more than 5,000 patients over 20 years, has been supported in this way and continues. The Department has also funded the direct costs of research through its national and regional research and development programmes.

  A joint Department of Health/Medical Research Council research advisory committee on diabetes is currently reviewing this whole field of research, as part of the work to underpin the eventual implementation of the Diabetes National Service Framework.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is provided to diabetics who are affected by(a) sudden and (b) gradual loss of vision. [41324]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence published a clinical guideline on the early management of and screening for diabetic retinopathy on 5 March, as part of its series on the management of Type II diabetes.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical practitioners in the NHS are specialised in diabetic detection and treatment. [41323]

  Jacqui Smith
  As at 30 September 2001, there were 23,142 general practitioner unrestricted principals and equivalents in England offering diabetes chronic disease management (CDM).

  In addition as at 30 September 2001, there were 987 hospital medical staff working in endocrinology and diabetes mellitus in England, of which 428 were consultants.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is made for the(a) early screening and (b) management of diabetes. [41325]

  Jacqui Smith
  Services for the screening and management of diabetes are provided in a variety of health care settings and are of varying quality. There is evidence to show that the onset of Type II diabetes can be delayed, or even prevented, that effective management of diabetes increases life expectancy and reduces the risk of complications, and that self-management is the cornerstone of effective diabetes care. This evidence underpins our development of a national service framework for diabetes, for which we published the standards in December 2001. They set out 12 standards 778W
  covering the prevention, identification and management of diabetes and its complications. The delivery strategy for the framework will follow later this year.

  The diabetes national service framework provides the opportunity to clarify policy on screening for Type II diabetes, and we have requested advice from the UK National Screening Committee. The Committee has decided that further research, which may require some complex studies, is needed to inform its advice. It will report to the Department of Health in 2005.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is provided to carers of severe epileptic sufferers. [41319]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Carers strategy is providing better support, information, and care for carers. Carers of people with epilepsy will benefit from the strategy, which includes: extending the Carers Grant to ensure that 75,000 carers will receive a break by 2004; improving social security provision to benefit 300,000 carers financially; providing information and guidance through the Carers UK help-line, Government and voluntary sector booklets and leaflets, carers centres and on-line services, and telephone conferencing to bring carers together to discuss their experiences and provide mutual support; and, allowing carers to access relevant services and support from general practitioners.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people he estimates suffer from epilepsy in the UK. [41320]

  Jacqui Smith
  Epilepsy is the commonest serious neurological disorder affecting around one in 130 of the UK population, or 380,000 people.

  Around seventy per cent. of people newly diagnosed with epilepsy are prescribed oral anti-epileptic drugs (anti-convulsants). It has been estimated that seventy per cent. of people taking anti-convulsants have their seizures prevented completely or greatly reduced.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government have done since 1997(a) to raise awareness of epilepsy and (b) to reduce triggers of epilepsy in the environment. [41321]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government has undertaken a range of co-ordinated initiatives to raise awareness of epilepsy. These include: supporting the Epilepsy Advisory Board to produce "Epilepsy Care—Making it Happen", a highly useful publication for improving epilepsy services; holding a NHS Epilepsy Day in October 1999; commending the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) report, Services for people who have epilepsy, to the NHS; providing Section 64 funding to the Joint Epilepsy Council (JEC) to undertake a project to draw upon the good practice advice in the CSAG report and other recent epilepsy initiatives; supporting the National Sentinel Audit into Epilepsy Related Deaths which is expected to be published in May 2002; and, publishing the Chief Medical Officer's (CMO) Annual Report 2001, On the State of the Public Health, which included information on epilepsy.
  779W
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is producing a clinical guideline for epilepsy to help address widespread variations in clinical practice and contribute to the delivery of improvements in prevention, diagnosis, treatment and management of epilepsy. This will be supported by an appraisal of the clinical and cost effectiveness of new "add-on" drugs in children and adults, to help promote appropriate uptake and equitable access.

  People with epilepsy will also benefit from the emerging Expert Patients Programme, which aims to provide training in self-management skills for people with long term chronic conditions. The first pilot phase will begin shortly in selected primary care group and trust sites, one of which will focus activity on people with epilepsy.

  The CMO's Annual Report makes a commitment to putting in place an action plan which will cut the level of preventable deaths from sudden unexpected death in epilepsy three months after the National Sentinel Audit into Epilepsy Related Deaths is published in May 2002.

  These initiatives will contribute to raising awareness of epilepsy and specific trigger factors.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical practitioners in the NHS are specialised in epilepsy detection and treatment. [41318]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect information about the number of general medical practitioners in the NHS who are specialised in epilepsy detection and treatment.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money the Department has spent on research into epilepsy since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [41317]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care. The Department's expenditure on completed and ongoing directly commissioned projects since May 1997 is about £1.5 million.

  In addition to specific projects, the Department also provides support for research commissioned by charities and the research councils that takes place in the national health service. Management of much of the research supported by NHS research and development funding is devolved and expenditure at project level is not held centrally by the Department. The total investment is therefore considerably greater than just the spend on directly commissioned projects.

  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. In 2000–01 the MRC spent £3 million on epilepsy research.

  Contraception
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of the price of emergency contraception upon the extent of its use; and if he will make a statement. [41885]
  780W
  Yvette Cooper
  Direct sale of emergency contraception in pharmacies has provided a welcome additional point of access to emergency contraception. Data are not collected on over the counter pharmacy sales of emergency contraception. Supply of a pharmacy medicine outside national health service arrangements is a private transaction and payment is therefore required. The cost is entirely a matter for the product licence holder and community pharmacies.

  We do however recognise that the cost of this product may be a barrier for some women and that emergency contraception must continue to be widely available under NHS arrangements. Emergency contraception continues to be available free of charge, on prescription, from general practitioners, contraceptive clinics, youth clinics, and walk-in centres. In addition pharmacists in some areas are supplying emergency contraception free of charge under a patient group direction. We welcome the introduction of these schemes and have recently provided funding to 14 areas to enable further pharmacy schemes to be developed.

  Chinese Language Services
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what services the NHS provides to meet the language needs of the Chinese community in Barnet. [45313]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan signals that a key part of modernising the NHS and Personal Social Services is the need to be more responsive to black and minority ethnic groups, and to provide services for each individual which take account of their religious, cultural and linguistic requirements.

  Barnet primary care trust (PCT) is already beginning to address the health needs of its diverse local communities. The PCT have established an Inequalities Group which meet frequently and feed into the health improvement programme.

  Interpreting services for people attending general practitioners surgeries in Barnet, including the Chinese community, are managed and provided through the Linkworker service at Barnet and Chase Farm hospitals. All GP surgeries are aware of the arrangements for accessing these services and posters and circulars are provided for communications purposes. Interpreting services for clinics and health centres in Barnet are managed and provided through the PCT. The manager for these services is based at Edgware community hospital.

  Dental Services (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the cost is of the mobile dental clinic at Highworth; and how many patients used it per day on average in the last 12 months; [45466]

  (2) what the annual cost is of the Dental Access Centre in Swindon; and how many patients have been treated in the Centre since its opening; and how many on average per day; [45463]

  Ms Blears
  In 2001–02 revenue costs of £1,233,000 were allocated to the Swindon Dental Access Centre by the Department of Health.
  781W
  8,424 patients were seen in the Swindon Dental Access Centre between April 2000 and February 2002. Local management information is that in January 2002 the Centre saw an average of 41.2 patients a day across the three sites. The Centre provides a seven-day service.

  It is not possible from the information collected centrally to identify cost and activity information for the individual sites within the Dental Access Centre. For more detailed information on cost and activity the hon. Member should contact the Chair of Wiltshire health authority.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to opening a dental access centre in North Wiltshire. [45465]

  Ms Blears
  Approval has been granted for the expansion of the Swindon Dental Access Centre to cover Chippenham. Planning permission has been granted for the development of a clinic and building work is expected to commence in April. The clinic is due to open in December 2002.

  NHS Targets
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he expects to meet each of the targets originally set out in(a) National Service Frameworks and (b) the NHS Plan. [45933]

  Mr. Hutton
  We remain confident that the national health service is on course to deliver NHS Plan and NSF commitments. Progress against these commitments is reported annually by the Department in the departmental report.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether(a) assets and (b) liabilities will be transferred to strategic health authorities; and if he will make a statement. [45940]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to legislation enabling strategic health authorities to be established, assets and liabilities appropriate to their role will be transferred to them.

  Most assets and liabilities which currently rest with health authorities are expected to transfer to primary care trusts along with the health commissioning functions.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what accumulated NHS deficits there are within each health authority area; [45939]

  (2) what (a) current and (b) accumulated deficits there are in health authorities. [45938]

  Mr. Hutton
  The introduction of resource accounting and budgeting across all Government Departments from 2001–02 means that health authorities are no longer required to account on an income and expenditure basis. The concept of accumulated income and expenditure deficits is, therefore, no longer applicable, having been replaced by a measure which seeks to ensure that health authorities live within the approved resource limits set by the Department.

  By the year end, we expect all health authorities to live within their agreed resource limits and not to overspend.

  Surrey Health Trusts
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was(a) the original budgeted expenditure and (b) the actual expenditure of West Surrey health authority in each of the last five years; [45502]

  (2) what the debt is of West Surrey health authority; and to which bodies it will be allocated when the authority is abolished; [45467]

  (3) if he will list the land and buildings identified to his Department as the source of funds to pay off the debt of West Surrey health authority. [45504]

  Ms Blears
  West Surrey health authority's original budget and expenditure is as follows:

  £ million

  Original planned expenditure

  Final budget

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  330.2

  369.8

  374.3

  1998–99

  341.6

  390.1

  389.1

  1999–2000

  381.4

  465.0

  460.2

  2000–01

  411.4

  478.6

  477.8

  2001–02

  486.5

  520.2

  519.9

  Notes:

  Final budget and expenditure figures as per accounts.

  The successor body to West Surrey health authority is the new Surrey and Sussex strategic health authority. It is responsible for the transfer of the balance sheet position, as at 31 March 2002, to the NHS organisations, which assume West Surrey health authority's functions from 1 April 2002. The exact transfer of specific assets and liabilities will be determined by the accounting process that is planned to be completed by 16 May 2002. The new health authority and local primary care trusts will be allocated the main proportion of West Surrey's balance sheet. The funding requirement for these successor organisations into 2002–03 will be concluded upon the closure of its accounts.

  Land and properties that could be sold within the West Surrey health economy as follows:

  (1) Currently owned by Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS trust: Ridgewood site.

  (2) Properties to be developed to Guildford and Waverley primary care trust:

  Farnham hospital—surplus land;

  Farnham health centre;

  Cranleigh hospital and health centre.

  (3) Currently owned by Bournewood community and mental health trust:

  Property at rear of Ashford hospital (West Byfleet health centre);

  Central site at St. Peter's campus.

  Total sale proceeds from all these properties would be in the region of £16 million to £17.5 million of which £5 million–£7 million would be expected in 2002–03.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the original budgeted expenditure and (b) the actual expenditure of the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust in each of the last five years. [45501]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table. Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.
  783W

  £ million

  Ashford & St. Peters

  Original budget

  Turnover

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  87.7

  89.1

  91.2

  1998–99

  91.3

  96.9

  96.8

  1999–2000

  98.7

  108.9

  110.5

  2000–01

  106.1

  111.2

  116.0

  2001–02

  121.0

  123.7

  125.7

  Notes

  1. The Ashford and St. Peters NHS Trust was created 1 April 1998 from the merger of the St. Peters Hospital Trust and the Ashford Hospital Trust. The figures for 1997–1998 are the sum of the figures for the two Trusts.

  2. The original budget differs from the actual turnover of the Trust due to in year contract adjustments.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the new Chairman of the Ashford and St. Peters Hospitals NHS Trust was appointed; and who was informed. [45468]

  Ms Blears
  Mr. Clive Thompson was appointed to chair the Ashford and St. Peter's National Health Service Trust on 11 March. The appointment was announced by press release on 14 March. A further letter was sent by the trust to all local hon. Members on 20 March informing them of the appointment.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) directly employed nurses and (b) agency nurses were employed by the Ashford and St. Peters Hospital NHS Trust on 1 January (i) 1999, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2002; and how much the use of agency nurses added to the expenditure of the Trust in each of the last three years. [45503]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of agency nurses employed by the Trust and the cost incurred are not collected centrally. The number of nurses employed by Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust in the years 1999 to 2001 are given below. Figures for 2002 are not yet available.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Service (HCHS): Nursing, midwifery andhealth visiting staff employed by Ashford and St. Peters Hospitals NHS Trust as at 30 September each year

  whole-time equivalents

  1999

  2000

  2001

  All nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  980

  1,030

  1,020

  of which:

  Qualified

  810

  830

  780

  Unqualified

  200

  250

  All nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  1,290

  1,350

  1,340

  Of which:

  Qualified

  1,080

  1,090

  1,030

  Unqualified

  210

  260

  310

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Human Rights Act Compliance
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 46W, on Human Rights Act 1998 compliance in hospitals, how many complaints made on human rights grounds have been made by detained patients through the NHS complaints procedures. [44772]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not held centrally.

  NHS Service Reviews
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of services have been reviewed in line with Government policy in the handbook "Better Quality Services" since September 1999. [45726]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has reviewed approximately 25 per cent. of its services and activities since September 1999 in line with Government policy in the handbook "Better Quality Services" (BQS).

  However, since March 2001 specific BQS activity has been overtaken by a fundamental review of the Department, which covered all its services and activities.

  This has been carried out in the spirit of BQS in line with Government policy and has generated a programme of change that focuses on our delivery contract and aims to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was, for each year since 1995, the average response time for providing a substantive answer to(a) hon. Members' correspondence, (b) correspondence from members of the public and (c) written parliamentary questions in the (i) Commons and (ii) Lords. [7046]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is in the table.

  Percentage of replies sent

  to MPs within service first targets of 20 day

  members of the public within service first targets of 20 days

  1995

  79

  1996

  87

  1997

  76

  4

  1998

  61

  63

  1999

  47

  56

  2000

  50

  80.5

  2001

  60

  87.5

  I regret that comparable data about parliamentary questions is not readily available in the form requested because the record management database from which it is drawn is currently not reliable, for the reasons set out in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Delayed Discharge (Barrow and Furness)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many delayed discharge patients there are in the Barrow and Furness constituency waiting to leave hospital. [45263]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 17 March 2002, there were 52 delayed transfers of care recorded at Furness general hospital in Barrow. Of these, 32 awaited placement in a nursing or residential home; seven were awaiting completion of assessment; six were waiting for NHS non-acute care; five were there for reasons of patient choice and two for other reasons.

  The number of delayed transfers of care in Cumbria is being reduced with the additional funds allocated to Cumbria county council as part of "Building Capacity"
  786W
  and the implementation of the report of the Change Agents, which was commissioned by the Department of Health. This improvement is expected to continue through 2002–03.

  Personal Care
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates his Department has made of the total cost of making the provision of personal care for retired people free. [45508]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend for Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 7 March 2002,Official Report, column 542W. In making estimates, we have assumed that only a small proportion of self-funders in residentaial care are of working age, so that the vast majority of the costs relate to older people.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom—Took the Oath.

Rear Passenger Seat Belts
Lord Janner of Braunstoneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek full information to ascertain how many deaths in the United Kingdom of drivers or front seat passengers were wholly or partly due to rear seat passengers not wearing seat belts.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is currently investigating the numbers of front seat occupants' injuries attributable to an unsecured rear seat passenger. We have commissioned Transport Research Laboratory Limited to make an assessment. A report is expected during May.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. While waiting for that report, does he accept overall the conclusion of a Japanese inquiry that a very substantial number of deaths of drivers and front seat passengers in vehicles is caused because the rear seat passengers were not belted in? Without the need for further evidence from the awaited report, surely the time has come to prosecute back seat passengers who do not wear seat belts. Further, should we not start a campaign to warn drivers that under no circumstances should they drive
2
with rear seat passengers who are not belted in, both for the safety of those passengers and for the safety of the drivers themselves?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Japanese experience is not directly comparable because they do not have any laws requiring people to wear rear seat belts, whereas we do. In terms of wearing rates, the position has improved very significantly over recent years. Now some 90 per cent of children under 14 years of age wear their seat belts when seated in the rear. We believe that that is largely attributable to the success of the publicity campaign that has been run since 1998. A number of noble Lords will have seen that film, which shows how dangerous it is when a rear seat passenger, whether a child or an adult, is flung forward and hits someone sitting in the front seats of the car. However, we want to go much further in persuading adults in the rear seats of cars to wear seat belts, because that is where the problem lies. Only around 57 per cent of adults wear seat belts when sitting in the rear of cars, I think in the belief that they are safer in the back. They may be a little safer, but certainly drivers and front seat passengers are not.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, the noble Lord may have observed that the Government declined last week to reduce the limits of alcohol for drink driving offences. They have consistently refused to do anything about people such as those just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. They have consistently refused to do anything about mobile phone use. Bearing in mind that over the past two years the number of crashes has risen by 2,000, how do the Government intend to achieve the 50 per cent reduction in casualties declared in the 10-year plan?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am minded to have a go at the first statement made by the noble Lord, but to let someone else take the second one. Focusing initially on drink driving, the noble Lord is right to say that, without doubt, we have further to go on this problem. But we should also mark the significant improvement

3
that has taken place. The number of deaths as a result of driving while having taken alcohol over the required limit has halved over the past 10 years.
The noble Lord is right in that a number of other European countries still enforce a level of 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. In essence, it is the Government's view that we have developed a pretty strong consensus across the country that it is unacceptable, as well as being illegal, to drive under the influence of excess alcohol. We do not believe that taking the level lower would lead to a significant improvement. The problem lies with a group of hardcore drinkers and a limited number of young people who are in fact drinking way over the 80 milligrams limit. Dropping the level to 50 milligrams might risk losing the very strong consensus within society without addressing effectively those groups where the problem lies.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, is the Minister aware of concerns that have arisen over a significant number of people who are driving under the influence of cannabis as a result of the "softly softly" approach now being taken by the police in some areas? Will he say what action the Government will take to deal with what is likely to be a major problem?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have not seen evidence of such concerns, but I should be pleased to receive it and for the department to consider it. The Government's position on this matter is absolutely clear. Cannabis is an illegal drug. People should not take any drug or substance, whether legal or illegal, that might interfere with their capacity to drive safely. Clearly, cannabis is a substance of that kind. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that the legislation with regard to drug use is more complicated than that for alcohol in terms of detection, but the position of the police is very much to try to increase their ability to identify drivers who have taken illegal substances when they are stopped at the roadside, thus increasing the potential to prosecute such offences.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that London taxis display many signs telling one either to do something or not to do something, but that I have never seen a sign in a London taxi saying, "Please wear your seat belt"?
Noble Lords: Taxis do display such signs.
Baroness Trumpington: Noble Lords amaze me. I have not seen those signs.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, perhaps I may invite the noble Baroness to take a taxi ride with me one evening after the House has risen—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I suspect that signs are frequently displayed, but that the rate of observance in
4
the back of taxis is pretty slim. I shall not make a personal confession from the Dispatch Box, but I am sure that all noble Lords could set a better example.
Lord Paul: My Lords, many prescribed and over-the-counter drugs can cause drowsiness. Can my noble friend say what action is being taken in regard to such drugs, the use of which can cause havoc?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as opposed to the illegal drugs referred to earlier, when GPs prescribe medicinal drugs they make it fairly clear in most cases that people should not drive when taking such substances. Although I do not think that there is any hard medical evidence, most common-sense people take note of that warning and either desist from driving or get other people to give them a lift in such circumstances.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, returning to the issue of seat belts in taxis—I intended to raise the matter before my noble friend referred to it—the reality is that if you get into a London taxi the chances are probably two to one that the seat belt is not working. Is there any chance of the back seat belts in taxis being inspected regularly as part of an examination similar to an MoT test for a car?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am speaking without certainty but I would be very surprised if, when it licenses taxis, the London Public Carriage Office did not carry out such a test. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall make sure that the department draws the matter to the attention of the London Public Carriage Office to ensure that back seat belts are in working order when they are tested.

Foot and Mouth Disease
2.45 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many animals of each species have been slaughtered as foot and mouth disease suspects or contacts since 30th September 2001.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, in total, 6,113 animals—that is, 5,781 sheep, 330 cattle and two goats—have been slaughtered since the last case of foot and mouth disease on 30th September. These animals have been slaughtered as either dangerous contacts as a result of a sero-positive blood sample or as "slaughter on suspicion" cases.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong in my understanding that if animals are sero-positive they may be expressing live virus but that virus will be so coated that it will not be infectious. If that is so, why are the Government taking extreme

5
precautions in such cases when they still have not closed the outlets at the airports for meat coming into this country?
Lord Witty: My Lords, the scientific basis on which we have engaged in the slaughter since 30th September is, in broad terms, the same as it was prior to that date. Individual sheep tests may show that the virus has passed through but they also indicate that the virus was present in the flock. Therefore animals which are sero-positive are slaughtered for a pro-bang test. Most of the animals slaughtered recently have not been sero-positive cases but suspect cases, with one "clinical signs" case. As to the import situation, the Government have significantly intensified their efforts in that area. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State held a meeting with all the enforcement authorities, the airlines and the ports only last week, during which we further determined to coordinate more effectively the checks on meat imports at ports and airports.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do not suppose that the noble Lord will hurry to agree with me, but is he aware that many people feel that the ex-Ministry of Agriculture usually responded to scientific and well thought-out questions in a way that led one to doubt the merits of the scientific basis on which those answers were founded?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware that in a number of fields the advice that the Government have received from their scientists has been queried in this House and beyond. In a sense, that is as it should be. The nature of science involves varying interpretations of facts. However, both the Ministry of Agriculture, and my present department, had and had available to it the best scientific advice in their fields anywhere in this country and probably anywhere in Europe. That there are different opinions within the scientific community is a fact of life. Science is never 100 per cent certain, in this as in other fields.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any of the animals he classified as "contacts" were slaughtered as a firebreak and did not have contact with any infected animals? What is the Government's policy on this issue at the present time?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, of those animals which have been slaughtered since the last confirmed case, about a third were slaughtered as a result of decisions taken prior to 30th September and may well have involved some contiguous cull premises, which I believe is what the noble Lord means. The majority were slaughtered because of sero-positive tests or other signs in the sheep rather than as part of a contiguous cull. Our policy in this regard is as set out in our interim contingency plan—that is, were the disease regrettably to recur, we would continue with a contiguous cull, although it could be subject to substantial local discretion in particular circumstances.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that 3,305 of the farms which lost their animals under
6
the cull did not test positive for the virus and that 98 per cent of the animals slaughtered were killed unnecessarily? What progress has been made with regard to vaccination? And, to follow on from the question of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, how quickly can we expect the report of the group considering the issue of the importation of meat and food into this country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have a continuous process of improving the checks on imports. There are certain matters that will require report, but a great deal of action is under way both by government agencies and by the industry.
On the question of what proportion of contiguous cull animals were subsequently found to have the disease, I do not entirely recognise the figures indicated by the noble Baroness; but it is bound to be a low number. The disease has a 21-day incubation period. Therefore, it would not necessarily be found immediately. However, had those cattle not been slaughtered, not only is it highly probable that many of them would have developed the disease, but also it would have led to a further spread of the disease in those premises that were contiguous to the initial contiguous cull. Indeed, in circumstances where there was a slow-down in engaging in the contiguous cull arrangements, there was a worse spread of the disease.
In response to the noble Baroness's other point, vaccination during the course of the disease would have been unlikely to avoid the death of the animals, as we saw in the Dutch case. The question of whether there should be a new European policy in relation to vaccination and to control of the disease in general is being pursued at that level.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, in the event of a return of foot and mouth disease—which I am sure we all hope will not happen—does my noble friend consider that there are sufficient powers in place to deal with it?
Lord Whitty: Not entirely, my Lords. In the interim contingency plan we have identified a number of measures that we would take to ensure that we had tight control. We have also identified, in relation to the Animal Health Bill, additional plans and powers which the Government would need to ensure the maximum containment of the disease. That Bill will begin its Committee stage in this place tomorrow.

Disabled Children in Residential Schools
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Wilkinsasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to implement the commitment made in the White Paper Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century (Cm 5086, paragraph 3.22 i that the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills "will work together to find out

7
more about the numbers, characteristics and outcomes" relating to disabled children in residential schools.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, a joint Department of Health and DfES officials working group has been set up to take this work forward. It has met several times over the past three months and is currently agreeing a programme of work to improve the information collected about disabled children in residential placements, including schools, and to ensure that they are properly supported and protected. It will report by the end of this year.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Is he aware of recent research by the Norah Fry research centre indicating that the current legal framework is not working effectively to safeguard the interests of disabled children in residential schools and that there is confusion among local education and social services staff about their duties to these children? For instance, one in four social services departments does not recognise its duties under the Children Act to review the placements regularly and to consult the children about their wishes. Is the noble Lord further aware that the same research found that some children remain at school for possibly 48 or even 52 weeks a year, and yet parents generally receive no help at all in maintaining contact with their children? What are the Government planning to do to rectify the situation?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness may be referring to a report by the Rowntree Foundation. Yes, that has drawn attention to a number of areas where we believe there is a need to improve standards and practices in a limited number of local authorities. The data collection that I mentioned previously is intended to give a clear foundation as to exactly where children are and what are the particular circumstances of their need. It is true that there has been some confusion about when children are in care and when they are not as a result of joint funding placements, as opposed to placements simply by an education authority rather than with a social services authority.
There is a range of action, but the key to bringing about progress is that, from April this year, the national care standards commission will come into being and will be inspecting all such places in an attempt to ensure that they meet the kind of standards indicated in the Question and that they meet the 33 specifications for good quality care, as well as good quality educational facilities in special residential schools.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the 1998 Quality Protects programme should, by now, have yielded some practical results for disabled children? What has been done in practice under that programme for disabled children with special educational needs?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the early signs—and it is still relatively early given that this is a 10-year programme—are that it is making a considerable difference already. One example is that £60 million of funding in the Quality Protects programme has been earmarked specifically for services for disabled children. We have a lot of confidence that that is raising the profile of care that is important for children with disabilities, both in social services and in local education authorities.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that many of these children who are placed in long-term residential schools have a tremendous problem when it comes to adult life, and are often moved merely from one institution to another? They are usually moved to long-term care institutions, where much of the company is of a much older nature. Are the Government examining this problem and attempting to get such people into a situation where there is a far higher amount of social inter-activity with their own age group?
Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords, the Government are aware of the problem and of the poor quality of life of young people with disabilities as they move into adulthood. The proportion of those who have their own home, or have a job or have choices over their own form of care is much lower than we believe is desirable or should be the case for the future. That is clearly why the White Paper, Valuing People, set out a range of actions to try to improve the quality of care in that respect.
Perhaps I may make two specific comments. First, we should try to determine the extent to which it is possible to provide the appropriate level of education and social care without putting people into residential schools. A number of local authorities are doing some pioneering work in that respect which may reduce institutionalisation and may increase contacts. Another element is the Connections programme, which attempts to target disabled people as needing specific support so that, wherever possible, they can obtain appropriate work when they finish their full-time education. One should not expect a transformation in either area, because these are difficult and intractable problems. But there is certainly a commitment to make progress in them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister will agree that there is a tendency to describe improvement in terms of the amount of money that is being spent. My noble friend asked for practical examples of how the Quality Protects programme is working on the ground for children in residential homes.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is a good question. It may be best if I give a comprehensive reply in writing.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Government's proposal to harmonise the two great departments of state on this issue is very welcome? However, in a sense that deals with only half

9
the problem. Many of the serious difficulties involved for such children lie at local level. There is no legal requirement on local departments to work together; and, often, they do not. Sometimes, they are in conflict, and the children suffer accordingly. Will the Government consider imposing a legal requirement on local departments?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in one respect the Government have done exactly what my noble friend signals. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 will place, from September this year, a legal obligation on local authorities not to discriminate against the needs of disabled children when making educational judgments. That is exactly the kind of thing that my noble friend was referring to. It is saying that such people cannot be given services that are second-best in quality just because they are disabled. The LEA has to seek to bend its services to meet their needs in a more committed way than might have been the case for what one hopes was a limited number of local authorities. I am certain that there are many other examples as well.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, is the number of children with autistic spectrum disorder who are funded by social services authorities to attend residential schools increasing or declining? Is the number of children with profound and multiple learning disabilities who are funded by social services authorities to attend residential schools increasing or declining? Do the Government have a view on whether public resources should be spent on such placements? Does the Minister agree that it is crucial to have proper statistical information in order to plan for such children for the future?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I strongly agree with the noble Baroness's last question and I respect her considerable experience with Childline in that area. On the other two points, my recollection is that there is sonic increase in the number of children diagnosed with autism. The central thrust of the Government's position on residential schooling has been to enable children and their parents to sustain education and normal family life in their home area as far as possible. A number of authorities are radically reviewing their policies and practices in that respect. That is often, but not always, possible, for reasons that the noble Baroness will be aware of. In some situations, either the child's needs are too specific or the family cannot sustain the pressures that are imposed on them. Over the coming years, I expect to see more children who in the past would have gone into residential schooling being helped to stay in domestic circumstances, with the appropriate range of support.

International Campaign Against Terrorism
3.2 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in the time that remains, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
10
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their priorities for the next phase of the international campaign against terrorism.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the top priority is to finish off the first phase of the international campaign against terrorism by eliminating the threat of Al'Qaeda and its Taliban support network in Afghanistan. However, the Government are also already taking action to address terrorism and its causes elsewhere, prioritising measures that suggest three types of situation: first, measures to prevent terrorists operating in areas where states lack the resources or skills to confront them; secondly, states that promote and condone terrorism as a tool of foreign policy; thirdly, sources of terrorist financing.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any military action beyond Afghanistan must be in the context of a clear political strategy, which must be explicitly straightforward about what is anticipated after the military action? Does she also agree that that must cover a regional approach and that the good will of, for example, Iran and Russia to whatever is proposed will be essential? Is not that why the explicit authorisation of the United Nations will be essential? How is it that some Ministers are saying that to go back to the UN is just one legal option available?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that any military action must only ever be undertaken when other possibilities have been exhausted. I also agree with the implication of his question that all such action must be taken in a way that is consistent with international law and that it must be action that could lead to a successful outcome and is commensurate with the risks posed by any country against which it is taken. Of course it is desirable that any action be taken on the widest possible consensus. Action will always depend on precise circumstances. Since no decisions have been taken to launch any military action as yet, I do not wish to add to any speculation of that nature.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if one of the goals of an operation is a change of regime, it is quite important to have some idea of what sort of regime might succeed the existing one? Does she also agree that to rely on very old and rather out of date United Nations resolutions is not the best way to get the moral support of the international community for any action?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we should be very careful about the noble Baroness's second point. If we are saying that there is a sell-by date over a United Nations Security Council resolution, countries may choose to flout and ignore those resolutions. I am thinking particularly of Iraq, which has failed to comply with 24 of the 27 obligations placed on it under UN Security Council

11
resolutions. If countries know that they simply have to let time go by and the rest of the world will eventually say that a resolution no longer matters, we will get into a very dangerous position. I have tried to make clear the Government's absolute adherence to the principle that any such action should always be taken under the auspices of international law.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend acknowledge that the threats are made mostly by terrorists and that, therefore, the Government have to respond? What immediate action are the Government taking in the light of the incidents that have taken place in the past few days at Heathrow?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have to acknowledge that we face a range of threats. As I said in my original Answer, threats may come from organisations based in countries that would like to be able to deal with terrorists but do not have either the capacity or the skills to do so. That is a very different position from that of a country that deliberately promotes or condones terrorism as a tool of foreign policy. The Government are pursuing a number of ways of dealing with the issues. We are doing so through the European Union, through the Commonwealth and, very importantly, through the United Nations, where Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our ambassador to the United Nations, is chairing the committee on terrorism.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Consignia restructuring announcement. It is hoped that the Statement will be repeated after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and before the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, during the Proceeds of Crime Bill Second Reading debate.
After the conclusion of the Second Reading debate and before the debate on Afghanistan, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Railtrack.

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 8,

Schedule 1,

Clause 9,

12

Schedule 2,

Clauses 10 to 13,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 14 to 34,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 35 and 36,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 37 to 43,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 44 to 90,

Schedules 7 and 8,

Clause 91.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Proceeds of Crime Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a highly complex and technical Bill. It comes to us from the other place where it received thorough and detailed scrutiny over several months. It runs to 304 pages and contains 454 clauses and nine schedules, many a repetition of the same issue so that Scotland and Northern Ireland are dealt with in the same way as England and Wales.
The huge profits made from crime are often flaunted and give force to the old saying, "Crime pays". This causes deep offence to hard-working and law-abiding members of the community and it makes harmful role models for our young people. Above all, the proceeds of crime provide the working capital for future criminal enterprise. Recovering the money must therefore be an inherent part of our crime reduction strategy.
The June 2000 report from the Government's Performance and Innovation Unit leaves no doubt that far too many defendants pass through the criminal justice system with little or no effort being made to deprive them of the benefit they derived from their crimes. Police and Customs experts believe that following the money trail provides an effective route to identifying major criminals and disrupting criminal organisations as well as relieving crooks of the proceeds of their crimes.
I am not asking for approval of this important legislation—voluminous though it is—in isolation. It must be supported by other action, the first of which is on resources. Very little priority has been given to financial investigation and the recovery of criminal assets. The Government have therefore made money available in the current settlement period to fund 86 additional financial investigator posts for the police service in England and Wales.
Next, we need action on expertise. This is extremely complex work demanding the right skills—people properly trained in financial investigation and prosecutors and judges equipped to deal with difficult cases. Moreover, we need action on international cooperation. Criminals use national boundaries to protect both themselves and their money. Improvements made by the Bill will apply to the

13
recovery of money generated by crime overseas as well as by domestic crime. We can also make better practical use of powers and procedures, both now and in the future. The Government have set themselves a target of doubling receipts from the proceeds of crime. In real money, the target is £60 million in three years' time. The Government and the law enforcement and prosecution agencies have drawn up a strategy, which has been published, for achieving that goal.
As we are asking the House to approve a large tranche of new legislation in this Bill, I should briefly describe some of the problems with current legislation. We have identified some weaknesses. The first is that the separate treatment of drug trafficking from other criminal activity makes current legislation ineffective in dealing with today's versatile criminal entrepreneurs. When dealing with such criminal groups, it is often impossible in practice to distinguish between the proceeds from drug trafficking and their other activities.
Furthermore, modern technology makes it possible to transfer money from one bank account to another, or from one country to another, at the touch of a button. We must have powers to track such transactions. Currently, even if investigators locate the assets, they have no power to freeze them until the defendant is about to be charged. By then, the defendant will often have realised that he—sometimes she—is under investigation and will have placed the assets beyond reach. The complexity of the confiscation system deters the courts and practitioners. In fact, the system produces only about 1,100 confiscation orders annually, compared with 65,000 defendants found guilty of offences in Crown Courts. Furthermore, the enforcement process is ineffective. Only 40 to 50 per cent of the value of confiscation orders granted is actually recovered.
Another problem is that many major criminal figures have become untouchable by prosecution and confiscation. They organise or finance the criminal activity of others and then profit from the results. Subsequently, they are subject to our current processes, but, as I said, are almost untouchable. In many such cases, law enforcement has compelling evidence that assets were derived by unlawful activity. That evidence is often supplemented by evidence that property has been concealed, or by the absence of any rational explanation for the legitimacy of a person's assets. The Bill addresses that key issue.
The Bill comes to your Lordships' House from the other place in fairly good shape. It was substantially debated for more than 115 hours, including 96 in Committee and more than 10 on Report. Some 28 distinct aspects of the Bill have been amended and there are a number of issues on which, in response to points raised in another place, we shall be bringing forward further amendments for your Lordships' consideration. I shall comment on some of those later. The Government are grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships' House for their reports. I shall comment later on some of their findings.
14
First, however, I should like to outline what the Bill will do. Part 1 establishes an assets recovery agency which will be dedicated to recovering the proceeds of crime. The agency will share the confiscation functions of the law enforcement and prosecution authorities. It will also have sole authority to operate the civil recovery procedures in England and Wales and Northern Ireland under Part 5 of the Bill, and will exercise taxation functions throughout the United Kingdom under Part 6. I shall deal with that point separately. The agency will also train and accredit financial investigators, who will then be able to apply their skills in their own organisations. The agency director will be accountable to the Home Secretary although he will act independently on all the cases he handles. We envisage that the agency will be staffed by a multidisciplinary team of between 100 and 150 people including investigators, lawyers and accountants.
Part 2 sets out a consolidated scheme for restraining and confiscating the proceeds of crime in criminal proceedings following a conviction for any acquisitive offence. Parts 3 and 4 contain similar procedures for Scotland and Northern Ireland. As I said, there is a good deal of repetition of the issues in the Bill, for reasons which will be clearly understandable.
The power to restrain the assets of a suspect will be made available at an earlier stage, from the start of a criminal investigation instead of at the point a charge, and applications will be heard by the Crown Court instead of the High Court as at present. Normally, a confiscation order will reflect the convicted defendant's benefit from his particular crime. However, when the defendant has a criminal lifestyle, the confiscation order will reflect his benefit from his general criminal conduct—that is, all criminal conduct committed by him.
A defendant has a criminal lifestyle in cases in which he is convicted of drug trafficking, money laundering or other specified offences. We have placed in the Library a list of the types of criminal conduct that we believe should normally be indicative of a criminal lifestyle. In response to debate in the other place, we shall be bringing forward in Committee a new schedule listing criminal lifestyle offences. We shall also consider amending the power to add further offences by use of the affirmative resolution procedure, as recommended by your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
The Bill identifies two other criteria for a criminal lifestyle: when a single offence is committed over a period of at least six months, for example a conspiracy; or when an offender is convicted of three or four offences from which he has benefited. I should say a few words about the assumptions. When a defendant has a criminal lifestyle, the court must assume that assets held since conviction regardless of when they were acquired, and property transferred to the defendant or expenditure incurred by him during the six years before criminal proceedings, represented the proceeds of crime. The Joint Committee's report appeared to accept the public policy arguments for applying the assumptions in drug trafficking cases.

15
The Joint Committee has, however, questioned applying the assumptions in other cases, arguing that the criminal lifestyle criteria are too widely drawn.
We have carefully examined this issue, but we currently do not consider that the Joint Committee has given sufficient weight to the substantial safeguards that the Bill provides, or to the recent judgment of this House in the Rezvi and Benjafield cases. As I said, this is not new in principle. Similar challenges against the use of the existing assumptions procedure in drug trafficking cases were rejected by the Privy Council in McIntosh, in February 2001, and by the European Court of Human Rights in Phillips, in July 2001. In the Bill the court must not apply the assumptions if the defendant shows them to be incorrect, or if doing so would give rise to a serious risk of injustice. The courts have regarded these safeguards as sufficient to ensure compliance with human rights.
I should also deal with the provisions on the family home, which is treated differently as between England, Wales and Scotland. The Joint Committee on Human Rights argued that the provisions in Part 3 which place certain limits on the realisation of a family home in Scotland should apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. Parts 2 and 4, which apply to England and Wales and Northern Ireland respectively, require a family home to be confiscated when that is necessary to satisfy a confiscation order in the same way as any other property liable to confiscation. Part 3, which applies to Scotland, empowers the court to refuse realisation of a family home when the authorities are unable to prove that it was acquired with the proceeds of crime. This reflects other provisions in Scottish law that restrict access to the family home in certain types of proceedings. The two provisions are different, but the Government are satisfied that they are both consistent with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Part 5, on civil recovery, empowers the director of the agency to sue people in the High Court for the recovery of property derived from unlawful activity. This is a civil action to which civil rules and procedures will apply. In Scotland, Scottish Ministers will be responsible for civil recovery and proceedings will take place in the Court of Session.
It is important to take on board the fact that the prosecution of criminals must always take priority—that is a key element—and it will continue to do so. However, it is not acceptable that ownership of the proceeds of crime should remain immune from any form of legal challenge where criminal proceedings are not available. The director will have access to the investigation powers in Part 8 of the Bill, prior to the start of litigation. If the court is satisfied that he has a good, arguable case, he will be able to seek an interim receiving order that freezes the property, pending the outcome of the case, and places it under the control of a court-appointed receiver. Civil recovery will not seek to establish guilt or innocence but will focus on whether particular property is, or represents the proceeds of, unlawful conduct.
16
The scheme contains substantial safeguards, as everyone will expect. The burden of proof will be on the director. There will be a financial threshold below which proceedings will not be initiated and we expect to set that at not less than £10,000. Civil legal aid will be available and where the director loses, the court will be able to order him to compensate respondents for any financial loss they have incurred.
There is a substantial and detailed protection for people who show that they have purchased property in good faith for full value and without notice of its tainted origins and for other innocent interests. In the light of all those safeguards the Government are confident that the civil recovery provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, the Minister has said that there is to be a limit of £10,000. Is that merely to relate to the part of the Bill that deals with recovery or will it also relate to confiscation under the Crown Courts?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall take advice on that. Effectively, it will operate de minimis, so that we do not go after trivial amounts. The sum of £10,000 is not trivial but in the scale of rampant organised criminal activity, for which there are substantial benefits, £10,000 is chicken feed and therefore can be regarded as trivial. It will operate de minimis, and it may cover both aspects raised by the noble Lord. If I am incorrect, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General will correct me when he replies to the debate.
We have looked carefully at the Joint Committee's suggestion that civil recovery will amount to a criminal penalty under the ECHR. However, we continue to believe that a better view is that civil recovery is a civil remedy.
In reply to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, there is no limit to criminal confiscation. In effect, the £10,000 would not apply to criminal confiscation. There is no limit for criminal confiscation.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Explanatory Notes in reference to Clause 305, on the minimum amount, state:
"The current level in respect of the forfeiture of … cash … is £10,000 or more and the Government intends that the same level should be imposed in respect of this scheme".
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that does not relate to the criminal confiscation aspect to which I referred earlier. I shall take further advice and I shall return to the matter later if necessary. I do not believe that that note applies to the relevant part of the Bill.
Part 5, on cash forfeiture, provides for the extension of current powers to forfeit cash in magistrates' court proceedings. At present, cash forfeiture is only available in relation to drug trafficking and terrorism, and, where drug-related cash is concerned, only for cash discovered at external borders. Police and

17
Customs report that they regularly discover cash in-country which they know or suspect to have been derived from or to be intended for use in criminal activity, but where no intervention is possible under current powers. The Bill will empower police and Customs to seize cash discovered anywhere in the United Kingdom. They would then be able to seek its recovery in civil proceedings.
To ensure that the powers can be exercised effectively, the law enforcement authorities will need to be able to search for suspect cash where they believe an individual is carrying it, or that it is on premises where they are lawfully present. Part 5, therefore, establishes a new search power for that purpose, with appropriate and substantial checks and safeguards.
Part 6 deals with taxation of the proceeds of crime. It gives the director taxation powers. Experience overseas has shown that taxation is a powerful tool for recovering criminal assets. The agency will be better placed than the Inland Revenue to deal with cases of this kind because it will have as its focus the reduction of crime and will use the taxation system to this end, whereas the Inland Revenue has as its focus the effective and efficient collection of tax.
The director will, with one exception, apply all normal Inland Revenue rules and practices. The exception is that, unlike the Inland Revenue, the director will be able to raise an income tax assessment even where he cannot identify the source from which the income has derived. The director will be required to treat tax information with the same confidentiality as the Inland Revenue, and the same avenues of appeal and complaint will be available. Part 6 will have no impact whatever on ordinary taxpayers, who will continue to be dealt with by the Inland Revenue. Tax evasion cases will not fall within the purview of the director. They will remain under the present system.
Part 7 deals with money laundering. The Bill updates and unifies the existing money laundering offences. There are three substantive offences: first, concealing, disguising, converting or transferring criminal property; secondly, assisting another to launder criminal property; and, thirdly, possessing, using or acquiring criminal property.
The distinction in current legislation between laundering drug proceeds and laundering other criminal proceeds has been removed. Furthermore, we have removed the distinction between the laundering of one's own proceeds and the laundering of another's proceeds. Those artificial distinctions have contributed to the small number of prosecutions. There were only 129 in 2000, and, as I said earlier, there was a low rate of just 50 convictions out of those 129 cases, or 39 per cent.
It will be an offence for a person working in the regulated sector, who knows or suspects that another person is engaged in money laundering, to fail to report that knowledge or suspicion to law enforcement. The offence will also be committed if the defendant had reasonable grounds to know or to suspect that money laundering was taking place. But
18
the court will be required to take account of whether a defendant complied with industry guidelines, provided that the Treasury has endorsed them.
We think it reasonable to expect people working in regulated areas to work to certain standards of competence and vigilance. But we accept the argument made in another place that staff at any level who have not been properly trained by their employer should have a defence against the negligence offence, and that now appears on the face of the Bill. In addition, we shall consider further the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's points on tile power to amend the definition of the regulated sector and will return to the issue in Committee.
In Part 8 the Bill provides powers, subject to court approval, for tracing and investigating suspected criminal assets. Those powers will include a new customer information order, requiring banks to inform the investigator if they hold an account for a person under investigation; and an account monitoring order requiring banks to inform the investigator of movements of such an account over a period. Civilian staff working for the police service and government departments and agencies will a so have access to investigation powers, provided they have been trained and accredited by the agency as financial investigators.
Part 8 also gives the director (in Scotland, the Lord Advocate or the Scottish Ministers) a new power—a disclosure order—to require persons to answer questions and to provide information. That is based on the similar power already available to the director of the Serious Fraud Office. Information given under compulsion will not be admissible in criminal proceedings against that person, but it will be admissible against that person in confiscation or civil recovery proceedings.
Part 9 governs the relationship between confiscation and insolvency proceedings. Part 10 regulates the disclosure of information to and by the director, the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Ministers. All disclosures made under Part 10 will he subject to the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Part 11 will enable Orders in Council to be made to enable overseas requests for the freezing and recovery of criminal assets to be executed and for the exercise of the powers in Part 8 of the Bill on behalf of overseas jurisdictions.
Before concluding, perhaps I may turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. Our intention is that the order which sets the threshold for the cash forfeiture and criminal recovery proceedings will be £10,000. No limit is intended for the criminal confiscation under Parts 2, 3 or 4. That is the distinction. I am sorry if my original answer was not clear.
In conclusion, the Bill is innovative. It is not a surprise to anyone; it has been around for a considerable period of time—even before, I think, the last election. It strengthens the law substantially. We make no bones about that. But we believe that it is fair and proportionate to the issues we have to address. We

19
have taken account of experience both here and abroad and of the many consultations last year and have made many changes in the light of consideration by the other place, which spent a substantial amount of time debating the issues. We believe that the Bill will be practical and workable, and the extensive debate has reinforced that view.
I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House. With my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, I shall be responsible for the Bill in Committee. My noble and learned friend will wind up the debate. I regret that due to other circumstances, I shall be unable to be present when the debate resumes following the Statement. I shall ensure that I have read everything before we begin the Committee stage.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rooker.)
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open this Second Reading debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition. The Proceeds of Crime Bill introduces new powers and enhances existing and anti-terrorism measures to crack down on terrorist finance and organised crime. It is an important Bill and deserves careful consideration by your Lordships.
We are broadly in favour of the Bill. Indeed, we take exception to the statement by the Prime Minister, during Prime Minister's Question Time on 13th March 2002, while referring to the Bill, that,
"many of its provisions are being opposed by the Conservative party in Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/03/02; col. 881.]
This was an entirely inaccurate statement from a Government who felt discomfort, even angst, in the face of on the whole very constructive criticism from all sides, including the government side, during the passage of the Bill in another place. If we cannot pass comment and probe, what on earth are we here for?
Indeed, for me the most telling comment came in another place from the honourable Member for Glasgow, Pollock, at col. 589 of the Official Report, Commons, when he referred to your Lordships as,
"the old boys along the corridor".
While "a boy", I suspect that the Minister would take equal exception to that although perhaps we should be glad to hear signals clearly indicating that Members of another place are so conscious of the influence of this House.
I am pleased to say that Her Majesty's Opposition made many helpful suggestions and comments during the 39 sittings in Committee and on Report resulting in significant improvements to the Bill. That said, we have work to do in your Lordships' House and I hope that my contribution today will signal a will and a wish to assist the Government in producing a workable and effective piece of legislation.
In general terms, the Bill seeks to consolidate and build upon the confiscation regime which was introduced by the former Conservative government in
20
the form of various Acts of Parliament passed in the mid-1980s. It was the proceeds of drug trafficking which initially concerned the legislators but other types of offence came to be covered by other statutes. Civil recovery of assets not dependent upon any criminal conviction became a reality in the 1990s.
In many respects, the Bill is a work of consolidation not only of criminal procedures but also of civil recovery procedures set up by the Conservative government. While this is not the time for a detailed exposition of our proposed amendments, I want to flag up some of the themes which will govern our approach. I begin by asking three questions. First, does the Bill as drafted provide a practical framework for those seeking to use its procedures? We suggest that some of its provisions do not yet reflect—we hope that they will—a full appreciation of the realities of practice. Secondly, by means of the Bill, is the Government's true aim the deterrence of crime and punishment of criminals or merely the raising of revenue? We suggest that those two aims do not necessarily go hand in hand. Thirdly, bearing in mind the potential impact of the provisions of the Bill on those innocently caught up in the proceedings—for example, dependants of drug dealers—are their legitimate interests and rights adequately catered for in every respect?
I turn to Part 1. It concerns the setting up of the assets recovery agency which is to be responsible for the administration of the new confiscation and recovery regime. Importantly, under Clause 3 the new body will be responsible for the accreditation and training of financial investigators. It is hoped that the wealth of knowledge and experience accrued by those who have until now been responsible for financial investigations will not be lost. For example, in drugs offences financial investigations are carried out by police officers with practical experience in the detection of drugs crimes. A similar point is made with regard to existing databases in the control of the Financial Services Authority and the Serious Fraud Office.
The recovery of assets must not become merely an exercise in arithmetic. It should be targeted effectively at those persons who have either made significant gains from crime or those whose financial diminution or humiliation would destroy or damage a known criminal network. Such knowledge can come only from officers who have worked in the field, we suggest, and must continue to play a part in the judgments of financial investigators. In short, we very much hope that the establishment of a new authority with newly accredited investigators will not represent year zero in terms of financial information about criminal activity.
Part 2 sets out the criminal confiscation regime for England and Wales. We have abiding concerns about the drafting of Clause 6. This clause relates to the making of confiscation orders by the Crown Court wherein the court must proceed to a determination of assets if the prosecution simply asks the court to proceed or if the court believes that it is appropriate so to do. Reassurances by the Government in another place that the court's discretion is somehow preserved

21
are not enough in our view. Under Clause 6(3)(a) the prosecution is the gatekeeper of this procedure not the court. We shall seek to reverse that role. This is particularly important when bearing in mind that at the end of the day the assets recovery agency will need only the lesser burden of proof—on the balance of probabilities—to win rather than the higher standard of evidence required in a criminal court.
Further, there are many cases where defendants with no background of drug dealing admit to supplying to friends on a small-scale basis with the aim of feeding their habit. Counsel for the prosecution and the judge will no doubt sensibly take the view that the commencement of confiscation proceedings under the Bill would be a costly and futile exercise. Contrary to the general rule—for example, the court's power to stop a case for insufficient evidence—the court will have no discretion to avert the commencement of proceedings. All that is needed is an over-zealous investigating officer and a time-consuming exercise is then embarked upon with the judge being powerless to stop it.
The new procedure does not just cover drug dealing. The point made by my honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary during the Second Reading debate in another place that the process of confiscation may be started although a person may have committed only three exceptionally minor offences for gain over the previous six years remains unanswered. In our view, it is unanswerable.
It is timely to ask this question. Is the subjugation of the court's discretion compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights? We believe that it is not. As the proceedings would be criminal proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 of the convention, can a court whose discretion can be potentially fettered in the way I have described be properly regarded as "independent" within the meaning of Article 6(1)? We have doubts. The same point is made in respect of Clauses 94 and 161, relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.
Moving on, the court has a duty to decide whether the defendant has a criminal lifestyle. The condition of a criminal lifestyle will apply only if one of several tests is met. including one specified by the Secretary of State in regulations under Clause 75. It is our belief that those regulations should be subject to affirmative resolution procedures. I was pleased to hear today that the Minister agrees with that point and will introduce the change at Committee stage.
A further concern centres on the definition of "defendant's benefit" from the proceeds of crime, referred to in Clause 9. The calculation of the benefit figure is vitally important because it determines the amount of money to be confiscated from the realisable assets of defendants. Although we accept that Clause 9(3) appears in one respect to exclude the prospect of double recovery by excluding from benefit any amount ordered to be paid under previous confiscation orders made under the old regime, the Bill does not address the danger of double recovery in, for example, a drugs
22
case in which the defendant's benefit is taken to include the purchase price of the drugs already confiscated.
We accept that under the present regime the figure of benefit calculated and presented to the, courts pursuant to, for example, Section 11 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, will include the estimated purchase price of the drugs seized. However, we suggest that the Bill represents an opportunity to ensure that the system is fair and reflects common sense. A right-thinking observer would be justified in thinking that the term "benefit" may more appropriately be applied to the acquisition of goods, property and services by those who have made crime their business, rather than to the trade itself.
There may be some attraction in the argument that the inclusion of the purchase price of the goods seized, whether drugs or some other form of contraband, will serve to increase the potential amounts to he confiscated. However, the primary purpose of the Bill must be to ensure the effective punishment of offenders. We make no apology for conceding that, to be effective, the punishment needs to be lair and realistic. Alternatively, it may be reasonable for the prosecutor to include the estimated cost of the drugs or contraband as part of the estimated benefit where the goods or drugs themselves have not been seized by the authorities. Precisely the same points are made in other clauses about Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Parts 3 and 4 set out the criminal confiscation regime for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. I should say now that my honourable friend's efforts to ensure consistency of approach in all parts of the United Kingdom did not go unrewarded in another place. Unfortunately, however, consistency did not always go in the right direction, as in the case of the courts' discretion enjoyed in Scotland when deciding whether or not to proceed with a case at the behest of the prosecutor.
Further, in one key respect, there remains an inconsistency of approach regarding disposal of family income. Clause 101 provides welcome safeguards over the homes of families of those in Scotland who have profited from crime, to the extent that those who are innocent of any crime do not suffer unduly as a result of these provisions. We strongly believe that those safeguards should be extended to families in England. Wales and Northern Ireland, and new clauses will be tabled to that effect.
Part 5 of the Bill will give the director of the assets recovery agency power to bring civil proceedings to recover property that is, or is represented to be, obtained through unlawful conduct. The basis of such proceedings is "unlawful conduct", defined in Clause 249 as,
"Conduct occurring in any part of the United Kingdom is unlawful under the criminal law of that part".
Conduct that occurs in a country outside the United Kingdom and is unlawful under the criminal law of that country and would be unlawful under the criminal law of the United Kingdom is also unlawful conduct.

23
If the conduct is not criminal, there can be no proceedings in the civil courts to recover property that is or represents property obtained through unlawful conduct. Proceedings for the recovery of such property plainly relate to a criminal offence, albeit in the civil courts.
Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:
"No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed, nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
"This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations."
In my opinion—I look forward to the Attorney-General's opinion when he responds to this debate—this clause will result in a heavier penalty being imposed in respect of a criminal offence. We respectfully suggest that if the criminal offence was committed prior to the Bill coming into force, there would be a breach of Article 7. That view is supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which stated in paragraph 26 of its 11th report:
"In accordance with its views on the classification of civil recovery proceedings, the Government consider that they are not proceedings for a criminal offence or a penalty, and so do not engage the right to be free of retrospective penalties under ECHR Article 7. For reasons which we have already developed, we disagree. The Government accepts that, if it is wrong on the classification issue, the civil recovery provisions would violate ECHR Article 7 because of their retrospective operation. We draw this matter to the attention of each House."
This Bill seeks to impose a heavier penalty for an offence committed before it comes into force than that which was applicable when the relevant offence was committed. It is the penalty that is relevant rather than the procedure, which merely happens to be in the civil courts. Surely, therefore, that is a breach of Article 7. Since we do not want to obstruct the key objectives of the Bill, that is a real concern. We want to see those who have committed criminal offences deprived of their ill-gotten gains.
I draw your Lordships' attention to a recent newspaper article accusing me and other Peers of obstructing the fight against drug-related crime. In relation to this Bill and in all other respects, my response is that no one is more committed than I am to fighting drug-related crime. As a responsible Opposition, we are asking Ministers whether this route requires unlawful conduct of another kind; namely, a contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. If that is so, I hope that your Lordships will agree that we must work to overcome that obstacle.
We have additional concerns about Part 5 regarding rights of compensation, particularly the costs incurred by innocent third parties as a result of interim receiving orders and interim administration orders.
24
Part 7 of the Bill deals with money laundering. We greatly support the objective of tightening up and consolidating existing legislation by creating five money-laundering offences: concealing, disguising or converting criminal property; entering into an arrangement suspected to facilitate the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property; acquiring, using or possessing criminal property; failing to disclose suspicions that another person is engaged in money laundering; and making a disclosure likely to prejudice any investigation that might be conducted following the disclosure of suspicions—known as "tipping off".
We have concerns in Part 7 with regard to both retrospectivity and the reversal of the onus or proof, the latter appearing to become a feature of our law, which is regrettable.
We shall table amendments designed to tighten up the loose drafting of Clause 330 and remove from its ambit those who act in good faith and take a genuinely different view of someone else's conduct from that taken by the state or a court.
It must be remembered that we are dealing in the regulated sector with professional people who, in all fairness, may know a good deal more about the often extremely complex subject than a police officer or even the fraud squad. To say that someone is a criminal because they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that someone else is, is to go too far. It is right to add that for an innocent professional man or woman arrest and all its consequences, possibly including loss of employment, can be as damaging as a conviction. We should be mindful of that, no matter how much some honourable Members from the Government Benches in another place may wish to see all accountants and lawyers suffer.
It is also pertinent to draw your Lordships' attention to a comment made by the British Bankers' Association which, while welcoming the Government's intention to consolidate and simplify the money-laundering offences, has reservations. It has some difficulty in accepting the statement that,
"persons who are employed in the regulated sector should be expected to exercise a higher level of due diligence in handling transactions than those employed in other businesses … In particular, we firmly believe that criminal sanctions for negligence should not be extended to junior staff".
We accept that the Government have now included a defence to the offence of failing to report knowledge or suspicion of money-laundering that a person had not been provided with relevant training. However, we remain curious to know how the proposed order will define and spell out the "relevant training".
I entirely understand where the Government are coming from; co-operation by banks will be fundamental to the success of many investigations into money laundering. However we want to use the Committee stage of this Bill to understand its true scope, not least because we have been approached by a number of organisations, including the Law Society, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the

25
Chartered Institute of Taxation, all of which continue to have a number of concerns relating to the disclosure of information.
Again we do not object in principle to Part 8, which relates to investigations. However, we shall bring forth amendments to give clarity and, in some instances, endeavour to assist effective implementation of the Bill. For example, with regard to Clause 338, we feel that the definition of "judges" is very broad. Indeed, Crown Court judges are given very little, if any, training in fraud, money laundering and bank procedures. I am told of a recent case where a circuit judge, hearing fraud trials at a specialist trial centre at Southwark. London, had never heard of coded interbank communications by Key Tested Telex; had never seen a copy of the Banker's Almanac, and thought a hank would confirm the genuineness of a 100 million dollar instrument over an open telephone line to a third party not named on the instrument.
Part 9 deals with the interaction between insolvency law and the criminal confiscation legislation. The Bill excludes property subject to, inter alia, a restraint order from a bankrupt's estate. The effect is that if a restraint order is made, the property which is subject to that order is not available to be distributed among the bankrupt's creditors. Property in respect of which a receiver or an administrator has been appointed under this Bill is excluded from the bankrupt's estate as well. The effect is that any property subject to a restraint order or where a receiver or administrator has been appointed goes first to satisfy any confiscation order rather than being distributed to creditors. Indeed, similar provisions apply in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We believe that those provisions will be unfair to creditors. Those creditors are likely to be entirely innocent of any offence or wrongdoing and may even be a victim of the very crime committed by the bankrupt in respect of which a restraint order has been made. Under existing law, creditors share in a bankrupt's estate equally subject, of course, to the rights of preferential creditors such as the Inland Revenue, which always has the first bite of the cake. Equality is fair and just in those circumstances. Even the victim of a crime shares equally with other creditors. The provisions in this Bill give priority to the assets recovery agency or the prosecutor and give him the first bite of the cake, and the first bite may be the only bite. The agency may well have the whole cake, leaving nothing over for the innocent creditors.
It may even turn out that the victim of the very offence giving rise to the confiscation order fails to obtain compensation out of the bankrupt solely because of the confiscation order. Let me give an example. A serial fraudster may well defraud many people in the course of his unlawful business. Some of those whom he defrauds may lose all their savings. They may, however, realise that they are being defrauded and sue the fraudster for damages. They may even obtain a freezing order restraining the fraudster from disposing of any of his property. In the normal course those victims will obtain judgment. They will be able to bankrupt the fraudster and will be
26
paid a dividend in the bankruptcy. They may not recover all they have lost because they will have to share the bankrupt's estate among all those who have been defrauded and other creditors. But at least they may get some of their money back.
However, if the agency applies for a restraint order, the property subject to that order is excluded from the bankrupt's estate. Property subject to the restraint order could comprise almost all the assets and money owed by the fraudster. All that will be excluded from his estate if he is adjudged bankrupt and will not be available to the victims of the fraud, nor will it be available to the fraudster's other creditors. That surely cannot have been intended by the Government.
We shall also bring forward amendments to those clauses regarding tainted gifts wherein innocent creditors, and even the victims of crime, will it seems lose out because tainted gifts will be dealt with under this Bill when it becomes law, rather than insolvency law. Those creditors will be unable to claim assets given away.
There is a good deal to consider in this Bill and I hope that I have succeeded in highlighting most of our concerns. We are looking forward to the Government bringing forward further changes during consideration of the Bill in Committee. In conclusion. I can do no better than repeat the words of Justice, the independent, all-party law reform and human rights organisation. In its briefing for today's debate it said:
"Measures such as those in the Proceeds of Crime Bill should be regarded as exceptional and can be justified only in relation to serious crimes and to the extent that they represent a proportionate response".
Time will tell if the measures contained in the Bill have overstepped the mark. It is our duty to try and limit that possibility while empowering all those active in the fight against organised crime.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as the noble Baroness just referred to Justice, I should perhaps start by declaring an interest as one of the vice-chairmen of the council of that organisation.
Liberal Democrats welcome the principle of recovering the proceeds of crime from those who obtained those proceeds. In deciding what are the proceeds of crime, we accept that the civil standard of proof may be appropriate rather than the criminal standard. We welcome the principle of civil recovery orders under Part 5, and the provision for restraint orders and interim receiving orders to reduce the possibility of assets disappearing as soon as the criminal becomes aware that he is being chased.
The attacks reported in a Scottish newspaper this morning on the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and on my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, as being people who want to block this Bill, are completely misleading and totally unjustified. But that does not release us from our duty to scrutinise the Bill, and I have to say that the powers in the Bill are draconian. Those powers must be exercised with restraint; they

27
must be proportionate; they must not be exercised so as to create injustice. That is a difficult tightrope to walk.
We need to know what is the philosophy behind the Bill. Are confiscation and recovery orders a kind of punishment? Alternatively, are they akin to civil judgments for damages? That is a significant question, particularly when we are considering whether, for the purposes of the Human Rights Act, recovery orders under Part 5 form part of civil or criminal proceedings. It is clear that the way in which they are described in the Bill is not conclusive of the answer to that question. To me, they certainly look more like criminal than civil proceedings; they are plainly intended to have a deterrent effect. Nor are they, in any ordinary sense, compensation for any loss suffered by the state.
I suppose it could be argued that citizens have a duty to the state to lead law abiding lives and must account to the state for any profits made from a breach of that duty. That would be an interesting argument, but it would be inconsistent with the law of the United Kingdom as recognised not very long ago, for example, in the George Blake case. If that is not the argument and the Government are not saying that somehow there is a civil duty to account for the proceeds of crime, what is the basis for saying that Part 5 involves civil rather than criminal proceedings?
I shall now move on to the Bill itself. I am afraid that it convinces me that there is something wrong with the way in which we are now drafting Bills. It is elephantine. The confiscation of the proceeds of crime is an important subject, but does it really need 454 clauses and nine schedules spread over 304 pages? For example, the 88 clauses in Part 2, which relate to England and Wales, and the 87 clauses in Part 4, which relate to Northern Ireland, are nearly identical. I wonder whether they could be properly merged.
The layout is confusing; for example, Clause 6 imposes a basic duty to make a confiscation order. That duty is dependent on the concepts of the defendant having a criminal lifestyle and having benefited from criminal conduct. We then have to go all the way to Clauses 75 and 76 to find out the nature of those concepts. For civil recovery, Clauses 248 and 250 make it clear that the basis of jurisdiction is the recovery of property obtained through unlawful conduct. The clauses then proceed to define "unlawful conduct" and what is meant by,
"property obtained through unlawful conduct".
But Clause 251 switches to the somewhat different concept of "recoverable property". It is not until we reach a group of clauses, starting at Clause 306, that the relationship between property obtained through unlawful conduct and recoverable property is explained.
The Bill will be seriously confusing to anybody who has the essential job of trying to interpret it. I do not like to criticise parliamentary draftsmanship because I know how difficult it is for parliamentary counsel to produce a really good result. But something has gone wrong in this Bill.
28
I shall now turn to the substance of the Bill and the concept of criminal lifestyle. Clause 75 lays down certain criteria. If those criteria are satisfied, the court then must conclude that the defendant has a criminal lifestyle, which gives rise to a series of problems. Let us examine the criteria. Under Clause 75(3)(b), for example, a person convicted of three minor shoplifting offences, over a period of six years will be treated as having a criminal lifestyle. If the prosecution seeks a confiscation order on the third occasion, the court must proceed with considering the order, and must assume that all the property belonging to the defendant is the proceeds of criminal conduct. Of course, the prosecution has a discretion as to whether or not to seek a confiscation order, but, if it decides to do so, the court is bound to go ahead. We believe that the court should have a power to refuse to hold that the defendant has a criminal lifestyle when it is satisfied that such a holding would be unreasonable in all the circumstances.
There is another, and perhaps even more serious, problem with the criteria. Clause 75(2)(c), as it stands, provides that conviction of any offence specified in regulations made by the Home Secretary establishes criminal lifestyle and triggers the confiscation proceedings. I greatly welcome the Government's undertaking to specify what I call "lifestyle offences" in a schedule to the Bill, and to make a power to add further offences exercisable only by the affirmative resolution procedure. That will properly deal with the issue.
Let us assume that a criminal lifestyle has been established. The court then has to go ahead and see what property has been derived from the defendant's criminal conduct. Under Clause 11 the court has to make a series of assumptions, which broadly lead to the conclusion that all the defendant's property is acquired as a result of criminal conduct and is, therefore, liable to confiscation. Those assumptions can he rebutted only if they are shown to be incorrect, or if there would be a serious risk of injustice if such assumptions were made.
I accept that a defendant who has a nice house, expensive cars and a lot of money should not be able to sit back and say, "You say that I have made all this from criminal conduct; prove it." Such defendants should have to explain the source of their property, how they came to acquire it, and where they got the money to buy their house and cars. If a defendant gives a credible explanation, the burden should be on the prosecution to prove that that explanation was not true; in other words, the burden of proof should be an evidential burden, rather than a persuasive burden. The Government accepted in a number of cases, especially under the Terrorism Act 2000, that that was an appropriate course of action when the burden of disproving was initially placed on a defendant. We believe that the same should happen in this Bill.
There are other problems with Part 2, but I shall not go into too much detail. First, why is a defendant required to claim legal aid for resisting a confiscation order, instead of paying for it out of frozen assets? Secondly, if a confiscation order is made, why does it

29
take priority over the rights of bona fide creditors of the defendant? Thirdly, and I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on this, why does not the law of the rest of the United Kingdom contain the same restrictions on the sale of the family house as Clause 101 does in the case of Scotland? What is sauce for the Scottish goose should be sauce for the English, Welsh and Northern Irish gander.
Part 5 on civil recovery is controversial because it imposes a penalty where there is no criminal conviction. We accept that it should be possible to make a civil recovery order in the absence of a criminal conviction, but we share the doubts of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and Justice as to whether, in reality, this is not a criminal remedy rather than a civil remedy; and whether, therefore, defendants should be entitled to the protection given to criminal cases under the European Court of Human Rights. As I said, the designation in the Bill of these proceedings as "civil proceedings" cannot be conclusive.
We need to examine closely the interaction between, on the one hand, proceedings under Parts 2, 3 and 4, and on the other hand those in Part 5. For example, if a defendant is prosecuted but acquitted of a criminal offence, can the enforcement authority still go for a recovery order, based on the same conduct, relying on the lower standard of proof in civil proceedings? If so, is that not double jeopardy? If the enforcement authority goes first for a recovery order—for example, because it is thought at some stage that a prosecution would be unlikely to succeed, or the defendant is abroad and unexpectedly returns—can the person concerned be prosecuted later for the criminal conduct that justified the recovery order, or would that also be a case of double jeopardy?
If the civil proceedings are in fact criminal under the European Convention on Human Rights, it would also seem that any attempt to claim recovery of the benefit obtained from unlawful conduct that occurred prior to the enactment of the Bill will fall foul of the rule against retrospective criminal penalties under Article 7. That point was raised by the noble Baroness.
We are also concerned at the separate system of taking summary proceedings for forfeiture of cash in magistrates' courts. I accept the need for a summary procedure for seizing cash as the first step in obtaining forfeiture, because seizure often has to be done quickly. But forfeiture is a different matter. Forfeiture of property on the basis of criminal conduct, but without a conviction, is a serious matter. It is inappropriate for that to be left to a magistrates' court. I recognise that at present there is power to seize and forfeit cash, which can be exercised by a magistrates' court. But of course there is no corresponding forfeiture proceeding in the form of a recovery order in the ordinary civil courts.
Now that there will he such a procedure, we believe that forfeiture of cash should be dealt with by the same court that has power to order forfeiture of other assets; namely, the High Court. That is particularly so because the minimum level for forfeiture of cash will
30
be quite substantial. We are told that it will be £10,000, so we are not talking about peanuts. These are substantial sums of money. We cannot see the justification for having a different process for forfeiture of cash from that for forfeiture of other assets.
I have no problems with Part 6. Part 7 deals with money laundering. I have some problems with Schedule 6, which is concerned with the regulated sector having to provide the authorities with information if it suspects money laundering is going on.
Under Part 1 of Schedule 6, the definition of the regulated sector limits it to financial services. But Part 3 gives the Treasury power to amend Part I by way of resolution in the statutory instrument under the negative procedure. The European Union has adopted a directive that extends the reporting obligations to sectors such as solicitors and estate agents. We entirely support that move; indeed, it is absolutely right that there should be such an extension. However, this is an important step, and we believe that it should be achieved by the affirmative procedure. I am sorry that the Minister did not go as far as saying that the Government would do that. He simply said that this was a matter for further consideration in Committee. I know that the Law Society has a number of concerns relating to matters such as delays in getting clearances from the authorities. We shall want to probe that matter in Committee.
Part 8 gives extensive powers to obtain information. So far, there do not appear to be any serious problems, but that will need further detailed study.
Part 9 deals with insolvency. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that, in the case of a defendant's bankruptcy, bona fide creditors should have priority of claim to the assets recovery agency. Of course there are some debts that may be bogus or manufactured in order to reduce the estate, but those can be spotted in a proper insolvency procedure. In fact, we would suggest that the director should have power to appoint a nominee as trustee in bankruptcy or in liquidation just for that purpose, in order to scrutinise the debts on the basis that the nominee has a basic knowledge of how criminals would operate in an attempt to create artificial debts.
Finally, we support the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. But the Bill will give the Government very extensive powers. We need safeguards to prevent the abuse of those powers, and we are not at present satisfied that enough safeguards exist.

Consignia
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place. The Statement is as follows:

31
"I should like to draw the attention of the House to the declaration of interests contained in the Register.
"I would like to make a Statement on the announcement Consignia made this morning about its restructuring plan for Parcelforce and the outcome of its review of its distribution systems.
"This announcement, although it is a blow to many hard-working employees and their families, is the first of several necessary steps that will lead to the renewal of postal services in Britain.
"As is well known, Consignia plc—the company running the post office network, the Royal Mail and Parcelforce—has been losing money. Its costs have risen at a time when the rate of growth in mail volumes has slowed, with competition from fax, e-mail and the Internet affecting demand. The company is losing more than £1.5 million every day and Parcelforce Worldwide alone is losing £15 million per month.
"In the 10 years of its existence, Parcelforce has never made a profit and has now amassed losses of close to £400 million. Parcelforce's business model has failed and repeated attempts to make it work over the past 10 years have not succeeded. The losses on parcels have drained investment from the rest of the Post Office. For the sake of the company as a whole Parcelforce now needs to be restructured and restored to profitability.
"It is important to consider how the company got into this position. The British Post Office used to be admired across Europe for its high standards of performance. But in the 1980s and 1990s, other postal services across Europe began to modernise and invest so that they could deliver better services in a rapidly changing market. But successive Conservative governments did not care about improving delivery. They allowed the Post Office to stagnate and starved it of investment. While new technologies and changing markets were transforming the communications sector, our postal services were allowed to drift and decline.
"Since 1997, this Government have given the Post Office the greater commercial freedom to meet these challenges that management and unions had long called for. Greater freedom within the public sector has meant freedom for the company to make more commercial choices. But with freedom comes responsibility—responsibility to control costs, to organise the company to meet the demands of customers and to modernise the way it works.
"Government have a responsibility too—to ensure that the company has the best possible management and the resources needed for investment. This way we ensure that the public and business customers will get the best quality service.
"We have already taken several steps to strengthen the management. Today I have announced that Allan Leighton has been appointed the new chair of Consignia, a role that he has been
32
playing on an interim basis since January. He will be responsible for getting a grip on this situation: to stem the losses; reform the company's industrial relations; and to develop a new vision and strategy for the future.
"Allan Leighton has a proven track record of success in business. I believe he has the determination, drive and energy needed to transform the Post Office's performance. As the interim chair and a non-executive director of the company, he has seen at first hand both the problems that exist in the company but also the tremendous potential it has. He has already spent a considerable amount of time in sorting offices, post offices and delivery offices around the country. He was out there again this morning, talking to some of the workforce about the changes the company announced today.
"These changes are: first, the integration of the universal parcels service into the Royal Mail itself. Under the universal service obligation, which we have enshrined in legislation, the company is responsible for delivering parcels up to 20kg to every part of the country. By giving this responsibility to the Royal Mail the company will create a more efficient service, safeguarding the 30 million parcels sent by the general public every year. This means people will still be able to send parcels from their local post office, just as they do now.
"Secondly, there will be a radical reshaping of the remaining Parcelforce business, which will in future concentrate on high value, time-guaranteed express services.
"Thirdly, there will be changes to the mail distribution system. The existing network of road, rail and air has developed on a piecemeal basis. It has been causing delays, imposing excessive costs and reducing the quality of service to customers. The necessary rationalisation will increase the volume of mail carried by rail. Although the practice of sorting mail on trains will be phased out, bulk mail will now be carried by rail during the day. The total number of road journeys undertaken by Royal Mail will be reduced, as will the number of vehicles used, cutting pollution as well as costs.
"Fourthly, the company is stripping out layers of management and jobs in its operations and support services that are no longer needed as a result of the other changes.
"The company expects that together these changes will mean the loss of 13,000 jobs over the next three years with a further 2,000 jobs going through natural wastage. The company has also made it clear there will be further unavoidable job losses over the next three years, and I will of course continue to inform the House as the restructuring of the company is taken forward.
"I can also announce today, as a contribution to supporting the company as it restructures, that the Government will forgo a dividend for this financial year.

33
"I understand the deep disappointment that postal workers will be feeling at this news today. This is not a decision the company has taken easily or lightly. But it is one that is unavoidable if we are to create a high quality postal service, offering good and secure jobs. I know that the whole House will welcome the fact that the company will offer as many of those affected as possible the option of continued employment with a different part of the business or a voluntary redundancy package. The company is of course in discussion with the trade unions. And we will do everything we can through the Employment Service, and other agencies, to provide support, assistance and new opportunities to those losing their jobs.
"These are difficult times for the company as management and workforce grapple with their legacy of under-investment, poor industrial relations and undertake the changes that are necessary to face the competitive postal markets of the 21st century.
"I have made it clear to the new chairman that there needs to be an effective partnership relationship between the management and the workforce if we are to deliver this. This was recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, in his report published last year and he believes that there is a genuine commitment to change from all sides within Royal Mall to achieve this.
"The benefits of such a relationship have been demonstrated since the report was published: 1,352 days were lost to unofficial action in the three months from October to December compared to 43, 198 between April and June. This is a tremendous improvement and the whole House will want to see it maintained.
"I am confident, however, that the path we are pursuing is the right one: greater commercial freedom, strengthened management and universal service enshrined in primary legislation. In other words, a delivery to every address in every part of the country—something that strongly underpins today's announcement.
"Today marks a turning point for the company. In the words of the new chairman, the measures announced today,
'will ensure that real progress is made in the first year of a three year strategy to restore profitability, deliver positive cash flow, improve services and make the business a better place in which to work'.
"Central to Allan Leighton and the company's task will be the relationship with the regulator. As honourable and right honourable Members will know, the postal regulator recently announced an extension of the consultation period, a welcome response, in no small part, to the concerns expressed in this House. In the coming weeks, Allan Leighton, the company and the regulator must have further talks and reach a shared analysis of both the company's financial position and the postal services market.
34
"We know that today's news will come as a blow to many workers. But these changes, however painful, are unavoidable. Today must be the first step towards renewal, creating a postal service that justifies the pride, and lives up to the expectations of the millions of people in Britain who depend upon it every day".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.24 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I feel sure that he is as saddened at having to make a Statement of that kind as I am to have to hear it. The current crisis in the Post Office, in my belief, is another public service failure of this Labour Government. It is a direct consequence of the Government's failure to allow the company to modernise in the way that it should and to give it the commercial freedom to deal properly.
Less than two years ago when the Postal Services Bill went through both Houses the then Secretary of State said in the other place of that Bill:
"It will ensure a strong Post Office that is better able to serve all its customers in all parts of the country".
Since then a profit of nearly £400 million has turned into losses currently running at over £1.5 million a day. In the past year alone 547 more sub-post offices have closed and 63,000 days have been lost through industrial action.
There is nothing in the Statement to say why that has happened other than it is the result of years of Conservative government. What has happened has been an absolute disaster. The arrangement was, in the words of the Chancellor's then spin doctor, "a dog's breakfast". I shall not call it that; it was, however, a kind of hybrid animal. The company was not given full commercial freedom so that it was able to compete on a level playing field. Neither was it fully in the public sector and protected against competition. During the same period, companies in Holland and Germany, its main competitors, have become global, world market leaders: all we have is this terrible Statement.
Can the Minister tell the House something about the 10,000 urban post offices that will close? Will Her Majesty's Government compensate the postmasters who will suffer from these closures that now appear inevitable? Sub- postmasters in rural and urban areas run private businesses. They have invested their money. Now it appears they will face worse situations. Will the Government tackle the company's underlying financial problems instead of saying, as they have done, that it is a matter for Consignia? The Government have constrained Consignia from doing things the company felt it needed to do.
The Statement says nothing about the proposals of the regulator to introduce competition in the delivery of postal services. Since the Statement does not say anything, can the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government support the regulator? They cannot pretend that they have no responsibility in this matter. This is crucial to the future of the Post Office. Is the

35
timetable set by the regulator realistic? Will the universal service obligation remain a first requirement of the Post Office with an affordable, universal tariff?
The Statement also speaks of 13,000 job losses and a further 2,000 job losses through natural wastage. It also states that there will be further unavoidable job losses in the next few years. What are we talking about? Newspapers are writing about 40,000 job losses, but nothing about job losses to that extent appears in the Statement, simply a reference to further, unavoidable job losses.
The Evening Standard comments on 40,000 job losses being am attempt to stem the £1.5 million that the Post Office is losing every day. Could the figure be worse than 40,000? I shall be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say.
Can the Minister say what the cost of rebranding Consignia back to Royal Mail is going to be? Will he confirm that this whole enterprise was an expensive and ludicrous mistake with no advantage whatever to anybody? Given that Parcelforce itself has lost so much money and the Statement says that it is to be integrated with the Royal Mail, is the Minister certain that it will not cause severe problems for the Royal Mail when it has to take on Parcelforce as part of its operation?
The Statement also mentions changing the distribution service to making far more rail deliveries. Is the Minister confident that the mail can be delivered safely and speedily by rail, given the Government's track record? My final point is that we know that Allan Leighton has a fine business record. Because we wish the Royal Mail—as will be its new name—well, we hope that he succeeds.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place, but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, we cannot help but consider the background and history of the Post Office, or Consignia. I must say that my recollection differs somewhat from that of the noble Baroness.
It was not this Government that year after year refused to give the Post Office the commercial freedom it wanted; it was the Conservative government. Hansard should record that, because it would be misleading to those who study Hansard if a wrong impression of history were given. As we all remember, what happened was that during that government's period of office, the Post Office was significantly profitable and the Treasury received significant revenues from it. In the run-up to the 1997 election, the Conservative government were extremely reluctant to allow the Post Office the commercial freedom that it wanted because they wanted to keep the revenue to secure the Treasury's finances.
So we should take no lectures from the Conservative Party about what has happened. The problem was that by the time the present Government gave in to the Post Office's pressure for commercial freedom—presumably the Treasury was overruled at
36
that stage—deregulation had occurred and the Post Office proved to be in an insufficiently strong position to withstand the significant worldwide competition. That is what happened and that is why the Statement is being made today.
The Conservative Opposition cannot have it both ways. Either the Post Office has now been given the commercial freedom that the noble Baroness says that it ought to have had, but which her government never gave it, in which case the criticism is of Consignia, not of the Government, or it has not. As I understand it, the Post Office now has that commercial freedom, which is why the proposals have been brought forward today. Of course, bearing in mind their significance to the United Kingdom economy, it is entirely appropriate that the Minister should make a statement on the proposals, but if the Post Office has that commercial freedom it is not for us to suggest to the Government what they ought to be doing about it. That is a matter for Consignia. Our comments should be limited to what the Government can do. I have two or three suggestions.
First, as an aside, I share the view of the noble Baroness. I am delighted that Allan Leighton has accepted the permanent appointment as chairman of the Post Office. If the Post Office has such commercial freedom, someone of his track record is manifestly well qualified to act as chairman of the company, and the Government are to be congratulated on the arm-twisting that led him to take the job permanently. I must say—although this is a matter not for the Government but for Consignia—that I hope that not all the job losses will be among the poor bloody infantry, to coin a phrase, but that some officers will also bear their share of the costs of necessary restructuring.
I should like to press the Government on one or two matters. First, as they have rightly said—the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, is to be commended on the work that he has done in this area—there have been significant labour relations issues in the Post Office. Those of us who live in certain areas of the country will know that for a long time unofficial action has affected the delivery of the service. I am especially pleased that the Government bring that fact out in the open in the Statement and that the Minister has had conversations with Consignia emphasising the importance of improving employee-employer relationships. There is no doubt that a long- standing, serious problem has affected not only the workforce but the public.
My second point is also within the framework of what the Government can do something about and relates to a fact that still puzzles me about the Post Office. In response to a debate initiated by a Conservative Member earlier this month, the Minister said that the Government were committed to ensuring the maintenance of the universal service obligation. If the regulator determines that there is to be significant deregulation and competition in postal services, how will the Government maintain the universal service obligation? Will they impose a subsidy requirement on companies licensed to compete with the Post Office or will the Government themselves subsidise the

37
universal service obligation? The Minister will be aware that there is significant concern that that decision has not yet been taken. In the light of the commitment that he gave in a recent debate, this may be the opportunity for him to explain how it is to be achieved.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I, too, am saddened to have to make the Statement, but I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that it is necessary not because we have denied the Post Office commercial freedom. The Post Office may have made mistakes and not controlled its costs or increased productivity, but we cannot say that it has not had the freedom to take commercial decisions both in this country and in becoming a global player—if that was its strategy. It has had commercial freedom and has made decisions, and it is on the basis of those decisions that it must be judged.
As for the urban network, which is a separate issue, reorganisation is taking place, as it should, which will involve compensation. Despite her statements on commercial freedom, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, also wants us immediately to interfere with Postcomm's proposals. The whole point of having an independent regulator is that he is independent and that the Government do not intervene on the issues that he considers.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I did not say whether I agreed, I simply asked whether the Government agree with the regulator's proposals. I did not say what was my view; I asked what was the Government's view.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I explained, the proposals are just that: proposals for consultation. As I said, the regulator has extended the consultation period and it is for him to seek views from the company and everyone else who wants to make representations and then make his decision.
I hope that I did not say—because it is not in the text of the Statement—that Parcelforce is going totally back into Royal Mail, only the part of it that relates to the universal service obligation, which involves parcels weighing up to 20 kg. I also share the respect of the noble Baroness for Allan Leighton, whom I know from personal experience to be a good retailer, which is a skill the Post Office needs. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. The point is that we have given it commercial freedom for the first time ever. What he said was correct: it has had the commercial freedom but not the experience necessary to deliver on what it should have been doing.
It is for management and the trade unions to sort out industrial relations. They must sort them out, if they are to create a profitable and successful business in the new world of commercial freedom. The universal service obligation is the first, overriding responsibility of the postal regulator. That is his priority and comes even before any question of competition. It is not a question of subsidies. The first
38
responsibility of the regulator is to make certain that the company that has the universal service obligation can maintain it profitably.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, just over two years ago, I had the dubious pleasure of forecasting today's announcement in the House. With due respect to the Minister, his office, and the Minister in the other place, it is no good his trying to blame previous governments for the state we are in today.
At the 1997 election, the people of Britain were asked to vote on a manifesto that included protection of the Post Office, the universal service and the workers in the industry. I declare an interest as a former postman and a former official of the Post Office Workers Union. It is no good blaming other people; we have had five years of this Government. In the first couple of those five years, people messed about and did not make up their mind. We knew what the Government wanted to do, but that was not on the cards. The idea was to give the Post Office commercial freedom. Much has been said about that. The Post Office has had two years to make commercial freedom work. In those two years, nobody has addressed the major problem—underfunding.
In the previous debate, to which the noble Lord. Lord Razzall, referred, I said that one penny on postage would produce £182 million. If it had been two pennies—still the cheapest postal service in Europe—we could have wiped out the deficit that the Post Office faces today. I shall not go on; I will have plenty of opportunity in the future. I hope that the House will debate in depth the Government's failure to honour the commitment that it gave the British people and the failure to maintain the service in which I worked for over half a century.
I could do a delivery to businesses in Hampstead in the morning; do a 9 o'clock collection; deliver parcels between 10 o'clock and 12 o'clock; do a 12 o'clock collection; and still go on the sorting before I went home. It is no good the Government blaming Post Office management. The problem is that the service has been starved of the capital it needs to do the job. Parcelforce was always integrated with Royal Mail. It was divided into distribution and collection, and parcels were separated out. People said that that was nonsense at the time, but we had to learn the hard way.
I shall ask a question specifically about the enhanced redundancy packages. The Post Office pension fund is made up of two elements: the former Post Office staff superannuation scheme and the Post Office pension scheme. One of those is a shared cost scheme; the other is based on the Civil Service scheme. Under the trust deed of one of those schemes, there is the ability to enhance redundancy payments by six and two thirds of service, to make it a better deal. I want an unequivocal assurance from the Minister today that no money from the Post Office pension fund will be used to fund the redundancies that are to follow. If I am right in my suspicion that it will be, can I have an assurance that any money that is used will he returned

39
to the pension fund within a reasonable time—a maximum of five years, rather than something like 40 years, which will probably be the Government's answer?
We will have a chance to talk about industrial relations, so I shall not deal with that subject now. Today, I am sad that the predictions have come true. Only one group of people is to blame for the situation in the Royal Mail, Parcelforce and the Post Office: the British Government. They have failed lamentably to serve the British people and the people who work in the postal industry.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, can fairly claim to have foreseen this. However, I think that his arguments were wrong. Today's events have nothing to do with the Post Office Act or with starvation of capital. It is, of course, true that any organisation that has a monopoly and raises prices can get out of trouble, but today's events have everything to do with the management of the Post Office and the situation that it is in as regards costs and the growth of revenues.
Over 10 years, Parcelforce has never made a profit. It has losses of £400 million. That is nothing to do with the Post Office Act. That business has not focused on its structure, adapted itself to the changing marketplace or controlled its costs. After 10 years of losses and two major attempts to put in capital investment, it is now time to make certain that it gets back onto a profitable basis.
I do not believe that it would be possible under the terms of the pension fund for it to be used to make redundancy payments, even if there were a desire to do so. If I am wrong about that, I shall write to the noble Lord. Lord Clarke of Hampstead. I think that it is simply not possible, and it would not be desirable.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I must press the Minister to answer the question asked from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench today and in the recent debate when he failed to answer it.
We have heard much about commercial freedom, but there is a universal postal obligation, and we have a regulator. We have also heard that the regulator has proposed opening up a substantial tranche of the most profitable parts of the Post Office's business to competition. How can one have true commercial freedom in a situation in which there is a universal postal obligation and a regulator who proposes to open up some of the most valuable parts of the Post Office's business? What happens if that leads to further substantial losses? Those questions were pressed in the recent debate and have just been pressed by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. In the previous debate and again this afternoon, the Minister failed to address that issue.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is not strictly correct. I answered that specific point by making it clear that the first responsibility of Postcomm—the regulator—is to maintain the
40
universal service obligation. That is the regulator's priority. Only when that has been achieved can he consider the question of competitive forces. If he introduces competitive forces and liberalisation, and that means that the universal service cannot be delivered by the body that has the obligation, he will have failed.
In a situation in which there is, essentially, a monopoly, there is no surrogate for market forces unless there is a regulator. Commercial freedom in a monopoly situation is meaningless. The commercial freedom will be within a market situation set by the regulator.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I declare an interest as a Post Office pensioner. I am not sure which scheme I belong to—one or the other. This is a sad day for those of us who care about the Post Office. I guess that goes for all of us. However, the appointment of Allan Leighton is good news. I congratulate the Government on securing his services.
In the Statement, the Minister referred to the tremendous potential of the Post Office. I agree with him. In saying that, however, and in saying that the decisions on the monopoly rest with the regulator, had he noted that Allan Leighton is recorded as saying that Postcomm's proposals represented "death by a thousand cuts"? I wonder if the Minister can be so confident of this great potential if the man they have just appointed is right?
Secondly, the Minister will be aware from correspondence of my concern that the regulator, in taking his decisions, may not be required to have regard to the national interest in all respects. I would be grateful if the Minister could, today or on another occasion, enlighten me.
The whole House is concerned about the future of the Post Office. I am not defending a monopoly. I think that to some degree it has to go hut, if we are to emerge from all of this with a very prosperous business, leading the post offices of Europe, it is a case of how fast and how extensively.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I share the respect that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has for Allan Leighton. I can only say once again that the overriding responsibility of Postcomm is to maintain the universal service obligation. If he opens up the market and it leads to a failure of that obligation, then to that extent he will have failed.
I know that the noble Lord is particularly concerned about the Post Office having a strong and profitable base in this country, from which it can become an international and global player. I would argue that if one looks across Europe, the strongest players internationally are those which have had to face the toughest competition. It is not at all clear that making certain that your national players have a cosy life—in fact the record is entirely against this—is the way to breed companies which can be very profitable on an international basis. I agree with him, however, that it is important that the Post Office, and the Royal Mail

41
in particular, is not constrained so tightly on a financial basis that it cannot take a global view of its responsibilities.
Lord Prior: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one can only excuse this Statement if one believes that it is written by a political adviser and not by the Minister at all?
To blame the last Conservative government five years ago for what is happening now is grotesque in the extreme, particularly as the Minister himself admitted that Parcelforce had been losing money for 10 years and had never made a profit. Surely that does impose some condition upon the Post Office, and perhaps even on the Government, to have done something before now?
Everyone blames the industrial relations, and the management must take the chief responsibility for that. My experience of the people who deliver the mail, however, particularly in country districts, is that they are loyal, decent, hardworking people.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Prior: My Lords, I think that the whole House has a responsibility to the Post Office. At a time when the Government need support over this matter, the sort of Statement they have made will not go down well.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord made a very telling point when he said that this situation with Parcelforce goes hack 10 years. To say that and then to blame it on the Government seems to me curious. It may be argued that we should have tackled it earlier. We did have a strategy to invest more into it, to try to put it on a sound footing, but we have not been able to do so. However, this has been going on for 10 years.
The point I make is that the Post Office did not have commercial freedom until recently, and commercial freedom is an essential part of this situation. I agree with the noble Lord that there are many areas, as we say in the Statement, where the members of the Post Office work both hard and very effectively in difficult situations to deliver the mail. However, one would be hard put to say that the industrial relations situation in the Post Office was not a major contributor to its difficulties, in particular the very marked service failures in recent years. If this business is to do well in the years ahead, it is absolutely fundamental that it improves that situation. A business like this cannot be run effectively and well if industrial relations continue as they are, taking up so much time.
As Allan Leighton said in a recent letter to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, "If we spent as much time attacking the competition as we spend attacking ourselves, we would be doing a lot better".
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I must first declare an interest, because the Commercial Managers Association is a section of Amicus, of which I am a
42
member. Could I ask my noble friend to join with me in expressing sympathy and concern for those who are losing their jobs? They certainly have not had a "cosy life", as he put it.
Perhaps I may now ask about the regulator. The regulator, while he may have extended consultation, was due in April to open up 40 per cent of the most profitable part of the Post Office to competition. Will that he delayed? Will he also be asked to think again about the fact that he is not going down the line recommended to him by the European Commission, and also the fact that we are opening up our market far faster than anywhere else in Europe?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that I have already said, but let me say it again, that I share the sadness about this Statement because of the many hardworking people who will have to change or lose their jobs. I do not think that I have said anything in the Statement about a cosy life.
It is for the regulator and Postcomm to make decisions about how quickly the market is opened up, subject to the overriding consideration I have mentioned with regard to the universal service obligation. He will have to do that. Thy most important aspect is that there is a proper dialogue between Consignia and the regulator to establish the facts, so that there is a clear view about what is happening and what can be done.
Finally, it is by no means clear that we are opening up our market faster than others. There are certainly some countries which have already opened up their market completely, in situations where the major national post office has maintained a very large share of the total market.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, may I return to the question posed by my noble friend regarding the closure of sub-post offices?
The Minister in his response to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, said that the Postal Services Act did not have implications. Perhaps I may beg to differ with him. Under that Act, the Post Office has several responsibilities. One is for postal services and one is now to be for a parcel service. The other is the question of how we pay welfare benefits to millions of people.
It is one of the great problems that we have debated in this House. Indeed, we were reassured that it would happen by 2003. I understand that some £480 million was taken from the Post Office to invest in the Horizon project. We were told that it would all happen and that it would be perfectly all right. Now we hear of even more closures of post offices, urban and rural. Pensioners, and many people claiming welfare payments, already spend a good proportion of those payments in actually travelling to get them. If more post offices and sub-post offices close, I do not know what will happen.

43
This Statement does not refer to the implications it has for the payment of social benefits. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is an issue that I remember well from the Postal Services Act. It was true then and is true now that the Postal Services Act has very little to say about these particular questions. In particular, there is no connection between the question of the new ACT system and the payment of benefits from post offices.
The original question of automation of the Post Office in relation to the payments of benefits goes back long before this Government. What has been debated and changed is the way that has been done.
However, that is an issue about automation of the postal network and the introduction of ACT in 2003. That is on track and moving forward. As I have said many times previously in the House, we are committed to ensuring that people are able to collect their benefits in cash from post offices, as they have been able to do in the past, without any additional charges.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am extremely saddened by the Statement today, having spent most of my life representing the interests of workers and their families. I regard this as another stab at working-class people, who face tremendous difficulties.
I appreciate the Minister's views on commercial freedom and I know what the Conservative government did when they were in power, but I had expected more from a Labour government. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said that this is a matter for Consignia, not the Government. I had always thought that if, as a result of commercial freedom, anything happened which had an adverse impact on working people, then it was the Government's responsibility to intervene. There are many examples of such intervention. If I am not mistaken, I believe that it was a Conservative government that, for example, nationalised Rolls Royce. If the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, thinks that this is a matter for Consignia and not for the Government, perhaps he will take the same view when the next Statement on Railtrack comes before the House. There seems to be a measure of contradiction.
Over the past two decades, I have seen the closure of mines, the closure of steelworks and reductions in the number of people in work. What do we find? We have found that areas of this country are now destitute, with the male working population enormously reduced. We have found considerable increases in the levels of state benefits that have had to be paid. We have also found that many of these areas are becoming havens for crime and vandalism. If we anticipate, as has been reported in the newspapers, that something like 40,000 people are to lose their jobs in the Post Office and 3,000 post offices are to close, perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench could tell me whether that will impact
44
on the Government and the public purse in terms of the increased benefit payments that will have to be made?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, Parcelforce is a business which has been in considerable trouble for some 10 years. During that period it has not made any profit. The situation has grown much worse over recent years as a result of the sharp fall in the number of parcels being sent out in the particular range in which Parcelforce has concentrated most of its business. It makes no sense for Parcelforce or the Post Office not to tackle that situation. If it is not tackled, then the drain on the public purse will simply increase ever more. Parcelforce has to maintain a very large infrastructure while it simply does not have sufficient parcels to process through. Not only does it make commercial sense, it makes national sense to restructure the network.
The final point I should like to make is that the Post Office has made it clear that it will seek to redeploy those who lose their jobs, or deal with the job losses through voluntary redundancy or natural wastage. Every attempt is to be made to redeploy people, but it does not make commercial sense and it is not in the national interest to maintain a large infrastructure serving a parcel delivery service which is declining at a very rapid rate.

Proceeds of Crime Bill
5.4 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I suggest that it is safe to say that everyone supports the objectives of the Proceeds of Crime Bill. There is something very unattractive about criminals enjoying the proceeds of their crimes when they come out of prison, even if they have served a long sentence. Of course it is even less attractive when they have never been convicted and thus never punished. We all agree about the end to be achieved, but I have to say that I have serious doubts about the means which have been proposed.
My first doubt concerns whether in reality the elaborate procedure now being proposed by the creation of a new agency will he any more effective in recovering the proceeds of crime than are the existing procedures. Will this new body, which it must be remembered will cost some £40 million over the next two years, be truly cost-effective? That question requires the answer to a preliminary question: why is the existing legislation thought to be working less well than had been hoped? Surely we should be given a satisfactory answer to that question before we throw yet more legislation and yet more new agencies at the problem.
My second doubt is more than a doubt. It arises in connection with Part 5 of the Bill. Is it acceptable for a civil court to have the power to impose what will be in effect a criminal sanction—I have no doubt whatever

45
about that—on a mere balance of probabilities? I suspect that Part 5 forms the centrepiece of the new legislation, but I must say with regret that, as it stands, in my view—with the exception of Chapter 3—Part 5 is simply unacceptable. In due course I shall come back to my reasons for taking that view.
I shall first make three or four short preliminary points. In so far as the Bill consolidates existing law contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended on numerous occasions, and the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, it can do nothing but good. At the least the Government should get a pat on the back for that. Perhaps I may add here that I am glad to see that Ministers have not made any attempt to consolidate with the two Acts that I have mentioned the forfeiture provisions contained in the Terrorism Act 2000. As I tried to point out in my report on the question of legislation against terrorism, forfeiture under terrorism legislation serves a quite different purpose. I do not think it can be said that terrorists benefit from their horrific crimes in any ordinary sense of the word and it is that benefit which we are trying to get at with this Bill. I am glad, therefore, that terrorism has not been included in the consolidation.
Some of the provisions in Part 2, covering the consolidation of the two existing Acts, go further than I would like. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, mentioned some of them in her excellent and very comprehensive speech. I agree also with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in relation to the reverse burden of proof. Surely it should be made clear that this ought to be what we lawyers call an evidential burden and not a persuasive burden, although I doubt any layman will understand. These are largely matters which should be dealt with at a later stage of these proceedings, not today. I do not propose to say anything more about them.
My second preliminary point is that when we are considering a Bill such as this—which is in part pure consolidation, in part consolidation with amendments and in part brand-new law—I, for one, would find it very convenient if there was a simple way in which one could distinguish what is old from what is new. Otherwise one can spend many hours, as I have spent, ferreting around and, if one can find it at all—it is not always easy—comparing one piece of legislation with other pieces of legislation.
When I was chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills—a post which I can confidently say is the dreariest job in the Palace of Westminster—it was made very easy for us; we could see what was old and what was new. Perhaps the same kind of thing could be done when we are considering the immensely long Bill that we have before us today. Perhaps it could be included in the Explanatory Notes, which would enable us to take a more intelligent interest in the provisions of the Bill and save a lot of time.
My third preliminary point concerns the structure of the Bill. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Goodhart, said about that. If it is any comfort to him, I was just as much confused as he was in trying to find my way around until I suddenly came to a definition many, many clauses later.
46
Turning to the language in which the Bill is couched, there was a time, not so long ago, when clauses in a Bill consisted of one or more sentences—sometimes quite long sentences, but sentences which one could understand as one went along. Indeed, there was a time, even longer ago, when whole statutes consisted of a single sentence without any punctuation. I do not suggest that we should go back to those days, but have we not gone too far in the opposite direction? I find the staccato method of modern draftsmanship very trying. It reminds me of filling up those endless forms that we all have to fill up in which it states, "If the answer to question four is 'yes', go to question five; if the answer to question four is 'no', go straight to question six" and so on. It is almost as though we cannot be trusted to join up two sentences. Every sentence seems to be a separate clause or a separate paragraph throughout the Bill. Does the Minister know whether this is something that we have wished on parliamentary draftsman, or is it only the fashion of the moment?
My fourth preliminary point is of a different nature. When looking at the proceedings at the Committee stage in another place, it seemed to me that the Opposition Benches put up a splendid and well sustained fight, even if it was not wholly successful. However, I noticed that when they were hard pressed they would say, almost as an argument of last resort, "Well, you wait until this Bill gets to the House of Lords and see what the Law Lords have to say". I seem to be the only Law Lord here today and I feel that I should call up reinforcements. Certainly I feel as though the members of the Standing Committee in the other place are breathing down my neck. I hope that I come up to their expectations, but I doubt somehow that I shall.
Turning to the Bill, Part 1 creates yet another agency—and one almost groans as one says so—which will cost, as I have said, £40 million over the next two years. Will it be cost effective? The main function of the new agency, as I understand it, is to act as the enforcement authority under Part. I shall come back to that. But the director also has what I call a kind of walk-on part in relation to Part 2. He can ask the court to proceed under Clause 6—in which case he must provide statements of information under Clause 17—and will then act as the enforcement authority under Clause 35.
However, I cannot understand why these tasks cannot be equally well performed by the Crown Prosecution Service. Why do we need two separate agencies doing exactly the same thing in relation to Part 2 of the Bill and performing precisely the same functions? How will they divide the work between them? Will they take it in turns? Will they say, "It's your turn now to deal with this and it's my turn to deal with the next one"? It seems to me that this is not only, at best, quite unnecessary duplication of effort but, at worst, a recipe for confusion or, even worse, for disaster.
That brings me back to the question of what the Bill is trying to achieve. What exactly are the shortcomings or defects which Ministers see in the present legislation? How exactly will the new legislation cure

47
those defects? If the Minister was to say—I do not think he has said this yet—that the judges are somehow reluctant to make confiscation orders, or are not to be trusted to make them when they are appropriate, he would be wrong.
Only last month, there was the reported decision of the House, to which the Minister referred, in the case of Benjafield. In that case, the defendant was charged with 14 offences of theft. He pleaded guilty to two of those charges, involving about £5,000, and might have expected a fairly modest penalty. Quite unexpectedly, one imagines, the other 12 charges were simply dropped; the Crown Prosecution Service did not proceed with them. What was the reason? It was perfectly straightforward—the defendant found himself the subject of a confiscation order, based on the two charges, in the sum of £214,000. It would have been £500,000 if that sum had been available, which it was not.
So the existing legislation is working. Judges are not reluctant to make confiscation orders if they are asked to do so. Quite the contrary, they make them whenever they are asked and their decisions are, as we have seen, upheld on appeal.
If the Minister was to say that judges are not asked to make confiscation orders as often as they should be because the Crown Prosecution Service is too busy to do the necessary legwork, then surely the answer is simple—the Crown Prosecution Service should employ more staff specifically dedicated to that task. Why duplicate the task by setting up a new agency?
When the Minister was giving what he said were the defects of the existing legislation, he referred to its complexity. When replying, he may have some difficulty in persuading the House that the proposed legislation is any less complex. Indeed, it seems to be much more complex than the existing legislation.
The true reason why larger sums—more in total— are not recovered is quite different. It is perfectly simple. The sophisticated criminals who operate today are just too clever to be caught with recoverable assets in their hands. If that is the true reason, how will the creation of a new agency make any difference? Is the idea that the Crown Prosecution Service is a tired, old-fashioned organisation and that we need a new agency to inject new life into the idea—new men, new ideas? If that is the idea, I hope that the Minister will say so.
I turn in conclusion to Part 5 of the Bill, which has been described as the centrepiece of the new legislation. Despite the fact that one suspects that Ministers are quite proud of their new Part 5, I noted a rather significant health warning in a Cabinet Office report dated June 2000. It stated that Part 5 might be viewed as contentious by some. That seems to me to be the under-statement of the decade.
The basic objection is simply as follows—and one would have thought that it was shared by everyone. Let us suppose that a person is charged with the theft of a car or a sum of money. He is acquitted by the jury on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt. Along
48
comes the director. He cannot, of course, overturn the verdict of the jury, but all the same he thinks that the car was stolen and he is prepared to prove it, if he can, by calling the same evidence and using the same arguments on a lesser burden of proof—on a mere balance of probabilities. If he succeeds, the car or its value is transferred to another newcomer, called the trustee for civil recovery, who then sells the car and transfers the proceeds back to the director, who hands them over to the state just as if it had been a fine. That is mere facade. What is in fact happening is that the state is enforcing a criminal penalty without bringing criminal proceedings or, worse still, when the defendant has actually been acquitted.
A Home Office Memorandum, dated 7th January 2002, advances a number of arguments in support of Part 5. It says that the critics of Part 5 have got hold of the wrong end of the stick and that the civil recovery proceedings are reparative in nature. It states that society as a whole, not merely the previous owner of the car, has been damaged by the theft of the car and society as a whole is, therefore, entitled to be compensated.
That is simple nonsense. It is the kind of argument which, as Lord Atkin once said in a famous case, might have found favour with the Court of King's Bench in the time of Charles I, but surely should not find favour today. One might as well say that a prisoner's sentence is reparative in nature because in some way he is paying a debt to society.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will seek to support the view expressed in the Home Office Memorandum. It was utterly demolished by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its further report on the Bill. Its view is that Part 5 may well fall foul of the European convention. One sometimes forgets that the convention is intended as a minimum, not a maximum, of what is required for the protection of what I still like to call the liberty of the subject. I do not care whether or not Part 5 will fall foul of the European convention. It is sufficient for me that it falls foul of what I regard as acceptable in English law.
Therefore, if any Member on the Liberal Democrat Benches or on the Conservative Benches, or indeed any distinguished lawyer on the Government Back Benches feels bold enough to oppose the Question that Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill, I will give such amendment my fullest possible support—except for Chapter 3, which seems to me to serve a useful, or at any rate a legitimate, purpose.
I shall say nothing more about the other provisions of the Bill. I found 190 pages out of 304 pages all that I could manage.
5.26 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goodhart complained about the length—or, it might be said, the weight—of the Bill. History records that in 1716 the Act of Attainder passed on my noble kinsman, the 6th Earl of Mar, the confiscation of his estate and the estate's transfer to the

49
commissioners of the forfeit estates. All that took less than one page. So, clearly, confiscation is a matter that we are revisiting. Parliament is familiar with the idea from earlier times.
The Bill sets out to improve the legal system's ability to collect in the ill-gotten gains of criminal activity, and so to take more effective measures to disrupt organised crime and, it is to he hoped, make it less worthwhile. That is clearly necessary, as it would seem that drug trafficking in Scotland may well he worth £800 million per annum—which I understand to be 1 per cent of Scottish GDP.
Of course, my remark about "the legal system's ability" is all wrong—for the Bill deals with all three legal systems within the United Kingdom, and does so openly and constructively. My interest is, inevitably, in the Scottish clauses. However, I fully appreciate that the aim of the Bill is to create as uniform an approach to the proceeds of crime as the three distinct legal systems will allow.
The Scottish clauses exist in the Bill because of the passage of a Sewel Motion in the Scottish Parliament in October last year. Indeed, some aspects of the Scottish legislation have yet to be brought before the Scottish Parliament. The Bill is a good use of the Sewel Motion procedure. However, we must always be on the look-out for significant amendment to the Scottish clauses, because significant amendment would raise the question of what exactly the Scottish Parliament agreed to last October.
The Minister has explained the Bill to the House, and it passes the test of expediency. By that, I mean that it contains several measures which are necessary to improve performance in the recovery of the proceeds of crime. During the passage of the Bill through this House, I hope that the House will be persuaded that the measures are more than expedient, and that they are just.
There has to be some concern about the conditions required to satisfy the court in Clause 94, on making confiscation orders in Scotland. I am encouraged by the Law Society of Scotland to suggest that there ought to be a fourth condition at this early stage requiring a statement of information from the prosecutor. That would be similar to the requirements in Clause 104. I accept that the statement would be somewhat limited because the investigation would be only in its earliest stages, but I believe that it should be there.
Similarly, in the case of restraint orders—in Clauses 122 and 123—the Bill is rather forward in freezing property in all cases at the earliest stage of investigation. I am being encouraged to believe that restraint orders at the earliest stage should be made only if it is arguably necessary, with a real risk of dispersal, rather than on a blanket basis.
In the measures for civil recovery, I hope that there is sufficient imperative to start at the top of the hierarchy, with criminal proceedings, not just an easy option of going straight to civil recovery, or even taxation.
50
Finally, I must mention the Scottish matrimonial home provisions in Clause 101. It is right to observe the practice of the Scottish courts towards matrimonial homes in existing confiscation legislation. This is not a problem of devolution; it is evidence of an acceptable lack of symmetry between the legal systems, which are rightly pre-Union institutions of considerable antiquity.
I wish the Bill well in its passage through the House. Its heart is in the right place at least. It has been surprisingly well scrutinised in the other place, with more than 115 hours of debate. I welcome that. Ministers will be pleased to hear that I believe that the Bill is not too far from being ready for the road.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, as one of only three Members of your Lordships' House taking part in the debate who are not Front-Benchers, I already find myself in agreement with much that has been said. I hope that it will not be felt that my remarks are merely repetitive.
For example, one could not fail to agree with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, when he described this as a substantial Bill. Given the number of pages and clauses, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred, it would be fair to say that it is rather larger than the average novel. One could not possibly suggest that it was not a highly complex Bill. I have tried to read the whole Second Reading debate in the House of Commons, but I have not succeeded in reading anywhere near the whole of the Bill. I was much attracted to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that it should be colour coded so that we know which parts we need to read. If I have misunderstood the intentions behind the Bill or the way in which they are carried out. I hope that it will be put down to the complexity of the Bill. I apologise in advance if I am mistaken in some of the assumptions that I have drawn.
Of course, as everyone has said, the Bill is desirable and welcome. Everyone in the country would agree that any measure that improves the power of the courts, particularly the Crown Courts, to prevent the criminal benefiting from the proceeds of his crime is welcome. Like others in this House, I have spent much of my professional career prosecuting or defending in the criminal courts or sitting as a recorder trying cases at that level. I am, therefore, aware that greed is a major motive of crime and concerned about the enormous profits involved in major crime. That covers the proceeds not only of drug trafficking, but also of major customs fraud, or any other kind of fraud, including long firm fraud, as well as major armed robberies.
I accept that the proceeds of crime have a corrosive effect on society and provide the money to breed further criminal activity. The drug dealer—whether he is dealing in cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy or heroin—is making, or setting out to make, large sums of money at the cost of creating human misery for many other people. Equally, and perhaps in some ways more

51
disturbingly, it was clear when I sat as a recorder that the vast majority of petty crime—one might call it "acquisitive crime"—is a means of obtaining the funds to feed that individual's drug addiction.
Much has recently been said about decriminalising or legitimising the use of cannabis. I have one remark to make about that. No one can decriminalise or legalise the use of cannabis without realising that, in doing so, he will be bound to decriminalise or legalise the supply of cannabis. We cannot make it an offence to supply a person with goods that he is free to use. Unless we sort out the supply before we consider how to deal with decriminalisation, my worry is that we will simply spread the drug dealer's power and influence to start young people on cannabis and then work them through to ecstasy, heroin and the other much more dangerous and addictive drugs.
I have no doubt about the importance of the overall aim of the Bill. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and my noble friend Lady Buscombe said so effectively, it is equally important to remember that the responsibility of Parliament and of this House is to scrutinise legislation to ensure that, while achieving laudable and desirable aims, we do not go beyond what is necessary or practical and do not set aside or undermine principles that have been accepted as the foundation of our legal system and our liberty for many years. I refer to three principles: the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof in criminal cases, and the rights of innocent third parties. The Bill has to be tested in detail on how it meets those issues, as well as achieving its main objective. Those principles should be set aside only if it is considered necessary to do so after proper scrutiny of their need.
That leads me to have cause for concern on three areas of the Bill. The first is the whole concept of a criminal lifestyle: on what it is based, how it is proved, and how wide it goes. The second is the right in all cases to seize and recover goods through civil proceedings without recourse to the criminal courts. The third is adequate protection of the innocent third party. In the Bill's laundering provisions, we may be in danger of making the test of negligence rather than the test of knowledge the basis of a serious offence. I shall very briefly deal with those three matters.
If I have understood the position on criminal lifestyle aright, if someone is convicted of any offence in a criminal court and the court is asked to do so by the prosecution, the court must proceed with the process of making a confiscation order. The court has no discretion. When proceeding to make that confiscation order, the court is required, first, to decide whether that person has what is described as a "criminal lifestyle". It must then go on to decide whether he has benefited from his general criminal behaviour. But what is the test of that "criminal lifestyle"? If I have understood the Bill correctly, if the man or woman has been convicted of a drug trafficking offence, that in itself would establish that he or she has a criminal lifestyle. The same would apply if it was a money laundering offence or an offence specified in regulations made by the Secretary
52
of State. The crime could also be said to constitute conduct forming part of a criminal lifestyle. I was therefore glad to hear the Minister say that he has placed in the Library of the House a list of the likely offences. I was also glad to hear of the Government's intention to amend the Bill as the Minister described.
If the crime meets any of those tests, the court would have to proceed to assume effectively that any property given to that person in the past six years, any expenditure he has made on property in those years, and any property in his possession are the result of his general criminal conduct. If the defendant wished to challenge that, the burden of making that challenge would rest on him. It seems to me that those are fairly draconian powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, used an example that I was going to use. Should such powers be used against a possibly rather pathetic defendant with three separate shoplifting convictions in the previous six years? Should they be used against someone who has committed one offence of possessing drugs for the purpose of supply, however small that amount of drugs may be? Or should we include in the Bill a de minimis clause, as the Minister says he plans to do in Part 5? Perhaps better, should we not adopt the proposal by my noble friend Lady Buscombe to give the courts the discretion to decide the type of case in which these powers should be used? If we do not choose one of the latter options, there is a danger that much of the agency's time will be taken up unnecessarily in pursuing minor cases, rather than concentrating on the major cases as it should.
As for the power to recover through the civil courts, I fully understand the argument advanced in the paper from the Home Office that it is still necessary to recover money obtained from crime when the person has died or gone overseas. However, should not the power to use such a provision at least be limited to cases in which there is an apparent reason why criminal proceedings could not be brought and a conviction obtained? I am concerned that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said, the Bill's drafting is such that the civil burden of proof could be used to recover goods even in cases where there has been an acquittal, or where a conviction is doubtful, because of the criminal burden of proof.
So I believe that there are issues—the burdens of proof, the presumption of innocence, the risk of not providing sufficient protection for the rights of the innocent—that will have to be examined in Committee. I apologise that part of my speech has been repetitive and somewhat rambling. However, I believe in and support the Bill's principles. I also support what the Government wish to do. Nevertheless, like others who have spoken, I hope that the Government achieve that goal by means that are compatible with and do not endanger some of the major principles of our legal liberty.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I feel that I should first declare an interest as a practising criminal

53
lawyer who has had some practical experience of the existing confiscation legislation. As the particular case that I have in mind is still undecided, I say no more about that. However, it does help to have had some practical experience of how these provisions are currently working. Your Lordships will recall that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, asked why the current legislation is not adequate.
The Bill's complexity conceals its draconian effect. These confiscation orders are no small beer: they involve the possibility of long sentences of imprisonment in default. In Section 139 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, certain maximum periods are set out for the non-payment of orders. Accordingly, a confiscation order that exceeds £1 million can attract a further 10-year sentence if the compensation payable is not paid, and default on a £250,000 order can attract a five-year sentence. As the Bill's provisions, particularly Clause 14, provide that the confiscation order is to be left out entirely—not taken into account at all—in considering the sentence that should be passed on an offender, the offender could receive, for example, 25 years for a drug offence, but then be subject to an order in excess of £1 million with the possibility of another 10 years should he default. That is how the Bill can operate.
Currently, the prosecution presents its case at trial and may maintain that the defendant is not a major player in events. Nevertheless, if the unit concerned with recovery—not the Crown Prosecution Service, but the police or Customs and Excise—decides that assets have passed through his hands, he would be responsible for those assets regardless of the fact that the prosecution maintains that he has never touched them. He may be an accomplice; he may play a small part in the particular offence of which he is convicted. If he is convicted the assumptions operate, and it is for him to prove what has happened to the assets.
Very often that is a completely impossible burden because the money may have passed to confederates abroad. There is no way in which he will be believed when he gives evidence, nor will he be able to call his confederates to say what they have done with the money that they may have received from, for example, the sale of contraband, or to prove what has been paid to suppliers. Consequently, he will be pursued not for any money that is necessarily in his hands, but for the whole of the money that may simply have passed through a bank account in his name. That is tough. It may be that that is the kind of draconian instrument that we require. I am seeking to establish before your Lordships that the existing legislation is already tough.
I admit to a certain frisson of excitement when I saw an attractive picture of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in one of today's daily papers next to a picture of me, with the headline "Shame on you". That is nothing to the frisson of excitement that will have passed through the relatives of my wife in Scotland, which is where they are at the moment. It is simply daft to suggest that the Opposition Benches in this House are in any way weak on crime and are anxious to support drug dealers or those who have made large fortunes out of criminal activities. That is not the case.
54
But there is no point in passing legislation through this House that is inconsistent with an Act of Parliament that this Government have already introduced, namely, the Act that placed the European Convention on Human Rights upon our statute book. Therefore, it is necessary to consider to what degree these provisions comply with the provisions of that European convention.
The previous legislation required that the target was a proven offender. In my view, the civil recovery provisions in Part 5 of the Bill have been rightly attacked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who speaks with great authority, as a facade. An entirely new concept is being introduced. The burden of proof circumvents the safeguards that exist for those effectively charged with a criminal offence. That is one of the aspects that, in previous decisions, have caused the judges in this country to say that the current legislation is proportional, but will future legislation be proportional?
Another item on which the courts have relied has been that the prosecutor exercises a discretion to bring proceedings under these provisions. The court also has a discretion. Perhaps I can refer your Lordships to the judgment of the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, in the recent case that came before the Privy Council from Scotland. He said:
"The confiscation order procedure can only he initiated if the accused is convicted of a drug trafficking offence. The court is therefore dealing with a proven drug trafficker. It is then incumbent on the prosecutor to prove, as best he can, the property held by the accused and his expenditure over the chosen period up to six years, including any implicative gifts relied on … It is only if a significant discrepancy is shown between the property and expenditure of the accused on the one hand and his known sources of income on the other that the court will think it right to make the section 3(2) assumptions, and unless the accounting details reveal such a discrepancy the prosecutor will not in practice apply for an order".
I pause there. That decision was that the existing legislation is proportional and complies with the Act. It is for the court to "think it right", so the court has a discretion as to whether to apply the assumptions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, continued:
"It would be an obviously futile exercise to seek an order where the assets and expenditure of the accused are fully explained by his known sources of legitimate income. If a significant discrepancy is shown, and in the first instance it is for the prosecutor to show it. I do not for my part think it unreasonable or oppressive to call on the accused to proffer an explanation"—
not to prove where the assets came from, but "to proffer an explanation". That puts into simpler terms the concept of an evidential burden upon the accused rather than the persuasive burden to which my noble friend Lord Goodhart, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in particular, have referred. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, said:
"He must know the source of his assets and what he has been living on".
It is proportional; therefore, if the court has a discretion to make the assumptions and if the prosecutor has the discretion to make the

55
assumptions, all that is required of the accused is that he offers an explanation and that he produces evidence in support of his possession of property.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said something similar in the case of Benjafield, in the Court of Appeal:
"It is very much a matter of personal judgment as to whether a proper balance has been struck between the conflicting interests. Into the balance there must be placed the interests of the defendant as against the interests of the public, that those who have offended should not profit from their offending and should not use their criminal conduct to fund further offending. However, in our judgment, if the discretions which are given to the prosecution and the court are properly exercised, the solution which Parliament has adopted is a reasonable and proportionate response to a substantial public interest, and therefore justifiable".
Again, I draw attention to those words. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the current Lord Chief Justice, emphasised the discretion in the hands of the court as to whether to proceed with those draconian provisions against an individual.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made similar points in a Scottish case:
"The Act provides that [the assumptions] can only be made where the accused has been convicted of a drug trafficking offence … In order to embark on this process the crown must first prove that the accused is guilty of such an offence. That is the threshold that first must be crossed".
So, as far as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is concerned, part of the proportionality was that a specific offence had been proved against an individual. Consequently, it is vital, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart has said, that we should know what those offences are on the face of the Bill and that they should not be brought in by a side wind through regulations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, continued:
"Then there is the nature of those offences … The essence of drug trafficking is dealing or trading in drugs. People engage in this activity to make money, and it is notorious that they hide what they are doing. Direct proof of the proceeds is often difficult, if not impossible. The nature of the activity and the harm it does to the community provide a sufficient basis for the making of these assumptions. They serve the legitimate aim in the public interest of combating that activity. They do so in a way that is proportionate. They relate to matters that ought to be within the accused's knowledge, and they are rebuttable by him at a hearing before a judge on the balance of probabilities".
There the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, focuses upon specific allegations with which a person can deal and not upon a broad concept. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, referred to a broad concept of a criminal lifestyle that is almost impossible to define.
The Government cannot rely—as did the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—upon the decisions which have taken place under the existing legislation. They cannot rely on the fact that this legislation is proportionate when it invades the very matters which affected the judges who came to the conclusion that the existing legislation complies with the European convention. For that reason, we shall consider in detail in Committee the provisions of the Bill.
Having said that, we entirely support the concept that criminals should not enjoy the fruits of their crime. That is obvious. But we also support sensible,
56
fair and just legislation which will not be struck down at some future date. We also support the creation of a properly funded agency to take over from the hard-pressed units of the police and Customs and Excise. I have seen them in operation. Their morale appeared to me to be low. I may be wrong. With wholly inadequate resources, they sought to grapple with the very clever criminals whose means of concealing crime are multifarious.
There is much in the Bill to discuss in Committee. We shall do our best to improve it.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the quality and comprehensiveness of your Lordships' contributions to the debate today have made my task easy. The Opposition thoroughly support the objectives of the Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow said, the proceeds of crime have a corrosive effect on society and in themselves breed crime. But, at the same time, I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will agree with me that the Bill changes, in some respects dramatically, the balance of power between the state and the citizen. I hope that he will further agree that it is right that your Lordships' House should scrutinise the text extremely carefully.
My contribution will be in inverse proportion to the length of the Bill. I propose to refer only briefly to three parts. Part 2 was addressed by almost all noble Lords. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, congratulated the Opposition in another place and the Liberal Democrat Party for the excellent way in which the Bill was scrutinised in Committee. I believe that there were no less than 39 sittings.
At least two important concessions were made by the Government as a result of that process. The first was the undertaking to schedule a list of offences which were likely to give rise to the definition of criminal lifestyle and we welcome that. The second was the decision to apply the affirmative resolution procedure to any new offences which would fall within the definition of criminal lifestyle. We think that both initiatives are very constructive. We are much obliged for them.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the most difficult paragraphs in Part 2 are connected with the definition of a course of criminal conduct. It could be satisfied either by offences which were very grave or which were rather trivial. In circumstances where the offences which gave rise to the mandatory assumption were, let us say, three shoplifting offences I share his view that the Bill's reaction is disproportionate. When the noble Lord tables an amendment to the provision, the Opposition Benches will support the solution he proposes: that there would be circumstances where a judge might take the view that it is wholly unreasonable to move from such a course of criminal conduct to the mandatory assumptions.

57
I hope that noble and learned Lord will reflect on that issue between now and Committee stage. Another place gave some consideration to the matter. I know that your Lordships' House will be thinking carefully about it again.
I make two further points, telegraphically, on Part 2. One is the obvious point about the difference in the treatment of the family home between Scotland and the other parts of the United Kingdom. In my submission, that is in principle discriminatory and could well fall foul of the provisions of the Human Rights Act. The other refers to a point made most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, when he distinguished between the persuasive and evidentiary burden in circumstances where the burden of proof is reversed in criminal matters. Again, I share his views on that.
With regard to Part 5.1 need do little more than refer noble Lords to the remarkable speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I entirely endorse his conclusion that it is highly likely that the courts would decide that the procedure laid down in Part 5 is of a criminal and not a civil nature. If that conclusion is correct, Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights applies and would condemn those parts of the Bill which gave force retrospectively to Part 5.
Moreover, a decision in favour of the agency under Part 5 could be reached by evidential rules which were much lighter than the rules which apply in a criminal case—with regard to the balance of probability and with hearsay evidence and compelled evidence also admissible. For such a grave outcome for the individual, those rules of evidence are not tight enough. They do not provide the individual with sufficient protection.
I refer again to a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Were the civil procedure to follow a failure to convict, much of the evidence that arose in the criminal trial could be re-run in the civil trial to favour the state. Equally, a decision to recover under Part 5 in the civil trial could be used in a subsequent criminal trial, perhaps calling into question a presumption of innocence. Therefore, although the Opposition entirely understand the point underlying Part 5, and would not go so far as to say that it should not be there, they believe that the procedures implied by the civil approach are not sufficiently tight to guarantee the protection we would expect for the citizen.
Finally, so far as concerns the procedures with respect to money laundering, we wonder whether a negligent act by a professional in a City firm should give rise to the penalty of imprisonment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will think again about that issue too.
6.9 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Subject to certain reservations, the overall effect of the speeches by noble Lords is support for the
58
legislation; and for that we are grateful. The importance of the legislation was explained by my noble friend Lord Rooker in opening the debate. I welcome the comments made by your Lordships in support of what he said. I welcome the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, based on his experience as a criminal practitioner and judge, as to the corrosive effect—I use the language of he noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—of the proceeds of crime, if we cannot remove them from the system, if we cannot starve criminals of their working capital. Removing the working capital of crime—removing the role model to which peaceful enjoyment of the proceeds of crime gives rise—is an important objective. I am glad that it is shared generally in the House.
However, the present system does not produce the results. It is estimated that the value-added of drugs is 1 per cent of GDP—perhaps as much as £8.5 billion in the United Kingdom—but less than £20 million was recovered in 2000–2001 by the existing procedures. Therefore, a key issue is to have a workable Bill. I noted the promise made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. If I took down her words accurately, she said that it was the will and wish of the Opposition to assist the Government to achieve a workable piece of legislation. The Government will be happy to judge that promise by the results of what takes place in Committee In that connection, it will be important to discover whether the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, of at least part of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said in relation to Part 5 actually amounts—I thought he was working towards it—to denaturing Part 5 to such an extent that it would not work. That would not provide a workable Bill, and I shall return to that point.
In a Bill of this size, it is inevitable that there will be divergent views on some issues. My fundamental point is that we very much hope we can work together in Committee to ensure that the Bill's central themes are not significantly weakened. Although a balance has to be struck about which there is no difference of view, the Government's overall approach is to ensure that the legislation is not applied unfair ly or disproportionately. We owe a duty to the public to ensure that the law is not reduced to such a level that it renders the legislation powerless to act against those who will take every opportunity to circumvent its effect.
I shall do my best to deal with the points that have been raised. It is helpful to know what issues will be raised in Committee. However, some points are perhaps more appropriate for Committee Stage than Second Reading, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if' I omit some of them. I do not intend, however, to tread the interesting paths started by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and continued by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, about the quality of the draftsmanship, the absence or presence of punctuation, or whether it is right that Scotland should have its own provisions separately set out in a single, comprehensive part. No doubt parliamentary counsel will read their comments with interest. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said in opening the debate,

59
this is a complex and heavy Bill. We shall do what we can outside this Chamber to assist noble Lords who seek such assistance to understand how the Government believe the legislation will work. I make that offer to noble Lords.
I deal, first, with Part 1 of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Rooker said that this Bill is part of a wider programme, including the provision of funds for more financial investigators. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked whether the establishment of the new agency would result in a loss of existing expertise in financial investigation. I can assure her that that certainly will not happen. There is a need to improve Financial investigation skills. The priority to be given to financial investigation was a key recommendation of the Performance and Innovation Unit's report, which preceded this Bill, in June 2000. The agency will not entirely take over confiscation investigations from existing law enforcement agencies. However, it will share the confiscation functions of the law enforcement and prosecution authorities.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked whether it was necessary to have a new agency. The Government's view is that it most certainly is necessary. If I may draw on my own experience, I have seen the operation of a similar agency established in Dublin, and I have been much impressed by the joined-up way in which it is working with tax, Customs and police authorities, and financial investigators. I am quite satisfied that the PIU's recommendation that there should be a separate agency is a good one.
We need the legislation because of the defects in the current scheme. Those defects are referred to in the PIU's report, and many of the concepts contained in the Bill derive from the recommendations of that report. It emphasised that the present confiscation law has been developed in a piecemeal fashion, which has contributed to its under use. The fact is that confiscation orders are currently made in only 10 per cent of drug trafficking cases, and overall in only 0.3 per cent of criminal cases.
The problems of the present scheme were identified in summary by my noble friend Lord Rooker in opening. For example, the separate treatment of drug-trafficking and other criminal activity renders the legislation ineffective against sophisticated criminals, because it is often impossible to distinguish between the proceeds of drug trafficking and the proceeds of other crime. Modern technology allows funds to be transferred with sophistication and speed, which means that it is necessary to have new investigative powers in order to be able to trace them.
I turn to the parts of the Bill dealing with criminal confiscation, Parts 2 to 4. I did not detect any disagreement from the noble Lords who spoke as to the principles that lie behind those parts of the Bill. Let me therefore address some of the specific points that were made, if only to give an idea of what we would say in Committee if probed on them.
First, I turn to the discretion to make a confiscation order. Under existing legislation, the position in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in relation to
60
drugs is to make such an assumption—I hope your Lordships will forgive me for switching slightly between assumptions and the making of an order—following conviction for a single drug-trafficking offence. If one reverts to the question of the order itself, it is very important to consider what safeguards are in place. First, there is a discretion vested in the prosecutor. Will the prosecutor apply for the order at all? Secondly, there is an ability to rebut the assumptions that exist. Thirdly, the court must not make an assumption if to do so would result in a serious risk of injustice. That is an important matter and one to which I shall return, because it relates to a number of points made by noble Lords.
I turn to the issue of criminal lifestyle. Again, the fact that assumptions must be made by the court is already the position in relation to a single drugs-trafficking offence under existing legislation. The question with which we are concerned therefore is the definition of "criminal lifestyle" and how it will operate. I am grateful that the Government's intentions, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Rooker in opening—to produce a schedule of the lifestyle offences and to accept the recommendation of the committee in that respect—were welcomed.
In that context, I return to the issue of serious risk of injustice. Some examples raised by noble Lords were precisely the circumstances in which one would anticipate the court saying, "There is a serious risk of injustice in making the assumption in this case, having regard to what we know about this offender and having regard to the specific circumstances of the offence". That is an important safeguard to be borne in mind.
Two issues were raised in relation to the burden of proof. One was the persuasive and evidential burden and the other the standard of proof. It was suggested, as it was suggested in another place, that an evidential rather than a persuasive burden should be placed on the defendant. The Government's view has been that a persuasive burden is necessary. Why is that the case and what is the difference?
I take the example of an allegation in the course of proceedings that there is an unexplained transaction of £10,000. If all that the offender is required to do to discharge the evidential burden is simply to say, "I am a gambler", it will place on the prosecutor a difficult if not impossible obligation to prove where that £10,000 came from. It is in the nature of the sorts of transaction with which we are concerned that there are no paper trails which can be followed for the proceeds of drug trafficking, trafficking in humans, or whatever the behaviour may be.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be perfectly possible for someone who was claiming that winnings were the result of gambling to provide a genuine paper trail which would show that he had won a substantial bet, but would fail to show that he had simultaneously made a large number of losing bets? Is not the right way to deal with that problem to make it clear that

61
winnings from gambling should not be regarded as providing an excuse for treating those assets as having been acquired by legitimate means?
Lord Golldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful for the spirit which moved that observation. But the ultimate proposition that the Government should say that proceedings of gaming are illegal and can be recouped by the state may surprise some people. The noble Lord's point tends to support rather than undermine my point; that is, if one simply allows a defendant to raise the possibility to discharge the evidential burden by saying, "I got it from gaming", for example, and then places on the prosecutor the obligation to demonstrate where it came from, it would defeat a lot of the object of the Bill.
The question was raised as to whether or not such a burden is compatible with the ECHR. There is no rule of the ECH R that reverse burdens are not legitimate; indeed, the cases to which my noble friend Lord Rooker referred in his opening address are exactly such cases. The cases of McIntosh and Benjafield. to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred, are cases in which there is an actual reverse burden and they have been accepted by the highest courts, as has Phillips in the European Court of Human Rights itself.
The question of the family home was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Kingsland. As was explained in another place, the difference in treatment between Scotland and England and Wales reflects existing differences in the law of those countries. The provision in Scotland replicates earlier Scottish confiscation legislation in the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, which itself developed an earlier provision along the same lines in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987. That in turn reflects the fact that under a 1981 Act—we are going back a long way—Scottish law provided a right to occupy the matrimonial home to spouses who were not owners or tenants and provided for the protection of occupancy rights in a way that is different from English law.
The difference in treatment reflects the difference in protection of spouses' rights in Scotland. Both propositions in a sense have an argument of principle in their favour. On the one hand, if these are proceeds of crime, why should they be capable of retention under any circumstances? On the other hand, it may be argued that family circumstances may justify the retention even of unlawfully obtained proceeds of crime. Both arguments, in principle, are justifiable positions to take. It does not seem to the Government that there is a way of immediately producing a common approach between them. However, we shall continue to reflect on the matter and to monitor the operation of all three parts closely in any event when the Bill is in force.
I turn now to the question of creditors. I can deal with this quite quickly in view of the hour. It was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I draw a distinction between the position of secured creditors and that of unsecured creditors. Secured creditors—those who have an interest in the property—will, as the
62
Bill shows, be able to have their interest recognised and generally protected. But if all debts were given priority over confiscation what would be the consequence? Let me suggest at least two. First, spurious creditors would emerge claiming that they have a prior debt outstanding against the defendant. In reality they could be criminal associates of the defendant. That would be difficult to prevent and would greatly weaken the compensation system. Or defendants could acquire services on credit to defeat the confiscation process.
An unsecured lender exposes himself to all sorts of risk. I accept that that would be one more risk, but nut one of a different order. However, it may turn out that the person to whom he lent the money is unable to pay it back on this occasion because it turns out that his assets are the proceeds of crime.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised the question of potential double recovery. Under Clause 14 the court has discretion to take forfeiture orders into account, so that is a matter for the court. In cases where there is no forfeiture order, it does not seem right to take into account the purchase price of drugs. In any event, the limit on what the court can do relates to the amount of available assets—the money that the defendant actually has. That is an important observation.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked why legal fees could not come from the restrained assets. As the House knows, the line taken by the Government is that legal aid will be available when it is not possible for legal expenses to be met. Legal fees should come out of assets that are not the contested proceeds of crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, painted a dramatic picture of penalty being imposed on penalty, but under Clause 8 the court cannot make an order for confiscation that is greater than the available assets of the defendant. Therefore, the example that he gives is of someone against whom an order of the court has been made but who refuses to comply with it. That is the case in relation to other orders, fines and so forth.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: In my experience, if it is claimed that a person's recoverable assets are nowhere near the benefits that have passed through his hands, he is said to have hidden assets. That is the situation to which I was referring.
Lord Goldsmith: Those cases will be judged by the court, having regard to material that is put before it and subject to appeal. Therein lies the safeguard.
Generally speaking, civil recovery appeared to be supported by most noble Lords, save the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I start with the question of the classification of this part of the Bill. It is an important issue with important implications. Is it a criminal matter or a civil one? As a matter of domestic law, these will be civil proceedings. But that is not conclusive under the European convention. The Government's view, having regard to the factors that the European jurisprudence requires, is that on

63
balance this is civil and not criminal. The reasons are summarised in the memorandum from the Home Office which is printed in the Joint Committee's report.
On the confiscation proceedings, the jurisprudence is crystal clear. Oddly—as some might think—but accurately they are civil, not criminal, in nature. That is the effect of the Benjafield case, the Phillips case and the McIntosh case; and that is why Article 6.2 provisions do not apply after there has been a conviction. The question is whether or not freestanding civil recovery is in a different position. The Government's view is that it is not. It is not a form of prosecution. The purpose is not to secure a finding of guilt, let alone a conviction or imprisonment. It focuses on property and how it was obtained. There is no necessary implication that the person holding it is guilty. Only property that has been unlawfully obtained, or funds obtained for it, can be recovered.
The elements of civil procedure apply in the process. That is why the Government take the view that it is civil in nature. There is much case law but now is not the time to debate it. The Joint Committee considered that the existing case law did not conclude the issue either way. However, the Government consider that the case law points much more strongly than was suggested by the Joint Committee, as does Irish case law. Similar legislation has been examined at the highest level in the Irish courts.
The second question is how civil recovery will operate. If the issue were criminal in nature there would be concerns about Article 7 of the Convention, but not if it is a civil issue. That is why the limited amount of retrospection that the Bill provides is justified in the Government's view.
Thirdly, I turn to the safeguards under this procedure and I invite noble Lords to consider them. The director has discretion as to whether to bring civil recovery proceedings. The burden of proof is on the director and civil recovery proceedings will be governed by the civil procedure rules. There will be protection for third parties who have an interest in the property, and those who have purchased for full value in good faith and without notice will not have to give it up. The court also has an important residual power not to include in a recovery order measures that are incompatible with rights under the ECHR. That is expressly set out.
As these are civil proceedings in the Government's view, the standard of proof is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. All noble Lords who have experience in the courts will know that, in practice, the High Court requires more cogent evidence when a claim involves an allegation of criminal conduct than it would for that of negligence.
I emphasise the hierarchy. This is not being put forward as a soft option to prosecution. The Government have made it clear that the first priority will be a criminal prosecution and not civil recovery as an alternative to it.
64
The money-laundering provisions received some attention from your Lordships. These were debated in another place, and I look forward to the further discussions that we shall have in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to the training that all employers are required to provide under the Money Laundering Regulations 1993. The concern that the negligence offence is unfair overlooks the fact that the offence in Clause 330 of failing to report to the authorities is permitted only if the prosecution proves that money laundering was planned or undertaken.
In response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the Government have undertaken to strengthen NCIS's capacity to handle more suspicious transaction reports and have invested in ensuring that the systems are efficient and effective. No doubt we can provide the noble Lord with further information.
In conclusion, noble Lords have identified areas of the Bill that they wish to scrutinise. As always we welcome such scrutiny. We note that the Bill has been subjected to considerable scrutiny already, but improvements have been made. Certain matters, although looked at in detail by the Government, were not accepted. Subject to the changes that were identified by my noble friend, the amendments meet the concerns that have been raised. We all agree that the Bill is important. It should be proportionate—or just, to use the word of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. The Government believe that it is and we look forward to working with your Lordships to ensure that the important principles of the Bill are not undermined, thereby making it unworkable. I commend the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Railtrack
6.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend Stephen Byers. The Statement is as follows:
"I would like to make a Statement on the bid for Railtrack plc made today by Network Rail.
"As the House will be aware, Railtrack was taken into administration on 7th October as a result of a High Court Order. As Mr Justice Lightman said at the time:
'This is clearly a case where the making of a railway administration order is not only appropriate, but absolutely essential, and I shall therefore make that order immediately'.
"The reason Railtrack was put into administration was that it was, or was likely to be, unable to pay its debts. But let us remember that it had failed to maintain the railway safely and properly. It had failed to gain a proper understanding of its assets. Hatfield and its

65
aftermath demonstrated this. And it had failed to manage modernisation projects like the West Coast Main Line.
"Let us not forget that Railtrack was at the heart of the flawed and failed privatisation carried out by the Tories. The Government have always said that what we need is a successor to Railtrack that is focused on the public interest and on the needs of passengers.
"Railtrack has made some progress during administration under the management of John Armin. His appointment as chief executive has been widely welcomed in the industry.
"I agree with the Transport Select Committee which said:
'It is imperative that the process of administration be completed as soon as possible'.
"Because of the difficulties in putting together a business plan and the limited knowledge this company has of its own assets, the administrator has indicated that there will be further delays in launching his competitive process.
"What we need is an end to administration so that the improvements we all want to see to the country's rail infrastructure can be delivered as soon as possible. There is therefore a value to the Government, the taxpayer and rail users in an earlier exit from administration. Network Rail's bid reflects this approach. Network Rail say that its proposal could if accepted take Railtrack plc out of administration as early as the end of July 2002.
"Network Rail is a company limited by guarantee. It will not have shareholders so it will not be paying out dividends. Unlike Railtrack, its operating surplus will be re-invested in the rail network. Its core focus will be the maintenance and renewal or Britain's railways. It will focus on the needs of the travelling public, not short-term profit for shareholders. It will be able to raise capital for investment more cheaply. A better deal all round for the travelling public.
"The Government have always said that Railtrack shareholders should get the value in the company to which they are entitled. Railtrack Group has assets that could be used to provide value for its shareholders. My understanding is that Railtrack Group has over £350 million in cash deposits and an interest as owner in section 1 of the Channel Tunnel rail link and some property interests.
"The Government have indicated that a grant of £300 million will be made available to reflect the benefits of an early exit from administration. If such an early exit is not achieved then the money will not be available.
"An earlier exit from administration, resulting in a more focused and efficient rail network operator, would lead to the quicker realisation of efficiency savings; it would reduce performance penalties; and it would allow 10-year plan projects to proceed more quickly.
66
"Network Rail's proposal, based on the concept of a company limited by guarantee, is designed to be more efficient than Railtrack, with lower financing costs and no dividends to pay. That is why the Government are prepared to make this payment.
"For the Government it will be self-financing from savings that will be made. It therefore follows that if there is not an early exit then the savings will not be made and in such circumstances the £300 million will not be available.
"Since Railtrack was taken into administration the Government have said that every single penny of taxpayers' money must be used to improve the rail network. That is exactly what this grant of £300 million will do. It will benefit the travelling public. That has to be our top priority.
"The administrator has said that he is actively reviewing Network Rail's proposal in the context of administration. If the bid were successful, it would enable a company limited by guarantee to become the successor to Railtrack. As the House will know, the Government have said all along that they view a company limited by guarantee as an attractive successor body.
"Network Rail is committed to engineering excellence. Its bid has the potential to bring the rail industry together and overcome the fragmentation that has all too often characterised it in the past.
"It is now for the administrator to decide how he should conduct the process in the light of today's bid. He has confirmed that he will treat any further proposals that might be made on their merits. Getting Railtrack out of administration must be done on the basis that it will produce a viable, financially sound company, one that takes a longterm perspective and that puts the emphasis first and foremost on operating a safe, efficient and reliable rail network.
"Taking action on Railtrack has been criticised by some, including the Tories. But today's developments demonstrate what can be achieved: a railway system that is united and not fragmented: a railway industry with a shared strategic vision; a railway industry that values its employees and will invest in them; and a railway network provider that will answer to the millions of passengers and not to private shareholders. This is all now possible as we lay to rest Railtrack and develop a railway system for the future".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister for reading the Secretary of State's Statement to the House and commiserate with him for having to do so. I understand why he read it with some speed, for this is nothing short of the U-turn of all U-turns. It must be quite embarrassing for the Minister to have to be associated with it. Far more, it is a real affront to the intelligence of Parliament, to the investors in Railtrack and to the British public

67
As the Secretary of State knows, there were, and remain, serious concerns about the actions he took to put Railtrack into administration, the subsequent cost to the taxpayer—which looks now like amounting to far more than if Railtrack had been given the money for which it was asking—and the effect on the shareholders, which was dismissed at the time as being of no relevance.
It is six months since the Secretary of State impetuously pulled the rug on Railtrack, plunging the administration of the rail service and the viability of the company into uncharted waters, the individual shareholders who had invested for their pensions into potential penury, and the large investment companies into apoplectic disbelief.
Now we have a brief statement extolling the virtues of bringing the administration to an end by accepting a bid from Network Rail which is a company limited by guarantee. One of the reasons given for pushing ahead at this stage to finalise the successor to Railtrack—the company limited by guarantee—is that it will bring the costly administration to an end at an earlier stage.
Those costs are running at about £1 million a day. So if that were to be the case it would be welcome. But no one but the Secretary of State seems to think that there is the least likelihood of achieving that before the middle of 2003, whatever measures are adopted. So will the Minister give an indication of how much more expenditure he believes that the taxpayer will have to provide before this part of this sorry mess is resolved?
The company limited by guarantee—a creature previously unknown in major projects—has no shareholders. The Secretary of State has pushed it forward as the appropriate vehicle for dealing with the dilemma that he has created for himself, ignoring the fact that other consortiums were positioning themselves to bid which might provide more favourable terms.
The Minister has said that the administrator has said that there will be further delays to launching the competitive process. So will the Minister indicate whether this process is still to be followed at some unspecified time, when other bids will be judged against Network Rail? Or is the reality of the situation that this is to be a single tender to get the Secretary of State off the hook and that there will be no other options considered as to the most effective economic and administrative structure? In any other public authority this would be against standing orders and against financial instructions.
The Secretary of State has also made a feature of the fact that this company will have no shareholders. On whom will the company fall back if there are any further financial problems—the taxpayer?
Will the Minister also advise us as to whether or not the Government will be seeking representation on the board of Network Rail or any other CLG to protect their investment in both the Strategic Rail Authority and the train operators to whom they provide heavy subsidies? Will the Minister say how, without
68
shareholders, the board of the company can be held to account? Is he satisfied that the Secretary of State has no conflict of interest since he employs the administrators, he is bidding for a company offered for sale by the administrators, and he is providing public funds to support Railtrack's successor? In all this the Secretary of State leaves many more questions unanswered than answered. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us.
I turn now to the benighted shareholders. So far, having barely had any truck with their problems, now in his Statement the Secretary of State says that the Government's position has always been that shareholders should get the value in the company to which they are entitled. But that hardly fits with his statement to shareholders quoted in the independent on 21st November that,
"There is no question of using taxpayers' money to compensate the shareholders for what was basically a bad investment".
The Secretary of State has gone from dismissing shareholders' claims as hardly justifying more consideration than their valueless share certificates, to an admission that they have to be recompensed and by the taxpayer.
Whether the proposed pay-off which amounts to a share value of £2.50, which is 30 pence below their value at the time the Secretary of State pulled the plug, will be sufficient is obviously yet to be decided by their representatives and legal advisers. But presumably the Government have a fall-back position if the shareholders do not accept this offer. It is certain, however, that the threat of legal action, as well as to future investment by the City in PPP, has finally convinced, if not the Secretary of State, then the Prime Minister, that more than the railways is at stake here.
The Secretary of State has now promised the shareholders £1.3 billion, but has fudged the Government's responsibilities for this whole sorry mess by leaving it to the new company limited by guarantee to raise that amount—£300 million from government sources— that is to say, to be taken from the £65 billion promised to the Strategic Rail Authority for the 10-year plan so recently discussed in this House. Perhaps the Minister will say whether that £300 million is to be available only to Network Rail or will it be made available if at any stage any other company is considered as a bidder? There is to be £200 million from the City and £90 million from the sale of assets which include, apparently, the yet unfinished Channel Tunnel rail link.
It is to be hoped that all this money is actually available and will not involve the company in additional borrowing in order to fund the shareholders' compensation. This whole saga is indeed a sorry tale and I doubt we have heard the last of it.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for making the Statement. However, I start from the position that we are here because the railways were privatised and that responsibility for the whole

69
sorry shambles which has gone on since must be laid at the doors of the people who supported it and the method of privatisation.
Am I right in saying that the costs of administration are being borne by the shareholders and not the Government? I believe that to be the case. It is quite important. What are we paying £300 million for? I am talking about "us", the public. Is it going to the shareholders? It is not going to buy a single new sleeper, piece of rail or anything we might want. Is it just for buying off the shareholders from pursuing a law suit, which I do not believe they would win? I believe, like the shareholders of Marconi, that people who invest in something which is not viable deserve to lose their money. I have no sympathy with them. I have sympathy with people in Railtrack who may have been paid in shares, but I do not have sympathy with people who gambled on the Stock Exchange and lost.
Will it make Railtrack plc more efficient in the discharge of its functions? It is nothing to do with making the railways more united, I believe the Minister said. That is the job of the Strategic Rail Authority. It has nothing to do with giving the railways a shared strategic vision. That is the job of the Strategic Rail Authority. I do not believe it has anything to do with what we have heard today.
I believe that it might be more to do with cosying up to certain money men in the City. I was told very authoritatively last week by someone who is extremely well known as a company director—I must not say who he was—that money is available to support good schemes on the railways. That is private money in the City and he has a lot of it. So any suggestion that there is not the money for schemes is also wrong. We should not listen to a few fund managers in the City who whine and write letters to The Times. They do not represent the whole of the investing public.
I am not saying—I do not believe we ever have—that the Government are wrong, because we do not have the facts. They are not in the public domain. But we are very suspicious that this is the same story that we were told about the Underground. What we are trying to do is make PH deals and SPV deals risk-free, which they ought not to be because someone ought to carry some risk in such matters. One pays substantially more for money that way than by funding it through bonds or from ordinary public funds. It is a great deal cheaper than many of the fancy ways of getting money which are favoured by the Minister's friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but which I believe are not favoured by everybody.
Finally—and I mean this very seriously—can we have an assurance from the Minister that whatever shenanigans are going on between Mr Byers, Mr Brown, the Treasury and these companies, the money is being made available on a day-to-day basis to keep the railways safe for passengers to use—after all, we run them for the passengers and not the shareholders—and that the necessary money is available for the modernisation schemes which have to carry on? We cannot just stop the railways for years while this awful mess is sorted out.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords. I shall deal first with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Her first question was what expense was being saved. What is made clear in the Statement is that if there is early exit from administration, that will have the effect of allowing the railways to go forward. There will be efficiency savings in that regard. It will enable the railways to focus on their core business. I believe that every sensible person will agree that the quicker administration comes to an end the better. The view taken, as my right honourable friend said in another place, by the Transport Select Committee is that it is imperative that the process of administration is completed as soon as possible. I think that everyone recognises that there will be savings if the process comes to an end as quickly as possible. Making available the £300 million acknowledges that; it seems to us a sensible course. Our concern in all of this must be the travelling public.
The next question asked by the noble Baroness was whether the competitive procedure is still to be followed or whether it is to be "a single tender", in breach, as she would put it, of all organisations' standards of order. It is a matter for the administrators to decide what is now the right course in the light of the approach that has been made. They must judge what is the right course.
The noble Baroness said that there would be no shareholders on whom to fall back. As she knows, where a company is limited by guarantee, it has guarantors instead of shareholders. Of course, shareholders in Railtrack were not going to come forward with the additional money required, so there is a parallel between guarantors and shareholders.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, who are the guarantors?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as was made clear at the outset, the guarantors will be a range of people representing the whole industry. In answer to her next question—will the Government be seeking representation on the board?—the SRA will be represented on the board. Her next question was: am I satisfied that there is no conflict of interest? She will recall that when the CLG bid was being put together, responsibility for it was placed in the hands of the SRA. Mr Ian McAllister, former chairman of Ford Great Britain, was put in charge of running that bid. The CLG bid is therefore coming from a non-departmental public body separate from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
The noble Baroness next asked: will the money come from the £65 billion? As has been made clear throughout, the sum is self-financing because of the savings made by an early exit from administration. Will the money be available to any other bidder? The principle underlying the £300 million is that it is a sum for an early exit from administration, so if another bidder put forward a proposal that led to an early exit

71
from administration—obviously, subject to negotiation and agreement—some sum for early exit from administration would be available.
I think that that deals with all of the questions asked by the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked whether the cost of administration is being borne by the shareholders. Currently, the cost of administration is being borne by the company itself, not by the shareholders—as is normal. What are we buying for the £300 million? We are buying an early exit from administration. As is made clear in the Statement, if there is no early exit from administration, the £300 million will not be available. Is the money to bring an end to the lawsuit? We seek by the £300 million payment without much further ado—although obviously there will be some further ado and we cannot get out of administration before July—to bring to an end what is plainly a transitional process from where we were before administration to the permanent future for the railways.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would be the first to agree that what we really want is a permanent and settled future for the railways. The quicker that we get out of administration, the better. I think that the last question with which I am in a position to deal is: who is taking the risk? The risk will obviously be taken by the CLG, in the context of the arrangement set up if it is the successful bidder.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, may I ask the Minister about the implications of what he said about the single tender bid? Did he say that Network Rail is being accepted as a single tender bidder without considering whether any other company provides a better offer, a better bid or a better outcome, and that at present the only justification for choosing Network Rail is that it may be able to get out of administration by July 2002?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, that is not what I said. Network Rail is making a bid. That bid includes £300 million by way of grant provided by the Government, which is a payment for early exit from administration. It is now for the administrator to consider the bid.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend confirm that the Government are not by this announcement creating value that did not exist before, and that the payment of £300 million reflects not compensation to shareholders but an assessment to the value of the travelling public of taking the company out of administration much more quickly than would otherwise be the case? Is he aware that most people concerned with the industry will welcome today's Statement, and that they certainly believe that the decision to put Railtrack into administration in the first place was entirely justified? After Hatfield, it was a company that was clearly insolvent. It had demonstrated that it was incapable of managing its costs; it was incapable of producing a
72
register of its assets; and it treated its customers in a scandalous and disgraceful manner. Administration was the only alternative way to deal with it.
Is my noble and learned friend further aware that there is immense goodwill towards Mr John Armitt and the fresh start that he has already made at Railtrack, and that there are already some signs that the company's performance is improving?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords, I agree that that payment is not creating any new value for the shareholders, it represents the value of an early exit from administration. I agree that most people engaged in the industry regard the appointment of the administrators as the right course. I agree that most people in the industry will welcome today's announcement because it may bring closer the end of administration. I further agree with the proposition that the input of Mr John Armitt, the chief executive of Railtrack, has been beneficial to Railtrack, and that there are already some signs of improvement in Railtrack's performance.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that there would be no shareholders in Network Rail. Presumably, the capital is being formed by guaranteed share capital on the one hand and loans and grants on the other. To what extent are the Government providing assurance, cross-guarantees or letters of comfort in respect of the capital required by Network Rail to carry out this operation and to run the railways afterwards? He suggested in his Statement that no government liability will remain. Is that so?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, everyone accepts that government grants will have to be provided to keep the rail network going. No one doubts that. Network Rail's bid, just like any other, must reflect that basic fact.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the Government have given—offered, I should say—the Railtrack shareholders a jolly good deal today. I declare an interest as chairman of a rail freight group. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, they do not deserve anything much. However, since, as my noble and learned friend said, there is no asset register, there is not much that we can do.
One significant factor that my noble and learned friend did not mention is the approach that the CLG is taking to the management of Railtrack and how it intends to get away from its arrogant approach to a much more inclusive partnership approach, which will bring great benefits to the railways and stop all the confrontation that has been going on for years.
In the Statement, my noble and learned friend mentioned an early exit and that anyone whose bid was successful and who achieved the early exit would receive the £300 million prize. How early is early?

73
What is the timetable for the administrator to receive other bids, if necessary, and complete the process? He mentioned July, but is that the final date?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on the initial part of my noble friend's question, the partnership approach is most important. One benefit of a company limited by guarantee is that the guarantors can represent a wide range of stakeholders engaged in running or being a customer or financier of the rail industry. We think that incredibly important.
I must make clear that the availability of £300 million to anybody who offers the early exit depends on precisely what early exit is offered by any bidder. It would not necessarily be £300 million; it would depend on the terms of the early exit. Network Rail says that its proposal, if accepted, could take Railtrack plc out of administration as early as the end of July 2002. However, it is for the administrators to consider whether that is deliverable.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, is it not clear that this is a sensible move? It should remove the chance of a court action that would involve the Secretary of State having to give evidence under oath, which would have been highly embarrassing for him but would not have helped the railways one bit. Nobody is in much doubt that the Secretary of State's role in the affair has been less than glorious. It is better to get on with dealing with things that might be of benefit to the railways.
I find the endless harking back to rail privatisation nauseating. Any system can be made to work if we get the right management to run it. The most discouraging feature of the Government's role is that they have sat for five years criticising the system while doing nothing to improve it and make it work. After five years of what amounts to total negligence, the Government cannot say, with hindsight, that everybody knew that it was a disaster. Why did not they do something about it?
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, implied that the City was full of money and was happy to invest in all sorts of schemes. The House knows that the City will not do so, without some real guarantees, letters of comfort or assurances. I understand that Network Rail's proposals would require the borrowing of £9,000 million. How will that be guaranteed? What assurances will be given? People will not lend their money—our pension funds—unless they have a guarantee.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that was a series of profoundly unfair remarks from the noble Lord. First, we spent five years trying to make the privatisation work. Eventually, in October 2002, in the terms that were set out by Mr Justice Lightman, Railtrack was put into administration. It was made clear, when we took office in 1997, that we thought that the right course was to try to make it work. Ultimately, it could not be made to work. The right course now is to look forward and try to find a proper future for the organisation of the railways.
74
I think that the noble Lord was saying that it was sensible to get Railtrack out of administration as quickly as possible. He did not say that, but I think that that is what he meant. We agree with that proposition, and we think that the details of the bid that has been announced today bring that outcome closer.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the company limited by guarantee will have enough money to run the railway system safely and develop it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is for the administrator and then the Secretary of State to make a judgment about the new arrangements. Of course, in forming their views, they will focus on safety, efficiency and a good service to the travelling public.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I declare an interest as a fund manager—not a holder—of Railtrack shares. Does the Minister agree that the Government, in baling out the shareholders—having realised that they could not have won the case brought against them by City fund managers—have, in effect, admitted that Railtrack was put into administration wrongly? if he does not, why not?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not accept that. The £300 million has been made available in order to bring an early end to the administration.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Statement refers to raising capital for investment more cheaply. Further on, there is reference to lower financing costs. Can the Minister explain how that will come about, without substantial government guarantees or letters of comfort, as appears to be happening already in the case of the London Tube consortia? If that is what we are to be faced with in public private partnerships, they will not have succeeded in transferring any significant burden of risk from public to private shoulders.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, a company limited by guarantee will not pay out dividends; it will be for the market to judge whether it is prepared to advance funds to it. That, in turn, will depend upon the reliability of repayment, and the market will make its judgment on that. Depending on the arrangement, it will see that it is a perfectly safe investment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. It always struck me that the value of Railtrack was what it was worth in the markets on rug-pulling day. The offer that has now been put up is worth about 90 per cent of that price. However, there is also the rump Railtrack. I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks the value of that 90 per cent plus the rump Railtrack might be. It may well be that it is higher than the value on rug-pulling day.
In the Statement, the Minister said that there would be less fragmentation. It seems to me that there will now be one more player. There will be Network Rail,

75
but there will also still be rump Railtrack. Will not that mean that, even after all this, there will be more fragmentation in the railway industry?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the first question was about the value of rump Railtrack on rug-pulling day, as the noble Lord put it. I would not achieve much by speculating about that. The £300 million that we have spoken about today is the value of an early exit from administration.
The second question was about how it prevents fragmentation to have both Network Rail and rump Railtrack. The answer is that Network Rail seeks to deal with fragmentation by bringing all the players together through the company limited by guarantee so that there is substantial partnership in the running of the railways. That principle is not undermined by the existence of rump Railtrack, whatever that means in precise legal terms.

Afghanistan
7.17 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Deanrose to move, That this House takes note of developments in Afghanistan and the fight against global terrorism.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, over the past few months, the House has heard a great deal about the deployment of British troops to Afghanistan. The events of the past week, however, justify our careful attention to the subject. Following the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence in another place last Monday and the subsequent Adjournment debate on Wednesday, I am delighted to take the opportunity to open the debate this evening.
I thank noble Lords on both Front Benches opposite and the Convenor of the Cross Benches for their kind understanding that I must leave during the debate, before my noble friend Lord Bach winds up. I must catch a plane to fulfil an official engagement overseas tomorrow. I thank everybody warmly for their understanding on that point.
It has been recognised, ever since the terrible events of 11th September, that the struggle against international terrorism will be long and multi-faceted, embracing diplomatic, financial, economic and humanitarian aspects, as well as military. In the case of Afghanistan, we are working to secure peace and stability for a country that has, for far too long, been ravaged by war.
I shall remind your Lordships of the United Kingdom's objectives in the war against terrorism. They remain as declared on 16th October last year: to do everything possible to eliminate the threat posed by international terrorism; to deter states from supporting, harbouring or acting complicitly with international terrorist groups; to contribute to the reintegration of Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community; and to maintain a positive political agenda of engagement with Arab countries and the Muslim world.
76
The United Kingdom's commitment to the campaign against international terrorism is as strong today as it was when those objectives were declared. We continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States—our friend and ally—and all other members of the coalition against terrorism. We must remember the other countries that took part in the operation earlier this month against the Taliban and Al'Qaeda—Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France and Norway. There are also 18 nations contributing to the International Assistance Force in Kabul.
It is important to bear in mind that the struggle to defeat international terrorism is not over. Osama bin Laden and many other leaders of the Al'Qaeda terrorist network have still to be brought to justice. They and their supporters are still a threat.
In opening the debate in another place last Wednesday, the Secretary of State for Defence made three points to set the context before discussing the detail of deployments of British troops in Afghanistan. First, we are right to act in Afghanistan. The terrorist attacks in the United States last September were only possible because Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda had been able to draw on the support and the shelter offered by the Taliban regime. Had we done nothing, there was no doubt that bin Laden and his accomplices would have carried out further attacks: attacks perhaps by now even on the United Kingdom. We were right to act in self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. We were right to act to prevent Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat. We were right to act to break the links between Afghanistan and international terrorism and to reintegrate Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community to ensure that those links are not established again.
Secondly, the action that the international community has taken has been remarkably successful. Afghanistan is now a very different country. The decision to deploy considerable military force against the terrorists and their supporters has been vindicated. Osama bin Laden and his Al'Qaeda network have been dealt a heavy blow; only remnants remain of the Taliban, whose support was so important for Al'Qaeda. The decision to deploy the International Security Assistance Force, ISA F, to Kabul to help the interim authority to maintain security in the capital has also been vindicated.
Afghanistan is beginning to return to normality. Commercial life is returning to market stalls, which are full of food; people are out on the street; life is gradually getting back to normal. The Afghan New Year celebrations of this weekend were marked by the sight of kites flying over the capital, with dancing, displays of agricultural machinery and farm produce competitions—more akin to a British village fete than a country recovering from the ravages of war. Let us not forget as well the effect that this has had on the women of Afghanistan: schoolgirls returning to school last Saturday; women students once again attending

77
Kabul University; the wearing of the burqa by choice, not obligation; and women joining in the voice of government.
Thirdly, British forces have played a vital role in this success. British forces have a reputation around the world for their skill and professionalism. Time and again, they have made a massive contribution to bringing stability to the world's trouble spots. Afghanistan is the latest example. We take immense pride in all that they do and in the credit that they bring to the United Kingdom. I wish to take this opportunity to note our appreciation of the widespread support within this House for the work that the British forces have done in Afghanistan and for the work that they will continue to do.
Almost an entire generation of Afghans has known nothing but war, poverty, insecurity, terrorism, drugs and refugee movements. Millions of Afghans have suffered appalling privations, but their resilience is extraordinary. Her Majesty's Government are determined to help make the future better than the past. We have a responsibility to help and we also have a direct national interest to do so.
In the first place, we want the Bonn agreement to succeed. The early signs are encouraging. In particular, we welcome the way in which Chairman Karzai and his fellow interim ministers are working energetically to provide effective administration. Over time, the interim administration should become increasingly broad-based and representative. That is why, for example, we are helping to fund the work of the new Loya Jirga commission, which will decide the rules and arrangements for the meeting of the Grand Assembly in June.
Secondly, we are trying to combat poverty. At Tokyo, we announced an additional pledge of £200 million over five years. In addition, we have already provided £60 million since September last year to UN agencies, the Red Cross and NGOs for immediate humanitarian and emergency aid.
Thirdly, insecurity: as is well known, the United Kingdom is leading the International Security Assistance Force. What is less well known, however, is that we have also begun training the new national army of Afghanistan and provided communications equipment for use by the Kabul police.
On drugs, we have begun work with the new government in Kabul to counter the cultivation, trafficking and consumption of heroin. The problem is urgent, as a substantial poppy crop is forecast for harvest next month. However, I wish to stress that it is wrong to make the connection, as some have done, between this harvest and the fall of the Taliban. The seeds for this year's harvest were sown many months ago, well before the interim administration took over. We have told the Afghans that we are willing to help with crop substitution—seeds, fertilisers, tools—and support for alternative livelihoods. We are also recommending to the interim administration that they should consider punitive action against farmers who fail to comply with the ban.
78
We are also looking at ways to enable Afghan refugees now living in Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere, as well as internally displaced persons, to return to their homes.
Let me turn now to the International Security Assistance Force. British armed forces have played a significant role leading the ISAF in Kabul. This force is helping the Afghan interim authority to provide a secure and stable environment in Kabul and is contributing in a major way to creating an atrr osphere of law and order. This is particularly important as the Afghan people take the next step along the path agreed in Bonn in December towards the emergency Loya Jirgah on 6 June.
As this House is aware, the United Kingdom agreed to take on the leadership of this force from its inception for a limited period of time. It was a job that had to be done, and it had to be done well, if the Bonn agreement was to have the best possible chance of success. The United Kingdom was particularly well placed to do this. Our Armed Forces had the right capabilities and experience in expeditionary operations and rapid deployments. We knew that we could provide effective command structures and key equipment to get a force in and up and running in the timescale required, and we were right to take on this responsibility.
Turkey has indicated an interest in taking over as lead nation of the ISAF, and we are in detailed discussions on this with Turkey. Good progress has been made during a series of both diplomatic and military technical discussions with the Turks over the last few weeks, and we are hopeful of an announcement on hand-over of the leadership in the very near future.
Turkey will need continuing contributions of troops from other nations. Certainly the United Kingdom will continue to have troops in ISAF after we have handed over the lead. We have promised Turkey that this will be the case, and other nations have done so as well.
That does not, however, change our determination to draw down the number of British troops deployed as part of ISAF. Progress in securing wider international participation in the force is going well. We had, for example, the welcome arrival last week of the German brigadier to take over command of the Kabul Multinational Brigade, the ISAF subordinate headquarters, which until now has been provided by the headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade. This will enable us to withdraw a number of British troops and is a real demonstration of international co-operation. Similarly, confirmation from the Czechs last week of their offer of a field hospital for ISAF is very welcome.
As for the wider future of ISAF, the House will know that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1386 permits the force to remain in Kabul for six months, that is, until 20 June. The resolution may well be renewed, extending the duration of ISAF's deployment. Certainly it is clear that such a force will have a continuing role to play in bringing security to

79
Kabul and its immediate surroundings, particularly over the period during and immediately following the Loya Jirgah.
Before I move on to talk about the deployment of 45 Commando Group announced last Monday, I wish to underline our commitment to the continuing success of ISAF. Our deployment of additional troops to Afghanistan is entirely separate from ISAF, and neither this nor the transfer of our role as lead nation will change the strength of our commitment. The force has done great work, not only in patrolling the streets of Kabul, important though that is, but also by helping to train the first battalion of the new Afghan National Guard, as well as helping with such basic needs as the organisation of rubbish collection and an ambulance service. Those are all vital services which help to ensure the future stability of Afghanistan.
The deployment of 45 Commando Group to Afghanistan—
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, before the noble Baroness moves on from discussing ISAF, it has been widely reported that, aside from the additional contribution of troops for which Turkey is looking, it is also seeking a substantial financial contribution to its costs. The United Kingdom is being invited to contribute a significant amount to those costs. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether that is the case? If so, presumably it will come out of the contingency reserve.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that that is under discussion at the moment. My right honourable friend said in the media yesterday that discussions are being held because Turkey will have to consider how it will pay for the deployment. Whether that contribution will come from the contingency reserve I expect will be, as is always the case, a matter for protracted discussion between government departments. However, I am sure that the noble Lord's intervention on the matter will be noted in the appropriate quarters.
The deployment of 45 Commando Group to Afghanistan is entirely consistent with our campaign objectives that I highlighted at the beginning of my address. Since the military campaign began, we have made clear our determination to act to prevent Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat. That is why British forces have been involved in operations on the ground in Afghanistan for some months now.
As the Secretary of State for Defence emphasised in another place last Wednesday, we have also made clear that the military advice is that rooting out the remaining elements of Al'Qaeda will take time. This has been a constant theme of our statements since the early days of the military deployment. Contrary to what many commentators have been reporting, the Government have never said that this was going to be a quick fix. Indeed, I recall making the point about how long this would take on the second Statement we made following the dreadful events of September 11th. Certainly, while Al'Qaeda ceased to exist as a coherent
80
force some months ago and the Taliban regime has long since been removed from power, there are still pockets of resistance.
As the recent US-led Operation Anaconda has demonstrated, elements of Al'Qaeda and the Taliban regime remain in Afghanistan, hidden away in the remoter areas of the country. We must deal with these. The threat of attack from these groups and individuals remains high. If we do not deal with them, they would threaten all that the Afghan people and their supporters in the international community have achieved so far. They would certainly work to retain Afghanistan as a base for training and organising terrorism. And, left to regroup, there is no doubt that Al'Qaeda and its supporters would continue to pose a direct threat to states outside Afghanistan, including to the United Kingdom.
That is why we are deploying 45 Commando Group with the clear mission to assist the United States troops to search out and defeat the remaining elements of Al'Qaeda and Taliban terrorists. It is simply continuing the work that we began last October. In no sense is this "mission creep". In such situations, everyone always wants to know the details of the mission. But let me be clear that we are not going to describe exactly what is to happen next, as to do so puts knowledge and information into the hands of those opposed to us who would jeopardise the safety of our troops. We would simply put into the hands of potential adversaries that which they must not have.
Estimates have been made as to the length of the deployment: of the order of three months. Nonetheless, we must be clear that military action in difficult terrain against a determined enemy is dependent on many unknown factors. Our exit strategy is simple: we will leave when the task is completed.
Equally important is the need to have a clear chain of command. The 3 Commando Brigade headquarters will be based at Bagram airport, alongside the United States operational command of Operation Enduring Freedom under Major General Hagenbeck, Commanding General, 10th Mountain Division. 45 Commando Group command and control is entirely separate to that of ISAF, and is integrated in the United States command system, for active operations in the country. 45 Commando has a long history of operating and training alongside US forces—including in northern Iraq and Kosovo. Furthermore, there is full operational interoperability of communications available, as it has been throughout our operations in Afghanistan.
Let me be clear as well on the availability of close air support for British forces. We must recognise that complete air supremacy is available in Afghanistan. Therefore at any time during the conflict the marines will be able to call upon a formidable array of air support. The expert military advice is that there is no need to augment coalition air power with our own strike aircraft in support of this particular deployment. The Royal Marines possess highly skilled forward air controllers who train regularly with United States forces.

81
Finally, the situation that our forces find themselves in Afghanistan is one with distinct roles: security assistance by ISAF and war-fighting by 45 Commando is by no means unique. Other nations which have contributed troops to ISAF are in exactly the same situation: Denmark, France, Germany and Norway have all sent ground forces to participate in Operation Anaconda, while other elements of their armed forces remain in Kabul under General McColl.
The decision to deploy 45 Commando Group to Afghanistan underlines our determination to continue the action against terrorism and to assist with Afghanistan's reintegration into the world community as a responsible and valued member. It is not a decision that has been taken lightly and is one that has been taken in the full knowledge of the dangers inherent in the mission. I am sure that all Members of the House will wish to join me in wishing our forces every success in the difficult job that they are undertaking and in sending a message of support to members of all three of the armed services and their families. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of developments in Afghanistan and the fight against global terrorism.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
7.36 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, noble Lords will be extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for enabling us to hold this debate on developments in Afghanistan and also on the wider scene of the campaign against global terrorism. We understand that her duties require the noble Baroness to fly away tonight. We wish her a safe journey.
I should like to make absolutely clear at the outset that on this side we offer our total support for the Royal Marines in their unenviable and tough task, and for the deployment of 45 Commando Group into the rugged, cold and mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. It is an inhospitable and pitiless part of the world. However, they are marvellously equipped and well-trained forces and we join the noble Baroness in sending them good wishes in fulfilling their task.
Therefore, in raising certain policy issues tonight, and indeed in holding this debate, and the debate pressed for and secured by my colleagues in another place, never let it be said by anyone, and certainly not by anyone in the Armed Forces, that while they are risking their lives, back over here the politicians are differing and divided on deployment and operational purposes. We are not. We are absolutely with them and we send them our warmest support and good wishes.
Nevertheless, here at home some lessons must be learnt and certain questions have arisen. I believe that there are two lessons which in particular I wish to address. First, we have learnt, perhaps to some people's surprise, that Al'Qaeda and the Taliban forces are by no means defeated. Secondly, the way in which the Government reach crucial decisions—and there will be more decisions to take since this is a continuing, long-lasting and expanding war against
82
terrorism that will operate in a number of countries, not only Afghanistan—seems a little sudden and disturbing. I want to elaborate on that in a moment because both in the nation's interests and in the war against global terrorism, in the future we shall need to see these things running a little more smoothly.
I shall deal first with the question of Al'Qaeda not yet being defeated. I have listened to the assurances of the noble Baroness and it is right to note that she has been saying certain things all along. Because of that, anything that I have to say by way of criticism, will she please duck since it is not aimed at her; rather it is aimed at others who are not in this place. I do not think that they have given quite such a clear impression.
On 9th January, the Prime Minister said:
"The Taliban is defeated and Al'Qaeda scattered".
That gave the general impression that that was it—the war in Afghanistan was over and we could turn our minds to other matters, particularly the question of humanitarian help and nation building in Afghanistan. In a pamphlet rushed out the other day, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, wrote:
"Having defeated the Taliban, the international community faces new imperatives".
These seem to be somewhat premature statements which underline the dangers of instant authorship. I am not sure that they are entirely consistent with the view that the Government have been warning all along that Al'Qaeda is not defeated and that there are pockets of resistance—probably very deep pockets—which will continue to cause considerable difficulties and challenges, as they already have to the American forces who have been trying to tackle them and as they will, in very strong form, to our brave troops who are already arriving at Bagram.
Those who rush to say that it is all over—that the Al'Qaeda and the Taliban are finished—have forgotten an important maxim; that is, that in a guerrilla or unorthodox war, the terrorist wins if he does not lose. By contrast, a conventional army—and in the natural course of events we have to mount conventional armies or, at any rate, armies based on conventional structures—loses if it does not win decisively. I do not wish to make any comparison with the past difficulties in Vietnam, but the lesson gradually learnt in Vietnam was that one could not search for or achieve the goal of victory by conducting operations in the pattern of past conventional wars.
It is absolutely crucial to understand the point that one does not finish with a terrorist operation merely by imposing on it the outward trappings of defeat. The infection continues, the battles continue, the pockets fester, the terrorists live to fight another day and survive rather than being wiped out.
We have heard Ministers say—indeed, the noble Baroness said it today—that 45 Commando will return when the task is complete; when the commanding officers judge that the job has been done. When will that be? How will we know when to declare victory? How will we know that the matter is dealt with and in hand? The more realistic and more candid viewpoint that we should he hearing from the

83
Government is that these matters will be very hard to call an end to; that there will be great difficulty in establishing whether the fire of terrorism has been put out, if it ever can be put out.
When he speaks later, my noble friend Lord Vivian will address operational questions with his usual skill, particularly the question of air cover, to which the noble Baroness referred, and to what extent relying on American air cover—which I totally accept is complete-is an entirely satisfactory pattern. We hope that it is—we are grateful for the reassurances that it is—but the matter needs probing. These issues will inevitably cause problems in the very difficult terrain in which the troops will be operating.
However, leaving that aside, the plain fact is that by April of this year the United Kingdom will have more troops on the ground in Afghanistan than the United States. We are left with an uneasy feeling that Operation Anaconda and Operation Veritas could become a war without a clear end; without a moment when it can be declared, "It is all right. We can stop now and bring the boys home". We have that worry and we seek reassurance on that aspect of our operations in Afghanistan.
Let me turn now to the International Security Assistance Force, on which the noble Baroness has given the House some useful information. The question that hangs in the air there too is: when will our obligations end? It was supposed to be the end of April. Last week, Ministers in another place were telling us that Turkey was just about to come to the point of agreement on taking over ISAF. I have listened in vain and scanned the newspapers since then, but I have not seen any sign of an agreement. I have seen a sign of the proposed bill, a matter rightly raised by my noble friend Lord King. Apparently 300 million US dollars is required from somewhere—possibly from the pockets of British and American taxpayers—for Turkey to consider this matter.
But, even if that has been discussed, the general point of principle that command of ISAF will be taken over by Turkey at the end of April has not been established. Indeed, it is now being conceded by Ministers that ISAF will remain under British command for a number of further months. Until when we do not know.
This is against a background with two worrying aspects. First, it is possible—again we would welcome reassurance that it is unlikely—that ISAF armed forces could be confused with operational forces by an enemy that may not have clear information and by terrorists, and thus become a soft target. That is one danger. The second danger we can see developing all the time. The internal situation in Afghanistan is not yet completely stable; the warlords are at each other; and the country is divided by languages and by divisions which have been there for decades, if not centuries.
There is also the question of how the king fits into this story. It may be that he will get back in time—his return has been delayed—and the Loya Jirgah will go
84
ahead as planned. I hope it will. But what role have we taken in encouraging the king to play this obviously vital part? My impression is that. United Kingdom officialdom has somewhat ignored the king and not given him the primacy and importance which, despite his great age, he clearly has in these matters. We should like to know more about that.
As I mentioned earlier, another point has arisen over the past few days; that is, how did we get to where we are and how were the decisions made? To an outsider—and, of course, on this side of the House we are outside the inner processes of decision making—it looks as though the decision to deploy came in a back-to-front way. First, there was the week-end authorisation following an extremely urgent request from the Americans; then there was the action and the Statement; and then, in the middle of last week, there was the parliamentary debate which was secured after pressure from my honourable friends and colleagues in another place. It was not offered by the Government. It must be noted—I think this was a major mistake—that the Prime Minister was not able to attend that debate on the biggest deployment of troops since the Gulf War. One should think of the effect that it will have on their families. It is quite wrong that the Prime Minister was away attending to other matters. I gather it was to discuss foxhunting.
Of course the executive has the authority to act. In opposition, one always likes to put on a little pressure of the kind that Parliament must decide before the Government act, but I concede that real life is not like that. The executive has the authority to authorise deployments, but we must at least be assured—Parliament does not govern but it monitors those who do govern—that these decisions are taken by our system of collective Cabinet government by which all Ministers are bound. Can the Minister reassure the House that, although apparently there was not time for broader debate and discussion in Parliament before the decision was made, the Cabinet was formally and properly consulted over the weekend and that Secretaries of State were assembled and consulted in the proper constitutional way?
In my experience at the time of the Falklands expedition, that is what happened. Every Cabinet Minister round the table was asked for their opinion on whether the expeditionary force to the Falklands should proceed. Of course, there was also an inner Cabinet, but that is what happened. Did that also happen in this case? Or did the Prime Minister consult the full Cabinet on this significant and important deployment? We should like a reassurance that the proper procedures were observed.
I raise these matters because, in a way, they have implications for the next phase in the campaign against global terrorism and how decisions on that will be taken. We know that Al'Qaeda is a world-wide operation, and that it probably has access to chemical and biological weapons. Although we are not sure of the full picture, we know that these may have been supplied by the one man who used them in 1988; namely, Saddam Hussein. People are now asking: if

85
the next phase of the campaign is to be against Iraq, what is the proof of his involvement in terrorist activity?
We must all ask, as I suspect the noble Baroness and other Ministers are asking: how much proof do people want? I believe that it is agreed between all parties that a dossier of information, like the previous dossier on Al'Qaeda and Afghanistan, would be extremely valuable. But some people are going further and saying that we must have a justification in the form of some action. I hope that that is not the view of Church leaders and others, but it seems to be implying that, until something terrible happens—another "9/11"— we cannot have any justification for mobilising attempts to get rid of Saddam Hussein. That would be a very wrong way of thinking. It would be the height of folly. Every expression of that kind increases the danger for all of us and increases the confidence of the monster in Baghdad.
We need also to establish what was briefly discussed at Question Time today; namely, whether additional UN cover is needed for any actions against Iraq. The UN Charter says that self-defence is allowed against armed attack. The trouble is that, in an age of terrorism and the assault on the World Trade Centre, that kind of language does not fit the need.
There is a long and arduous set of operations ahead. The Ministry of Defence has rightly put out a document, the "new chapter", warning us that a new sequence, a new approach against terrorism, will be needed: prevent, deter, coerce, disrupt, destroy. On this side of the House, we do not ask for operational details, but we do need to be reassured that realism prevails. We need the Government to spell out, frankly and candidly—possibly more candidly than they have hitherto—the nature of the enormous dangers ahead and the sacrifices that everyone will have to make to face up to them.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for staying behind to open the debate, for which we are all extremely grateful. I wish her not only a safe journey but a successful outcome to the policy discussions when she gets there. I only hope that she will find a few minutes to plunge into the "wine dark sea" and enjoy it before she has to return to yet another set of debates in this House.
Perhaps I may add to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. It is clear that the nature of the request from the United States for a particular group of British soldiers is itself an astonishing tribute to their international reputation—one which I believe they will carry on their banners, as they rightly should, as they enter an extraordinarily difficult phase of what has been an extraordinarily difficult war.
Perhaps I may say in passing that I wish that the Government had managed at least privately to consult Opposition leaders in the two Houses before the deployment of troops was announced. I understood from American reports that the Pentagon seems to
86
have known about the possibility of the deployment a couple of days before it was announced in Parliament. Had such discussions taken place, we might have warned against the exuberance of No. 10 in suggesting that there was an advanced biological weapons laboratory in a cave in Afghanistan—a statement which has now had to be broadly taken back in the light of the American dismissal of that particular report.
I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on one question. I completely exonerate, as he did, our own Minister—whose sensitivity and knowledge would prevent her from falling into such a trap. However, there have been a number of reports in the newspapers, both in this country and in the United States, to suggest that something close to complete victory was very near in Afghanistan. I have always felt that to be a dangerous approach to take on any issue of terrorism.
It is not merely that there are disturbing signs of the ability of the Al'Qaeda network, and even of some Taliban fighters, to regroup and reassert themselves in many remote parts, particularly of eastern Afghanistan. It is also becoming clear that in the troubled eastern provinces—the Pashtun provinces—of Afghanistan, they have the same advantage as obtained for a long time in relation to the IRA: namely, the ability to disappear into a neighbouring country, which officially, and indeed formally, was deeply opposed to terrorism—that is undoubtedly the case with the Government of Pakistan, as it always was with the Government of the Republic of Ireland— but where there was a certain public response, at least in some periods of the war against terrorism, which made it easy for terrorists simply to disappear into the background of that neighbouring country.
If we are honest, we have to remark on the troubling fact that, in the Pashtun provinces, many of whose tribes cross a border which is not very well protected, there is a real problem in regard to the ability of terrorist groups to disappear, then to reappear, to regroup, and then to cross back into the country. We should be less than honest if we did not recognise that as a complicating factor in the attempt to stamp out terrorism in Afghanistan.
It is clear, as the Minister has said on more than one occasion, that this is likely to be a long, hard war, even in Afghanistan itself. It is certainly not yet over. It is certainly likely to demand a commitment and perseverance which we cannot possibly try to dismiss. It is wiser for all of those engaged in the battle against terrorism to recognise that this is a profound and long battle, and one in which attacking the roots as well as the symptoms is of first importance.
That leads me to say a word or two about the roots. On these Benches, we perceive the work of 1SAF, the security force in Afghanistan, to be inescapably bound up with the military response. The one without the other could lead to our winning the war and losing the peace. It is that danger which profoundly troubles many of us.

87
ISAF is still, as far as one can tell, on a pretty uncertain base. The Minister said nothing to suggest that that statement is false. The mandate under which ISAF serves lasts until June. It has already been indicated that Mr Brahimi, on behalf of the United Nations, will seek an extension of the mandate. I was glad that the Minister did not in any way doubt that there would be a probable attempt to extend the mandate, or that in effect it would be unlikely that the British leadership position could be passed over as soon as next month.
There have been many questions about the Turks, who have expressed their willingness in certain circumstances and under certain conditions to take over the leadership. But as the noble Lord, Lord King, has indicated, it is clear that the Turks have not yet completed—this has now gone on for several days—their own negotiation as to the conditions on which they would be willing to take over.
The latest report suggests that the United States would be willing to put up as much as £180 million; but of that sum, £160 million would be listed under the heading of financial and economic help to Turkey, and only £20 million as a contribution towards the 300 million dollars caught up in the maintenance of ISAF over the necessary period. To say the least, that is somewhat unsatisfactory. ISAF is as important as the military deployment; it is at least of equal importance. Therefore, it is essential for the United States, the United Kingdom and other members of the coalition to perceive the way to maintain that force; and—dare I say it? —we all know that the extent of the force is wholly inadequate. It extends only to Kabul. It is clear that in other parts of the country the warlords are already beginning to reassert themselves.
The most frightening outcome of a war in which thousands of men and women have lost their lives in trying to defeat terrorism would be a situation in which Afghanistan returned to forms of civil war, which we know well breed terrorism. The Taliban came in on the back of the last civil war in Afghanistan and could easily come in on the back of the next.
I have one or two questions about ISAF. First, how far is it serving alongside some elements of the Northern Alliance? I told the Minister earlier that I would raise the question of General Fahim's activities in Kabul. He is continuing to patrol—and, indeed, to control—areas of the capital. Outside the capital the situation is even more troubling, as warlords begin to reassert their control over what had been their traditional tribal areas, as happened recently in Khost. It is disturbing, but not surprising, that Klaus Peter Klaiber, the European Union envoy to Afghanistan, said only recently that the rebuilding aid that was intended to be financed by the European Union will, in large part, not be made available until some form of stability and peace obtains in Afghanistan far outside the capital. It is still difficult to see how that situation will be reached.
I have one other comment about ISAF. I am troubled by the American attitude, which appears to be increasingly that the United States does the
88
fighting—for which it is unquestionably extremely well equipped—with a few exceptions, such as the request for 45 Commando, and the rest of the coalition does the clearing up. That is not a happy or attractive division of responsibility. It is very important that the United States remains committed to ISAF and that it is seen to be so and says that it is so, even though its secondment of troops to ISAF is more limited than that of the United Kingdom or some of the other countries within the structure. In that context, I should like ISAF to be within the broad envelope of NATO, because that would give it credibility that it may not always have.
My noble friend Lord Roper will address some of the issues of overstretch, which have to be very much on our minds because of the heavy demands already being made on British forces. At a time when the United States defence budget equals the budget of the next 15 largest countries in the world—I shall repeat that because it is so amazing; it equals the budget of the next 15 largest countries in the world—the United States is in a position to call the quits, if you like, in a way that nobody else is.
That brings me to my final point. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned the possibility of the widening of the war. That is a point at which he and I part company to a considerable extent. The Liberal Democrats believe that any issue of widening the war must be subject to discussion and broad agreement within the coalition. In that context, we cannot avoid mentioning the response that Vice-President Cheney received on his visit around the Middle East, which began with him making clear that he believed that Iraq was the single greatest threat that should concern the coalition and ended with his recognition that the Middle East was far more central to the concerns of many members of the coalition than was Iraq.
It is undoubtedly true that so great is the power of the United States, particularly its military power, that it might be able to put huge pressure on those governments to declare themselves in favour of an extension of the war. However, what frightens me—and I think that this frightens many of us—is that eventually persuading, pressurising or otherwise pushing the governments of the Arab states into saying that they would be willing to go along with an extension of the war is not synonymous with carrying the streets and souks of the Arab people, where it is troubling to see the steady rise in support for opposition to the United States and her activities and the rising level of support for the Palestinian intifada.
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats believe that it would be politically wise to seek a United Nations resolution before any widening of the war might take place. We believe that the first priority must go to completing the war in Afghanistan before any extension is seriously considered. Finally, we believe strongly that it is of crucial importance to maintain the coalition, not least because the war against terrorism may go on for many years to come. The coalition can be maintained only by listening to it, taking note of what it has to say and shaping policies along lines that

89
will attract a consensus among countries that concern themselves with opposition to terrorism and care about the principle of a free and democratic society.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I too welcome this opportunity to take stock of the situation in Afghanistan. As 45 Commando, Royal Marines, prepare to go into the mountains there, I join in wishing them well. Their experience of training in difficult terrain will stand them in good stead, although even they will find the high altitudes a tough and breath-taking experience.
I expect that the task they face is clearer to them than it is to those of us who rely on the media and the briefings and public comments by government Ministers and spokesmen. The Government's original immediate objectives, broadly stated by the Foreign Secretary soon after the attacks in the United States, were to bring Osama bin Laden and other Al'Qaeda leaders to justice, to prevent Al'Qaeda posing a continuing terrorist threat and to persuade and, if necessary, force the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to help to achieve those objectives.
The Taliban as a government are no more, but from what has been said about the role of 45 Commando, it appears that the opposition in the Shah-i-Kot mountains consists of remnants of Taliban and Al'Qaeda. They are,
"a series of small pockets of resistance".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/02; col. 341.],
to quote from the speech of Mr Hoon in the other place last Wednesday. Even allowing for the difficult terrain, "small pockets" implies that the task is not such a difficult one, but from what we have seen and learnt about the American experience earlier this year in Operation Anaconda, the pockets seem sizeable and determined. Perhaps the House can be told whether there is a significant difference between the opposition that 45 Commando will face and that which the United States forces had to face during Operation Anaconda. Meanwhile, the Al'Qaeda leadership is still at large.
As always in conflict, we must look ahead to the next stages. It is not yet clear what is to happen next in Afghanistan. The matrix of mountain caverns and remote areas along the 900-mile border with Pakistan will not be easy to police and guard. More likely it will be impossible. If the opposition decides to melt away over the borders, are we going to be allowed in principle to go after them? It is unrealistic to expect that all opposition will be killed or captured. We should do well to remember that the operations that we are now engaging in are not the classic confrontation of standing forces and nation states. We are facing more of an insurgency-type threat—one that will not rely on fixed bases, will choose its own targets, will be absolutely ruthless, will take no prisoners except perhaps as hostages and will not stand to fight it out against a superior force. The battles in the Afghan mountains are being fought by tribesmen who know their ground well and who are natural fighters, as our troops more than a century ago and more recently the Soviets learnt to their cost.
90
All our experience of insurgency-type activity teaches us that until there is a successful and accurate flow of intelligence, the terrorists will have the upper hand more often than not. We have learned, too, even in territory that is familiar to us—such as in Northern Ireland or previously in Borneo or Malaya—that it takes a long time to develop the flow of good intelligence and reliably to assess the raw information which may be collected. How much more difficult it will be to get that right in Afghanistan, where for the past 30 years one form of instability has been heaped upon another and our knowledge of the terrain and the reliability of the various factions is not that well developed.
I noted that Mr Hoon has repeated that the commitment of 45 Commando and the supporting units was taken,
"following a formal request from the United States".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 20/03/02: col. 344.]
That is an interesting formulation. It could imply that we were not so keen to become involved or that at that stage we did not volunteer to take part. Experience in the Gulf conflict with our American friends laid great emphasis on the political value, as well as the military one, of our contribution to the coalition forces. First, air and naval forces, then ground units, and then more such were asked for by the United States. I therefore take it that fielding ground forces alongside the United States ones in Afghanistan is as much a political gesture as anything—although that is not to underestimate 45 Commando's operational contribution.
Experience with political gestures is that they have a relatively short shelf life. Before long, if there is still conflict, further gestures are called for. I hope and believe that the Government will have taken that on board. There seems to be every likelihood that, as the Chief of the Defence Staff said, we are in for the long haul. The Minister has reminded us of that fact again today. So we must expect a series of further calls to participate in the on-going operations. That brings me to the other point that I should like to make.
The United States Government, once they had determined to take the fight to the terrorists, and recognising that that would be a long and demanding task, were quick to announce that they would be massively increasing their defence and related budgets. It really served to underline their commitment. I do not have any feel for what additional expenditures the United States has already made, but even if it is still only small, the message that came across was loud and clear.
I contrast that with the posture of Her Majesty's Government. We have had many fine expressions of resolve and determination from Secretaries of State and from the Prime Minister himself, and I believe that they are totally sincere and committed to playing as decisive a part as possible in this long-running campaign. But when we look to the substance of what has been happening in recent weeks in the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence, a rather bleaker picture unfolds. I shall list but a few of the real cuts, not enhancements, in our front-line posture.

91
One such cut is the disbandment of 5 Tornado Air Defence Squadron. The decision to withdraw the Sea Harrier FA2s from service by 2006 and changes to the planned Joint Force Harriers will lead to both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force losing one squadron. The fleet's air defence capability will be much reduced. The loss of half a dozen warships in the Falklands conflict, when air defences were overstretched, was a bitter lesson which seems to have been forgotten. Indeed, there must be some doubt as to whether the Fleet Air Arm will be able to sustain itself until the new carriers are available for it. The Hercules Reserve Squadron, No 57, which until now has been the operational conversion unit in peacetime, is also to disappear. Moreover, we have read a variety of articles about the lack of funds to support troop training in Canada and to keep HMS "Fearless" going. I could go on.
In peacetime one expects budgets to be tight and economies sought to contain expenditure. Indeed, throughout all my time in the Cold War, when we strove to provide a deterrent posture but would never seriously have been able to sustain conventional operations for more than a very few days, the arguments were well understood and accepted. Today, the whole scene has changed. The Strategic Defence Review, even without its new chapter, envisages expeditionary operations. However, as the cuts and other factors I have mentioned indicated, that vision is seriously under-resourced.
We are mounting a whole variety of expeditionary activities. We are occasionally at war. We are fighting and firing off ordnance. We are at risk of considerable operational losses, and we are supporting activity—sometimes at many times the normal peacetime rates for which we have budgeted—in many different parts of the world. Moreover, each and every one of these deployments and commitments has a massively long back-up of personnel and logistics support. Indeed, there can be a tendency to overlook what all this entails. It is not just the cost of the support units which now have to be bolstered by the compulsory call-up of reservists. There is a need for additional spares in the pipeline to ensure that the front line has what it needs when it is needed. We rightly concern ourselves about the lives of the troops and other service men and women who we expect to fight for us. However, we must not put them in the way of danger only for them to find that their ability to fight is curtailed, or worse, because batteries for their radios or fuses for their weapons or whatever are not to hand.
I was horrified to read in the new chapter of the Strategic Defence Review discussion paper that the Government are taking credit for announcing,
"a significant additional investment of £100 million to meet urgent operational requirements".
I deplore the use of the word investment for such operational necessities. Buying fuel for my car to get me to hospital is not an investment. The spin brigade, I suppose, think that "investment" is a feel-good word while "expenditure" is not.
92
The real point is that if we are to commit forces to operations way beyond those that are described as peace keeping or training, in which we could lose considerable amounts of equipment, let alone lives, it is no longer reasonable to think that we can pare everything to the bone but somehow by means of an urgent investment make good what has been lost. The battle will not wait for factories to turn out the new kit. More likely, we shall have to give up what we are trying to do or see casualties mount because our troops are unable to defend themselves properly. It is high time, if the Government wish to be a global player with our Armed Forces, to change the ways in which we used to budget and finance the forces, and to be much more ready to provide the resources needed in all theatres and in the home base from which our forces are committed. Unless we do that and more realistically fund our defence strategy and postures, or cut our commitments, we shall enter into the last-chance saloon and a military disaster may overtake us.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in wishing our troops good luck and safe return. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that it is a tribute to the quality of our fighting forces that they have been invited at very short notice to join operations in the part of Afghanistan where fighting continues.
I have some problems, however, with the way in which people have started to criticise the decision. Although I do not know the constitutional basis of the decision, I see it as a continuation of previous decisions. When we committed ourselves to fighting the war against terrorism, and specifically when we committed ourselves to fighting in Afghanistan, first we sent troops to fight and then we joined the ISAF. Now, we are taking this action. I do not see the stark break that other noble Lords see in this major event, for which we need special conventions.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, gave the analogy of the Falklands War. I would rather compare this situation to the Gulf War. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, reminded the House, the United States has requested additional troops on two or three occasions. Unless my memory fails me, I do not believe that there was a special Cabinet session, or consultation or a debate on that matter.
We must be realistic. The war will go on for a long time and it will not be an easy war to fight—no war is easy. Public opinion, which is not friendly towards what we are doing, has flip-flopped. This war started less than six months ago, and people said, "This will he so difficult; we shall be fighting through the winter; lots of people will die; there will be starvation; and we shall have many losses". That did not happen. One part of the war was fought relatively quickly. As many noble Lords have pointed out, that has not meant that the war is over. The ground war phase is over and it has now moved to a guerrilla phase.
I do not believe the analogy of Vietnam is correct. The crucial difference is that the people of North Vietnam liked their government, and the people of

93
South Vietnam did not like theirs, therefore the American approach did not have good global support. That is not the case in Afghanistan. We have the support of the Northern Alliance; we have achieved a situation in which a government is in power; the Taliban, as a government, has been destroyed; and, without appearing to he too optimistic, that phase of the war was successfully fought. We are now in another phase of the war and we have to adapt to the conditions.
When will the war end? It is difficult to say when a guerrilla war will end. Sometimes guerrilla wars appear to go on forever. I am not an expert on such matters, but the guerrilla warfare fought by Che Guevara in Bolivia was a guerrilla war fought by an outstanding guerrilla warrior. That Bolivian war, which also took place in mountainous conditions, came to an end. It is possible that a time will come when, for two or three months, our troops are not attacked. Then we could pass the baton to the local Afghan troops and retire.
A crucial point in that respect is that we have to secure two kinds of co-operation. First we must be quite sure that the local warlords, however much they fight among themselves, do not use their intelligence to harm our troops, especially those fighting in the mountains. How can we secure their co-operation? Whether or not they agree with Mr Karzai and after all we have done for them, they should be on our side, or at least not fighting against us. Will the warlords help us rather than fight us?
The role of Pakistan is crucial. Pakistan is a haven to which the guerrillas can escape. In Pakistan more people are being recruited by the guerrillas; and Pakistan holds so much intelligence and support that our troops could use to capture those who may be escaping. In all those respects I believe that we should provide Pakistan with an important role and give it support.
There will be deaths. We must be prepared for casualties from such an operation. We should be up front about A and ensure that proper care is taken of the families of soldiers who are to risk life and limb. Also we should not spin that story. We have gone to Afghanistan for a good reason but lives will be lost. Those lives will appear valueless if we do not support the objective for which our troops are fighting.
8.26 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I support the Government in the decision they have taken on the need to continue the campaign against Al'Qaeda and the Taliban. I certainly recognise that this is a campaign in which there may well be casualties, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. No one should under-rate the seriousness of the decision that the Government have taken, for which they seek the support of this House, the other place and the country.
"If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars".
We hope that it will be just small pockets, but at the moment we have no confidence. As the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Craig, made clear, we cannot be
94
confident at this stage that that is true. What is clear is that it is vital to continue the campaign to sustain the present government in Afghanistan. Otherwise, the risks of that being undermined are great. They are likely to need considerable support for some time.
I was struck by the analogy that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, drew with Ireland and Northern Ireland. I learned something about Pakistan: that there is a large area that appears to be outside the control of any government. With her well known modesty, she referred to it as a somewhat less well guarded frontier. My understanding is that the control is practically non-existent. Most of the tribes are quite unaware of where the frontier lies. That is a wonderful resource for any terrorist organisation.
It appears to me that it is essential to sustain the present government during this period and military support will be needed for that purpose. In a wider sense, it is vital to sustain the credibility of the action that is being taken by the United States and by the coalition. If it were seen to fail, there would be serious consequences around the world. My noble friend Lord Howell, in an excellent contribution, put the matter extremely well in saying that terrorists win if they do not lose. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked how we will know when we have won. That will be a real challenge.
While I support the Government. I recognise that the situation is not going according to plan. The Government cannot necessarily be criticised for that because we are dealing with extremely difficult issues. The least surprising announcement ever made is that Mr Brahimi has asked for an extension for ISAF. I do not believe that anyone thought that a cut-off point of the end of June had any credibility whatever. I make a small prediction that Mr Brahimi's extension will, in due course, be subject to a further extension as the problems continue. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that matter. I understand that For very good reasons his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, has had to leave, but she presented a cheerful approach to the situation in Afghanistan.
I understand that the situation in Kabul is far from easy at present and is extremely worrying. Clearly if we move to the situation which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, regarded as a logical progression rather than a major move forward, it is contrary to my understanding about military doctrine. One does not muddle up peacekeeping and war fighting. The reality—my noble friend Lord Howell referred to it—is that those to whom we are opposed, those whom we are trying to kill in the mountains by destroying terrorist hideouts, will have friends and allies around the cities. We have heard of terrorist incidents and attempted incidents in those areas. The softest targets will be the same nationalities seen in their peacekeeping role. Steps will have to be taken to ensure greater protection for those involved in the peacekeeping rather than the war fighting role.
Clearly, this is not the Battle of Waterloo in which people form fixed squares and fight to the last man. The classic guerrilla activity is now being adopted. As

95
would be expected. The challenge in dealing with that is very real. Yet it is vital that an impetus is maintained. If it is thought that the coalition is not working, that is the most vivid recruiting signal to many disaffected people who are very sympathetic to Al'Qaeda and likely to flock to join the banner. I do not know whether the Government have any intelligence—I doubt whether we have—as to how many recruits are coming to join in the activities of Al'Qaeda and the Taliban. We have reports of some. I have no idea how valid the reports are and how great the numbers.
In the current situation, my first demand on the Government, the coalition and the United States is that there is need now for a most sustained hearts-andminds campaign about our objectives internally in Afghanistan and externally around the world, about why we are there, and the actions that we take. Reference has been made to the Gulf War by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. The challenge is to maintain the respectability of our activities, with the risk of the accident of the ill-guided bomb, of civilian casualties, and of outrages which can be exploited by the opposition and could do enormous damage and gain yet more recruits for Al'Qaeda and the Taliban. That is an essential element in the support for our marine commandos and others involved in the military campaign, both war fighting and peacekeeping.
As part of the hearts-and-minds campaign, there is need for the advertisement of the early and continuing evidence of the merits of peace. That needs to be continually repeated and hammered out. The Minister referred to the village fete, with kite flying, markets, souks and the other signs of life returning to normality. All that is good but it needs propagating and continual advertisement to persuade people that this is the better way. Maximum support for the coalition and for the United Nations approach is important. There have been increasing signs of the United States losing patience with some of its allies and some members of the coalition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, referred to the massive scale of the military capability of the United States. I add one statistic. I refer to the total sum of the 15 other countries. I believe that I am right in saying that the increase in the defence budget announced by President Bush as a result of the present situation is larger than the total UK defence budget. I may be corrected, but the figure shows the scale.
On the military challenges, we have moved from phase one—the air campaign with high-level bombing and unmanned vehicles with their amazing technology. In the end there were bound to be troops on the ground. That becomes much more dangerous and more challenging. We know that the Taliban and Al'Qaeda said that they were looking forward to that. If they could survive the onslaught from the sky, they would get people down on what they saw as their level playing field. It is a real challenge. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, referred to high altitude. Some of the territory in which the forces will work may
96
be almost outside the ceiling of some of the helicopters and other support. I am not sure whether that is true. But Bagram at 7,000 feet forms a kind of low base. If the forces are up in some of the high mountains there is the challenge of acclimatisation. I see that two of my former constituents who are marine commandos in 45 Commando are moving from the shore level of Minehead in Somerset. They will find themselves in the high altitude of Afghanistan. That will surely be a challenge in terms of resources, numbers available and the ability to rotate and replace. There will have to be a significant period of acclimatisation at high altitudes before the troops become available for high mountain activity. That is an extra challenge that they face.
I do not know what intelligence we have about whether there are small pockets or many large and well-equipped pockets of forces and the scale of new recruits. In asking our forces to undertake these challenges, it is our duty to provide them with the best possible intelligence. I hope that the Minister will be able to give guidance on these points. Everyone in this House has great pride in our forces. We know that they will not let us down. If they have not been trained at the altitudes they will have to face in Afghanistan, albeit they have mountain training, they will be very challenged. They must not be exploited. I always feel that it is easy for Ministers—I could sometimes be accused—to pray in aid the quality of our forces and their ready availability for any charge that we as Ministers lay upon them. But they are not supermen. They must not be expected to undertake unreasonable and challenging tasks. They must be given every possible support in undertaking this work.
It will not be easy for them. It is an exceptionally difficult deployment. I am not clear whether we shall now work in a coalition with Afghan forces or whether NATO forces will undertake the charges on their own with Afghan forces in some support role. There are obvious benefits if we can work with local Afghan forces. But it is clear that the culture of those Afghan forces is not the same as what one might call the western armies. There has already been reference to the role of the war lords and their sometimes different objectives. That is a particularly challenging problem they have to face.
Military action in Afghanistan may not be the end of the threat of terrorism that the world faces but it is an important first step. Perhaps I may say a word about what the next steps may be. It is clear that what I considered the premature discussion of an involvement with Iraq has faded somewhat into the background as the difficulties that we face in Afghanistan have become more apparent. I am not sure that the Americans at this stage entirely share that view. Some of us had the pleasure of meeting the Vice President, Dick Cheney, on his repeat tour. Noble Lords will recall that before the Gulf War, after the invasion of Kuwait, he made the same tour round the countries of the Gulf. I have no doubt that the welcome he received, although polite and courteous, was not quite as forthcoming as it had been after the invasion of Kuwait 10 or 11 years ago in terms of the readiness of the countries to respond. We therefore

97
need to ensure that if we are to move on, we move from secure achievement, and we need to be sure that in Afghanistan we have an established government in a secure situation, on which we can then build the continuing fight against terrorism.
I welcome today's debate. The Government are entitled to ask for our support. I certainly give mine. I accept, as was said in another place, that in giving our support we take a measure of responsibility for the decisions that the Government have taken. But that means that we are taking the Government's decisions on trust. I believe that in return we are entitled to expect from the Government the fullest possible information on the progress of this campaign, its successes, its setbacks, if any. If we give that support and take that measure of responsibility, we are entitled to feel that we are being properly informed at all times.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, it is surely right that this House should yet again debate developments in Afghanistan and the fight against global terrorism. Indeed, it is probably too long since we last did so. It is too easy to take one's eye off the ball and allow the rush of events, the fads of the media circus, to prescribe the daily agenda, causing one to overlook all the unfinished business both in Afghanistan and in the wider war against terrorism.
Last week's Statement about the decision to send the Royal Marines to Afghanistan was probably a wake-up call, a reminder that the images of a rapid and relatively casualty-free victory were too good to be true. If we allowed Afghanistan to drift away into the margins of our political consciousness, it could well return and bite us again, as it previously did.
However, resisting complacency does not mean for one moment that we should not dwell on some of the things that have gone right: first, a military campaign that led to the speedy overthrow of the Taliban and the destruction of Al'Qaeda's Afghan network of training camps and safe havens, and that at a relatively low cost in lives; secondly, a massive famine averted.
It is now difficult to remember the estimates of mass starvation with which we were bombarded last autumn. Sometimes we were even told that it was all the fault of those taking the action following 11th September. If that action had not been taken, if the Taliban had continued to rule in Afghanistan, many more people would have died of starvation than actually did. Thirdly, the freeing of a whole people from oppression and from discrimination against women which had characterised the role of the Taliban. It is difficult not to feel joy and some pride in the images o f children—including, for the first time, girls—returning to schools in Kabul, refurbished with British aid and protected by British peacekeepers. Fourthly, the marshalling of a great coalition—not just a military coalition but a coalition of peacekeepers and aid donors, in which we, our European partners and the UN have played a worthy role under US leadership.
98
The list of unfinished tasks remains much longer than the list of accomplishments, and the precariousness of what has already been achieved is not in doubt. The threat from the Taliban and from the remnants of Al'Qaeda is clearly real and far more difficult to cope with than when they were holding fixed and easily-identifiable positions. Afghanistan remains dominated by warlords whose past record leaves no room for believing that they will now work together for the common good just because we ask them to do so. The economy hardly exists and will not for several years be able, unassisted, to support the structure of a state. There is no tradition of democracy on which to fall back. If it is to exist at all, it will have to be built from the ground up. The bad habit of Afghanistan's neighbours meddling in its affairs may temporarily have been stilled, but it has certainly not been banished.
Therefore, the task for the United Nations and the coalition is massive. If we do not give the United Nations sustained political support or provide the resources needed to do the job, that task cannot in any way be successfully accomplished.
One of the top priorities must surely be to continue the work of political reconstruction that began with the Bonn Conference and the successful constitution of a provisional government. As the Minister reminded us, Loya Jirgah is only a few months away, and it is crucial that it should lead to a more solidly - based, more representative and more legitimate government. Only if the Afghans themselves take on the task of reconstructing their country will it work. Afghanistan is not a country in which outsiders can for long call the tune without taking risks themselves and without undermining the credibility of those they support. That, surely, is one lesson of history that we should not forget.
So far, the involvement of the Pashtun in the work of government has been less wholehearted and less widespread than is necessary, if lasting stability is to be achieved. Afghanistan cannot be successfully ruled by a non-Pashtun government, nor by one that has only a token Pashtun involvement or lacks the support of the Pashtun tribes. The building up of the Pashtun dimension of the government is a major task for the months ahead.
Another, less immediate but no less pressing, task is to lay the foundations for an end to the meddling of Afghanistan's neighbours in its affairs and, reciprocally, for an end to Afghanistan's meddling in their affairs. Such meddling has been endemic for generations—indeed for centuries—and it has brought nothing but strife, instability and suffering to Afghanistan and its neighbours. What is needed is an international convention with the full mandatory backing of the UN Security Council and its permanent members, which would commit Afghanistan's neighbours to the policy and practice of nonintervention and which would similarly commit Afghanistan, thus recognising the Durand Line as its border with Pakistan and forswearing any reversion to the ill-fated Pashtunistan venture of earlier years.

99
Would it not make sense for Britain to give a lead in championing such a convention? I should like to hear the Minister's reaction to that suggestion.
If one looks more widely at the war on terrorism, it is only honest to admit that some of the sharp focus, the burning sense of urgency and the unity of purpose, which was so evident in the early months after 11th September, have been lost. The first signs of divided counsels have made their appearance. On one side of the Atlantic, rather strident voices are raised, questioning why international co-operation is needed at all, why one should pay attention to the views of others, why anything is needed beyond the strength of America's formidable right arm. In my opinion, those are short-sighted views, which ignore the fact that the war against terrorism is not simply a military operation, in which victory is sure to go to the militarily stronger and better equipped side. It is a war whose civilian dimensions, denying havens to terrorists, denying them access to finance and weapons, pooling police work, intelligence and other matters, require the active and willing co-operation of the widest possible international coalition. That is one view on one side of the Atlantic.
On this side of the Atlantic, partly in response to those same strident voices, doubts have emerged about the next stage of the war against terrorism, about the unilateral trend of US leadership. Yet, if one thinks about it, the challenge that we all faced last December has not gone away; nor has it diminished, except in a very temporary way; nor has it been superseded by some other, greater threat. Now that we know more about the scope of Al'Qaeda's ambitions and its world-wide network and better understand how difficult it is, in an age of globalisation, to counter its activities effectively, we need to be more united and more determined, not less so.
On no issue have divided counsels been more evident than over the handling of Iraq. On none, therefore, is it more necessary to close ranks and to try to find a policy response which maximises the pressure of the international community on a regime with whom no one from one side of the political spectrum to the other, no one from one region of the world to another, has the slightest sympathy.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq has broken a whole range of international obligations in relation to the elimination of its programmes for acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not he was in some way linked to Al"Qaeda or to the events of last September remains obscure; but it is in any case not the whole story about his involvement with terrorism. What has Saddam Hussein been doing since 1991 to fulfil the obligation under the ceasefire resolution that he should avoid support of any kind for terrorism or terrorist acts? What has he done since last September to implement the provisions of Security Council Resolution 1373 which laid the foundations of the campaign against terrorism?
All those are pressing and legitimate matters which need to be put to the Iraqi regime without more delay, and to which its response will be a determining factor
100
in future developments. That is why I urge the Government to work with our partners in the Security Council to bring forward a new resolution which would at the same time require Iraq to re- admit UN weapons inspectors and to fulfil their obligations in the war against terrorism. It would also ensure that the sanctions regime was reshaped so as to bear down more effectively on Iraq's weapons programmes and military ambitions and less harshly on its long-suffering people. One would hope that a resolution of that nature could unite the international community, not divide it, as does the present debate about early military action against Iraq.
I should like to end a little closer to home. It has been suggested that the Prime Minister and the Government should be spending less time and effort on those overseas challenges; that in some way Britain is overreaching and overestimating its role in world affairs; that we should be giving absolute priority to our many pressing domestic challenges. I do not agree. Much of the comment seems to me shot through with traces of isolationism and little Englandism. It overlooks the fact that if middle-ranking powers such as Britain, which have global interests and global responsibilities, opt out, then we really will be in a unipolar world with the United States calling all the shots and the gap between them and their principal European allies, both in capability and in policy, steadily widening.
I believe that that would not be in our interest, nor in that of Europe, nor, for that matter, in that of the United States. So I welcome the lead the Government have given in the war against terrorism both in Afghanistan and more widely, and I would encourage them to continue to do so.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Hannay, speaks with great authority based on his long experience. I hope that I may be able to pick up on one or two of his points during my remarks.
It is just over six months since the horrendous events of llth September. I am sure that all noble Lords will recollect the feelings that most people had in the days immediately following that tragic happening. I can remember how fearful we were. Whenever a plane flew overhead people almost instinctively looked up to see what it was. They were anxious about going to the top of tall buildings. There was a general nervousness and unease prevailing throughout, particularly in the City.
All that has gone. We have moved away from those events and even now, perhaps encouraged by the spring sunshine beginning to emerge, people are feeling lighter-hearted and at ease. But they would be wiser to take note of the decisions that have just been taken by the Government committing further troops to Afghanistan, and to ask themselves why this has to be so. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, this is part of a continuing story. What we heard announced in relation to the Commando going to Afghanistan is an instalment. Many further announcements will follow.

101
However, one thing on which I hope there is unity in this House is that we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the United States of America. It is quite remarkable the way in which the people of America, with their leaders, naturally, responded with such resilience, unity, determination and clarity of purpose. Now that we are focusing on the wider picture of international or global terrorism, it may be more difficult to accept some of the decisions which need to be taken. It was easier to accept a response against Al'Qaeda and the Taliban in one country. But our attention—certainly that of the United States of America—is looking further afield to other countries.
Just across the border from Afghanistan is Pakistan. My noble friend Lord King mentioned the nature of the terrain with which we are all only too familiar. Like others I have been there, and I know how the mountainous region and tribal affinities straddle the frontier. There is no clear dividing line. People move from one side to the other and always have done. Pakistan is now the unwilling host to a large number of former Taliban and Al'Qaeda members.
1 ask the Minister—I do not seek an immediate answer—what support we are giving to Pakistan in their effort to control the activities of their own proTaliban elements? Many people in Pakistan, not least those who are being "educated" in the madrasalis, are in fact being fed ruthless propaganda in which the United States of America is featured as the enemy and we are classified with them.
Many of those countries—Pakistan is no exception—have a high proportion of young people. Two-and-a-half weeks ago I was lucky enough to be in the Gulf area and I visited Iran. They are a most delightful people: the nicest people one could wish to meet. One point I wish to make is that when we condemn states for their perceived or known activities inimical to our interests, we should recognise that we are attacking the rulers and not the people. The people of Iran are wholly delightful and want only one thing—to live a more open, freer life. They want to enjoy some of the things that we take for granted in the West. Many of those things are denied to them by the oppressive, almost tyrannical regime of the mullahs and ayatollahs.
Iran is not alone in having a government that is intent on supporting terrorist activities. It is an active financier of Terrorist groups in Palestine, as is Syria, and from time to time, inadvertently, Saudi Arabia. I know that Saudi Arabia sends considerable funds to Palestine. I hope that it will assist Palestine to try to gain control over the terrorist groups inside Palestine. Iran, Syria and others, pursue a programme of building up substantial capability in missile technology and development. I am referring to Scud-type operations and other weapons of that kind. Much of the technology comes from North Korea, which is a troublesome, rogue state. It is the cause of potential problems in Iran, Syria and, indeed, in Libya, where it supplies the equipment, know-how and technology for the forward development of missile technology. What is the purpose?
102
These countries were identified by President Bush in his State of the Union Address in January. He has been criticised for some of the words that he used—"the axis of evil", for example. That the rulers of those countries are evil there can be little doubt. They would certainly seem to be evil in intent if they are seeking access to weapons of mass destruction, such as Iraq has undoubtedly been doing.
The mistake was to group those countries together. Each country has its own agenda. They are not like-minded people; they have different objectives. Therefore, they need to be tackled independently and individually. The countries of the Gulf and the Arab countries generally are coming together in a conference in Beirut. It was of great value that Crow n Prince Abdullah put forward his proposition on a possible solution to the Arab-Israel dispute. It may not meet all the requirements but it forms a useful basis on which to develop further discussions and negotiations. It is encouraging coming from that source as the country has the influence and the resources to help bring about a settlement—at least to influence its fellow Arab countries.
Another country that needs to be influenced in the same direction is Israel. Its excessive retribution and response policy to suicide bombing is not helping to foster a solution. This has been going on for a long time and has not solved the problem at all. Nor does it solve the problem by continuing to build settlements on Arab-held land. It would be better if those settlements were withdrawn and a more moderate response shown. Israel should remind itself of the second part of the Balfour declaration of 1917 which, while favouring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, went on to say,
"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".
I am afraid that a lot has been done to prejudice those rights. I know that Israel is desperate to be assured of security for its own frontiers, and rightly so, but it will not achieve them that way. It will achieve them only by a negotiated settlement. I hope that Israel, too, will offer a positive response to Crown Prince Abdullah's initiative.
We are engaged in a long and sustained campaign against global terrorism. In answer to a question earlier today, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said that Her Majesty's Government are prioritising measures—whatever that means—to address three types of situation: first, measures to prevent terrorists operating in areas where states lack the resources or skills to confront them; secondly, measures against states that promote and condone terrorism as a tool of foreign policy; and, thirdly, measures against sources of terrorist finance. When he replies, I hope that the Minister can put flesh on those bones and explain what those words mean. How, for example, are we going to act against states which promote and condone terrorism as a tool of foreign policy? That must include Iran, Syria, Libya and Iraq, and probably includes North Korea. What is meant by the Government now

103
"prioritising measures" to act in that respect? If the noble Lord can help, then we will know the nature of the next stage of the fight against terrorism.
I end by supporting very strongly what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said earlier on; namely, that here we are committing forces with reduced resources. I would hope that we have a Statement soon indicating that the Government are pledging additional resources to back up our military commitment, both with improved equipment and with improved intelligence.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, six months ago and in the shadow of 11th September, your Lordships were also discussing events in Afghanistan. Then the mood was very different. The fires in New York and Washington were still blazing. The death toll was uncertain. Stock markets had crashed. The world was in turmoil. There was much talk then that life would never be the same again.
President Bush rose to the occasion and found an eloquence and a sense of purpose that few of us thought he possessed. Our own Prime Minister seized the historic significance of the moment and pledged Britain's total support of the United States. Mr Blair said that we would stand shoulder to shoulder with America; and we have done so.
But there has been a darker side to all of this. First, we saw the famed Islamic street celebrating America's come-uppance. Since then, and to this day, opinion polls in Islamic lands have shown that over 60 per cent of Arabs believe that the atrocities of September llth were perpetrated not by Al'Qaeda but by the Mossad, the Israeli secret service.
Here in Europe, and often sotto voce, there were those who said that America had it coming. Even in our own midst there was the sickening gloating from some that the "Great Satan" had been brought to its knees. Who can forget our own shame when the US ambassador was reduced to tears on BBC television when the anti-American rent-a-mob set upon him in the immediate aftermath of the September tragedy?
I recall the defeatism that was at large among much of the media and certain politicians, even within your Lordships' House. I remember what they said: that there was no proof; that America is trigger-happy and obsessed by bin Laden; that wars cannot be won in Afghanistan; and, worst of all, that we were bound to lose.
We heard similar arguments before we took action in Kosovo and Bosnia. Yet who can deny that those lands are happier now that Milosevic has gone? We heard the same before the Gulf War, but who can deny that Kuwait is a better country with its independence restored? We heard the same during the 40 years of the Cold War, but who can deny that the former communist states are beginning to enjoy freedom and prosperity? Before my lifetime the world heard the
104
same in the late 1930s, but who would dare deny that the world became a better place after the defeat of the Third Reich?
I simply fail to understand those people who cannot see a tyrant when he stares them in the face. They believe that all one has to do is to be nice to the bin Ladens, the Milosovics, the Saddams, the Stalins or the Hitlers of this world and that sweet reason will prevail. Appeasement is a one-way street.
In the Gulf War we set ourselves one target—to free Kuwait. We should have set another—to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Today we are paying the price. If tomorrow morning on the "Today" programme the announcer were to say, "Reports are coming in that Iraq has successfully tested a nuclear weapon", would your Lordships be "very surprised", "slightly surprised" or "not at all surprised"? Speaking for myself, I should be not at all surprised. I fully expect it.
Then what? We can all be certain that our friend in Baghdad has not expended so much effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction simply for passive defence. If one builds a bicycle, one does not use it to weigh butter.
This is the man who gassed 20,000 of his own people. This is the man who declared war on Iran and Kuwait. This is the man of super gun fame. This is the man who even now pays 10,000 dollars as a special bonus to the families of every successful Palestinian suicide bomber on his or her heinous journey to eternity. This man is pure evil and wishes us more than ill; he wishes us dead. On the basis of his past behaviour and what our intelligence service is probably telling us, we must take pre-emptive action. If we do not, then his scientists will continue to build those weapons, which he will undoubtedly use against us.
There remains one further reason why action against Saddam is to be considered. There is a link between Saddam and bin Laden that many seek to deny. There is little doubt that in April 2001 a meeting took place in Prague between Mohamed Atta, the leading Al'Qaeda hijacker, and Ahmed al-Ani, the Israeli consul in Prague who was Saddam's intelligence case officer there. Atta had flown 7,000 miles from Florida to Prague and back again for a one-day meeting, the third time he had visited Prague that year. Not quite a smoking gun, but evidence enough to suggest more than a casual connection.
Finally, let me turn to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Noble Lords may know that I am a supporter of Israel but no friend of its present Prime Minister. In my view, he is a man who employs the subtlety of a bulldozer. The tragedy is that Mr Arafat, too, is devoid of any policy that envisages compromise. He is a man whose whole life has been the promotion of terrorism and who even now, in the twilight of his years, refuses to countenance any outcome other than total victory. Two old men, cursed by their personal history, without an initiative between them.

105
This coming Wednesday is the Jewish festival of Pesach, the Passover. The celebration of the exodus from Egypt of the children of Israel; the 10 plagues; the crossing of the Red Sea; the giving of the Torah by God to the Jewish people and the founding of the biblical state of Israel.
Moses went to Pharaoh and said, "Thus sayeth the Lord, let My people go so that they may worship Me". It was the original cry for freedom of an enslaved people, a cry that has echoed throughout the ages. No Jew should read this story as we do and not draw the parallel with today's Palestinians and their yearning for a state of their own.
On the very same day of Passover, the Arab League will be holding their summit in Beirut. There, the Saudi, Prince Abdullah, is expected to announce a ground-breaking initiative: that all 22 Arab states, acting in concert, will offer Israel total and secure peace as well as full recognition and a normalisation of relations. I say "normalisation" and not just normal relations. In return. Israel will agree to withdraw to the borders that existed on 6th June 1967. This is not a new offer, but coming from the Saudis at this crucial time it is of major significance. The Israelis will be suspicious, the Palestinians will sense a sell-out, but it is the only game in town and it can be made to work.
Every year for 3,000 years the Jews have recited the Passover service around the family table. The final four words of that service are "Next year in Jerusalem". That has always been the dream of the Jewish people. Today, they are in Jerusalem but they have no peace. That is ironic, when the Hebrew for Jerusalem is "Yerushalayim", literally translated as "The City of Peace". After all this suffering perhaps the time has come for Israelis and Palestinians to share that family table and to turn the city of war into the city of peace for ever.
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, might I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, that I believe he meant to say that the meeting was with the Iraqi attaché in Prague. He said the Israeli. I believe that the noble Lord would wish to have that corrected in Hansard. I thought I would mention it now.
Lord Mitchell: Thank you very much.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, other noble Lords have spoken far better than I could do about the strictly military problems of overstretch; of the long lines of communication, especially in view of the emerging difficulties over access for our troops through Pakistan; of whether the troops will have the right equipment when they need it and whether the sad lesson of the Gulf War veterans has been learnt so that the right preventive health measures are applied this time.
There is also the vital issue of enough money for training now and not in the distant future. I expect, too, that most of us, while accepting that we have a long history of effective and friendly co-operation with
106
the Americans, are a little uneasy about some issues of command and control, especially in such a high technology-dominated conflict.
On overstretch, I wish to ask one question which is relevant to but not about Afghanistan. That is the prospect of rival claims on our limited military power where the immediate political dividend rather than our direct defence interest is in question. We are, I believe, being pressed by our European allies to support their proposal to launch the new rapid reaction force on its first military adventure at the very time when we are rightly committing a significant military force as a firm and effective ally of the United States in Afghanistan and in the fight against terrorism, which itself a threat to the United Kingdom.
The EU, however, is pushing for a new military force in Macedonia to succeed the NATO presence later this year. Because we are separating two hostile groups, this would be at the higher end of the Petersburg tasks at a time when the force could not possibly be described as ready in terms of capabilities and would require NATO assets. It is reported that NATO is not prepared to provide these, particularly given the continuing problems with both Turkey and Greece.
Whatever the political dividend (and firm support for NATO would also carry that) I hope that we can be assured that, given the glaring capability gap and our other major commitments, Her Majesty's Government will listen to the military argument against British participation should the proposal be pressed further by the European leaders.
I have a different concern: the environment in which our troops will be fighting in Afghanistan and the implications of asymmetric warfare and of w hat are now called information operations. As several noble Lords have said, our troops will not be fighting a clearly defined enemy, a rival national army. It will not be like the Falklands or the Gulf War. It will be much more like fighting the Communists in Malaysia—a long war of attrition that we won only when General Templer devised a way to protect people in the villages.
The international stability force was specifically asked for and is doing a splendid job, as are the troops undertaking mine clearing at Kabul airport. But Operation Veritas is different. In principle, the Afghans recognise the need for stability and, in principle, their powerful neighbours, Pakistan and Iran, shared the view that, as Mr Brahimi has said:
"the international community should help the Afghans to find a political solution on their own, because only such a home-grown solution would be credible, legitimate and sustainable".
At the Bonn conference, all the warring parties agreed on an emergency Loya Jirgah by June this year to set up a transitional authority to rule the country until a constitutional Loya Jirgah can meet 18 months after that, at the end of 2003 or even in 2004. Meanwhile, however, the whole structure, so far as it exists at all, is fragile. Pathans, once supporters of the Taliban, and their rivals, the Northern Alliance of Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, all have then local factions, all still armed, and Al'Qaeda sleepers, as well as those who continue to fight, will be among them.

107
The participants in the Bonn conference, who were not necessarily plenipotentiaries anyway, declared that they were,
"conscious that some time may be required for the new Afghan security and armed forces to be fully constituted and functioning".
It does take time. We must recognise that our troops will be fighting guerrillas and that the people will sometimes be allied with us and sometimes with them.
A member of the former Indian civil service who served on the north-west frontier once said of the Afghans that they did not in the least want us to "civilise" them and so do not expect that that rejection of foreigners has changed. As General Sir Mike Jackson once told the Defence Select Committee, speaking of operations in Kosovo:
"You are actually operating amongst people's perceptions, people's attitudes. That is your operational arena, not a piece of ground with a conventional enemy".
He was speaking of what might be called a psychological battle space in a peacekeeping operation. The trouble is that our troops will be fighting a tough shooting war with a strong element of potential local treachery to complicate it in just such an operational arena, side by side with a massive humanitarian operation. There will be real practical difficulties of communication with the people. With all their gifts, I do not expect that many marines speak Pashtun.
If anyone can do the job, they can, but the stress will be proportionately greater than in a series of short, sharp engagements in battle. Hence it is extremely important that they, their families and the public know, if possible, for how long that commitment is to last, and what is their required target. The timescale set out hopefully in Bonn can mean only that internal war between the factions, especially in the absence of a central government, could continue at least until 2004. That must mean rotation of troops, given the harsh conditions and the demands of asymmetrical guerrilla warfare. It will also demand more, not less, training and plenty of that vital commodity, good intelligence. We may indeed not be able to set a term. We have a moving target, and a most difficult one, but in that case we must sustain the full support that the troops need for as long as it is needed.
The Northern Alliance has its own agenda; so too, no doubt, do the Russians. We and the Americans went there to eliminate Al'Qaeda, or at least to deprive it of its base, and only incidentally to end a harsh regime. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, like the IRA, which was able to continue its guerrilla war from a friendly base in Ireland, those terrorists can either melt into the villages or withdraw covertly to Pakistan, whether Pakistan likes it or not, over a long frontier to regroup and, as one soldier recently said, simply commute to war. Excellent as human intelligence usually is, the conditions make it difficult to obtain in timely fashion so that the troops may be warned of the incursions.
Our troops will be fighting a new kind of war, which could last for years. It is essential that defence should be given the highest budgetary priority. The troops
108
must not be fobbed off with inadequate equipment, and they must be properly rotated. One of the prime causes of the failure to retain good soldiers in recent years is the number of unaccompanied tours that most of the forces now serve, during which troops never see their family. Above all, the troops must know that they are at least as important to the country as good railways and good education.
High morale is one of the best smart weapons that we can offer our troops; exacting a compulsory annual saving of 3 per cent on an already overstretched and inadequate budget, so that even vital training exercises must be cut, is not. We are at war: someone must tell the Chancellor.
9.26 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, in the past two decades, Afghanistan has seen human suffering and endurance on a scale that none of us can imagine. Its people, although used to deprivation, have reason to expect the help that has been denied them for so long.
The successful US-led military campaign that drove out the Taliban last year has not brought peace but it has given the country a breathing space. Food security, as has been said, has been greatly improved. Many displaced Afghani families have returned home from Pakistan and Iran, and the aid agencies have been able to resume their development and relief programmes. It is difficult to estimate the number of people who are still in need in the conflict zones. About 700,000 are known to be vulnerable, as they are without shelter or regular access to food and live in areas beyond the reach of the UN agencies.
As my noble friend Lord Hannay of Chiswick said, famine has been averted, but some people in remote mountain villages have had no supplies for months and are still waiting. Poverty, especially the lack of food and drinking water, has continued to cause malnutrition and ill health. There are not enough blankets or clothes for the displaced. The Afghan Government's capacity even to meet the basic needs of children and the elderly is weak or virtually nonexistent. That means that the country will need international aid for some time to come.
The ISAF has been an outstanding example of international co-operation. It has brought stability and security to the capital city and the roads outside, although not to other parts of the country. That was pointed out in detail a month ago by members of the Select Committee on International Development in another place. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, referred to that.
According to some reports, insecurity outside Kabul is not declining but increasing. There are still restrictions on the travel of agency staff. Although the areas surrounding the major Northern Alliance-controlled towns, such as Mazar-i Sharif and Herat, are relatively safe, travel south of Kandahar and east towards Jalalabad is undertaken only at great risk. As in Bosnia, aid agencies must operate in dangerous conditions. They pass through checkpoints controlled by the different warlords; their vehicles are sometimes

109
the target of bandit attacks or shootings. One aid worker told me this week that the neutrality that should guarantee the safety of NGOs is almost impossible to achieve. He said that effectively they had to be friends with no one.
In those conditions, which are in some respects arguably worse in some areas than under the Taliban, neither the peacekeeping troops nor the coalition forces have played—or perhaps can play—any useful part. The continuing battle with the so-called Al'Qaeda remnants has not brought stability to those areas, rather the contrary. My noble friend Lord Hannay of Chiswick mentioned the frailty of the interim authority. The hostilities between rival Pashtun factions inevitably divide the population and create local suspicion of all outside forces, whether they are aid staff or military.
The introduction of additional troops from the UK will of course be welcome, not only to the US, who requested them, but to all Afghans who wish to see Al'Qaeda routed and the roads made safe. However, these troops are not there to help local people. Instead of air strikes with defined objectives, there will be a long-term anti-terrorist campaign in the mountains, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and many others have said—with uncertain results. Such a prolongation of the civil war is therefore unlikely to command support from or con tribute to the welfare of the population.
The situation in Kabul is different. ISAF has been very well received by the international community. Some excellent reconstruction work is going on, from police training and the civil service to rehabilitation of roads, buildings and services. The UN agencies, as the noble Baroness described, have made great strides in education and women's participation. Our own DfID has just published figures for mine clearance, showing that over £3 million has gone from us to the United Nations and NGOs like Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group in Afghanistan alone.
The public here can hardly appreciate the dangers constantly facing the staff of these organisations, trying to restore something close to normal life. In addition, the de-miners now have to cope with thousands of unexploded bomblets dropped from US aircraft.
In previous campaigns in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor there have been examples of successful involvement of the military in humanitarian work; for example, in the building of emergency shelters for refugees in Macedonia. This might suggest a more active role for peacekeepers in the protection of aid convoys and humanitarian projects in Afghanistan. However, as has been said, there are grave risks in associating aid workers and peacekeeping troops too closely in Afghanistan, especially when those troops are from countries still engaged in armed conflict inside the country.
The NGO Forum in Kabul, which is represented here by the British Agencies Afghanistan Group, issued a statement earlier this month that confusion is being created in the minds of civilians by some armed coalition soldiers who apparently have been taking
110
part in civil operations but dressing and behaving like the staff of aid agencies. Ministers will be aware that local and international NGOs feel that their independence and impartiality will he seriously compromised unless a clear distinction is made. This is an issue about which the NGOs feel very strongly and any reassurance the Minister can give tonight will be welcome.
On the issue of civilian casualties during the war against the Taliban/Al'Qaeda, I have still not received a comprehensive reply from the Government after five months. The noble Lord knows from a conversation we have had that I received two belated Written Answers from the MoD on 12th March which express regret for casualties but still do not acknowledge the reports from reliable sources of the significant numbers of civilian casualties.
For example, a report from UNOCHA, which is the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, on 11th March suggested that the numbers killed after 7th October could have been more than 1,000 and as high as 1,500 people. This is a figure which comes close to one-third of the numbers lost on September 11th. While I make absolutely no direct comparison between these figures, which are unrelated, they do nevertheless suggest that the war has not been as tidy an operation as is generally understood in this country. While damage to infrastructure is to some extent compensated by reconstruction, there is no current US plan to reimburse any of the families who are victims—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—families who have suffered losses, or even to acknowledge that such losses have occurred.
If the anti-terrorism campaign involving our troops in one form or another is to be seen not just as a reaction to the events of September 11th but as part of a long-term programme to benefit the people of Afghanistan, it is essential that we demonstrate the actual benefits on the ground. On the one hand, we must provide the unambiguous security which the civilians need to return to normal life, while on the other hand we must not contribute further to the devastation of war through any violent acts against the population. More than that, we have to show that we are on the side of ordinary people in the campaign against terrorism.
There are many issues that concern Afghanis which go beyond the civil war in Afghanistan itself. For example, the ability of the United States to make any real difference to the Middle East peace process is seriously in question, despite the hopes expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, and the noble Lord, Lord Eden, whom I have known for a long time. Our associations with Israel through trade and family ties place us, in Arab eyes, firmly in the US-Israel camp, so that not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also throughout the Middle East, in Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia, people are watching to learn our true motivation in prolonging and extending the fight against Al'Qaeda and the Taliban, and perhaps even against Iraq.

111
I personally welcome the arrival of the first of the 1,700 Marines in Bagram in preparation for the next phase of the campaign, so long as the fears of my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig about expenditure can be allayed. Having years ago driven through Afghanistan and having recently re-read King—of the Khyber Rifles, which I am sure noble Lords will know, I am well aware of the considerable problems of logistics and intelligence soldiers will have to face, even with the most up-to-date equipment. Recent news clips of the US special forces peering anxiously into rock crevices did not give viewers much confidence during Operation Anaconda. The Karzai administration will be relieved that a much more highly experienced force is to strengthen the Americans. It is comforting to learn that they are also to have air support.
However, there is another dimension, as the noble Lord, Lord King, pointed out. We have to remember that the coalition against terrorism must go well beyond the destruction of the remnants of Al'Qaeda into a hearts and minds campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That means clear political and diplomatic objectives to ensure the widest possible coalition, as my noble friend Lord Hannay said so well. We must show the countries attending the Arab summit this week, our friends and allies, that we are not simply picking off terrorists but that we are concerned with sustainable development, justice and human rights in all the countries in which terrorism, for one reason or other, continues to thrive.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that I am not a military man and, indeed, that I have no military experience. As such I am very aware that there are many noble and gallant Lords who are much better equipped to speak in this debate than I. However, I have decided to speak today for those very reasons. The ongoing shrinkage of our Armed Forces has meant that fewer and fewer people in the United Kingdom have regular and direct contact with the military. It is worrying how civil society is beginning to view our Armed Forces. This evening I hope to be able to raise some of the concerns currently being felt by them.
As I said in your Lordships' House last week, I support the Government's decision to order the additional deployment of troops in Afghanistan. Such decisions are never easy, but in this case I believe that the Government have done the right thing. As I also said last week, I was fortunate enough recently to spend time with 45 Commando, Royal Marines, while they were on exercise in Oman. I was very impressed with what I saw. I have no doubt that they will succeed in any task laid before them.
I have always been of the view that once our troops have been sent into battle it is morally incumbent upon us all to back them. Things are difficult enough for those brave men and women without them being made to feel that their own nation is not behind their actions. However, we can only believe ourselves to be offering
112
effective support if we also ask probing questions of the Government—questions which, I am sure, will be running through the minds of some of our troops, and their families, as they prepare to make their journey into theatre.
One question that has cropped up time and time again in relation to this deployment is: how long will it last? Also, has a coherent exit strategy been formulated? Yesterday, we were treated to a procession of Cabinet Ministers appearing on our television screens to provide their views on these and other matters related to the deployment. Their words did little to reassure me.
Speaking on one such programme, the Foreign Secretary, Mr Straw, said of the deployment that,
"You cannot say for certain how long it's going to last".
On another programme, the Defence Secretary, Mr Hoon, said that British troops would remain in Afghanistan,
"for as long as their military leaders judge that they can do an effective job".
I regard this as a somewhat bizarre statement, to say the least. Since when did our soldiers ever do anything other than an "effective job"? Indeed, if one was to take Mr Hoon's words at face value, he could be accused of time-limiting the deployment merely to infinity. I do not think that this situation is sustainable. More clarity is essential.
Mr Hoon said something else yesterday which troubled me. When asked about the future he said:
"If it is necessary for us to deploy further forces, if the military advice says that it is something that should happen, then obviously we will do that".
It is the phrase "military advice" that worries me. Military advice from whom? British military advice or American military advice? I sincerely hope that it is British military advice that is dictating the British commitment.
While I have the utmost respect for all those in command of the allied forces in Afghanistan, I am more than a little uncomfortable with the idea of our Government giving another nation a blank cheque to use British forces in any way, and for as long as it wants.
My anxiety increased yesterday when I read a newspaper report that the MoD had warned the Prime Minister to expect 80 casualties as a result of this deployment, including 20 deaths. This information puts the gravity of the situation very sharply into perspective. We have been warned for some time of the likelihood of our forces taking casualties. However, in these days of precision warfare, an understandable level of complacency has crept into too many minds. But casualties are what we must unfortunately prepare for as precision warfare is not what this deployment is all about. It is, in all probability, about hand-to-hand fighting. Such a scenario makes for unfortunate outcomes and, inevitably, casualties. I hope very much that the Government—and, of course, the general public—are ready for this.

113
Of great relevance to the matter we are debating is the state of our Armed Forces in general, particularly with regard to their overall strength and, of course, their financing. I am sure that I am not alone in being alarmed at some of the information that has leaked out to the media in recent weeks about the shortfalls in our Armed Forces. For example, the Army is supposedly currently estimated to be short of more than 6,000 soldiers. I understand that across all three services the deficit is more than 9,000. These statistics are said to be the result of a lack of suitable recruits and of the difficulty of retaining trained personnel, who opt to leave the services earlier than expected. This trend is deeply worrying.
Of similar concern is the apparent lack of funding being made available by the Treasury to the Ministry of Defence. Reports have estimated the current under-funding of the defence budget to be in the region of some £500 million. It is said that, as a result, the Army is being forced to slice its garrison in Kosovo by some 75 per cent. It is also seeking to withdraw its troops from Bosnia. Furthermore, we have heard reports that the MoD has been forced to borrow hundreds of millions of pounds from next year's budget to stave off more trimming. That is hardly the perfect backdrop against which to send our troops into battle in Afghanistan.
In conclusion, following the events of 11 th September, the Government committed the United Kingdom to playing its full part in the so-called war against global terror. I fully support that decision—as did almost all, if not all, of your Lordships. However, while our troops are now being prepared to play an even greater role in that war, the Government continue to seek to find a way to grant an amnesty for terrorists on the run from the security forces in Northern Ireland. What difference is there between these men and the equally evil men associated with Al'Qaeda and the Taliban? I see no difference. I am sure that your Lordships see no difference. I therefore urge the Government to think again on this most serious of matters, lest they wish to risk incurring your Lordships' wrath.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, at this stage of the debate—and a very interesting one it has been—one is tempted to follow a number of points that have already been raised. I mention in particular the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to which I listened with great interest. I hope my noble friend will ensure that Her Majesty's Government take note of the suggestions that he made. I was particularly pleased by the reference he made to the need to maintain international interest.
That reminded me of an interview during my trip with the Foreign Secretary to Namibia in the late 1970s. A journalist asked: "Do you think you are wasting your time here?". I said, "No". I was then asked: "Where would you he if you were not here?". I said, "Probably, since it is a Saturday morning, doing my surgery". The next question was: "Do you think your constituents like you being here instead of at the
114
surgery?". I said, "I should hope so. My constituency contains a very important part of the British engineering steel industry. To make steel, we need to add tungsten, vanadium, molybdenum, manganese, and a whole variety of metals because we are a trading nation".
There is another reason why we should be interested. I read in the press yesterday that the United Kingdom received more telephone calls from Mr bin Laden than anyone else. That is not surprising, given the international nature of British life and business. But if we are to be a prosperous state, we have to be internationally minded—and, if we are, we have to accept that the terrorism experience of 1lth September and before then requires the United Kingdom and any other right-thinking state to be fully involved in the effort to counter it; indeed, to make sure that no state is prepared to host it ever again. Some of us have expressed regret over a long time about the capacity of some of our partner states to maintain adequate defence capacity. I hope that they are learning that lesson more clearly today.
Terrorism is a symptom as well as a condition that we find unacceptable. The symptom is serious and has to be rooted out. Any young Muslim who requires motivation about injustice in the world can easily have his attention turned to Israel. I am not anti-Semitic. I recognise that the Israeli state must exist and that it should have adequate international guarantees. However, I find it difficult when land for peace is spurned and when the conditions cause young Palestinian extremists to act in stupid, violent and horrifying ways, commanding a stupid, horrifying response from Mr Sharon. For America and Sharon then to demand that Arafat should control the young Palestinians is asking far too much. I hope that sooner or later the Americans—who perhaps have now begun to regret the support that they gave to terrorism across the Irish Sea—will realise that they have to take a more mature and vigorous approach to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli problem, because if they do not do so, it merely provides fertile sustenance to the cause of terror and more symptoms will raise their heads.
However, our debate is about Afghanistan. I am sure that the quality of our troops to be engaged in the mountains of Afghanistan will be very high. The contribution of the paratroops and other units involved in peacekeeping and society engendering activities in Afghanistan to date has been most commendable. However, they cannot be there for ever. They will have to be replaced. I am sure that the Turkish army, which is a formidable organisation, will provide adequate leadership when it replaces our own. However, we have to try to ensure that the quality of forces that go from other countries is adequate. It has not always been so in former Yugoslavia.
Our troops are of high quality. While I am delighted that there is cross-party and across the board support and high regard for our military forces serving in Afghanistan, I detected the odd note of criticism of the Government's provision and record. I have been interested in defence for a long time. I recall the Falklands War. I was among the Members of

115
Parliament who expressed opposition to the removal of HMS "Endurance", which sent a clear signal to Mr Galtieri. If he had been sensible enough to wait for a few weeks until a few more Royal Navy ships had been decommissioned or sold off, the adventure to the Falklands would have been greatly in peril.
I also recall the Gulf War. I attended a gathering addressed by the American general who commanded the coalition forces in the Gulf. He told us that the one essential contribution that he needed from the United Kingdom was the Tornado bomber, using the JP23 airfield denial weapon. That was regarded as essential, because Iraq had 600-odd combat aircraft. If they had been flown with resolution at the beginning of the Gulf War, a great deal of damage could have been done.
However, the Ministry of Defence then realised that the Tornados had been designed for Germany and not for the Gulf and could not fly without the addition of a capacitator. I have no idea what a capacitator is. I understand that the Ministry of Defence was advised that there would probably be a 15-week delay in delivery and a cost of £15,000 per capacitator. At that time, the Government were eager to privatise. They did not seem keen on the argument that the services should be intelligent customers.
I went to RAF Sealand and met a man called Wilkinson and his five friends. They gave up their free time that weekend and made the capacitators for £108 each. The Tornados were able to fly to the Gulf, and the Iraqi air force got the message and flew off to Iraq.
The government of 1991 may have been sailing closer to the wind than the current Government. When the Government took office, we had to survive several years of attack and derision because of the policy that led to SDR. That policy has been extremely successful, and one hopes that the new chapter also will be relevant and successful. We have heard about inadequacies, but, in 1997, the Government inherited not only a rifle that everyone said was unsatisfactory, but the Bowman military communications system, which would have been a tragedy if it were not a farce. Since 1997, we have seen the Eurofighter going ahead and the lease of the C-17—which is a most impressive aircraft. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, was with us the other day when we visited that cavernous form of transport. Furthermore, the Tornado, the Jaguar and the Harrier have all been upgraded, and a commitment has been made to JSF. There are new weapons for the air force and new ships for the navy.
There is a military recruitment problem, but it has arisen when unemployment levels are low and recruitment is much more difficult. Indeed, employment levels are higher now than they were when there was a similar problem 15, 10 and even five years ago. The problems in infantry recruitment have to be dealt with. We must also ensure that there are enough pilots. However, it is rather a disgrace that some of those proclaiming themselves to be British and running aeroplanes which sometimes have the flag of our nation on them spend their time poaching pilots because they have not taken the trouble to invest in training themselves. The same goes for those who seek
116
to poach professionals in, for example, the Royal Corps of Signals. It might be crude to say so, but I do not think that anyone who poaches like that should ever be on the Honours List or given tickets for the garden party. I think that a little social disapproval should be used to encourage them to mend their ways, rather than for people to heap odium upon the heads of the Government.
There are problems. As noble Lords have said, our troops will be fighting at 20,000 feet. I hope that they will have a very considerable period to ensure that they are acclimatised. I was glad to have the assurance that there will be proper communications and that our troops will work very closely with the Americans. That is not only good but essential. We do not want any more friendly fire casualties. A few weeks ago, I saw the "Panorama" programme about the Parachute Regiment's conditions in Kabul. They were far from being rich in creature comforts. If those conditions continue, perhaps we should spend a little more to improve conditions for the marines when they come back for a break from their mountain fighting.
I am not criticising the meals that they are receiving. The other day, with one or two other noble Lords, I had a field-meal cooked by Gurkhas which was absolutely delicious. Many hotels and restaurants in London would charge a great deal for that type of food and people would be daft enough to pay it. It was a very enjoyable meal. I hope that the marines and the paras and those who will replace them have at least the variety that was enjoyed by the chief of staff when he called there and a mobile kitchen was flown in. I am not sure that the chief of staff himself requested that; I met him and hold him in high regard. However, we have to ensure that the troops are properly prepared and conditioned, and that their conditions on breaks from fighting are reassuring and provide them with the comforts they need.
We are entitled to go, and I think that we are morally obliged to go. It would be foolish for people to argue that a time limit should be imposed. However, they may do so because, as noble Lords may recall, time limits were demanded and imposed on last year's Macedonian venture. People said that it was ridiculous to send our troops to Macedonia, but they went. They are very good people. We were told, although it was derided, that they would do the job in 30 or 31 days and it was done in 30 or 31 days. A civil war, which was a real risk, was prevented at the cost of one life, a former constituent of mine. One life was a difficult price to pay to ensure that peace was given a chance.
Some lives may be lost in Afghanistan, but one hopes not. If lives are lost, Afghanistan may be given a chance. At the same time we have to ensure that there is an understanding that the Afghan problem is part of an international one and that an international effort is required.
10 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I suspect we all agree that the United States holds the key to what happens in the coming months and years. As the noble Baroness,

117
Lady Williams of Crosby, pointed out, the United States has virtually a world monopoly on military power. Of itself, that is not enough. The war against terrorism is not like other wars. Yes, it has a military dimension, but that dimension is merely a part of the struggle. It is important that we should understand, as far as possible, how the Americans are thinking.
Since 9/11, I have had three opportunities to visit the United States. In October I went to New York and Minneapolis; in January I went to San Francisco; and in February I went to southern California. I admit that primarily the people to whom I spoke were from the financial world, which is a limited section of the American community, although an articulate and well-informed one.
My first conclusion was that for all its hideous scale, 9/11 was far more traumatic for the United States than terrorism has become for Europe. In a sense, we have almost become desensitised to it. Terrorism to us is like being mugged or burgled. It has been taking place for 30 years or so. To the Americans it was like the members of their families being individually raped. Yet in Europe terrorism continues, which illustrates how difficult it is to solve the problem once and for all. How many would have believed that the Red Brigade, of which we have heard little for some while—perhaps since it reached its peak in 1978 when they killed the Italian Prime Minister, Moro—would re-emerge, as it did only last week, when it killed an unfortunate professor.
The Americans are totally united and determined to fight terrorism without concession. There is also a new readiness in the United States to accept casualties, whereas previously that was not the case. I heard from a number of people that they are convinced that they will be subjected to another major attack this year, probably a biological attack. I heard a great deal about the means of making such an attack: by smallpox, which is described as the Lion King of infectious diseases; by anthrax, a tablespoonful of which, properly distributed, will kill tens of millions of people; by botulism: and by other products.
The tragic irony is that we all thought that smallpox had been eliminated in 1976. It now turns out that in the dying days of the Soviet Union the smallpox virus was being produced by the tens of metric tonnes—probably unknown to the Gorbachev government. There is some evidence that the first information they received about what was happening was from western intelligence sources. In a terrifying way, it was a state within a state.
To emphasise how seriously the Americans take that threat, I can tell those noble Lords who do not know already—I did not know until recently—that the United States Government have ordered 280 million doses of anti-smallpox vaccine to be delivered by the middle of next year; and they hope that it will arrive in time.
A second point which disturbed me deeply was their complete determination to take out Saddam Hussein by any means. I would have no problem with taking him out. It is not a moral problem for me. But how to
118
do that? As we read widely in the press, they are seriously planning a full frontal attack probably involving at least 200,000 troops. That is not "doable". In that form, it would be deeply counterproductive. At the same time, I found it depressing that they did not appear to be willing to drain the reservoirs of hatred from which terrorism has emerged. The most obvious of those reservoirs is the Israeli-Palestinian area. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, and others that a dramatic and radical solution is needed; that Israel must withdraw to its 1967 frontiers. But as part of that equation, there must be a complete international guarantee of the state of Israel and the state of the new Palestine about which the American Administration is beginning to talk. Equally, I have heard Americans saying that to use their undoubted power to impose a solution on Israel would be a betrayal of Israel. That is a frightening and chilling thought.
Perhaps I may speak about Afghanistan. I was proud but not surprised that our military help has been requested to form the tip of the spear to fight the remaining elements of the terrorist organisations in Afghanistan. But I want to focus on the cost of those military operations and how they should be funded. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the total cost of the Gulf War was something like £2.5 billion. Of that, some £2 billion was collected from the states which benefited from our action. We are not fighting in Afghanistan for our own advantage. It is no part of some imperial legacy, heritage or memory. We are part of a coalition. I was deeply concerned and disturbed to hear the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, describe some of the down-sizing and reduction of capability which at this moment is taking place among our military forces. Fortunately, those matters have a long lead time and plans can be put on hold, which may become necessary. However, we need to take a new approach to the funding of these kinds of operations and at least emphasise that they are not national but international operations being carried out by the world in order to retain civilisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was absolutely right when he said that we should focus particularly on the United Nations as the authority that probably has more support and credibility than any other single organisation in the world. Article 51 of the UN, which is quoted endlessly, provides that nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations. We should make the fullest use of the legitimacy given by resolutions of the Security Council. As I have emphasised many times previously, one of the great assets of this country is that it is one of the five veto members of the Security Council. Let us hope that that will continue indefinitely.
Let us remember that there are many examples of the importance of having a reserve capability in order to undertake warfare. An obvious example from my childhood days, which as children we all read about, is Montgomery at Alamein. The new theatre operations

119
were hugely successful, largely because he insisted that first there should be the fullest back-up necessary to sustain the operations.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the sustainability of what we are being asked and have agreed to do in Afghanistan and perhaps will also tell us a little about how and by whom it is to be paid for.
10.12 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap. Having been unable to attend the briefing of my noble friend the Minister last week, I had decided not to speak. However, in church yesterday, Palm Sunday, we prayed for 45 Commando, whose headquarters is at Arbroath and of whose mess my husband is an honorary member. I therefore felt that I had to voice a word of support and encouragement. Unfortunately, my plane from Dundee this morning was 20 minutes late and, alas, the speakers' list had already closed. That is why I now speak briefly and with many apologies.
At present, as far as I know, some of 45 Commando are stuck on HMS "Ocean", the helicopter carrier with six 105 millimetre guns, off the coast of Pakistan. There could he difficulties in landing such a force in Pakistan. However, one Tristar of logistics flew into Kabul yesterday. Only a fortnight ago some members of the defence study group talked to the pilots and engineers of 219 Squadron, who run the Tristars from Brize Norton. It therefore felt somewhat personal.
What worries me is the open-ended nature of the commitment. My noble friend the Minister mentioned a period of three months. Yesterday the right honourable Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said "not very long", and comparisons have been made between Sierra Leone and Vietnam. But how long is "not very long" or a piece of string? The right honourable Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, is less optimistic. There has been talk of Al'Qaeda and the Taliban regrouping and a pitched battle. There has been talk of possible casualties. Of course, any military commitment is dangerous; so is crossing the road between buses; so even is walking down the pavement at speed—I came a cropper last week.
Here I have to declare an interest. As president of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, I love all my ladies. But I do not want there to be any more. On the front page of one of the papers this morning was a beautiful picture of a golden dog with a pink nose sitting among daffodils. It reminded me strongly of a picture we had of an old basset hound of ours called Comfort. I gave it to Mother McKee, a nun who taught my daughter, because she said it reminded her of Our Lady's dog. I asked, "Did Our Lady have a dog?" She replied, "Probably not, but if she had it would have been like Comfort".
120
The dog today is a dog of war called Tiger, and he has been brought safely home from an old wine factory in Kabul. Our thoughts and prayers are with our forces in Afghanistan and I am hoping that soon—and by "soon" I mean a very short piece of string indeed—they too will he coming home.
10.16 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, this has been a valuable debate, even if it is ending at a later hour than some of us, and indeed some of those awaiting the next debate, anticipated.
The concept of a "loyal Opposition" becomes very relevant at a moment like this. On the one hand on these Benches we accept the commitment to provide forces to complete the defeat of the Taliban and Al'Qaeda in Afghanistan. We share the Prime Minister's view expressed at the beginning of the campaign that we are not going to walk away from Afghanistan. We also accept the view that 45 Commando Royal Marines are superbly well qualified for that task. They are trained for Arctic and mountain warfare, and those of us who have seen the training of 3 Commando brigade in Norway know how impressive they are.
But as a loyal Opposition, when we are accepting the Government's legitimate decision to put our excellent Armed Forces into harm's way, we have a responsibility to ask questions about the conditions of that deployment, as was said by the noble Lord. Lord Rogan, earlier this evening. I have six questions that I should like to leave with the Minister for his reply.
First, I read with interest the views which the Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Boyce, made in his lecture just before Christmas. I should like to quote two sentences, but the whole of those remarks bear reading. He said:
"Whatever the choices we make, and for whatever reason, we must ensure that those decisions maintain our freedom of strategic choice; but we will have to decide soon whether we make a commitment to a broader campaign (widening the war), or make a longer term commitment to Afghanistan. Recent military success must be capitalised upon, so it is not a question of whether we will trap our hand in the mangle, but of which mangle we trap it in".
I take any remarks by the Chief of Defence Staff on this sort of matter extremely seriously. But how do Admiral Boyce's very relevant comments fit into the current decisions and indeed the future decisions of which we heard recently and our longer-term strategy?
My second question is: how are these forces going to get into Afghanistan? Questions were asked at the end of last week about access via Pakistan. Of course there was the arrival of flights directly into Kabul yesterday. But can the Minister tell us about the current position and negotiations which the Government are having with the Pakistani Government? Or at least can he assure us that he will inform the House as soon as he has information on that matter?
Thirdly, what is to happen when the troops do get in? I accept the constraints of the Minister who opened this debate about the House not seeking detailed operational information. But can we be given any information about the range of actions in which our

121
forces are likely to take part? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, referred to that in his remarks. How far should we judge from the recent example of the United States' Operation Anaconda? It was not, judging from some of the reports that I have read, a totally unqualified success. There seemed to have been problems with Humint—referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Park—and the assessment of the local political situation.
Those are both areas in which, historically, the United Kingdom has had a comparative advantage, as long as we ensure that our forces have the requisite intelligence support, to which reference has been made. The real problems of asymmetric warfare, to which the noble Baroness referred, are particularly acute in this situation. We want some assurance that they are being taken into account by the Government.
Fourthly, there is the question of the command arrangements, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. We benefit from the fact that we have had a substantial presence in the US central command in Tampa and we are involved in the discussions and thinking about the operation as a whole in Afghanistan. On the ground we are working to an American command structure, based in Bagram under Major General Hagenbeck, as are the Canadians and other substantial suppliers. We will not automatically have the safeguards that would exist under a NATO system. We remember the useful way—of course it was an exceptional situation—in which the so-called red card was used by General Mike Jackson when he was uncertain about the decisions of DSACEUR, General Wes Clark, in Kosovo. Is there a need for some sort of parallel arrangement in Afghanistan? Will Brigadier Lane have a card comparable to the one that General Jackson had'? I do not necessarily expect a public reply from the Minister on this point, but trust that he will note our concern.
More serious, however, and a number of noble Lords have referred to this, are relations with the United States and the other external forces and the relationship with the various local Afghan allies. The noble Lord, Lord King, referred to this issue in his remarks. We have seen the problems that the United States have had with such local allies. It is important to understand how it fits into the command structure to operate in the area where 45 Commando will be. Will 45 Commando have direct relations with such local warlords, or will there only be direct links between the warlords and the American headquarters in Bagram? It is an important and serious matter to which we need answers.
Fifthly, I raise an issue that was raised in another place last week. What will happen if 45 Commando takes prisoners? The Secretary of State in the Commons said that they would be handed over to the United States, but one or two issues need to be clarified. What would be the implications if our forces were to capture UK citizens who happen, quite wrongly, to have been fighting in Afghanistan? Problems could also arise from the differences between ourselves and the United States in the interpretation of both the Geneva conventions and the applicability of
122
the United Nations International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. I realise that these are complex issues to which the Minister may not be able to reply tonight, but we need answers to what could become a complex situation.
Sixthly, I come to an issue that was raised by my noble friend Lady Williams and others on ISAF and the British contribution to that force. To use Admirable Boyce's admirable phrase, are we getting our hands out of that part of the mangle?
What is the latest state of the negotiations with Turkey? The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, made some reference to that issue. When are we likely to get an answer? Should we consider the proposal made by my noble friend Lady Williams that perhaps it would be more important if ISAF were to be taken into some form of NATO structure under a NATO headquarters, which could provide some continuity?
My right honourable friend Menzies Campbell in another place and the noble Lord, Lord King, raised the question of the risk of UK forces undertaking the same time both security assistance tasks in Kabul and neighbourhood and war-fighting tasks in the remaining parts of Afghanistan. There is a real risk of some parts of the Kabul population finding it difficult to appreciate these different functions, or being provoked to do so, even if that was not their original intention.
The United States has deliberately avoided taking part in ISAF. One of the reasons which has been given is to avoid the confusion of these different roles. Will there be some changes in the operational instructions to the British forces in ISAF? Will they be taking appropriate defensive measures if they are going to he in a more risky environment because of our deployment elsewhere in Afghanistan?
What is the overall strategy for the training of the Afghan defence forces? The Minister, in introducing the debate, talked about the useful contribution that we were already making in Kabul. But we have also heard that the United States is using its forces to train parts of the Afghan army. Surely, if we are to have a proper reform of the security sector as a whole we need to have an overall strategy. We need to see how these things are rooted together. Do we yet have clear information on that?
In conclusion, as the Secretary of State for Defence in his speech last week said, this is the largest British deployment of ground forces since the Gulf War. This is therefore an important stage in the development of the process. We share the support for our forces which has been expressed in all parts of this House. We wish them well in the very difficult tasks that lie before them. But we also support increases in the defence budget, both for the coming year and in the Comprehensive Spending Review which we look forward to hearing from the Government later in the year. On that the arguments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, were most powerful. We hope that they will be listened to seriously by the Government, especially, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
10.28 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for making time available for this debate. I thank the Minister for bringing this debate to our attention today and for covering so many different aspects.
As I have said before, and wish to repeat again, we on these Benches strongly support the action being taken by the Government and continue to declare that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with our American allies. We strongly support the deployment of 45 Commando in Operation Jacana. We support the exemplary contribution that our troops have made in ISAF, even though we have some concerns about that force.
There are three main points of focus that run through this debate. My noble friend Lord Howell has dealt with the theme of the fight against global terrorism. I shall mention that in connection only with one of our military capabilities. The two other themes are the war-fighting role of 45 Commando and the peacekeeping role of the ISAF.
The tragic events in the United States of America on llth September—some six months ago—are beginning to fade in the general public's mind. The public should be reminded of the fact that the United Kingdom is at risk of attack from international terrorists. There may be sleepers within the country waiting to carry out devastating attacks possibly using weapons of mass destruction. The nation must not wait for this to happen with predictable catastrophic results. We must ensure that the enemy is destroyed now before he has the chance to strike us.
Towards the end of last year the Chief of the Defence Staff stated that we would be in for a long haul. Although the operations have been successful so far, there is still the destruction of Al'Qaeda to be completed. Let it not be misunderstood that it is right that we are in Afghanistan, and there have been considerable successes that we should all be proud of. As has already been said, we are right to continue to try to find and capture bin Laden and Mullah Omar. It was right that we broke up the Al'Qaeda and Taliban integrated structure and destroyed their training camps in Afghanistan. It was right that we stopped Afghanistan from harbouring and giving succour to international terrorism; and it is right that we are now committed to the destruction of the Al'Qaeda and the Taliban groups dispersed in remote mountain areas of various provinces of Afghanistan. Not to have done so would have been a sign of weakness. Now is not the time to be weak, but to show our determination and strength in resolving this problem. If Al'Qaeda is not destroyed it might well encourage other extremists and terrorist groups to engage in further acts of international terrorism.
The common factor in these two themes is the need for sufficient resources. Her Majesty's Government have willed the ends and, as I have said, we wholeheartedly support them in this. However, we cannot have a situation where the Treasury uses its powers to withhold the resources required to carry out
124
efficiently measures which are the policy of the Government as a whole. There is a real need for a substantial increase in the defence budget and a greater requirement for intelligence resources. It is our responsibility to ensure that our troops have the best and sufficient equipment regardless of cost. In connection with funding and costs, I agree with my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I hope that the Minister will take note of what he said. Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will take note of the excellent contribution from my noble friend Lady Park.
We must also ensure that press reporting is accurate and not misleading. I shall enlarge on this subject at the end of these comments. It is also imperative that all our Armed Forces are made aware that we here at home are lock, stock and barrel behind them in all that they doing in Afghanistan and that we shall be watching their endeavours and supporting them throughout the campaign.
I now wish to turn to 45 Commando. The tactical role of 45 Commando will probably be to search, cordon and destroy the enemy. Establishing the cordon will be essential in view of the proximity of the Pakistan border if the enemy are not to slip over it, especially as it is so ill-defined or really not defined at all.
This commando is trained in mountain warfare and to operate in Arctic conditions. It is right that these troops, who are trained for this role, are committed to mountain warfare in Afghanistan. But they will need altitude acclimatisation. This war-fighting role indicates well the fact that we should not become mesmerised by peacekeeping roles and home defence issues only. Three Commando Brigade will come directly under the command of Centcom and under the immediate command of the US 10th Mountain Division. The United Kingdom is, as we have heard, providing some 1,700 troops with 45 Commando for Operation Jacana of which some 800 will be in the front line. Could the Minister say how many troops from the United States of America, Canada, and other countries are fighting in the front line?
I have no concerns about the two chains of command as they are completely separate with areas of operation in completely different places. I do not think that this chain of command will be a top heavy organisation as it will be much easier for 45 Commando to implement their tasks working to their own brigade and brigade commander. It is well understood that the allies have complete air supremacy. But we are also aware that the United States has sufficient tactical air support to give 45 Commando when their forward air controllers call for it. In addition, the Royal Air Force is supplying three Chinook helicopters. But why can it not have its own strike aircraft? From my experience, it really makes a difference to know that one has one's own direct, dedicated air support. The Royal Air Force is providing invaluable assistance in Afghanistan and virtually daily since January has carried out operational support sorties.

125
On exit strategy, I agree that we should not withdraw from Operation Jacana until the enemy has been defeated and the task completed, but, as many of your Lordships have said, how will we know when we have won? If that takes longer than six months, who else is mountain trained to replace 45 Commando? I believe that 40 and 42 Commando are, or will be, involved in other operations. We cannot put troops who are not trained for mountain warfare into the mountains at about 13,000 feet, which is where they may well have to operate.
Your Lordships may also be aware that a mountain and Arctic training exercise was cancelled about two years ago due to lack of funds. That brings into question whether the two commandos are up to their appropriate training standards in those roles. Perhaps the Minister would reassure the House on that matter. The fact that 45 Commando has no armour was raised. The area in question is not one in which tanks or even light tanks should be used. Mountainous terrain is an area that armour should avoid at all costs.
Will the Minister reassure the House about the chain of command for 3 Commando Brigade? Will he also tell us why the Royal Air Force is not providing support for tactical air strikes? Who will take over from 45 Commando if the operation should last longer than six months? What have been the reasons for the delay in departure of the advance party of 45 Commando, and have the problems with Pakistan now been resolved? Will the Minister also confirm that 45 Commando, the field hospital, and all the other supporting units are up to strength at war establishment and have not been deployed at peace establishment?
I turn to future developments in ISAF. I remind your Lordships that that has so far been a most successful operation. Our troops have excelled in their difficult tasks, even under provocation. A handover to Turkey as the lead nation for ISAF would be most welcome. As our armed forces are over-committedas—as they clearly are—my concern is whether we can really afford to have troops locked up in a peacekeeping role in Afghanistan. Primary warfighting training is being missed out due to peacekeeping. That does not bode well for the future. I am aware that a German multibrigade has taken over from 16 Air Assault Brigade, but will that allow the complete brigade headquarters to withdraw? What other supporting British troops will be left to support the Royal Anglian?
Mr Brahimi has requested that the United Nations mandate be extended for another six months in June—not that there is any surprise in that. However, if that is the case, has another battalion been warned to take over from the Royal Anglian after June, so that it can start its training for the Kabul peacekeeping role now, or is the plan to withdraw from the peacekeeping role after the Royal Anglian completes its operational tour of duty? I agree with my noble friend Lord King that it is unwise to be committed to peacekeeping and war fighting in the same theatre, as the peacekeepers may suffer.
126
I wonder whether the tasks for ISAF are to be broadened. Is the force to take on tasks outside Kabul? Can the Minister say what any additional tasks would consist of, bearing in mind that we have only one line of communication into the theatre? Our Armed Forces are structured for only two lines of communication; the other one is in the Balkans. It should be noted and understood that taking on a new operation against global terrorism in any other part of the world would necessitate our withdrawal from either the Balkans or Afghanistan.
I am aware that I have asked the Minister several questions. I hope that he will be able to answer them when he winds up the debate, but I am also aware that I am the last speaker on the list and that there is little time for him to obtain the answers, unless they are already in his brief. If that is the case, I should be most grateful if he would write to me, as he has lone on many previous occasions, in his usual courteous manner. I am also grateful to him for the briefing that he arranged for some of us today.
Now that we have troops committed to war fighting in Afghanistan, there is a need for the Government to come back to the House and, through Parliament, to the public with adequate and accurate statements and answers to the many questions that will arise. I am still waiting for a reply to a Written Question dated 29th January. The statements and reports should be regular, direct and accurate, not filtered or distorted by the Pentagon or Centcom. They must not be exaggerated or misleading. I am not suggesting that advance plans or any sensitive information be made public, but Parliament owes that to the nation. If the nation is to be kept onside, the reports that I have suggested are essential. We owe that to our troops and to their families, and Parliament will then put matters into their proper perspective.
Finally, I pay tribute to the brave and courageous men and women who serve their country loyally and with the utmost dedication to duty. In particular, today, I pay tribute to those in the Afghanistan theatre. There are 6,000 personnel deployed there. To date, they have been highly successful in all that they have done and have shown their customary professionalism and their usual efficiency. Those of us on these Benches wish everyone in ISA F, the Royal Anglian, 3 Commando brigade and 45 Commando every success and a safe return.
10.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, it was last December when we last debated the role of our Armed Forces in Afghanistan. As has been said, much has happened since, as noble Lords will know from the Statement that was made to the House last Monday. That time gap and the great depth of knowledge and experience in the House make it no surprise that this debate has ranged as widely as any other that we have had. I thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for their contributions. I shall try to respond to as many

127
of the points raised by noble Lords as I can and to expand on some of the matters raised when we debated the Statement last week.
I welcome noble Lords' expressions of support for the men and women in our Armed Forces. Last week, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, who, alas, cannot be here tonight, said how important it was for the Armed Forces to feel that the nation was behind them when they were deployed. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said that with some force today. I agree with him entirely. However, it is not always enough just to express support in words. The men and women of our Armed Forces matter, and we must give them our full support. That is particularly true when we are sending them, as we are, into battle.
Before I say anything about the decision that was taken a week ago, I must say that I was surprised by the comparison made with the Falklands. The decision last Monday was a serious and sombre decision but it does not compare to decisions taken about the Falklands War. I believe that such comparisons are not helpful. Indeed, they are somewhat surprising coming from where they did in the House this evening.
This is a sombre and serious prospect and we should keep in mind the great dangers that 45 Commando Group may face. The Secretary of State warned last week in the other place that our troops might suffer casualties. That is true. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, will accept from me that the figures that were bandied around in the press this morning, which he quoted, have no substance at all as coming from the Ministry of Defence. They are meaningless figures and they do not help the argument at all.
Nothing has changed from last week. When we ask this of our forces, the support of Parliament such as noble Lords have shown today, and indeed of the whole country, is all the more important. What matters is the knowledge that we are doing the right thing, and we believe that we are. It seems as though the House also believes that we are.
In another place the Secretary of State made a powerful case for our deployments in Afghanistan. It hangs on the three points that my noble friend Lady Symons mentioned in her opening remarks this afternoon. I want to remind the House briefly of what she said about point two, which was that the action that the international community has taken has been remarkably successful. Afghanistan is indeed a different country, and the decision to deploy considerable military force against the terrorists and their supporters has, we believe, been vindicated.
It is quite clear that Osama bin Laden and his Al'Qaeda network have been dealt an extremely heavy blow, and only remnants of the Taliban, whose support was so crucial to Al'Qaeda, are left. We have defeated a ruling party; no longer do they control the government.
In my view it would be a mistake, therefore, not to acknowledge the success that has already met the coalition response. I believe it an unfair criticism that somehow victory over the Taliban and Al'Qaeda was
128
claimed. It was said by Government Ministers many months ago that this was a long haul; that this would take years, not months. For selective quotations to be given seems to me to be beneath the level of discussion that we normally enjoy in this House. We all knew that this would be a long haul. Nothing has changed. No one ever claimed anything different.
I know that the existence side by side of the two roles—the ISAF and the Operation Jacana forces—has been questioned in another place. Indeed it was touched on here last week. The chains of command—and this relates to one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Roper—are distinct, reflecting the separate roles of the forces involved. ISAF does not command our combat forces and will not command 45 Commando Group when it deploys. They are wholly separate. Instead, 45 Commando Group will be under the command of the American-led coalition headquarters at Bagram. Headquarters 3 Commando Brigade will be embedded within that headquarters.
It may be asked why we need to deploy a brigade headquarters if 45 Commando Group is under coalition command. We think that the answer is simple. We need the additional command capability it offers, for it is not simply a matter of the commando group. There are the additional combat support and services support elements, namely 7 Battery, 29 Commando Regiment; 59 Independent Command Squadron, Royal Engineers, and elements of the Commando Logistics Regiment; plus the three Chinook helicopters and crew of 27 Squadron RAF.
The brigade's commander, Brigadier Lane, will act as Commander British Forces for all our personnel serving in Afghanistan, other than the ISAF. Those in ISAF will remain under Major General McColl's command. I do not think that that command structure can be accused of being either top heavy or confused.
I want to stress that the two roles are not contradictory. Other members of the ISAF agree. Denmark, France, Germany and Norway all provided ground forces for Operation Anaconda. French strike aircraft also flew close air support missions. The two roles complement each other, for both are consistent with our objectives as we set them out last October. Both aim to remove the threat offered by international terrorists operating from Afghanistan. Both aim to contribute to restoring Afghanistan as a peaceful and stable country. How could that be achieved if we allowed these terrorists and their supporters to regroup? They would always try to overthrow everything the Afghan people and their friends in the wider world have achieved to rebuild that country. If we allow them to regroup, why have we bothered to take any military action at all? What would have been the point?
The ISAF, of course, is a very obvious demonstration of the international community's commitment to Afghanistan. Various noble Lords have pointed that out during our debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Earl. Lord Sandwich. Noble Lords know that we are committed to act as lead nation until 30th April. We are

129
negotiating the transfer of that role to Turkey now. I can tell the House that those talks are going well. Beyond that, I do not think that it would be appropriate to speak here and now about the ins and outs of what are, after all, important negotiations between governments. I venture to say to some of those who have tempted me down that path that if they were standing where I am now—indeed, they were doing so not that many years ago—they would say precisely the same.
However. I shall say this. Both we and the Turks are committed to getting this right. We both want to make the ISAF as successful for the second phase as it has been in the first. Make no mistake, it has been a success. Turkey wants to know what kind of help and assistance she will receive from her partners, exactly as we did when we were working to set up the force. We have always said that we shall go on contributing forces to the ISAF after 30th April. We never said that we would withdraw all our forces, only that we expect to be able to reduce their numbers, and, indeed, we still do. And with good reason. Today we have around 1,700 troops deployed either with the ISAF or in support of it. Compare that with the 1,800 troops we originally assigned, along with an additional 300—2,100 in all—to repair and operate Kabul international airport. Of course the reduction does not mean that our commitment is any the less; we needed some capabilities to get the force that we do not need now that the force has become established.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked one or two questions in regard to the ISAF. As far as cooperation with the Northern Alliance is concerned, which responds to a particular question put by the noble Baroness in which she named an individual, the advice I have received is that co-operation with the Afghan police and with the interim authority generally is very close indeed. This was boosted by Hamid Karzai's visit to this country at the end of January, as well as visits by our Foreign and Defence Secretaries to Afghanistan. We are working closely with the interim authority on the first stages of security sector reform. I am delighted to be able to tell the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in particular, because he asked about this, that early in April the G8 is to hold a conference on the future of security sector reform. I hope that that deals with the point made by the noble Lord.
If we agree that the ISAF is a success in all its forms, and I hope that the House does so, there are many who wish to extend it, even to expand it outside of Kabul and give it new responsibilities. The House will be realistic about this and understand that there is a good possibility that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1386 will be renewed to extend the deployment of the ISAF in its current area of responsibility, but I must stress that the security situation outside Kabul is very different from that in the city, as recent events have shown. The ISAF is not configured either for war fighting or peace enforcement. Ultimately, security is the responsibility—it must be—of the Afghans
130
themselves. We shall look to see how we can help them, particularly through the security sector reform that I have mentioned.
A point was raised as to whether bringing 45 Commando into Afghanistan will make it more dangerous for British ISAF troops. We do not believe that it will, but time will tell. British troops have been on the ground in a fighting role for a very long time now—for as long as there have been troops in Afghanistan—and this is a considerable addition to that number. But they have been there and those people in Kabul will know that they have been there, just as they will know that 45 Commando is there. I remind the House that there are tough rules of engagement as far as the ISAF in Kabul is concerned.
My noble friend outlined earlier our campaign objectives. To achieve them requires that we take offensive military action as well as work towards Afghanistan's reconstruction, and we have been involved in that right from the start. Our decision to deploy 45 Commando is simply a part of our wider commitment to defeating international terrorism.
Undeniably, this is a significant part of that commitment. Deploying 1,700 troops and their equipment is no small undertaking. It is another call upon our Armed Forces and our Armed Forces are stretched. We would deny that they are overstretched; we are not even sure what that expression means. We have had this discussion in the House before—no doubt we will have it again—but I must tell your Lordships that more than 400 of the personnel involved were already in theatre and others were held at high readiness in this country against such a need.
Certainly all our Armed Forces are extremely busy, the Royal Marines included. Naturally, we keep all our commitments under review. We know that we have a duty to balance our operational needs with our other tasks, and not least with the needs of our service personnel. Our deployments in Afghanistan are necessary. We believe—as does the House—that this is something we must do. As to overstretch in this particular case, we are confident that this limited deployment can be managed alongside our existing commitments. I have explained how a number of personnel have been kept at high readiness and others in theatre. We believe that this is a realistic, manageable and sustainable development.
I should say to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that I have been tempted by some of his remarks to make one or two points. I understand the depth of feeling that goes into what he says, but to describe what we are doing as a political gesture does not catch the reason for our actions. Of course we responded quickly. That was not a political gesture but a genuine, practical response to give the help and support requested by our closest friend and stoutest ally. It was not gesture politics. We are talking about real people, real troops, real capability and we are offering real help. The phrase "a political gesture" does not reflect what we are doing.
The noble and gallant Lord asked about pursuit over borders and I shall do my best to answer him. Our actions have been, and will continue to be, part of the

131
coalition, of which Pakistan is a valued member. We do not believe that there is in the end any hiding place for those engaged in activities of global terrorism. Of course we know the difficulties along that particular border.
The noble and gallant Lord set out a number of matters that had occurred over the past weeks and months at the Ministry of Defence as some kind of proof that the Ministry of Defence was not able to meet its needs. On the other hand, perhaps I may mention one or two things that he did not point out—that is, the list of new projects and capabilities that we are in the middle of procuring for the Armed Forces of this country. I start with two new carriers; I continue with six Type 45 Destroyers; I go on to mention alternative landing strip logistics; two landing platform docks; Skynet 5; Bowman, which at last we are putting right, after many years; personal role radio, which is already in existence; Nimrod; the Eurofighter; Merlin helicopters, including the EH101, which is a success at home and abroad; Trojan and Titan; and, not least, ground-based air defence. So if we are to have one side of the argument, and there is a case to be made, it is only fair that we should have the other.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I quite understand the Minister's wish to put another perspective on the matter. We could get into a long and detailed argument. He mentioned the Nimrod, for example; but there will not be so many Nimrods as originally planned. And so it goes on. Of course, there must be good stories to tell in this area. It would be impossible to believe that there were no good stories. My point was that there are a number of unsatisfactory stories at a time when the Armed Forces are very heavily committed. I was trying to get across the need for more support, and more Treasury support, for the Armed Forces.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord made his point extremely effectively. But, as he pointed out, there is another view. That is why it is important to place on record exactly what we are doing.
There has been some ill-informed speculation about our involvement in the Balkans. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to it in passing. The developing security situation in the Balkans has resulted in NATO conducting a joint operational area review. The review is considering the structure, number and role of NATO forces in the region. We remain committed to the security of the Balkans region and actively support NATO's review, which will be discussed by NATO Foreign Ministers in May.
In the light of the review, the United Kingdom is considering with NATO allies how it will continue to contribute to regional security. No decisions have been made by either NATO or the UK. Implementation of any changes will be in the context of allowance decisions and the security situation at the time. I want to emphasise that talk of reductions is speculative, and suggestions that reductions will be forced on the United Kingdom for cost reasons are false.
132
There have been reports in the media that the deployment of 45 Commando Group has run into the sand and that we have been unable to send out our forces. I urge your Lordships not to read too much into these stories. The lead elements of our deployment flew out last week, just as we said they would. Arrangements for the deployment of the whole force are in hand. I cannot say more; we have real concerns about operational security—which is hardly a surprise—if the fine detail of individual unit moves or the comings and goings of our ships and aircraft become widely known. It is, after all, the deployment of a war fighting force into a war zone.
The composition of the deployment is well known. As noble Lords would expect, the shape of our force is driven by its job. Quite simply, 45 Commando Group will participate in operations to defeat bands of Taliban fighters and Al'Qaeda terrorists who have fled into the mountains of Afghanistan. I said earlier that, left alone, they would threaten Afghanistan. They could also threaten us. The training camps would, of course, be rebuilt and new terrorist attacks would be planned. We have to defeat these groups. Doing so will not be easy, and it will take time. We shall keep our forces there until the job is done.
As has been said, as specialists in mountain warfare, the Royal Marines, like their American counterparts in the 10th Mountain Division are ideal for the task. They can deploy quickly, whether from HMS "Ocean" or from their bases in this country. They are trained and equipped to manoeuvre and fight in difficult terrain. They can bring to bear the fire-power of their 105 millimetre light guns, and they have expert forward air controllers, practised in operating with American strike aircraft. That will be of particular importance as the Royal Marines will be operating as coalition forces, and so will be able to call upon air support by coalition aircraft.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear, the reason for deploying 45 Commando Group is not that American or other coalition forces have failed. They have not failed. What they have achieved, most recently in Operation Anaconda, is remarkable. There they fought and won a dangerous and difficult battle high in the mountains against an enemy that was well armed and heavily dug in. They did not do so without loss. American and Afghan soldiers died fighting the terrorists. My right honourable friend also rightly said that it was contemptible to think that the Americans will not risk casualties. They have had, have now and will continue to have soldiers fighting on the ground.
I have spoken for longer than I should. This has been an excellent debate, as all debates on this subject have been in the House. There are unanswered questions, which I shall answer in the normal way, by letter. I hope that I have covered some of the main points that have been raised.
I conclude by saying that our Armed Forces face a great challenge in Afghanistan, whatever their role. They need to know that they have the support of their country and their Parliament. They need that support

133
in good times and bad. I repeat that words of support, while very welcome, are not enough. Support is proved by an acceptance that we are all in this as one and also by a self-imposed restraint so that we do not compromise our Armed Forces in any way. They are, after all, risking their lives for us and they deserve nothing less than our full support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Autism
11.7 p.m.
Baroness Uddinrose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they will respond to the call for 2002 to be declared Autism Awareness Year.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I start from the premise that all hours are good hours to influence governments. Last year, at the request of Ivan and Charika Corea, I was persuaded to place this Question before your Lordships' House. It may easily have been 100 years since then. Never has the word "autism" been more visible in recent years. What difference has all that public talk made to the lives of those who are autistic or to their families? Has it made diagnosis and assessment easily accessible? Has the idea of seamless, joined-up services become a real possibility for many more families?
I am pleased to add my voice to the call for immediate action following the debate in the other place in January. It is estimated that there are 520,000 autistic people in our country. Some organisations put the figure closer to 1 million. Add their carers and we are talking about a huge body of public opinion.
According to the Medical Research Council's report, autism spectrum disorders affect many more people than is recognised, including approximately 60 per cent of children under the age of eight. Numbers are increasing all the time. The MRC noted that,
"the prevalence of autism in the adult population is not known".
This year, the National Autistic Society celebrates 40 years of its survival. The Autism Awareness Year campaign generated by the NAS, alongside 100 partners, has made a mark on the public with an effective advertising campaign. The work of the NAS has been strengthened by the formation of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Autism.
The idea of autism year was launched by Ivan and Charika Corea from Buckhurst Hill and declared by the British Institute for Brain Injured Children and the Disabilities Trust. The Corea family decided to launch the awareness campaign because they were exasperated with their journey of struggle and tribulations to secure services for their son Charin. Their motivation and aim is to facilitate independence and dignity for Charin—something that we take for granted for all our children. Hearing their story made me disheartened that we were still so far from achieving services for children and adults with autism. I salute Ivan and Charika Corea and their MP, Linda Perham, aided by the Disabilities Trust and the BIBIC, for their dedication in the past year.
134
This is the most difficult few minutes of my life. It is more than 20 years since the word "autism", or the question of it, entered my mind when my son Shamim was just two years old. Fed up with hearing platitudes such as, "He will speak soon", and, "Some children are really slow", I was forced to consult hooks in the library, and I accidentally came across the word autism. I subsequently read a number of books which described the experiences of those who were often from middle England.
As noble Lords may have noticed, I am speaking with my heart in my mouth. Pain sears my soul as I remember my struggle with child health clinics and education departments from 1980 to 1992. Ultimately, they all had the better of me and I simply gave up, retreating home with my son. I realise now that, in articulating my child's needs, I was behaving like one of the writers of the books I had read. For those in the caring professions, it was most unacceptable to accept that I, an Asian Muslim woman, could know anything about my child's needs. The fact that I questioned their judgment became our struggle over and above my son's need.
What was striking was the professionals' hurtful indifference to the idea that I understood my child and wanted the very best for him. I do not know whether it was because of my colour, my culture, or whatever, but I was taunted for my opinions and wishes. My family's experience can be added to that of h undreds of thousands of people who have struggled to access health, education, speech therapy and respite care. As carers' daily struggle to live beyond autism is so all-embracing, equality and human rights issues affecting them are often not addressed.
While seeking education for my son, I had to go through the jungle of assessment, analysis, prejudice and bigotry. Contrary to the Education Acts, my request to have my son placed in an ordinary school was frowned upon and denied. Retrospectively, I cannot explain their reluctance to give us a hearing. We were often made to feel responsible for our child's condition, whatever it was. It was also implied that I was the biggest obstacle to services being provided to my son. I was too often seen as demanding—asking for inclusive education was like asking for the moon—and it was thought that I was not coming to terms with his disability. After many years, I now know that my experience was not unique. I thank God that that form of paternalism can now be legally challenged by parents.
Such experiences are repeated too frequently. Parents describe prolonged struggle with institutions and battles with professionals who refuse to listen to parents, despite the fact that there is a legal framework to support the provision of those services. In practice, however, provision is frightfully inconsistent and uncoordinated. Parents who win the battle for their children are few and possess special attributes. Very often, they are also benefactors of the postcode lottery with which we have become so familiar. I humbly point out that, for parents of my background colour and culture, negotiating access to services is more often a miracle than a routine outcome. That is why,

135
despite being articulate parents, Ivan and Charika must continue their struggle, as I had to do more than 20 years ago. We hope that the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 can help in such cases.
There have been successful cases in which parents have received all the care that their children need and deserve and those children have gone on to experience the very best that our system offers. However, there are many more Shamims and Charins, and for them and their parents the postcode lottery of care has become unacceptable. Racism and discrimination are often a double whammy with which parents must deal. Parents with whom I have spoken say that children with the misfortune of having their case argued by an ethnic minority parent are bound to receive a lower standard of care and attention. Surely that has to stop. We cannot allow parents to continue believing that that can happen. Too many parents face an uphill struggle to ensure their child's right to a life of dignity and they should not have to face the added burden of prejudice.
I welcome the possibility of government guidance on the issue. We have the opportunity to set standards within a national framework. Such standards must deal with defining, developing and delivering services from early diagnosis until the appropriate interventions have been made. They must also acknowledge the great unspoken scandal for autistic children and adults: the grossly inadequate availability of speech therapy. The gift of assisting communication is so fundamental and yet so many children are deprived of this provision. Therefore I welcome the fact that the Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists is working with the Department of Health on how to meet the new demand. The chief executive, Karnim Gadhok is also keen to gain financial support for the implementation of the clinical guidelines to improve competence and practice in the profession.
We need to enable people with autism to maximise their quality of life and functioning and to reduce social exclusion in the different context in which they live, in relation to family, community, education, peers, employment and independent housing. There are issues regarding resources and funding to facilitate that, dealing with transition phases at different ages. I believe that if some of the resources made available for the subject of the previous debate were made available for autism, many of the problems would be reduced.
In the past few months noble Lords will have noticed that the issues that have been raised in connection with autism have not centred around education and other service provisions. I am concerned that the discussion on MMR has deflected attention away from the reality of people with autism and their carers. The issue of MMR must not be allowed to consume or sideline the debate and let authorities off the hook of ensuring that care needs are given equal status.
136
I attended a recent gathering to view a video on Autism Awareness Year, launched by the Disabilities Trust. A number of parents' experiences were brought to our attention. In the video Ivan and other parents spoke about autism being not only a lonely business but also an expensive business. Parents talked about re-mortgaging their houses and taking out loans and overdrafts to pay for the needs of autistic children and adults, which can include taking them abroad.
I want to reiterate the parents' call for the Government to consider an increase in the disability living allowance, the carer's allowance and exemptions from the massive increases in council taxes to help ease the financial burdens. Our gratitude goes to the stalwarts in this movement: my noble friends Lord Ashley and Lord Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Rix. They have continued the campaign on these issues for people of all disabilities. I am also grateful to our Prime Minister and to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for lending their support.
Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that the call for this year to be designated Autism Awareness Year has gathered its own momentum, including the debate in the Commons and in the Scottish Parliament. Faith communities have also been involved in mosques, temples, churches, gurdwaras and synagogues praying for the 520,000 autistic community during the month of prayer for autism in January.
On 10th February, 600 people attended a special service to mark Autism Awareness Year at St Paul's Cathedral in London. The British Institute for Brain Injured Children and the Disabilities Trust organised a major strategic conference on autism in 2002 held at the Kings Fund Centre and attended by parliamentarians, health and education professionals and the voluntary sector. I also look forward to the conference on ethnicity and autism to be organised by Autism London.
Urgent implementation of a national strategy on autism is required, covering education, social care, health, and the criminal justice system. Such a strategy must include central and local government, NGOs and parents. It should begin with immediate scoping of current practices. I believe that we must also look at good practices that are available internationally.
I ask the Minister to consider setting up a task force on autism to look at those issues. Not long ago a working party was set up to look at the subject which affected less than 200 men and women and we took a year to examine the issue. I believe that 500,000 autistic people deserve at least that much attention. Such a task force should examine services, existing provisions, workforce issues, research and training.
The issue is a vast ocean and I start at the foot of a stream. I hope that this debate creates the possibility of change. We want action now. Parents are prepared to chain themselves to the parliamentary consciousness to let noble Lords know that the autistic community has been silent too long, but no more.
11.20 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for securing a debate on the important subject of autism spectrum disorders. I congratulate the noble Baroness most warmly on her recent Gunawardena saward for outstanding service to autism. Her speech today has let us know how passionate she is about the issue.
The debate takes on a special significance in this Autism Awareness Year. The campaign enjoys great support. The National Autistic Society, the Disabilities Trust and the British Institute for Brain Injured C'hildren have combined to promote and support this special year, focusing on all the issues relating to autism spectrum disorders. I shall concentrate predominantly on educational provision for children with special educational needs and in particular those with autistic spectrum disorders.
I do so agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, about the impressive work done by Charika and Ivan Corea. They have worked tirelessly to raise the awareness of autism and related conditions. The dedicated Autism Awareness Year came about because of the energetic and relentless efforts of Charika and Ivan Corea. Their interest began following the diagnosis of their son Charin as autistic with the debilitating experience they had when fighting the system for appropriate support.
I have been privileged to attend a number of special events, including a service in St Paul's Cathedral and a day conference held at the King's Fund Centre by the British Institute for Brain Injured Children where professionals, politicians, volunteers, parents and friends of young people with ASD came together for a day to contribute to and learn from many thoughtful presentations. As the noble Baroness mentioned, there was the launch last week of an excellent promotional video which features autistic children, adults and their families, as well as professional practitioners.
The Parents Autism Campaign for Education (PACE) carried out a survey which makes sobering reading. All too often the energies of parents are sapped by trying to secure appropriate educational provision for their children. The PACE survey reports that a third of under-fives and 20 per cent of over-fives received no special educational needs provision funding. The survey also highlights the lack of consistency of provision across the country. It is often referred to as the postal lottery.
I piloted the Education Act 1993 through this House. A major part of that 1993 Act provided for a special educational needs tribunal to allow parents—I emphasise the words "as a last resort"—to have their grievances heard. The Act also established a code of practice which was designed to bring about a systematic approach to providing appropriate education and hence greater consistency of provision.
What I find so depressing almost a decade later is that parents still find a lack of consistency and poor coordination, especially in the area of funding, and excessive use and even abuse of the Special Needs Tribunal. All too frequently one hears accounts of
138
parents on whom there has been a war of attrition. The problem is particularly acute for parents of autistic children. It is a fact that the incidence of autism is on the increase and, to state the obvious, children with autism who are neglected during the early years will prove to be very costly to the community in their adult years.
I give an example. Mrs Loxley Blount is the mother of David, a bright but dyslexic and autistic young boy with resultant complex learning and attentional difficulties. From the time David was three years old, his mother has been fighting Barnet Council for his special needs to be met. David is now a young teenager and still the fight goes on. Time does not allow me to catalogue the long and tortuous effort made by Mrs Loxley Blount to secure justice for David. However, it is unacceptable that parents of such children who face enormous challenges at home should have to expend such time, energy and in many cases money in order to secure the appropriate support for their children. The emphasis of the 1993 Act and subsequent Acts which update the code of practice and provision for special educational needs is on early intervention. The importance of early intervention cannot be overstated.
I referred earlier to a possible abuse of the tribunal system. It has been the experience of many parents that local authorities that are themselves under financial pressure will often delay responding to the pleas of parents. In desperation, parents in turn eventually resort to the tribunal, and just before the tribunal hears the case—surprise, surprise—the LEA finds a specialist place for the child. That causes much distress and too much unnecessary suffering.
As I have said, the tribunal was always meant to be a last resort. I agree with at least one respondent to the PACE survey, who said,
"The tribunal process was costly, stressful and risk). Parents should be spending time with their children, not involved with legal battles".
Another issue of concern continues to be the lack of detail and quantification of provision in educational statements. For example, if a child requires speech therapy and the frequency of speech therapy sessions is not specified, all too often the child receives perhaps one session per week, which, though wholly inadequate, technically meets the terms of the statement. I know that this matter has been addressed by the Government in recent legislation. However, the most recent information that I have from those concerned with special educational needs is that the latest guidelines are not helpful. Unless the good intentions of the legislation, which was hard fought for by me and other noble Lords in this Chamber, are made a reality for parents, progress will not be made and children will continue to be ill served.
The Royal National Institute for the Blind recent1), wrote a paper which I believe applies to all children with special educational needs. It said that it was deeply concerned that disabled children's educational entitlements are being undermined now through the dissemination of a special educational needs toolkit which undermines the law on quantificatton of support in a statement and contains thoroughly

139
misleading guidance on meeting the needs of visually-impaired children; and I would also include children with autistic spectrum disorders and other disabilities.
Many of us, including parent groups and a host of organisations, fought hard to persuade the Secretary of State to remove the ambiguous wording on specification and quantification from the revised version of the special educational needs code of practice. The Secretary of State responded positively and reinstated guidance on the need for statements of special educational needs to contain specific and quantified requirements relating to provision.
However, Section 7 of the special educational needs toolkit, entitled "Writing a Statement of Special Educational Needs", seems to mark a significant step backwards. For those children with low incidence needs, the toolkit is a potential disaster and likely to lead to a growth in the number of tribunal cases. The guidance to local education authorities contained in Section 7 is confusing, misleading and ill informed.
Section 7, which gives practical guidance on how to write statements, goes far beyond the code and existing case law in suggesting when local education authorities may be justified in refusing to quantify special needs provision. It states:
"LEAs are required to be specific about provision. Provision should normally be quantified, for example in terms of hours and frequency of support, but there are times when some flexibility needs to be retained either to meet the changing needs of the child or to allow for appropriate and alternative responses from within the school to reflect particular class or school arrangements".
John Wright of IPSEA said:
"This is so general as to undermine completely both the requirement in law that provision be specified and the guidance in the code and that normally it be quantified".
Only when the needs of a child are properly assessed and are both specified and quantified in detail will real progress be made. As the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, said, early intervention is the key. No parent should be made to wait months, even years, fighting to secure provision for their child. It is also important that there is greater co-operation and co-ordination between health, education, social services and other relevant provision in relation to funding for children with disabilities.
Time, as always, is the enemy and therefore I must close. But in doing so I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for initiating this debate. I also fervently hope that the efforts of Ivan and Charika, and all those who support the autism campaign, are rewarded by practical and positive progress. So much, we all know, can be achieved for and by children and adults with autistic spectrum disorders. I hope that whatever the Minister has to say this evening will make a real practical difference to the parents and children who are special and who deserve to have their needs met as of right.
11.31 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, on bringing this subject forward. As she spoke it reminded me of an incident
140
just over 15 years ago when I had to make my maiden speech on dyslexia, though in my case it was a personal experience not one related to a near relative.
Also, the longer I look at this subject, the more and more similar it seems to the process through which dyslexia had to travel—the process of asking, "What is this word? What does it mean? Oh, they are all geniuses or loonies". Different tiers; different levels of interaction; different levels of ignorance; different assumptions that it has been dealt with; a lack of comprehension of the ongoing problem outside certain spheres—it is all there. We repeat ourselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is one of around four Ministers who could be responding to this debate. Education has already been dealt with. Works and pensions certainly have a part to play in this topic. We can even go on to the civil rights issues involved. I have a degree of sympathy for the noble Lord and suggest that he merely carries my comments to the appropriate ear at the end of the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, quite rightly spoke of the problems within the education system and the fact that every time we think we have it right in education, we seem to have to continue looking for more solutions and correcting what goes on. I felt that eventually we would be able to remove the disability portfolio. But people keep running back to the professionals. They keep saying, "We know what we are dealing with", or, "We will assign it to something else". That is why we hear platitudes like, "His speech will get better" or, "He is just a bit slow". That leads to late intervention, help and support which leads to problems later on.
It is often said, "He will get by somehow". Well, to be perfectly honest, people do. The argument about statistics is ongoing. I will bet any amount of money on the fact that we have no idea of the true numbers involved, because those who are on the edges are not discovered. Those who are reasonably intelligent, hard working and lucky, or any combination of those, will "get by" in the system; they will not encounter major problems and will get through.
When it comes to autism—I do not claim any great expertise in this subject—and the difficulties of communication and relating to one's fellow man, we find that most of the jobs and niches in which people could previously hide are disappearing in our society. Greater inter-personal relationships are required in our adult life. That means that the problem is a growing one and one we will start to encounter in the adult sector.
There is always a danger, when we concentrate on what appears to be a child-based problem, of forgetting that children grow up. This is an issue that runs through the argument once again. We forget that an adult will eventually be out there, and unless he has received the appropriate training, he will be difficult to employ and will lack flexibility in employment. His social skills will be low.
My research for the debate highlighted the number of times that doctors and psychiatrists find that problem. They often find themselves treating

141
symptoms of depression because they have not spotted that someone has Asperger syndrome. It is not surprising that someone who finds it difficult to relate to the world is depressed, but he often does not know why he finds it so difficult. Lack of recognition leads to knock-on costs in human and financial terms for as long as the person lives.
The Government must ensure that the medical profession is involved. They should be the first port of call—not teachers. Parents, too, need to be more genned up to catch the child. It is an acknowledged fact throughout the world that deals with disabilities that disabled people should choose their parents well. Generally speaking, a couple of lawyers are the best bet.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, provided the tribunal for special educational needs with a very hefty stick. We may need something equally heavy with which to thump the doctors. Both professions are under considerable pressure with regard to recruitment and retention of staff and it is probably not fair to throw this at them. But this is a case of survival tactics. We should do more to back up the professions here.
The auxiliary services needed to provide the necessary skills for those with autistic spectrum disorder to survive in the outside world cannot be over-emphasised. They need training to relate at the highest level and it must start early. That is why we need to ensure that doctors are better informed about what is going on so that they do not resort to a series of hackneyed expressions. It is often because they simply do not know about certain disabilities. The Government must take on the lead role of ensuring that they do. The diagnosis must be recognised so that those with the disability can be properly trained.
The autism spectrum is incredibly wide. There are no pat answers which means that this process is increasingly difficult, but we must provide a way of ensuring that doctors and those involved in teaching are properly supported. They should at least know enough when a parent comes along with concerns. A busy professional who is hit by something from left field about which they are not aware will not respond correctly. It is that simple. He may say that the child is awkward, thick, difficult or whatever. It is human nature and is almost guaranteed if no support is offered.
Despite the fact that the idea of Autism Awareness Year is good and we need it, it is also an indictment of the fact that we do not move fast enough. We need to he kicked into doing things; we need to he pushed; we need to be dragged. People do not like making changes. If we can get the subject ingrained into people's psyche, even to the extent that dyslexia is, we will still have a long way to go. We will still have to ensure that all factions of the government machine know what they are talking about and can give advice to other people. It is about trying to get knowledge into the system and recognising that it is necessary to take time in trying to understand it. Until we achieve that high degree of awareness, admitting that we do not
142
know the answers but that someone else does—a difficult thing for a professional to admit to—we shall carry on having debates such as this. While we do that, the number of adults who have autistic spectrum disorders who find it incredibly difficult to function in society will grow. The children may catch the headlines but the real problems are with those after the age of 16/18. We should bear that in mind. That is where the real problem is and where the ongoing costs to society will be paid.
11.40 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I too would like to thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to focus on this important issue tonight and for her moving exposition of the problems faced by families with an autistic member. I fully support her call for more support and attention for the problems of autism since I welcome anything which enables society to be more understanding about the problems of those who care for anyone with a disability of any kind.
I want to take this opportunity to look more generally at the problems faced by parents of all children with special needs. I ask the Minister for his response to a particular need which in my experience many of those parents have.
The Government are to be congratulated—and we should acknowledge the progress that has been made—on ensuring that the needs of disabled children and their families are moving up the agenda. New government initiatives such as the Quality Protects initiative have given social services departments a specific three-year allocation to develop services for children. The Special Education Needs and Disability Act, which comes into force from September of this year, should further increase the numbers of disabled children educated within mainstream schools And give protection against disability discrimination in the educational system, which we have heard so much about so far this evening.
The Carers and Disabled Children Act, which I had the honour of taking through your Lordships' House, is already making a difference to families' lives. The provision for vouchers for respite care, due to come in later this year, will further increase parental choice.
The Children's National Service Framework has a separate expert working group on disabled children. The Minister for social care has appointed the chief executive of Contact a Family, the leading charity campaigning for the families of disabled children, to chair that organisation. So progress has certainly been made.
However, disabled children and their families are still excluded in many ways. I remind noble Lords of some of the numbers. There are more than 300,000 children with disabilities under the age of 16 in the United Kingdom. That is 3 per cent of the child population. Of these, more than 100,000 are severely disabled. Around 17,000 families have more than one disabled child, so they have double the caring responsibilities. Each day in the United Kingdom more than 75 children are born or diagnosed with a

143
serious disability. The Birth Defects Foundation research released last week estimates that the number of babies born with birth defects of some kind has increased by some 50 per cent in five years.
Although communication is better than it was, anyone who has had anything to do with parent carers will have horror stories to tell about how diagnostic information is given to parents at this very difficult time. We should here commend the work of organisations such as Contact a Family and the many disease-specific organisations, such as the National Autistic Society, for their work at these very difficult times in giving out information, giving the parents comfort and putting them in touch with other parents with the same kind of experience, and so on.
There are interesting statistics about specific impairments. The Royal National Institute for the Blind, for example, estimates that there are 24,000 plus children with significantly impaired vision under the age of 16. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf estimates that there are about 25,000 deaf or hard of hearing children under 15 who are deaf or hard of hearing; there are 50,000 children with epilepsy; 1,000 babies are born every year with Down's Syndrome; and so on.
For families of children with disabilities, as my noble friend has reminded us, finances are almost always a problem. There have been significant improvements in benefits in relation to disabled children. For example, there is the introduction of the enhanced disability premium on income support. giving an extra £11 odd a week for severely disabled children. The above inflation rise in the disabled child premium is also most welcome. The plans to extend the invalid care allowance for eight weeks after the death of' the disabled person—long fought for by the carers' movement—will help bereaved parents. We should never forget the role that grandparents can play in looking after children with disabilities. They may benefit from the extension of the invalid care allowance to the over 65s.
However, half of households with disabled children lack some of life's basic necessities because they simply cannot afford them. Three-quarters of families with a disabled child live in a home which is unsuitable for the needs of that disabled child. Parents of a disabled child often say that they spend twice as much on comparable items as those whose children are not disabled.
In the limited time available I would like to bring to the Minister's attention one specific problem which I believe cuts across the whole spectrum of disability; that is, children in hospital and the parents' ability to visit. Contact a Family is campaigning to persuade the Government to offer financial assistance with the costs of visiting a sick child in hospital. As more and more children are being treated at specialist centres which are many miles from their home, families are often unable to avoid the travelling costs of visiting them.
In his report on the Bristol Royal Infirmary, Professor Kennedy recommended that families are assisted to meet the costs arising from travelling and
144
being away from home so that they may be with their sick child in a tertiary care centre. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept that part of his recommendation.
The difficulty is that help with the costs of travelling to hospital for treatment are met through a statutory scheme for low income families but the costs of travelling to hospital for visiting are not included within that scheme. The only way of having such costs met is through the discretionary Social Fund, which is cash limited, as noble Lords will know, and restricted to families on income support. Low income families who are working or on benefits other than income support can receive no help at all.
There is a statutory scheme to help people visit family members in prison. It does seem perhaps unfair that this is a very different situation to that of a sick child in hospital whose parents may receive no assistance at all with the costs of visiting their child.
There has been clear recognition by the Government over a number of years that children need to have their parents with them when in hospital, and that includes staying overnight. The Department of Health's own guidance paper the Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital is very explicit on this point, stating that family support is essential and not a luxury.
I hope that the Government might wish to introduce statutory help for low income families to cover the cost of hospital visiting, which would target help on those on the lowest incomes and those parents whose children are receiving care in a tertiary centre some way away from their homes so that they can receive help towards visiting costs regardless of their means.
In conclusion, I wish to leave noble Lords with a very important statistic that we should never forget. Nine out of 10 children with severe disabilities, physical, mental and emotional, are cared for at home by their families. They do this willingly and they do it with love. Much progress has been made in helping them, but there is still some way to go.
11.48 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords. I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, on initiating this debate and for her very moving introduction to it. However, I regret that the debate is taking place at a time of night when it is rather more difficult than usual to fire on all cylinders. I shall keep my remarks fairly short as a result.
I declare an interest as the chairman of trustees of Treehouse, which is a school for profoundly autistic children. Certainly, that has coloured my own experience and given me a much greater insight than I would have had otherwise into some of the issues raised this evening.
I also pay tribute, as other noble Lords have done, to Ivan and Charika Corea, who have been the inspiration behind Autism Awareness Year. It was very interesting to see how the germ of an idea suddenly blossomed over last year and the very persuasive way in which they summoned people to their cause in creating what I believe is a very

145
important year. It allies with the 40th anniversary of the National Autistic Society. That of itself has very effectively begun to raise awareness of autism.
One important matter has already become apparent in this debate. It is the experience of parents and children with autism and of carers. That is absolutely vital. It is difficult for those of us who do not have direct personal experience of autism in their families to understand some of the barriers to getting assessment, a statement, proper education—whether inclusive or specialist—or other forms of support. A common strand runs through the experience of carers and parents of which we must take note.
The success of this year will be measured by further increases in public awareness and in ministerial success in securing more resources and action for the young people, adults and their carers who are affected. Already, awareness among parliamentarians is increasing. Two years ago, the all-party autism group was set up under the chairmanship of Dr Stephen Ladyman. Although I am a relative newcomer, I had the good fortune to become vice-chairman of the group. It has effectively considered and discussed a whole range of issues affecting people with autistic spectrum disorder and Asberger's, and has engaged in dialogue with Ministers.
Ministers have attended its meetings and some important announcements have been made. One that springs to mind is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Uphol land, who made an important announcement about including autistic spectrum disorder in the school census when children join school. Many of us have been pressing for some years for a proper baseline when children enter school of their disabilities and special educational needs. Although to some extent one relies on assessment and statementing, that will never be as fine a tool as a proper census, as exists in Scotland. Scotland has certainly proven that a proper census on joining school demonstrates the growth in autistic spectrum disorder at a young age.
The costs of autism to society are immense. The Mental Health Foundation calculated two years ago that it cost £1 billion a year and carried an individual lifetime cost of almost £3 million per child. On recent figures, the total figure could be as high as £5 billion. That includes such costs as health costs, education costs, social security costs, social services costs, the loss of the earnings of parents acting as carers and the loss of taxation on earnings.
To date, there has been no official monitoring of autism, despite a 1997 recommendation of the Health Select Committee to that effect. Nor does monitoring take place at local level in England and Wales, although, as I mentioned, the Scots school census has demonstrated dramatic increases, even since 1998. In fact, the National Autistic Society estimates that one in 110 children now suffers from autistic spectrum disorder, which is four times greater than even the highest incidence reported in the previous 30 years. A 1983 study showed an incidence of one in 625.
146
It is not clear why there has been an increase. The Medical Research Council review of autism, which reported at the end of last year, admitted that autism incidence is 10 times higher than 10 years ago. It acknowledges that the current state of knowledge of the causes and effects of autism is inadequate and that further research is needed.
I do not want to go into great detail about the causes, but, as the MRC said, a great deal more research is needed. I hope that the Minister can assure us that that research will take place. I find it difficult to believe that the huge identified increase both here and in the United States is due purely to better diagnosis, clearer definition and increased awareness. I believe that other environmental factors are involved.
There are major issues about assessment and the availability of proper education for children with autistic spectrum disorder. One could start with the whole process of assessment. It should take place at the earliest possible age, but in practice it does not. As other noble Lords have said, the earlier the intervention, the better the chance of a child being able to overcome the problems posed by ASD. Last year, in its report The Rising Challenge, the all-party group found that assessment in schools was far from adequate or uniform. It demonstrated that 75 per cent of those who had ASD were not statemented. Yet over 10 per cent of children with special educational needs have autistic spectrum disorder. One of the most depressing aspects of that report was the lack of data from local education authorities.
All children should be assessed at the earliest practical age to discover whether they have autistic tendencies. As soon as such tendencies are picked up, resources must be put in to help. It is also vital that assessment procedures are consistent. The all-party group has recently heard from Professor Ann le Couteur and Dr Gillian Baird about an important national initiative. It is a joint initiative by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has produced draft guidelines designed to identify pre-school children with autism and makes recommendations on multi-agency assessment. I could—but will not—go into greater detail about the nature of that multi-agency assessment, which is of enormous importance. It is even more important that the work of NIASA should be able to continue. It needs further resources, and, as Professor le Couteur said to the all-party group, those resources are by no means guaranteed. The Minister should give us an assurance about that.
There is also a dearth of specialist education and support for children. LEAs are only beginning to wake up to the scale of the need to support children with ASD or make specialist provision. A recent PACE survey demonstrates the problems that parents have experienced in obtaining funding for their children. We have heard about that from other noble Lords today. There are also problems associated with going to the tribunals.

147
Respite is another aspect. The strain and financial consequences of providing care for autistic children can be significant. Support for the families of autistic children is vital, particularly respite care, but few local authorities provide it. As has been demonstrated, there are some extremely good value schemes using networks of volunteers. For instance, £17,000 can support up to 12 families. That is very good value for that kind of support.
Noble Lords mentioned the issue of adults and employment. One of the key areas that we must highlight is the situation of autistic adults in this country, as my noble friend Lord Addington said. Sixty per cent of autistic adults did not find out that they were autistic until they were 16. They find it difficult to find jobs, even those with Asperger syndrome, who sometimes have higher education qualifications. There is an important scheme called Prospects employment service, which gives people with autism support in applying for jobs. It trains employers and provides on-the-job training. Currently, it is based only in London and Glasgow and has some outreach in Sheffield. I hope that the Department of Health and other departments will look favourably on that scheme. It is important that the scheme spreads.
Transition to adulthood is one of the key problems in education. One of the great fears that parents have is about how their children will cope in the outside world. I am lucky to be involved in discussions about how a school that currently only has children under the age of 11 will cope with the kind of education that the children will need when they reach secondary level.
There is a huge amount to be done. If the debate were taking place at any other time, we would have a much larger attendance. It can truly be said of autistic children that an investment now in early assessment, support in education and social services for them and their carers and in employment will pay huge dividends.
I welcome many of the things that Ministers are doing at national level. The agreement that autism will be used as an exemplar, for instance, in the national service framework; the decision to include autism in the school census of SEN conditions for new arrivals at school. But this needs to be translated in a great many ways into local action.
The next step from awareness, as many noble Lords have pointed out, is action and that is what we expect from now on.
Midnight
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for introducing this debate. It is a tragedy that this important subject is being considered at such a late hour.
Like the noble Baroness, I declare an interest as the parent of a child with autism. This debate has seen some very well-informed speeches that reflect a clear commitment to people with autism. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, focused on the gaps in
148
professional awareness. I can personally relate to much of what she said. My noble friend Lady Blatch spoke with great authority on the problems autistic children and their families experience with education provision. I would like to pay tribute to her for the energy with which she debated the SEN changes last year.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out the different areas of government that need to be made aware of the wide spectrum of autism. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, pointed out the problems faced by families, including grandparents, of children with special needs and how excluded they are. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the Treehouse Trust. I compliment him on the wonderful work he does as chairman and also on the hard work he puts into the All-Party Group on Autism, and I declare an interest as secretary of the group.
The group has successfully united all parties to improve awareness and services for people with autism and their families. The group now has 150 parliamentary members and, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has increased awareness of autism and Asperger syndrome within government.
The group's success has been made possible by generous funding from the Shirley Foundation, founded by Dame Stephanie Shirley, who has a dynamic vision of making autism resources in the UK the best in the world.
There are dramatic increases in the number of children with ASD coming through the education system, but this has not been mirrored with an increase in resources or training. Current education services are inadequate and in many cases absent. The Government's emphasis on inclusion relies on schools being equipped to accommodate the needs of children with ASD. This is rarely the case in practice and their needs go unaddressed. This is not good enough.
Schools need to be supported by proper planning and backed up with funds. If the Government want these children in mainstream, they must be given an education to which they are entitled. Mainstream failed my daughter miserably.
All the research points to the need for more training in autism, but that is not happening. In the mainstream, 70 per cent of teachers had worked with children with ASD but only 5 per cent had specific training in their basic teacher training and only a further 5 per cent had been on subsequent training days. Many learning assistants have no training and merely act as babysitters in the classroom. There is a national shortage of speech and language therapists and occupational therapists.
Most mainstream schools have what I call "the Rainman syndrome". They have no real idea what autism is about, accept a child without any proper preparation and get a terrible shock. By half-term the school is unable to cope and the placement is failing. This could be very simply remedied by a proper transition plan before the term starts. For instance, a behaviour management policy could be set in place.

149
The child could be supplied with a workstation to reduce distraction and could be issued with a visual timetable.
How strange that in this era of league tables, of performance indicators and nationally imposed standards in mainstream education LEAs are unable to record data about who is and is not trained, who needs to be and what kind of training is necessary. They are unable to identify what is being spent on autism training or to come up with ways to promote the sharing of knowledge between specialist and mainstream schools and between the maintained and non-maintained sectors.
In the absence of other appropriate education provision, many parents turn in desperation to funding home education programmes themselves. Sometimes they have to sell their homes to pay for them. Surely it is time for the Government to respond to these calls for action and launch a national autism training initiative, backed up with the funds to make it meaningful. They would thereby make a crucial difference to the lifelong prospects of these desperately vulnerable young people.
As my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out, there is great concern with regard to the recently published SEN Toolkit, in particular Section 7. I should like to ask the Minister what plans the Government have to review the SEN Toolkit.
The identification of autism is vital. Diagnosis is a skilled and complex process requiring multidisciplinary assessment. Many families struggle to leap over the first hurdle of getting a diagnosis for their child. There is no simple blood test or brain scan that can detect autism. Frontline professionals such as GPs often do not recognise autism, and parents are frequently told that they are worrying unnecessarily or not disciplining their child properly. Some doctors rigidly follow the rules set out by the International Classification of Diseases, which does not allow for the breadth and diversity of the spectrum of autism. Diagnosis can be made only through careful clinical observation and the taking of a full developmental history.
Having struggled to convince a GP that there is a problem, families often find that they are passed along through a succession of different professionals to secure a diagnosis. There is a very positive model of one-stop diagnosis in the NAS Centre for Social and Communication Disorders. It assembles a multidisciplinary team on a single clay and conducts full-day diagnosis sessions for each individual, thus avoiding a drawn-out process. This was pioneered by Lorna Wing and Judy Gould, who have done more for the early diagnosis of autistic children than almost anyone else in the world.
The National Initiative for Autism, Screening and Assessment is devising clear, recommended time-scales for the diagnostic process, which should be widely adopted. There is a second need for awareness: recognition of the importance of early intervention after diagnosis, whether someone is diagnosed as a child or an adult.
150
Early intervention can prevent the development and exacerbation of "anti-social" behaviour, such as children withdrawing into themselves and self-injury. Without intervention, the child's difficulties ire more likely to become more entrenched. In Ealing, a multidisciplinary health team has formed a rapid response team to go into nurseries where children are having difficulties. It diagnoses and gives advice to the nursery and, if appropriate, finds funding for a key worker for the child. Since the scheme began, there have been no more exclusions from nurseries in that area.
Autism is a lifelong condition. Although there is a wide variety of abilities within the spectrum, the majority of people with autism will continue to need support throughout their adult lives.
Future provision needs planning. Fifty-nine per cent of adults at the so-called higher functioning end of the spectrum are still living at home with their parents and only 12 per cent are in full-time employment. These people will need support when their parents become elderly and can no longer fulfil the role of carer. What plans do the Government have for the older carers who may not be able to care for their adult child for much longer and who, in turn, cannot rely on their child for assistance when they come to need support?
The Autism Research Centre in Cambridge believes that there is an urgent need for expanding diagnostic services for adults who may have Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. People born before 1980 would not have received a diagnosis in childhood as it only entered the diagnostic manuals in the 1990s. These classification systems are rigidly interpreted by many professionals, which means that some people are not diagnosed and others are mistakenly diagnosed with a psychiatric illness. Most are left without support and understanding of their needs.
Mental health services say that the person does not have a mental health problem and that it is not their concern. Learning disability services say that as a person has an IQ over 70 it is not their concern. So these poor people fall into a dark hole. Even from a hard-headed economic point of view there is a clear argument for early intervention compared with the high cost of a bed in an acute mental health ward.
12.12 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Uddin for her Unstarred Question and for her remarkable speech. I also thank other noble Lords for their contributions to a stimulating debate. The hour is late and there are very few noble Lords in the House, but that does not matter because the importance of the subject is very clear. I can assure the House that the Government will consider very carefully the points that have been made today.
It is not in doubt that autism is a complex and distressing condition for those directly affected by it and for their families. People with autism often lead isolated lives and their social and communication

151
difficulties often place great stress on their families. I wish to begin by acknowledging the tremendous efforts of families and carers.
I was very moved by the contributions made to the debate by noble Lords. My noble friend Lady Uddin spoke of some of the struggles that she had had to get through the system and to be taken seriously. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke about her hopes for the legislation that she piloted in the early 1990s. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke about parallels with dyslexia and of the need to focus on adults as much as on children. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley spoke of the need to ensure support for carers. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke of the barriers which exist to parents and carers in trying to find a way through the system and of the importance—with which I agree—of a statistical baseline by which to measure both the need and necessary improvements in the services being offered. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, spoke of his personal experience in the educational issues that he raised. He, too, raised the issue of the support required for adults, particularly when their parents die or are too old to care for people who suffer from autism. I very much agree with that point.
It is clearly very important to ensure that services are responsive to people's needs. I fully accept that raising awareness is a very important part of that. I acknowledge the roles of the British Institute for Brain Injured Children and the Disabilities Trust in spearheading Autism Awareness Year, as well as the impressive number of other organisations who have lent it their support. I also acknowledge the personal commitment of Ivan and Charika Corea, without whom this would not have happened. The Government warmly welcome initiatives that aim to improve our knowledge and understanding of autism. The initiative was welcomed also by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who expressed his support for Autism Awareness Year.
Autism is commanding an increasing amount of public attention as we, as a society, become ever more aware of it. I congratulate the National Autistic Society and wish it well with its 40th anniversary campaign to change attitudes and raise funds for a new 10-year programme. We should also acknowledge the contribution of many concerned Members of both Houses of Parliament, especially of those who have joined the All Party Parliamentary Group—as my noble friend Lady Uddin suggested. The Government are clearly exercised of the importance of ensuring a cohesive response.
There is a great deal going on. Two reports commissioned by the Department of Health are now available. Dr Tony Holland's report on Asperger's Syndrome and the report by the Medical Research Council on the epidemiology and causes of autism. Then, there is the development of good practice guidance by the Department for Education and Skills, which will be published later in the year. There is also the report of the All Party Parliamentary Group, The Rising Challenge—a survey of local education
152
authorities on educational provision for pupils with autistic spectrum disorders, which was formally launched on 13th December.
For Autism Awareness Week in May 2001, the NAS published its report, Ignored or Ineligible?, which focuses on services for adults. There is, therefore, a wealth of material available from both government and other sources to inform the activities of Autism Awareness Year. I shall refer to some of the reports in more detail later. I suggest that the cumulative impact of all this work is that we have a good platform on which to build. But, of course, there are many challenges ahead.
As we know, autism is a lifelong developmental disability which affects the way in which a person communicates and relates to other people. Those affected have a triad of impairments: in social interaction; in social communication; and in imagination. For those with autism, a first important step is correct diagnosis. I very much share the views of noble Lords who have spoken on this matter.
We are taking a very close interest in the independent initiative on autism being chaired by Professor Ann Le Couteur. This is a very important piece of work. Representatives of both my department and the DfES are acting as observers on the working group. We look forward to seeing the conclusions, in particular on screening, diagnosis and early intervention. My understanding is that the report will be published in the summer. I can assure noble Lords that we shall want to take its recommendations very seriously.
Because of our concern about diagnostic assessment and treatment of children and adults with Asperger's Syndrome, the department commissioned a report from Dr Tony Holland of the University of Cambridge. His recommendations relate to a wide range of issues, such as professional groups developing their awareness of Asperger's Syndrome, which again picks up a number of the points made by noble Lords; secondly, the need for health, social and other services to work together; and, thirdly, the need for population based studies to establish its prevalence. The last point was taken further with the work that we commissioned in March last year from the Medical Research Council. That work asked the MRC to undertake a detailed review of the current state of knowledge of autism and to suggest possible areas for further research.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned, in December, the MRC published the report of its review. This provides a clear, authoritative picture of what scientific research has revealed about the epidemiology and causes of autism. It notes that the apparent increase in prevalence of autism is likely to have resulted from better diagnosis and clearer definition as well as increased awareness. It also indicates that many factors may play a part in causing autism.

153
The strongest evidence to date is for a major genetic component. It is thought that several genes may operate together to create susceptibility to autism. It is entirely plausible that autistic behaviours might be derived from a number of different genetic combinations. Several environmental factors were suggested that might interact with genetic susceptibility to cause autism. These include exposure before or after birth to drugs, infections or heavy metals. The report notes that there is currently insufficient evidence on these and says that many of the theories merit more scientifically rigorous examination.
That is an important conclusion. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the importance of further research. On 14th February, my ministerial colleague Jacqui Smith announced an additional £2.5 million allocation to the MRC to help take forward the recommendations in its report. We are engaged in a dialogue with the MRC about future autism research. I shall be happy to report to your Lordships later in the year when the outcome of those discussions is known.
It is also important that we pick up the MRC's interesting recommendation to find ways of networking the messages not only from the MRC review, but also from some of the other recently completed and ongoing autism-related reviews. Some very important messages are emerging from those reviews, which need to come to the attention of policy makers, practitioners, researchers and lay people. Training for all those people is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked particularly about the need for training for doctors. Training needs to be considered in the round, covering a range of professionals.
My colleague Jacqui Smith has asked officials in the Department of Health to consider how we can help to get the messages out, perhaps with conferences or a series of seminars to put across key issues. She has also said that she wants to consider whether it would he appropriate to issue guidance to those in the field; and, if so, what the best format and timing would be. She will want to consider that and take account of the points that have been made tonight.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made a particular point of raising issues in relation to the education sector. This is an important year for special educational needs provision. The revised SEN code of practice has been in place since 1st January. It strengthens the guidance on identifying and meeting children's needs and encourages early identification. This year will also see the publication of the Department for Education and Skills autism working group's good practice guide. We have received representations from across government, the NAS, the Parents Autism Campaign for Education, service providers and autism researchers. I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She spoke about a lack of consistency and of her disappointment at still finding problems of inconsistency a decade on from the 1993
154
Act. I acknowledge her role in the early 1990s and agree that we need to tackle inconsistency with some vigour.
I was also interested in what the noble Baroness said about tribunals and the llth-hour resolution of cases. I have two points to make in relation to that First, it is worth acknowledging that autistic spectrum disorder is a complex condition and there is loom for genuine disagreement between parents and local education authorities. The tribunals are there to provide an even-handed, independent method of deciding on those disagreements. I agree with the noble Baroness that there should not be an abuse of the system.
The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 obliges LEAs from 1st January to provide partnership services to parents, to provide independent advice to parents of children with SEN and to offer informal dispute resolution arrangements to parents so that disputes can be resolved in a non-adversarial manner. My understanding is also that, as a result of that Act, from 1st January, there will be no presentational advantage to the LEA in withdrawing at the last minute. From that date, certain types of appeal are to be treated as determined in favour of the parent when the LEA has notified the SEN tribunal that it is conceding. Clearly, however, we shall have to keep a careful eye on future practical experience in that sphere.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that only 25 per cent of children who might qualify have a statement based on national prevalence rates. I suspect that the prevalence rates are those used by the NAS, of 91 per 10,000. That is the highest of the suggested prevalence rates that I have seen, and it might well also include many children with fairly mild presenting difficulties whose needs can be met without a statement. It might be that the 25 per cent represents the right level for statementing. However, I accept the noble Lord's substantive point, which is that unless we have consistent data collection across LEAs it is very difficult to draw hard and fast conclusions from that data. The Autism Working Group's forthcoming guidance will highlight the value of data collection for planning purposes. I believe that the revised SEN code of practice will encourage the early identification of children with SEN including those with autistic spectrum disorder. I think that the code gives adequate guidance on arranging intervention to meet children's needs.
Education is crucially important in this sphere, but so too is the support that is available through the personal social service arrangements. The Government have started to improve services through the Quality Protects programme which is designed to improve children's services. From April 2001, over three years, £60 million from the children's grant has been earmarked for spending on services for disabled children and their families. Last year's QP management action plans show that authorities are beginning to improve the services they provide to disabled children. Many are developing proposals in collaboration with partners from other agencies and

155
sectors, such as the NHS and voluntary sector. More family support services are being provided, particularly home-based respite care and sitting services. Every management action plan includes services which increase the range and scale of provision of leisure, cultural and sport activities.
There are some very good examples of how action has been taken to provide specific, focused services for children with autism, including early diagnosis and medical treatment as necessary and pre-school speech and language therapy services. I very much recognise that more needs to be done to ensure that all autistic children and their families receive high-quality support from social services, education and health services wherever they live. We want to build on this, particularly when we publish the national service framework for children. We have already made it clear that the standards and targets which will be set within the NSF will improve services for children, including those with autism. I cannot stress more the importance of national service frameworks within the NHS in setting high standards and ensuring consistency of approach across the patch, across the country.
Very importantly, the NSF will include care pathway exemplar diagrams illustrating optimum approaches to delivering services in a number of different areas. I see that as a very important way forward in the future. We shall of course need to pick up many of the workforce issues that noble Lords have raised. On the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Uddin on therapist numbers, we have an NHS Plan commitment to address those concerns. We have already seen an increase in the number of speech and language therapists, from 4,870 in 1997, to 5,680 in 2001.
I very much pick up the point made by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley on the cost of supporting families who have an additional burden of visiting
156
children in hospital. I assure her that Ministers will he considering proposals on that matter in the very near future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, has asked for a task force. The Government will carefully consider all the suggestions made in this helpful debate. I want to make it clear that autism is a subject that the Government take very seriously. We believe that Autism Awareness Year has an important contribution to make. We shall listen carefully to the messages that emerge from the year.
We have in place a series of actions that will help to bring forward a more effective provision of services. In the coming months the DfES practice guidance on autism will be important. I have said that the Department of Health will also consider issuing complimentary guidance to the NHS and to social service authorities. We shall continue to pursue our constructive dialogue with the MRC on autism research. The further £2.5 million that we have allocated will enhance that. I also emphasise the critical importance of the decision that autism will be used as an exemplar in the forthcoming children's National Health Service framework.
We have some good building blocks, but there are considerable challenges ahead. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington that not least of those is ensuring a co-ordinated response and helping children and families to find their way through the many agencies that have responsibility in this area.
In conclusion, the Government are determined that services for everyone with autism shall continue to improve. We shall continue to work on what more we need to do to improve services for people across the autistic spectrum. That will include listening carefully to the messages that emerge from Autism Awareness Year. I conclude by thanking my noble friend Lady Uddin for bringing these issues to our attention.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before one o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Employment Bill

    The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
    [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]:
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before the Committee begins, it has been agreed through the usual channels that as soon as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rises to speak in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn, because the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, have to take part in the Consignia Statement. The Committee will reconvene as soon as the first Statement is finished. I would remind Members of the Committee that there will be no Divisions in the Grand Committee; noble Lords will speak standing.
    Clause 33 [Complaints about grievances]:
    Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 147:
    Page 37, line 39, leave out "28" and insert "14"
    The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 147, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 149. This brings us to Clause 33 which is, without doubt, the most controversial clause in the Bill. The CBI favoured it greatly and in fact it would be no exaggeration to say that the CBI sees it as the main force which it hopes will reduce the hearings by some 30,000 to 40,000. It urges the Government not to weaken as regards excluding claims. If Clause 33 does not do its job, the CBI says that it will come back and ask for it in another form to make it more effective in excluding the total number of claims. From that point of view, this is a very important clause for employers.
    On the other hand, if we go to the other extreme, Judge Prophet regards it as a degrading clause which blatantly disregards the legal entitlements of the applicant. This is very controversial. The Law Society thinks that the Government should take it away and tear it up. It believes that Clause 31 would do the job of Clause 33 if the tribunals were given a certain amount of discretion. It says that it is misconceived. Quite recently—although I do not think we have not mentioned it in our debate so far in this Chamber—the Joint Committee on Human Rights looked at this clause. They did so, largely because they were asked to by Judge Prophet. He wrote to them and said, as I have said, that it was a terrible Bill. This committee of both Houses looked at it.
    I would like to ask the Government a question about what they said before I come to our amendment, which is related to that. The Joint Committee said at page 9 of its report that the power that was given to the Secretary of State in Clause 33 of the Bill was extremely wide. They were concerned about the extremely wide powers
    CWH 322
    given to the Secretary of State in this clause and so they felt they should ask the Secretary of State several questions about it, and in particular whether it was compatible with Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Before they could get replies, the Government came in, and I would I; ke to ask whether that was the result of what the Goliernment had felt. It may be that the Committee might conclude that. The Government came in in another place and suddenly produced a completely new version of Clause 33. The committee of both Houses looked at this clause and thought it was a great improvement but did not think it was satisfactory. It said, and I quote from page I I of its report:
    "Nevertheless, we regret that the safeguards for fairness contemplated by the new clause 33(5)"—
    I am not dealing with that in my amendment but with the clause in general—
    "would be left to be provided in subordinate legislation. It makes it difficult for Parliament as a whole, and for this Committee in particular, to form a view about the compatibility of proposed legislation with Convention rights when important safeguards are not included on the face of the Bill".
    We have been making that point over and over and over again with little effect in this Committee. It continued:
    "If it will be possible to draft regulations specifying with sufficient clarity the circumstances in which a tribunal would be able to entertain a claim notwithstanding the late completion of the statutory dispute resolution procedures, we do not see why similarly drafted provisions could not be included on the face of the Bill".
    That is what we have been asking for.
    "This would both further enhance legal certainty, and facilitate the task of Parliament in satisfying itself, where necessary, as to the proportionality of the restriction of Convention rights".
    It then says:
    "We draw these matters to the attention of each House".
    I want to draw these matters to the attention of the Government. I am asking whether the Government have considered paragraph 24 of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and what their answer is. Is the Joint Committee not right? If it were possible to set out draft regulations with sufficient clarity when they were produced as regulations, is it not clear that they could be put on the face of the Bill? Is it not right that that would further enhance legal certainty and facilitate the task of Parliament? Now that we have reached Clause 33, I believe that we are entitled to ask the Government what they feel about this important suggestion.
    I turn to my amendment, which seeks to modify the effects of Clause 33 as it stands. It is an attempt to limit the wideness or generality of the clause and access the barriers in it. Amendment No. 149 concerns the role of tribunals. We are saying that:
    "Where an employment tribunal considers it to be just and equitable, the tribunal [should be able to] accept a complaint from an employee even though it fails to satisfy the conditions stated in subsections (2) and (3)"—
    I shall come to that—
    "and in such a case the chairman shall notify the applicant accordingly".

    CWH 323
    In other words, we ask for a little flexibility. We say that, if the employment tribunal considers that it is just and equitable, even if these rules have not been applied completely and satisfactorily, it should have some kind of reserve power to grant that the applicant may go forward.
    Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 deal with the delays which are imposed upon the clause. I have looked very carefully—I am sure that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has looked even more carefully—but I have not found in any of the statements made in another place where the Government obtain their delaying power. It is possible to argue that there is a case for writing or asking for a letter and saying that, unless one has a letter, one cannot go forward. However, if the individual applicant has met that fairly small demand, why should there be a 28-day pause? That has never really been explained. Why should the delay not be 21 or 14 days? That is what we are suggesting because we are trying to be modest.
    As regards Amendment No. 148, why is a person allowed only one month in addition to the usual originating period to complete the procedures? Why is the period not two months? Where do the Government obtain these figures? If we take the case where an applicant has done everything that he is expected to do and where the employer has done everything that he is expected to do but they have not reached a settlement, they cannot get together. No one appears to be doing anything at this point. It is not possible to involve ACAS. We have tabled a subsequent amendment which brings ACAS into this dead period, but the Government want a 28-day period during which nothing is done. Of course, one might say that in that 28-day period the parties may get together, but they may not. Where does the 28-day period come from? What is the explanation for the delay?
    If one took a cynical approach one would say that, faced with a delay of 28 days—maybe the CBI takes this view—a significant number of workers will just get fed up, or they will be out of a job or they will say, "Oh. I can't be bothered with that for 28 days—nothing has happened". We should remember that that does not mean that at the end of 28 days you get to a tribunal. As I have said several times in Committee, no one knows how long it takes to get to a tribunal; that is kept very quiet.
    We should ask the critical question from the moment when domestic settlement fails at stage 1 or from the moment when ACAS conciliation fails at stage 2; that is, how long does it take for the average case to get a hearing? Nobody knows; they do not tell you. If you ask they say, "It's very varied, very queer and very strange. We wouldn't know if we told you. You wouldn't be better off". In the end they say, "We don't collect it anyway".
    We only know that the process is not quick. We only know by hearsay—by apocrypha—that it takes quite a long time in the end to get to a tribunal. Why, therefore, do we have to add a statutory, fixed and rigid 28 days? That is the question that is raised by the amendment.
    CWH 324
    I hope that the Government will consider the amendment and that they will try, in response to one of our many amendments to Clause 33, to come a little closer to the spirit and intention of paragraph 24 of the report. I beg to move.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I follow my noble friend to say, first, how important the clause is generally. It is the crux of the apparatus of this unfair part of the Bill. Secondly, I have studied, as my noble friend suggested, every line of debate in Committee in another place and all the documents that the Government have produced. I cannot find, as he says, any explanation for the one-month zero delay.
    In another place, the Minister, Alan Johnson, said that the Government were still thinking about the matter and that even when the worker had completed the necessary first step, they might require a four-week delay. He did not say for what. Perhaps he was thinking hopefully for a settlement of the case, because the object of this part of the Bill is to stop cases getting to tribunals. However, as my noble friend said, nothing has been vouchsafed as to why this is the right period. Have the Government done any research? Is there an unpublished research document perhaps, which shows that in 24 days you get more settlements than in 29? What have the Government done about this'? Have they some figures that we have not seen?
    I believe that our amendment has almost as little justification as the Bill. We have chosen 14 days not because we know that there are more settlements in the first 13 than in the first 27 but to ask the Government about the rationale of the figure. Or have they simply clutched a figure out of the air in agreement with the CBI? Is that what the CBI wanted? Is that what it asked for? I ask the Minister seriously, is that what the CBI asked for? Perhaps he will tell us. If it asked for that, did it advance some reasons of which we do not know?
    I strongly support the amendment. At least a reduction in the period will reduce the period in which a worker with a good case, who has completed the step that the Government demand of him or her, will be stopped from entering access to justice—stopped from entering the door of the tribunal—which is the only place where his rights can be enforced.
    3.45 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): I shall deal with the amendments first, and then deal with the point of principle that was raised by my noble friend Lord McCarthy about human rights material. In dealing with the specific amendments, I hope I will be able to answer the questions that have been raised by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn.
    As my noble friend Lord McCarthy said, under Clause 33, certain complaints cannot be presented to a tribunal under the Bill unless they meet a number of conditions, which are related to the statutory grievance procedure. We refer to these conditions, if I may, as the "admissibility criteria", which are set out in subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 33.

    CWH 325
    Two of the criteria have time limits within them. Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 seek to change those time limits. However, both my noble friend Lord McCarthy and my noble friend Lord Wedderburn have said quite frankly that the reason that they tabled the amendments is to try to elucidate an explanation from the Government about what the bases are of the chosen time limits.
    The first criterion, at subsection (2), stipulates that the employee must have sent a Step 1 communication to the employer, setting out his or her grievance. The second criterion, at subsection (3), states that at least 28 days should have passed following the sending of that communication, before a complaint can be presented. Amendment No. 147—the first of the three amendments—seeks to halve that time limit to 14 days. Why did we set the 28 day period? Not because the CBI asked us to; there is no particular research that says that 28 days is the right course. In setting the 28 day period, we had to balance two considerations. First, we did not want to set a period that was too long and which would unnecessarily delay an employee's access to the tribunal system. We think that 28 days is not too long to wait. Secondly, we wanted to ensure that there was a sufficiently long period to provide a window of opportunity for the parties to try to resolve their differences between themselves.
    Within our proposed 28 day period, it should be possible in many cases—obviously, however, I accept that this is not possible in every case, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy rightly said—for the parties to meet at least once and to establish a dialogue. They may also take other steps, outside the statutory procedure, to try to clarify and unravel their problems. In our judgment, a 14-day period would be too short. It would give inadequate time for the parties to work through issues before legal action is taken. We know that the making of a tribunal application can create new tensions and distrust between employer and employee. It often makes it more difficult for parties to find a solution to their difficulties for themselves. That is ultimately a matter of judgment, not of science. Our judgment was informed by discussions with the TUC, the CBI and others. We believe that on balance it is the correct one.
    Amendment No. 148—
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend, who has explained how the Government considered the matter. Did they consider that what they call "their problem" for the employer and employee would involve a number of cases in which an unreasonable employer—there would be a number of cases, perhaps a minority—has subjected a worker to a detriment? My noble friends may perhaps be better able than I am to think of an example. Let us take a case in which an employer has unfairly and improperly set the employee on a course on which he gets no more overtime. Perhaps that has been going on for some weeks, after which the employee might say, "That is a breach of his contract of employment. You have treated me in a way that's unfair. So I write you a letter". Then the situation goes
    CWH 326
    on. If it is an unreasonable employer, he may well not come to an accommodation and give the employee overtime working.
    Have the Government considered what happens to the worker during those 28 days, when his income is reduced? Is it the Government's intention that workers should remain in the position of detriment and disadvantage? Of course, it is not their intention that they should remain at a disadvantage. My noble friend hopes that there will be a settlement, but I have cited a case where there plainly will not be a settlement. There are such cases. Why should the worker suffer because the Government have plucked a figure out of the air with no research? They have had plenty of opportunity to carry out some research on this matter. I honestly believed that I did not know about a piece of research which existed. They have carried out no research and they are going to subject workers to a detriment for 28 days because they consider that to be the right period. Is that really the position?
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is the position. Ultimately, it is a matter of judgement. In considering the correct period, the Government and those advising them have sought to take a balanced view in relation to all sorts of cases, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn very frankly accepted, not with a view to prolonging unnecessarily detriment but with a view to trying to promote the use of grievance procedures to resolve settlements. In some cases, the effect of promoting the use of the grievance procedure in this way will be to bring the detriment to an end more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.
    I turn to Amendment No. 148, which seeks to change the time limit set by subsection (4). This stipulates a time limit within which the Step 1 action should be taken. Perhaps I may again explain the thinking behind subsection (4), which I believe is the purpose of the amendment. At present, tribunals will accept an application if it is made within the normal time limit for making applications so long as the complaint falls within the tribunal's jurisdiction. In most cases, the normal or original time limit is three months. However, as a consequence of Clause 33, such previously admissible applications will no longer be accepted by tribunals if the applicants have not first sent a Step 1 communication to the employer or waited for the 28 days, as I have already mentioned. We want to give individuals a chance to retrieve the situation; in other words, we want to give them scope to make a second application which meets the new admissibility criteria where their original one did not.
    To achieve that outcome, we recognise that it will often be necessary for the tribunal to grant an extension of the normal time limit within which an application should be made. Under Clause 32 the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations enabling tribunals to grant such extensions. We envisage that the time limit would normally be extended from three to six months.
    However, extensions potentially create problems. An extension might mean that the employer would remain in ignorance of the employee's concerns for a

    CWH 327
    long time; for example, as long as five months could go by before the Step I letter is sent. In our view, that is too long. Obviously, memories of the event which gave rise to the grievance might fade. The passage of time might make it more difficult to find a solution. Therefore, we have set a third criterion at subsection (4) which deals with this issue. It requires the employee to have taken the Step I action within the first month of the extended time limit for making applications. In most cases of this kind, that would mean that the employee should have taken the Step I action within four months of the event which gave rise to the complaint.
    Amendment No. 148 seeks to extend that by a further month. As I have already indicated, and for the reasons given, we believe that that is too long. The later a grievance is aired, generally the harder it is to resolve a problem. The Bill is about encouraging dispute resolution. We do not believe that this amendment is compatible with that objective.
    I do not take the view that we would somehow be rushing the employee in any way. Members of the Committee should remember that this criterion will come into play only where the employee has already sent an inadmissible application to a tribunal; in other words, he has already set out his complaint in writing. It should therefore be an easy matter for the employee to set out the grievance again in the form of a letter to the employer.
    Finally, I should point out that subsection (5) enables tribunals to be given scope to use their discretion when applying this third criterion. We know that there may be circumstances where it might take some time for the tribunal to decide whether the Step 1 action has been taken. There may be some administrative delay. Importantly, it might take time for the tribunal to decide whether the employee should be exempted from the need to send the Step I letter. In either case, a tribunal might not decide that an application was inadmissible until four months or more had elapsed. We would envisage providing that in such circumstances the tribunal should not apply the subsection (4) criterion.
    That brings me to the final amendment in this group—Amendment No. 149. This amendment gives the tribunal discretion to disapply the first two criteria as well if it considers it just and equitable to do so. The amendment will create new uncertainty. It would lead to extra processing by the tribunal system. Almost inevitably, it would greatly increase the number of preliminary hearings that needed to be held to decide whether an application was admissible. In fact, I believe that it would be necessary in all cases in which either criterion was not met. How else could the tribunal be satisfied that it was just and equitable to prevent an application from being made?
    The criteria that already exist in the Bill are simple to understand. In most cases, they should be easy to apply. We recognise that there may be special cases in which, in the interests of fairness, employees should not be required to send the Step 1 communication. In particular, the exemption would apply to cases in
    CWH 328
    which violence or severe harassment has occurred or may result. The exemptions would be set out in the regulations. Tribunals would need to decide whether an exemption should apply, where it is claimed. In difficult cases, we will be giving discretion to the tribunals to decide whether the exemption should apply.
    Also, as I have explained, we shall be ensuring that people who have made an inadmissible application can come back with a second application at a later stage. We are not closing off all access to the tribunals; far from it. There is therefore no need in our view to give this extra discretion to the tribunals.
    I turn to the point raised by my noble friend Lord McCarthy about the human rights issue. The noble Lord read paragraph 24 of the 12th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which deals with the point about primary and secondary legislation. I refer noble Lords to paragraph 29 of the same report, which states:
    "We conclude that the Secretary of State is entitled to take the view that the interference with access to the tribunal which the new version of clause 33 might cause would not be likely to impair the very essence of the right of access to a tribunal, and would therefore be unlikely to give rise to a violation of Article 6(1) on this ground".
    Lord McCarthy: The Minister is not dealing with paragraph 24.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not; I want to deal with the matter overall.
    Lord McCarthy: I want a response to paragraph 24. These matters were drawn to the attention of each House. Paragraph 29 has nothing to do with paragraph 24. Having drawn the matter—that is, that this issue should not be left to subordinate legislation—to the Minister's attention, will he deal with it in the Bill?
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is for the Committee to decide whether my noble friend Lord McCarthy is right. It is irrelevant if the Committee, having referred to the process issue, concluded in relation to the substantive issue that there was likely to be no infringement of human rights. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, might regard that as the more important of the two issues—the other being the process issue. That is a matter entirely for the Committee to judge. The one point at which I should certainly take issue with him is that the matter is "irrelevant".
    On my noble friend's point about the process issue rather than the substantive issue, I certainly respect the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but it is not always practicable to put provisions in primary rather than secondary legislation simply because the former course would demonstrate ECHR compatibility, which in fact the committee thinks is demonstrated anyway. That is the position in this case.
    We want to consult properly on the detail of the procedures contemplated by Clause 33 before making regulations. To put those details on the face of the Bill would remove part of the procedure into primary

    CWH 329
    legislation. That is not necessary, particularly when the committee said in relation to Clauses 29 and 30 that it broadly thinks there is compatibility. With respect to my noble friend, his point does not have that much force.
    Turning to an entirely different subject, this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn for the Statement on Consignia. The Committee will resume immediately after the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has now been speaking for three minutes, and I know that certain Members of the Committee are involved.
    [The Sitting was suspended from 4.1 to 5.7 p.m.]
    Lord Gladwin of Clee: Before my noble friend Lord McCarthy replies, I want to ask the Minister an unfair question. Will there be a definition of "present" in the regulations?
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand that the employment tribunal regulations establish what constitutes presentation. There have been many cases about that, to which I am sure my noble friend alludes. One should not present a complaint to an employment tribunal; the presentation of a complaint is a legal concept in many other employment Bills. The matter has been frequently discussed in cases, and I think—I shall have to check this—that it is referred to in the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Perhaps I may write to my noble friend about that.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps my noble and learned friend will take on board the fact that the regulations refer to presenting an originating application. That was the thrust of my noble friend's question.
    Lord McCarthy: On Amendments Nos. 147 and 148, the Government say that they have no evidence and no research and that they do not know why they gave the figures; however, they did so. On Amendment No. 149, they said something about the matter being uncertain. To whom would it be uncertain? We are trying to get not certainty but a small window of chance for the applicant. If that is uncertain, that would be unfortunate. However, no one wants to know about that.
    I take the Minister back to what he said—or rather, what he did not say—about paragraph 24 of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I do not want to go into paragraph 29. That paragraph was not discussing what was in paragraph 24. However, let us not argue about that.
    Paragraph 24 recommends three things. First, it wants the provisions of Clause 33(5) to be included in the Bill. It states that it makes it more difficult if they are not on the face of the Bill; therefore, it would be easier if they were. It also seeks to establish whether those provisions are compatible with convention rights. Secondly, it says that if they can be put into the regulations, they can be put on the face of the Bill, so why does the Minister not put them on the face of the Bill? Thirdly, it says that it would facilitate the certainty and assessment of proportionality if that was
    CWH 330
    on the face of the Bill. Those are three assertions — statements or, in a way, arguments—for putting the matter on the face of the Bill. Paragraph 25 states:
    "We draw these matters to the attention of each House'".
    Correct me if I am wrong, but does that not mean that the Government must answer these three points? My question is: when is the Minister going to answer these three points? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 147A to 149 not moved.]
    Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 149ZA:
    Page 38, line 3, at end insert—
    "(4A) Nothing in subsection (3)(b) or (4)(b) shall affect a complaint in respect of which the employer is in the view of the tribunal at the time of communication of the complaint likely to have acted unfairly under the provisions of section 98(2), (4) or (5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (general)."
    The noble Lord said: The amendment is a very small attempt to get a little flexibility. It is, in effect, an attempt to advance fairness criteria—that, in effect, is what that part of the ERA refers to. That does not involve a question of discretion. The previous amendment sought to give the tribunal an element of discretion.
    Our argument involves saying, "Suppose that there is prima facie evidence that comes to the tribunal that the employer has in fact acted in a way which is demonstrably unfair—that there is malice or bias or quite clear evidence of a legal right that is not being granted". Surely it should be the case that because of some technical reason, or accidental reason, that the applicant could not fulfil the terms required by the schedule, the tribunal should be able to say, "In these circumstances, we think the employer has not acted in fairness and therefore we should admit the case to a hearing". I beg to move.
    5.15 p.m.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The type of case to which the amendment refers might be as follows. An employee working in a workplace of, let us say, 20 workers is aggrieved because his contract has been broken by the employer in some way that is detrimental to him. We could say that he has not been paid his wages or that there has been an illegal deduction from his wages. However, being a careful sort of chap, he gets written statements from all other 19 employees to say that they know that that is the case. He then goes one further and he gets an affidavit from his friend, who happens to be a local solicitor—officer of the court—showing that it is as near as one can prove a certainty, or it is at any rate likely, that I he case is open and shut.
    The amendment uses the word "likely" because it adopts the standard of proof that is used in cases of interlocutory injunction in which the High Court will give an injunction in a trade dispute argument. If that is good enough for making an injunction against a union, we thought that it could be the standard of proof required, whereas a serious question to be tried must be proved by affidavits and written statements.

    CWH 331
    We believe that at that point, the tribunal should have not just the discretion but the obligation to say, "This is a case we really ought to hear. This is not a case where, whatever else, the worker should be shut out from access to justice".
    Indeed, I venture to suggest that were the worker to be shut out such a case would not be found attractive in Strasbourg. I submit to the Committee that this is a small, confined, precise but persuasive amendment.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendment seeks to empower the tribunal to dis-apply the relevant time limits where the employee's complaint relates to unfair dismissal and in the view of the tribunal it is likely that the employer acted unfairly. I assume the purpose, rightly, is to ensure that in these cases, the employee can access the tribunal system as early or as late as he chooses.
    Perhaps I may make one point absolutely clear right from the outset. It is not our intention to apply the admissibility criteria to most unfair dismissal cases. My honourable friend Mr Alan Johnson made that absolutely clear, repeatedly, in another place. Dismissals should be processed via the relevant dismissal and disciplinary statutory procedure. It is, therefore, entirely inappropriate to expect the employee thereafter to initiate a grievance on the dismissal in order to access the tribunal system.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble and learned friend appreciates that he has just said that the amendment will apply in the case of a grievance which arises out of such a situation. It is not an attempt to apply it to unfair dismissal as such.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The point I am making is very important. In the vast majority of unfair dismissal cases the admissibility criteria do not apply. There is one category where we expect that it will; namely, in cases of constructive dismissal. I assume that the example of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn was one in which there was unlawful deduction of wages and the employer had not sought to dismiss.
    If he explicitly dismissed, there would be no problem anyway. If, however, there had not been a dismissal and the issue was whether it was a constructive dismissal, the point that is being made by this is that in addition to collecting the 19 witness statements—to which my noble friend referred—the employee might sensibly write a letter to the employer raising the problem. In that case, provided that 28 days have gone by since he sent the Step 1 letter, he would not be debarred from making the unfair dismissal point.
    We believe that there is good reason to apply the time limits to these cases. First, in many instances, the sending of a Step 1 letter, as I have described, should be the first time the employer is acquainted with the employee's complaint. We should give the parties the opportunity to sort out their problems before a tribunal application is made. In our judgment, as we have said in an earlier amendment, 28 days is the right length of time for this. Secondly, I see no justification
    CWH 332
    for not applying the time limit at subsection (4)(b). If we waived that limit, it could in fact encourage the employee to delay the taking of any action under the statutory procedures for many months. That surely cannot be a way to establish dialogue and resolve problems as expeditiously as possible.
    There is another problem with the approach suggested in this amendment. It rests on the need for the tribunal to reach speedy assessments of the strength of the employee's case. I cannot see how that can be done quickly without a preliminary hearing to assess the employer's response. In fact, it might take more than 28 days to reach such difficult decisions. If so, this approach might lead to greater delays in accessing the tribunals. I hope that in the light of those comments, my noble friend will consider withdrawing his amendment.
    Lord McCarthy: Perhaps we have construed the amendment wrongly. The point we are making is, after all, an amendment to Clause 33. That clause does not deal with unfair dismissal; it deals with complaints and grievances. The example that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn gave was not to deal with unfair dismissal. The way I saw this amendment—and if I saw it the wrong way, perhaps we need to take it away and rewrite it on Report—is that it is to introduce a criteria of fairness in. It is trying to say the employer must be reasonable. It is trying to say that the employer must investigate. It is trying to say that if the tribunal has evidence that the employer has transgressed in this respect, it is able to say that it will hear the case. As I see it, it is not narrowly confined to an unfair dismissal situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Razzallmoved Amendment No. 149A:
    Page 38, line 7, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (6.J),"
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 149A is a small drafting amendment and should be taken with Amendment No. I 57A. The point being made is a simple one and this is designed to ensure that an employee does not lose any rights under this clause when the complaint relates to the breach of a statutory right. The rationale is a simple one. The employers are already on notice that they should comply with their statutory duties. As these are the minimum standards of employment protection required by law, we can see no real justification for requiring the employee to bring this to the attention of the employer as a requirement of making a claim. Therefore, these amendments are designed to ensure that the employee does not suffer where the complaint relates to the breach of a statutory right. I beg to move.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: These amendments deal with the situation where the employee may be victimised as a result of exercising the statutory procedures. They seek to ensure that the admissibility criteria—that is, barring somebody from the tribunal—are not applied to cases where there are reasonable grounds for the employee to believe that he would suffer detriment if he invoked the statutory procedures. In

    CWH 333
    such cases, the tribunals would be empowered to admit applications even though the employee had not instigated action under the statutory grievance procedure and had not waited 28 days.
    I have said more than once that we recognise there may be cases where it would be unreasonable to expect individuals to send a Step 1 grievance letter to the employer before being able to access the tribunal system. We do not believe that such exemptions should be widely drawn. The writing of a letter is not generally an intimidating step to take. In any case, the employee would need to set out his grievance in writing if he subsequently makes an application to a tribunal. However, we believe that exemptions should apply in cases where there is a real threat that violence or other serious forms of harassment could result. We intend to set out those exemptions in the regulations.
    These exemptions would go some way to meet the concerns of the noble Lord. Employers who might physically intimidate their employees are often the sort who would consider taking other forms of detrimental action against their staff.
    We are reluctant to introduce a wider exemption along the lines of the amendment. The amendment would considerably increase the scope for employees who want to avoid confronting their employer to try to claim an exemption on the grounds that they might suffer -any detriment", however minor. It would lead to more preliminary hearings by tribunals to ascertain if there were "reasonable grounds" for employees to believe they would be victimised in some form or another.
    I hope I have reassured the noble Lord to some extent and that he will reconsider his amendment.
    Lord Razzall: I thank the Minister for his response. Between now and the Report stage I shall read what he said in Hansard and think about whether we should bring this back in a slightly different form to meet the more restrictive circumstances that he mentioned. I take the point about the subjective nature of the drafting at present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 150:
    Page 38, line 8, after "(4)" insert "if"
    The noble Lord said: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 together. Amendment No. 150 is a proposed drafting amendment and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will view it favourably. We do not think the Bill reads very clearly—in fact, I found someone the other day who was reading it for pleasure and became rather confused.
    Amendment No. 151 refers to the Government's own logic and refers to page 38, line 12. Clause 33(6) states:
    "An employment tribunal shall be prevented from considering a complaint presented in breach of subsections (2) to (4), if …the breach is apparent"—
    from what the employee has said or if,
    CWH 334
    "the tribunal is satisfied of the breach as the result of his employer raising the issue of compliance".
    We think that that should apply only where the employer has raised the point quickly. We think that he should do so within the week, so that everyone knows where they stand.
    That raises a question that perhaps the Committee should have investigated a little more fully. It is prompted by the question that my noble friend Lord Gladwin asked earlier. What does it mean to say that an employee is prohibited from presenting a complaint? It seems to mean that he is prohibited from presenting an originating application, but how is the tribunal to know when he is prohibited? Subsection (6), to which the amendment refers, seems to say that the tribunal can get the knowledge either from what the employee has said—that is, subsection (6)(a)—or, at subsection (6)(b), it can be satisfied as a result of the employer raising the issue of compliance. Such compliance presumably involves compliance with those provisions—that is, subsections (2) to (4). The employee will not know whether the tribunal refuses to allow him to present the complaint, as the section puts it, until the employer has answered it. That, we think, is another reason why the employer should be required to come along and present his information quickly. If that requires a further amendment to the regulations, as it might in terms of the notice and appearance, that could be done—as the Government are so fond of doing—by regulation. I beg to move.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I want to make two brief points. The first relates to subsection (6) and the proposal to put in the words "if, but only if", to emphasise that those are the only two circumstances that will prevent tribunals from hearing complaints. We do not think that that is necessary—we think that it is perfectly clear as it is.
    The second point involves the question whether there should be a time limit within which an employer has to raise the issue referred to in subsection I6)(b). We think there should be such a time limit and we would intend to put one in—dare I say it—by regulations, which can come under subsection (7). We are not sure that seven days is the right period—it sounds too short—but we will consider what the time limit should be when we come to issue regulations under subsection (7).
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he says—not the first part, because those provisions are not very clear as they read. Never mind; our tiny little amendment is rejected. But the spirit of our second amendment is, as I understand it being accepted. Of course, we have got it wrong again—why should the worker have to wait only seven days? He will have to wait longer, it seems. There he is, unjustly treated and unable to have access to justice. We shall return to this matter in the context of human rights in a later amendment. We have not finished with human rights yet in relation to access to justice. He will have to wait for longer than seven days.

    CWH 335
    We regret that that is going to be inregulations and we would like to know where we stand now. However, in light of what my noble and learned friend said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5.30 p.m.
    [Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 152:
    Page 38, line 15, at end insert—
    "(6A) An employer against whom a complaint has been made which relates to a jurisdiction to which this section applies shall not be permitted to enter an appearance to the proceedings where—

    (a) the complaint concerns a matter to which a requirement of Schedule 2 applies, and the requirement has not been complied with, or

    (b) the requirement has been complied with but 14 days have passed since the day on which the employer received a copy of the originating application.

    (6B) Where subsection (6A) applies—

    (a) the chairman of the tribunal shall notify the employer accordingly that no appearance may be entered: and

    (b) rule 3(3) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 (S.1. 2001/1171) shall apply only with the exclusion of paragraphs (a) to (e)."

    The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to produce, in this evil Clause 33, which is going to become Clause 32, an even-handed evilness. The Minister is amused by that notion. I do not know why because there is a sense in which the clause is based on such notions.
    The clause prohibits an employee from access to justice if the conditions of the clause are not satisfied. That is why it was considered so carefully against the provisions of Article No. 6 of the convention by your Lordships' Joint Committee on Human Rights. That is why there was such a long and profound consideration of Clause 33, together with Clause 31.
    The employee suffers those disadvantages. It seems to us that the clause would be more even-handed, on the Government's own logic, if the employer had some obligations under it. The basic obligation of the employee is to complete the statutory imposed procedure. If that is the hypothesis, the worker must do what the procedure requires if he is going to get to a tribunal. That is sauce for the goose. However, why, as sauce for the gander, if the employer does not complete what the statutory procedure requires of him—both as a matter of statute and we know as an implied term of all his contracts of employment—should he be in better case?
    What is the equivalent and parallel disadvantage that the respondent suffers compared with the disadvantage an applicant suffers? The applicant cannot present his case. The only possible parallel and similar disadvantage for a respondent is to lose his case. Therefore, the amendment provides that when the employer has a complaint made against him which
    CWH 336
    relates to the jurisdiction within the compass of Section 33—that is, within the compass of Schedule 4—
    "(a) the complaint concerns a matter to which a requirement Schedule 2 applies, and the requirement has not been complied with, or
    (b) the requirement has been complied with but 14 days have passed since the day on which the employer received a copy of the originating application".
    My noble and learned friend may not like the wording of paragraph (b), but we have inserted 14 days because that was the logic of our previous amendment to amend 28 days to 14. However, if the Government prefer 28 days as a price of accepting the amendment, we shall be quite happy.
    In those circumstances, the employer is not permitted to enter an appearance; that is to say, he loses the case. That is the precise parallel to the applicant who when he did not complete the requirements of the schedule he could not even present the case and he could not possibly win it.
    We have added to that as new subsection (6B), that in those circumstances where notice of appearance is not permitted—that is exactly parallel to the employee not being allowed to present his case—the chairman of the tribunal should notify the employer accordingly. We then include amendments to Rule 3(3) of the Employment Tribunal rules, which we apprehend will be necessary if in such circumstances the rules were not to be made absurd.
    I could go into the detail of what we exclude, but noble Lords will by now be such experts in the details of the employment tribunal regulations and rules, that I doubt it is necessary for me to do so. I beg to move.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As I understand the amendment, subsection (6A) is saying that where the employer has not completed the statutory procedure, he shall not be allowed to enter an appearance and defend the proceeding. I am not sure whether subsection (6B) is intended to apply only where he has not completed the statutory procedure.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Yes, where (6A) applies.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Therefore, it is not a situation which would apply only where he has failed to enter an appearance. There also has to be the failure to comply with the procedure.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble and learned friend is right to the extent that the new subsection (6B) begins where subsection (6A) applies. Subsection (6A) applies in the circumstances set out.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Namely, the failure by the employer to complete the procedure. The way in which my noble friend puts it is that this would be "even-handed evil". He says that if the employee is debarred where he has not completed the procedure, so should the employer be debarred by parity of

    CWH 337
    reasoning. Parity of reasoning would equal not being able to defend, just as the employee cannot bring the proceedings.
    There are two answers to that. First, the employee is not debarred where he has failed to complete the procedure. He is debarred only where he has failed to send the Step I letter and wait for the 28 days to pass. The way it has been put in argument is "complete the procedure", so it would not be even-handed at all. Secondly, we do not believe in any event that it would be appropriate to debar the employer from defending because the purpose of the tribunal is to deal with disputes that have not been resolved. The purpose of Clause 33 is to promote resolution of these disputes by, where there is a grievance, the employee at least beginning the grievance procedure.
    We do not accept the basic detailed premise because completion is not the same as simply Step 1 and the 28-day period. Secondly, in any event we do not think there is parity in the way that my noble friend puts his case. In the light of that, I would ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing both amendments.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I shall, of course, since the Government object, have no option but to withdraw the amendments. However, my noble and learned friend points out a way in which the amendment should have been longer. We have tried to keep our amendments as short as possible—like our debates. It is true that it would be better to say that where an employer has not complied with the procedure, and where a certain period has passed, the Government would have 28 days; or where they have not complied with it, or after whatever period has passed, the employer should not be allowed to defend.
    It seemed to me that my noble and learned friend accepted that if we had got it right in terms of the delay period, there would he a parallel.
    Lord Falconer of Thornton: No, I did not. I again failed to make myself clear. First, I made the point about completion of procedure as opposed to one step only. Even if that point had been dealt with, the proposal would not be the right way to deal with the problem. Those were my two separate points.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I concentrate on the second argument. The first point is a matter of wording and the right time period. If we had got that right, it still would not be appropriate. Why is that? It would not be appropriate because then our amendment would be precise and even-handed. If you stop the worker from bringing a case, within which is the proposition that you stop the worker from winning his case because he does not do what you want, you will not stop the employer from bringing his case because it does not do what you want. That is all there is to it. The words of the amendment could no doubt be improved and I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for improving them.
    The second argument he deploys is surely little less than bizarre, except—and I have to say this and I hope that my noble friends will note it—it be on the
    CWH 338
    philosophy of Part 3 of the Bill. I refer to the fact that workers will suffer and employers will not because there is a desperate need to prove to somebody— whether it is the CBI, I do not know—all these dreadful hearings at employment tribunals are going to be stopped. That is what lies behind it, and the only way you can stop that is by being unfair to workers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 153:
    Page 38, line 15, at end insert—
    "( ) In the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/1171) in Schedure 1, after rule 6 there shall be inserted—
    "(6A) Where the Secretary is of opinion that the originating application or other complaint is in breach of section 33 of the Employment Act 2002, he shall give notice to the applicant of this opinion and the reasons for it only after obtaining a decision attic chairman that his opinion is correct.""
    The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 153, I speak also to Amendment No. 155 to which my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden in particular will also speak.
    Amendment No. 153 is in our view very important. I am advised by those who are most experienced in the administration of employment tribunals that it is a matter which already causes some concern ever as the procedure and practice of tribunals stand now.
    It raises this point. When a worker communicates—in the future, I suppose, on the necessary form, or at the moment in any sort of writing—with a tribunal office in his locality, or as near as he can get to his locality, the decision about what to do with his originating application is often taken by the secretary of the local tribunal.
    I would like to read the dominant rule in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals Regulations which is of particular importance here. It is Rule 1(3):
    "Where the secretary is of opinion that the originating application does not seek, or on the facts stated therein, cannot entitle the applicant to a relief which a tribunal has power co give, he may give notice to that effect to the applicant stating the reasons for his opinion and informing him that the application will not be registered unless he states in writing that he wishes to proceed with it".
    So what the secretary can do at the moment is reply to the communication which purports to be presentation of a complaint and say, "It seems to me that this is not something that you ought to press and I am not going to register it for the moment". But he has to do so if the applicant then states in writing that he wishes to proceed with it.
    That cannot possibly be the situation in regard to the prohibition in Clause 33 against presenting a complaint because that does not operate with the proviso unless the applicant wishes in writing to proceed with it. The prohibition is absolute within the terms of Clause 33(2), (3) and (4).
    Practice at the moment has given rise to a certain amount of concern amongst a number of tribunal chairmen about—to put it neutrally—the burdens

    CWH 339
    which fall upon the secretary of a tribunal, who, as I understand it, is normally not as experienced as a chairman of an employment tribunal needs to be in questions of law or the application of law to the facts, which is what matters.
    As I understand it, this will not at the moment be improved by the intervention of any legal officer—a strange being introduced previously in earlier legislation by this Government into employment tribunal practice. We have not heard much about legal officers. One question I want to ask of the noble and learned Lord is: how many legal officers are there and what are they doing? Will they play a role in communicating the fact that the application or complaint is prohibited from being accepted?
    The amendment refers to the secretary forming an opinion—and he is bound to be the first person who forms an opinion—that the complaint or originating application is in breach of Section 33. It may be that my noble and learned friend does not like the words,
    "in breach of section 33".
    It should perhaps read,
    "is prohibited under section 33".
    Then the secretary gives notice to the applicant of that opinion only after obtaining the decision of the chairman that he is correct. The amendment states that for a very good reason. We are discussing a communication which says that a tribunal has no jurisdiction to accept the presentation of a particular complaint. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will clarify the following. If this is not a matter of jurisdiction, it is at any rate a matter of enforceability. The tribunal is to say to the applicant, "You may have a complaint but it is not enforceable because you cannot present the complaint", which is a materially different way of putting it.
    In that event, some very complex, difficult questions of law and fact—mixed questions of law and fact—will arise. Of course, we cannot tell exactly what the evidence will be because we do not know what the new forms are going to he like. This shows the interaction between Clause 25 and Clause 33. If we knew what the new form was going to be like, we could say, "Well, if they see he has answered the question this way or that way, they might have an initial view"—"they" being first of all the secretary and then, I imagine, inevitably, the chairman. Someone is going to have to speak on behalf of the tribunal to say, "You cannot enter the doors of this tribunal with this complaint".
    No more serious prohibition of access to justice can be imagined. I do not care whether the condition is sending a letter or sending a copy of the letter or standing on one's head! Whatever the condition is, it is a prohibition on access to justice. Therefore, in our view, the decision should be that at least of the chairman. We have not asked for a pre-hearing review in all such cases, although my prediction is—and my noble and learned friend will know this very well; he has been instructed in simple cases of this sort more times than he has had breakfast—if you get instructed in such a case and you are told you cannot present your
    CWH 340
    complaint, you are going to ask why. Further, if they will not give in, I suppose—and perhaps my noble and learned friend will confirm this—your only recourse is to judicial review. You cannot apply to the EAT because there is nothing to appeal against. I may be wrong but will my noble and learned friend just say whether your only recourse is to judicial review? He is briefed; he is instructed in such a case; he has a worthy client and he wants to get to the tribunal. What does he do? He might say, "The secretary told me this and I really do not think the secretary is qualified to interpret Section 33, which will become 32, of the Act".
    It might be a little fairer, at the very minimum, if the person who took this all important decision about whether the portals of justice are open or closed were at least the legally qualified chairman of the tribunal itself. It is simply in quest of that fairness of procedure that this Amendment No. 153 is moved. I beg to move.
    5.45 p.m.
    Baroness Turner of Camden: An amendment to which I had intended to speak—Amendment No. 155—is grouped with Amendment No. 153 because they deal with a very similar issue. As we know—we have been discussing it all afternoon—Clause 33 purports to set out the conditions under which an employee may not present his claim to a tribunal. Amendment No. 155 is very simple. It requires that where the relevant subsections apply and the applicant is not permitted to present a complaint, the chairman of the tribunal must notify the claimant and also set out the reasons for the decision.
    It hardly needs to be said that a person who has got as far as attempting to put his case to a tribunal is very seriously committed and very seriously concerned. Such a decision is not taken lightly. In an earlier debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, who I am sorry to see is not in her place this afternoon, said that sometimes people do not turn up. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree that that is comparatively rare. Generally, people are most concerned about their case, sometimes to the point of being totally obsessive about it. That being so, it surely follows that, if they are not permitted to have their day in court, individuals should be entitled to have the reasons set out and for that to be done authoritatively. In my opinion, the appropriate person to do so is the chairman. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Minister.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I hope that I can put my noble friends' minds at rest. It is not the intention of the Government or the Bill that the secretary should be able to take the final decision on whether a complaint is barred by Clause 33. Ultimately, that must be for the tribunal to decide, although it may be a decision which a chairman can take on behalf of the tribunal.
    Where the tribunal—whether sitting together or via a chairman—makes such a decision, we do not envisage that an appeal could not be made to the employment appeal tribunal. We believe that it should be appealable to that tribunal on the usual grounds. It would obviously be absurd if a special procedure were required in relation to that.

    CWH 341
    Equally, in certain circumstances, we do not consider that it would be wrong for a tribunal or the secretary to a tribunal to write to an applicant and point out that his or her application may be in breach of Clause 33 or that it does not comply with Clause 33. Where that type of advice is given, we do not believe that it would be necessary for the secretary to refer to the chairman or to the tribunal. However, I accept the basic point underlying the remarks of both my noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lady Turner that a decision in relation to barring under Clause 33 should be taken by the tribunal.
    I also accept in principle the point made by my noble friend Lady Turner in Amendment No. 155 that, where a decision to bar is made, normally one would expect a reason to be given for the barring. It is inconceivable that a reason would not be given in such a circumstance because it is such an important decision. I do not know whether one needs to spell that out in regulations, but I imagine that one does not spell out in regulations that in every single interlocutory or similar application reasons need to be given. In those circumstances, it is simply assumed that a chairman will give reasons. I hope that my noble friends' minds are set at rest by the fact that procedurally the principles that we are adopting in relation to this matter are very similar to those that underline the two amendments.
    Lord McCarthy: In that circumstance, can the Minister say why he cannot accept Amendment No. 155 and place this issue on the face of the Bill?
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not believe that it is either appropriate or necessary to do so. Where regulations deal with procedure, which they do in relation to the employment tribunal, it should be dealt with in so far as it is necessary to do so there rather than here.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I understand what my noble and learned friend says. As I understand it, it will be made clear, at least in an amendment of the employment tribunal regulations schedule on the Rules of Procedure, whether they are technically regulations under this section. Obviously, from what he says, I take it that that must mean that there will be some addition; otherwise, under the existing rules that I read out the position of the secretary would be quite absurd. It would suggest that the employee would have a say in whether or not the case should proceed. Obviously, that will not be the case here—the tribunal will decide. I am delighted to hear that. However, I doubt whether that will result in less work for the tribunals and less cost to the respondent. I do not believe that the CBI will be very pleased to hear this.
    If the tribunal reaches such a decision—this is the logic of Section 32 as it will be, Clause 33 as it is—the respondent will manifestly have to be told. My noble friend was right—the matter could be subject to an appeal to the employment tribunal. Every time that a prohibition is pronounced under Clause 33, there could be an appeal to the employment appeal tribunal. I am not sure that that is good news to my noble friend
    CWH 342
    Lord Gladwin, who is, of course, a lay member of the EAT. However, it is good news to me and, as it were, it is good night to the amendment, because I accept the spirit in which my noble and learned friend has addressed it. There will be regulations setting this out and it will be made clear that reasons will be given. I do not regard this in any sense as being a victory for the amendments. It has just shed a little more light on the situation. We are delighted that advisors who are trying to gear up for this new world of prohibition will have a little more information on which to begin drawing up their agenda. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 154:
    Page 38, line 15, at end insert—
    "(6C) This section has no application to a complaint by reason of which the tribunal does or could entertain an application for interim relief."
    The noble Lord said: The amendment stales that, where a complaint could give rise to the remedy of interim relief, Clause 33 should not apply to it.
    Interim relief is an important remedy. It is exceptional, because the employment tribunal has the power to maintain an applicant in his or her employment pending the hearing of an unfair dismissal claim. I immediately say that that could therefore apply to a case that is an unfair dismissal claim on the one hand, including a grievance claim on the other.
    It arises if the applicant is making a claim. The reason for dismissal could be related to trade union membership or activities, a position as a health or safety employee representative, including working time purposes, a position as a trustee of an occupational pension scheme, the making of a protected disclosure or the exercise of rights relating to trade union recognition and de-recognition. It also applies now—after the 1999 Act—to cases that raise the exercise of the right to be accompanied at a grievance or disciplinary proceeding. Section 12 of the 1999 Act makes the question particularly relevant here, because it applies to grievances as well as discipline.
    If a worker claims that interim relief could apply and he is processing a grievance at the same time, the tribunal has to make certain other requirements. It has to be certified by relevant persons as being a suitable case and the tribunal must look at it quickly because it must be lodged within seven days. That is much quicker than most of the time limits which the Government consider appropriate in regard to the clause.
    The tribunal can then make an interim order, either of reinstatement or re-engagement—I take the two together—and, if the employer does not attend the hearing or refused reinstatement or re-employment, the tribunal can make an order for the interim continuation of a contract of employment. That is a very important jurisdiction and it can arise in regard to

    CWH 343
    grievances that are mixed with disciplinary and dismissal problems. That is important to the worker in a variety of ways. Just to mention one of them, it maintains his statutory continuity of employment. He also has certain rights to compensation.
    In Committee in another place, the Minister, Mr Johnson, said on 18 December:
    "We might want to allow for a delay in the disciplinary procedure should an employee under notices of dismissal make an application to a tribunal for interim relief while the procedure is taking place".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 18/12/01: col. 181.]
    I expect my noble and learned friend to say that in regard to disciplinary procedure, regulations, which are the delphic fount of all wisdom under this Bill, will tell us that something like that might happen. However, it is important to know whether a similar provision will be made in regard to the application of Clause 33. No one seems to have told the Minister in another place that the problem could arise where a disciplinary dismissal also gave rise to a complaint under a grievance procedure. I read in a previous sitting the paragraph in the ACAS code that points that out. ACAS knows very well that grievances and disciplinary procedures are not mutually exclusive.
    The problem of interim relief has been highlighted by the recent case of Parkins v Sodexho Ltd [2002] IRLR 109. In that case, Mr Parkins was an employee of Sodexho, when he was summarily dismissed. He claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed because he complained about a health and safety matter—which does happen—because he had made what is now called a "protected disclosure", and that he had been dismissed in breach of contract as well as improperly as a health and safety representative.
    The question of interim relief arose and the EAT—to whom the matter had to be appealed because the tribunal considered there was no power to grant interim relief—in effect held that that was not correct, although on the facts, it remitted the case to another tribunal to decide certain issues that arose. The case has already given rise to a considerable amount of comment in regard to the application of interim relief, especially in connection with protected disclosures. They are the subject of a later amendment, which was tabled by my noble friend Lord Borrie, to which we shall come. It is, therefore, a matter of some importance to make it clear that where interim relief—that important remedy for workers who are unjustly treated on the list of grounds that I have set out—can be given the remedy of relief on the complaint that they wish to bring in regard to a dismissal in connection with which a grievance procedure might have to be operated under Clause 33. In that case, we submit that the prohibition should not apply. I beg to move.
    6 p.m.
    Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This important amendment gives me an opportunity to explain the position. It concerns the interaction between the admissibility regime and the established system of interim relief. Speed is of the essence where interim
    CWH 344
    relief comes into play. I can therefore fully understand my noble friend's concern about the matter. Interim relief applies to particular cases of unfair dismissal—for example, in cases where the reason for a dismissal was the carrying out of the duties of a health and safety representative.
    As I have already made clear, with one exception, we do not intend the admissibility regime to apply to cases of unfair dismissal. Because the admissibility regime will not generally apply to unfair dismissal cases, it would not interfere with the system of interim relief. The exception to that rule concerns the case of constructive dismissal. In relation to the decided case in the employment appeal tribunal, to which my noble friend Lord Wedderburn referred in his argument, there will be no impact at all because the admissibility criteria would not apply to it. That is because, as I understood from the extract my noble friend read from the case, it was not a constructive dismissal case but a summary dismissal case. Therefore, there would be no problem.
    However, we recognise that the issue my noble friend raises in connection with interim relief has significance in relation to the constructive dismissal case. In devising our detailed proposals on the application of the admissibility regime to constructive dismissal cases, we will be mindful to avoid limiting access to interim relief in those particular cases, which are limited in number, where it is currently potentially available. This means that we will consider making special provision for this category of case when drafting the regulations under this clause.
    I hope that in the light of those reassurances my noble friend will feel much reassured.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am delighted to hear what my noble and learned friend says and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 156:
    Page 38, line 15, at end insert—
    "(6E) This section shall not affect the right of an employee to present to a court a complaint concerning a breach of his contract of employment, or the conduct or outcome of such proceedings."
    The noble Lord said: It could just be that the Government's reply to Amendment No. 156 is that it is not necessary. But it is. It says that the section, which is still Section 33, is not to affect,
    "the right of an employee to present to a court a complaint concerning a breach of his contract of employment, or the conduct or outcome of such proceedings".
    The matter arises because in Clause 30, the Government chose—for reasons which they have not yet explained in legal terms—to make the statutory procedures and the requirement to observe them, an implied term of every contract of employment. That structure therefore impacts upon two quite different jurisdictions. Obviously, the place in which a breach of the contract of employment is remedied is the ordinary court, county court or High Court. Until a few years

    CWH 345
    ago, that would have been an end of it. However, a few years ago the jurisdiction of the employment tribunals was extended—quite sensibly, in my submission—to include cases based on the breach of a contract of employment, other than cases that arise from breach of health arid safety obligations.
    The Bill, therefore, in making the obligation to observe the statutory procedures in Schedule 2 a contractual obligation—or, as some have analysed it, a contractual as well as statutory obligation—impacts upon both jurisdictions. It is this question of the double jurisdiction which makes it necessary to be absolutely clear that nothing in Clause 33 can possibly prejudice the position of the employee in the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts based on common law for breach of contract of employment.
    It may be that the Government do not want to make that clear because in doing so one also makes clear that the employee who can afford it, or who has the opportunity, might be better advised to go into the county court rather than into what was supposed to be the cheap and easy access to remedy employment injustices; the employment tribunal. So we might confirm, merely, that there will be an increase in common law actions in the ordinary courts. However, surely the intention is not that there should be an increase in litigation, but that if there be litigation it is open to the employee to go to the ordinary courts, untrammelled by the conditions of Clause 33.
    It would be expected of me to add the comment that it is fairly rare for modern employment protection legislation to make the obligations of the parties into implied contract of employment terms. It was done in the Equal Pay Act 1970 and it arises under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, Section 17. It can also he said to arise under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, Section 185. However, in those cases, clear rights are being set out and, for various policy reasons, implied into the contract of employment.
    In this case there are rights and obligations which are not at all clear. Indeed, every time we probe them we are told that we will understand them only after we have seen a whole flurry of regulations. So this is a very strange and uncertain case. The regulations could say something that might affect the county court or High Court case. If' the Government are so sure about their drafting of the regulations, they would no doubt say that will not be so. But why not give a guarantee that it will not be so? The only guarantee to be given is in the Act itself—here the Bill itself—which this amendment seeks to make plain.
    There is another point which is of importance in regard to this amendment, and it is this. Because the statutory procedures will be part of the contract of employment, and when they are not fulfilled there will be a breach of the contract of employment, the common law courts—or the appellate courts generally—may have to reconsider recent case law, and it is no doubt that the Government have given some thought to that consequence.
    CWH 346
    Let me put it this way. The implied term which the Act will require—namely, that the parties act properly under the statutory procedures, in particular in regard to discipline as well as grievances—mean that for the law generally the employer is being required to deal properly and adequately with grievances and also to act properly in regard to dismissal. It may be that the Government took the course of implying that, as an obligation in the contract of employment, because of the recent cases of Goold (Pearmak) v McConnell [1995] IRLR 516 and Waltons & Morse v Dorrington [1997] IRLR 588, which is no doubt known to the Minister.
    In both those cases, the EAT, particularly Mr Justice Morison, held that as a matter of common law the contract of employment had within it the implied term,
    "that employers will reasonably and promptly afford a reasonable opportunity to their employees to obtain redress of any grievance".
    The requirement that they state grievance procedures in the Employment Rights Act, as it now is, was held to support the view that it was a contractual obligation to provide procedures for grievances—a point much overlooked by many small employers.
    If that is the reason why the Government have included the statutory procedures as implied terms in the contract of employment, then, in my submission, it follows that the employer is under an obligation to act properly in a general sense with regard to dismissal. The power of dismissal must be moderated within the confines of the procedures; so, too, must the power and duty to have regard to grievances.
    Many commentators already take the view, and I suspect will soon give vent to their views in print, that this will require your Lordships' Judicial Committee to reconsider the decision in Johnson v Unysis [2001]. House of Lords ICR 480. In Johnson v Unysis a decision was made by your Lordships' Judicial Committee that—if I may express it in this way—one cannot complain of a procedural or abusive dismissal as a breach of contract by reason of the way in which it was conducted. The statutory procedure, as an implied term in the contract of employment, introduces precisely the opposite concept—that is, that one can complain where it is not conducted properly and one can complain where grievances are not conducted properly.
    Therefore, it is an implication into the law of contract of the most profound kind which, one suspects, has never been thought through properly by those who have drawn up the Bill because no one anywhere has ever explained in Routes to Resolution, in the background document, in the responses to consultation, in the Committee in another place or anywhere else why they took the very interesting and profoundly important view that this should be implied in the contract of employment. It is a matter of great importance for the law generally to reaffirm and make clear on the face of the Bill that nothing in Clause 33 affects the common law jurisdiction with regard to

    CWH 347
    actions for breach of a contract of employment, or, as the amendment states, their conduct or outcome. I beg to move.
    6.15 p.m.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment before us is relatively limited and I can deal with it fairly straightforwardly. The issues which my noble friend Lord Wedderburn raises about the nature of contracts of employment and the common law, and the examples which he gives, with which, as he knows, I am deeply familiar—he did not rise to that—in particular, with regard to the relationship between Clauses 30 and 33, are of very much wider significance. I do not wish to comment on them off-the-cuff but I want to think about them between now and Report stage. This might be an issue on which he would be willing to meet with and talk to officials and Ministers between now and Report.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I should be delighted to do so if my noble friend would accept that Part 3 of the Bill should be withdrawn.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My offer was not made on that basis. Having said that, and having been as helpful as I believe it is appropriate for me to be, I can be more specific about the amendment. The amendment deals with the ability of an employee to complain to a court that there has been a breach of contract. Under general legal principles, a person who can bring the same claim in two legal forums has to choose which he will use. That applies to an employee who can bring certain claims both in an employment tribunal and in the ordinary courts just as it does to anyone else. If they bring proceedings in the one case, it is accepted that they cannot bring proceedings in the other. The purpose of that is to avoid duplication of claims.
    I cannot see that Section 33 interferes with that position. Indeed, unless it specifically sought to interfere with that position, I do not think it could. If an employee makes an admissible application to the tribunal, the tribunal would accept it and the person would lose his ability to make the same claim in the ordinary courts. Clause 33 does not change that position in any other way—it simply adds to the reasons why a claim may be inadmissible before a tribunal, which is not the subject of this amendment. If a person made an inadmissible application to the tribunal, the tribunal would not accept it. In those cases, I can confirm that the individual is free to go to the courts or to make a second, admissible application to the tribunal. His options are protected.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: We shall look very carefully at what my noble friend said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 157:
    Page 38, line 15, at end insert—
    "(6F) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for this section not to apply to inappropriate cases.
    (6G) In subsection (6F) inappropriate cases include cases where the complaint includes—

    (a) allegations of violence, intimidation, bullying, sexual or racial discrimination or harassment, other forms of unlawful harassment, more than one unlawful deduction from wages, claims based on redundancy and such other matters as the Secretary of State specifies by order; and

    (b) a complaint which relates to a collective grievance.

    (6H) In this section a collective grievance includes any grievance which a recognised trade union has raised, or proposes to raise within seven days, with an employer."
    The noble Lord said: This is in some ways our most ambitious attempt to narrow and define the impact of this clause. I argue that most of what we want to achieve arises out of the scattered remarks of Ministers in various places. In the amendment we refer to the Secretary of State. We accept that this has to be done by regulation because we cannot put detail on the face of the Bill about how the different origins of grievance would be specified. Nevertheless, there should be provision in regulations for the provisions not to apply to inappropriate cases.
    In the amendment, at proposed new subsection (6G)(a), we set out a possible list of inappropriate cases. It refers to
    "allegations of violence, intimidation, bullying, sexual or racial discrimination or harassment, other forms of unlawful harassment, more than one unlawful deduction from wages, claims based on redundancy and such other matters as the Secretary of State specifies by order".
    That is a general collection of points, which I shall discuss in more detail in a moment. New subsection (6G)(b) refers to,
    "a complaint which relates to a collective grievance".
    In subsection (6H) we state what we mean by collective grievance. It states that it,
    "includes any grievance which a recognised trade union has raised, or proposes to raise within seven days, with an employer".
    I cannot say what the logical link is between those various inappropriate categories. I could posit or assume one, but I believe that at one time or another the Government have made statements suggesting that they have some series of factors making them want to take certain things out. Sometimes they seem to have suggested that the individual applicant will not even want to write a letter or will not want any contact with the employer, perhaps in a case of violence or harassment of some sort. At other times they have suggested that there might be a very strong prima facie case of illegality—for example, the refusal to pay redundancy payments. On other occasions, they have said that there could be a strong possibility of distress if the full rigour of the waiting time period is insisted upon.
    Collective bargaining is a special case because the Government have seen that where there is a recognised trade union and a procedure for dealing with grievances on a collective basis—although sometimes

    CWH 349
    on an individual basis—one does not want a parallel system in which non-unionists or other trade unionists want to have separate decisions, or separate grievances, in a context in which there is a procedure for the collective disposal of grievances. I argue that all of those matters come from the intimations and statements of Ministers.
    That prompts one to wonder, beyond the rather shallow attempts on my part to say what the matters all have in common, how the Government see the issue. Clause 33 appears to begin with very general statements. On reading it, we might think that every conceivable grievance is going to come under the list. We also have a general statement about regulations and how the Secretary of State could take certain things out. and put other ones in, which we get in Bills of this kind. Then we have other statements, including, for example, that from Mr Johnson in Committee in another place on 18th December. Another statement was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, at Second Reading. Certain categories are pushed out and talked about. One sometimes reads about that in the newspapers.
    Even if the Government decide—they may very well decide in this way if the future resembles the past—that our list is no good, they might tell us, in general terms, where they got their list from. What are the general characteristics that lead them to qualify the impact of the schedules? I beg to move.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I support the amendment and address myself in particular to proposed new subsection (6G)(b). This concerns what are sometimes called "collective grievances". Rather than read out all the relevant words, I know that Members of the Committee will have closely studied what went on in committee in another place, so I simply refer to columns nos. 122, 180, 181 and 183. On those occasions the Minister, my honourable friend Mr Johnson, stated again and again that it was not the intention of the Government to apply the procedures to collective redundancies, or as he put it elsewhere, collective issues, where the issue is collective and where there is,
    "industrial action where they arise out of a collective dispute"—[official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 18/12/01, col. 183.]
    When an employee decides that he has a grievance that results from unlawful action on the part of the employer, he has to decide what to do. If he is sensible, he will be a member of a trade union, and he will have advice from the local representatives and more senior representatives of his union.
    I make no complaint that the Bill, when it is enacted, will give rise to a great deal of difficulty for trade union representatives. They have had to cope with more than this legislation, but there is a peculiar difficulty because a worker comes to him and the union representative says, "I see that, that's not fair. I think as a matter of fact that it's illegal. You could go to a tribunal. But hang on a minute. Have other people got the same grievance?" The worker would say, "Yes. In fact, nine-tenths of us think that this is monstrous. It
    CWH 350
    has happened to all of us". Is that a collective grievance that is not going to fall within Clause 33 as it is, and Clause 32 as it will be?
    We have tried to prompt the Government—almost to provoke them—into thinking about this matter because our proposed new subsection (6H) offers a definition. It is just a kite to fly. Our definition refers to a grievance that a recognised trade union has raised, or proposes to raise, within the week, with an employer. Is that what collective grievance is going to mean'? It is no good telling us that this has all got to wait for divine guidance to rest upon the officials i n the Department of Trade and Industry who will ell us in tablets of stone marked "Regulations" that this is what it means. There are people who are worrying about this now. They want some guidance. They want a word. They want a hint. They want to know what is in the Government's mind, as my noble friend has said, and that is why I support this amendment.
    6.30 p.m.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I start by saying how much I welcome the form of this amendment. This amendment does not seek to write the regulations on to the face of the Bill but to constrict what the regulations shall do by setting out a statement of what they should cover without attempting to make the wording "set in stone", if I may borrow the analogy of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. To that extent, 1 find it helpful. Indeed, as I have taken part in the proceedings of this Committee, there have been a number of occasions when I have said to the Committee, "We agree with what you want but we have to resist the idea that what you want should be written on the face of the Bill rather than be in regulation". This amendment seeks to achieve what it wants not by writing the regulations but by specifying what they should include. To that extent, it is very helpful.
    Having said that, I have to say that, first, we do have regulatory powers. We have powers in framing the regulations to make exemptions to the admissibility regime, but that is rather a formal point. The amendment enables the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, to specify a wide range of things which should be excluded either because they consider them to be inappropriate or because they raise issues of collective grievance.
    Lord McCarthy: I thought that I explained the matter. We have actually done some research on this; it is not off the tops of our heads. I do not know what I would put in because I do not understand the principles on which the Government put things in and take things out. This is not our list. It is the Minister's list. It is what the Minister said. If the Minister likes, we could bring back all the references tomorrow, but this is what, at one time or another with varying degrees of precision, the Minister has said. I am saying, "Stick your regulations where your mouth is"!
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not disagree with that. I was coming to what we propose to put into

    CWH 351
    regulation and what we do not propose to put into regulation. I thought I was doing so in a fairly constructive way.
    It is our intention to be sparing in setting exemptions. As we have argued with other amendments, most employees should have little difficulty in fulfilling their obligations under this clause. They just have to raise a grievance in writing and wait 28 days. They would, anyway, need to set out their grievance in writing when they make an application to a tribunal. No one is suggesting that they should be exempted from meeting that requirement of the tribunal system. The employer would soon find out the grievance in any case. So we need to ask ourselves what special grounds may arise where it would be unreasonable to expect an employee to set out his complaint to the employer a little earlier.
    We think that there will be some special cases. The threat of violence or other forms of serious harassment fall into this category. We do not want to force employees to raise a grievance as an individual complaint, if it has already been addressed as a collective issue by a union on their behalf. That is the second broad category. We intend to cover these two main categories of exemption in the regulations. There may be others which it would be sensible to add. For example, the amendment about interim relief may raise the need to exempt a particular set of cases. However, we cannot accept that the scope of the exemptions should be drawn as widely as this amendment implies. If we followed this approach, an exemption could be claimed in a large proportion of cases. It would mean that the admissibility regime would never apply, for example, to any cases involving race or sex discrimination. It would seriously diminish the purpose of the clause.
    If there is any opportunity to compare the matters which I have listed as being exemptions we are prepared to accept with the list in this amendment between now and Report stage, I should be very happy to do that. If that means that we should be putting an agreed list, or a list which is acceptable to the Government, on the face of the Bill in this form—in other words, as a constraint on the regulation-making power—I am prepared to consider that as well.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful that my noble friend is prepared to consider things, but have I understood him correctly? I wanted to ask about the previous remark about not including all cases of sexual or racial discrimination or harassment, so that when an employee—a man or a woman—is being sexually discriminated against, and more particularly where they are being sexually harassed at the place of work, they must write the letter and then wait 28 days and go on being harassed before they can get near a tribunal or have any sort of legal redress. Have I understood that correctly—they must wait and be harassed?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There could be other reasons in the same case which would lead to exemption from the admissibility provisions.
    Lord McCarthy: One sees how deep the hole is beginning to look. The more one tries to specify the boundaries of these things, the worse it becomes. We are now told—this is not what the Minister said in Committee—it is not violence, it is not intimidation, it is not bullying, it is not sexual or racial discrimination that is being inappropriately excluded: it is some cases. What cases, and for God's sake, why? As my noble friend says, it could be the little cases which one can let go forward, but the serious cases one will keep. But how the hell is one going to distinguish one from the other?
    There are all the anomalies. We have picked up the sex and race discrimination issue. We have not found disability. But by what logic do you leave disability in and take at least some cases of sex and race discrimination out? The noble Lord mentioned interim relief. That is another one—I will write that down. Every time a Minister gets up he mentions one, but, of course, he always leaves one out.
    I am all for meeting people, talking to people and trying to draw up a list, but I beg the Government to try to find out the principles—I know that they do not like principles—behind which they are putting things in and taking things out, and the principles behind which they are saying that some of these matters apply in all cases, some of them apply in only half of cases and some are hardly included at all. We have had nothing from the Government on any kind of rationale of what is admissible and inadmissible. I do not know whether or not the Minister wants to reply, but I give him the opportunity.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: One could explore the possibility of looking for principles, but looking at this list and looking at the things which the Government intend to put into the regulation. I am not sure that I can see a principle behind them.
    Lord McCarthy: Here we have a Bill with no principles. The Minister said that, not me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 157A not moved.]
    6.45 p.m.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 158:
    Page 38, line 17, leave out paragraph (a).
    The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 158, I apprehend that I would be right to speak to Amendments Nos. 159 and 160. There is a sense in which Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 have become even more important in the course of our debates today than Amendment No. 158. Perhaps I may explain.
    Amendment No. 158 would leave out two lines of the Clause 33(7), which allows the Secretary of State to make provision for the application of the procedures. There is a sense in which that was meant to raise some of the points which have already been canvassed in our debates. Therefore, I concentrate on Amendments

    CWH 353
    Nos. 159 and 160, which will be a saving of time, but on which I can therefore spend perhaps a little longer than might be expected. These amendments raise questions of human rights and questions of ministerial power.
    The Bill at the moment states that the Secretary of State can make provision about what constitutes compliance with the statutory procedures. It also states that the Secretary of State can make regulations to,
    "make provision about circumstances in which a person is to be treated as having complied with",
    the statutory procedures.
    Those regulations, as I read it, will decide matters of law as applied to particular facts. Normally, when one sees in an Act of Parliament a requirement that a person should complete a procedure, the interpretation of whether that person has completed a procedure would be a matter for the courts, or here, perhaps, for the tribunals. It is a judicial matter of applying that formula in the Act of Parliament to the facts.
    A Henry VIII clause properly so called—and perhaps we have previously misused the phrase—attempts to take out of the purview and jurisdiction of the court that decision as to the application of the law in the Act of Parliament and give it to a Minister. One thought that one had seen the end of crude Henry VIII clauses. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 33(7) are crude Henry VIII clauses. They purport to give to the Minister the power to decide whether the law has been complied with or not. As such, we object to them, and we believe, too, that they are highly suspect if one applies Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, now incorporated by the Human Rights Act.
    Perhaps I may explain. To say that the Secretary of State can decide what is compliance is, in our submission, improper under the most elementary principles of the rule of law. Our amendment does not attempt to exclude the Secretary of State entirely. Our amendment says that the Secretary of State should not have the power to decide what is a completion in a particular case, or set of cases, but should have the right—since the Government wish to interpose the Secretary of State's view on these matters—to issue a code of practice for guidance on the matter. That, as I understand it. is unexceptionable. Tribunals can look at the code of practice and take account of it in deciding the judicial question of whether or not the Act has been contravened. In both cases, and in both paragraphs, we propose that the power to decide this judicial matter should not rest with the executive but that a power to give guidance—if that is what the Government want—should be introduced instead.
    The second reason why these paragraphs are improper is that they offend the principles in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, when one looks at the proceedings of the Joint Committee of your Lordships' House and the other place on the Bill in regard to human rights, one finds exactly why.
    CWH 354
    On 24th January 2002, the Secretary of State sent a letter to the Joint Committee. In it she set out, quite correctly in my submission, the fact that Article 6 of the convention was relevant. The article states that:
    "In the determination of civil rights and obligations everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law"
    The Secretary of State writes:
    "The express rights given by Article 6(1) are: the right to a fair hearing, the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, the right to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the right to a public hearing (subject to certain qualifications) and the right to public pronouncement of judgement.
    In addition, the Strasbourg court has interpreted Article 6(l) as giving the following implied rights: the right of access to the courts"—
    I interpose that that is particularly relevant to this clause, just as is the right to have it decided by the court,
    "the right to be present at an adversarial hearing, the right to equality of arms; the right to fair representation of the evidence; the right to cross-examine witnesses and the right to a reasoned judgement".
    It was on that basis that the Joint Committee drew up its view that Clause 33, on its face, may well not offend Article 6. My noble friend Lord McCarthy has already quoted paragraph 24 of its report. which brings the following to the attention of Members of the Committee. I note particularly the formula which the Joint Committee used at paragraph 25:
    "We draw these matters to the attention of each House",
    which places an obligation on Members of the Committee to consider the matter here, or if they wish, on Report.
    The matter which the committee said it wished to bring to the attention of noble Lords was, in particular. Clause 33(5). That gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations and is, in particular, interrelated to Clause 33(7), especially paragraphs (b) and (c) to which we here object.
    Perhaps I may read again what the Joint Committee on Human Rights says in paragraph 24,
    "Nevertheless, we regret that the safeguards for fairness contemplated by the new clause 33(5) would be left to be provided in subordinate legislation. It makes it difficult for Parliament as a whole, and for this Committee in particular, to form a view about the compatibility of proposed legislation with Convention rights when important safeguards are not included on the face of the Bill. If it will be possible to draft regulations specifying with sufficient clarity the circumstances in which a tribunal would be able to entertain a claim notwithstanding the late completion of statutory dispute resolution procedures, we do not see why similarly drafted provisions could not be included on the face of the Bill".
    I pause to say that that sentence particularly centres on the question of completion of statutory dispute resolution procedures, which the Secretary of State in paragraph (b) of Clause 33(7) lays claim to decide for him or herself. The Joint Committee continued:
    "This would both further enhance legal certainty, and facilitate the task of Parliament in satisfying itself, where necessary, as to the proportionality of the restriction of Convention rights".

    CWH 355
    In what it decided, the Joint Committee was able to address the clause as it stands on its face, and it is quite true that, perhaps rather squeakily, the Government succeeded in persuading it that the clause on its face possibly complies with Article 6. Members of the Committee will have noticed from the passage which I read that, naturally, the Joint Committee had to leave the question of proportionality because it could not possibly address that unless it had a much bigger debate about the exact nature of the problem which Clause 33 is meant to address. At any rate, the Joint Committee report does not discuss in detail the question of proportionality, to which I wish to turn.
    The question of proportionality is fundamental to the application of European law—and now of British or United Kingdom law—in the question of Article 6 and proper process before courts and tribunals. It was recently proved in the case of Fogarty v The United Kingdom, [2002] IRLR 148, in a judgment by majority of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
    The question arose as to whether a young woman who had been employed in various jobs by the United States Embassy could sue the Embassy on grounds of sex discrimination because her application for a job had been refused following a long and complex relationship with the Embassy, which had been her employer. Although at first the Embassy defended the claim, it ultimately entered a plea that, as an emanation of a sovereign, and therefore being immune to process, it could not be sued in the British courts or tribunals. Finally, the court in Strasbourg accepted that claim. However, it is relevant to this case because the court also said, on page 14 of the report:
    "The right of access to court"—
    that is, to a court or tribunal—
    "is not, however, absolute, but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State. In this respect, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation, although the final decision as to the observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court. It must be satisfied that the limitations applied do not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 para. 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved".
    The court goes on,
    "The court must next assess whether the restriction was proportionate to the aim pursued".
    Later, it states:
    "The Court must be mindful of the Convention's special character as a human rights treaty, and it must also take the relevant rules of international law into account".
    In this case, the court did so because sovereign immunity is a well-known rule of international law.
    Therefore, here the issue arises not of sovereign immunity but of whether the prohibitions and limitations upon access to justice are proportional. One can only judge—the committee did not go into this—whether they are proportional if one asks what
    CWH 356
    is the mischief to be avoided or what is the problem to be tackled. The Secretary of State conveniently set out precisely and exactly the problem which she said Clauses 31 and 33 sought to tackle. In her letter of 24th January 2002, which is an appendix to the Joint Committee's report, she says: "You"—that is, the Committee—
    "asked for an explanation of the considerations underlying the policies on admissibility of claims and adjustments to awards by employment tribunals. These are jointly the main enforcement mechanism for the use of the statutory dispute resolution procedures the Bill would require. The mischief addressed in clauses 31–33 is an over-ready resort to employment tribunals. According to a 1998 survey of applications, in 37 per cent of claims no attempt had been made in the workplace to resolve the problem before the application. In 62 per cent of cases the parties did not meet to discuss it".
    There we have it. The Government's objective is based on flawed statistical reports, which did not reach us until a week before Second Reading; in the second case, a report was placed on the Library on the Friday before we debated it early the following week.
    At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord McCarthy and 1 advanced a case, whose essence was that the research done for the Government—which ultimately found the light of day just before we could discuss the Bill and long after the other place had had an opportunity to discuss it—did not sustain the figures. Moreover, they were not a good basis for any notion of an over-ready resort to applications to the employment tribunals; they did not sustain the CBI's complaint of a compensation culture; and they were in fact no basis upon which legislation could be based.
    We did that at columns—I refer Members of the Commitee to them again—1370 to 1374, and columns 1387 to 1389. Indeed, we thought we had made progress. This was only two days after the Secretary of State had written to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. On 26th February—two days after her letter—my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey made a relevant statement. I shall quote the whole sentence so that he does not think I in anyway misrepresent his comments. He said:
    "My Lords, I challenge the view that it is a central reason for stopping the applications".
    I must pause to say that I had just put to him a question whether he still thought that, as I put it, three in five of the applications to tribunals come from applicants who have not attempted to resolve the problem directly. That was the interpretation the Government had put on that in their consultative document. He went on,
    "As regards the word 'attempted', I cannot tell from the wording of the survey whether such attempts took place or not. I imagine that in a large number of cases if a meeting had been attempted it would have been achieved, or certainly if written communication had been attempted it would have been achieved. I do not believe that significant numbers are involved in that regard. This is a distinction without a difference. Frankly, the issue of this survey has been taken as far as it can be taken. It has little significance in policy making terms and I do not think we should spend any more time on it".—[Official Report, 26/2/02; col. 1404.]
    I would not spend any time on it; the survey is not worth it. However, the Secretary of State relied on it, and relied on its misinterpretation in the case that she

    CWH 357
    put to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Therefore, the proportionality that the committee, alas, had to consider—if it did consider it; it does not expand upon it—would be a proportionality against a totally false case—one that had never properly been discussed in Parliament, one that had never been published and one that had not been debated until two days after her letter. Yet, so far as I know, no communication was sent to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, although, two days later, the Minister stated clearly,
    "the issue of this survey has been taken as far as it can be taken. It has little significance in policy making terms".
    In that event, doubts arise in view of the real facts, the research of Dr Burgess and his colleagues as to the real reason for the inexorable rise of employment tribunal applications since 1988 and the real research that has been done. I say that with respect to those who did the research of SETA and the awareness study, in a sense it is not their fault that their results have been misused by the Government—they have been flagrantly misused. It states on page 24 of SETA,
    "these figures must be interpreted with care".
    No care has been taken by Government spokesmen until my noble friend—I pay tribute to him for doing so—said on 26th February:
    "this survey has been taken as far as it can be taken. It has little significance in policy making terms".
    Therefore, the issue of proportionality remains outstanding. It has not been addressed by the Government because they have not addressed reality in constructing Clause 33. That led them, in their desperation to stop 30,000 to 40,000 applications to tribunals, to give to the Secretary of State power to decide judicial issues, such as what constitutes compliance with the law. I beg to move.
    7 p.m.
    Lord McCarthy: I want to make two points in support of my noble friend, who has gone back—in this amendment he must go back—to the SETA survey. I am as sick of the SETA survey as I am sure the Government are. My first point is about that. My second point relates to paragraph 24 of the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. This must be the third time it has been quoted this afternoon.
    On the SETA survey, the central point that I find bizarre is that even today we have never been told the actual questions posed. I know that the noble Lord in civilian life is a survey man, and I know what he would say to somebody who told him of the conclusions that had been drawn from a survey but they did not tell him the actual question posed. One does not know what to make of it. If one does not see the question, one cannot evaluate it or say, "What a silly question" or "That is a good question". One has not got off the ground. We have not yet been told. We have had three successive versions but you will not find them in SETA and you will not find the question that was posed in SETA. No serious social scientist would take any notice of a survey of that kind.
    CWH 358
    My second point relates to paragraph 24 of the report. This is the third time we have read it out. I ask the Minister a simple question. He knows much more about the mores of this House and Parliament than I do. What does paragraph 25 of the report mean? What does it commit the Government to doing? It states:
    "We draw these matters to the attention of each House".
    Does that mean that the Government never need to answer it? The Minister has not answered the point, although we have asked it three times. There are three separate questions in paragraph 24 but he has not answered them at all. Do we have to ask them again at Report? Does paragraph 25 mean absolutely nothing? If it means absolutely nothing, tell me now.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No point was made about Amendment No. 158, and therefore I will make no point in response.
    On Amendments Nos. 159 and 160, there is one matter which I am extremely reluctant to raise again for the reason I gave at Second Reading. I do riot want to talk further about the SETA survey. I expressed my view as a survey researcher about interpretations of questions which are in the report. It just asks what happened. I expressed a great reluctance to agree with any interpretation which made assumptions about what had been attempted when the question was not about what was attempted. The question was about what happened. The reason why it happened or did not happen was not covered by the questionnaire. To that extent, I have said that as far as I am concerned there are no policy implications from that survey which need detain us.
    With regard to the issue of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have read paragraphs 20 to 30 of the Joint Committee's report, and I have read them with great care. The main conclusion I draw from those paragraphs is that the committee welcomes Clause 33 as a considerable improvement in transparency on what went before. I read with interest and concern the points that are made, in particular in paragraph 24. about the terms of Clause 33(5) which the noble Lord. Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, read out in detail. I read all of that with great care, but I read with particular care the conclusion of paragraphs 29 and 30 which is:
    "We conclude that the Secretary of State is entitled to take the view that the interference with access to the tribunal which the new version of clause 33 might cause would not be likely to impair the very essence of the right of access to a tribunal, and would therefore be unlikely to give rise to a violation of Article 6(1) on this ground".
    Paragraph 30 states:
    "The same considerations persuade us that the Secretary of State is entitled to conclude that any interference clause 33 might generate with the right to enjoy possessions, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR, would be likely to be justifiable on the grounds outlined in paragraph 17, above, in respect of Clause 31".
    Therefore, having paid great attention to the argument, what I have read out to the Committee is the conclusion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. On that basis, I have no hesitation in confirming that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville was right

    CWH 359
    to sign the affidavit under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act that in his view the Bill is compatible with the European Convention.
    I turn now to Amendments Nos. 159 and 160. Subsection (7)(b) provides powers to introduce regulations specifying what constitutes compliance with the requirement to send a Step 1 letter to the employer. Subsection (7)(c) provides powers to introduce regulations which deem this requirement to have been met even when it has not occurred. Both powers are very important. The latter can be used to exempt certain categories of grievance—say, cases involving the threat of violence—from the admissibility regime.
    We have been debating that matter. My noble friends have been urging us to increase the number of cases where we would say in regulation that there should be an exemption from the admissibility regime. Subsections (7)(b) and (7)(c) are no different in principle from those which my noble friends would wish to introduce into the Bill. They are not judicial issues. There is no interference with the judicial process here. What we are trying to do in regulation, just as we are trying to do on the face of the Bill, is to provide certainty as far as is possible as regards Parliament's intention in referring matters to the employment tribunals. These amendments would seek to replace the specific regulation-making powers by the power to introduce codes which give only guidance to the tribunals.
    I notice that there was no discussion whatever of the issue of guidance and codes of practice in the way in which the amendments were introduced. The aim of the amendments is to give greater scope to the tribunals to apply the admissibility criteria as they think fit.
    We have argued throughout our discussions that we want to create as much certainty as we can in the application of our statutory procedures. It is not just that we want to; Parliament is under a duty to do that. We do not wish to leave too many questions to the discretion of the tribunals; that would create uncertainty. Our policy is to use regulations to define the detail of how the statutory procedures should be applied across different circumstances. We believe that this is feasible and desirable and, as regards the application of the obligation to be compliant with human rights, I remind Members of the Committee that we have an obligation to provide, and say so, that regulations themselves, as well as primary legislation, are compliant with the European Convention.
    Of course, the Committee may express its own views on the matter, just as the House may express its own views, and that will be possible when the regulations are drafted and when we have the full public consultation on the regulations before they come to Parliament. However, it would be unsatisfactory, I put it to the Committee, to have the detail partly in regulations and partly in the form of guidance. It would be unfair to the tribunal and it would not fulfil the responsibilities of Parliament.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I suspect when I read that in Hansard I shall find that it is one of the most extraordinary speeches made by a Minister of the Crown for many years. As regards both matters, I did not ask my noble friend for his view as a survey researcher; I asked him for his view as Minister.
    First, he objects to taking out of the Bill provisions which give to the Secretary of State the right to decide what is compliance with statutory provision. If that is not a judicial matter, which, if you like, in a Henry VIII way, the Government are trying to take away from the courts and tribunals and give to a Minister, I do not know what is. My noble friend says he wants certainty. What is compliance?
    Under the Bill, compliance is whatever the Minister says it is. That is certain enough, once he says something. But, as for the courts and tribunals, they are not to have what he calls a discretion to decide what the Act means. I cannot believe that my noble friend really wants to leave it there. If he leaves it there, he is stating on behalf of the Government that the Government insist that the person who decides whether this Act, on particular sets of facts, because they will have to be set out, has been complied with or not, is not the Court of Appeal but the Minister.
    That is the first of point. The second is even worse. This is perhaps the most serious moment in which this Grand Committee has met. The Minister said that the Joint Committee in the end—if I may put it this way—gave a clean bill of health to Clause 33, as it now is. In Clauses 28 and 29 it did, I have said that. It did not, however, withdraw the injunction to your Lordships, who sit as a Committee of the House, to pay attention to the fact that it would have been better to put things on the face of the Bill which are not on the face of the Bill. That point has been made. But, much more seriously, it reached its conclusion on whether or not it could accept the new version of Clause 33 on the basis of being misled. Of course it was misled. I will quote the letter again. The Secretary of State wrote in the letter to the Joint Committee,
    "You asked for an explanation".
    The Joint Committee deliberately asked for this; it did not come across it by chance in the dead of night. The letter continues:
    "You asked for an explanation of the considerations underlying the policies on admissibility of claims"—
    that is, I interpose, on the prohibition of admissibility of claims in Clause 33—
    "and adjustments to awards by employment tribunals…the mischief addressed in clauses 31–33 is an over-ready resort to employment tribunals. According to a 1998 survey of applications"—.
    I cannot go on; she repeated the horrendous model of whom the vital statistics are 37–64–62. She said that is why we have Clause 33. My noble friend today says that neither of these surveys, and in particular the SETA survey, has no policy implications, so he is withdrawing the basis on which the Joint Committee was invited to form a judgment. Therefore, its judgment, in its view I have no doubt, might well be regarded as vitiated.

    CWH 361
    If the basis of not the SETA survey itself, but the misleading interpretation of the SETA survey put in evidence by the Government and repeated by the Secretary of State as the basis of the clause, has no policy implications now, when it was the policy implication then, how can we possibly regard the Joint Committee as not having been misled? How can we rely on a conclusion which the Government have procured by putting in front of it something which now is withdrawn? I shall give way to my noble friend.
    7.15 p.m.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say there were no policy implications. I specified where there were and where there were not policy implications.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I shall read Hansard with interest. I wrote down that my noble friend had said this no longer had policy implications. I repeat what he said at Second Reading:
    "The issue or this survey has been taken as far as it can be taken. It has little significance in policy making terms".—[Official Report, 26/02/02; col. 1404.]
    I repeat the words "little significance". It was the case that the Secretary of State put to the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee was misled. The House has been misled. The House of Commons was not allowed to debate the matter because the surveys were not published. The Government in this matter are in a terrible state. I get no joy from the fact that my Government have led themselves—I believe, under the misleading arguments of the CBI—to regard workers as being the cause of all the trouble in regard to employment tribunals because, as the Secretary of State said, there has been an
    "over-ready resort to employment tribunals".
    What is that but the interpretation of SETA writ large?
    It really v, ill not do for the Government to come here, having in effect renounced at any rate any great significance of these surveys, or rather their interpretation of these surveys. I do not wish to attack the people who actually engage in the research. If anything we have said previously does so, we would not wish that to stand, I am sure. Although, as my noble friend has said, they would have done better in this particular case on page 24 of SETA to repeat all the questions, as they did elsewhere in the report. But the Government seized on this report. They did not take care with its interpretation. They put it to the Joint Committee as the basis of Clause 33. It is now quite plainly vitiated and it is now quite plainly a misleading basis. The Government should go away and re-think this clause and the part of the Bill on which this clause is based. Workers will suffer an injustice from these provisions and, if it is not to be said anywhere else, by heavens we shall go on saying it here until the Government see sense and accept what they now see as the case. These figures are not a good basis for policy and, therefore, they cannot be a good basis on which the Joint Committee reached its conclusion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 not moved.]
    Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 161:
    Page 38, line 25, after "modifications" insert "not less favourable to the employee"
    The noble Lord said: This matter can he dealt with briefly. We apprehend that the Bill would be improved if the powers of the Minister to make regulations were limited just a little more than the clause suggests. We believe that the modifications which the Secretary of State could make, as set out at page 38, line 25, should be limited at the very least by an ability to amend the statutory dispute resolution procedures in ways that are not less favourable to the employee.
    We touched upon this point previously. I took it that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton was not wholly averse to the argument that we can all understand what is meant by a procedure which is not less favourable to the employee. I cited parallels in other parts of the law where similar phrases have been interpreted. Both Amendments Nos. 161 and 162, which would insert a similar phrase at page 38, line 27, and would give power to amend in a manner not less favourable to the employee than the provisions in the statutory procedures, surely raise matters to which the Government—I say no more than this—should give consideration.
    Indeed, I have been puzzling about a point that was raised in a previous debate. I asked my noble and learned friend what procedure he could imagine that he would like to see that would be less favourable to an employee than the procedures of Schedule 2. Can my noble and learned friend, with his experience, imagine a procedure which would be less favourable to the employee than, say, the modified procedures on grievance and disciplinary procedures?
    Disciplinary procedure does not require that the employer should investigate what he is doing. It does not require him to say why he does not suspend the worker who is going to lose his job and his income. It merely states that he must notify the employee under the terms of the disciplinary procedure of Schedule 2. In misconduct cases—whatever they are—he must simply notify the employee in writing and the dismissed worker will only have the right to respond. I can imagine what that response might often be.
    Therefore, surely the Government do not want the Secretary of State to have the right to introduce a legally compulsory procedure which is less favourable to workers than Schedule 2. If they do, they had better say so. I beg to move.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I take it that I am responding to Amendments Nos. 161 to 166 inclusive. I see the common thread through all of them but I shall respond to them separately.
    Amendment No. 161 deals with the regulation-making power at subsection (7)(d) to modify the application of Step 1 of the statutory grievance procedures. This would give us the ability to deal with those cases where the sending or the reading of a Step 1 communication presents serious difficulties because

    CWH 363
    the employee or the employer has a disability or an incapacity which prevents him from reading or writing the letter in English. These modifications would normally be to the benefit of the employee but there could be cases where the procedure should be modified to overcome a particular difficulty which the employer may have. It might marginally inconvenience the employee, although it would be desirable overall. So we do not think we should have a formulation as in Amendment No. 161, which requires the beneficiary always to be the employee.
    It also raises issues about what constitutes treatment that is more or less favourable to the employee. Different views could reasonably be taken in many circumstances and the tests would be difficult to apply in practice. We might be, under certain circumstances, inviting judicial review, which would not be very good.
    Amendment No. 162 is similar. It seeks to prevent us from changing the admissibility criteria in any way that is less favourable to the employee. Again, it could have uncertain results and invite applications for judicial review. The policy underlying the amendment is too restrictive. It is biased against employer interests. If we are to create a fair and accepted system, it must meet the needs of both employers and employees.
    Amendment No. 163 seeks to ensure that we use the power at subsection (8)(b) only to remove jurisdictions from Schedule 4. I do not see the point of this. Entirely new jurisdictions may be created in the future as the body of employment rights changes and evolves. We do not wish to limit our ability to use the clause to encourage the settlement of disputes under such jurisdictions.
    Amendment No. 164 would require us by statute to consult ACAS on any regulations. I have already said in relation to earlier amendments that we would be consulting ACAS, among other interested parties, when we introduce the regulations for the first time because the regulations are very important. Once they are in place, however, there may be changed circumstances, which would mean that we would need to revise them. Some of the changes would be major and significant, in which case we would consult ACAS but some could be minor and we would not want to commit ourselves in advance to consulting ACAS.
    Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 deal with subsection (10), which gives us powers to change other parts of the section when we use the power to change the admissibility criteria by order. It gives us the leeway to make incidental, supplementary, consequential or transitional changes to the section which flow from changing the criteria.
    These provisions are very normal in the way in which regulation-making powers are specified on the face of legislation.
    Lord McCarthy: I am not going to ask tonight the question that I have asked before but I would like the Minister to think about answering it tomorrow. We do not ask these questions because we are being difficult.
    CWH 364
    We have asked the question before and I think that my noble friend asked it again this afternoon. We do not want an answer this evening. We do not see how any procedure could be smaller and more unambitious than this modified procedure for the statement of a grievance, which does not even have an appeal. Perhaps the Minister could think about that for tomorrow's debate.
    7.30 p.m.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: One can understand the Minister saying that he does not quite understand what is meant. However, he says that about the phrase, "not less favourable to the employee". I could give him a bit of a reading list about where that phrase has been interpreted without much difficulty. The Minister, as I understood him, said the Government cannot really understand what is meant by a procedure "not less favourable to the employee".
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say that at all.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: He did not say that at all. I am glad about that and we can put that aside. So it is quite clear that we have moved something meaningful.
    I can understand his comment about, for example, the obligation to consult ACAS, "Oh well, it is there already". All right. We thought it would be rather valuable at this particular point to make the requirement absolutely clear. What I do mind is when he says, "These could be cases where we want to change the statutory procedure"—I hope I have this right—"to the disadvantage of the employee. It would be biased if we did not take that power". However, he does not give us an example, not even a saloon bar example, which is where these matters are much discussed, especially among small employers and trade unionists too when they get going. If he cannot give us an example, why did he say it?
    He gave us examples of things which might be, as I remember, to the disadvantage of the employer. If he gives us an example, we shall be able to judge whether it is conceivable that these unfair procedures could be replaced by something to the disadvantage of the employee that would be more unfair.
    I appreciate that this is drawing a bow at a venture and he may have thought of one after all this time. We put it to him three or four days ago but the Government did not come up with an example then. What is the example he has? I see that he is pregnant with delivery and he is about to give us an example.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I stand up and try to be helpful, I get accused of bobbing up and down. I earlier gave a specific example in my speech. It was the case in which there were communication difficulties,
    "because the employee or the employer has a disability or an incapacity which prevents him from reading or writing the letter in English. These modifications would normally be to the benefit of the employee but there might be cases where the procedure

    CHW 365
    should be modified to overcome a particular difficulty which the employer may have. It might marginally inconvenience the employee, although it would be desirable overall".
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am delighted at my noble friend bobbing up and down, especially when he bobs up with replies like that.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I said it before, I said it before.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: He has said it twice now but he has not given us an example. It would only be to the disadvantage of the employee if he was forced to write in Greek or forced to write in Swahili. He says that communication may be difficult for those who do not have good English, or for those who are under some disability with their English. All right, so we can make modifications that would be to the advantage of such an employee.
    CWH 366
    We ended the last session with my noble and learned friend interpreting the amendments in exactly the opposite sense to that in which they could reasonably be read, and he apologised. I do not expect my noble friend to do so tonight, there is not time for a proper apology. However, my noble friend says that he can envisage cases—and he had better think about this for next time—where he will put the employee at a disadvantage. Now I did not hear him give us an example of one such case. He will want to make it concrete next time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 162 to 166 not moved.]
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
    The Committee adjourned at twenty-six minutes before eight o'clock.

  Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art
  Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art
  North West Tourist Board
  North West Tourist Board
  Transport Heritage
  Transport Heritage
  Braithwaite Viaduct
  Braithwaite Viaduct
  BBC Governance in the Ofcom Age
  BBC Governance in the Ofcom Age
  National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery
  National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery
  Regional Arts Boards
  Regional Arts Boards
  Death Penalty
  Death Penalty
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Homicide
  Homicide
  Badgers: Offences Against Wild Animals
  Badgers: Offences Against Wild Animals
  Drugs: Prison Sentences for Importation
  Drugs: Prison Sentences for Importation
  Computer Crime
  Computer Crime
  National Asylum Support Service
  National Asylum Support Service
  Prisoners on Remand
  Prisoners on Remand
  Offender Programmes in Prisons: Faith Organisations
  Offender Programmes in Prisons: Faith Organisations
  Criminal Records Bureau
  Criminal Records Bureau
  Passport Service
  Passport Service
  Babies Born with Birth Defects
  Babies Born with Birth Defects
  Government Debt and Asset Management
  Government Debt and Asset Management
  Occupational Pension Schemes: Preston Judgment
  Occupational Pension Schemes: Preston Judgment
  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Strategic Defence Review
  Strategic Defence Review
  Armed Forces Memorial
  Armed Forces Memorial
  OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, 21 and 22 February
  OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, 21 and 22 February
  Irish Government: Discussions
  Irish Government: Discussions
  EU Council Meetings: Scrutiny Arrangement
  EU Council Meetings: Scrutiny Arrangement
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Belize and Guatemala
  Belize and Guatemala
  Zimbabwe:Suspension
  Zimbabwe:Suspension
  Sound Recording: Copyright Exception
  Sound Recording: Copyright Exception
  Consumer Safety
  Consumer Safety
  Genetically Modified Crops
  Genetically Modified Crops
  Livestock Movement Restrictions: Agricultural Shows
  Livestock Movement Restrictions: Agricultural Shows
  Imported Plant and Animal Material
  Imported Plant and Animal Material
  Organophosphates
  Organophosphates
  Trade: Foot and Mouth Disease
  Trade: Foot and Mouth Disease
  Pest and Disease Control
  Pest and Disease Control
  National Forest Company
  National Forest Company
  Education Bill
  Education Bill
  Vocational GCSEs
  Vocational GCSEs
  Classroom Assistants
  Classroom Assistants
  Education Bill: Applications to Innovate
  Education Bill: Applications to Innovate
  Martin Sixsmith
  Martin Sixsmith
  Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman
  Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman
  Northern Ireland: Appointments
  Northern Ireland: Appointments
  Northern Ireland: Policing
  Northern Ireland: Policing
  Omagh Bombing
  Omagh Bombing
  Northern Ireland: Education
  Northern Ireland: Education
  Wales Office: Staffing
  Wales Office: Staffing